-
Ever wanted an RSS feed of all your favorite gaming news sites? Go check out our new Gaming Headlines feed! Read more about it here.
Are you cool enough to realize that Call of Duty belongs with the gaming greats?
- Thread starter Durden
- Start date
I'd give you maybe Assassins Creed 2, but any other entry? Nah.
Well when you got posts mocking it for being disposable trash that only the """masses""" like, yeah, it's pretty fucking obvious what they're trying to imply. That those people are dumb and if they had better tastes they'd be playing different games. It happens all the goddamn time cause people like to flaunt their dislike of of the series as some great quality they have.
I didn't say you needed to praise the series, but take your own bias out of the equation in trying to imply that CoD hasn't had an impact on gaming. Regardless of what anyone on here thinks, to the general public, CoD is one of the biggest staples of gaming for over 13 years now. We've passed the point of it being a fad and entered the domain where it's an unmoving wall of gaming. No matter how many games have claimed to be a CoD killer, it hasn't been dethroned, and likely will never be unless there is a monumental shift in the gaming industry.
So trying to imply that it somehow wouldn't be considered a "great" because you don't like it, is hardly good justification.
Modern Warfare (2019) is the best selling game in the series. So no.
Last year's MW was one of the best entries of the entire series, probably the best COD since the first Black Ops
Absolutely not. MW2019 was (and still is) a fantastic game, with a shitload of content, and awesome post-release support. The real tragedy is that they felt the need to release Cold War instead of just building on that foundation.
I've long since stopped caring about playing any of the campaigns and was never into the multiplayer but you'd have to be crazy to argue that it's not one of the greatest franchises in video game history.
When there is more than one game and the entries have been going on for this long it doesn't matter if there is a weak entry if they have a consistent number of solid entries.
That's why there will be a COD, Assassins Creed, Battlefield in the HOF. They changed and influenced the landscape for the better.
They absolutely did not change the landscape for the better, that's nonsense.
Yet Modern Warfare 2019 sold more copies than any other Call of Duty ever. Warzone is one of the biggest games in the world. The fact is COD has possibly hit a second surge in interest. They made MW19 specifically to cater to a new audience, and it's seemingly worked. Warzone alone has a lot of buzz and interest in it.
It's certainly gone downhill for me as a long time player, but the franchise itself has never been more healthy.
Call of Duty 4 ruined multiplayer games for over a decade and even now its legacy of level up bullshit permiates almost every multiplayer game in some form
COD brought us a much needed revamping of the the first person landscape, introduced light RPG elements into the genre and influenced other games to have a unlock system.
Battlefield redefined the big team battle and pushed COD to evolve beyond 16 person ground wars.
Assassin's Creed as far as that goes there is more than enough articles written about how it changed the open world genre.
Even BOTW was inspired to some extent by it. Literally has it's own Ubisoft Towers.
I bought MW2 on release and found it dreadful. As an outsider, the series has the appearance of being the FPS of FIFA. Great sales to a dedicated audience, but you know what you're getting each time and it'll never shake the world.
It shook both the real world and the video game world, trying to act like it hasn't isn't even a argument that could be made. It just hasn't shook -your- world.
That's good to hear. By downward trajectory I had meant more as a subjective opinion based on personal experience MW2~Ghosts. Each yearly release just felt like a recycled cash grab.
I haven't played MW2019, but sounds like they might have improved in going above and beyond the usual annual iteration.
Going up to a 3-year dev cycle opposed to the usual 2-year has really benefitted the franchise i feel.
Yeah, the franchise really could use some room to breathe, but that will obviously never happen. For every step forward they take, they seem to take another step back. From a fidelity standpoint MW2019 was a big improvement (I wasn't a huge fan of the gameplay, but that's personal taste), but this year's game, Cold War, is a big step back in that department. It was also clearly released in an unfinished state due to the development struggles and schedule.
The worry I have is that Sledgehammer are going to be relegated to support, and we'll be back on a two year dev cycle.
MCU of gaming was pretty apt comparison I've also seen. I don't have to like it either, but the popularity and infuence can't be denied (in good and bad). COD has it's place in popular culture, even while the series doesn't have a "mascot character" that personafies it, like Mario or even Gordon Freeman.
But this is exactly my experience, it's not fair to call this opinion nonsense. Even if it's less of a cash grab now, it certainly has been in the past.
Are they technically sound shooters? Absolutely. The developers - or I should say the engine - has all of the nuances down to a science. But no, I don't think they hold a candle to many of its contemporaries.
Why, you ask? Because I don't know about the rest of you, but I play games to escape reality. Not live it. The COD games generally aim to reproduce the "modern battlefield" and in that sense, some of it hits too close for comfort with me. My wife watches me play a lot of games, but when I was playing MW2 (a gift from my late mother), she said she didn't like watching because it was too realistic in tone. I had to agree.
There is also a tiny part of me that dislikes sharing my hobby with the same people who would pick on me when I was a kid. You know, before video games were cool. So yeah, that's a petty reason to dislike the games, but hey, a reason's a reason.
Why, you ask? Because I don't know about the rest of you, but I play games to escape reality. Not live it. The COD games generally aim to reproduce the "modern battlefield" and in that sense, some of it hits too close for comfort with me. My wife watches me play a lot of games, but when I was playing MW2 (a gift from my late mother), she said she didn't like watching because it was too realistic in tone. I had to agree.
There is also a tiny part of me that dislikes sharing my hobby with the same people who would pick on me when I was a kid. You know, before video games were cool. So yeah, that's a petty reason to dislike the games, but hey, a reason's a reason.
From an objective standpoint what are the classic COD games? Sometimes nostalgia and popularity can blur the lines.
I would only consider COD4:MW1 an all-time title. MW2 I rocked because everyone was playing it but it added too many ingredients to a classic meal. I slowly lost interest to other shooters from there.
I would only consider COD4:MW1 an all-time title. MW2 I rocked because everyone was playing it but it added too many ingredients to a classic meal. I slowly lost interest to other shooters from there.
"Same damn game, different coat of paint" is factually incorrect and ridiculously reductive. Saying half the games are broken at launch equally so. It's just not true.
As for MTX's? Sure, they're in there, I'm not going to die on a hill defending it. Are they enough to detract from the overall content package? Not for me. Outside of ongoing DLC/seasons support, I've not put a penny into COD and outside of 2 releases I've played them all.
Calling CoD a "cash grab" is one of those reductive non-criticisms that leads to people wanting to hold up the games even more for what they do do so well, but don't get the credit for. Others will literally make up things to slag it off for.
I am a Call of Duty player from the beginning. I played the first part excessively much and also gained my first eSports experience during this time.
Unfortunately, this decreased with CoD II and III.
Then came Modern Warfare and the enthusiasm was there again. But with the next CoD titles I was unfortunately burned out again rather quickly.
The last Call of Duty that I played very intensively was the latest Modern Warfare.
It's for me personally a back and forth with Call of Duty, but at the same time I count the series certainly to the gaming greats.
Unfortunately, this decreased with CoD II and III.
Then came Modern Warfare and the enthusiasm was there again. But with the next CoD titles I was unfortunately burned out again rather quickly.
The last Call of Duty that I played very intensively was the latest Modern Warfare.
It's for me personally a back and forth with Call of Duty, but at the same time I count the series certainly to the gaming greats.
Esports in america 13 years ago on pc was endangered species. Esports blew up in America on consoles during Gamebattles around 06-10 over 100k teams competing during Cod: MW and MW2. Name another pc esport 14 years ago with those numbers. Not even going to get into how Halo & Gears of War pushing esports forward.
This (besides the weird jab at the superhero sub-genre), sales don't equal quality (something gaming often conflates), the best selling movies aren't always the best movies ever (some are of course and successful).
That being said. I will fully agree that both the original Call of Duty and Modern Warfare 1 DO deserve their place in history and put in the hall of fame. They were influential titles that did change the industry, iconic in their own rights and 4 is a fun game.
I'm not a fan of modern ones though and don't think they've reached the same cultural importance, people here are calling them the MCU or Bay of games, Bay is more apt due to the pro-militarism but I'd also say their more Roland Emmerich and the Roberto Orci and Alex Kurtzman duo due to their heavy use of conspiracy theories and general tone and feel.
