Why Call of Duty may possibly be the best multiplayer shooter.
- Thread starter Sean Hollyman
- Start date
Well, I'm adamant that in it's heyday WaW was the best online multiplayer FPS ever. Good maps, enough perks and killstreaks to be fun but not annoying. Basically all the good things about CoD online but without most of the bad things. It's a shame that saying you like CoD here is like telling everyone you have herpes. I agree that it's fairly easy to get into, but I guess that doesn't make it the best. It's good to pick up and play but I can see why people dislike it and prefer other stuff. Except TF2. God knows why that's so popular.
I must have said this a million times, but popularity has no fucking bearing on quality. I've nothing against CoD, it's a perfectly bland online shooter that used have some decent campaigns in the past, but the notion that the more people enjoy something makes it better is ridiculous. If it were so, everyone would say Twilight is a literary masterpiece, or Justin Bieber is the voice of our generation.
Why is everyone obsessed with determining what is the best? And why is there often not a qualification for what qualities something has/is the best of? Factually you can say that COD is the best selling video game in history, but anything else is likely to be no more than an opinion.
Can you get multiplayer space invaders? Because if you can, then that is truly the best multiplayer shooter for accessiblity =P
The problem with anything that's 3D and first-person is that most people who've never gamed before find it very difficult to get used to piloting their character, much less worrying about someone coming at them with an AK-47. This is entirely reasonable. Most of us who grew up with games take the ability to pilot an avatar in 3D space for granted, because we have already learned it.
I go back to my old example.Your granddad might suck at CoD, but you can bet your life he has skills that you'd be a hopeless n00b at too.
I think I might be still hagning onto the topic after all that...pardon the excursus. =P
The problem with anything that's 3D and first-person is that most people who've never gamed before find it very difficult to get used to piloting their character, much less worrying about someone coming at them with an AK-47. This is entirely reasonable. Most of us who grew up with games take the ability to pilot an avatar in 3D space for granted, because we have already learned it.
I go back to my old example.Your granddad might suck at CoD, but you can bet your life he has skills that you'd be a hopeless n00b at too.
I think I might be still hagning onto the topic after all that...pardon the excursus. =P
lol?usmarine4160 said:
Almost all the criticism laid on Call of Duty here Battlefield is equally guilty of:
Horrible fanbase, check
Infuriating multiplayer, check
Terrible singleplayer, check
(the list goes on but I'm lazy >.>)
There is no more finesse and control in Battlefield than CoD -- in fact, Call of Duty has some of the smoothest gameplay on the market -- Battlefield, in itself a very refined game, can feel clunky by comparison.
[sup].[/sup]
All round, Call of Duty, like Battlefield, is a fairly bland game -- sort of mediocrity perfected, with fairly little innovation of its own, however there is one area that (at least in the IW developed games) Call of Duty DOES shine above nearly all other multiplayer shooters I have ever played -- I am including games like TF2 and Battlefield here -- the Map Design:
Often ignored and easy to miss, the actual maps of a multiplayer game are often what make or break it: Halo, for example, often has maps where it is fairly clear they were made around a cool concept or setting rather than for gameplay; Battlefield, TF2 and even Black Ops/WaW have this problem too, however in this regard, the MW games are almost flawless.
In summary: I wouldn't say Call of Duty is the best shooter ever made, but it brought and still brings more to the table than people like to admit it does.
I know way more people that can... oh, wait, hold on a second-
Anyways, I know way more people that have picked up and enjoyed Halo right away. Because of stuff like Grifball, it isn't always about the shoot-kill aspect. It's a bit more ridiculous, so it works better to attract other people.
And I'm actually staying unbiased on that one. I like both the CoD and Halo multiplayer.
You're hilarious.neonsword13-ops said:He's right. Sorry, bro.Irridium said:
Anyways, I know way more people that have picked up and enjoyed Halo right away. Because of stuff like Grifball, it isn't always about the shoot-kill aspect. It's a bit more ridiculous, so it works better to attract other people.
And I'm actually staying unbiased on that one. I like both the CoD and Halo multiplayer.
1. The rate of the aim accelerationSomonah said:
2. The fact that it runs at 60FPS on consoles
3. The accuracy
4. The fluidity
5. The balance between hip fire and iron sights feels just right
I'm pretty convinced the controls are the main reason most people go back to COD. It just 'feels' better than other shooters to me.
Technically you can pick up and play any game. Whether your good at it or not is a totally different statement.
But in all seriousness, I have picked up and played many awful games with ease in the last 20 years of my life. Doesn't make any of them the best in their genre.
But in all seriousness, I have picked up and played many awful games with ease in the last 20 years of my life. Doesn't make any of them the best in their genre.
No, but it is anyway.The_root_of_all_evil said:
Anyway, I play CoD for the single player. I always found that it's all about who has the fastest reactions and who sees who first. I usually only play it with friends.
I prefer Battlefield when it comes to multiplayer, in the end.
Therefore, Wii Sports is the best game in the universe because everyone can play it on the same level as soon as they pick up the controller, including Grandma. CoD doesn't get Grandma playing, but Wii Sports does. Thus, Wii Sports is far better than CoD because literally everyone can play it.Sean Hollyman said:
You see how that's not a good reason?
When the first thing that someone tells me to do when playing CoD is "make sure you just mute everybody", you know you've gone into a bad game. Y'see, a multiplayer co-op game that forces you to play solo because you can guarantee that at least half of the people online are too busy trying to tea bag each other and make cock jokes with their whiny, prepubescent voices is just not a good game. The controls are meh, the graphics don't have anything eye catching to them*, and the gameplay itself is just tedious.
*Yes, I said the graphics aren't eye catching. Just as the Star Wars prequels aren't visually interesting. There's nothing exciting or cool looking, it's just "hey look, we updated our hardware and software so now you can see even more realism in our brown and grey environment!"
I might as well bring TF2 into this, because it's kinda funny to me.
For starters, the learning curve in TF2 isn't that steep. Learn how to right-click and you've basically mastered the game; it's all about building up skill after that. It has colorful environments and quirky characters, everything is easily identifiable, and for the most part the community is a joy to be around. Furthermore, you actually need teamwork in your matches or else you'll lose.
In CoD, what do you have? The typical FPS console controls (making it as easy to pick up as every other shooter ever, I don't see how it's any easier than everything else except that it sold more copies, ie, correlation not causation), brown and grey environments that sometimes blur together and make it difficult to identify what is what (especially if you are new), and a community that makes you want to sterilize the human race.
And that's just one game comparison.
The point of the matter is that a shit community in a multiplayer game can really ruin the game. If you pile on boring environments and boring, well, everything else, it all just boils down to how much fun you can have shooting at greyish-green blobs of fake-humanity.
But I suppose that's kind of what they're going for. I looked over the box art for the CoD series, and noticed after CoD 3 that it changed from a team on the cover to one guy looking as badass as he can. It's subtly telling you that you are going alone, and you don't need any stupid team cramping your style.
So no, I don't see your point. I still see a series of terrible, mediocre games that are popular amongst wankers. I still see a series of games that are bland, uninteresting blobs of unoriginality. There's just nothing there for me. There's no interesting game mechanic, there's no interesting graphics, there's no rich story, and there's a shit community.
And no, being as easy to pick up as Wii Sports has never been a plus for any game.
I like CoD games. Waaaaay back during the days when I had a PS2, Call of Duty Finest Hour was my first intro to the franchise. Now I had to use Gameshark to cheat because I could never find enough medkits to stay alive especially on the later levels but overall the gameplay, the story, and the realistic feel of the game was a major plus for me and my first true definition of fun for that console generation. 007: Goldeneye was the last definition for fun last generation.
(clarification: I'm aware in terms of story and realistic feel the game doesn't hold a candle to today's games but it did back then.)
When the XBOX 360 came out, I got Call of Duty 2 and was introduced to regenerating health so I didn't have to cheat anymore...not that I could anymore anyway since Gameshark had all but ceased to exsist at this point in time. From that point on, the series just kept getting better and better.
Call of Duty 3 was, in my opinion, the first game in the seires to truly hit multiplayer with an audible "BANG!" The MP for CoD 3 was the first time I really enjoyed playing online until I got my hands on Gears of War a little later.
Ever since then, every CoD game since Call of Duty 4 that has come out has been a slam dunk in terms of story and gameplay. Realism these days is being left to EA and the Battlefield franchise and to its credit is a very good game too but I've always liked the arcade feel of CoD games over Battlefield's realism.
(clarification: I'm aware in terms of story and realistic feel the game doesn't hold a candle to today's games but it did back then.)
When the XBOX 360 came out, I got Call of Duty 2 and was introduced to regenerating health so I didn't have to cheat anymore...not that I could anymore anyway since Gameshark had all but ceased to exsist at this point in time. From that point on, the series just kept getting better and better.
Call of Duty 3 was, in my opinion, the first game in the seires to truly hit multiplayer with an audible "BANG!" The MP for CoD 3 was the first time I really enjoyed playing online until I got my hands on Gears of War a little later.
Ever since then, every CoD game since Call of Duty 4 that has come out has been a slam dunk in terms of story and gameplay. Realism these days is being left to EA and the Battlefield franchise and to its credit is a very good game too but I've always liked the arcade feel of CoD games over Battlefield's realism.
their is no BEST when it comes to this, it's all opinion.
besides, if it was such a great shooter, then why is it buggy as hell and has a terrible story.
besides, if it was such a great shooter, then why is it buggy as hell and has a terrible story.