Every single Call of Duty game is bad?

[Torais]

The early ones were pretty good. Quirky at times but they had a decent story and atmosphere.

Then Modern Warfare came along and CoD turned in to...well this http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature...&v=W_zisUSfWDY . It is pretty much impossible to take it seriously any more.

[Aveyai]

I liked CoD 1-4, everything post CoD4 I've found to be garbage and I stopped buying them after MW2.

[gutnbrg]

the original COD was badass....."Grenadeeeee"

[Shakari]

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 : /

Probably the reason BOII is fractionally faster response than BF3 is there is less physics and effects going on most of the time. And its not really about response anyway as you said there both "you can't really tell" its more about game play and style and COD since MW2 has just derailed from the playablity POV if you don't like camping.

BF3 has far more scale, variety and scope than COD and has had the battlefield series has been ahead of the curve since BF2142 at least.

[Lilfrier]

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.

You can read my previous posts in here for an explanation, but Killstreaks are one of the BIG reasons that I have issues with Call of Duty. They take a small gap and make it insurmountable and reward a strong start too strongly. The games aren't honestly THAT polished, though. I didn't play MW3 beyond an hour or two to speak on it completely, but the franchise has HORRENDOUS spawning (in Domination, I shouldn't spawn at C when my team has A and B). The melee hit recognition is atrocious (and the Commando perk in MW2 made the phrase "bring a knife to a gunfight" legitimate, in the sense that you could run around with a knife and running perks and succeed).

What makes Call of Duty so popular, in my opinion (and not just mine) is that it's easy to play and easy to master. No-scoping shouldn't be a viable option, and should be limited to a reflex action when you're sniping and someone shows up behind you. You shouldn't be able to stab someone with a combat knife through the spray of an AK-47. Stabbing someone's backpack once shouldn't kill the person (I personally love the two-hit melee style of Halo).

Yes, countering a camper is easy, not disputing that. However, there shouldn't be a catered-to play style in what you consider the "elite" FPS franchises. They should cater to skill/intelligence, not spray-and-pray tactics. Call of Duty both made sniping easy (in terms of mechanics/no-scoping) and hard (with small/narrow map design). When you try to call your shooter "realistic," it shouldn't have stabbing gunmen in the face while you're being shot or hip-firing a sniper rifle as viable options. Games like Domination shouldn't end up games of Deathmatch because 4 of the 6 people on a team refuse to sacrifice a death to capture a point and win the game. Call of Duty can't fix the selfish mindset of players like that, but they can AT LEAST not reward it (which they've allegedly done with Black Ops II, to an extent).

I can deny that Call of Duty games are the best in the FPS genre all day long and not feel like I'm stretching to create a solid argument. The physics have long been questionable, and the fact that there is auto-aim is appalling (I feel the same way about it in Halo 4, for the record). If you can't aim your gun, the computer shouldn't save you from that issue. I'd have to say, if I was ranking the competitiveness/polish of FPS franchises in multiplayer, I'd go:

1. Counter-Strike
2. Halo
3. Unreal
4. Quake
5. Call of Duty

Admittedly, since #3 and #4 haven't had new installments in many years and haven't been popular on consoles (except for Unreal Championship on the first Xbox, which was one of the first Xbox LIVE shooters and preceded Halo 2), so I can't defend their rankings TOO well, but they don't have things like Killstreaks and Killcams, and they have a balanced weapon system (you all start with the same gun and have to race to/fight for the rest). Halo, I explained the balance thoroughly in another post. Counter-Strike isn't perfect either (snipers are too string, in my opinion), but the lack of any perks, Killstreaks, Killcams, or other such things make it #1 for me on the balance/polish front. The hit recognition is good (at least on PC, never trike CS:GO on Xbox), and the barebones style of play favors skill over luck more than the rest, I think.

[Shakari]

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.

Its does not reward "in close accuracy" any more than any other shooter really and it does reward camping and not open game play. Try BF3 the close combat in that is far better you can actually see where weapon choice effects results and the tactics your team choose is very quickly make or break.

I have always loved the single player of COD just as the single player of the BF series has always been poor relatively. I do not hate COD multiplayer for the sake of it. I do not mine activision etc I don't mind them one bit so not on that band wagon. I dislike the multiplayer because its to crowded and lacking variety in to many ways for my liking. Its not well thought out in many ways and only seems to cater well for kids who just like to run around mindlessly shooting ppl with out tactics or thought. Thats just my 2 cents ofc.

They could release new game every 3 months or 3 years for all I care if they keep doing the multiplayer the way its has been I have not bought one since MW2 which I loved the single player on the hardest setting and the story. But thats where the rot set in for multiplayer for me and I never bought MW1.

[Harry Botter]

I think people who hate on CoD are cute. Most spew hate and rage at Activision, when all they're doing is giving gamers what they want. Gamers are scared to spend $60 or more on a game they might not like, vs spending the same amount on a game they will more than likely enjoy. Likewise gaming companies are afraid to dump tons of money into new IP's that gamers may not like. So the companies make a game that will make them shit tons of money. Also I haven't seen many people that really know why they don't CoD, it's like it's the cool thing to do because others are doing it.

[edgecrusher]

Probably the reason BOII is fractionally faster response than BF3 is there is less physics and effects going on most of the time. And its not really about response anyway as you said there both "you can't really tell" its more about game play and style and COD since MW2 has just derailed from the playablity POV if you don't like camping.

BF3 has far more scale, variety and scope than COD and has had the battlefield series has been ahead of the curve since BF2142 at least.

MW3, not BOII. And while you can't "tell", it's one of those things that does actually affect your enjoyment of a game. One of the reasons Blizzard games are widely enjoyed and praised is because of how insanely tight the controls are. The games are hyperresponsive, and that in turn makes you feel more in control of your characters.

I wouldn't venture a guess as to why MW3 was so responsive, I'm simply commenting that it's an indication of how well made the game is. BF3 definitely has more scale and variety, but I'm just talking about the responsiveness of the games.

[Lilfrier]

I think people who hate on CoD are cute. Most spew hate and rage at Activision, when all they're doing is giving gamers what they want. Gamers are scared to spend $60 or more on a game they might not like, vs spending the same amount on a game they will more than likely enjoy. Likewise gaming companies are afraid to dump tons of money into new IP's that gamers may not like. So the companies make a game that will make them shit tons of money. Also I haven't seen many people that really know why they don't CoD, it's like it's the cool thing to do because others are doing it.

There are plenty of folks like that, no doubt. However, I feel the need/desire to state how I'm not in that boat. I liked MW2 at the time it was out, but Black Ops (and then going back to MW2) helped show me how bad MW2 was. I only got MW3 because it was free (GameStop was doing a buy two, get one free sale, and I bought Skyrim and Assassin's Creed: Revelations, so I figured I'd pick MW3 as my free game and give it a shot), but after an hour, I sold it to my cousin for $40. I'll not be buying anything from Infinity Ward in the Call of Duty franchise again. When I talk badly about Call of Duty, I do it about Modern Warfare 2 and Modern Warfare 3, and I go on a way-too-long rant about those games' issues.

I point out issues with the franchise as a whole, but the problems aren't as bad in Black Ops. Black Ops doesn't take them to a degree that ruins the game like with Modern Warfare's last 2 games. My complaints cover both why I will not buy from Infinity Ward and how Treyarch's games can improve. There's a point at which the problems with Black Ops might be bad enough to where I won't buy those games either, but right now, I limit my complaints to the "constructive criticism" realm, rather than the "this made me stop buying from you" realm Infinity Ward has gotten.

I certainly don't throw my beliefs by the wayside when I take a stand. Like you say people won't risk paying $60 on a game they might not like, and I'm somewhat in that boat. However, that's what rentals are for. But then I also won't just "settle" for a rehashed game for $60 and pretend I'm happy when I'm not (I think I did that a bit with [I]MW2/I], but there also wasn't an alternative to show its flaws at the time). Ever since EA instituted that dumb Online Pass, I've refused to buy from them. They decided to take the "screw the consumer" route to making more money, rather than working (or competing) with GameStop in the used game realm, so I won't give them my money.

It sucks that so many people are the "sheep" with the hate on Call of Duty, because if they'd legitimately defend their opinions, maybe Infinity Ward would listen and improve their product.

[Agoonga]

My first CoD was 4 and I liked it. I got bored with the ones after that.

[Tuulikki 27]

and the fact that there is auto-aim is appalling (I feel the same way about it in Halo 4, for the record). If you can't aim your gun, the computer shouldn't save you from that issue.

CoD's BO2 Has an auto aim perk, lights the guy up, thru walls, shows them to you everywhere. Almost auto aim but still not. I do not like it, makes it way to easy, I dont use this option and wish it was not there.
Halo 4 has nothing close to this, it has a slight aim assist (there is a dif my friend) Where as it pretty much just makes your aimer turn red on enemies and slighty bigger, if you are up close and face to face the aimer it's self can move a couple degrees.

Neither is auto aim, and Halo's is leaps less horrible then CoD's


Also, got into CoD with CoD2, loved them all uptil World at War (this is my fav actually) then they just seem to have gotten stale for me, I am also one of those people upset Black ops was not Vietnam like expected. and BO2 *shudder* even farther away.

[ohshift]

Modern Warfare 1 was good, mainly because it was original and had some nice tricks.
After that, every single sequel was an exact copy paste from MW1, including graphics, plot and gameplay. Also, the 9 years old kids ruining the already braindead multiplayer. And now, every single FPS is the same concept, aka W+M1.

[obdigore]

CoD's BO2 Has an auto aim perk, lights the guy up, thru walls, shows them to you everywhere. Almost auto aim but still not. I do not like it, makes it way to easy, I dont use this option and wish it was not there.

First of all, you clearly have not even played Blops2. It is not a perk but a sight you put on the gun that highlights people through walls within 25 feet (~7.6 meters) if they are stationary. That is neither auto aim nor an aimbot. It is specifically designed to give you an edge on camping little bastards.

Halo 4 has nothing close to this, it has a slight aim assist (there is a dif my friend) Where as it pretty much just makes your aimer turn red on enemies and slighty bigger, if you are up close and face to face the aimer it's self can move a couple degrees.

Neither is auto aim, and Halo's is leaps less horrible then CoD's

You can 'sticky targetting' off in COD. It felt the same way to me in Blops as Halo4 with the dragging of the reticule to keep someone in target.

Also, got into CoD with CoD2, loved them all uptil World at War (this is my fav actually) then they just seem to have gotten stale for me, I am also one of those people upset Black ops was not Vietnam like expected. and BO2 *shudder* even farther away.

I find it hilarious that so many people liked W@W when it was at least the second worst COD ever made (COD3 holds that title).

The biggest problems that COD currently has is that in their engine you shoot and look from the very top of the head of the character model, which makes 'head glitching' the worst problem in the game, by far. The next problem is no-scoping but that is also related to the engine.

I think Blops fixed a lot of issues with the series, such as nerfing the hell out of 'panic knife' and adding the MMS so you can see campers through walls. They also made Ghost only protect you if you are moving at least at a walk and toned down a lot of the killstreaks.

[Mormolyce]

Mmm, I haven't played enough of the series to really comment - COD1+xpac, COD2 and started playing MW1 a few weeks ago. Only played the single player so far as well. The first COD was solid, had good bits and dull bits. COD2 was a good game but a bit long, near the end I was getting a bit sick of it. How many WWII shooters can you play really? They're all basically the same. I have a softer spot for Medal of Honor Allied Assault because I played that first, but if I'd played COD first maybe I'd have liked it more.

In MW1 I'm really starting to feel the infinite spawn mechanic. It was a nuisance in earlier CODs but man is it frustrating in MW1. I like to take my time in shooters, use a bit of strategy to clear out defences before I rush ahead but with super fast infinite spawns it's kind of pointless because by the time you've killed the guy on the roof and the guy in the window and run into the building they're already respawned. And you don't really kill enemies by shooting them, you kill them by walking into the house or whatever the next objective is, and your teammates wipe them all out in seconds and BAM no more respawns. Just feels really stupid.

The graphics and weapons and all that other stuff is really good though... I'd be having a lot of fun if the respawns weren't giving me terrible fatigue about the whole thing.

[pacox]

I wouldn't even call COD bad. Its a fun game to play with friends and just messing around.The formula is bad. Pretty much the same guy each year under the guise of alternating franchises. The community is horrible (apparently my name is the N-word). And it has singlehandedly watered down the FPS genre. Half of the COD players think that COD is the only FPS out there, any other one is horrible or a COD clone. As a gamer (on consoles) you either have to settle for COD or another FPS with a smaller community which eventually fizzles out after a couple of weeks.

[obdigore]

I wouldn't even call COD bad. Its a fun game to play with friends and just messing around.The formula is bad. Pretty much the same guy each year under the guise of alternating franchises. The community is horrible (apparently my name is the N-word). And it has singlehandedly watered down the FPS genre. Half of the COD players think that COD is the only FPS out there, any other one is horrible or a COD clone. As a gamer (on consoles) you either have to settle for COD or another FPS with a smaller community which eventually fizzles out after a couple of weeks.

There are still people playing both Halo4 and Battlefield3. I still put them in occasionally.

[wynterlyn]

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.

Well I know what you mean but it isn't what you think. The thing with COD games is that the multiplayer mode frequently depends on how fast each person's computer can process information and the speed of their internet.

For example when I am running into a doorway, on my screen or my side I have no view of anyone in front of me. However, after getting shot, from the kill cam you can actually see that someone say you 2 secs earlier and a second can actually make a big difference in COD.

So it works when you shoot someone as well. Even though you shot someone multiple times, the game doesn't register it cause he has already fired his shot and when the system processes it you have already died. However, I've noticed that there are frequent bugs with the hit box in that bullet damage often don't register on contact.

[Voidgazer]

No. The first CoD was ok. Actually MP was even better than in MOHAA.

[Melfion]

I absolutely loved COD 4, but lost interest after MW 2. The storylines in MW2/3 were pretty decent but COD 4 will always be the best of the lot for me.

[Cludo]

Welcome to every modern cod game ever!

I have no idea why I buy every single CoD release, yet I hate the series so much and stop playing the game within the first 2 weeks.