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

[Frozen Donkey Wheel2]

Call of Duty may be the best mulitplayer shooter because someone out there, after having played enough multiplayer shooters to form a well-informed opinion, may decide that he or she enjoys Call of Duty's multiplayer more then that of any other first person shooter.

Simple as that.

 

[thePyro_13]

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.

Ludicrous aim assist on consoles, horrendously imbalanced weapons, terrible map designs that promote camping, imbalanced perks, and killstreaks.

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.

Maybe someone should make a multiplayer version of ProgressQuest(nevermind it already exists). Cut out all that unfair advantage given by hand-eye coordination.

 

[Canadamus Prime]

Because all the other ones are even worse? You know, in the kingdom of the blind etc. etc.

 

[mrdude2010]

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.

Ludicrous aim assist on consoles, horrendously imbalanced weapons, terrible map designs that promote camping, imbalanced perks, and killstreaks.

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.

Maybe someone should make a multiplayer version of ProgressQuest. Cut out all that unfair advantage given by hand-eye coordination.

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.

 

[krazykidd]

Sure, anyone can pick-up-and-play it, but can they live longer than 3 seconds without being killed by some damn spawner?

Yes. Easily. I sure did.

I third this statement. ( since someone already second it)

OP: can you tell me any multiplayer game someone can't just pick up and play? I mean really? Spawn shoot at people , basically the premis for every online fps.

 

[notanick]

It's not bad, for sure. I just make sure that the headset is disconnected before I start, that I might avoid the twits which plague the online portion of the game. Overall though, yeah it's been fun most times.

 

[TheDooD]

But does it have hats?

He's right. Sorry, bro.

I mean, sure, it's a good shooter. Heck, I'm playing Black Ops right now, But with this "Everybody can play it" vibe, everyone buys it.

And I mean EVERYONE. Ted from accounting, Janet down the street, your local crack dealer Jeffery, Little Timmy from next door, everyone.

Too many different people of different skill levels make the community a vicious monster, and a lot of these players could be bad people in real life. That's why we have the trolls, racists, campers, ten-year-old tea-baggers, you get the idea. Everyone who plays wants to bag on the other players for some strange, appealing reason.

Yes, it's a fantastic shooter, but what makes the game bad is the community.

Yup and because of such a huge player base you have assholes from all sides of gaming experience saying what is broken, balanced, cheating, etc. I'm all for fun and people being able to play something, yet when fans get on the CoD tier of annoying that's when people start bringing out the hatred. Plus Activision doesn't help CoD at all with some of their business practices as of late.

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

Yes. How dare we want to enjoy video games as well? People like you are going to turn the video game community into the subjective and venom spewing catastrophe that the music community is, if the transformation hasn't already occured.

He isn't saying anything wrong he thinks it's the best because it'll attract the best of the best players instead of those that just want to shoot shit for the hell of it. He's wants to play versus those that'll challenge him there's nothing wrong with that at all. It's people like you that want fun out of something when it wasn't completely made for you. It's basically a double edged issue you want your fun and he wants his fun. Yet when it clashes nothing comes good out of it. So its better off to find some you like and enjoy it instead of trying to change something he likes. It works the same way with music if you don't like a band or a singer just move on to something you'll like instead of trying to change the fanbase to suit your own needs.

 

[TacticalAssassin1]

But that's exactly the problem. Everybody on it sucks, you get less teamwork, more trolls and more annoying twats on CoD.

 

[goldendriger]

Cool wank thread, Bro.

Except COD is flawed...broken i dare say. Only idiots and 10 year olds like it because you can kill people across the map with luck, where as people with skill are actually punished for learning map lay outs.

Yeah ill stick to Battlefield and TF2...Counter strike too when it comes out...again.

 

[Joccaren]

Ummm. My friends and I can just pick up and play Battlefield and Halo. Simply spawn in a game, for battlefield pick a class, then go out and shoot stuff. If your talking about tactics, a lot of people find tactics easier than run around and shoot anything that moves. My family included. Halo is just as simple as CoD to pick up and play, I'll give Battlefield a bit more difficult due to having to know how to select a class >.>, in both you spawn, run around and shoot stuff.

In all honesty, Games like Quake and Unreal were even easier than CoD to just pick up and play, does that make them the best multiplayer shooters? I guarantee that due to the ability to actually dodge some of the bullets in those games it was easier to live and get kills in than CoD.

And I also beg to disagree about CoD being at all a pick up and play Multiplayer game. Singleplayer, sure, but any game is. Multiplayer on CoD, join match, get headshotted the second you spawn. Respawn. Same guy comes back around corner, sees you, shoot you. Respawn, you teammate killed them, you walk around corner, some guy sees you, you shoot him, some sniper shoots you though and you die. Respawn. Another guy has come around that corner and is kills you the second you respawn. Respawn. He's not there, walk around corner, see someone, crouch and zoom in to shoot them, start shooting, they get hit by one of your shots, turn around, then kill you.

That is not pick up and play. There is a definite style of playing you have to pick up to play CoD, much the same as Battlefield and Halo. When I first played it, I tried to play it semi-tactical, knowing it wasn't Halo or CS, but still thinking Tactics could make a difference. See above for what happened.

Yes, I may be a n00b at CoD, but it was not an enjoyable experience, and the fact I had to pick up on a play style to be able to play even semi-effectively proves it isn't a pick up and play game. Hell, about the only time I actually got a higher than 1/4 KD was in the pre-fight knifefights, where I'd use Ballistic Knives as they are still technically knifes.

 

[nsqared]

I don't think it's the best because anyone can play it, it takes a long time to master, but i think it's good because of the way it's setup. I can't put my finger on it, but there's something frustratingly fun about the gameplay, which makes you want to come back for more.

 

[ReaperGrimm]

Hate the players not the game I was going to pick up MW3 on lunch day but then Skyrim is like 3 days later! I have this feeling that the Annoying people from COD will go to Battlefield if that happens I'll just start up Counter Strike again

 

[Radeonx]

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

Hypocrite

Care to explain? Because there's nothing really hypocritical about what I just said.

 

[BoredDragon]

It's funny that I find this thread right after getting off of Team Fortress 2.

Look just because it's accessible by everyone doesn't mean its the best. My favorite multiplayer shooter of all time is the aforementioned TF2 because its very unique and mostly well balanced. Did I immediately know what I was doing? Hell no, it took me about a couple days to figure out how to effectively use all the classes and what the in and outs of the maps were. However, after learning everything about the game it became really satisfying to be a scout and capture the intel without taking damage or backstab a heavy/medic pair right before they activate an uber-charge.

What I'm saying is sometimes the work you put into learning something plays a part in how much satisfaction you get from the overall experience. So something that you instantly knew how to do might not be as satisfying as something that took time to learn.

 

[Joccaren]

I read that three times and I still have no inkling as to the point you were trying to make. I objected to the way he said "casual gamers" with this implied sneer of disgust, like we're the dried cheese on the nacho plate he has to scrape off. From what little I could gather of that overwritten mess of a paragraph you didn't touch down on that at all.

Well us 'Elitists' as we are often called dislike being completely excluded from being able to have the best multiplayer game simply because it doesn't cater as well to casuals as CoD apparently does.
His point was, the comment you took offence at was not made as a 100% serious thing, it was to my understanding a satire of elitists. It can be hard to convey a tone with text, but not everything needs to be taken 100% seriously.
He does bring up a good point however - Why are the games that cater to a elite community not the best? I'd argue they are. CoD has never actually entertained me, the more tactical games that take more time to learn the nuances of almost always do.

 

[AzrealMaximillion]

Doing the math:

Everyone can play= Best multiplayer ever.

Call of Duty formula: Everyone can play - costing $60 - horrible community + mostly lag free online / horrible matchmaking - Skinner box unlock method = Not everyone can play

short form math: ECP-$60-umadbro+lagfree/badmatch-SBT=

Team Fortress 2 formula: Everyone can play + costing nothing at all + random item drops and events + good matchmaking and ability to choose server - steeper learning curve + good community that will help you learn and can trade items + hats= Everyone can play and have fun.

short for math: ECP+$0+RD&E+goodmatch-learning+gksallround+hats=
.
. . Team Fortress 2 is the best multiplayer shooter ever because it's free and still offers a vast amount of time to have fun.


Seriously though, being accessible doesn't make it the best.

If the world worked that was hookers would make more than therapists.

 

[Bocaj2000]

No, I'm not trolling. Yes, I know CoD has a lof of flaws, and is downright stupid at some times.

If you're willing to admit that the best multiplayer shooter is stupid then your argument is already flawed..

But what makes Call of Duty so great as a multiplayer game is that it's so easy that anyone can play it.

Just like Wii Bowling, Mafia Wars, and, most of all, the best fighter of all time, Super Smash Brothers. /sarcasm

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.

In most cases, playing a against the friend whom owns a game that you have never played before is a miserable experience. Either you have never had this experience or you have poor memory.

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.

Except people who don't play shooters often and are very uncoordinated with a controller.

My sister (though she sucks) enjoys playing it. My stepdad, who never plays games, enjoys the odd game of CoD.

Cool. My doesn't play games, but he plays WoW. My brother doesn't play many games, but loves GTA. *shrug*

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?

Wait, what? It's not the best shooter, but is the best multiplayer game of all time? That doesn't make any sense.

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

I have heard the exact same argument for Halo, and it is still a flawed argument.

That is like saying that Super Smash Bros. is the best fighter of all time. I'm sorry, but just because a game is simple, that does not mean that it is the best. I know that this is your opinion and I respect it, but that is a HEAVY claim. I am going into the gaming field and I can tell you that some aspects of the game ranges from unbalanced to downright broken. If you want exceptional shooters, then try other games such as Rainbow Six:Vegas 2, Brink, and Unreal Tournament 3.

 

[aashell13]

not really. with unlocks, perks, etc CoD is less accessible to new players than it might otherwise be. in addition to not being as practiced as the established players a new person is forced to make do with inferior items and stats, placing the new player at a double disadvantage. CoD and shooters like it are becoming very MMO-esque in terms of grinding to unlock perks and equipment.

besides, multiplayer has the inherent flaw of involving other people; which always kills the experience for me.

 

[Vankraken]

To the OP:
CoD games lacks depth and a skill curve which makes it an inferior game. Great games can be casual friendly but should also reward smart play which is what CoD lacks. Most team based matches devolve into TDM (the T part is questionable at times) while weapon choice and team coordination doesn't matter as long as you shoots the enemies and get those kill streaks to kill more enemies.

Ill make a comparison between MW1 and MW2/BO. In MW1 TDM you respawned near your team mates and somewhat away from the enemy so basically battle lines would form and the battle flow would be sort of a tug of war with snipers being effective at holding the wider open areas and assault rifles and SMGs battling in the more close quarters areas the snipers couldn't operate effectively in. By the vary nature of how respawns and weapon balance worked you stuck near your teammates and filled in the gaps that each weapon type's weakness had. Also kill streaks did not just instantly blow up 5+ people with minimal skill as judging where to airstrike required a well timed radar scan, a heavily engaged firefight, or just good prediction of enemy positions. (I did enjoy MW1 even with the whole no scoping and M16 being borderline OP)

In MW2 the respawns are so all over the place that your just as likely to be near a team mate as you are to be next to an enemy. Also the maps were so close quarters that you always just relied on an automatic weapon (or double shotguns because that shit is so realistic and balanced) and unlimited sprint to run around finding people to kill. Battle lines never formed because its just as likely that somebody would respawn behind you so there was no point in setting up defensive positions. It turned into the toilet bowl of people running around the map in a circle killing and your team mates just respawn all over the place so you could never group up. At the same time team based game types just broke down into TDM as getting lots of kills rewards IWIN buttons to get more kills and again the respawns were so broken that your more likely to get stabbed in the back taking up defense positions or you get a cruise missile dropped on you.

The game's mechanics just basically make teamwork pointless outside of organized play and when respawns are just everywhere it basically forces lone wolf gameplay. As long as your not using a sniper rifle, LMG, or Riot Shield your going to be able to run all over the place and be pro. Once you know the maps and know which gun is the most OP you have fully climbed the learning curve and you can learn all that without picking up the controller (Real men use mouse and board anyways).

/Flame_shield ON