Forums → Games → The Games that Killed Call of Duty

While Call of Duty is in my opinion ( keyword, opinion ) a lousy series

No no...it IS a lousy series. Same game each time, and campaign mode is just terrible in each of them (you can literally just hide the entire time and have your team take out the bad guys...all you have to do is make sure to move forward every now and then)

As for it being dead? Sadly...it isn't. Though it seems (keyword: seems) to be dieing (albeit, rather slowly)

No no...it IS a lousy series.

Never try and correct a sentence again. Not only was it explicitly stated as an opinion, but it also stated that it IS a lousy series. Your demeanor suggests the the person is wrong and you're stating the facts -- which on a topic subject to opinions, is impossible. . . then just add that you're repeating the same thing as our buddy bigjacob up there and . . .
age=1&tbnh=157&tbnw=209&start=0&ndsp=26&ved=1t:429,r:1,s:0,i:76&tx=76&ty=81&biw=1600&bih=887" alt="http://www.google.co.uk/imgres?num=10&hl=en&safe=active&tbm=isch&tbnid=Zf5jVI2Xr80l8M:&imgrefurl=http://www.funnyjunk.com/comment/anonymous/content/3518575/-5/1/parent_id/20/2&imgurl=http://static1.fjcdn.com/comments/Picard%252Bis%252Ban%252Banimal%252B_e4b98fb66e9de49556dda7ddf270cc3e.jpg&w=450&h=300&ei=SdpEULmDEtKS0QXA34DgDQ&zoom=1&iact=rc&dur=305&sig=113778178783387060590&ampage=1&tbnh=157&tbnw=209&start=0&ndsp=26&ved=1t:429,r:1,s:0,i:76&tx=76&ty=81&biw=1600&bih=887" />

At most, you can berate me for failing to have that Picard Facepalm in. I've never gotten down the Images for Armor Games. :O

As for it being dead? Sadly...it isn't. Though it seems (keyword: seems) to be dieing

Get out if you're going to have that sardonic attitude to someone who didn't do anything (at all) wrong.

This topic is about the games that killed cod.

I'm glad you explained what "Killed" in this sense means.

Meaning the games that where more cooler then Cod like classics.

Cool isn't a term I'd rather use for this. Otherwise most hack 'n' slashes take the cake on this one. . . I don't know, but a lot of games I'd rate over Call of Duty that I don't even consider good, or 'cool' in any way.

Which games would YOU pick?

Whilst I think this pertains to the stickied Call of Duty Thread, I mays well partake as I've typed this much.
Armies of Exigo
Fable 1
Magicka
Amnesia: The Dark Descent (and likely soon to be Amnesia: A Machine for Pigs)
Saints Row: The Third (the fact that it exaggerates most aspects just makes this game brilliant, admittedly)
Tribes: Ascend
League of Legends (Despite terrible balance and other issues involved)

These aren't what I'd consider obvious. I'd bet a lot of you haven't heard of a few of these games, and the other are more miscellaneous except perhaps League of Legends. . . although for any who's known me long enough they'd know that I'm not fond of that game either, so bringing that up may be a surprise.

Those are games I'd definitely say rate higher than Call of Duty after 4, and even CoD4 was pretty poor due to its simplicity.

Mine is the first and second max payne game from 2001-08

Not a fan of the third one? I'll take a shot and say you was influenced either by Sir Totalbiscuit or one of his many followers, at least a little in the case of Max Payne 3. That said, I wouldn't say it's a bad thing (depends which followers you're talking about).

Games that killed CoD? I wouldn't say a franchise that sells millions every year is dead.

There seems to be particular issue with reading what people are actually saying, today.
Whilst semi colons would seriously help BaNgUlol's (mature name, it seems) statements (e.g This topic is about the games that killed cod; meaning the games that where more cooler then Cod like classics.) I would still think that you can interpret it in the same way I did being as it's not really that ambiguous :O

I'll just refer again to the Stickied CoD Thread. This one is redundant as it doesn't instigate much conversation as this is just a "Voice your personal X" thread and no real conflict or discussion can be made unless two people find their significant other because they both enjoyed a really old game when it was first out.
Age of Empires II, anybody?

- H

Do you know what's more annoying than fanboys? Anti-fanboys. They're like fanboys, except they go around hating on a particular game instead of praising it. Fanboys and anti-fanboys are annoying because they confuse opinion with fact, and their hate has more to do with conformity than actual personal preference.

Well, I appreciate that I dislike any term with "fan" involved being as it's derived from "Fanatic", it's no surprise that many 'fans' can behave like that. But attempt to destroy me, in an intellectual battle, if you want.

1. Call of Duty isn't dead. Nothing "killed" the game series.

Again, the OP defined what he meant by "killed". Why is everyone sticking to their own definition when one has just been made specific to this thread? I mean sure, just point out that it's not dead but you got the message very clearly enough.

2. Stop saying "It's the same game every time." Although this is a perfectly logical reason to dislike a game personally, keep in mind that some people PREFER playing a game with few changes, and there is NOTHING wrong with that.

Except there is, in terms of CoD. Being overrated and very popular that means that it holds the reins in much of the gaming industry. When people discovered that the formula of the same thing with minor changes worked, because a demographic ate it up, spending £30 on the initial game that was as different as any content patch and then even MORE SO on DLC, it caused quakes throughout the entire industry.

Oh, and it still does. How often now does the Business Model of a game come into your mind now? There's always cosmetic DLC, or subscription based fees for some things that aren't even MMORPGs anymore (however, this model is thankfully being phased out). It's damaged the industry for the consumer to a level that is unacceptable, especially given that prior to this people got on perfectly fine with just purchasing the game and any expansion packs (read: Age of Empires series before the MMORTS). Maybe if the industry started with this, it would be acceptable -- but it's degraded, and the only reason there would be "required" money (which there really isn't) would be for graphical issues. . . gameplay rarely suffers when it comes to people who know efficiency or are really good at making games.

A lot of people who say they hate CoD are full of crap.

I am not one of them. Well, not entirely full of crap, and usually not on this subject.

I believe they don't really hate the game series as much as they let on,

What's your point, here? You're making a statement against people that doesn't really do anything for anyone. I mean, I could see someone trying to reference this in a future conflict in regards to CoD and just say "Haha, you're one of them!" or something . . . in which case, it's just devolved into this pretty generic, illogical and digressed argument that ceases to have any gains.

I believe they just hate the fact that it's so much more popular than what they believe it should be.

For me, it's the result of it being the lead and what it's done as a result. Oh, and because they make a game less effectively than a few Indie Titles I've seen. Then they try practically robbing you by selling Map DLCs that contain maps from previous games -- excluding a modding system (Which was present in CoD4 and as a result its sequels should contain a good feature) to limit your ability to synthesize your own and increase the longevity of a game, and et cetera.
They intentionally harm the game for their own benefits. It should be the definition of what a "Cash Cow" is. There's nothing in it for CoD but just that.

If you think CoD is over rated, great, but keep in mind that over rated does not necisarily mean "crappy".

The issue is CoD still is crappy in either way you put it. The mechanical design isn't nearly as good as it should be -- I've expected better from, I'll say again, Indie Titles. The gameplay is just a facade, baring no depth in gameplay that you can't achieve with any other game, but going no deeper and the graphical effects mays well be non-existant for a more "Professional Gaming" feel.

For anyone who has used Steam a lot, I think you know where I'm coming from when I say you could expect to buy a game with the quality of CoD for around £8-£10. Excluding on sale.

I think it's more wise to allow a thread bashing a game series to live than to have everyone bring CoD fans down in the sticky thread.

Where's the logic in that? The only thing that should be able to bring a CoD-fan down in any CoD controversey should be a valid point that undermines their 'beliefs'. Which has already been done. Aside from that there's just mindless hating that needs to be dealt with -- but that's just the same as mindless praising, it's the same idiocy and just because one is (supposedly) positive doesn't mean it should be left alone.

They're like fanboys, except they go around hating on a particular game instead of praising it.

Except anti-fanboys tend to have a more logical mindset, and that's from both experience and the fact that angry or negative thoughts help provoke said thoughts, as ironic as that is.

Fanboys and anti-fanboys are annoying because they confuse opinion with fact,

Except you're just targetting people here, and not the points provided.

and their hate has more to do with conformity than actual personal preference.

Not the haters. They don't conform, but some of them find the idea of "Not conforming" pretty good, for some reason. The lack of conformity and the defiance to generally accepted things shouldn't just be regarded as someone attempting to be a rebel. Oftentimes, they have good points (even if they can't express them that well).

Ultimately, you've kind of just berated a fairly large portion of the Armor Games VG population with no real gains rather than saying this is a cage for everyone who wants to hate on the game which is just an exceptionally silly idea. People who like CoD will clearly steer away and people who dislike or are more tentative will give this one a shot. It's not a good idea at all and being sensitive to people's "feelings" on an online forum where there is ALWAYS debate (that was once being hammered down upon by myself and ChillzMaster, that was the most brutal time) sounds like an almost puny attempt to just shy away from just having any form of constructive discussion.
Constructive, yes. Because with debates on CoD where the opposition has good points, it spawns ideas about the whole gaming industry, the mindset of gaming and the introduction that "You play it because it's fun" or "You buy it because you liked it" ideologies are wrong. I did not say those ideas are right, although I do stick by them, since there's philosophy involved. But no, that's just overlooked by the vast majority of people and in attempts to bring it up in times before it was shut down by being called a hater or what you'd define as "an anti-fanboy".

Also, for Assassin's Creed. I couldn't play more than what? 5 Missions of it? It was the same formula throughout the game except they'd change the "Pickpocket" segment of one with an "Eavesdrop" segment for the other. Very monotonous, and thus I stopped looking into it in terms of future Assassin's Creed games which I'd imagine follow a pretty similar thing considering the Assassin looks the same, usually baring a familiar arsenal of weapons.

Oh, and philosophies about being cost-efficient with money when it comes to games. Countless times I'm asked "Why don't you get X?" and I wouldn't have any objection directly towards a specific game (Deus Ex: Human Revolution or Minecraft) but I would say that I've already got enough. . . I mean, I really have, and most people do too.
I could get on with just League of Legends and Starcraft II if need be. But even so, I've got Bad Company 2, Battlefield 3, Age of Mythology, Tribes: Ascend, Starcraft 1 (+ Brood War), DOTA 2 (Spectator mode only I'm afraid :O ), Starvoid (Indie Title, not too bad), Lord of the Rings Online, Saint's Row: The Third (one of my latest purchases during a sale, very nice £7.50 spent) and Nexuiz installed on my computer right now, at my disposal, right now.

But I don't need nearly any of them. Granted, a few of them were obtained years ago and my Starcraft 1 Purhcase was more of a "Paying towards the eSport" than trying to get any entertainment, but either way, there's really only a need for a PC gamer to have 2 games if they can get into them and they can take that kind of time (However if you get Skyrim and Deus Ex, don't try and last with just them, ahaha).

Cost efficient with CoD would be having just one, and even then, I question that. You don't necessarily need to buy it to know whether it'd be good or not - it's quite easy to (accurately) judge games based on the gameplay you've seen or heard of, though it's always best done watching it of course. Seeing the blandness of CoD and almost certainly the amount of "Imbalanced" or as some will call "Gay" things on there could be enough to just put you off.

- H

This topic is about the games that killed cod.

>implying Call of Duty has died
>implying a popularity that big can pop like a balloon outside of a truly atrocious release

Highfire

Well you crazy Brit, you're back at it. I can't compete with that wall of text in my current state, but I'll see what I can't contribute.

Stop saying "It's the same game every time." Although this is a perfectly logical reason to dislike a game personally, keep in mind that some people PREFER playing a game with few changes, and there is NOTHING wrong with that.

Yes there is. If developers realize they can fill their pockets with the fruits of, well, lack of labor, stagnation in quality is the obvious final product.

It is a shame of this world that the most profitable game franchise in existence commits the worst absolute atrocity in the industry. Say what you want about EA, but at least they publish high-quality products, regardless of their Project 10-dollar bull-feces. Tweaking a few elements here and there doesn't cut it for a sequel (See: Assassin's Creed, Darksiders), it promotes laziness, an attraction towards wanting a bigger wallet than a bigger experience. Games need to have a soul, a drive behind them to be able to hold up to the masterpieces of yesteryear.

But, uh, you're a mod. Why aren't you locking this thread, when the CoD? Put it here sticky exists?

-Chillz

However, this thread is redicilous, so I'm going to do my best to destroy anyone who posts here in intellectual battle.

Ah, and so the games begin, and remember, may the odds be ever in your favor.

No but seriously COD isn't dead it just has to share some of it's fans with other big titles which have grown in the past years.

Never try and correct a sentence again. Not only was it explicitly stated as an opinion, but it also stated that it IS a lousy series. Your demeanor suggests the the person is wrong and you're stating the facts

I should explain myself here...I wasn't being serious in changing his opinion to fact..I was just joking around. (Further explanation, my friends and I, if we are talking about something that we have an opinion on and someone else agrees, we tend to correct their opinion as if it was something that should have been stated as a fact.)

Get out if you're going to have that sardonic attitude to someone who didn't do anything (at all) wrong

Again..I need to explain. I did not mean to mock him at all...I really intended to make my sentence with a way to point out the word "seems" so that I wasn't coming off as making my statement on it's decline a definitive statement. (I actually took some time to try and think of a different way of doing so, but was short on time so I just left it the way it was)

------------

As for what I said on my opinion for disliking the game, I should revise that too. The campaign (as NoName himself admitted) has the same game elements in each game. But the thing that makes me not very fond of the games at all is that fact that in the campaign, you literally can do nothing but move forward and hide, and yet still beat the game (except for maybe 1 or 2 missions). There is just no challenge in it.

Now my favorite series, Dynasty Warriors, I will admit has the same game elements in each game. But this is the way those games are supposed to be...for each game is about the same historical event. But each game (like sports games, for example) build off the last and tries to better its predecessor and become a newer game with a better feel or new look. The game (Dynasty Warriors) is supposed to essentially be the same game, just improved upon (like Xbox-Xbox360 or PS-PS2-PS3)...while CoD is the same franchise, but with different games (Black ops, Modern Warfare, normal CoD with past wars). In each game the bad guys think the same, your allies think the same, and you are told to do everything while you could really just sit back and let your team do the work.

And I will admit, most of my disliking for the franchise comes from my belief that they are way too popular. But my reasoning behind that, my core foundation for my dislike for the franchise, is because I find it, in my opinion, to be a bad game (I see it the same as being given a game, told that in the game you get to kill a lot of bad guys like a total hero and in awesome and cool ways...but when you start to play the game the only thing you are able to do is move your guy in one direction, while a bunch of random stuff around you kills bad guys for you)

Again..I need to explain.

I left an "if" in there just to make sure, given what you said before that I was convinced. Sorry xD

you literally can do nothing but move forward and hide, and yet still beat the game (except for maybe 1 or 2 missions). There is just no challenge in it.

One thing in terms of gaming that has come about (and probably partially in credit to Call of Duty at least) is that they're beginning to become much more Linear. Straightforward -- you don't get many choices in CoD and certainly not very impacting ones.

Oh, and then they try to sell the ability to change the story how you want (to some degree) as an actual feature, just because it's in an FPS. :/ As far as I'd say FPSs should go, campaigns are entirely unnecessary unless they prove to be some form of effective tutorial for you when you play Multiplayer. The "old classics" didn't have strong singleplayers -- and I'd attribute some of the reason for it would be that they didn't waste time on it because there's little you can actually do for an FPS singleplayer as it's dwarfed by any other genre.

But this is the way those games are supposed to be...for each game is about the same historical event.

I appreciate games that include historical accuracy or realism over balance / gameplay, if that's the intent (which in Dynasty Warriors I believe they struck a good balance), but I still think as sequels go they should have some pretty strong innovation or straight-up change.

The game (Dynasty Warriors) is supposed to essentially be the same game, just improved upon (like Xbox-Xbox360 or PS-PS2-PS3)

But that isn't a good thing, really. There are still changes you can make on Dynasty Warriors on a per-game basis to spruce up or change the gameplay whilst retaining that old feeling and output of knowledge.
Or, you could do it as DLC, where you're paying more accurately for what you're getting (which as you say, is the same thing, but enhanced and of course with slightly different maps / missions) and in a more formally accurate way (in that you're paying for an add-on, not an entirely new game).

Better have a bowl prepared.

Cereal or popcorn?

No but seriously COD isn't dead it just has to share some of it's fans with other big titles which have grown in the past years.

Can everyone please stop repeating this error and using their own definition of "Killed" when the OP had already said what he meant by that word?

- H

but I still think as sequels go they should have some pretty strong innovation or straight-up change.

Dynasty Warriors actually does that..in the newest one they added in a new faction to play as (the faction was apart of the historical event..but wasn't one of the main 3 factions people focus on...it was one that came about directly after another was taken over)...they also have changed up the way the fighting system works (6th one), ability to change weapons (newest one), playing through the entire kingdoms battles instead of one person's battles (4th and newest ones...newer one's way of doing it is different though), etc. So they actually attempt to give the games strong improvements

While with CoD, on the other hand, the biggest change I've seen with their campaigns has been the era you are playing in. I wouldn't mind them if they actually made changes between separate games (like maybe one where you patrol an area and make sure everything is at peace..if something happens you go and quell it..and the story line can be initiated GTA style, where you go and talk to someone, like a superior officer, and they give you missions...that'd be an enjoyable game and a big step in the innovating direction for their games), but like I said before, they don't. Nor does it seem like they even really attempt to