why does call of duty get so much hate?

[-Samurai-]

The word "innovation" is getting thrown around a lot here.

I'm not convinced the majority of the people using it actually understand its meaning in relation to the gaming industry.

Adding new weapon skins to a game isn't innovation. Innovation would be if you can do something with those guns that you couldn't do before in any other games. The first time an FPS offered alternate fire modes for guns - THAT was innovation. The first time an FPS used regenerating health - THAT was innovation. The first time an FPS let you hop into a vehicle and drive it around - THAT was innovation. Etc.

Every FPS released with those features afterward wouldn't be innovating anything. They'd be iterating it.

If a new Call of Duty game were to come out and you could hop into Humvees or Strykers or whatever in multiplayer and drive them around (actually controlling them, not rail-shooter-esque like the AC-130 killstreaks)... even though that would be new to Call of Duty, that feature itself isn't new to the genre, and as such, isn't innovation. It's iteration, because you're reiterating a previously established innovation.

Which is exactly why I love CoD haters crying "There's no innovation in CoD!". When was the last time a game could truly be called innovating? When was the last time anything could be called innovating?

 

[Tuesday Night Fever]

Oh yeah? Well I can use google too bro, here is a list of female CoD characters: Alena Vorshevsky, Alicia, Anderson, Anna Posadskaya, Anya Kovaleva, Evelyn Cross, Isabelle DuFontaine, Kristina Raskova, Marion Mason, Mrs. Davis, Natasha Elena Petrenko, Pelayo, Samantha Maxis, Sarah Davis, Sarah Michelle Gellar, Sophia, Tanya Pavelovna, and the U.S. President. I'd probably read about them, and copy/paste a story about one of them for ya. I honestly don't care tho.

Actually, most of those individuals I pulled from the pages of a textbook that was used in one of my courses back at university. I posted Wikipedia links for your convenience on the off chance that you'd like to educate yourself rather than spread ignorance and sexism. The only exception was the link to U.S. soldiers who had earned medals - that was Googled, the reason being that there have been a lot of females who earned them in Afghanistan and Iraq that weren't going to be in a textbook published prior to those wars.

That, and the difference between the people I posted and the people you posted is that your names are pixels on a computer screen. The people I linked, the people that your posts insulted, actually existed. They were living, breathing human beings who fought and sometimes died for their countries. Whether you care or not, you were being incredibly disrespectful to them, which is a whole hell of a lot different that being disrespectful toward a video game.

So, by all means, continue not caring. Continue being exactly the kind of Call of Duty fan that the media loves to put on a pedestal in order to make everyone else look bad.

Edit:
Oh, and for the record, you may want to actually check some of those names you posted. Five of them are never seen in the games (only mentioned - some of them only mentioned because they happen to be family members of 'more important' characters), two of them existed exclusively to get blown up by a van bomb, three of them only appeared in non-cannon zombie modes, one of them was a secretary, and lastly one of them had a role that boiled down to nothing more than 'daughter of someone more important.' Not soldiers. Only four of the eighteen names you posted were in-game combatants.

Which is exactly why I love CoD haters crying "There's no innovation in CoD!". When was the last time a game could truly be called innovating? When was the last time anything could be called innovating?

It's certainly not a common occurrence. At least, not as common as developers (or more likely their publishers) want you to believe.

 

[crazyarms33]

The biggest problem with the CoD franchise isn't so much the games themselves, although they ARE repetitive. It's what they represent. They released a few really good games early on, and then they got greedy. But what makes it so unbearable is that since all the games have sold well, every FPS game now has that same generic story line that COD came up with and have not deviated from since. If you're unfamiliar with it, here it goes:

Very elite team of bad asses works for the govt. They are so far in the black its not funny,
Terrorists/Bad guys steal/build a WMD,
Good guys find out about the WMD and travel all over the world looking for the leaders of the bad guys and/or the nuke,
Some allegedly important character dies for emotional twist,
Good guys push on,
SURPRISE! The boss of the good guys is now a bad guy! Or they will prevent you from doing your job,
Epic two man chase scene,
Slow motion quick time event at the end.


How'd I do?

 

[crazyarms33]

I wouldn't say I hate CoD, I'd say I hate what it represents. Stagnation. A business model that is all but assured to insure the continuation of mediocrity in modern AAA gaming. I detest what it does to it's community and gamers in general. Turning teens and pre-teens into "arm chair warriors" throwing out terms like nades and noob tubes.

Talking about weapons that they will, more than likely, never fire let alone even see in real life. I despise how it objectifies warfare and imparts the totally wrong impression of war and death in combat. In reality you don't respawn. Dead is dead. period.

I find it contemptable that a whole generation has grown up with this steaming pile of refuse and use it as an epeen measuring contest. It's laughable that despite playing a "realistic" shooter concepts like enfilading fire, flanking, smart use of ambush tactics/small unit tactics and violence of action are almost totally foreign concepts inside the game.

Well said. I was trying to make these points work earlier, but you seemed to nail them in a much more concise way. I approve.

 

[felbot]

you know somewhere, there's a storage full of people who has never been on the internet, and once every week one gets out and goes on the internet just in time to see all the hate against call of duty.

then he will go on a forum and ask this question again.

on topic: there will always be people disliking something, because of how huge call of duty is there's just naturally more haters.

 

[Fishyash]

I don't like call of duty. It feels dull and boring to me, and none of the sequels have changed that. Also the idea of putting out a sequel every year since Modern Warfare leaves a bad taste in my mouth. The community is also a bit of a turn off.

Also, what made you want to make this thread? The game features record breaking sales and is critically acclaimed across almost all media outlets. Isn't that enough for you? Does the vocal minority really bother you enough to warrant a NEW THREAD?

There is 'so much' hate for CoD because it is popular. Not everyone is going to like a game, since people have different tastes and different opinions on how a game should be made. The more people that are going to love a game, the more people who are going to dislike it will talk about it. The people who dislike it pale in comparison to the people who think it is the best game ever made.

Okay that sounded a bit rant-ish, I only recently woke up...

 

[Rastien]

My main issue with cod has already been stated... the fact that EVERY shooter now trys to mimic cod, you have to have x shocking scene y awesome brofist moment etc.

Most cod players admit they don't play it for the story its all about the multiplayer.

The difference between cod to cod (aside from the story) is what most games include in patches or DLC. There is no excuses for console games not to provide these patches but they make more money re packaging and selling it, as everyone and there friends will get it and those that dont will be left out.

Not gonna lie i have been sorely tempted to pick it up just so i can play with the guys i work with... but i can plug a mouse and keyboard into my xbox 3shitty to do it :<

TLDR: new games contain content that should be in patches and DLC, cod is causing stagnation in the FPS market.

 

[Tuesday Night Fever]

snip

Ignorantia juris non excusat.

"Ignorance of the law does not excuse."

Basically, just because you're not actively aware that you're doing something wrong or inappropriate doesn't mean that you're free of guilt for doing it. You may not have realized your... "witty"... comment was actually fairly disrespectful and contained sexist undertones, but it still did.

But regardless of tone, you still asked for someone to name one woman who fought on the frontlines. You clearly expected no one to have an answer to that, and yet here we are. If you're so distraught by the idea that someone knows more about a topic than you do, perhaps you shouldn't challenge people to prove you wrong?

Notably, you could have just said something like, "I guess I was wrong, my bad." That would averted all of this. But instead, rather than just accept the situation, you dug yourself deeper and once again you were exposed as not really knowing what you're talking about. Clearly, you're just not going to get it, and you're just going to keep digging yourself (and me by association) deeper and deeper into that hole.

So by all means, keep digging, because I'm done here and won't be replying to you any further. You posed a challenge, I answered it. Maybe next time don't pose challenges if you're ill-prepared or ill-equipped to defend them. If you'd like to continue this, feel free to private message me instead of wasting everybody's time here.

 

[Pyro Paul]

call of duty is hated because it is a devolution of the shooter, degrading the skill of players, and ultimatly harming the industry as a whole.

Because CoD is an 'Adrenaline shooter' everything has to happen faster.
enemies get closer, maps get smaller, things happen faster.

In Counter Strike, your average engagement is between 20 and 50 feet.
In Black-Ops or MW2 the average engagement range is 5-10.

at that range it becomes less about skill and more about who shoots first.

further more, as they try and infuse skill into the game (Use the Sights!!) they effectively break the mechanics of the game so that you can not fight at any other distance between 5-10 feet.

Your gun has no accuracy beyond 10 feet unless if you're looking down the sights, and shooting across a room 'from the hip' will often not hit anything.

Finally, most maps, in order to become more fast paced, are not designed for balance, but rather to push you around the map. (Move!! Get to Cover!)

This can lead to mis-matched fights, spawn camping, and a general break down of team work as you sprint from cover to cover looking for the next kill rather then taking ground or securing an area for the team.

Maps are smaller and your engagement arenas are usually no more then 10 feet across.

The game becomes less about who has the most skill, know how, or team work and more about who can get the most kills in the least amount of time... The game devolves into close quarter grenade spams, camp-fests, and point blank shooting with little thinking about exactly what is going on or what you're doing.

 

[Sean Hollyman]

I dislike it for one reason, and one reason only.

No matter how good a game is, no matter how innovative, no matter how mind blowingly awesome it is.

It will never outsell Call of Duty.

I even enjoy the CoD titles, but I fucking hate that they're the bestselling titles of all time.

This, really. It needs to go somewhere else for a while then come back.

 

[Samantha Burt]

Disagreement is subjective, therefore your argument is invalid. I no more need to present evidence against it than I do to prove someone wrong if they were to claim yellow isn't a colour.

What is this "yellow" of which you speak? You have me genuinely confused.

 

[Signa]

Ehm, the Twilight movies are bad

Aaannnddd you lost every single ounce of credibility you could have had. You don't get to decide what is good or bad for other people. Sorry. Sit down, get off your pedestal, and stop trying to act like art isn't subjective.

No, but anyone does have the right to judge "art" as either a product, expression, or masturbation. Twilight is neither of those first two.

You can't seriously tell me that the art of Shakespeare's writings has anything in common with weak fanfiction other than written word.

 

[Grey Day for Elcia]

Ehm, the Twilight movies are bad

Aaannnddd you lost every single ounce of credibility you could have had. You don't get to decide what is good or bad for other people. Sorry. Sit down, get off your pedestal, and stop trying to act like art isn't subjective.

No, but anyone does have the right to judge "art" as either a product, expression, or masturbation. Twilight is neither of those first two.

You can't seriously tell me that the art of Shakespeare's writings has anything in common with weak fanfiction other than written word.

I haven't seen the movies and Shakespeare bores me to great lengths. But none of that is at all relevant. The person I quoted tried to state as a fact that the Twilight movies are objectively bad. However, they are an artistic endeavour, regardless of your personal opinion of them, and are removed from objectivity and placed firmly in the realm of subject taste. You may like or dislike the series and argue they aren't art all you like, but you cannot make any claim as to their inherit quality beyond opinion, anymore than I have the ability to state your taste in music is shite or that being homosexual is bad (both untrue examples for arguments sake).

 

[Signa]

Ehm, the Twilight movies are bad

Aaannnddd you lost every single ounce of credibility you could have had. You don't get to decide what is good or bad for other people. Sorry. Sit down, get off your pedestal, and stop trying to act like art isn't subjective.

No, but anyone does have the right to judge "art" as either a product, expression, or masturbation. Twilight is neither of those first two.

You can't seriously tell me that the art of Shakespeare's writings has anything in common with weak fanfiction other than written word.

I haven't seen the movies and Shakespeare bores me to great lengths. But none of that is at all relevant. The person I quoted tried to state as a fact that the Twilight movies are objectively bad. However, they are an artistic endeavour, regardless of your personal opinion of them, and are removed from objectivity and placed firmly in the realm of subject taste. You may like or dislike the series and argue they aren't art all you like, but you cannot make any claim as to their inherit quality beyond opinion, anymore than I have the ability to state your taste in music is shite or that being homosexual is bad (both untrue examples for arguments sake).

So you have no comment on my post? All you just did was repost what you said to the other guy.

You are right in that art is a matter of taste, but I think you can categorize it into those three headings at various ratios. CoD is very strongly in the product category, with a few hits of expression through the stories it presents. Twilight, like many fanfictions are a shallowly written personal fantasy tied to some pre-existing lore. It is objectively bad, but that doesn't mean it can't have any appeal. As I have strongly placed it in the masturbation heading, I see no reason why it can't tickle the fantasies of its intended audience; specifically Stephenie Mayer. The fact that other people like it was more of coincidence than a hallmark of quality.

 

[Grey Day for Elcia]

It is objectively bad, but that doesn't mean it can't have any appeal.

Congratulations on failing to understand what personal taste means. Don't know how many ways to say it. Nothing, especially art or entertainment, can be called objectively bad. Read it over and over again until you fully understand it. I'm beginning to think you don't actually know what these words mean--objectivity, opinion and personal taste. I don't care how shit, shallow, made for profit or poorly written you think something is, it doesn't change the fact that every single one of those qualities is subjective.

/end of

 

[Joccaren]

Multiple reasons really.
1. It is constantly being talked about, which really gets annoying. I'm considered a nerd, and a lot of people come up to me and say "You should play CoD, you'd be pro at 360 noscopes and shit". It gets on my nerves as they fail to understand that CoD is not my type of game, and 360 noscopes don't interest me at all.
2. It affects the entire medium. RPGs, RTS, other FPS - every type of game in existence will usually have some sort of change applied to it, often with the unstated [Or in some cases stated] goal of appealing to the CoD audience. Look at a lot of AAA games coming out these days. Tell me how many are pushing forward with more complexity, trying to get more deep and satisfying gameplay. Now tell me how many are trying to make their gameplay more fast paced, filled with action sequences and set pieces, "Push a button, something awesome has to happen" gameplay and increasing multiplayer focus?
Directly and indirectly it influences the direction of the medium as a whole, especially in the AAA market. I don't blame it for all streamlining - some was bound to happen anyway. However, its influence on the market is undeniable.
3. Its pricing is ridiculous. I went to the store yesterday. MW3? $99. Skyrim? $40. That is ridiculous. There is no excuse for that. Worse still, people will still buy it. What does this tell companies? Raising the prices of games is fine, as they'll still buy them.

In addition, no, CoD is NOT innovative. Small gameplay changes from issue to issue is not necessarily bringing anything new to the medium. The closest I think its come would be with those strike packages or whatever CoD calls its class system in MW3, and even that's not highly innovative.

In addition, the attitude displayed in that post has added something more to my list:
4. The idea that an expansion pack is worth $99 [Or $60 in other countries]. Now, you state there are small changes between the CoD games. I will agree with you. However, you also state that nobody really buys it for the Single Player.
So, what people are buying it for is the Multiplayer, correct?
Now. What is new in the multiplayer each iteration? A few minor UI and balance changes? A new perk or two, or a new weapon? A few new maps?
Is that really worth $60? IMO, that's worth $20, $30 at most. Remember those days when you would get an expansion to a game, and it would have new maps, new races/skills/classes/[insert genre dependent thing here], new mechanics, better AI, a continuation of the story, a new game mode and a few extra goodies for a lower price than a new game?
"Yes. Thems was good times" [God I love that game XD].

 

[SiskoBlue]

There are plenty of examples of people hating something simply becauses it's hugely popular;
Angry Birds, Twilight, CoD, Mario/Zelda/Nintendo, Xbox, Sony, Titanic, Dances with Wolves, the list goes on.

People don't dislike Twilight because it's popular, they dislike it because it is badly written. People don't dislike Titanic because it's popular, they dislike it because it's a bloated movie that derails an interesting historical story for a maudlin romance. People don't dislike Dances with Wolves because it's popular, they dislike it because it's a bloated Kevin Costner ego project that's also kind of racist.

Like, I get that you read a couple of wikipedia articles on intro psych topics and want to apply them, but many things are disliked for actual reasons.

That "actual reasons" for disliking something can be applied to everything on that list. People don't like Angry Birds because the physics can be a random so the same shot has different results. People dislike CoD because the storylines are non-sensical, bland, repetitive. People hate Mario because it's too child orientated, has be overly iterated and panders to fans, Xbox had a terrible hardward problem, Sony has annoying software updates. In fact few things are perfect, judged objectively or subjectively. The question is why do people get SO mad about them.

Just say you've been in space for 10 years, you arrive on Earth and while waiting to be debriefed someone gave you a Twilight novel to read. You'd think it was pretty bad but you wouldn't really be angry at it. If you saw Dances with Wolves and found out it was a complete bomb of a film, you probably wouldn't care less about it. You'd never mention it or think of it again. But find out lots of people think it's great and suddenly there's white hot rage people have about it. There's lots of pretty awful stuff out there that people DON'T write angry forum comments about. The rage generated is directly tied to the fact its popular.

You can generally find an objective fact about anything that you can point to and say "I don't enjoy this thing because of X". But when lots of other people don't care about X, and in fact actually like it, its a threat to a person's view of their place in the social order.

I'm not sure why what I've written has threatened you but I haven't used wikipedia for any of this. 6 years of study and 15 years in the business means reading wiki entries about psych topics kind of makes me rage. However, nice coping tactic you have there inferring without any evidence or counter point that my opinion is ill-informed and therefore carries less value. If that helps you maintain what ever belief my opinion conflicted with then go ahead and sleep easy.

 

[Kahunaburger]

6 years of study and 15 years in the business

Huh, that's funny.

Because making broad generalizations about social phenomena without any empirical evidence to back it up and trying to analyze people over the internet is the sort of thing I associate with, well...

 

[Signa]

It is objectively bad, but that doesn't mean it can't have any appeal.

Congratulations on failing to understand what personal taste means. Don't know how many ways to say it. Nothing, especially art or entertainment, can be called objectively bad. Read it over and over again until you fully understand it. I'm beginning to think you don't actually know what these words mean--objectivity, opinion and personal taste. I don't care how shit, shallow, made for profit or poorly written you think something is, it doesn't change the fact that every single one of those qualities is subjective.

/end of

No, things can be literally bad. I'm beginning to think you've never even read a book or watched a bad movie. Have you ever heard of My Immortal? No, not that Evanescence song, it's a Harry Potter fanfiction. It was written to be bad. The only way you could classify that as "subjective art" is if you consider it part of the art of being bad. In My Immortal's case, it probably was written to be bad, but that doesn't excuse the hundreds of other works that were done to be serious. It doesn't excuse Troll 2 or Manos: The Hands of Fate (Ok, Manos I can kinda excuse. The director didn't take it seriously, so I shouldn't either). It doesn't excuse Twilight as books or movies. It doesn't excuse the Transformers Sequels or Battleship the movie and the Call of Duty series (which is what we are supposed to be talking about). No body with any artistic sense can evaluate those works as art. At best, they are only there for someone who is looking to be entertained, and should be evaluated on that level, not how much expression the creator put into it.

Oh, and congratulations for failing to evolve the discussion, and instead pretend I can't understand simple English. Yes, OBVIOUSLY I don't know what personal taste means, and so I'm arguing with you. That must be it.