GameInformer- It isn't perfect, but the hate directed towards the industry's most successful franchise is entirely unjustified. Here's why.
Is it any wonder why people hate it? Because it's popular, that's why. It's the hipster attitude. Activision doesn't need anyone defending Call of Duty so long as it's making them over a billion dollars a year.
Yes, that's surely the reason why most people hate it... /s Also is it really that surprising to see GameInformer defend CoD? I mean they had CoD 4, MW 2 and more recently; Black Ops 2 as their cover titles.
Call of Duty doesn't need defending. It's detractors are the minority. Every year gamers speak with the purchases. The huge numbers who continue to support the online communities are an indication of the games' continue popularity. THIS.IS.A.FACT.
The only reason I can up with on attacking the Call of Duty franchise is because it over-saturates the market making it difficult for anyone else to compete. However that is why we have a free market, it pushes others to do better. The simple fact is the Call of Duty games will get dissected much more from the critics than most games because of its popularity. What I find rather amusing is how often these critics take the time to vent about it when all they really have to do is ignore them and move on.
Are you serious? Call of Duty outsells every single game annually. The last thing it will ever need is defense.
Cartman is that you??
I've played every COD since COD2, and I can assure you the franchise is being milked to the fullest. COD4 was great, WaW was just a re-skin, and MW2 successfully expanded the multiplayer experience. Every COD after MW2, however, has been a half-assed attempt to "innovate COD". The reason it's so popular is that the amount of new players that buy the latest COD is greater than the amount of players that quit it. People defending COD are most likely newer to the series. With all the gimmicks the newer CODs have, it's easy to attract a lot of new players. All of my friends who played since COD4, however, agree that the franchise has gone stale.
I have to say that MW2 was the worst in the series. They took a "tactical" game and made it into a killstreak spectacle. The call of dutys before and after MW2 were more balanced.
The hate is justified.Cod is nothing more than a half assed reskinned game every year and it always has the same problems with every game every year.
what it needs is some smacking!
I'm not gonna complain about not having a new engine every year but damn, it's been more than half a decade and five releases since the last overhaul with CoD 4. This would be like half life coming out yearly and still using the original source engine from 2004.
The author is a moron. He's saying the 'hate' isn't justified because of the game no one has played yet. No, author, the hate is directed based off of the PREVIOUS entries of the game, which were very much similar. I still like the game, and buy every iteration of it, because they are fun, but to say the innovation from MW to MW3, even across two publishers wasn't much, would be correct. Some people may crap on games because it's trendy, but that's not the basis behind it all. CoD franchise isn't the video game version of Richard Gere and gerbils up his butt. There's legitimacy behind the claims. Man have people forgotten to think in this world, or have people forgotten to think in this world. The hate is legitimate, except when people who are just piling on for no reason because they have either never played the game, or can't discern why there's hate they just add to it. But these aren't the majority. The majority can even like the game and have fun, but hate how the franchise barely innovates, and this game that no one has played hasn't had an impression on anyone yet, because they haven't played it. So to come out and say...oh well this game changes things....so the hate in the past based on past games...is irrelevant, because this game....... Yes because the year the Tampa Bay Buccaneers won the Superbowl means they didn't suck in 1976, because they won one sometime in the 2000's. ROFL. That's basically his reasoning. If this game is so much better, and it does look promising, it can HELP with image of it. Of course it needs more than one game of a yearly franchise to lose it's image. If it's going to continue to be a yearly game, it needs yearly improvements that are significant to keep a better image and erode away the ill will it has rightly gained over the past five or so years. Even after a few years, because they set a standard, some people will be slow on the uptake. But it isn't what people say that is true, it's whether what they say IS true. Popular opinion doesn't make something right. It's either right or wrong, somewhere along a continuum either way, or not asked correctly. You just hope that when people choose something, they are looking at it the correct way, and thus lending their voice or support to something that is also correct. Games can still be fun, but leave a lot on the table. Things can still be fun, despite drawbacks that should be fixed. Games can still be fun, because the core is still decent, and different maps adds newness. But it doesn't mean the flaws, the bugs, the lack of innovation, the crappy low textures, weren't fixable after the first iteration, and bettered more after each version.
While the pass was a better deal for the DLC, which was slightly expanded from previous versions, it still pales in comparison to say Ghost Recon 2. In the end that game had about 50 total multiplayer things, with 43 of them maps. Map packs had 8-12 maps in them each, not 3-4. They gave a free map to download right when you popped in the disc. They gave away free updated maps from previous Ghost Recon games. Later they even gave at least one pack, maybe all the map packs away for free. 43 multiplayer maps. That's staggering amount. Sadly the newer Ghost Recon: Future Solider's DLC is expensive and the map packs are alot smaller, much like CoD. Again that's some legitimate hate on CoD. It set a bad standard of charging 15 bucks for 4 extra maps. I'll still have fun with it, but the hate is entirely justified, this one iteration won't change a theme, and it doesn't change the past....it can only alter how people perceive it going forward, but that change has to be earned by continued attention to obvious flaws. It can both be a fun game that does some things right, AND still be a game that overlooks obvious problems, AND sets bad trends for the industry for others to copy. As gamers, what's in our best interests isn't the same as a Wall Street corporation. It doesn't mean we're wrong, because Wall Street corporations are a business and thus have an exemption (hint: they don't). You can make money without leaving a trail of ill will. We don't live in just a black and white world. Alot of things can simply be 'AND'
I like call of duty but honestly most of the hates comeing from the fact that they never really change save for maybe for black ops and even then most of the people on my friends list that i talk to just want it for zombies. They do try to switch up things in terms of kill streaks and stuff but really there not major changes.
I don't think the hate is justified for Black Ops 2. Aside from not being out yet, the game does appear to have changed enough to finally warrant a sequel, unlike the previous 3 CoDs which were mediocre to s*** in terms of quality. Yeah, there's no new engine so the graphics won't improve, AI will continue to be dumb as rocks, they'll still spam you with grenades and infinite generic bad guys until you move past the magic line, they'll still do slo motion breaching, and the multiplayer will probably be broken within two weeks....oh...and maps will still be $15...whew! Ok...maybe the hate is a little justified, but people need to realize that CoD is still fun to fans of CoD. You don't have to buy it. It's there every year....so what? Go buy MoH if you want a new engine.
Hate can't necessarily be justified for the newest game in the series, because that game isn't out yet. However, hate for the franchise, in general, is completely justified. Even the yearly sports games are using different engines now than when this generation launched; what's Activision's excuse? Engine aside, why are there so few changes in each game? The last new thing to be added was Spec Ops. Zombies was added the game before that. Since then, it's just been more of the same. Audio lacks. The guns all sound fake and plasticky. They sound the same now as in MW2(my memory on CoD4's sounds isn't too strong). Explosions don't sound very real, either. Things like the lack of even minor levels of destruction could have changed at least a LITTLE by now. Indestructible cardboard? And the maps are generally poorly designed; camping is only possible because of the map design. Spawn camping, quick-scoping(which they apparently think is A-okay), and other such stuff is pathetic to have after so many games. And with the BILLIONS the franchise has made over the years, why are they still charging for map packs? Hell, why aren't they cutting the price in half, at the least? Do SOMETHING for that fanbase that makes you the most successful franchise of this generation. You know, make people think you care about them? There are PLENTY of reasons, and they're all pretty damn legitimate.
N4G is a community of gamers posting and discussing the latest game news. It’s part of NewsBoiler, a network of social news sites covering today’s pop culture.