why does call of duty get so much hate?

[Grey Day for Elcia]

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.

Alrighty, here's a little demonstration: without using a single subjective example and without including any opinion at all, explain why Twilight is objectively bad. You've stated it numerous times, so surely you can prove it, yes?

This should be good.

 

[CaptainMarvelous]

I dislike CoD because it outsells most other contemporary games, a TERRIFYING number of underage kids are buying it with their hapless parents being sent in on their behalf and I once had a raging argument with a customer (that job didn't last long -_-) about how in his words "Zelda's shit cos you're always saving the same princess, no innovation unlike CoD",

So yeah, that's one of my beefs. That going from sailing an ocean to flying a loftwing is less innovative to a whole section of the population than "The guns are slightly different". Also the argument "There are new maps" is not an argument. It's a new game, if there weren't new maps then what the hell did you even BUY?

Not saying there's nothing new in each CoD as clearly if you dig deep enough you get a list of 11, but as my counter argument

"If I said Zelda innovates because the angle Link's sword goes changes slightly would you accept that as a great innovation"

((INB4, I know I'm using the verb innovate wrong but it fits the argument))

EDIT: Poster above me! Explain how Twilight is SUBjectively good or post on topic

 

[Pebblig]

It's just a personal thing that I dislike it so much.

I dislike the fact they sell so well, and because they sell so well they flop one out every year and they will continue to do so until the franchise runs dry.

I loved Call of Duty 4, it was the first mass market modern shooter, as the majority before were WW2 based, but since I have enjoyed every one less and less. I bought Black Ops, though I wish I hadn't. I will never purchase another in the series as I no longer want to put any money into Activision's pockets.

The games are also the reason that I no longer ever plug my mic in on xbox, as I know that 90% of the time, the people talking will be complete and utter pricks. If anything, I have CoD to thank for driving me to playing solely RPG and Puzzle games xD I just don't enjoy shooters anymore.

Anyway, I don't necessarily hate the franchise, I hate what has been done with it. The fact it is just a money-making slut for Activision that they can put out on the corner and people seem to keep coming back despite how used and old it's becoming.

I am quite proud of that analogy.

 

[Signa]

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.

Alrighty, here's a little demonstration: without using a single subjective example and without including any opinion at all, explain why Twilight is objectively bad. You've stated it numerous times, so surely you can prove it, yes?

This should be good.

Gladly, but while I have to go to work now. See you in 9-10 hours.

 

[Buddahcjcc]

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.

Cause its cool to hate things that are popular.

 

[Daystar Clarion]

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.

Cause its cool to hate things that are popular.

CoD is more than popular.

It's the bestselling game series of all time.

Do you think it deserves that title?

I like the games, but I don't like them that much.

 

[TomLikesGuitar]

Because it isn't very good, has an obnoxious fanbase, and is (arguably unfairly) blamed for a lot of problems with modern shooters?

1. if it wasn't good it wouldn't be popular, i can see why some people may personally dislike the game but to call it a bad game is probably wrong

Twilight is popular. Transformers is popular. Miller Light is popular. That doesn't make them good.

In this case, your assessment of quality is subjective.

I know a LARGE number of people who would disagree with you and say that Twilight, Transformers, Miller Light, and, of course, Call of Duty, are the best of their respective product/medium. That doesn't make them right and that doesn't make you right. It's subjective.

And while you could say marketing makes those brands seem "good" to the masses, I can just as easily rebuke that claim and say that the "independent" label (or anything variant from the norm) is free marketing for hipster/nonconformist/pretentious groups.

Really the question comes down to this... Are you a closed minded CoD fanboy, are you a closed minded CoD hater, or are you just an open minded gamer who can accept that not everyone enjoys the same things?

EDIT:

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.

Alrighty, here's a little demonstration: without using a single subjective example and without including any opinion at all, explain why Twilight is objectively bad. You've stated it numerous times, so surely you can prove it, yes?

This should be good.

You do understand that he's going to come back here with some stupid huge essay claiming some sort of ridiculous "errors" in the general format of the plot or something and act like he proved you wrong, right?

You should ask him what his favorite book series is and then just scrutinize the shit out of it like he's about to for Twilight.

I've never read Twilight, but people who call subjective things "objectively bad" are just stubborn haters who simply can't accept other peoples' opinions. They likely have very few friends due to over-cynicism and you should honestly just drop the argument because they usually also have a lot of spare time as a result.

 

[Limecake]

I don't know,

Call of Duty 4 was amazing and even modern CoD games have great multiplayer with over-the-top set pieces and really make you feel like you're living an action movie.

CoD is more than popular.

It's the bestselling game series of all time.

Do you think it deserves that title?

I like the games, but I don't like them that much.

not really a good reason to hate something though, Avatar, Titanic, Tale of Two Cities, and thriller are all bestselling in their categories I don't care for any of them but it doesn't mean that lot's of other people don't.

Sports games have been releasing games on a yearly basis and how many Lego games do we need released every year? they hardly stray from their formulas either but CoD still seems to be the whipping boy for people.

It doesn't have to be your cup of tea but that doesn't mean that everyone has to hate it.

Personally, I think a lot of gamers associate 'CoD players' with the people who used to shove them in lockers in high-school. I own a couple CoD games but I don't buy them every year, so I don't see an issue with them.

EDIT: oh yeah and the community isn't any worse than any other gaming community on the internet (yes I'm talking about whichever gaming community you think is better)

 

[strangemoose]

the amount of rage in this thread...it pleases me

 

[Nfritzappa]

It's undeservedly popular.

Thats why.

 

[annoyinglizardvoice]

Because it contains all the tropes and features that are putting me off first-person-shooters (I was a big fan of them a console-generation or two ago, and can't stand them now). I also have a few gripes with a noticeable section of their fanbase and I am concerned that their popularity sends the message to designers and manufacturers that it's okay to skimp on single-player stuff as long as it has online play.

 

[Nfritzappa]

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.

God the effing art argument. Stop it I hate it.

I'm an artist but I never bring that argument out. Know why? Because its meaningless. I find a lot of things artistic but listen, when it comes down to it anything worth calling Art is only found in a gallery. So stop it.

 

[Kahunaburger]

Because it isn't very good, has an obnoxious fanbase, and is (arguably unfairly) blamed for a lot of problems with modern shooters?

1. if it wasn't good it wouldn't be popular, i can see why some people may personally dislike the game but to call it a bad game is probably wrong

Twilight is popular. Transformers is popular. Miller Light is popular. That doesn't make them good.

In this case, your assessment of quality is subjective.

I know a LARGE number of people who would disagree with you and say that Twilight, Transformers, Miller Light, and, of course, Call of Duty, are the best of their respective product/medium. That doesn't make them right and that doesn't make you right. It's subjective.

And while you could say marketing makes those brands seem "good" to the masses, I can just as easily rebuke that claim and say that the "independent" label (or anything variant from the norm) is free marketing for hipster/nonconformist/pretentious groups.

Really the question comes down to this... Are you a closed minded CoD fanboy, are you a closed minded CoD hater, or are you just an open minded gamer who can accept that not everyone enjoys the same things?

I'm someone who understands that there are commonly accepted standards for evaluating the quality of books/movies/games/beer/etc., and that saying something is "not very good" is not saying that there is some sort of objective standard by which things are judged, it's saying that by the commonly accepted subjective standards by which things of its kind are judged, this particular thing doesn't meet the standard for quality.

In other words, if I were to say a car with a broken engine is a shitty car, you would be right to say that my definition of "shitty car" is based on my subjective opinion on what a car should be like and do. This doesn't mean that, by the standards the average consumer is going to use to evaluate cars, the car isn't shitty.

 

[TomLikesGuitar]

Because it isn't very good, has an obnoxious fanbase, and is (arguably unfairly) blamed for a lot of problems with modern shooters?

1. if it wasn't good it wouldn't be popular, i can see why some people may personally dislike the game but to call it a bad game is probably wrong

Twilight is popular. Transformers is popular. Miller Light is popular. That doesn't make them good.

In this case, your assessment of quality is subjective.

I know a LARGE number of people who would disagree with you and say that Twilight, Transformers, Miller Light, and, of course, Call of Duty, are the best of their respective product/medium. That doesn't make them right and that doesn't make you right. It's subjective.

And while you could say marketing makes those brands seem "good" to the masses, I can just as easily rebuke that claim and say that the "independent" label (or anything variant from the norm) is free marketing for hipster/nonconformist/pretentious groups.

Really the question comes down to this... Are you a closed minded CoD fanboy, are you a closed minded CoD hater, or are you just an open minded gamer who can accept that not everyone enjoys the same things?

I'm someone who understands that there are commonly accepted standards for evaluating the quality of books/movies/games/beer/etc., and that saying something is "not very good" is not saying that there is some sort of objective standard by which things are judged, it's saying that by the commonly accepted subjective standards by which things of its kind are judged, this particular thing doesn't meet the standard for quality.

In other words, if I were to say a car with a broken engine is a shitty car, you would be right to say that my definition of "shitty car" is based on my subjective opinion on what a car should be like and do. This doesn't mean that, by the standards the average consumer is going to use to evaluate cars, the car isn't shitty.

Well, Call of Duty doesn't have a broken engine (The engine is actually extremely well polished from a design standpoint...), and the numbers prove that Call of Duty does meet the commonly accepted standards of quality evaluation. The game would sell poorly (or at least not incredibly well) if it was commonly accepted as being below standards.

So... I don't know what you're saying.

Using your example... If a car has a broken engine, it does NOT meet the commonly accepted standards; most people would agree that it was a "shitty car". Now, if the car's engine performed its task, but you did not like the way it was constructed or the method that it took to achieve said task (I prefer American built cars as they are easier to fix IMO), it would be somewhat narrow minded to definitively call it "shitty". I think this is a more appropriate metaphor since at least we can both agree that Call of Duty is not a broken game, even if you don't like the way it does things.

 

[Lovely Mixture]

Call of Duty games deter innovation as the OP implied. Also, for those like myself who dislike multi-player, I see CoD as encouraging games to sell by relying on multiplayer components with single-player campaigns getting less focus.

 

[Kahunaburger]

Because it isn't very good, has an obnoxious fanbase, and is (arguably unfairly) blamed for a lot of problems with modern shooters?

1. if it wasn't good it wouldn't be popular, i can see why some people may personally dislike the game but to call it a bad game is probably wrong

Twilight is popular. Transformers is popular. Miller Light is popular. That doesn't make them good.

In this case, your assessment of quality is subjective.

I know a LARGE number of people who would disagree with you and say that Twilight, Transformers, Miller Light, and, of course, Call of Duty, are the best of their respective product/medium. That doesn't make them right and that doesn't make you right. It's subjective.

And while you could say marketing makes those brands seem "good" to the masses, I can just as easily rebuke that claim and say that the "independent" label (or anything variant from the norm) is free marketing for hipster/nonconformist/pretentious groups.

Really the question comes down to this... Are you a closed minded CoD fanboy, are you a closed minded CoD hater, or are you just an open minded gamer who can accept that not everyone enjoys the same things?

I'm someone who understands that there are commonly accepted standards for evaluating the quality of books/movies/games/beer/etc., and that saying something is "not very good" is not saying that there is some sort of objective standard by which things are judged, it's saying that by the commonly accepted subjective standards by which things of its kind are judged, this particular thing doesn't meet the standard for quality.

In other words, if I were to say a car with a broken engine is a shitty car, you would be right to say that my definition of "shitty car" is based on my subjective opinion on what a car should be like and do. This doesn't mean that, by the standards the average consumer is going to use to evaluate cars, the car isn't shitty.

Well, Call of Duty doesn't have a broken engine (The engine is actually extremely well polished from a design standpoint...),

I don't know enough about the pros and cons of the IW engine vs. its leading competitors, but I do know that CoD is laggy, glitchy, poorly balanced, and has a low skill ceiling. That does not a good multiplayer shooter make by the commonly accepted standards for multiplayer shooter quality.

and the numbers prove that Call of Duty does meet the commonly accepted standards of quality evaluation. The game would sell poorly (or at least not incredibly well) if it was commonly accepted as being below standards.

The assumption here is that people only buy things if, through careful consideration, they determine it to be high-quality. I don't think you'll find many Miller Light drinkers who actually consider it to be a legitimately high-quality beer, but I think you'll find quite a lot of Miller light drinkers who like it because it's what they're familiar with or don't care about beer selection that much at all and buy the thing they see in the ads and in the supermarket. Same principle.

There's nothing wrong with this - we all have things that we buy without putting too much time and effort into determining that it's the best option available to us. For instance, I'm pretty sure my jeans don't stack up that well in quality terms, but I don't care that much about the aesthetics/design of my jeans. Somewhere, someone on a fashion forum is probably having exactly this discussion about how my brand of jeans is shitty and how its popularity doesn't make it less shitty.

 

[bossfight1]

A. There are people who would rather play COD than games that have more artistic value
B. It doesn't change by a radical margin between each installment
C. It has popular multiplayer, which has a reputation for trolls.

Now, I love Call of Duty, but with the announcement of Black Ops 2 I can see why it gets so much hatred; if it either had more than 2 years between each installment, actually made a massive innovative change with each game, or didn't sell for $60 each time, I'd feel more generous towards the franchise. But I fear that COD is becoming the new Madden game of our generation.

 

[Gibboniser]

The main reason I'm not a fan is the huge success it has, I don't mind games doing well, but when it does well to a point, every other developer tries to copy it. This leads to the stagnation people are always on about.