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

[BlumiereBleck]

No, because clearly CoD is for 14 year asshats and anyone who disagrees with anyone who thinks this is just a moronic fanboy.

I've meet more team fortress fans like that, than Call of Duty fans

 

[Windcaler]

No, I'm not trolling. Yes, I know CoD has a lof of flaws, and is downright stupid at some times. But what makes Call of Duty so great as a multiplayer game is that it's so easy that anyone can play it. You know, not everyone has to be an awesome or regular gamer to play and enjoy a game. Games like Battlefield and Halo are good yes, but I would think that for a casual game night with some family or something, they wouldn't really be suitable.

I'm not saying that CoD is a family game, hell no it isn't, but pretty much anyone can pick it up and play it. My sister (though she sucks) enjoys playing it. My stepdad, who never plays games, enjoys the odd game of CoD. I'm in no way saying it's the best shooter, but it's the overall best multiplayer, because anyone can play and enjoy it. Isn't that what gaming is about? Having fun, playing with people you know, and enjoying it?


TL;DR For people:
CoD is the best multiplayer shooter because pretty much anyone can play it.

Thoughts?

I would disagree. Now I think I need to put in a disclaimer and state that my only big experience with the CoD franchise was Modern warfare 2. I never played the original CoD multiplayer and Ive never even touched black ops (besides seeing a few gameplay videos). For me, the skill cap was entirely to high for new players. You had people playing with their settings on max sensitivity who you could put one bullet in before whipping around and blasting you with a headshot, players who could throw semtex across a map and kill you when the game had just begun, players who would get endless killstreaks and be unconterable no matter what strategy you approached them with. I couldnt get into it because I just couldnt compete and it lead me to give up

Not long after I quit I happened to run across a video on youtube about another Modern military shooter titled How not to be a noob at battlefield bad company 2. I watched it and it really called to me. It wasnt just running and gunning, there was a lot of stuff you could do to stop the tactics that really caused a problem for me in MW2. So I bought the game (my first battlefield game) and i fell in love with it. It was far more newbie friendly in a competitive sense and awarded me in ways besides just shooting people. I didnt have to be an expert marksman anymore, I could drop ammo and throw down smoke as an assault, I could blast people out of cover with rockets and repair vehicles as an engineer, I could heal/revive people and lay down suppressing fire as a medic, and I could make it rain motion balls and use my C4 to blow up vehicles as a recon. The entire game allowed me to be useful without forcing me to be an expert at the game. Battlefield 3 is similar but I dont feel its as newbie friendly as BC2 was either but I still think its more friendly then CoD has ever been

 

[crimsonshrouds]

I find cod to be nothing but infuriating, so no it is not the best multiplayer. It is not underrated, it is overrated.

 

[AnarchistFish]

I'm an average player in Halo and Battlefield.

In CoD I'm shit. Sure, I that might be lack of practice, but it'd be the same with casual gamers. Besides, you get differences in skill in all games.

So I don't see why you specifically say CoD can be played by anyone.

It's also extremely boring and dumbed down compared to other multiplayer games.

 

[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.

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

You keep missing the context. I am saying that rewarding vets TOO much discourages newcomers. Reward them, by all means. And not all developers do this, I never said they did.

 

[dickywebster]

i agree with you, cod is way too underrated. people hate the players, not the game.

If cod is underrated, the it must be the best game ever as theres enough people singing its praises to found a religion or something.
Cod is not an underrated series, it is an overrated/overhyped series if anything. Especially considering that theres been adverts in my local game shops for the last few months saying when its coming out, which ive never seen anyother game get that level of advertising.

And yes i will admit i do hate the cod fanboys as ive encountered too many people who declare it the greatest thing ever and refuse to play other games. As for the game, its alright, single player is kinda meh and the multiplayer is all that seems to matter for cod games, so its a meh game, considering ive played most of the series too. So you cant just wave me off as hating only the fans as im not too fond of them or the game.