Why Call of Duty may possibly be the best multiplayer shooter.
- Thread starter Sean Hollyman
- Start date
That doesn't make it "possibly the best," that's why it sells well. CoD has absolutely no competitive merit precisely because it's so easy that anyone can play it, and a lack of any real competitive worth pretty much disqualifies it from the list of best fps' ever. Counter strike is a much better fps than CoD. Battlefield is better. Halo CE-Halo 3 are also in that category. I can go on for a while. If you're looking at mass appeal+combined with competitive merit in the online age (some of the earlier LAN games were much better competitively, but let's stick to the online age, since most casual gamers didn't set up LAN parties), you basically have to hand it to halo CE or Halo 2. They combined some form of skill gap (but again, much smaller than some of the older games) with enough casual game modes to attract a wider following.Sean Hollyman said:
Also, I think "a lot of flaws" and "downright stupid" being an applicable description for a game/series automatically disqualifies it in any sort of "best" category.
I dunno, I picked up Halo far easier than and COD game. IMO, Halo is much easier, and much more fun. It's also more family friendly because it's less violent.
Even playing Halo: Reach's campaign on Co-op is great fun for when you have friends over.
Sorry to undermine you... I personally prefer BF from the 3 you mentioned.
Even playing Halo: Reach's campaign on Co-op is great fun for when you have friends over.
Sorry to undermine you... I personally prefer BF from the 3 you mentioned.
I... disagree... TF2 is much better- although the learning curve is pretty steep, my first play I was still in the top 3 for that match- and that was before it was F2P, so unless I just 'happened' to get a game with all newbies like myself, then your 'anyone can play it' argument works here too.
Also, the only magic insta-kill knives in TF2 are the spy's backstab, which actually requires some manner of skill to use proficiently- if there's anything I despise about CoD the most, it's the click-stab-die when I'm about to get my last killstreak.
Also, the only magic insta-kill knives in TF2 are the spy's backstab, which actually requires some manner of skill to use proficiently- if there's anything I despise about CoD the most, it's the click-stab-die when I'm about to get my last killstreak.
It's boring, and it's not a good multiplayer game.
Look, multiplayer games are good based on one of two factors: Charm or Competition.
For example, Quake III, one of, if not the most skill-centric shooter ever made. The gap between skill levels is the driving force, meaning you either get good or die trying. The competition is what makes the game worth playing - Beating the enemies and humiliating them in fights by outperforming them.
On the other hand, there's charm. Goldeneye is a prime example. It's not particularly hard (yes, I know there's die-hards who took it elsewhere, but you get my point), but it's fun, funny, and doesn't take itself seriously.
Call of Duty has neither charm nor real competition. It's bland, easy, and worst of all, boring.
I guarantee if you took away the arbitrary +100 +125 +50 +500 LEVEL UP +100 PRESTIGE crap, it'd have none of the staying power that is currently has. It's addictive, much like WoW - Only without the charm or skill level.
Look, multiplayer games are good based on one of two factors: Charm or Competition.
For example, Quake III, one of, if not the most skill-centric shooter ever made. The gap between skill levels is the driving force, meaning you either get good or die trying. The competition is what makes the game worth playing - Beating the enemies and humiliating them in fights by outperforming them.
On the other hand, there's charm. Goldeneye is a prime example. It's not particularly hard (yes, I know there's die-hards who took it elsewhere, but you get my point), but it's fun, funny, and doesn't take itself seriously.
Call of Duty has neither charm nor real competition. It's bland, easy, and worst of all, boring.
I guarantee if you took away the arbitrary +100 +125 +50 +500 LEVEL UP +100 PRESTIGE crap, it'd have none of the staying power that is currently has. It's addictive, much like WoW - Only without the charm or skill level.
I like your point(As accessibility is a really good sign of entertainment value), but I have to ask, what makes CoD easier to play than Halo, Counter-Strike or the venerable TF2?
It features the same base shooter gameplay and mechanics, I don't see how it'd be any easier to pick up than anything else.
Something like UT should be the 'easiest' to pick up, as it includes n additional rules or mechanics other than the bare minimum required for it to be a shooter.
It features the same base shooter gameplay and mechanics, I don't see how it'd be any easier to pick up than anything else.
Something like UT should be the 'easiest' to pick up, as it includes n additional rules or mechanics other than the bare minimum required for it to be a shooter.
I agree with your points and would put up Team Fortress two as an alternative. Tf2 doesn't reward people who have played for a long time with overpowered weapons. Whenever I try to play Cod I always run into some advanced player who has all of the best weapons that can easily outperform my n00b guns. In Tf2, the guns that are unlocked only give variety in appearance and abilities that allow for a wider range in play style. Team fortress 2 is free and can be played by anyone with an internet connection. Anyone, regardless of their personal wealth, can play Team fortress 2. They can easily learn how to play with both a bot mode and alongside a (mostly) friendly community. Team Fortress 2 is the most accessible multiplayer first person shooter.Sean Hollyman said:
Ludicrous aim assist on consoles, horrendously imbalanced weapons, terrible map designs that promote camping, imbalanced perks, and killstreaks.thePyro_13 said:
The ONLY thing CoD requires is basic hand-eye co-ordination and time. Played longer than someone? Better weapons and unlocks, giving an unfair advantage.
Plus, that's another thing I dislike about the series - Spawning with weapons in a non-class based game. Never a good start.
I don't like multiplayer, except Call of Duty and any other shooter that gives me upgrades and leveling as I go (Hint: there's only about 5 decent shooters that have ever done this.) Without that, multiplayer has no purpose and no structure, and is just the same maps over and over again with no reward for playing. Unlockables give me a reason to play.
THAT is what makes Call of Duty better than the vast majority of fast-paced Multiplayer games, in my opinion.
So for me, Call of Duty games are some of the best multiplayer experiences I've had.
THAT is what makes Call of Duty better than the vast majority of fast-paced Multiplayer games, in my opinion.
So for me, Call of Duty games are some of the best multiplayer experiences I've had.
No, I defiantly hate the game bro.kian525 said:
OT: Game is horrible, boring, confusing, and I defiantly have more fun playing Halo with family, as bad as it may be, as it is a far simpler game. In CoD, there is a minimum of six things on your HUD alone at any given time. I personally am against multiplayer online FPS's, as they have shitty stories. However, I do have to maintain a social life, and trudge through the boringness of the online FPS in order to stay in contact with friends sometimes, and at those times, I prefer Battlefield over all of the other ones. CoD=horrible, Battlefield=bad. I'd much rather play a bad game than a horrible one.
CoD is for the people who haven't played Shadow of the Colossus.
Kidding aside, more people should play that game.
But more on topic, I believe that eventually everyone who saw the greatness of Call of Duty 4 (the title that brought the series into the mainstream) will eventually move on to other, more different games and eventually the audience will grow older and be more spread out over the thirteen Call of Duty games out. The series WILL stagnate, it's just a question of when. Because, like Halloween candy, too much of a good thing can be bad for you.
Just my two cents.
Kidding aside, more people should play that game.
But more on topic, I believe that eventually everyone who saw the greatness of Call of Duty 4 (the title that brought the series into the mainstream) will eventually move on to other, more different games and eventually the audience will grow older and be more spread out over the thirteen Call of Duty games out. The series WILL stagnate, it's just a question of when. Because, like Halloween candy, too much of a good thing can be bad for you.
Just my two cents.
The exact same applies to TF2, and much more then it does to COD. TF2 supports simple gameplay, as well as professional play, while COD gets boring at high levels. Plus, anyone can play TF2 for free, rather then for 110 bucks a year.
Call of Duty isn't bad. I just don't enjoy the multiplayer as much as I enjoy Battlefields'. I can feel the desperate push and pull of the battle while fighting for control of a small corridor, knowing your small fight is one of many taking place across the server in a bid for victory. Where as CoD feels like I am playing Unreal Tournament, circling around the map like a vulture and there is a 50% chance that some one will spawn behind and kill you or they will spawn in front of you and you will kill them. I don't want to ruin anyone's day with that kind of malarkey. CoD doesn't have the feeling I am looking for.
EDIT: I WISH I PLAYED SHADOW OF THE COLOSSUS. I WILL HUNT IT DOWN IN ANYWAY POSSIBLE!!
EDIT2: Dark Souls is fantastic!
Fail
EDIT3: I wish I played demon souls...
EDIT: I WISH I PLAYED SHADOW OF THE COLOSSUS. I WILL HUNT IT DOWN IN ANYWAY POSSIBLE!!
EDIT2: Dark Souls is fantastic!
Fail
EDIT3: I wish I played demon souls...