In Defense of Call of Duty: Part 1

TheGregward of writes:

"Just as a bench mark, World of Warcraft costs $180 per year to play. And if you get the expansions that are released for forty dollars every two years or so? You’re up to roughly $200 a year or so. As long as Call of Duty is still rocking out cheaper than WoW to buy, own, and play online; I feel that this earns CoD a bit of credit."

Read Full Story >>
The story is too old to be commented.
BattleTorn2573d ago (Edited 2573d ago )

How does hours played relate to game quality?

Sure, if you play it enough, you get your money's worth, cost-wise.

But it doesn't say anything about the quality of the game.

If Cost/time was all that counts, then playing a Indie ($3) title for a few hours would be 300% better than any retail game at $60.

farhad2k82573d ago

Wait wait.. I can here something..

Oh, it's just the rush of CoD haters/BF3 fanboys RUSHING to hate on this.

Cya, I can't get lost in this mess.

geth1gh2573d ago (Edited 2573d ago )

You have to understand my friend. The majority of us "bf" fanboys used to love COD. Hell, I sure as shit did.

When nothing changes in a game, it tends to get annoying to pay $60 for it.

I had more than one friend that raped their very first game of mw3. Everyone I have talked to that played bf3 sucked at it when starting up.

I get it, don't change a game if it isn't broken. But if you're gonna ask us to fork out another $60 then you better do something.

BF3 did that imo, cause it def is not the same, yet it still has the realistic warfare feel that the battlefield franchise is known for and it still rocks socks.

Yomaster2572d ago (Edited 2572d ago )

BattleTorn actually has a really good point here. We pay $60+ for a game and expect it's quality, not hours played, to be equal to the price. Every now and then, we come across a game that is worth more than it's price tag (Skyrim, MGS4, to name a couple), and that game generally gets excellent reviews all around.

MW3 seems to be highly reviewed by the "professional gaming journalists," but that doesn't matter when you have a huge outcry of consumers stating otherwise. Gaming journalism is a damn joke nowadays, anyway.

geth1gh said it in his first sentence here, and I can confirm. I was once a HUGE fan of COD, and then MW2 came out. WaW and Black Ops gave me a little faith, but MW3 is a damn turd. I tried hard to love MW3 as much as I did CoD4, but that wasn't going to happen. MW2 pushed me away, and towards BF:BC2. MW3 was the final nail in the coffin. Now, I side with Battlefield.

Bubs to both of you.

farhad2k82572d ago

But WHY are you still bothered about a game that you no longer BUY?!!
You no longer give them your money, so why care?

Why is it that EVERY MW3 article I click on, I see people hate on CoD? I don't even play the game much, but EVERYWHERE i go.. I see BF fanboys.

grog20062569d ago

Hours played relates to gameplay in the sense that those that enjoy the series get a lot of time out of it. The fact that the single player campaign is short is not an issue for them-- they find their quality in the multiplayer experience.

And yes, I would agree with that statement partially. Buying a three dollar game and enjoying it for that many hours would make the game much more cost-effective to the user.

The argument is not that hours = quality. The argument goes towards the value of the game itself in terms of price. Qualities, in your use of the term, are much more subjective. As stated in the article, I do not enjoy CoD games. I'm merely defending it from the onslaught of 'haters'.

geth1gh2573d ago (Edited 2573d ago )

Okay, not going to bother evey reading this or clicking on the link for that matter after reading the first setnence here.

WOW has 100x more content than cod and blizzard adds tons of free content and keeps the world new on a daily basis. So that is no where near a fair comparison. It currently takes up close to 50gb on my hdd and COD can fit on a 9gb dvd disc.

Also add to the fact that COD is much more of a next gen game. Meaning the same amount of content is going to take up more space in a exponential amount compared to a game like WOW.

Not to mention you are also paying for the servers on top of everything else blizzard does. Xbox live users already pay $60-$120 a year for depending on their subscription.

So yea, that comparison seems like it comes from the mind of a average COD player.

mendicant2573d ago

You didn't bother to read past the first sentence, yet you typed all that?


Kahvipannu2573d ago (Edited 2573d ago )

Yeah, comparing WoW to CoD, and saying CoD has more to offer by it's price, pretty much tells the writer of this knows nothing about what he is writing about.

Maybe he compared it becouse Activision is also involved in it? So he tryed to explain that he thinks Activision is milking WoW players, and CoD is the true place to get money worth content?

Roflmao, that's like trying to convince himself to believe that. Last CoD games have been nothing more than modded MW1 games, kudos to WaW even tryed something different and take the formula forward, and everybody who don't see it after 5 games this gen (yes, 5 almost identical games), is insane or in denial.

Time used in game is not somekind of meter how good the game is, as Battletorn stated. If I play Tetris one hour a day, I still wouldn't pay 60€ for it, and every year same price again for recolor of the blocks. Paying for same content again and again, and playing it again and again, doesn't make it a smart deal.

Again, I'm not saying that the game is bad, everybody have own judgement on that, but I just can wonder how these people can't see how A is milking the franchise...

geth1gh2573d ago

@ mendicant

In some cases you can judge a book by its cover. When they start off with something as outrageous as that, then yes, that is all I need.

Why bother wasting my time reading all of it and then typing up all of that plus more when I can just type that up?

grog20062569d ago

If you read the article, you'd find that I do not personally enjoy the Call of Duty games at all. It's not my thing. I'm just trying to defend it from the rush of people declaring it to be wholly and entirely 'evil'

+ Show (1) more replyLast reply 2569d ago


ok, bro, carry on!

I can't wait to read part two of this.

grog20062569d ago

Glad to hear you enjoyed it!