Now I know why gamers hate Call of Duty and critics love it.

I was an early fan of the Call of Duty series. I really enjoyed the first few games, namely Call of Duty + United Offensive expansion, Call of Duty 2 and Call of Duty 4: World at War (couldn't play call of Duty 3 because it isn't available for PC). I didn't play any games in the series after that, because I knew that they were clearly milking the franchise with their 'copy-paste' strategy. Anyway, after a gap of several years, I picked up this year's 'Ghosts' for the PC because i wanted to give my once-beloved franchise another go. BIG mistake.

The major flaw I noticed, common to both multi-player and single-player, was how 'weak' most guns sounded. I mean....even on my powerful 5.1 PC sound system, most guns 'clicked' rather than 'thudded'. With respect to the multi-player alone, I found the supposedly 'new' games modes quite disappointing. Professional reviews are going on and on about how 'innovative' the multi-player is, but all these new modes are just rehashed versions of tried-and-tested formulas. Anyway, the multi-player is pretty decent, but nothing to write home about. There are better multi-player games out there for sure.

Coming to the campaign, the less said about it, the better. I really missed quick-saves, but can't really complain about that because no multi-plat game ever has a quick-save feature anymore (except action-rpg hybrids like Mass Effect, Deus ex etc.). That apart, the campaign seemed like an interactive movie rather than a game. It is so scripted, to the extent that I can't open a door or pull a lever until the game allows me to do that. There are games which create very immersive experiences in spite of being heavily scripted (like the Half-Life games), but in this game, the ridiculous amount of scripting actually ensures that there is no immersion at all. The AI of both friends are foes is mediocre at best. My team-mates seem to take a LOT of hits before dying, and they also hardly inflict any significant damage to the enemies. And the enemies are so dumb and lifeless. Then, almost every professional review says that the Ghosts campaign is 'lengthy and memorable'. Nothing could be far from the truth. There are no more than a couple of memorable stuff in the entire campaign, and a 5-6 hour campaign isn't what i would call 'lengthy'. My time to beat the game on 'normal' was 5 hours 6 minutes, which seems to be on par with the average playtime mentioned on howlongtobeat.com. Lastly, war-themed games are supposed to be as realistic as possible while the story take a back-seat. But in this game, the gameplay is anything but realistic, and even the story seems so generic.

After beating Crysis 3, I thought there could be no game which was more boring than that. But COD Ghosts is slightly more boring than Crysis 3 as well. At least Crysis 3 had gorgeous visuals to compensate for 10% of the boring gameplay, but COD Ghosts's visuals are nothing extraordinary. Extremely disappointing. Also, the huge difference between average critic scores and average user scores (66/100 vs 18/100 on metacritic) does make gamers suspect that Activision actually pays critics to write favorable reviews. I just can't seem to understand how games like these manage to sell millions, or the sales figures too are fabricated just to maintain the franchise's reputation. If it does sell millions, then I suppose a good chunk of those sales are due to 12-year old kids for whom their parents buy the games. It has reached a point where, even if Activision pack frozen dog turd in a plastic bag and market it as 'Call of Duty - Riley Edition', then people would still buy millions of those. I'm disappointed about spending my hard earned money to buy this crap at full price, but I'm PETRIFIED to think about the million ways in which such games could seriously harm the gaming industry. If people keep buying millions of copies of highly watered-down games like these, then almost every developer would start making similar games.

Yup, CoD sucks. Last one I bought was MW2. Wasn't too bad since I hadn't really played MP FPS too much.

But then I got into BF, (starting with 1943) Haven't been able to play CoD since.

CoD's not awful but I don't play it either. Too many other, better games to play.

If there's one thing real gamers should hate, it's the phrase "real gamers". There's no faster way to come off as elitist and obnoxious than by tossing that phrase around, IMO.

@funkyzoom: The first modern warfare came out before world at war. Technically, the first modern warfare is COD 4.

The logical fallacy in your thread title is known as the "no true scotsman" fallacy. Google it, and learn from your mistakes. If you want to have a real discussion, this thread is a great example of how NOT to do it.

So you mean to say, people who play games like 'Farmville' and 'Cityville' on Facebook too can be called 'real' gamers?

@1PMrFister: That's very true. The whole "hardcore" and casual mindset comes off as extremely elitist and doesn't really help make gamers look good. Granted, some people are a lot more serious about gaming than others, but the mindset is stupid.

@funkyzoom: What I'm saying is if you want to have thought-provoking discussions regarding video games, you need to get over your obsession with labels first.

Yeah, I do know that. I somehow missed that game when it came out. Just an oversight, I guess. But I didn't play it even later on.

Yeah, i do understand that. I usually don't post like this. But I was so disgusted with this game, hence i just vented out my frustration. What i meant to say is, developers shouldn't water down games just to please the more 'casual' gamers, thereby leaving the 'hardcore' gamers in the lurch. But I'm not implying that it is 'wrong' to be a casual gamer. Anyway, you could still go past the title of the topic and actually read what I posted, to find out if it makes sense or not. If you find it useless, you (and others too) are most welcome to criticize me. I always welcome constructive criticism.

This is why it's a good idea to calm down and think through your post before you type something out of frustration. It helps you to articulate your points better with less chance of saying something you don't really mean.

But then I could just as easily say many games are over-complicated to please the more hardcore and leave the casual gamers "in the lurch". Let's move past labels and just enjoy our shared hobby, eh? This us versus them stuff is getting old. By the by, if you use the full edit option on your original post title and change it to something like "Now I see why so many people hate Call of Duty", or something else less incendiary, you may just yet be able to have a tangible discussion arise from this, but that current thread title dooms it to being a multi-page locked circular internet slap fight of get the last word in.

Well...the actual mistake was that I posted this in the 'general game discussion' thread when I actually meant to post it in the 'PC and MAC games' thread. If i had posted it over there, then the PC gamers would have even bought me a drink for stating the obvious. Console gamers in general tend to be more casual than PC gamers (which is not wrong). And its a known fact that usually console gamers and PC gamers are at loggerheads with each other. In any case, I didn't mean to offend anyone intentionally by using the phrase 'real gamers'. It was just something I mentioned casually, because English isn't my native language, and i never imagined just the word 'real' would have these kind of ramifications. But still, I certainly feel that ignoring the entire post and labeling me as elitist (whether its you or others) just due to ONE word in the title is a bit unfair. Anyway, I just moved the topic to the 'PC and MAC games' section.

Thanks for the suggestion. it was a pretty interesting read. To be frank, English isn't my primary language. I reside in a third world country where more than half the population can't even understand English. Due to my own activities (reading novels, watching Hollywood movies and of course playing games), I have attained a reasonable level of proficiency in English. So the title was just something which I posted when it came to my mind. I never knew that just one world 'real' would have such serious ramifications and would offend most people over here. I did get your point, so I changed the title.

I think it gets higher scores from game writers because they look at all the changes and tweaks, for better or worse, with the MP mode, instead of just saying: "Call of Duty sucks!!!" That said, I don't think the PC version of ghosts rates that high on metacritic. Its down to its 60s. If this were any other AAA game that'd be a disaster.

Which I have played and enjoyed. Being the only COD game I have played through :P

From what I understand, not a lot has changed since that game... Although some changes has been made.

COD 1 was the only COD game I played with any dedication. After that, I became a Battlefield fan because of the variety in gameplay.

COD is a game I play at a friends house while drunk.

Best one sentence review of what CoD is actually good for. It's a fine lowest common denominator sort of game that you can fall back on with people who don't play deeper or better games.

I honestly hate what CoD has done to the FPS landscape with a passion, but CoD itself isn't too bad. I pick up an installment every two or three years because the MP is more low key than DoD or or CS so when I just want to head shot a bunch of people without using my brain I'll play a match or two.

CoD series has died for me after Modern Warfare 2 multiplayer, I remember back then at it's peak it had 50k players - same amount of Counter Strike players, a multiplayer fps that actually got strong in a way to match out the good oldie CS.

And "Now I know why gamers hate Call of Duty and critics love it" - critics get payed very good to write good reviews about the good copy paste mechanism.

Gotta love the dichotomy mentally of people today. "If it isn't one extreme end of the spectrum, it's the other!"

I stopped buying CoD after W@W, but have spent a couple hours trying each newer one on free weekends on steam. It's as if they hired interns to copy paste the code each time and resold it for $60

COD's okay though, I mean it's nothing stellar by now but it is definitely one of the best shooters out there, no doubt. Not a single game compares to it.

I don't play COD... But I'm not stupid.

i loved call of duty and call of duty 2. played the heck out of the sp.

I had a brief discussion on Call of Duty with some classmates, and I just told them I haven't really played Call of Duty since COD4. They asked me which gun I liked and and which was my favorite level and I'm like... which Call of Duty because I haven't played any of the latest ones. Then I just mentioned BF4 on the PC and they're just like "thud." Silence lol.

I grew up on Doom, Quake, Duke Nukem, System Shock 2, Half-Life, Counter-Strike games, and other from that era. The people who buy Call of Duty on console may be buying first person shooters, but I find I have nothing in common with them when I try to strike up a conversation. It is like we are from different planets. I just don't understand gaming these days. How such a weak gameplay design can generate so much revenue boggles me. Am I that old already?

It's hilarious to see critics demonstrate odd amounts of extreme leniency in the case of reviewing Call of Duty games, and then absolutely trash other games for sporting generic gameplay or being too similar to predecessors. I've played every Call of Duty game, and they've been near identical ever since CoD 4. **** me, the graphics haven't even come too far since then. The franchise is nearly a decade old and we've had ten games...6 of which are super similar to each other in campaign and how they play online. I'm just not sure what motivates people to buy a game that will be completely out dated and irrelevant one year later. I guess I like to get a little more for my money...

I think a lot of people like jumping on the hate bandwagon even if they haven't played the game. Having said that though I did enjoy Call of Duty 4 and Modern Warfare 2, the single player anyway. I'm not much of an online gamer I always prefer playing the single player campaign, and to be fairly honest I enjoy the Call of Duty campaigns. Sure they might be short and not that interesting but it's still fun to shoot and blow things up. It's a fun game to play on a rainy day and something that shouldn't be taken too seriously.

I like the singleplayer in the new COD games.

pew pew and lots of action and over quickly

Yeah, EXACTLY. Its just corruption raising its ugly head in the gaming industry. Activision doesn't want its ego to be hurt due to bad reviews and also poor reviews affect sales. So they promptly pay the reviewers to write good reviews for Call of Duty games.

You're right. Also, I hate the fact that COD games doesn't offer any freedom for the player. It just holds your hand and walks you through the game.

Oh for gods sake, this thread was decent until the white knights on their high horses decided to DERAIL the entire topic over some "could be offensive if your looking to be offended" 1 line or phrase. GET OVER YOURSELVES.

HArdcore, non gamers they are not the best terms but it works, just get on with the discussion.

Almost as bad as grammar police.

EDIT - before a white knight points out this is whining about whining.

yes cod is low quality. we know this, yet people love its gameplay... why i dont know they just do, same as leage of casual legends... most popular yet poor production values, stale graphics, poor engine, took them years to add spectator ECT ECT.

what can we say really?

CoD is a solid game for what it is. I think the real problem is that it's become a yearly franchise. It doesn't matter how good the game's base gameplay is, when you just tweak it a little every year and charge people $60 for it any franchise will get old overtime.

i'd be interested to see what infinity ward could do if activision let them off the leash to make a sp shooter that wasn't restricted by the cod template. i much prefer their campaigns - 1, 2 and 4 were excellent - to treyarch's, and i haven't played a really good sp fps for years

How is this surprising? COD is refurbished CRAP and always will be. The general population is ****** and plays ****** games. Thats why the world is how it is. People are stupid. bottom line

I'd rather play tactical shooters that came out in the early 2000s like R6: Raven Shield, OFP: Cold War Crisis, Ghost Recon 1, SWAT 3/4..

Or I'd rather play horde games like Doom, Serious Sam, Duke Nukem 3-D, Blood...

Or a RPG hybrid, like Deus-Ex or System Shock 2.

It's these bs linear, overly scripted, mainstream modern military shooters that pretend to be realistic (but really are so far from it) and have afterthoughts as campaigns, that I can't tolerate.

Incline those FPS tastes !

Wow really? Since when did people's choice in entertainment start determining their intelligence level? Just because you find something shitty doesn't mean everyone who like's it is stupid.

Video games are more casual now days and because of that many of them are made to appeal to a casual audience (like CoD). There are stil many great old school and hardcore shooters out there to play.

I don't understand why they bother with a singleplayer for Call of Duty games nowadays and don't just do what Valve did with Counter-Strike

Not only are they remarkably short but the common thing CoD players have to say about the recent games that is positive is Multiplayer, Infact most people I've talked with that buys and enjoys CoD have said they buy it for the multiplayer. So clearly the muliplayer is good so why make a single player campaign that most don't even bother with or find entertaining?

I must agree i am a bit harsh lol

There are at least a few analysts who have been saying this for years. That COD should go multiplayer only, and F2P.

There's no point for Activision to go F2P if they can keep selling millions of copies at a 60$ price.

Go F2P, sell killstreaks and shit.....oh god I feel dirty just thinking that

I would have np with that if the went the LoL route in which the only thing that really can be bought with real money is vanity things.

My dislike with CoD started with MW3. Infinity Ward literally just repackaged MW2, added a few tweaks here and there, and called it MW3. When the game crashes and the error message calls the game "Modern Warfare 2," you should feel ripped off.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KMSupTdz7YM

The Call of Duty franchise is the "Madden" franchise of the console FPS genre.

the reason call of duty sucks is the base game design,

why should i have a perk to make me move faster when i aim? makes no sense,

why should i have a perk to aim faster? makes no sense,

and jumping doesnt do nothing for a pc game,

because the best fps games on pc require mobility,

oh and fire delay when you leave sprint, the game is designed for campers basically

CoD is simply bad.

Last one i bought? Zero. I was about to buy Call of Duty 2 back in 2005 but instead i put it back in the shelf and am so glad that i never supported this garbage that broke down the gaming industry due to money drooling suits that control CoD.

@Croag821:"There are stil many great old school and hardcore shooters out there to play."

Sure, a few to play but they aren't progressing the technology or using it.

Not one AAA FPS is non-CoD game that's out there. There have come only just recently few Indie FPS and still they're lacking seriously from Quake 1 or Quake 2 style creativity. But Serious Sam 3 (2011), Hard Reset (2012), Shadow Warrior (2013), RIse of the Triad (2013), Wrack and Blood Dragon (2013) are really good. Wrack and Shadow Warrior probably have the best level design out of them all. But other than Wrack, they're still not there with the truly creative level design that is seen in Quake 2 or Duke Nukem 3D.

LMFAO quite the opposite.

Perhaps, but the idea (at least according to those who have advocated COD going free to play) is that with COD already being so popular, and selling so many copies as a full priced retail game ever year, if they removed the cost of entry, even more people would start playing it, probably including lots of people who used to play it, but don't feel like it's worth $60 every year anymore. It could possibly become the single most widely-played video game in the world, by a huge margin. And with that many people playing, even if only a small percentage actually buy whatever microtransactions are available, that would still be millions of people. And with the popularity it already has, as a retail game, it's pretty reasonable to expect that, as a F2P game, it would probably get a higher percentage of players actually buying things than most F2P games get, and that higher percentage would be from a far larger pool of players, as well. With, potentially, millions of people paying for small microtransactions, potentially a few times a week, if not more, it doesn't take long for that to add up to more than Activision gets for selling millions of copies of the game at $60. Potentially.

Long story short, it's very unlikely it would happen, as the move would entail some serious risk. But, it is highly possible, if things worked out in their favor, that Activision could make considerably more money off of COD as a F2P game than they ever have from selling it.