Why the COD hate?

Throughout the previous generation, COD has been called out on many occasions by gamers on forums such as gamespot, gametrailers etc for "killing" the industry. This is one topic Cows and lemmings tend to agree on.

These games come out annually and sell well regardless. The same can be said about sports games that make minimal improvements yet still sell millions and the other shooters that release annually but they get far less hate than COD on PS3/360/PS4/X1. My question is why?

I have 2 COD games and loved playing them so i am really curious.

Various reasons:

It hasn't changed properly in years, just little tweaks.

Campaigns are getting shorter and dumber

Shoddy DLC practices

Inflated cost

Franchise fatigue

I gave up on it with Black Ops. I may go back just for the campaigns.

If I was a teacher and a student of mine was in my classes year after year and kept reusing his old essays over and over again with minor corrections, I'd flunk him. This is what CoD is in the gaming world. It sells because it's the fast food of gaming

Best analogy I've ever heard for CoD. That's exactly what it is, just in a more addictive form

Too mainstream, all casual dudebros flock to it and now all developers are trying to copy it to try to get those dudebros back. The end result is that the games are ruined.

Pretty much all of these. This is what having a yearly release will do, plus being run by suits who only see numbers and profits.

Fast Food of gaming. Lol that made me laugh but great example.

What about COD4? That was the 1st major one of the gen (my fave), how do you feel about it?

COD4 changed it up. Before COD4 is all about WW2. COD4 brought something new to the table and it was actually good. Its the changes (or lack of) that followed with the sequels that hit the franchise hard.

I don't buy the games because they aren't very good. They are hardly killing the industry, though. Activision just gives their fans more of what they want every year. I'd be pissed about the DLC if it was a franchise I actually cared about, I guess.

Because it's popular and the FPS king. People are just jelly.

How do they inflate the cost? Would you like to compare the amount of content that comes with Ghosts and COD 2?

COD haters always seem to conveniently forget about all the extra game modes. Extinction and Squad modes are like full games all unto themselves.

If anything about COD could be criticized, it would be the technical aspects. Physics and sound fx are very outdated compared to BF and KZ. Animations are bad too. Graphics to performance ratio, at least on pc is abysmal.

How is CoD Ghosts going on the consoles? Still standing strong?

because they are selling what's essentially a DLC for $60 on top of more DLC afterwards and racking up on tons of money from idiots. Meanwhile much better and innovative games are being canned for lack of sales only to follow the trends set up by the best selling franchise. It's a cancer just like the Wii was back in the day.

COD4 was doing new things at the time. I still vastly preferred CoD1 and 2's campaigns and MP, but 4 was solid. After the massive raving success of 4, they never tried anything new except zombies in W@W. Now the devs are basically copy/pasting the games year after year

Because it hasn't really gotten any better since COD 4, and in some ways it got worse

Yeah, same game year after year.... Explains the new campaigns and all those new features....

Its fun and popular. COD practicly is gaming.

you mean non-gaming

there hasn't been much cod hate this year. BUT it deserves every single bit... Game looks like shit, x1 is complete port of current gens, fake specs for pc, maps are too big for 12 ppl, the sp is said to be one of the worst in the series.

Because:

2007 - CoD4.0

2008 - CoD4.1

2009 - CoD4.2

2010 - CoD4.3

2011 - CoD4.4

2012 - CoD4.5

2013 - CoD4.6

I don't do a lot of FPS but I been playing BF4 and liking it on ps3, I went and bought a ps4 did bf4 digital upgrade decided to try ghosts too and can honestly say I hate it and its inferior in everyway to BF4. COD isn't the McDonald's of games it's more like the day old hotdog in a gas station I'm most pissed that I bought digital and can't trade it now

Because it's the video game form of cancer. Go play a real game like Deus Ex: Human Revolution.

Thanks for the many responses guys. Would it be correct to say gamers are to blame for the series direction?

Activision sees that they still make billions without needing to upgrade the game significantly and us gamers still buy it. So aren't we to blame?

I hate the devs that changed their game to be like CoD (Bungie, 343 and the idiots in charge of Wolfenstein 2009 (for example) more

haterz will hate

Halo Reach was codified. It wasn't to the extent of Halo 4 however they still ruined Halo and added things that weren't needed like armour abilities, bloom, sprint.

So what is it exactly that DICE has changed about BF4 in terms of comparing it to BFBC, BFBC2 and BF3? Outside of making the buildings blow up better, it is the same exact game. CoD in my mind is a much more fun, jump in , jump out game. I find BF4 despite some amazing visuals to be quite mundane and boring. Also, why is there no Hardcore mode in BF4? It takes 3 days to kill anyone in BF4 yet its fanboys tout its realism!

Same sh!t every year. Only gamers that would eat a handful of sh!t if Activision told them too defend the game.

Because it's terrible and has nothing of value. At all.

People hate on the CoD series because they claim there isn't any drastic changes each release. Though people who actually play the series would know there are changes:

MW2 introduced Spec Ops, more killstreaks, deathstreaks and a vast variety of game modes.

Black Ops introduced theater mode, combat training, custom emblems, playercards, a currency system, contracts, party games and wagers.

MW3 introduced point streaks, specialist, support streaks, assault streaks, and survival mode.

Black Ops 2 introduced score streaks, and revamped the class loadouts with allocation points and wildcards

Ghosts introduced free-flow movement, dynamic maps, character customization, field orders, Squads, Extinction mode, and dedicated servers (that should've been done a long time ago though smh).

I probably forgot some things, but these were all pretty big changes. Enough to keep CoD playing similar without it being something that its not.

• Commander mode
• Larger squads
• redone voip
• A better game engine
• levolution
• completely reworked combat (it's slower than previous games, and the bullet physics are very different)
• reworked unlocking system

And there IS hardcore mode, leading me to believe you never played BF4 or played it for five minutes. It's closer to BF2 than the 'modern' BFs, which you probably never played either

If Call of Duty existed on it's own I would be more then happy to just let it be. World of Warcraft for example is extremely successful, but for the most part you don't really have to many AAA games that are changing key features to appeal to the WoW crowd. Regardless it's become a bit of a black eye on the industry as a whole, turning some executives at other companies into outright idiots.

Capcom (Resident Evil 6 and Dead Rising 3), Bioware (Dragon Age 2 and Mass Effect 3), Square Enix (Final Fantasy XIII), and EA (Dead Space 3) among others have all tried to pigeon hole COD elements into games that had nothing to do with COD. Though EA calls it trying to appeal to a wider audience these days since Battlefield competes directly with Call of Duty. All games that used to be trendsetters with strong fan bases, practically nuked to appeal to a group of people that have no interest in branching out. Some games came out of it better then others but at the end of the day it ends up being a handicap rather then a feature.

They also fail to realize that with the exception of maybe Madden, Fifa, and GTA the only game the Call of Duty crowd really cares about is Call of Duty. I know a couple of people who only own a console to play COD which is not an isolated trend as I've seen many others online notice the same thing.

Then of course when companies make good games like Square Enix witih Sleeping Dogs and Tomb Raider they're deemed failures because they didn't live up to the unrealistic sales standards set by Call of Duty despite selling .

Ironically enough COD4 is one of my favorite games of all time. To this day I still play it 1 or 2 days a week. However 99% of the time when I'm looking to buy a new game I'm not looking to play a COD clone nor are many other people that have been fans of multiple series for years now. And yet the suits continue to turn around and try fruitlessly to appeal to this uninterested demographic while consistently alienating core fans that allowed franchise x, y, or z to be successful in the first place.

Bottom line, the sooner Call of Duty fails the sooner executives won't put pressure on developers to shoehorn Call of Duty elements which hopefully leads to a better variety of games that each offer their own unique experience rather then trying to be something they're not.

Publishers Are Chasing The ‘Call Of Duty’ Audience – And It’s A Big Mistake

its the justin bieber of gaming

Hahahaha. OK this is the difference. Nobody plays sports games. I mean, in the gaming community, nobody really plays sports games. Everybody plays FPS.

Let's just look at Ghosts for the sake of argument. If you look at the differences between Black Ops 2 and Ghosts there are really only cosmetic changes, and even those aren't that great. The teams have made no effort to introduce gameplay elements that enhance the core experience and are relying on the same exact mechanics that CoD 4 relied on for fun. Treyarch at least had the mind to implement to the Pick 10 system and try to balance the game, but this didn't really change anything about the series.

Looking at the series's production values you can tell they don't put too much effort into the engine side of things. Ghosts is a small increase in graphical fidelity over Black Ops 2. Audio hasn't improved and it's almost all studio produced. Levels are still small and mostly static. Overall the game doesn't do much but reskin the previous game.

For awhile now CoD has been catering to only CoD fans, and that's a problem. This stagnated the series and allows Activision to get away with minimal R&D and milk the crap out of the series.

Furthermore the industry has greatly stepped up the alternatives to CoD. Battlefield being the obvious main competitor. It's really hard for non CoD fans to pick CoD over Battlefield when there is an obvious generation gap of mechanics and quality between them. On the PS4/Xbox One CoD Ghosts falls way behind Battlefield and even Killzone in most ways. These trailers basically sum it up...

It's hard to believe they are on the same platforms. The difference in quality is massive.

This. Even though the technical aspects of the game are outdated it's still fun and you really do get a lot of bang for your buck.

Ghost introduced detracted servers? I thought mw1 had them

IMHO CoD: MW2 is the greatest FPS of all time especially the MP on consoles. The trouble is that Activision have cashed in adding massive premiums on the series itself and DLC that has pissed people off. Haven't played the series since...

Call of Duty in 2003 had them.

But its a new feature for the console versions.

Actually the gameplay between ghosts and BLOPS2 is different. It would be better to compare to MW3 or MW2. They did change certain elements of the perk system relative to previous modern warfare games. The problem with COD multiplayer, especially the IW games, is they add stuff but they don't seem to care about fixing many of the glaring issues/balance problems with the multiplayer

Ghosts is awful. Probably worse than all the versions of CoD since 4. The amount of autoaim in these games is insane.