Why Call of Duty may possibly be the best multiplayer shooter.

[shadyh8er]

I think Battlefield is the best multiplayer game simply because it requires more finesse and control. Keeps those casual types out

I can attest to this. I am much too impatient to be any good at that game.

 

[lizards]

no no no no no no no, just because its something "anyone can play" means nothing about how good it is

and the multiplayer is overdone, to much stuff has been put into it

 

[Pyramid Head]

CoD's single player sucks balls and i fail to see how the multiplayer compensates for it. Okay fine, it might be easy to play, but is it really better than Valve titles like Counter Strike and Team Fortress 2? If so, why? As far as i can tell the only unique selling point of Modern Warfare is that it looks nice. That's it. If anything i'd actually say it's very low on the pecking order of multiplayer.

 

[Marcus Kehoe]

COd has its place, but Its not the best. Maybe when the original MW was out but not anymore.

 

[Distorted Stu]

I agree it is the best multiplayer fps for the masses when it comes to online.

But is by far nowhere near the best fps multiplayer for when you have friend actually sat next to you.

 

[Frankie Villanueva]

I fell like people (Mostly Escapists) want to hate on it just because it's popular and they like to think of themselves as the hardcore "indie" PC gamers. That and I bet most people on the Escapist aren't too good at playing COD (Probably too fast paste, can't keep up). No videogame requires skill, it's a videogame. It's just fun to play.

 

[Uncompetative]

Well, at least you said possibly...

 

[aprildog18]

I heard the new CoD is getting a big multiplayer revamp (collect dogtags from kills to make people not camp as much, point streaks instead of kill streaks). Maybe it will turn out to be fun experience, but it still mainly depends on the CoD community.

 

[Aircross]

CoD is the best multiplayer shooter because pretty much anyone can play it.

Thoughts?

There's many more factors to consider for the best multiplayer shooter other than because it's easy to pick up and play...

 

[Bvenged]

I'm going to put it this way. Most of the people that bash it, don't tend to understand how it is really to be played. These are people that don't think on the fly when they are gaming, they want it slower...well because they themselves are slower and I don't mean that in the sense of stupid, they simply can't handle the pace, hell, at times it can even be overwhelming for a long-time player such as myself.

How to be good at CoD:

Master the Movement

Know your surroundings

Be a psychic

Having good reflexes and the like ofcourse don't hurt, but that is something that you can easily train...and normally will happen on it's own.

I'm stupidly good at most videogames in each genre, especially and most shamefully the FPS genre. I bash CoD as I know exactly what makes a good game, I can roughly tell when something is made entirely for the money, I read into the developers and the publishers to see how they're committed to gaming and I only really purchase games of the up-most quality. Above all I only buy games I find entertaining, but should any of the other points be breached I would be less inclined to purchase. Although sometimes I buy an old game just to try it out, variety, chancing or just on recommendation.

Activision use CoD & Guitar Hero as cash cows [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cash_cow]. They are horrid publishers who harass developers who do not adhere to their unfair contracts, they would easily sack a developer if said developer did not make a AAA title, or drop them the moment their excessively milked game series, at Activision's demands, stops making millions. Their games usually start off high quality, but quickly digress as sales increase; and thus lose massive cash and entertainment value. But since, should I dare say - most gamers, don't care for morals or what they're actually paying for and just want the "next sequel" no matter the added features; these lesser-quality games sell for millions due to their founding predecessors. Even EA's origin T&C is fine if you're a law abiding PC user, in comparison with Activision games.
So that is why I boycott Activision.

Also I will not be buying MW3 as MW2 sucked balls and the lads who made the astoundingly good MW1 have had no input on MW3 as they don't work at Infinity Ward any more, but instead work at Respawn Entertainment under EA.

PS You're now-boxed points for how to be good at CoD are relevant for just about any FPS in existance' and not even just the multiplayer.

 

[Bvenged]

-snip-

Yeah, I'm also stupidly good at pretty much everything I play. So?

Also, no, EA's T&C are not fine, atleast not in my country and as to my knowledge a healthy portion of the rest of Europe, they're are, infact, illegal there. Also, law abiding? What the hell does it have to do with law abiding, it is none of EAs fucking business what any given person does on their PC. Also, EA is the same as Activision, if not worse, so you might want to consider boycotting them too hotshot.

What's the problem with them knowing what software & hardware you have? That's all they can look at. I was talking about this with someone in my lecture today and he agreed that you would only really have a problem with it if you have a bootleg copy of windows or something and you don't want Microsoft knocking at your door saying: "£200 please for that required Windows licence."; and if they do any more than look at your PC ware then yes, they are in breach of DPA 1998. Which being as big as EA, would not exactly go under the radar and would result in their immediate prosecution & shutdown across Europe.

EA are not worse than Activision. EA treat their Devs "more" fairly. Not fair, just more fairly. their contracts are more lenient and their only bad habit is to buy out competing standalone developers; or shutdown heavily treading teams then relocate the workers. Activision does not do that but just milks all successful series, then when they start to drag; severe contract ties and ditch them. but if a Dev was to do that to Activision, they lose every penny for game sales then onwards.

 

[mrdude2010]

It's called Halo: Reach. Can't aim well? Don't worry, they made it nearly impossible to fire quickly and hit your target at the same time, so all those people with unfair hand/eye coordination advantages are reduced to firing at the same speed as everyone else.

This is why the new no bloom update is a beautiful thing.

OT: No. Just nooooooo.

I'm buying MW3 no doubt, I love Infinity Ward's CoDs. Naming Call of Duty the best MP shooter ever though is fucking ridiculous.

I agree, but they need to increase movement speed/jump height.

OT: I mean, I like CoD, but as ^^this guy said, calling it the best MP shooter ever is more than a little silly.

 

[TRR]

Ok based on the OP's argument, Bejeweled is the greatest game of all time.

Plus for a game trying to be realistic it really isn't. The lag compensation seems to be what actually determines who dies (note I play it from business speed internet so it's not on my end). The gameplay on a whole feels cartoonish, it just hides that with its aesthetic and setting. Plus, and this is something that I've always hated, the lethal range for a shotgun is MINIMUM TEN METRES. Not the spitting distance in CoD.

So no, CoD is definitly not the best multiplayer game, not by a longshot.

 

[Atmos Duality]

I disagree with that argument, and that logic.
Being accessible is important, but that alone does not make it especially fun, deep, or mechanically good.

 

[Nieroshai]

CoD is not the best because anyone can pick up and play. What does that mean, the players who invest heavily in a game aren't to be rewarded? Or does that mean that you think ANY player can actually compete with the veterans? Either way, in my eyes, your argument is flawed and shallow.

Here's an anecdote from when I tried to get into Metal Gear Online. It's an experience point-driven shooter where you can level up, thus rewarding skill. Thing is, if you're just starting, you will NEVER get XP because everyone's too good for a noob to beat as well as having high-tier perks and abilities. So rewarding vets with anything other than satisfaction can horribly unbalance a game against newcomers.

So now you are assuming everyone will fail that hard at balance.

No. I am assuming, as any game developer should, that activvely punishing newcomers doesn't make for good business. Minor perks? Encourage them. Give the game entirely to the vets? Only if you want to become a niche title that only caters to a single, never-growing group of day-one veterans.

 

[MrFalconfly]

I'm more into battlefield.

I liked the CoD Single-player but I was never really swayed by the multiplayer (I seem to reflexively dive for cover every time someone shoots at me in games so I'm not nearly mobile enough for a CoD match) but if you like don't let me tell you anything else.

 

[WindScar]

CoD is not the best because anyone can pick up and play. What does that mean, the players who invest heavily in a game aren't to be rewarded? Or does that mean that you think ANY player can actually compete with the veterans? Either way, in my eyes, your argument is flawed and shallow.

Here's an anecdote from when I tried to get into Metal Gear Online. It's an experience point-driven shooter where you can level up, thus rewarding skill. Thing is, if you're just starting, you will NEVER get XP because everyone's too good for a noob to beat as well as having high-tier perks and abilities. So rewarding vets with anything other than satisfaction can horribly unbalance a game against newcomers.

So now you are assuming everyone will fail that hard at balance.

No. I am assuming, as any game developer should, that activvely punishing newcomers doesn't make for good business. Minor perks? Encourage them. Give the game entirely to the vets? Only if you want to become a niche title that only caters to a single, never-growing group of day-one veterans.

You said "No" but you really meant YES. You are assuming that game developers will punish newcomers.