Top
560°

IGN: Call of Duty is Boring and Needs to Change

OPINION: Call of Duty is Boring and Needs to Change

Read Full Story >>
uk.games.ign.com
The story is too old to be commented.
Myst1636d ago

This was actually a rather good write up on the series and agree with it. Now it's a matter of whether or not these opinions could and would be taken to heart by said developers to give us a more meaningful game. Well I guess meaningful is subjective so I guess chance of pace from what we have thus seen so far?

MariaHelFutura1636d ago

Uhhhh...

Didn't they give MW3 a 9.0-9.5?

Cosmit1636d ago

This is going to blow up O_o.

Anyways, its not boring. Its a good solid game. Though if MW4 doesn't show noticeable improvements, then I'll have a problem with it.

jdfoster1636d ago (Edited 1636d ago )

Yeah they did but I have to agree with what @LOGICWINS said in another post.

"Mitch Dyer is an individual person who has the opinion that COD is boring and needs to change. Anthony Gallegos, the person who reviewed MW3 for IGN, is an individual person who gave MW3 a 9. Websites don't give opinions or scores...people do" I'm soo pleased someone has the same mindset as me when it comes to this (though I did label the website who gave UC3 a 3/10 (or something like that) as 'a disgrace to journalism' - which, in fairness, it was. Was an awful review.

da_2pacalypse1636d ago

really? it wasn't boring for the last 4 years, but since the release of this one, it's gotten boring after 2 months? IGN is freaking brilliant -_- MAKE UP YOUR MIND

sikbeta1636d ago

What do you expect? they go for the hits, this article attract hipster that are against the franchise and bros who play the f*** out of it = hits = profit!

jaosobno1636d ago

IGN, the gaming site that constantly praises COD series and makes up reasons why COD rules, although nothing in series changed in the years, now thinks COD is boring?

Did Activision forget to mail their monthly bribe?

Myst1635d ago

I'd assume that one person doesn't speak for the whole of the staff. Just like one person of an organization does not necessarily mean that they embody the whole of it all.

Heartnet1635d ago

Going by sales this shows that call of duty does not need to change and their just giving what the fans love....

you want it to change but you can also just go out an dbuy another franchise instead of asking developers to risk changing their very succesful franchise...

My opionion is just go and play another IP and leave CoD to what it is... all fps are the same this gen so what does it matter what the title is?

bunfighterii1635d ago

Correct me if I'm wrong but I don't think this opinion piece was written by the same guy who reviewed MW3.

IGN isn't like a newspaper where there's a consistent editorial line. They have a staff with a myriad of views. I think they need to communicate this fact more because audiences seem confused when stuff like this gets published, at seeming odds with the glowing reviews they give games like COD.

Megaman_nerd1635d ago

IGN is not only IGNorant but bi-polar too!

badz1491635d ago

and it's from IGN too.

if you really mean it, why don't you start bitching when the game launch and not give it a freakin 9! give it a 5 if you dare!

but that ad money is too delicious to ignore, right? so fvck off IGN!

Spydiggity1635d ago

yes, it's total stupidity on the part of the media and the consumer.

why would COD EVER change if they make a billion dollars every year off the franchise for keeping the same formula.

consumers are such morons anymore. they spend all their money on the same only garbage, and rarely support the risk takers.

it's kind of ruining gaming. i'll always be a gamer, but i'll enjoy fewer and fewer games every year as long as the braindead consumers keep shelling out money for tired franchises.

xVeZx1635d ago

thats exactly what i was going to say....if cod is so boring why give the game such an amazing score

ShabbaRanks1635d ago

Hahahaha this guy is soooo going to get fired...

I can just imagine Bobby raging in the IGN offices and yelling : We had a DEALLL!!! Remove this crap right this INSTANT!!!

DARK WITNESS1635d ago

At least we know someone over there has got their head screwed on the right way.

To honest,I can understand why it's not changed and I don't want to be BF, they are different games and should stay different.

My biggest issue with MW is not so much the lack of change but also the way it has become more and more broken with each game.

Cod4 was not perfect by a long way, but when I play cod4 and compare it to a game of MW3 I do feel like I am playing a different game almost. I can still play and enjoy cod4, MW3 just frustrates me about a min or 2 after starting a game.

If MW3 had the same sort of spawns system and better netcode (without the lag bullshit) even with the crap maps, weapon balance, quickscoping etc.. it would still feel like a much better game and I would prob still be able to bare playing it and heaven forbid actually enjoy a few games.

As of right now I have hit level 30 on BF3 and unlocked my laser targetting for my tanks rockets. It feels like a whole new world has opened up to me. Now I am not sure I can see myself going back to MW again.

SolidStoner1635d ago

I quite playing COD and then just becosue of that I quite drugs (pot) and alcohol (drugs) :) it seems withou COD my life is without stress... lol

+ Show (13) more repliesLast reply 1635d ago
snipes1011636d ago

I think the three biggest points that I agree with are the Set-Pieces, Trivializing of Violence and the damn multiplayer.

For one, the games are literally corridor shooters in disguise. Where always being told to follow someone was kind of ignored in 2007 because we were all too awestruck by the cinematic experience, its become a crutch for a series that has no idea how to give players any sort of autonomy. Its also become all so painfully obvious and expected to see your character get knocked down. Its not interesting anymore. Stop. Really.

As for the second point, not to sound crazy, but the game doesnt even make it satisfying to shoot someone. Waves of baddies just kind of line up to be shot and fall over and thats it. If youre going to tell me to shoot someone, give it some impact. If youre going to tell me to kill someone important, give it some emotion. I have felt none of that since the COD4.

Finally, the multiplayer. I really dont need to explain why this needs change but I will anyhow. Im tired of the same perks, Im tired of the mindlessness of it, Im tired of claustrophobic and cluttered maps with no flow, Im tired of retarded akimbo weapons, I dont give a damn about callsigns and most of all Im tired of one or two weapons being fucking unstoppable (Type 95 is a good example n MW3), totally making the large variety of weapons utterly pointless.

/rant...good article.

Jobesy1636d ago (Edited 1636d ago )

Was with you until you complained about weapon unbalance. This is one of the biggest gripes I have about online communities. The weapons in game should be unbalanced, you know why? Because in real life they ARE unbalanced! Why should a FAL not be better than an AK? Why should a .50 BMG not be more powerful than a .223? I want weapons that are similar in destruction to their real life counterparts, not 30 different weapon skins with the same damage.

snipes1011636d ago (Edited 1636d ago )

We're talking about a multiplayer game, not real life. And a game that had players sprinting around maps like idiots, killing people with one jab of a knife (sometimes from several feet away), double fisting machine guns (try doing that with precision in reality), recharging their health, quick scoping with sniper rifles, reloading at the speed of light (with the right perks), mowing down people with accuracy even from the hip, spraying their teammates with bullets and not killing them...the list goes on and the theme is this: Call of Duty is not a realistic game and therefor its not at all unreasonable to ask for weapon balance.

Once again, having one weapon that owns everything else makes the variety of weapons pointless. You can still give guns character and have them be balanced. Plus, Im talking about weapons that are exploited most often, not the most powerful. You missed my point entirely.

torchic1635d ago

@Jobesy

that comment is gonna turn around and bite you in the ass one day. don't see how anyone would even agree with what you said.

the problem with OP weapons is that people realize they're OP and then abuse them. so basically every other weapon in the game is useless. @snipes101 summed it up very well.

frostypants1635d ago (Edited 1635d ago )

I've almost completely abandoned CoD. I play MW3 maybe 1% as often as BF3 (literally). I know I'm not alone. CoD multiplayer needs to be re-invented, or risk going the way of the dodo in the next couple of years.

AC130-Gunship1635d ago (Edited 1635d ago )

@snipes101

The IGN article went in to deep. I just want to have a good FPS experience. It doesn't take rewriting the whole game to do so. There are fundamental mechanics issues plaguing MW3 that have not been addresses since MW. Everyone is pointing that out in the comments. Jason West and Vince Zampella would have addressed these issues had Activision not pressed for the subscription based crap that the game is now. With a freaking flood of boring maps coming at you.

Bullshit!!

The FPS of choice is now Battlefield 3 and GOW3

I believe Jason and Vince understood the ill fated direction COD was heading. With better leadership (sans Kotick) fans of the franchise wouldn't be complaining right now.

snipes1011635d ago

@AC130...
Dont think Im so naive, I know that. My point (and the articles point...you should probably read it), was that the game just tries to shock you with its violence and make it seem "gritty" or "shocking" or "realistic." The massacre level in MW2, the child getting blasted in MW3, the countless times you sneak up behind someone and drive a dagger into their throat...its all just there for shock value and its getting old; you cant tell theyre trying. They show it just to show it. At least ultra violent games like Bulletstorm are parodic and not presented in such a serious manner.

To use an example from movies, if you ever watch the movie "Drive," you'll see what I'm talking about. You will get nervous every time something violent is about to happen because it is used so effectively. In CoD, it just comes off as some low brow michael bay bullshit aiming for a little controversy.

CoD's not the first game to do this, but its certainly the most popular one to.

cyberwaffles1635d ago

if they wanted to aim for realism, they would at least not neuter the shotguns so much. i know many people hate the stryker already, but in real life birdshots go at least 40 yards. in this game, i can get 3-4 hit markers with one of the shotguns just for the guy to turn around and merk my ass. not only that, there are some ranges that embarrassingly doesn't even reach the target. i know this is for the sake of balancing, but for crying out loud all the other guns are pretty much super powerful. the assault rifles especially; you will get raped by an ACR/Type 95/Mk14 from mid to long range.

frostypants1635d ago (Edited 1635d ago )

What makes you think they are even sort of trying for realism? If you want even a remote sense of realism, you're playing the wrong franchise.

Also, sure, you could hit a guy with birdshot from 40 yards...but it won't kill him. Besides, real life doesn't have killstreaks, either...I'd say there are bigger realism issues than the shotgun.

+ Show (5) more repliesLast reply 1635d ago
Brosy1636d ago

I prestiged 3 times in MW1 and I've been sick of COD since. It's the same rinse and repeat gameplay. Camp squirt squirt squirt, automated killstreak prize, squirt squirt squirt, automated killstreak prize, squirt squirt, automated killstreak prize, die. rinse repeat until you get sick of the gameplay.

hellzsupernova1635d ago

agree I played MW1 alot on my pc it was really good, the next war shooter for me was world at war (ps3) and then i didnt touch one until BF3 and that game i really enjoyed and love the multiplayer then i thought i would hire out MW3 and it was aweful on my review scale it wouldve gotten a 5 at best 5 meaning average.

cyberwaffles1635d ago

the game is actually fun (aside from some game issues) but they really do need to change up the formula. i mean this is the 5th game since COD4 that has followed the same exact formula, and now that black ops 2 is coming out, they really need to evolve the series somehow.

mokopa1635d ago

Stopped playing after MW2. There is no point, the story was finished. From there on we have a story which is wishy washy. Once they give me a story with a trailer like MW2 Iam in. The industry is on a verge of a lack of creativity bubble and the leader is Activition. Cash cow thinking will kill this industry.

+ Show (3) more repliesLast reply 1635d ago
BattleTorn1636d ago

The IGN comments speak for themselve;

"BEST IGN ARTICLE EVER!"
"MOST ACCURATE IGN ARTICLE EVER!"
"It's about time IGN admitted this"
"This isn't an opinion, it's fact."
"Agreed."

Yup. Agreed.

Play2Win1636d ago

Still every commenter got a cod copy at home

sikbeta1636d ago (Edited 1636d ago )

Meanwhile @ IGN HQ

-"So, how about your article?"
-"[email protected] fall so fast, lol"
-"this s*** generates loads of hits!"
-"yeah lol, this year, we give the GOTY to MW4, same people will be all over us, then we wait 1 month and make a new article bashing MW4, muahaha"
-" $_$ "
-"muahaha... muahahaha"

hellzsupernova1635d ago

its true the more hits a site generates the better, the more chance their advertising has of generating revenue

Play2Win1636d ago

Thats why I play CoD4 on PC. Cause it's still the best

lorianguy1636d ago

Yep, unfortunately it's the truth.

A once-great series has now lowered itself to doing the bare minimum for the maximum money.