The COD series and it's crappyness...

  • 60 results
  • 1
  • 2

This topic is locked from further discussion.

#1 Posted by fnevaeva (509 posts) -

I think that CoD needs a new graphics engine. Either that or go back to WW2. Cause i'm not gonna pay $60 bucks for a game that is the same and they put no work or effort into changing it. Plus, they need to make a game that can match CoD2. That game was balanced. No weapon add ons, 1 running speed, weapons were balanced. If all the modern warfare games and bop games were like that, I think those games could've been great. Does anyone else agree?

#2 Posted by CUDGEdave (2590 posts) -

COD was great in it's day,and had a fantastic expansion pack called "United Offensive",and yeah CoD needs a massive overhaul.

#3 Posted by Hakumen21 (342 posts) -

no, youre just too attached to your nostalgia.

If i wanted a simple fps with no attachments or customizations, id just google up a random free to play online fps.

COD4 was good, but not great. BO2 is actually very balanced and good surprisingly, but it has gotten to the point where it's gotten boring and stale as ever.

BO2 should have been released 4 or 5 years ago. 

#4 Posted by Stinger78 (5826 posts) -
If a game entertains you, the graphic-engine it has is secondary to how fun it is to play. Also CoD has basically been the same game since Modern Warfare, or even 2.
#5 Posted by Phantom_Leo (7051 posts) -

Dear Lord... The latest game has been out for how long now and people are still making whiney topics like this?!

Here's a tip: Get over it and Move on.

#6 Posted by Granny_Spanked (1326 posts) -
If you don't like it don't play it, why would they stop making games like they are when they sell like hotcakes.
#7 Posted by fnevaeva (509 posts) -
@ Hakumen21 All FTP FPS's suck. They are just downright horrible. I would rather be r*ped in prison. And comon now, I think the companies of the cod series have enough money racked up for a new graphics engine. Then I may consider these games to be decent, although it's not just the graphics. After cod2, they just went downhill. I mean ya, the modern warfare thing is alright, they just did a horrible job at executing it. It's just too arcade ish. It's not realistic at all (compared to cod2).
#8 Posted by fnevaeva (509 posts) -
If a game entertains you, the graphic-engine it has is secondary to how fun it is to play. Also CoD has basically been the same game since Modern Warfare, or even 2.Stinger78
The game engine hasn't changed since cod2 came out, just a few graphical tweaks to make things look alittle better with the same engine. and cod2 came out in '05....
#9 Posted by Hakumen21 (342 posts) -
@ Hakumen21 All FTP FPS's suck. They are just downright horrible. I would rather be r*ped in prison. And comon now, I think the companies of the cod series have enough money racked up for a new graphics engine. Then I may consider these games to be decent, although it's not just the graphics. After cod2, they just went downhill. I mean ya, the modern warfare thing is alright, they just did a horrible job at executing it. It's just too arcade ish. It's not realistic at all (compared to cod2). fnevaeva
I agree with you. but in my opinion, i liked cod4 and bo2, and those 2 were the only decent/good cod games ive enjoyed. cod2 doesnt hold much for me. again, thats just me.
#10 Posted by Lucky_Krystal (1730 posts) -

Boo hoo.

You've sucessfully regurgitated what millions of other gamers have said already. There's no shortage of military fps nowadays, how about letting COD go and finding another one that tickles your fancy.

#11 Posted by SoNin360 (5438 posts) -
I couldn't care less about the graphics, it's playing the same game again and again that finally got to me. I solved the problem by no longer buying Call of Duty games and playing the dozens of other games that interest me.
#12 Posted by Venom_Raptor (6958 posts) -

Call of Duty 4: Modern Warfare was an exceptional shooter, and still is today. The sequel was good and entertaining, but the third entry shows just how recycled everything is, with exactly the same graphics, presentation and gameplay with little in terms of variety when you take out the over-the-top action setpieces. The single players have been decent though too short, but the multiplayer is completely ruined because of how easy and simply the game is for kids, aswell as hackers to infiltrate every aspect of it and ruin everyones potential enjoyment.

#13 Posted by fnevaeva (509 posts) -

Call of Duty 4: Modern Warfare was an exceptional shooter, and still is today. The sequel was good and entertaining, but the third entry shows just how recycled everything is, with exactly the same graphics, presentation and gameplay with little in terms of variety when you take out the over-the-top action setpieces. The single players have been decent though too short, but the multiplayer is completely ruined because of how easy and simply the game is for kids, aswell as hackers to infiltrate every aspect of it and ruin everyones potential enjoyment.

Venom_Raptor
Right on. And also, I'm not denying that the Modern Warfare and Bops are great games (hence why so many people play/bought them), but for me personally, I just didn't like how they went about into the modern world of war. I know there are other shooters out there, but you gotta consider, 1 person only has so much money to spend and only so much time to play when I have school work and other things in life to do.
#14 Posted by Rattlesnake_8 (18399 posts) -
COD2 is still the best in the series. Personally I wont buy any COD game unless it goes back to ww2 or goes to Vietnam. (Black ops doesn't count).. I'm talking an open world style game, proper physics, decent engine, being able to explore. Story that goes along with the war, battles that really happened and being able to lead troops into battle, story that makes you care about characters etc. Imagine an open world ww2 setting in Bastogne and being able to go on patrols with a squad, or lead a sneak attack behind enemy lines, or go on a mission to take a prisoner, or setup an ambush etc.. only it's open world and YOU get to choose what you do, how many troops to take with you etc. Doesn't have to be ww2, could be during Vietnam, clear tunnels, patrol and ambush, clear an enemy encampment, protect a fort or village against attack. something with modern graphics and a good engine to pull it off.
#15 Posted by lild1425 (6757 posts) -

[QUOTE="Venom_Raptor"]

Call of Duty 4: Modern Warfare was an exceptional shooter, and still is today. The sequel was good and entertaining, but the third entry shows just how recycled everything is, with exactly the same graphics, presentation and gameplay with little in terms of variety when you take out the over-the-top action setpieces. The single players have been decent though too short, but the multiplayer is completely ruined because of how easy and simply the game is for kids, aswell as hackers to infiltrate every aspect of it and ruin everyones potential enjoyment.

fnevaeva

Right on. And also, I'm not denying that the Modern Warfare and Bops are great games (hence why so many people play/bought them), but for me personally, I just didn't like how they went about into the modern world of war. I know there are other shooters out there, but you gotta consider, 1 person only has so much money to spend and only so much time to play when I have school work and other things in life to do.

I didn't even think MW2 was that good. COD4 probably had the best singleplayer for a FPS IMO and they dropped off the face of the planet after that. And now a MW4......ugh. Treyarch's been kicking their fanny every since COD4.

#16 Posted by Stinger78 (5826 posts) -
[QUOTE="Stinger78"]If a game entertains you, the graphic-engine it has is secondary to how fun it is to play. Also CoD has basically been the same game since Modern Warfare, or even 2.fnevaeva
The game engine hasn't changed since cod2 came out, just a few graphical tweaks to make things look alittle better with the same engine. and cod2 came out in '05....

If I remember right, at high settings, whatever they did to Black Ops made it put a lot more stress on your system compared to previous. Either way, while a new engine would be nice - maybe something like Frostbite 2, if the game is entertaining, and the series is still selling well-enough to get yearly installments, Activision has no reason to change much.
#17 Posted by Stinger78 (5826 posts) -
COD2 is still the best in the series. Personally I wont buy any COD game unless it goes back to ww2 or goes to Vietnam. (Black ops doesn't count).. I'm talking an open world style game, proper physics, decent engine, being able to explore. Story that goes along with the war, battles that really happened and being able to lead troops into battle, story that makes you care about characters etc. Imagine an open world ww2 setting in Bastogne and being able to go on patrols with a squad, or lead a sneak attack behind enemy lines, or go on a mission to take a prisoner, or setup an ambush etc.. only it's open world and YOU get to choose what you do, how many troops to take with you etc. Doesn't have to be ww2, could be during Vietnam, clear tunnels, patrol and ambush, clear an enemy encampment, protect a fort or village against attack. something with modern graphics and a good engine to pull it off.Rattlesnake_8
CoD2 was a good game, but I've never been the biggest fan of WW2 games, so when 4 came out with "Modern Warfare", I thought it was amazing, and it was nice that I was able to run it at high settings and a really smooth framerate :)
#18 Posted by Heirren (16834 posts) -
Black Ops 2 is one of the worst games I've ever played in my entire life.
#19 Posted by idunnodude (2282 posts) -

yeah they should atleast improve the graphics. i stopped at MW3 and never got world at war or black ops 2. cod series is great, everyone here just hates it cuz it's popular. yeah they are milking it to the max but why wouldn't they. they sell like crazy and at this point it's so easy for them to make, it essentially the same game just different maps.

#20 Posted by Heirren (16834 posts) -

yeah they should atleast improve the graphics. i stopped at MW3 and never got world at war or black ops 2. cod series is great, everyone here just hates it cuz it's popular. yeah they are milking it to the max but why wouldn't they. they sell like crazy and at this point it's so easy for them to make, it essentially the same game just different maps.

idunnodude
Na I don't like it because it's a bad game. The single player basically plays itself and the multiplayer is just so fckng one dimensional it's ridiculous. The one dimension it plays with is also just some lackluster instant frills bllsht.
#21 Posted by idunnodude (2282 posts) -
[QUOTE="idunnodude"]

yeah they should atleast improve the graphics. i stopped at MW3 and never got world at war or black ops 2. cod series is great, everyone here just hates it cuz it's popular. yeah they are milking it to the max but why wouldn't they. they sell like crazy and at this point it's so easy for them to make, it essentially the same game just different maps.

Heirren
Na I don't like it because it's a bad game. The single player basically plays itself and the multiplayer is just so fckng one dimensional it's ridiculous. The one dimension it plays with is also just some lackluster instant frills bllsht.

well you are entitled to your opinion. but if you're gonna criticize it you should atleast give some valid reasons instead of just saying its bad and it's bull cuz then it just sounds like your talking out of your ass. as much hate as it gets and as much as they milk it, it still is one of the best selling games in the world for a reason.
#22 Posted by Heirren (16834 posts) -
[QUOTE="Heirren"][QUOTE="idunnodude"]

yeah they should atleast improve the graphics. i stopped at MW3 and never got world at war or black ops 2. cod series is great, everyone here just hates it cuz it's popular. yeah they are milking it to the max but why wouldn't they. they sell like crazy and at this point it's so easy for them to make, it essentially the same game just different maps.

idunnodude
Na I don't like it because it's a bad game. The single player basically plays itself and the multiplayer is just so fckng one dimensional it's ridiculous. The one dimension it plays with is also just some lackluster instant frills bllsht.

well you are entitled to your opinion. but if you're gonna criticize it you should atleast give some valid reasons instead of just saying its bad and it's bull cuz then it just sounds like your talking out of your ass. as much hate as it gets and as much as they milk it, it still is one of the best selling games in the world for a reason.

Those are valid points.
#23 Posted by Gamefan1986 (1323 posts) -

The main problem with the CoD series are a bunch of the stupid nagging issues that they refuse to fix year after year, and I can rattle off a bunch right off the top of my head

1. Terrible spawning

2. Quick scoping

3. The fact that you don't even have to put your crosshairs on the person you are shooting at to kill them. (Most easily seen with stupid snipers)

4. What you see and what the other guy sees is almost never the same. (IE - I put 15 bullets in another player from near point blank range getting hit markers the whole time, he kills me in 1 hit, on his screen I didn't damage him at all and he hits me 5 times)

5. The listed stats for the guns seem almost useless since most of the time the weapons seem to behave differently then what is listed

6. I play with a group of 4 people, and each one of us swears that a particular gun behaves differently for each one of us.

The list goes on and on which is a shame because they had some really good ideas with Black Ops 2, the campaign is better than it has been the last few years and the Pick 10 system is great, but again the whole experience gets bogged down by the same crap that happens year after year, and they add on to it by making stupid decisions like having the cap points in Hardpoint all follow the same pattern every game instead of being random, as well as there being designated spawn points.

My group and I were playing earlier today and I was killed before I could even take a single step after spawning, and on the kill cam I watched a sniper take 3 steps back from where he was standing turn to his left, and fire a shot, and then I spawned right in the path of his bullet and got killed instantly. That is UNACCEPTABLE.

#24 Posted by The_Last_Ride (71195 posts) -
They won't care to do that. They are selling millions from the releases they make and barely change anything. Don't expect them to fix something that isn't broken in their view
#25 Posted by fnevaeva (509 posts) -

@idunnodude

well you are entitled to your opinion. but if you're gonna criticize it you should atleast give some valid reasons instead of just saying its bad and it's bull cuz then it just sounds like your talking out of your ass. as much hate as it gets and as much as they milk it, it still is one of the best selling games in the world for a reason.

 

Did I not list valid reasons? Gameplay has become to arcadish, non-realistic. In COD2 there are no weapon attachments, perks, kill streaks/deathstreaks. There is only 1 running speed, and the guns are very balanced. Are those not valid reasons?

#26 Posted by idunnodude (2282 posts) -

the quickscoping is stupid yeah. the spawning is crappy at times as well, but it's not so bad that it really becomes a problem. the majority of the time you will get a good spawn. the rest of the stuff can either be avoided or it was cuz of lag. of course you have to put your crosshairs on someone to kill them i don't know what you're talking about there.

and to the other dude all you said was that it was one dimensional and it played itself. this is all subjective you didn't elaborate why you think it's like that.

#27 Posted by idunnodude (2282 posts) -

 fnevaeva

well you are entitled to your opinion. but if you're gonna criticize it you should atleast give some valid reasons instead of just saying its bad and it's bull cuz then it just sounds like your talking out of your ass. as much hate as it gets and as much as they milk it, it still is one of the best selling games in the world for a reason.

 

Did I not list valid reasons? Gameplay has become to arcadish, non-realistic. In COD2 there are no weapon attachments, perks, kill streaks/deathstreaks. There is only 1 running speed, and the guns are very balanced. Are those not valid reasons?

so what if it's arcade-ish? it's a game they are not gonna obsess that hard over realism. is it realistic that after 5 kills in a row you all of a sudden can open a computer and control a predator missle? COD2 was in the past, you really think they will keep it that way? they have to appeal to a wider audience, and that means more options. the perks, killstreaks and attachments allow for customization to how the individual player likes to play. again this is all subjective man, you can't be mad at them for not making the type of game that you want over and over again.

#28 Posted by fnevaeva (509 posts) -
You're avoiding the point of this post. I gave you reasons why it is bad, and how it has become that way. Explain to me how they have become more realistic (other than the vague statement of "oh, they went modern").
#29 Posted by idunnodude (2282 posts) -
You're avoiding the point of this post. I gave you reasons why it is bad, and how it has become that way. Explain to me how they have become more realistic (other than the vague statement of "oh, they went modern").fnevaeva
they haven't become realistic. i don't know what you're talking about all the stuff you said was subjective. lol you're avoiding what i said.
#30 Posted by fnevaeva (509 posts) -
What are you talking about? you said give valid reasons, and i've given you plenty. How is that avoiding what you said?
#31 Posted by Gamefan1986 (1323 posts) -

the quickscoping is stupid yeah. the spawning is crappy at times as well, but it's not so bad that it really becomes a problem. the majority of the time you will get a good spawn. the rest of the stuff can either be avoided or it was cuz of lag. of course you have to put your crosshairs on someone to kill them i don't know what you're talking about there.

and to the other dude all you said was that it was one dimensional and it played itself. this is all subjective you didn't elaborate why you think it's like that.

idunnodude

Umm no dude, you can totally kill people without actually hitting them. I'm not saying it's *common* because it isn't which probably means it has something to do with connections but it does happen.

My group and I were playing last night on Hijacked and I got killed even though the other guy was aiming about 10 feet too far to the right.

#32 Posted by idunnodude (2282 posts) -
What are you talking about? you said give valid reasons, and i've given you plenty. How is that avoiding what you said?fnevaeva
read my last post all the reasons you gave were pretty much subjective. i responded to all that stuff u said lol.
#33 Posted by idunnodude (2282 posts) -

[QUOTE="idunnodude"]

the quickscoping is stupid yeah. the spawning is crappy at times as well, but it's not so bad that it really becomes a problem. the majority of the time you will get a good spawn. the rest of the stuff can either be avoided or it was cuz of lag. of course you have to put your crosshairs on someone to kill them i don't know what you're talking about there.

and to the other dude all you said was that it was one dimensional and it played itself. this is all subjective you didn't elaborate why you think it's like that.

Gamefan1986

Umm no dude, you can totally kill people without actually hitting them. I'm not saying it's *common* because it isn't which probably means it has something to do with connections but it does happen.

My group and I were playing last night on Hijacked and I got killed even though the other guy was aiming about 10 feet too far to the right.

well there u go u said it yourself it's your connection.
#34 Posted by fnevaeva (509 posts) -

Subjective my ass. Don't give me this bullsh*t. Stop avoiding the truth and make your side of the argument. Or get off here cause obviously you can't find a reason for why i'm wrong.

 

Oh, and here is a reminder. "Did I not list valid reasons? Gameplay has become to arcadish, non-realistic. In COD2 there are no weapon attachments, perks, kill streaks/deathstreaks. There is only 1 running speed, and the guns are very balanced. Are those not valid reasons?"

#35 Posted by idunnodude (2282 posts) -

Subjective my ass. Don't give me this bullsh*t. Stop avoiding the truth and make your side of the argument. Or get off here cause obviously you can't find a reason for why i'm wrong.

 

Oh, and here is a reminder. "Did I not list valid reasons? Gameplay has become to arcadish, non-realistic. In COD2 there are no weapon attachments, perks, kill streaks/deathstreaks. There is only 1 running speed, and the guns are very balanced. Are those not valid reasons?"

fnevaeva

you're the one avoiding what i said lol. what did i hit a sweet spot? i've clearly made my side of the argument, you are just too ignorant to see it. do you not know what subjective means? are you scared of the word? lol you are just pissed cuz they didn't make it your way. its like those old final fantasy gamers that hate all the ones after ff7 cuz it's not ff7.

so what if it has become arcade-ish and non realistic? how is that a bad thing? and how are weapon attachments, perks and kill streaks a bad thing either wtf? it allows for more customization for the player to experiment with. which makes way for more play styles and options for the player to enjoy the game the way they want to.

seriously what the hell did you expect? that they are going to make the same thing over and over again? if realism was their goal you wouldn't have the ability to magically open a computer and control a predator missile after getting 5 kills in a row. it's a game how real do you expect it to be.

and the guns are balanced as well. sure some may be stronger than others, but they also will have their faults. there is always a way to counter each playstyle. you may think its bad cuz it's not COD2, but it is one of the best selling games in the world for a reason.

#36 Posted by fnevaeva (509 posts) -

I believe I was being subjective, as it means, as defined on Merriam-webster.com -> of, relating to, or constituting a subject. I believe the whole point of this debate/discussion is relating to a subject. Lol, D.A. And I believe it's a bad thing because it has ruined the CoD series. And I expect it to be as close to reality as possible. And tell me how the perk system is realistic. Oh, and the knifing. As one person can not knife that fast in real life with full gear going from holding their weapon to instantly knifing someone.

#37 Posted by Gamefan1986 (1323 posts) -

[QUOTE="Gamefan1986"]

[QUOTE="idunnodude"]

the quickscoping is stupid yeah. the spawning is crappy at times as well, but it's not so bad that it really becomes a problem. the majority of the time you will get a good spawn. the rest of the stuff can either be avoided or it was cuz of lag. of course you have to put your crosshairs on someone to kill them i don't know what you're talking about there.

and to the other dude all you said was that it was one dimensional and it played itself. this is all subjective you didn't elaborate why you think it's like that.

idunnodude

Umm no dude, you can totally kill people without actually hitting them. I'm not saying it's *common* because it isn't which probably means it has something to do with connections but it does happen.

My group and I were playing last night on Hijacked and I got killed even though the other guy was aiming about 10 feet too far to the right.

well there u go u said it yourself it's your connection.

Lol it's not my connection im getting 35 mbps with a 20 ms ping, it's everyone else

#38 Posted by idunnodude (2282 posts) -

I believe I was being subjective, as it means, as defined on Merriam-webster.com -> of, relating to, or constituting a subject. I believe the whole point of this debate/discussion is relating to a subject. Lol, D.A. And I believe it's a bad thing because it has ruined the CoD series. And I expect it to be as close to reality as possible. And tell me how the perk system is realistic. Oh, and the knifing. As one person can not knife that fast in real life with full gear going from holding their weapon to instantly knifing someone.

fnevaeva
so you expect them to make the same game over and over again right? now ur bringing up new crap and ignoring everything else i said once again. lol this is pathetic nevermind.
#39 Posted by Michael0134567 (28651 posts) -

I like great games, hence why I like CoD.

#40 Posted by UnchartedZone (217 posts) -

I agree that they need a new graphics engine, but your comment about how their games are the same and they put no effort into changing it is invalid now that Black Ops 2 came out. It has a new setting, they tried to take a different approach to the campaign, they added more options to zombies, they revamped the class creation system, and of course, they added new weapons and maps, but that's a given. Nevertheless, you can't say they didn't put effort into trying to change it this time.

#41 Posted by fnevaeva (509 posts) -
@idunnodude So do you not believe that 1 running speed, balanced weapons, no weapon attachments, no perks, and no killstreaks sucks? and isn't fun or balanced? Explain this to me.
#42 Posted by fnevaeva (509 posts) -

so you expect them to make the same game over and over again right? now ur bringing up new crap and ignoring everything else i said once again. lol this is pathetic nevermind.idunnodude

And if you look at the verrrry first post, the main topic of this thread is matching CoD2. And tell me how am I avoiding/ignoring everything else you said? I gave you "valid" reasons.

#43 Posted by Mrmedia01 (1917 posts) -

If Millions of people keep buying the same crap, Activision will continue to ship the same crap.

Can't blame them, they are making tons of money.

#44 Posted by fnevaeva (509 posts) -
That dosn't mean it's a great game. You know, sales are based on how many copies a store buys from the game company. Not units sold to customers? And I bet you at least half or more people just play it to socialize, and not because it is fun.
#45 Posted by SwagKingCole (10 posts) -

If Millions of people keep buying the same crap, Activision will continue to ship the same crap.

Can't blame them, they are making tons of money.

Mrmedia01

Quoted for truth.

I read that there are around 11 million active accounts. That's a boatload of cash. It also goes to show that a lot of people aren't aware of "it's crappyness" as you put it and find it to be good fun.

#46 Posted by SaudiFury (8707 posts) -

A game that sells 10's of millions of copies each time around is anything but crappy. 

 

As much as the internet voices it's hatred of it. 

 

Seems like a scenerio that the more popular something is - ANYTHING - the more hatred it will gather as well. 

#47 Posted by angelsrul_basic (79 posts) -

Cod4 was the pinnacle of the series imo, it had better maps and more balanced perks than anythings I've seen yet. Modern warfare 3 ruined the series for me. The assassin perk is ridiculouly over powered. Uavs are useless. I wish they would just go back to the original modern warfare perks they were a lot more balanced. The more they try to innovate the more they seem to kill the balance of the game.

#48 Posted by fnevaeva (509 posts) -
^^
#49 Posted by Baroni88 (340 posts) -

I haven't played a good amount of call of duty since the original Modern Warfare. I bet if I put in Black Ops 2, it would feel like the exact same game. Something needs to change.

#50 Posted by Lulekani (2216 posts) -

I haven't played a good amount of call of duty since the original Modern Warfare. I bet if I put in Black Ops 2, it would feel like the exact same game. Something needs to change.

Baroni88
Maybe you should change ? You might like it.