why does call of duty get so much hate?

[Elamdri]

1. call of duty isnt innovative: i can see why people think this, but it is untrue, as someone who has played call of duty competitively i can tell you that although it keeps the same base mechanics from each game but other than that is vastly different (like a good squeal should be) in terms of single player its often a case of SSDD but that is not what most people buy/play it for and judging black ops 2 on its single player is like judging mass effect 3 on its online.

The thing that annoys me about Call of Duty is that it feels like a sports game, like the Madden Series. Every year they release the same damn game, that runs off the same damn engine, and all they seem to do is update the roster someone and make the occasional tweak.

Call of Duty has the benefit over a Madden game of at least having a story, but I've never much cared for the single player.

2. most call of duty players are 12 year old douchebags: again from playing competitively most call of duty players are 16-18 and a regular bunch of people, the odd troll or 12 year old get in but pointing at them and using it as the stereotype for the cod community is like claiming that gamers in general are basement dwellers

Well I've hit the point in my life where I hate anyone without a bachelor's degree, so saying that "Most players are 16-18" doesn't make it any better. I just don't find the community as a whole very pleasant.

 

[DragonStorm247]

The franchise simply has so much financial success and reception. Ask any out of touch, non gaming people to name one game. Nine times out of ten, they'll say CoD.

Is CoD the god awful piece of shit we claim it is? Doubtful, but I still don't believe it deserves this attention. People are just frustrated.

 

[electric method]

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.

 

[Khazoth]

Its a combination of things, but mostly because some things become pop culture on the internet very quickly. I think the first person to start was Morgan Webb, and then Yahtzee, and a slew of other internet critics.

There are a few who have never and will never play the games and that will chirp what they hear like an entranced magpie. (See what I did there?) I'll honestly never understand it, I don't like Call of Duty, its not my style. Its a lot like music, Britney Spears and Backstreet in the 90's, and Nickelback now, people haaaaaated these things because they were popular, they objected to what they perceived to be the culture around it.


That said, a lot of people who hated Britney Spears and Backstreet Boys in the 90's were later caught in their car singing along. I think this metaphor works well with the Call of Duty case because I wonder how many people hate it because its the current culture.

 

[Moriarti]

In my opinion, the CoD games aren't themselves bad games, as far as shooters go they're solid enough. What IS bad is the series has become the poster child for the stagnation of the industry, and has become infamous for it's fanbase.

 

[Gmans uncle]

For ME it's honestly been a legitimate lack of interest.
I'm not into the whole "REAL MEN DOING MANLY THINGS IN THE NAME OF MANLINESS GRRRR!!!" thing, I have little interest in such brain-numbingly simplistic games, and I simply don't have the money to shell out full price for what amounts to a 5ish hour single player campaign tacked onto an expansion of the milti-player that was released last year.
Now, being completely honest, I am a LITTLE bit intrigued by Black Ops II. I've heard a handful of things about how there's been more attention payed to the singleplayer this time, how they where making it less linear, how there was going to be this really engaging plot, but to be honest I'll need a HEEEEEEELL of a lot more convincing to get me to lay down my money at launch.

 

[-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.