This is a split board - You can return to the Split List for other boards.

People hate on CoD for hate's sake.

#131pothocketPosted 11/14/2012 11:16:52 AM
rewards doing good with doing better

Exactly. How does it make any sense at all to make it easier for the guy who needs the help the least? CoD cannot be taken seriously as a game let alone a competitive game.
---
well I am not like your dad. I worked as a chef at TGIF-Mattson
#132CapwnDPosted 11/14/2012 11:50:39 AM(edited)
That was just COD3 Nixemo. And that was only because I got a copy of COD3 Free with both of my COD4 games too. So I had the original 2 COD3, then I think we did get one more copy for the boy's mom's house, plus the two free copies with preodering COD4 at Best Buy.
---
Thrash or be Thrashed
#133_OujiDoza_Posted 11/14/2012 11:52:22 AM
I don't hate CoD, I do, however prefer Battlefield over it, and since I only need 1 - maybe 2 FPS's at most to be bothered with at a time, I'd rather stick to Battlefield.
---
GT: PrinceDoZeR
Way to go, you uber-nerd ****-bags
#134KaneOfShadowsPosted 11/14/2012 12:08:15 PM
When EA milks a series every year like the need for speed series, its considered a money milking evil company. But when COD gets released every year to milk your money somehow its considerd ok.


The difference is that Need for Speed is restricted to a very niche racing genre, which is quite challenging to alter aside from new car models and tracks. At least NOS has always tried to introduce new elements in the game, such as open world driving and even on-foot scenarios.

Call of Duty doesn't even try to change the playing field any more.
#135ChezDispenserPosted 11/14/2012 12:56:17 PM
WELP.
---
Goddamn!
#136PezofpowerPosted 11/14/2012 2:37:11 PM
poopnolan posted...
My reasons for disliking the COD franchise is somewhat personal to me. I dislike it because it represents all things wrong and flawed with humanity as a whole. It rewards dying with deathstreaks, rewards doing good with doing better, rewards using a gun with more gun parts, etc. It basically tricks the player into continued play by constantly stroking them at every turn. It creates this situation where you aren't playing to hone your skills and dominate similar skilled players, but playing to see explosions, nukes, helicopters, and a whole slew of other mind numbing things occur on your screen, all at a persistent 60 frames per second. Its all very insulting to me. A game where situational awareness and streak chaining/spawn trapping prevails over gun battles and tactics.

The fact that you can be dropped in with players who have played these games for years, and still manage to even compete with them is baffling. I guess that is the main selling point though right? So easy that a partially blind moron on bath salts can pull a positive kill/death. These games do a hilarious job trying to imitate this "hardcore" experience, but there exists no skill ceiling in the same vein as a Tekken or Halo game. These games merely exist to stroke the egos of individuals who should better spend there time reading literature or taking classes.

Lastly, I really find it hilarious when people take it upon themselves to try to draw parallels between games like Mario, Zelda, Halo, etc with Call of Duty. Usually the root of these moronic diatribes involve the fact that at its core a Zelda game is about Link slaying Ganon, or Chief fighting aliens, etc. Whats completely glossed over is the fact that every Call of Duty since 4 has been running on the exact same ancient tech that was implemented then. Its done so it can maintain the fast refresh rate. These games literally reskin, repurpose, and reuse like no other game before.

The differences between Twilight Princess, or Mario Galaxy to Ocarina, or 64, is immense. Those games reinvent, innovate, and still manage to keep what made the originals so beloved intact. Call of Duty sequels all look, play, and behave the same. And each one sells better than the last, so it discourages talented individuals from actually innovating, and encourages short development cycles by slightly modifying previous assets. Call of Duty games are designed in such a way that they are meant to pander to the lowest form of life on earth. People who continue to ensure that folks like Micheal Bay or Skrillex will always be loaded with cash.


So much love to you sir. Could not have said it better myself.
---
PSN:Pezofpower
#137AApt24Posted 11/14/2012 4:31:02 PM
Call of duty is like the new York Yankees. Lots of hype and sometimes they even win it all, but most of the time they don't. And yeah you either love them or you can't stand them. No middle ground.
---
"This Year in Jerusalem."
#138infamous3668Posted 11/14/2012 5:19:25 PM
Its not so much just CoD, the whole modern warfare thing has been overdone. It is essentially the same story line with the same multiplayer over and over again. While I can agree Halo generally has the same thing over again, it has a far more interesting story, and they are able to tweak the multiplayer enough to make it fun and feel different each time.

Assassin's Creed doesnt even belong in this conversation as people play that game more for the story than the gameplay itself at this point.
---
gamertag = DWinsGamertag
#139PantherRiderPosted 11/14/2012 5:24:18 PM
I hate games that suck.

I hated CoD mw2, mw3
i bought cod mw and bo... now i plan on buying Black Ops 2 when i get back to the states not right now though... i'm in a country miles away from home and i got like 5 tests to worry about in medschool before i can get to blowing **** up for x-mas.
#140GunningSoul(Topic Creator)Posted 11/14/2012 5:49:35 PM(edited)
poopnolan posted...
My reasons for disliking the COD franchise is somewhat personal to me. I dislike it because it represents all things wrong and flawed with humanity as a whole. It rewards dying with deathstreaks, rewards doing good with doing better, rewards using a gun with more gun parts, etc. It basically tricks the player into continued play by constantly stroking them at every turn. It creates this situation where you aren't playing to hone your skills and dominate similar skilled players, but playing to see explosions, nukes, helicopters, and a whole slew of other mind numbing things occur on your screen, all at a persistent 60 frames per second. Its all very insulting to me. A game where situational awareness and streak chaining/spawn trapping prevails over gun battles and tactics.

The differences between Twilight Princess, or Mario Galaxy to Ocarina, or 64, is immense. Those games reinvent, innovate, and still manage to keep what made the originals so beloved intact. Call of Duty sequels all look, play, and behave the same. And each one sells better than the last, so it discourages talented individuals from actually innovating, and encourages short development cycles by slightly modifying previous assets. Call of Duty games are designed in such a way that they are meant to pander to the lowest form of life on earth. People who continue to ensure that folks like Micheal Bay or Skrillex will always be loaded with cash.


Most of this is a matter of opinion. It does not make me wrong for enjoying CoD for the superfluous fun it is, like most videogames are and have always be. The parallel to Zelda is revelant and you would have to be in a denial to fail to observe that Ocarina of Time and Twilight Princess are as much of the same game as Call of Duty 4 and Black Ops. They both have the exact same structure from one iteration to the next. Both new Zelda and Call of Duty comes with new campains/stories and guns/items and a few new tweaks. Have you played any two 3D Zelda game recently? Aside from Skyward Sword, they all play virtually the same and are built around the same infrastructure. Dont you dare have double standards and tell me that one can do and be forgiven for what the other does just as well and is criticized for, that would be hypocrisy.

The development cycle for a Call of Duty game is actually around two years, since they toss the ball between the two major develloping studios. It's about the average lenght of time for most games. If you had played any Call of Duty game recently, you would see that from one iteration to the other, there is enough difference to warrant a play. My question would be, have you even bothered to do so or are you drawing conclusions from an handful of internet messages and online screenshots?

You look down upon Call of Duty for being instant gratification, and yet is there more instantaneous gratification than the simplicity of a Mario game? There is no planning in jumping and running, as much as there is no planning in running and shooting. Once again, you fault one game franchises for flaws that are actually the selling points of another.

You are entitled to your opinion, just like I am to mine. My opinion is that I like video games in general, and that both Call of Duty and Nintendo games are fun for what they are. I do not see why I should be ashamed of my enjoyement.