Call of Duty ruined a generation of gamers?

[~>Dg<~]

i mention the public servers and comp scene as it is very important and different in many ways for eg someones idea of cod .

the difference is newer cods dont have that comp style scene after cod 4 so this is one thing that annoys me as people generalize cod as being unskilled.

its not unskilled its just newer cods dont cater for the higher skilled compscene there is no competitive gameplay . there is no real mods to take the public garbage out that public masses want.

this is why if bf3 for eg annoys me so much. with tweaking and the bs fixed it could probably be decent or a lot better to me but im a enthusiast so it wont happen as they aim for the public gamer.

to me personally the gun the animations the movement is what makes a fps not the showy glitz the big explosions i dont want to dumb **** down i want recoil i want to know that when i jump a wall im going to be straight over ready to fire not maybe get over or just thumble about.

someone will do a pc right for enthusiasts soon as the big players control the mass section of public mass fps games so the only way to come through is with a niche styled fps which will appeal to a enthusiast . this is the game i currently look for but until then cod 4 promod fills the gap

 

[Suarez7]

DGPTLDR

 

[Gerard]

Haven't liked cod since "modern warfare". Last one I played was blackops and just like cod4 its a kill streak turkey shoot. When they started reducing recoil to virtually non existent levels (Strangely enough this occured as the main series went to console, total coincidence im sure )the game became a turd, and the icing on the top of said turd is the kill streaks.

 

[Scougar]

CoD4 was ace, if a little repetitive... then it was just rehashing the same formula... like fifa I think it's more a symptom of being stuck on consoles. The money is there compared to the PC market, so you can't really blame them, even if the publishers have more say than they should

 

[~>Dg<~]

thing is why does cod restrict other devs from making a good game ?

it doesnt ! this is why people like tripwire have no clue. why red orchestra 2 bombed. cater to a good idea make it work and dont use the sheep fps tactics.

just laziness.

 

[Gerard]

CoD4 was ace, if a little repetitive... then it was just rehashing the same formula... like fifa I think it's more a symptom of being stuck on consoles. The money is there compared to the PC market, so you can't really blame them, even if the publishers have more say than they should

All I remember of cod 4 is most assault rifles acting like they were firing lasers and the "Helicopter of pwn" laying waste to most maps. Enjoyed the SP campaign, the multi to me just seemed like it was AI call ins doing most of the work. Super accurate weapons and map raping death from the sky = zzzzzzz fest.

 

[Gerard]

thing is why does cod restrict other devs from making a good game ?

it doesnt ! this is why people like tripwire have no clue. why red orchestra 2 bombed. cater to a good idea make it work and dont use the sheep fps tactics.

just laziness.

I doubt it would matter how good RO2 could have possibly been, it still would barely scratch the sales of COD as its just all a lot of "gamers" know and they refuse to give anything a chance as it hasn't got "Call of Duty" in the title. Just like the dev said if anything differs even marginally from COD most of those chimps don't want to know.

 

[Scougar]

All I remember of cod 4 is most assault rifles acting like they were firing lasers and the "Helicopter of pwn" laying waste to most maps. Enjoyed the SP campaign, the multi to me just seemed like it was AI call ins doing most of the work. Super accurate weapons and map raping death from the sky = zzzzzzz fest.

The only bad part about the heli's etc, was that they counted towards your killstreak, so you could get streak award after streak award which was ridiculous. I always thought the streaks should have to be earnt via player made kills.

I found CoD4 a lot of fun. I'd rather have that on my account than MoH: WF !

 

[Gerard]

I found CoD4 a lot of fun. I'd rather have that on my account than MoH: WF !

Id rather have a Turd on my account than Warfighter .

 

[bJN]

Just to stir everything up, CS > CoD4.

The supposed skill gap is because of a difference of mind set. I'm used to, as I grew up in it, competitive gaming scenes where you knew it took time to develop and become competent.

Now, thanks to the popularity of consoles, games are designed to be a lot more casual (read noob friendly). CoD is one of the biggest "followers" of this trend. And for the record, referring to CoD (post cod4) gameplay as twitch gameplay is laughable, everything is aided with autoaiming mechanics and insane player interpolation. Throw one of these "twitch gamers" into a quake3 or UT match and I would be amazed to see them get a single kill.

There is a large skill gap; those that play competitively tend to stick to older games that still cater for that aspect of gaming, rather than the same old crap that gets churned out by developers these days, where your casual gamers reside.

 

[bJN]

thing is why does cod restrict other devs from making a good game ?

it doesnt ! this is why people like tripwire have no clue. why red orchestra 2 bombed. cater to a good idea make it work and dont use the sheep fps tactics.

just laziness.

As you said before, they all want to make as much money as possible so they go with a formula that works: stick call of duty in the title or hype it up to be a call of duty beater which it inevitably won't be as it's pretty much the exact same thing.

We all know you have a grudge against RO2 and bring it up at every opportunity you get. The fact is it didn't "bomb" and still has an active user base that love it. The issue is that it is doing something that has been done before, but with certain key differences that don't conform to Call of Duty (or yours obviously) standards.

 

[Spud21]

I doubt it would matter how good RO2 could have possibly been, it still would barely scratch the sales of COD as its just all a lot of "gamers" know and they refuse to give anything a chance as it hasn't got "Call of Duty" in the title. Just like the dev said if anything differs even marginally from COD most of those chimps don't want to know.

Thats what restricts FPS on console, as you have to be a big ish dev to get the dev kits and all the goodies to code a game for a console, so there fore you will only ever get cod and rehashes of the same game.

the Pc is different though, there are more than enough people to keep a developer alive, how many copies of CS are there out there, it must be in the tens of millions at least, and that was a mod made by a few blokes i believe, and look what it's got, there are still thousands of servers full of people playing 24 hours a day, and most sensible companies realise that mods can actually enhance their games.

Take BIS, how many copies of ARMA II :Co did they shift purely because of dayz ? i believe from random reading it was at least 300k if not more, thats a lot of sales from just 1 of many mods. how many extra copies of Half life did valve shift for CS back in the day.

Modding is the saving grace of the PC market, and apart from devs who concentrate on purely casual gamers or who simply don't care about the pc market are kept on their toes and many take on board things that modders change to make a game better, and implement them.

Console FPS are limited to what activision and EA churn out, and to be fair Dice have tried to sew the seeds of a good competitive scene with dedicated servers for hire for BF3, but sadly they just aren't very good, they lag and they are not cheap for what you get, which isn't a lot. Maybe in time they will get it right and will ba able to host games as big as the pc can, and they will be able to offer decent servers, which is what allows a competitive element to be nurtured, but at the moment if you want to play to a good level you are really restricted to the Pc only. (apart from fifa and the like)

 

[zenf]

Just to stir everything up, CS > CoD4.

<snip>

This tbh.. I also grew up playing CS to a fairly high standard so I really struggle to see the appeal in the randomness of COD. What's fun about it if whether you live or die is largely out of your hands? From ridiculously overpowered killstreak rewards, random grenade/noob tube spam across the map or people spawning right behind you, far too often there's just nothing you can do to avoid dying.

I don't play games competitively anymore, just casually but even so, a first person shooter should be about twitch reactions, positioning and strategy and combining those elements to outwit and beat your opponent. Not just respawn -> throw nade across map in rough direction of enemy hoping for an easy kill -> get shot in the back -> hope for lucky respawn position.

 

[Gerard]

At this point COD can pretty much be considered Shovel ware, I'm interested to see what Respawn are working on though as little info about it has surfaced yet.

 

[Divinious]

A lot of people hate on COD but at the end of the day it's just a victim of it's own success, the problem in the industry as far as I can see is a lack of creativity, the sheep like way successful games are (& always have been) imitated.

 

[tibbsey]

CoD 1 and 2 were beast.

Absolutely this.

I hate how nowadays it seems to be that CoD = everything since 4.
Whilst I think that since (and including) 4 they've all been utter ****, I don't like when people go "CoD is ****".
CoD was amazing, CoD2 was amazing, CoD4MW/WaW/MW2/Blops/Blops2/MW3 were/are **** (this is not including the console titles, which of course were **** too).

But CS>

 

[ColdAsIce]

as for the person from tripwire haha red orchestra 2 could have been immense but.. they failed miserabley because they didn't listen to people. i know 110 percent about this as i even pmd the head person in charge on this project and suggested a few things about changes that would make the game a lot better and good. it was ignored and i told him it would be a dead in the water game which it was

.

What were the proposed changes? There is nothing wrong with RO2 game play wise. If anything it was a little bit dumbed down on release. The big patch they released with classic hardcore mode has been very good.

The major issue on release was simply performance, the game ran like a dog on high spec systems. The only game play design I would argue with is the game stays true to the war scenario it follows, so the Russians/Germans never get to swap sides, so some of the maps have balancing issues imo.

 

[Warbie]

Just to stir everything up, CS > CoD4.

And to stir things up further!

RTCW/ET > CS > CoD4

I used to think of CS as many of us here feel about CoD - randomness and luck playing too large a role. And then along came CoD4 and took spam and randomness to a whole new level of lotto-like proportions! This is how far things have shifted in the name of accessibility! We're now right at the other end of the scale.

 

[ColdAsIce]

Wasted thousands of hours into CS through to 1.6. Couldn't enjoy source it was bloody terrible. Skill wise though:

Quake 3 > everything else. Combination of map knowledge, 100% pure aim/freedom of movement and then juggling the timing of items spawning and controlling areas of the map.

Nothing touches Quake 3.

CS did have small amounts of randomness to it. The money system was flawed, sometimes the spawns didn't work in your favor as a team.

 

[Efour]

Ive been buying them freaking cod games since 4 and each one gets progressively worse and what it says in the OP is soooooooooooooo true.

The latest BLOPS 2 has dropped to such a random series of events i cant even play it anymore without feeling bewildered and confused..nearly every time i die...

Leveling the playing field with lag compensating "hax" and witchery goes against all i know about FPS gaming in 15 years.