Page 1 of 4
1
2
3
... LastLast
  1. #1

    Every single Call of Duty game is bad?

    Considering the Spawn system is horrible and the campers and the ghost...this game needs no skill, lLEts say I fire 3 rounds in someone his chest he should die as wear i get shit once in my back and i die Instantly even though I was the one who shoots first what is with this bullshit?


    Second the camping on Call off duty people consider it pro where it means yo uare realy shit that is all third the spawn system is horrible having people spawn right behind you kill you straight away last time i heard we made the spawn system work you wont or can see for the first 3 seconds whe nspawning, qell fuck right off.

  2. #2
    Stood in the Fire Vapo's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Quel'thalas
    Posts
    404
    Go play CoD2/4 on HC, much better than the post MW2 crap.

  3. #3
    The first CoD and its expansion are bloody brilliant. Still one of my favorite FPS's of all time (I go play through it once every 3-4 years at minimum).

    The modern ones...meh. They're super well made mechanically, but I've played MW2 and BOII and they're both kinda whateversville for me, especially BOII with it's "competitive" gaming angle it is going for. I wouldn't call them "bad", but I don't really enjoy them too much.

    (let's not turn this into a FUCK COD I HATE COD RABBLE RABBLE thread please)

  4. #4
    I loved All the CoDs up to MW2 (excluding World at War).

    But everything since, BO1, MW3, BO2 are pieces of shit that I wish were never made so that MW2 still had a playerbase

  5. #5
    Everything since MW1 has been down hill. No free maps, no mods, rediculous killstreaks. Cod4/cod2 are the better shooters of its time. Without modability and map making these games start getting stale and redundant. Especially when they give you maps you previously owned from older games.

  6. #6
    Pit Lord Poppincaps's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    Post-Apocalyptic America
    Posts
    2,364
    Call of Duty is one of the most polished shooters out on the market atm. I think the reason people hate it is the release schedule. Putting out a new game every year kinda burns you out of the series. I'm starting to feel that way about Assassin's Creed 3. Also, because there are so many of the CoD games, it's more apparent that the games aren't super innovative, but I will say that pretty much every sequel is just a rehash of the previous installation with some slight changes to the gameplay.

  7. #7
    Quote Originally Posted by Shootandkill View Post
    Call of Duty is one of the most polished shooters out on the market atm.
    This is huge. There was a test between MW3 and BF3 when both came out on the response time for actions in both games. Both were super low in the "no way you can really tell" range of delay, but MW3 had a definite lead with faster response times than BF3. It isn't something you actively notice, but it does actually affect how the game feels.

    I've been playing lots of BOII and the responsiveness and polish is totally there. I just can't stand the gunplay and weapon balance. At all. I give it mad props for its level of polish, but beyond that I really have no interest in the game as a shooter : /

  8. #8
    Stood in the Fire
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    Stowmind Keep and Ogrimmar
    Posts
    358
    It's not that they're "bad" games, it's just that when you've played one you've played them all... At least with the last 5 or 6 games.
    Man, I've got bags under my eyes... BAGS OF MONEY!
    See ya later, peasants.

    Praise The Sun!

  9. #9
    Dreadlord Voolawl's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Location
    Blood Gulch
    Posts
    855
    The issue with the Call of Duty games is they're tuned so that any average joe can pick up the game and do decently at it. There's a very small skill cap between the good and bad players. Not to mention the imbalanced gameplay with killstreaks and weapon modifications that only get better the more you play.

    That isn't how a game should be. Every person should be on an even ground from day 1, and wins should come from raw individual skill. If you want a truly competitive game, I would suggest Halo. The only issue is that Halo 4 has picked up on the Call of Duty gameplay style with ordinance drops, thus taking away the individual skill to add in random luck(lol Speed Boost, Pulse Grenades, Needler while the other teams sitting on damage boost and beam rifle!?).
    Quote Originally Posted by Kissme View Post
    The problem comes when bad players expect to clear hardmode content as quickly as average or upper echelon players.
    Accept your limitations.
    Quote Originally Posted by Rennadrel View Post
    Admittedly, I enjoy beer more as a beverage that I can appreciate rather then getting drunk.

  10. #10
    Could someone please translate the OP? I was curious as to what this topic is about, but it's so poorly written that I do not understand the complaint. Is it that the OP hates the spawning in the game, or is it more than that? I mean, any game in which you don't do a one-and-done spawn (meaning you get one life per round, a la Counter-Strike) is going to have issues with spawn camping. Any game in which people are too stupid to check corners or throw grenades, you'll have campers.

    My complaints about Call of Duty games have never been about the actual game, but the poorly-coded logic, mostly related to perks. For example, the asininity that was Commando/Commando Pro on Modern Warfare 2. You could literally get stabbed by someone who was downstairs from you because of the crazy stabbing range. Stopping Power was basically a way to cater to people incapable of making a decent shot, same with Juggernaut (not that it was able to make up for those who were truly bad when EVERYONE took those perks; I personally went with the UAV Jammer perk in that slot and did just fine).

    Sad to say, as great as it is that gaming is popular, that popularity ruins it. They balance the game in a way to where anyone can beat anyone in a gun battle, rather than it being those who are better at the game actually perform better than the less-talented members all the time. This comes from several things:

    1. Killcam--How are you supposed to snipe effectively if each person you kill gets handed the pathway to sneak up on you? People need to learn to be perceptive and figure out things like enemy location on their own.
    2. Perks--This isn't as bad now, but like I said, Stopping Power and Juggernaut ruined a good deal of the game. In MW2, it made the M16 capable of one-shotting you in the foot, literally. I always wished perks either a) didn't exist, or b) were limited to utilities (like Scavenger and Ghost do). They should make your class unique, not force people into one or two cookie-cutter specs. Think of it like the intentions of the new talent system in WoW, you should make choices to fit your play style, not because there's no balance.
    3. Killstreaks--Never liked these, especially in a game that's short and throws people into the games mid-match. It causes a game to potentially be decided really quickly. I mean, you have someone get a 4-kill Care Package, get a Chopper Gunner, and it can ruin the next 5 minutes or so of the match. The benefit to performing well should be winning and getting better stats, not getting overpowered weaponry to mess up the game balance.
    4. Deathstreaks--These have been limited to the Infinity Ward atrocities (I hate MW2, though I put a LOT of time into that game, and MW3 was a step back from MW2, to such a great extent that I played it for about an hour and sold it to my cousin because it was so bad), and I am glad that they are. You shouldn't get a reward for being bad. The logic appears to be "oh, you're being beaten by someone better, we don't want that!"
    5. Weapon Balance--No matter the game (and this really applies to all competitive games, not just this franchise), weapon balance seems to be sketchy at best. I have to give Halo a lot of credit for actually pulling off a mostly-balanced weapon system, but that's partially because they don't go the CoD route of having a bunch of guns of each type (assault rifle, SMG, LMG, shotgun, sniper). The more versatility you attempt, the more likely you are to hit a big imbalance. This often seems to be the case with Call of Duty, as you quickly see people settle into just one or two weapon choices from each category, and those who want to be different are punished.

    I'm going to stop that rant because my post was mostly to ask what the OP was saying. I'll try to answer the general thread title by saying I don't think all of the games are bad. I like Call of Duty 2, Call of Duty 4: Modern Warfare, Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 2 (at the time it was current, I played it a lot, but after leaving it and going back, I realized that the game was poorly-made and a total joke), and Call of Duty: Black Ops. I got Black Ops II for Christmas, but haven't played it at all yet (been going all-out with Halo 4), but I imagine if it's fairly similar to its Treyarch Predecessor, I'll be mostly happy with it.

    Is Call of Duty my favorite game franchise? Not even close. Is it my favorite FPS franchise? Not even close. Do I like it well enough? Definitely. I would love to see Halo more popular than Call of Duty, but exclusivity hurts that franchise in that respect, and the learning curves of the well-received PC shooters (Unreal, Quake, and Counter-Strike) are too high to get the kiddies and noobs onto them.

  11. #11
    I only buy the CoD games for the single-player story, as I prefer BF3 when it comes to multiplayer.
    If I want fast phased multiplayer with no vehicles, I'll play Far Cry 3 instead.

  12. #12
    Cod games are games people love to hate on. Sure they release a game every year. Sure Activision and Treyarch are money sucking companies. But you cannot deny they make the best games in the genre itself. They're fairly well polished, the guns are new, and there are some pretty cool kill streaks.

    It's a game that caters to a more run and gun playstyle. You have to be aggressive. It rewards those who are good at it with accuracy in close engagements. It isn't "unfair" considering everyone can get the same type of gun. Yes there are campers, but only idiots die to them regularly. If you know a guy is camping. Don't go to that spot, tell your team where he is and ignore that location. The camper will be forced to move, and most likely because they camp, they'll have terrible aim and be a free kill. Or B they'll continue camping and get no kills and just be deadweight on their team.

  13. #13
    Pandaren Monk Mapathy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Location
    Cultural Exchange House
    Posts
    1,852
    Just play hardcore, i find the barebones approach to makes for better games.

    " I'll tell you the ultimate secret of magic. Any cunt could do it." - John Constantine

  14. #14
    Scarab Lord Belize's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    Standing in the Fire, as always.
    Posts
    4,186
    I personally don't like CoD games as they're way too similar to each other and kinda broken. The only one I've really enjoyed myself playing was CoD 4 on PC and that's because I would play the star wars mod :3

    I feel like one of the biggest problem (and it's not really the games fault in the end but nonetheless) is the really douchy attitude a lot of people seem to get. Like people that play Call of Duty are now apparently experts on guns... What!? And yeah, it happens in other games too but for some reason it just stands out with CoD. Also the stereotype that you get called a fag on CoD Xbox live more than in a gay pride parade is based on something. Which sucks, and is stupidly annoying. And then you have the people who think CoD is for "grown ups" and other games (including shooters like Halo) are for little kids... /rant

    Mechanically wise, it's not really all there either. Choppers in the MWF games are broken etc etc...

    Oh and I don't buy the games, I just play them at friends houses every now and again, just to see if the newer ones are worth buying. They're not.

  15. #15
    The Patient Someudontno's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    Virginia, United States
    Posts
    236
    Quote Originally Posted by edgecrusherO0 View Post
    The first CoD and its expansion are bloody brilliant. Still one of my favorite FPS's of all time (I go play through it once every 3-4 years at minimum).

    The modern ones...meh. They're super well made mechanically, but I've played MW2 and BOII and they're both kinda whateversville for me, especially BOII with it's "competitive" gaming angle it is going for. I wouldn't call them "bad", but I don't really enjoy them too much.

    (let's not turn this into a FUCK COD I HATE COD RABBLE RABBLE thread please)
    I completely agree with you; I thought the first two CoD games were great! Then it went steadily downhill..

  16. #16
    Legendary! Tommo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    Scotland
    Posts
    6,397
    Ide say World at war was their last good game. Everything afterwords is just CRTL + C - CRTL + V with different graphics.

    I reckon if they made zombies a seperate game they would lose alot of interest in CoD. Hell thats the only reason half my mates have the game.

  17. #17
    Bloodsail Admiral Giants41's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Location
    New York, United States of America
    Posts
    1,073
    I liked COD until MW2 came along. I absolutely hated that game.
    Wow <3 Korra<3 Giants<3

  18. #18
    Quote Originally Posted by StormiNL View Post
    Considering the Spawn system is horrible and the campers and the ghost...this game needs no skill, lLEts say I fire 3 rounds in someone his chest he should die as wear i get shit once in my back and i die Instantly even though I was the one who shoots first what is with this bullshit?


    Second the camping on Call off duty people consider it pro where it means yo uare realy shit that is all third the spawn system is horrible having people spawn right behind you kill you straight away last time i heard we made the spawn system work you wont or can see for the first 3 seconds whe nspawning, qell fuck right off.
    Just play planetside 2 its better than any other FPS out. Its also free.

  19. #19
    Stood in the Fire Mongler's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Location
    The ruins of Installation 04
    Posts
    369
    In my opinion, and remember this is my opinion - Call of Duty 4: Modern Warfare will forever remain the best CoD game that has ever hit any console. It was just perfect in my eyes. Besides the M16 being a bit overpowered, every gun had it's strengths, and it wasn't too bogged down with the extreme amount of attachments/killing spree perks that later came with MW2 and 3. The maps are some of the most memorable and well made maps I have ever played in a multiplayer game, and this was reflected in MW2 when they came out with exact duplicates of some MW maps. Gametypes were a little on the short side, in that there wasn't too many of them, but I don't consider this a flaw. They were all terrifically well made and the balance wasn't too bad - comparing this to later MW installments along with Treyarch's stains on the series. Plus..I just don't remember another game after it where I've had so much fun playing it, throughout all the years I did. Sadly, I hate how the series has devolved into what currently stands to be called a Modern Warfare game. Here's lookin at you, MW3.

    It's one of two MP games (the other being Halo 2) that I wish would truly stand the test of time, in that they should never go offline and have continued updates to it so if people desired, they can play without fear of having to switch games because of it showing it's age and becoming outdated, but unfortunately no game can avoid this. Nostalgia is such a bittersweet thing :/
    | R.I.P. Shane del Rosario |
    - - -
    | Happiness is the best revenge |

  20. #20
    Quote Originally Posted by Voolawl View Post
    The issue with the Call of Duty games is they're tuned so that any average joe can pick up the game and do decently at it. There's a very small skill cap between the good and bad players. Not to mention the imbalanced gameplay with killstreaks and weapon modifications that only get better the more you play.

    That isn't how a game should be. Every person should be on an even ground from day 1, and wins should come from raw individual skill. If you want a truly competitive game, I would suggest Halo. The only issue is that Halo 4 has picked up on the Call of Duty gameplay style with ordinance drops, thus taking away the individual skill to add in random luck(lol Speed Boost, Pulse Grenades, Needler while the other teams sitting on damage boost and beam rifle!?).
    We're telling the same story overall, but I have a couple of disagreements. While I am not big on the ordinance drops and RNG as a whole, the RNG of weapons on the map isn't a better system. Admittedly, though I like the IDEA of having it be a system where you get what you start with and nothing else, I'd likely be unhappy with the monotony in that. I prefer the ordinance drop RNG to the map RNG though, as EVERY map seems to somehow favor one side over the other, as none are 100% symmetrical. Ordinance drops reward skill/performance, rather than which side you spawn on.

    However, the competitive balance of Halo seems to be MUCH better than Call of Duty. Overall, ordinance drops/killstreaks alone won't ruin a game, but Call of Duty piles on with a wide array of poorly-balanced weapons, perks, and attachments. In Halo, you basically have 7 primary weapons to choose from to start with, and they fill 3 roles:

    Short-to-Mid Range (Assault Rifle, Storm Rifle, Suppressor): These are good for when you're too close to aim for the head. When people are jumping in circles and stuff in close quarters, these are the best.

    Mid-to-Long Range (DMR, Covenant Carbine): If you don't have the sniper, don't fret; these two can do a decent job of counter-sniping, and I've killed MANY a sniper with the DMR.

    All-Purpose Range (Battle Rifle, Light Rifle): These two are kind of the "sweet-spot" weapons. They can perform better than the DMR at close range and the Assault Rifle at long range, but are not ideal for either scenario. They excel in mid-range fights, but can do it all.

    Now, there's something really important about those things. For starters, the differences between the weapons in each section mostly differ in aesthetics. The Assault Rifle, Storm Rifle, and Suppressor basically do the same amount of damage, but look different. The same can be said for the Battle Rifle and Light Rifle. The DMR is stronger than the Carbine, but shoots more slowly, so it's somewhat balanced in the end (I go DMR though as I think it's better than the Carbine because I'm very accurate and don't need the Carbine's higher fire rate). Overall, the weapons are balanced and aren't great in number, so the game focuses more on performance from the start.

    After that, everything's dependent on performance. The Rocket Launcher might be amazing, but you have to fight for it. The Needler might be overpowered in the open, but it's easy to counter by staying near corners. The shotgun and scattershot are great in an enclosed space, but grenades allow you to avoid danger when a camper's on the corner. There's just a great system of counterbalance for each strength of a weapon.

    As for the ordinance, it's not too bad. I'd maybe like it to be less frequent, but 2-3 per game is a solid balance, in my opinion. I can succeed with just about any weapon (I'm admittedly a much worse sniper now than a few years ago, though), so even a weak ordinance drop (you know, the Plasma Grenade-Needler-Speed Boost ones, haha) won't hurt me. The weapons only have enough ammo for maybe 3-5 kills (sometimes none, sometimes 8-10 with a skilled sniper), but they certainly can't great a huge gap the way getting a Chopper Gunner could on Nuketown (where people were so close together you could easily shoot a person with a missile before it could lock on).

    So I'll agree that there are imperfections with Halo, but they're overall very minor in terms of potential impact. The number one thing I want changed though is the removal of the Killcam. I think that thing's an abomination to competitive gaming, and the fact that it's 100% inaccurate (always nice watching a person shoot a pillar 5 feet away from you as you die) makes it even worse.

    Compare that to Call of Duty, and you see what I mean. The Killstreaks are MUCH stronger/capable of changing a game than getting a great ordinance in Halo (Chopper Gunner vs. Sniper/Shotgun, even a Rocket Launcher in Big Team). Instead of 7 primary weapon choices, you get 10 assault rifles, 9 SMGs, 4 LMGs, 4 shotguns, and 4 sniper rifles in Black Ops. Instead of 7 starter primary weapons to balance, you're talking about THIRTY-ONE. Who is legitimately going to choose the Dragunov and its goofy scope over the PSG-1 in the end? So many of the guns there are just inferior to a crazy degree that ruins any hope of using them.

    Call of Duty hurts itself with its attempt at great variety in the weapon balance department. Then, they have to have the over-the-top things like Chopper Gunner and AC-130 for Killstreaks because all of the strong weapons are already starter options. If they cut back on the weapon types to start with (maybe assault rifles and SMGs only), then made kill streaks a choice between a shotgun, sniper, and LMG, it would probably be a better-balanced system.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •