Call of Duty's biggest design failures

Admittedly, the Call of Duty series has at least attempted to rectify many of its most frustrating implementations. Many might argue that the series has changed little from iteration to iteration, but cosmetic changes are often made in light of community feedback to help adjust the experience.
The engine might have remained untouched since Call of Duty 4, but many gameplay features have changed in light of a shaped and dedicated community of gamers.
Looking over each of the games raises some genuine frustrations, and it's certainly no wonder why the series is just as aggressively hated as it is passionately loved: certain design elements are quite bewildering, added in such a way as to unbalance the experience and give players/teams unfair advantages over the opponent.
In many cases these frustrations have been rectified, but some still remain in the latest iteration: Modern Warfare 3.
Let's take a look back at the most frustrating design elements in the Call of Duty series over the years, how these issues have hurt the experience, and if they've even been rectified.

Read Full Story >>
The story is too old to be commented.
SITH2341d ago

FTA "Team Killing is when a player accidentally or incidentally..."

WTH, I assume he meant intentionally.

Kenshin_BATT0USAI2341d ago

Yeah lol. I was reading that and thinking "wha....?"

Hicken2341d ago

The biggest design failure would be that engine they re-used. Sorry, but it's the truth.

GraveLord2341d ago

Current-gen consoles aren't capable of displaying much better graphics at 60FPS.

30FPS is great for slow gameplay like BF3 but for a COD game it would ruin the game.

Hicken2340d ago

Rage says hello. May not be my style of game, but its graphics are far superior to MW3. I'd expect more out of 60fps than what I get from MW3.

And "slow gameplay" is hardly the phrase I'd use to describe everything that's going on in any given Battlefield match. It may seem slow to an outsider because the maps are bigger and the action is more strategic, though. Four tanks, two choppers, two jets, and a dozen people shooting and blowing things up on foot... yeah, I guess that's pretty slow.

flyinrhyno2341d ago

why would they completely overhaul something that works so well? the yearly tweaks they use are great and when they develop a new one i have complete confidence it will stand the test of time. you see if you do a job right the first time you dont have to completely redo it again and again

death2smoochie2341d ago (Edited 2341d ago )

The game looks the exact same from 2007.
They wanted to keep 60 FPS FOR CONSOLES and in doing so had to keep the dated visuals and physics.
Just because they nailed the mechanics for the game does not mean they need to bleed it dry for years and let it become stagnant like they did with Tony Hawk and other Activision games.
This was fine for 2007...however this is 2011...
The franchise has not moved...because they want 60fps...for consoles...which the PC has been doing since the mid 90's....
Yet the PC version of MW3 still looks like a 2007 game...

BraveToaster2340d ago

The biggest design failure in Call of Duty is killstreaks. Oh look, this guy is good enough to get 7 kills without dying? WHY DON'T WE JUST MAKE IT EASIER FOR HIM TO GET 7 MORE KILLS WITHOUT DYING!
Also, what's this about knives, quickscoping and noobtubes being in CoD 1, UO, and 2?