VGCollect Forum
General and Gaming => Modern Video Games => Topic started by: gf78 on November 10, 2015, 11:05:20 am
-
A new Call of Duty game gets released every year, and every year the haters jump on the bandwagon and we hear about how the annual release schedule has drained the series of it's creativity and it's the same thing over and over again. And honesty, for a time I was in there right along with the haters, grew tired of the series and stopped playing.
But the reality is, three different developers work on this series. Black Ops III by Treyarch just released last week and while people bemoan the fact that a Call of Duty game just came out 12 months ago, the last Black Ops game and last Treyarch game came out three years ago. We will have the inevitable new Call of Duty game developed by Infinity Ward next year. But again, it will have been three years since the last Infinity Ward title. And I would wager real money that in 2017, we will see the next Sledgehammer title, again three years after their last title.
I'm not going to tell anyone they should or shouldn't buy, enjoy or hate a Call of Duty game. Everyone has different tastes. I find that each developer (Treyarch, Infinity Ward and Sledgehammer) have carved out a unique little universe and storyline with the only unifying elements being they are all "war" games. I hadn't played a Call of Duty since Modern Warfare 2. That's when I called it quits. I picked up Ghosts because my buddy kept bugging me to get it and while I enjoyed the single player experience, I wasn't too keen on the multiplayer. Last year, I picked up Advanced Warfare a few days after it was released and loved it. Having just played Black Ops III's story to completion, I found it weird, bewildering and ultimately pretty out there science fiction which I totally was not expecting. Looking at the last three entries, all from different "series" under the Call of Duty moniker, they were each as individual from each other as they are from all the other shooters on the market.
So getting back to the subject of my post (I apologize for being so long winded), do you think the individual games/series that are tied to the "Call of Duty" name would catch less flak if they didn't have Call of Duty in their title?
-
I think if they were all separate franchises and published by different companies they would undoubtedly sue each other because there's all basically identical. Maybe slightly different flavors here and there but on the whole, the same.
-
I think if they were all separate franchises and published by different companies they would undoubtedly sue each other because there's all basically identical. Maybe slightly different flavors here and there but on the whole, the same.
I don't know...if that were the case then you would have Bungie and Microsoft suing each other because Halo and Destiny are both shooters in space. Then you have the similarities between Just Cause, Farcry, Battlefield, Call of Duty, etc.
-
I don't mean they have the same or similar theme and genre. Gameplay and design is what I'm talking about.
-
One of my best friends played COD all through High School and would get every new release, year after year after year. Recently he stopped buying all the new games because they were getting stale for him, which I completely understand. It's kind of like Madden games, a new one is released every year that makes the prior entry bargain bin fodder and becomes obsolete rather quickly.
I think Call of Duty would still receive flak if it's entries were named differently on the basis that a lot of fps games receive flak because they don't really innovate or add anything new. I'm not a huge fps fan, but I do love me some TimeSplitters games, but considering I mostly buy Nintendo, maybe I'm not the best person to answer this. I do think it's an interesting topic though. Me personally, I have no problem with COD, look how many Mario games are pumped out each year, and remember Guitar Hero? If something's popular I think that there's no problem pimping it out to make a quick buck, just don't be surprised when it backfires.
-
Long post incoming - sorry :-[
This is my probably unpopular opinion about the franchise as a whole; I thought I would throw in my piece because of what B@C mentioned concerning the similarity of the games.
I would consider myself somewhat of a COD "apologist," :P though I will really only defend the multiplayer. The single player is an afterthought for me, and I could take it or leave it. I'm glad that you enjoy the story mode though gf78 :)
I personally see no difference between COD multiplayer and watching sports. I don't know anybody watches one season of football and then next year says "Really? They're playing the same game AGAIN? Come on." It's because sports are such an intricate competitive scene, and the ways that teams shuffle around and become better/worse over time is what makes the sport interesting to watch.
It's the same concept concerning COD. Yes, the core FPS is always the same at it's roots. But there are an infinite amounts of intricacies that make each game different than the next. There are always different guns, equipment, maps, perks, kill streaks, game modes, differences in weapon balance/time to kill, movement abilities, and the community that plays the multiplayer is going to be different from one game to the next.
In addition, because of that pvp human aspect, EVERY individual match you play is different, like every match of football is different, and if you move from BO1, to MW3, to BO3, they are NOT the same game, in my opinion.
I enjoy playing COD every now and then, but I certainly don't play it all the time. I think most people hate COD nowadays because:
1. People have played it so much that it has become stale only from sheer repetition (Think of what would happen if you played/watched 25-30 games of Soccer every night for 2-3 years)
2. The community is seen as very immature and childish, and the series in general is painted in that respect. Also the extreme popularity of COD builds up a lot of expectations too high
3. The single player is seen as weak, unexciting and repetitive, (I mostly agree) and that idea is written onto the game as a whole. It's important to remember that up until recently the devs had 1 year to make a new game, the story mode took a back seat because of time constraints.
aliensstudios brings up a good point too. How are some of the Nintendo classics REALLY different from game to game? I don't know if it's really any different from COD. :-\
TL:DR I think that people who claim that COD is too similar and it's a bad thing realllllly don't understand the whole story :) It's competitive enough that it can get away with only having minor differences from title to title - it's just like any sports game in real life.
-
I stopped playing Call of Duty to any real degree back with Black Ops 1. I demo'd Black Ops 2 and Advanced Warfare, didn't touch Modern Warfare 3, Ghost, and only did the beta for Black Ops 3 on PC, which was awful.
As for the question, I think even with different names, they'd still get a lot of flack for being too identical. Treyarch is usually the one that makes what are considered the "good" games of the series anymore, but they share too much to really be any different. Even if the games get three years of development now, it doesn't really show with the annual releases. The series changes very little and only took more significant leaps in gameplay after Advanced Warfare. Though I don't like Advanced Warfare, Black Ops 3 seems to be mostly just copying that style, but from what I heard about Black Ops 3, it is trying to be more of a good scifi story, rather than the generic war concept of Advanced Warfare.
All I want right now in a scifi shooter is freaking Battlefield 2143! Get on it, DICE!
-
I enjoy playing COD every now and then, but I certainly don't play it all the time. I think most people hate COD nowadays because:
1. People have played it so much that it has become stale only from sheer repetition (Think of what would happen if you played/watched 25-30 games of Soccer every night for 2-3 years)
2. The community is seen as very immature and childish, and the series in general is painted in that respect. Also the extreme popularity of COD builds up a lot of expectations too high
3. The single player is seen as weak, unexciting and repetitive, (I mostly agree) and that idea is written onto the game as a whole. It's important to remember that up until recently the devs had 1 year to make a new game, the story mode took a back seat because of time constraints.
aliensstudios brings up a good point too. How are some of the Nintendo classics REALLY different from game to game? I don't know if it's really any different from COD. :-\
1. I can see it getting old if I was one of those people maxing up to level 30 within two days of the game being released. Even though every match is different because you are playing against different people on different levels, it's the same mode of play.
2. There are a lot of immature a-holes online, regardless of the game you are playing. But I agree that Call of Duty and other "dude bro" shooters draw them like moths to a flame. I just mute 'em all.
3. I never felt the single player was so much weak as it was too short. That's why Modern Warfare 2 was my final game for quite some time. At that time, I didn't have high speed internet, so the story mode was my sole reason to play. I blew through the campaign in less than four hours and got pretty pissed. I was shortchanged. On the new 3-year schedule, I feel the campaigns have improved in both quality and length.
As for drawing comparisons to Mario, it is pretty much the same thing only I feel the Mario games offer less replay value in general. They are a set number of levels with no multiplayer to carry it on afterward. Compared to something like Black Ops III for example (which I profess I quite enjoyed), you have the campaign, the multiplayer, the Zombies mode and when you finish the main story, you can play a Zombies variation of it.
In reality, I think a lot of the negativity toward this series is because it's the "in" thing to hate on what's popular these days.
-
Definitely agree with you on the immaturity, dude; I always mute everybody haha. I've played with friends though and we'll talk.
Even though I usually play Domination, I also play TDM, Kill Confirmed and Search. Search and Destroy and Domination couldn't be more different in terms of play style. There's also other modes like FFA, Headquarters and Hardpoint, and all the party games :)
As far as story goes, they do often feel incomplete to me, and too short like you mentioned. I've heard that COD4's story is actually really good, I'd like to play that someday.
EDIT: I'm personally wondering how much of this year Treyarch will start actually working on the next game, do they start right after? Or do they work on maintaining BO3 and releasing patches, whatnot...
-
I would like to see Call of Duty and Assassin's Creed not use those titles. Syndicate could have been a different series. They were smart enough to do it when they realized they should change the Prince of Persia game they weren't working on to a new IP (Assassin's Creed) but they haven't done it since. Are publishers afraid of having more than one big IP under their belt? I mean, Ubisoft has plenty but what does Activision have besides Call of Duty and Skylanders? Destiny and not much else.
-
I don't understand people hating on any games that they have no interest in - just don't buy them. No need to rain on someone else's parade.
That said, I dabble with CoD from time to time - and by that, I mean I picked up BO3 this year and the last one I played previously was the original BO. Having not played every single iteration, I thought this year's entry felt fresh & had a lot of very cool ideas. I love the sci-fi angle, and honestly it reminds me a lot of Crysis. I should note I'm also more of a single-player guy.
Anyway, point being, if you are a fan & feel burnt out, just skip a year or two. No one is MAKING you buy every single entry. Same goes for any annualized series.
-
That said, I dabble with CoD from time to time - and by that, I mean I picked up BO3 this year and the last one I played previously was the original BO. Having not played every single iteration, I thought this year's entry felt fresh & had a lot of very cool ideas. I love the sci-fi angle, and honestly it reminds me a lot of Crysis. I should note I'm also more of a single-player guy.
Good to hear that you enjoy Black Ops III too. I thought the story was pretty cool and I have been playing a ton of online. I've found a combo that works well for me. I am not the best player by any stretch, but I frequently see myself in the "top 3" at the end of the match.
-
I think most of the "hate" is due to people being sick of COD in the spotlight. Each release gets bag of chips, drinks, ads, web promotion ad nauseum. Microsoft and Sony swoon at the sound of COD bank notes cashing.
It doesn't bother me personally. I pulled 1000 gamerscore on Call of Duty 2 when it hit 360 10 years ago and ended up hating the game and never desiring to play the franchise again. When I see the hype each year I think this might be the year to ride again, but I haven't pulled the trigger yet (pun intended).
I don't understand hating something that keeps the game industry alive, but I do miss the days when games felt like more than just FPS. COD is one of those amazing things like Wii though - I hear about 60 year old guys buying a system and game just to play and also a 7 year old kid who wants what his friends are playing so he picks up a system and game from his parents. That kind of market penetration is amazing.
-
I'm a hater and proud of it. Not jumping any bandwagons.
Yeah, I'm aware that all the games are made by two or three different developers. But the point is, there's always a new CoD every year and frankly I wish it would go away. But it makes a lot of money so it will stay, all because the sheep line up to get it. Maybe if CoD wasn't released annually it wouldn't be so bad. But it's just the same garbage year after year...
At least a new Halo is released every 3-4 years. :P
-
I'm a hater and proud of it. Not jumping any bandwagons.
Yeah, I'm aware that all the games are made by two or three different developers. But the point is, there's always a new CoD every year and frankly I wish it would go away. But it makes a lot of money so it will stay, all because the sheep line up to get it. Maybe if CoD wasn't released annually it wouldn't be so bad. But it's just the same garbage year after year...
At least a new Halo is released every 3-4 years. :P
Well, regardless of our personal opinions on Call of Duty, the series is beneficial to gaming as a whole because it continues to draw attention to our hobby. It also avoids most of the controversial elements in the press so the bulk of that exposure is positive.
I wouldn't wish for Call of Duty to go away any more than I would wish for the multitude of (to me) incomprehensible Japanese games that are released. What's in a name? You can't lump all of the Call of Duty games together as a quick cash-grab that happens every November. Three separate developers make these games, putting them on a 3-year development cycle. With the last two games, Black Ops III and Advanced Warfare-it really shows that the developers had the time and resources to make them great.
-
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. :D
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! ::)
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.