I created this thread a few weeks back in commemoration of real shooters.
the pc community's perception of cod has honestly been hilarious. they lauded cod4 as one of the greatest modern fps's, and then with the release of mw2 were excited until finding out that infinity ward removed dedicated server support. you see a paradigm shift during those moments and cod effectively becomes villified - cod4 as the paramount, ultimate cod, and all cod's afterwards being "disgusting cash cows with terrible game play." and just as this video shows, that terrible gameplay was always there. cod4 had the same balancing issues as mw2. cod4 had just a ridiculous story as mw2. cod4 is mw2.
cod4 is not a good game. it is mediocre.
I don't know about you guys, but I play games to have fun.
I don't look at the game's complete technical issues when I play. If it's fun to me, I'll be playing it. I like Call of Duty games. I still play and have fun with them. When I stop having fun with them, I'll stop buying and playing them. I agree that CoD will get old eventually. Everything gets old sometime, and who's to say that your favorite game series isn't going to get old? Also, I am aware of the fact that CoD games are clones of each other, but I do still get excited for new CoDs coming out.
And I'm not just a CoD "fanboy" as you normally call people who actually enjoy playing the games. I enjoy playing Battlefield as well. I'd just prefer to have more fun playing my MW3.
But who am I to say anything; I'm going to be rated dumb by everyone that dislikes CoD anyways. I'm just a gamer with an honest opinion about a topic at hand. Just thought I'd share.
They should've put infinitely spawning civilians in the airport level
I'm going to rate you dumb, not because I disagree with you, but because you completely missed the point. People are pissed because of people who are blindly accepting the COD franchize without looking at other games at all, and because of people who think it's the only game of it's kind ever, and because of people who look at others that say "I don't think it's fun, so unbalanced' and ignorantly yell that it's "totally balanced and there's nothing wrong with the game" when they have no idea what they're even talking about.
It's not because COD is bad, it's because it's an OK game, but it's still has huge flaws that could easily be fixed but can't, and people completely don't get it and just blindly defend it.
[SUB][SUP][SUB][SUP][SUB][SUP][SUB][SUP][SUB][SUB][SUP]also, your steam profile... an idler group and "^^ im just yur average girl gamer :))"
I don't even really think the multiplayer is that fun. It's basically see enemy, shoot enemy, find new enemy to see and then consequently shoot. Not to mention the "snipers", or how you get yelled at for actually sniping rather than quickscoping.
I find CoD fun. Which is why I play it. I don't see how I'm missing the point. I get the point of the video: "CoD is rushed, and broken." I see threads/videos/people talking about this almost every day, and not one has made me wanna change my opinions about CoD. I (want to) buy DLC because sometimes I want a small change. When I want a big change, I buy a new game. I don't know; maybe I find broken and rushed games fun? All of this is my opinion, which we are all entitled to.
Expected a multiplayer critique, got singleplayer. I can't say he isn't right but saying CoD is objectively worse as a singleplayer shooter than 90% of other shooters on the shelf is wrong. Everything he says can be applied to the gamer darling Battlefield 3. I get that CoD is the most popular game so it's probably the best way to communicate his (mostly legitimate) points, but he seems to be implying CoD is the only game that suffers from these issues. The fact of the matter is that the modern shooter takes the campaign as an extended tutorial that sets some backstory for the unlock and progression fueled multiplayer.
It's not like this is a new thing either. The previous singleplayer iterations of CoD were the exact same as they are now, with possibly even worse points like more infinite wave checkpoints and worse AI. This is because the singleplayer is a tutorial. It sets the background. It says "You are here, in this time and place, and this is what is going on" before dumping you in a multiplayer arena and having you shoot Nazis while sprinting everywhere.
I also disagree with the notion that literally the only reason the games continue to sell well is because the name. Obviously some people will just buy a CoD title because it is CoD, but that doesn't explain increasing sales rates after every single release. And not small increases either; we are talking 10-30 percent additional from the previous year alone. As it turns out, people just really like Call of Duty. It's a solid all around shooter that anyone can pick up but has the depth to keep people playing for months (or, more correctly, until the next one comes out in November).
I'm not saying that CoD doesn't have it's problems. I'd say at best it's a solid FPS, and at worse (MW3) mediocre and tired. They are just kind of "okay" all around. They are fast, low-input high output experiences. They are the McDonalds of video games. And that's okay. Clearly a lot of people like McDonald's. Sometimes they don't want to consider tactical strategy when playing a video game. Sometimes they want to run around and exploding Paris, dual-wielding SMG's and killing Russians because it's just fun to do.
For the multiplayer complaints I'd say it's another mix of good and bad points. The game is definitely made for the casual player...because most shooters are made for the casual player these days. As it turns out, marketing to a lot more people makes a lot more money, and so FPS developers have gotten on the gravy train and dumbed down their mechanics for common consumption. Again, this is not something CoD alone does. It's just how the market works. I disagree whole heartedly with his point on "skillless" killstreaks. Obviously it doesn't take much "skill" to bomb someone by designating them on the map and praying they stand there, but I'm pretty sure that person excercised his ability to play the game by killing 5 people on the enemy team without dying himself. Killstreaks are a natural evolution of mechanics present in most highly competitive games. Being rewarded for doing well is a cornerstone of games like CS and DotA, where you get more money to buy better gear if you do better. There is nothing wrong with that as an idea. I will agree CoD takes it too far with it's map encompassing air strikes and tactical nukes and EMP's and other sillyness, but the idea that killstreaks are in and of themselves "skillless" is wrong.
I'll give this guy credit. He is a lot more cerebral then most people who bash CoD. Most of his points are right, if only because they relate to the FPS genre as a whole in 2012 rather than this specific game. I'd have loved a video talking about all these in relation to the genre from Halo to Battlefield to CoD to Medal of Honor, but when CoD is such an easy target to hit I realize it's easy to lose focus.
I dislike the tone that he has during the video, something about his voice irks me.
Also, the Call of Duty campaigns were more like a movie. I'm not nearly pretentious enough to dislike a movie because it doesn't show me enough bad stuff about war. That doesn't make it a bad game. The shit he pointed out earlier do, but it's hardly noticeable when you're playing the game just to play it, rather then looking for reasons to dislike it, but that's just me. Like or dislike a game, but don't shit on someone because they do like it. I play Battlefield, I play Halo, I play Call of Duty. Then I can also play ARMA or Half Life. This guy needs to get this through his skull and stop being such a condescending piece of shit.
I laughed at the beginning when he shot his mate.
On the subject of CoD getting stale, like i've said in another thread I still enjoy Black Ops a lot. Treyarch saw what IW was doing to MW2 and decided they wanted to make the game about having FUN instead of being hyper competitive. While CoD is pretty samey, Black Ops did a lot to distance itself to the series, compared to MW1, 2, and 3. WaW is kind of a toss up. That was arguably MW1 with a reskin, though I enjoyed it for awhile, and they definitely added enough to warrant a full price IMO. My only fear is that Activision is going to see Black Ops 2 as an opportunity to make Black Ops more like MW3 in order to appeal to that crowd again. A LOT of MW2 players hated BO because it was slower, felt different, and had "silly" things added in [RC cars, Crossbow, Ballistic Knife, Flamethrower, etc.].
The main problem with killstreaks in MW3 is that they don't encourage playing well to get them, they encourage camping, and using less than reputable strategies in order to get them. They haven't exercised their ability to play the game. They have done what they could to take advantage of other people, using cheap tactics in order to get a killstreak, which allows them more kills with little effort. CoD4 had the perfect set up for killstreaks. Nothing was too big or hard to deal with. I agree that killstreaks can be a fun addition to a game, but they shouldn't be part of the game entirely. They should be the small bit of sugar on top. A little extra for doing well [or better yet, for helping your team and working together].
As for the dumbing it down, yes they did. But they also left in MAJOR balance issues with the game. So now you have a game that is easy to pick up and play, but hard to keep playing because you have people who need to either play like a dickhead JUST to be a dickhead, or play like a dickhead in order to win and be better than everyone else. More than half of the weapons are rendered useless, because if you are using anything other than a few overpowered set pieces, you might as well be throwing rocks. Highly competitive, and casual do not mix.
Black Ops had good killstreaks to up until 8 or 9 kills then it got stupid.
As far as balance goes, eh. Most shooters never get balance right. Just kinda something you have to grin and bear. Even the most competitive shooters have awkward balance.
Soaps death was done well. Price's reaction to it at least.
I forgot soap died in mw3
I laughed so hard at :40 seconds when he's looking over the area completely clear of enemies, then takes one step and the whole place lights up with gunfire.
This is a problem that if someone might find it offensive.
Things need to be said like they are without embellishing, no matter if someone finds it offensive.
One of the most important things in life that say things like they really are without avoiding the subject.
Of course there is an expection on little children.
Anyway, back to the topic. I agree with him what he said about COD.
the games industry isn't a child, it doesn't learn things.
it creates the best selling product and that's about it
Criticism of anything?
Must be a hater!
Dear video game industry,
Where the hell did arena shooters go? No, I will not accept Nexuiz until I learn how to pronounce it.
If you want to make an actual decent Call of Duty game. Go back to World War II. Slow the fucking shit down. Stop putting so much shit on the screen at every second that makes people not prone to seizures have them, and maybe we'll be onto something
As far as I'm concerned, CoD 1 and 2, and 4 are the only ones worth playing, end of discussion
*games should be going in a different direction rather than emulating tv shows/movies which is a huge proble because it doesnt work in an interactive medium at all
Lol, I actually said "Bbbbblooody Screen! So real" and the guy above me posted it earlier and was even late.
So I will just say: I played MW2 and BO in SP and MP. Even MW3. And all can't do a shit against BF3. (The old war :)