Forums → Games → The Call of Duty series: Getting worse?

BF3 FOR THE WIN

Yeah the battlefield series is actually consisten and very realistic for a video game. I switched to playing battlefield a long time ago. Like after I tried playin mw3

Yeah I have to agree, hackers are also ruining the series for everyone.

Unless you have PunkBuster like Call of Duty 4 did. No harm came from using it (except minor issues running the game if you didn't get the PB fix) and it annihilated any hope from hacking a PB server, just like it does in Battlefield 2 (& BFBC2 / BF3) servers.

Games don't have to be radically different to be good.

If you compare Call of Duty then it's 'a sequel doesn't have to be radically different to be good', correct?
In which case, it's easy, too easy, to argue that the Call of Duty games lately have not been sufficiently different. Too little new features have been added and a lot of them aren't worth credit. Other times they have actually removed good traits of the previous game and if you have a sequel that declines in some areas, whilst going forward in others - that doesn't necessarily mean it's doing even 'okay'. I don't see Call of Duty as something that got better in some areas as it is.

Look at the Pokemon games, they're relatively the same every game with only a few minor changes.

Each 'series' is almost identical - you're not really intended to buy both Blue and Red, Ruby and Sapphire, LeafGreen and FireRed. The basic formula is the same but they've made as substantial-as-possible updates in each 'season' as it's grown, but there isn't much further they can go with it really. It's why I think it would've been better to have had something like Pokémon Collosseum or something with more possible variety.

To stay on topic -- Call of Duty as a shooter, or even the formula of shooter that it is, does -not- have that problem. Crysis 2 did far better just by adding the ideas of a Nanosuit - they didn't need to include their killstreaks, insane manoeuvrability (that goes hand-in-hand with the Nanosuit I suppose) and beautiful aesthetics / graphics.

They pushed it far far further then they needed to and they didn't try to spoon-feed.

People enjoy the formula and gameplay elements that made the originals so fun.

The fundamentals to Call of Duty is repetition and constant badge-awards with ease. Fast pace with little relative skill in video games and really just Scoot and Shoot (or Run 'n' Gun or w/e else you want to call it).

something with only enough differences to keep each game feeling relatively new.

Anyone with respectable intelligence would be able to see just how generic and bland each continuing Call of Duty game is. It can barely feel new thanks to just the graphics -- weapon play and what else is involved can hardly be considered an effective guise. Yet, people still fall for it.

Each game improves kill streaks, guns, perks, and other minor details,

It's hardly an improvement a lot of the time. Sure, sometimes they give you something that is undoubtedly beneficial to a player but if you want to improve perks, guns and killstreaks -- or any other minor details -- you add a patch and balance the game.

Not to mention the absolutely abysmal business model that it's became. The price you pay for a DLC? Bare in mind - one of the MW2 DLC was for old CoD4 maps. You know what I get on a PUNKBUSTER-SUPPORTED Call of Duty 4 server if I activated the filter to search for mods? I get MW2 maps, for free.
I get zombies, for free.
I get Obscurity, for free. (Blood in this mod was real, and it doesn't affect only the knifer - if you're near the victim your vision can very well be impaired and it is actually a massive deal sometimes)
I get Paintball, for free.
(Links from Youtube, enjoy)

just understand that there is a demand for this game. There is a market for it.

I've already talked about this in previous posts on different threads.

better than the one before.

From game-to-game perspective? I'm not really sure -- I rate them as pretty bad nonetheless for bland gameplay and exceptionally poor balance, but from a game-to-sequel perspective, the work done is atrocious.

i would like to say that the most important part of the CoD series is the maps, which would you rather pay $60 for; a game with everything you wanted to change whatever but just an open field completely flat nothing to hide behind no structure whatsoever; or would you rather have wonderful maps but only have pistols and no perks or killstreaks; which would you rather play?

That's a dull exaggeration and you should never use it again. Why? Because how do you explain 'graphics'? Would you say that maps don't matter because you can't see them anyway if you don't have graphics?

Multiplayer Maps will always have some depth -- I think the maps of CoD can usually be better but whatever; I dislike most of the later series as it is.

they don't seem to understand how important they are, for some reason my brother thinks that graphics are just as important as maps, and they are, to a degree but it gets to a point where it's for show

If you can effectively see what it's trying to show you, then it's good enough graphics. Maps are far far more dynamic and there's never really a point where it's "for show" -- perhaps a certain part of the map might be, or several. The actual layout and foundation of the map however is the most integral part we're actually talking about here, though, right?

Also - people are idiots, it's no surprise that they vastly underestimate the importance of maps. Overrate graphics, and especially overrate trailers, basing the entire game on it without any forward thought.

And usually I find that these people play CoD. Just speaking from experience -- I'm not making a generalization.
Some people who play CoD and 'defend' it from being a 'bad game' seem to love the argument of "Well if it's such a bad game, why do so many people play it?".

The process of making them understand that many many people are idiots is pretty difficult. Especially considering their horrendous bias towards the game and, it seems, humanity in general (which is weird because I find myself, on average, treating people much better).

Maybe I should refrain from using this form of argument - it's quite a bad move to pull when you guys think you could be under the threat of me calling you an idiot and therefore your argument is invalid.
No, I won't. >.> If you have a point then raise it -- but think about what could be said to counter it first, please. It's happened far too often where I've put forward something like this and I am greeted with the same 'oint' I dealt with a month ago. It's tedious to repeat.

Yeah I mean what would u rather pay for: good gameplay and okay graphics or good graphics and okay gameplay?

Why do that?
Why is there only two choices? I'm sorry -- but that's a pretty bad way of trying to put it.
You know what I want? Good graphics & good gameplay. 'Good' meaning "above sufficient for carrying out the desired effects in the game".

Am I asking for too much? (That third video is a spoiler for Crysis 2 - don't watch if you don't want it, but I'll tell you that the story is worthy of credit in Crysis 2, and also, needless to say, its soundtrack)

Oh, I forgot something?

You can also find some pretty hilarious videos for Amnesia. Not Safe for Work, I'd imagine. Don't underestimate the fear inspired by this game.

If you think that any of these graphics are sub-par, or not 'above sufficient' then I'll say your standards are seriously too high.
You know what IS SUFFICIENT?
This.

You can tell what's going on. If you can't, sort your eyes out (or learn the game first, because I know this game and I understand the graphics completely).

Hell, something like this has only very recently been 'cancelled' as a sport. It was an eSport for around 12 years, released in 1999. It looked like this.

All this videos are in YouTube. If you like, then good. If not? Well, explain.

Point being - there are games with brilliant gameplay and great graphics. I'd consider League of Legends a game of good, or great gameplay and good graphics -- it's far more than is necessary to understand what is going on, and the aesthetic is really nice too. That being said, it's not suitable to be a competitive game as Riot intends to push it to; it's balance isn't there and in order to keep a strong playerbase Riot Games is bringing about extraneously prodigious changes and additions to the game that doesn't let a metagame settle. It's incredibly harmful to the professional players.

So, who knows where my #1 medal is going to?
I'm not even going to give it away, yet. xD

that like a new game to be the same as a previous one.

Then stick to the old game. It's not difficult.

Still it is one of the few FPS in the world i can play without getting bored.

Oh -- and this -- how many times have I heard a CoD player talk about the 'old days when Crysis 1 was new' and crap? How many games (nevermind just FPSs) have you played and I'm pretty sure the vast majority are mainstream.

I can't tell you I'm a very varied gamer but I don't underestimate what there is out there and it's just annoying to speak from such a point of -solely- experience as if it means anything. We don't know what you've experienced and I can't say I'd agree with you if you experienced any Crysis game, any Battlefield game, Tribes: Ascend, Team Fortress 2 or any other FPS I've played and said you was less entertained by it than Call of Duty.

If you are not a teenager

*Teenager* Just saying. There's nothing about CoD that relates with age, aside from the actual violence. Anyone who actually looks at what they're doing -- repeatedly over and over again in Call of Duty can see how frivolous it is. There's no depth or difficulty involved, it's nothing to be proud of.

Do teenagers do this? Of course not, but a surprising amount of adults don't as well.

and if they don't like what the developers are doing they won't produce it.

And you know what the two head developers of Infinity Ward did? They snuck in some very contentious content to be found so the beatdown on Modern Warfare 2 could be found. What a childish and pathetic way to 'get back' at your publisher. Activision is the big corporation and the guys that publish the games -- most people would point to them but there's a point where I think the head developer of IW should've actually been impaled for the offence he intentionally created and the amount of entertainment he stripped, just for his own 'gain'.

I have faith that Treyarch will deliver with Black Ops 2.

Why? Black Ops was a technical bust more than anything - it's not so much a job of judging balance but judging whether the game can play properly enough so you can judge balance. Hit registration was utterly ridiculous and trying to snipe was absurdly stupid (also credit to map creation). Hit registration alone was a massive issue but then considering what little they added (aside from maps -- although they come new in different patches that Starcraft II sends out, yet they want us to pay DLC for ONLY maps and not balance? Good job) then it makes me think that it was a complete rip off.

And if you dare put forward Dedicated Servers as a 'lus' then just please get out. Call of Duty is a prequel to Black Ops in the entire series and had Dedicated Servers -- they didn't take a step forward, they just didn't take a step back.

I believe so.

They care about it enough to make sure it is strongly balanced and that my shots will actually regis--.

That question would've been rhetorical, but I need not finish it, do I?

Commando. Your soldier can somehow lunge ten feet with his knife and kill the enemy. Why would they think that'd be a good idea?

You know in CoD4 you have some decently skills players (far above average in any other CoD game) but if I play Hardcore and try and knife, then go into non-Hardcore and try to knife I can get 30 to 0 K/D?

That was with a maximum of about 3 feet reach. I was proficient at knifing and in MW2 and Black Ops it's the same without a perk to extend it. Knifing is kind of imbalanced as it is, increasing the range just made it even more frivolous.

I wouldn't be surprised if MW4 or whatever it'll be called had a deathstreak that allowed you to control an AC-130.

Stop being so extravagant. You did it with Commando and 10 feet, now you're doing it with Deathstreaks -- it makes your point sound all the more puerile, and you're not supporting your point effectively because of it.
Not that your point is pertinent in any case - your recommendations won't be taken on board, and even if they were, credit wouldn't go to you in any way, really.

Quickscoping. I like it and dislike it. I like the idea of snipers being more versatile, but dislike how it's so easy.

Quickscoping - even if it were more difficult, is still overpowered. Any conceivable method of making it more intricate can still be picked up by a decent player (because the average player is truly terrible in CoD) and the versatility makes it successful against any weapon that is not a shotgun, and even then, proper control of your terrain makes that a pretty easily overcome obstacle.

Replace commando with a different perk.

Depending on what other perks are already there, you may not need to replace. However being as it seems to focus on something to do with close range I'd recommend just, Steady Aim really. Nope -- I don't see a need to add a new one.

Take deathstreaks out of the game.

Note how a new system implemented in MW2 is bad enough to warrant being removed.

I know some of you--especially Highfire--like to talk about quickscoping,

I don't appreciate constantly having to rephrase how quickscoping gives you far too much and you lose far too less. However, I'll give a suggestion I've made previously.

D = X + Y - Z
D = Damage (Flat, based on the weapon used)
X = Distance traveled (this could be based on metres, yards, or even something unconventional in order to make certain the scale is well done)
Z = Matter penetration; walls, humans, anything recognized as being shot through in the game should deduce damage. This could also make cover that much more essential if X has good scaling.

Make the knife two hits to kill from the front and one from behind.

That would be nice. (Excuse the not-generic and completely original use of Clubbed to Death by Rob Dougan. I'd have liked it more with Furious Angels) (Also, the Crysis 2 method is slightly different to compensate for the NanoSuit)

Pleasing different parts of the community can be hard,

It's impossible. Quickscopers want it to stay, others want it to go. Campers want the ability to do that to say, others want it to go. How has Martyrdom, Last Stand, Grenade Launchers and Quickscoping persisted?

With knifing they could probably do something - people generally aren't as enthusiastic about that.

mostly to please players like OnlyUseMeBlade who make the game more fun to them by only going around using their knife.

Then let people make a mod to do that or something so everyone can actually truly be pleased by being where they want to be. It's cheaper, adds so much longevity to the game and can generate brilliant ideas.

Example? DOTA.

they give you most of the best perks early on, weapons,

Because being stronger than a newcomer that could be better than you because you played longer is fair? No, that's a really poor way of doing things.

If they want to make it newcomer friendly bring back combat training from Black Ops.

Investing in AI is stupid. You use it far far too rarely (what? The campaign? Pshh) to actually care about it enough. Just stick with an MMR system so players of roughly equal skill can face off, excluding Dedicated Servers.

Heck -- Starcraft II doesn't have a system that unlocks gameplay elements for the multiplayer. The difference between a professional player and myself isn't that he as Zerg has more than me as Zerg - he's just more skilled than me.

Hope this clears up some things. Just my opinion -- but I think I supported each point enough. If not then. . . well, we'll see how it pans out.

- H

Oh -- and this -- how many times have I heard a CoD player talk about the 'old days when Crysis 1 was new' and crap? How many games (nevermind just FPSs) have you played and I'm pretty sure the vast majority are mainstream.

I can't tell you I'm a very varied gamer but I don't underestimate what there is out there and it's just annoying to speak from such a point of -solely- experience as if it means anything. We don't know what you've experienced and I can't say I'd agree with you if you experienced any Crysis game, any Battlefield game, Tribes: Ascend, Team Fortress 2 or any other FPS I've played and said you was less entertained by it than Call of Duty.

As a matter of a fact i've played many FPSs.

Crysis 2, Battlefield 3, Wolfenstein (2009), Battleship, Resident Evil 5, Haze and many others. Except Wolfenstein, none of them lasted more than 2 days for me.
If you want other games, i can tell you that i try them 10 years now and most of them are not mainstream.
Well i am not going to tell you that i haven't played Red Alert 2 because that would be a big lie. But i have played many other less known games (ever heard of Art of Murder?)

Then stick to the old game. It's not difficult.

The new game may be the same as the previous one in terms of gameplay but the developers always make sure to add something new like new maps, new campaign etc. That sparks the interest of the gamers who loved the previous game that's what i mean. It isn't easy for everyone to stick to the old game.

Do teenagers do this? Of course not, but a surprising amount of adults don't as well.

I don't know about that part. I suppose you are right.

none of them lasted more than 2 days for me.

So you can play CoD without getting bored, but when there's something with great sophistication (as far as FPSs go) such as Crysis 2, or with at least -some- more depth than CoD like Battlefield 3 you can't manage more than 2 days?

Resident Evil 5 I couldn't really say counts, mind you - isn't it third person anyway?

Haze and Wolfenstein I can't comment on, but Crysis 2 and Battlefield 3 are more than enough to suffice for a long enough period of time. I'd say Crysis 2 could be the better considering its brilliant and unique aesthetic with the absolutely different gameplay (including compared to that of Crysis 1 -- particularly Multiplayer).

but the developers always make sure to add something new like new maps,

. . . That is far from worth the money you'd be paying for it, though. Considering in patch 1.6 for Call of Duty 4 you got four maps -- for free -- and that mods in Call of Duty 4 include completely new maps or even remakes of MW2 maps I've found.

new campaign etc.

The issue I find with this for Modern Warfare is that it's insanely flawed after CoD4 -- ultranationalist and unmotivated mass murderer who follows Zakhaev massacres ultranationalist citizens of an ultranationalist nation in order to spark a costly war between said ultranationalist nation and Americans?
Nevermind why General Sheppard had the brillian intuition from his years of experience to completely backstab his allies in order to gain revenge against the terrorist, thereby what? He did effectively just sacrifice his country for that didn't he?

Don't get me wrong - you don't see the errors and it's an adrenaline rush with good surprises but, it's just not consistent.

The way I explained it wasn't that good, by the way -- my knowledge of the story has since deteriorated since I figured there's no point remembering something fundamentally flawed at some point or another.

That sparks the interest of the gamers who loved the previous game that's what i mean.

But what's new and being presented is hardly worth what you're paying for and looking at it usually shows that it's not really something you'd want to pay for anyway. Because of the flair and the trailers though, everyone is too hyped up because of their parochial mindset.

It isn't easy for everyone to stick to the old game.

That is effectively what they're doing -- but under the guise of a different aesthetic (between Black Ops and Modern Warfare the change is quite staggering) and supposed massive differences, they don't realize just what the formula of the game they play is (even though they're more than experienced enough to realize that one gun will be above the rest in its section, and that there will still be the annoying tendancies like campers in the games).

I don't know about that part. I suppose you are right.

As ChillzMaster said, it's actually a pretty small, but very vocal minority that teenagers inhabit for the Call of Duty franchise. I'm surprised that people haven't seen this recurring formula of a 'game' earlier.

Whenever I see someone say "After Black Ops the series went bad" or a later game it makes me cringe -- this started with MW2, and it's astonishingly obvious when you look at the business practices other companies exhibited afterwards, coupled with the Armageddon of gaming, as ChillzMaster would probably call it.
As he'll also tell you it was only through the efforts and innovation of Crysis 2 that rejuvenated the FPS genre to a sustainable degree, setting the bar for creation to a new level that had not been seen since, probably, 007 Goldeneye.

Don't get me wrong -- Call of Duty 4 truly made a vast change within, well, everything? It was the fulcrum for gaming to be recognized in Europe and America on a significant, everyday level, where previously it was kind of a social downfall to know that you would sit at home and fight against other players digitally.
But the same with Quake, Doom and Unreal Tournament with all of their influences, Crysis 2 has truly made a difference as well.

I believe that Battlefield's was more consistent, and progressive. Teamplay, changes in versatility in classes (there were 7 classes in Battlefield 2, 4 in Battlefield Bad Company 2 but you could still do everything that was possibly in Battlefield 2 -- you gained versatility to a massive agree and increased skill capacity for players who want to use what they have), increases of realism -- or rather -- authenticity and general wide-scale battles have had effects that won't reach their apex until years from now, at least.

I digress, but the point is that people don't realize just what is out there and what made the thing they are playing now -- or realize just what they are playing now. Call of Duty is incredibly shallow, and whilst you can dig a hole through it to find strategy and etc, you'll easily find that you are expediently removing a very large portion of the game including:
1) Maps that wouldn't work out in a competitive sense.
2) Weapons that quite simply are not as good as others, and thus are not necessary in a competitive scene.
3) Killstreaks that are too effective, or you could find that the requirements / effects are changed. However, in CoD4 ProMod you will find that this entire element is removed.
4) Deathstreaks, probably entirely (rewarding a player for dying? Completely counterintuitive to every competitive sense).
5) Certain items or gadgets that could be used -- in CoD4 ProMod again I should say that Claymores, RPG's -- all perks, actually, are removed.

The weapons you do see in CoD4 ProMod are the AK47, AK74 and M40A3. Those three, no more (you have a choice, but these are the only ones you'll find actually be used 'seriously'.

This is why I don't appreciate the game -- it's so flawed and it doesn't reward good play because it doesn't have the capacity for that to even start. It's loved by so many and it is hideously skewed in appearance by critics / reviewers alike as a result (hence why I would never trust them with judging a product I am considering to buy) and in a negatively self-fueling cycle, people eat it up.

I will -never- underestimate people's short-sightedness and I have to say that it's so so easy to do. If people took a step back and really looked hard at what they do, they could see flaws, areas of improvement or completely unnecessary / un-called for acts that sound so obvious were you to tell someone else about it, but because they didn't look, they don't notice.

It's why I continue to talk about this game and it's why I despise the people who think that I just have stupid motivations beyond actually letting people be aware of what they're doing, fundamentally. It's especially the case when I've explained and they just look away because their entertainment is being harmed -- what I propose is financially better (I am very selective about what I buy and considering I have more than enough entertainment from just Starcraft II, I've not purchased Fable III, Deus Ex, or any other game I normally would because I have enough -- unless I really want to suppport the developer, such as Paradox for Magicka, and Frozen Synapse.) and beneficial to the gaming industry where developers are pushed to be innovative and to make their products as good as they can.

I think I've said enough for now, I shall take my leave.

- H

Highfire posted? Well tickle my anus and call me Samantha!

Let's start simple!

Of course the CoD series is getting worse. I think they should just stick with MW3 and simply update it, instead of destroying everything that is left of their reputation.

Now that's an overstatement there, friend. And (how much I wish it wasn't so) a paltry dream. Activision's going to milk Call of Duty to the bone, and we're right in the middle of it all. I wouldn't say that they're destroying it, as much as slowly sucking all life from this once-great shooter franchise.

Onto Doombreed!

As a matter of a fact i've played many FPSs.

Okay, let's see 'em!

Crysis 2, Battlefield 3, Wolfenstein (2009), Battleship, Resident Evil 5, Haze and many others. Except Wolfenstein, none of them lasted more than 2 days for me.

A... ugh Battleship, Wolfenstein, and Haze. *gag*

And Res. 5 is a 3rd-person shooter. No First-Person perspective there!

Well i am not going to tell you that i haven't played Red Alert 2 because that would be a big lie. But i have played many other less known games (ever heard of Art of Murder?)

Are you trying to say that the fact you don't play many "mainstream" games gives you a greater perspective on Games in general? Oh how this forum tickles my funny bone.

You can play a buckload of Triple-A titles and all the mainstream shooters in the world (heheh... something I do rather commonly) and use this high-quality game time as grounds to build your opinions and ideas off of. It's all about experience in the medium; always better to be an every-genre gamer and play everything to get a better perspective on well, everything.

The new game may be the same as the previous one in terms of gameplay but the developers always make sure to add something new like new maps, new campaign etc. That sparks the interest of the gamers who loved the previous game that's what i mean. It isn't easy for everyone to stick to the old game.

I disagree heavily. I always go back to Medieval 2 Total War more commonly than Empire because the game mechanics just work better for the Chillz Master on the fields of 12th-16th Century Europe than the weird-*** 18th Century Industrial Age.

But I digress, in a genre as same-old same-old as the First Person Shooter, a lot is required to make a proper, full sequel. Mechanics need to be reworked, aesthetics capitalized on or scrapped entirely, you can't give your work a new coat of paint, a booster pack of 8 maps, and call it a day. Call of Duty hasn't been providing new enough material each year to sufficiently justify a sequel.

I like to call our friend CoD the very first McVideoGame, the Big Mac of Video Games. It's what developers attempt to recreate with Whopper-steins and Homefront-ators. It's all the same meat, you just get the lettuce and tomatoes from different farms in Kansas.

Battlefield 3 beats Modern warfare 3 and you can see it just by looking at the graphics and gameplays.

You're not helping the cause kid...

All in all, I just want Call of Duty to sit for a while. I played the first two when I was an ickle gamer many years ago, and the World War 2 setting influenced my interest in the grand historical scheme of things in the world theater. I owe a lot to Call of Duty, and want this series to stop parading itself as Everything That Should Be Fragged To Hell when concerning the modern Video Game.

-Chillz

(Oh, and Ponies because Ponies)

I wouldn't say that they're destroying it, as much as slowly sucking all life from this once-great shooter franchise.

Yeah...Maybe I exaggerated a bit...
But look, Black ops 2, already a new CoD -.-'

Battlefield 3 beats Modern warfare 3 and you can see it just by looking at the graphics and gameplays.

It beats it on PC, because MW3 is filled with hackers and they hardly do anything about it. Although I'm not a big fan of BF3.

The new game may be the same as the previous one in terms of gameplay but the developers always make sure to add something new like new maps, new campaign etc. That sparks the interest of the gamers who loved the previous game that's what i mean. It isn't easy for everyone to stick to the old game.

You can sugar coat it as much as you want it's not going to change the fact: They sell a fast new copy to get money quick and milk out a successful game. 60$ is never worth new game modes or new campaign levels. A 5-15$ DLC maybe, but not a full new game.

You can sugar coat it as much as you want it's not going to change the fact: They sell a fast new copy to get money quick and milk out a successful game. 60$ is never worth new game modes or new campaign levels. A 5-15$ DLC maybe, but not a full new game.

check out my post in the 4th page. That's exactly what i say. Why should we pay full price for something that is just like an expansion?

Now Chilz:

You can play a buckload of Triple-A titles and all the mainstream shooters in the world (heheh... something I do rather commonly) and use this high-quality game time as grounds to build your opinions and ideas off of. It's all about experience in the medium; always better to be an every-genre gamer and play everything to get a better perspective on well, everything.

That's what i say. I don't say that playing less known games gives you a better general perspective. But playing any game, mainstream or not gives you a better perspective indeed. I just reported some of the less known games for Highfire but i play whatever comes to my hand. And i can say that Shooter games are almost done for me. (I am just waiting to try the new Bioshock and the new Hitman to see if they can offer me some good time.)

A... ugh Battleship, Wolfenstein, and Haze. *gag*

I won't argue with that. E