Would Call of Duty (as a series) Get Less Flak if....

[hellrider1988]

I actually still buy Call of Duty games only for the single player campaigns, never cared for any multiplayer mode in any FPS. Also, I tend to buy them when they already received price cuts, not when they're brand new (so much for keeping the industry alive  ). Just recently I replayed the whole series (as available on PC) up until Modern Warefare 3 and currently am catching up on Black Ops I.

Completely agree with what badATchaos wrote. All games are build around the same basic gameplay/design choices but still, and especially after playing Infinity Ward's MF series and now switching to Treyarch's BO, the different series feel differently. I wouldn't go so far to say you can tell while playing which of the 3 studios developed it but it's a close call I'd say.

My reason for still playing the campaign is that I see them kind of like those big 80s/90s action movies. It's brilliantly scripted, great looking mindless fun with sometimes engaging storylines, especially the MF series. Not sure about BO yet, feels like the writers went a bit over the top. 

What I recognised just yesterday though was a disturbing decay of gaming routine: being directed from one checkpoint to another with a superior telling me exactly what to do almost all the time, I completely forgot to save my progress in an old RPG yesterday and had to start all over again after dying for the first time one hour into the game. So watch out for that! 

[Warmsignal]

I played through Modern Warfare (the first one) and I thought it was okay, if not a bit short, but I didn't have much interest in the multiplayer. I've been under the impression that most of these games are just designed primarily to update the online maps and features, and that little effort goes into the single player experience. When you think about it, these games do have a really short development window compared to most games, so it's no wonder.

I'm also not the biggest fan of games like Ghost Recon, or Dead Island, and I take it recent entries into the series borrow from these concepts. It just doesn't appeal to me. Honestly, the old school COD games are more appealing, the games based on actual wars. I remember enjoying the game "Deadly Dozen" on the PC back in the day.

But COD in space, or with zombies really doesn't sell me on the series. It's still one of the biggest cash cows in gaming right now. I have the same criticism/skepticism for games like Assassin's Creed, or anything that mashes out entry after entry, year after year, including Japanese titles like Tales.

[gf78]

I played through Modern Warfare (the first one) and I thought it was okay, if not a bit short, but I didn't have much interest in the multiplayer. I've been under the impression that most of these games are just designed primarily to update the online maps and features, and that little effort goes into the single player experience. When you think about it, these games do have a really short development window compared to most games, so it's no wonder.

Eh...three years to develop each entry isn't a short time IMO.  Remember that Infinity Ward, Sledgehammer and Treyarch (the three developers working on COD) release their games on a 3-year cycle now.  Black Ops III was the 2015 release and we won't see the next Treyarch game until 2018.  Ghosts was the last Infinity Ward title released in 2013 and the next game by that studio will release this year.

[Warmsignal]

I played through Modern Warfare (the first one) and I thought it was okay, if not a bit short, but I didn't have much interest in the multiplayer. I've been under the impression that most of these games are just designed primarily to update the online maps and features, and that little effort goes into the single player experience. When you think about it, these games do have a really short development window compared to most games, so it's no wonder.

Eh...three years to develop each entry isn't a short time IMO.  Remember that Infinity Ward, Sledgehammer and Treyarch (the three developers working on COD) release their games on a 3-year cycle now.  Black Ops III was the 2015 release and we won't see the next Treyarch game until 2018.  Ghosts was the last Infinity Ward title released in 2013 and the next game by that studio will release this year.

Technically 2 years and some change, from what I understand development is usually finished up on games at least 3 or 4 months prior to retail release for the pressing of copies, the crunching of numbers, and distribution process. Just what I've heard from watching game dev vlogs.

But, aren't most of these games just map and skin swapping from the previous entry? It's not quite the difference between GTA IV and GTA V, or Fallout 3 and Fallout 4 (which in itself, doesn't appear to be all that different from what I've seen). I'd think if a new GTA was put out every year, each by a different branch of Rockstar, the overall concept of GTA would get stale pretty fast.

I'm sure they are different in ways that aren't immediately perceptible to me, but are they different in the same ways that say, Metal Gear Rising is different than Metal Gear Solid? I wouldn't know, but it doesn't seem to be that way. It could be a case like with Saints Row, people saw it as a GTA clone, and it gradually became all but that. Yet, I still know some people who will swear without ever even checking that it is still just a GTA clone.

[gf78]

Technically 2 years and some change, from what I understand development is usually finished up on games at least 3 or 4 months prior to retail release for the pressing of copies, the crunching of numbers, and distribution process. Just what I've heard from watching game dev vlogs.

But, aren't most of these games just map and skin swapping from the previous entry? It's not quite the difference between GTA IV and GTA V, or Fallout 3 and Fallout 4 (which in itself, doesn't appear to be all that different from what I've seen). I'd think if a new GTA was put out every year, each by a different branch of Rockstar, the overall concept of GTA would get stale pretty fast.

I'm sure they are different in ways that aren't immediately perceptible to me, but are they different in the same ways that say, Metal Gear Rising is different than Metal Gear Solid? I wouldn't know, but it doesn't seem to be that way. It could be a case like with Saints Row, people saw it as a GTA clone, and it gradually became all but that. Yet, I still know some people who will swear without ever even checking that it is still just a GTA clone.

Having played through the campaigns on all of the Call of Duty games as well as a lot of multiplayer in the last three entries (Ghosts, Advanced Warfare and Black Ops III), I can tell you they are far from map & skin swaps which is what haters usually bash the games with.  To say that, you would have to say that every FPS out there is just a map & skin swap and we know that isn't the case. 

The Call of Duty games are kinda like Michael Bay flicks but a bit more on the intelligent side.  They have these big showcase moments or battles woven into the story.  Basically, the equivalent of your summer blockbuster in theaters.  I find the CoD games have far less "eye-roll" moments for me than many other games. 

I agree with you that regardless of who develops a game, annual releases make the given series stale for many people.  But to say they are all just the same is false.  Each developer introduces their own concepts, special abilities, weapons and storyline into their respective game.  To shoehorn them all into a hole and say they are just palette swaps would be the same as saying every movie is just a palette swap because they all have people running around doing something.  To me, the criticism leveled against Call of Duty is just as ridiculous.