• 54 results
  • 1
  • 2
#1 Posted by Grissefar (2842 posts) -

CoD is still king but not a beloved one. Not because of major innovations since 2007 but because the industry still hasn't been able to make a contender for the throne with the same kind of speed, fluidity and general polish.And that sucks.

The closest contender is Battlefield, which is stuck in its own weird rhythm. It's a completely different beast for people like Vinny who just wants to jump into a helicopter and crash into the enemy base or stand back and spam health packs. BF is a rough beast which doesn't concern itself with stuff like pacing or gameplay balance but that's fine because at least it's different and some people like that. But it's completely gimped on current gen consoles which is not OK.

And that's it. Either you like BF or you like CoD, there is no third place here. Maybe Halo. All we then have are the typical tacked on multiplayers on Uncharted or Max Payne, terrible free to play games and old school pc shooters.

The only thing looking good now is Titanfall and thank God for that but lets see how quickly EA brings that franchise to the ground.

So instead of getting pissed at CoD, perhaps you should cheer for someone in the industry to actually make a better game.

#2 Posted by Rick_Fingers (524 posts) -

Call of Duty isn't popular because it's the best playing game; it's popular because it is easy.

Even when you're bad at it, the hooks are there. And it is impossible to be THAT bad at it, because the game itself is incredibly simple and requires little skill compared to most other multiplayer shooters.

#3 Posted by Buneroid (428 posts) -

No matter how shitty it is that they crank these games out, I will never stop respecting them for always aiming for 60fps.

#4 Posted by Grissefar (2842 posts) -

Call of Duty isn't popular because it's the best playing game; it's popular because it is easy.

Even when you're bad at it, the hooks are there. And it is impossible to be THAT bad at it, because the game itself is incredibly simple and requires little skill compared to most other multiplayer shooters.

Funny how Vinny gave the exact opposite explanation. It's just hard for you to throw out ammo packs, I guess. It's a matter of taste, I guess.

#5 Edited by ll_Exile_ll (1483 posts) -

I find it hilarious that you think COD is in any way balanced. Not that BF is super balanced either, but COD is specifically popular because of how horribly unbalanced it is. If it was balanced to actually favor skill over commitment the majority of the people that buy this game every year wouldn't stick with it.

But you are right, there isn't really a whole of games challenging COD and BF on the competitive shooter front, but there are some. Gears of War has been great, 3 in particular was excellent. Killzone has always been an outstanding competitive shooter. Counterstrike will always have a solid fanbase, as will Halo (even if the multiplayer in Halo 4 is utter shit compared to Halo 2 and Halo 3). As you mentioned, Titanfall will be huge, as will Destiny which you didn't mention.

I also don't think the lack of competive shooters is at all a bad thing. It isn't the late 90s anymore where Counterstrike, Quake, and Unreal Tournament were the games the majority of people played online from any genre. Things have evolved, and now we have games of all genres to play online. Things like League of Legends and Dota, the bevy of cooperative games (competitive isn't everything), fighting games finally work online, strategy games are bigger than ever, and things like GTA and the Last of Us bring fresh ideas to multiplayer.

Not everything has to be a competitive fps, and lamenting the fact that there aren't more popular ones isn't something I can relate too.

#6 Posted by JayEH (521 posts) -

@buneroid said:

No matter how shitty it is that they crank these games out, I will never stop respecting them for always aiming for 60fps.

Same here, yeah the graphics aren't the prettiest, but I'm glad they realize that online FPS NEEDS 60 FPS

#7 Edited by GreggD (4482 posts) -

@ll_exile_ll: Honestly, Treyarch's Black Ops games have been the most balanced CoDs overall. Some of the killstreaks are overpowered, sure (Huey in BO1), but for the most part, the guns and perks have been balanced very well. Almost every gun in both games has the potential to be highly effective, if you take the time to learn its strengths and weaknesses. The only thing I don't like about CoD is that they don't make sprint unlimited from the get-go, for everyone. It's really not a gamebreaker, as long as you have the right counterbalances in place, such as a lack of knife lunge accuracy. Battlefield has been doing fine since Bad Company having unlimited sprint, it's all about keeping things balanced.

#8 Posted by crithon (3081 posts) -

CoD is mario kart, and everyone likes that one version they have been playing for 20 years.

#9 Edited by e30bmw (356 posts) -

The sadder truth is that COD4 is easily the best game in that series and that was 6 years ago.

#10 Posted by mercutio123 (468 posts) -

It's still a bloody amazing game, I just don't need that much of it. I've owned MW1, MW2 and Black Ops 1 I bought a couple of months ago. Once every couple of years its a hell of an experience for me, but then I've had my fill. Never played a Battlefield so pretty interested in that now.

#11 Edited by RoarImaDinosaur (191 posts) -

Wait for titanfall.

#12 Posted by ManMadeGod (1552 posts) -

@e30bmw said:

The sadder truth is that COD4 is easily the best game in that series and that was 6 years ago.

can you tell me why COD4 is better than BLOPS 2 and Ghosts?

#13 Posted by DonPixel (2585 posts) -

Numbers don't lie:

- COD is more popular because COD like gameplay(Arcade, fast paced run and shoot multiplayer) is more appealing to a larger number of people

However, Said so and ya i know COD vs Battlefield is so 2010.. but anyway: If you happened to like Sand Box, vehicle based multiplayer shooters; you can make a lot of arguments for BF4 being a better game:

-Better Technology

-Better Visuals

-More Content

#14 Edited by e30bmw (356 posts) -

@e30bmw said:

The sadder truth is that COD4 is easily the best game in that series and that was 6 years ago.

can you tell me why COD4 is better than BLOPS 2 and Ghosts?

Obviously this is all my opinion, but everything after COD4 (and I guess World at War) added too much stuff (most noticeably with kill streaks). While this led to some cool initial moments (it's fun blowing up a bunch of stuff with a gunship the first time you get it), it led towards a more unbalanced game. People who could those kill streaks were rewarded even further by then killing a bunch more people. I still like the kill streaks in 4 because they reward you for doing well without totally fucking players who aren't doing so well.

#15 Posted by me3639 (1733 posts) -

Just more Nintendo fan jealousy. As i always say if you think you can do better, or come up with better ideas, start coding.

#16 Posted by Hailinel (23979 posts) -

@me3639 said:

Just more Nintendo fan jealousy.

What? Where did that come from?

Online
#17 Posted by awesomeusername (4154 posts) -

@e30bmw said:

The sadder truth is that COD4 is easily the best game in that series and that was 6 years ago.

Yes.

#18 Posted by Korwin (2833 posts) -

@jayeh said:

@buneroid said:

No matter how shitty it is that they crank these games out, I will never stop respecting them for always aiming for 60fps.

Same here, yeah the graphics aren't the prettiest, but I'm glad they realize that online FPS NEEDS 60 FPS

It's the 60 FPS that gives them their secret sauce, it's down right amazing that's even taken DICE this long to figure that out. CoD does well because it's fast and responsive, it's fluidity is what made it successful (that and borrowing the persistent leveling and unlocked from BF2 helped, Kill streaks were a good innovation on their part at the time).

#19 Posted by SomeDeliCook (2233 posts) -

The messed up part is that because of all the DLC constantly being released and a new game coming out every year, the game is still 'fresh' to a point. If CoD4 came out when it did and then no sequel was ever made, it wouldn't have had anywhere near as long of a run.

#20 Edited by Blu3V3nom07 (4167 posts) -

I still think I might be buying Ghosts some time soon. It just depends how soon my cousin jumps on XONE. Battlefield 4 in the mean time, fuck yea!

Titanfall and Destiny time is gonna a real weird time, then..

#21 Posted by Andorski (5204 posts) -

I'd easily put BF's gameplay over CoD in all aspects if its netcode wasn't complete shit.

#22 Posted by Eviternal (192 posts) -

CoD is still king but not a beloved one. Not because of major innovations since 2007 but because the industry still hasn't been able to make a contender for the throne with the same kind of speed, fluidity and general polish.And that sucks.

The closest contender is Battlefield, which is stuck in its own weird rhythm. It's a completely different beast for people like Vinny who just wants to jump into a helicopter and crash into the enemy base or stand back and spam health packs. BF is a rough beast which doesn't concern itself with stuff like pacing or gameplay balance but that's fine because at least it's different and some people like that. But it's completely gimped on current gen consoles which is not OK.

And that's it. Either you like BF or you like CoD, there is no third place here. Maybe Halo. All we then have are the typical tacked on multiplayers on Uncharted or Max Payne, terrible free to play games and old school pc shooters.

The only thing looking good now is Titanfall and thank God for that but lets see how quickly EA brings that franchise to the ground.

So instead of getting pissed at CoD, perhaps you should cheer for someone in the industry to actually make a better game.

I'm not sure whether you want "better games" to be made, or for existing alternatives to COD and BF to become more popular. Additionally, your post is so negative that your final sentence is just silly. You bring nothing but pessimism to the table and then demand people be optimistic?

You seem to want a fast-paced arena shooter in your opening paragraph (alluding to "speed, fluidity"), and that's not only a very specific niche, it's also had a lot of terrific games already (the "old school pc shooters" you mention, for instance). You ask for "someone in the industry to actually make a better game" - how about Halo, CS:GO, ArmA 3, Shootmania or Planetside 2? I'm not saying these are unrecognised gems, but they are alternatives built upon existing FPS tropes, with their own innovations. There are plenty of enjoyable shooters out there from twitch to tactical and everything in between. Play them!

#23 Posted by Raven10 (1743 posts) -

I think that there hasn't been any huge revolution since COD4. I don't think Call of Duty is really all that much better than all other shooters, but it is just as good in a lot of ways, and most other games aren't better enough that people who are used to Call of Duty would want to spend the time to learn them. Battlefield is hugely ambitious but it takes a lot longer to get up to speed on it. Halo and Killzone are both pretty straightforward but they both have a very unique feel and style that is very different than Call of Duty. And then you have some of the super complex PC shooters like Planetside that take forever to get the hang of. I guess the thing is there is no game that does what Call of Duty does better. That is simple and fast twitch multiplayer. Most games are either more complicated or just have a very different feel. If you like that twitch feel, or if you just don't feel like taking the time to learn the complexities of a Battlefield or the different controls and feel of a Halo then you'll stick to Call of Duty. Probably Titanfall is the game that has the best chance to dethrone it just because it has a focus on fast twitch play but adds in some new features.

#24 Posted by SunBroZak (1033 posts) -

I didn't feel Uncharted had tacked on multiplayer. It's probably one of my favourite multiplayer games for this generation.

#25 Posted by CABBAGES (522 posts) -

If you can get any cod fan to properly try battlefield they will discover how much better battlefield is. Problem is most of them won't give it a go. Every die hard cod fan that I have got to try battlefield has now become a battlefield fan.

#26 Edited by Yummylee (21305 posts) -
@sunbrozak said:

I didn't feel Uncharted had tacked on multiplayer. It's probably one of my favourite multiplayer games for this generation.

For sure. Though I also admittedly don't play that much multiplayer in general, I've invested many an hour into both Uncharted 2 & 3's multiplayer component, and to this day will I still occasionally pop Uncharted 3 back in here and there.

Online
#27 Posted by sate2801 (344 posts) -

@cabbages said:

If you can get any cod fan to properly try battlefield they will discover how much better battlefield is. Problem is most of them won't give it a go. Every die hard cod fan that I have got to try battlefield has now become a battlefield fan.

not everyone's into vehicle combat or launching game from a web browser, or maybe it's downright hatred for EA or something, I don't know :/

#28 Posted by Vinny_Says (5691 posts) -

Multiple title updates in every single Call of Duty since MW2 proves that CoD is far from balanced. Not sure what the fuck you're smoking buddy.

You're right though, many have tried and all have failed so far. Medal of Honor proved that no matter how much money you put into a CoD clone you won't make it better because it's still a CoD clone. Same shit happened when everyone was trying to be Halo 2, it took Modern Warfare to really shake things up.

However, now is the time when people stop trying to be Call of Duty and start making their own shit. Something will rise to the top, it might even be Call of Duty again if they blow us all away with some crazy new shit in 2014....

Also, you seem to equate popularity with being the best, but just remember, Shania Twain's Come on Over has sold more than Led Zeppelin IV and every single Beatles album.....

#30 Posted by Aegon (5419 posts) -

I think the pacing in Battlefield is better. You're not guaranteed to be shot at within the minute you spawn. A lot of that is up to you. It's fun to strategize.

#31 Posted by Humanity (8874 posts) -

@grissefar said:

CoD is still king but not a beloved one. Not because of major innovations since 2007 but because the industry still hasn't been able to make a contender for the throne with the same kind of speed, fluidity and general polish.And that sucks.

The closest contender is Battlefield, which is stuck in its own weird rhythm. It's a completely different beast for people like Vinny who just wants to jump into a helicopter and crash into the enemy base or stand back and spam health packs. BF is a rough beast which doesn't concern itself with stuff like pacing or gameplay balance but that's fine because at least it's different and some people like that. But it's completely gimped on current gen consoles which is not OK.

And that's it. Either you like BF or you like CoD, there is no third place here. Maybe Halo. All we then have are the typical tacked on multiplayers on Uncharted or Max Payne, terrible free to play games and old school pc shooters.

The only thing looking good now is Titanfall and thank God for that but lets see how quickly EA brings that franchise to the ground.

So instead of getting pissed at CoD, perhaps you should cheer for someone in the industry to actually make a better game.

I'm not sure whether you want "better games" to be made, or for existing alternatives to COD and BF to become more popular. Additionally, your post is so negative that your final sentence is just silly. You bring nothing but pessimism to the table and then demand people be optimistic?

You seem to want a fast-paced arena shooter in your opening paragraph (alluding to "speed, fluidity"), and that's not only a very specific niche, it's also had a lot of terrific games already (the "old school pc shooters" you mention, for instance). You ask for "someone in the industry to actually make a better game" - how about Halo, CS:GO, ArmA 3, Shootmania or Planetside 2? I'm not saying these are unrecognised gems, but they are alternatives built upon existing FPS tropes, with their own innovations. There are plenty of enjoyable shooters out there from twitch to tactical and everything in between. Play them!

Yes exactly, his whole thread is about someone coming along and making a better game. Shootmania is not a better game than any modern Call of Duty and neither is Planetside 2. If you meant they simply are games then you are correct, those are in fact first person shooters. Despite your care in highlighting and in-depth analysis, you seem to have missed the point entirely in that people should look less to CoD failing and more towards someone else succeeding over them.

#32 Posted by sixnahalf (50 posts) -

i'm a fan of COD but i think Battlefield is overcoming COD when it comes to fast pacing gameplay. Still holding on to COD even i'm playing Battlefield.

#33 Posted by Eviternal (192 posts) -

@humanity said:

@eviternal said:
@grissefar said:

[Opening post of the thread]

[Reply suggesting alternatives including Halo, CS:GO, ArmA 3, Shootmania and Planetside 2].

Yes exactly, his whole thread is about someone coming along and making a better game. Shootmania is not a better game than any modern Call of Duty and neither is Planetside 2. If you meant they simply are games then you are correct, those are in fact first person shooters. Despite your care in highlighting and in-depth analysis, you seem to have missed the point entirely in that people should look less to CoD failing and more towards someone else succeeding over them.

Better games than CoD already exist. Hell, I think SWAT 4 is a better game than Call of Duty. I think ArmA 3 is better too. Unreal Tournament 2004 would be up there also. What does that matter? My points are that a demand for "better games" is fruitless (because that's entirely subjective), and you (sharing the opinions of the first post) must define what you want if we are to have a discussion at all.

What do you, as someone asking for a "better game than Call of Duty" want? For one thing to be better than another it has to differentiate itself, and therefore cannot be Call of Duty. Seeing your dismissal of the alternatives I mentioned, it seems you want CoD but don't want CoD.

#34 Posted by Humanity (8874 posts) -
#35 Posted by Gamer_152 (14058 posts) -

I think you're selling modern multiplayer shooters pretty short and speaking like the quality of these games is a far more objective thing than it actually is. I don't believe CoD's success is purely because it stands so far above and beyond everything else in terms of quality, I also think marketing and the place CoD has taken in pop culture have a huge amount to do with it, but when looking at the multiplayer shooter genre it's not an either/or of encouraging studios to make better games or criticising CoD for not being better than it is. Criticism is a vital part of any medium and if we don't feel CoD is up to scratch I think it's only healthy that we voice that and explain why.

Moderator
#36 Posted by Sinusoidal (1304 posts) -

I'd love to see something like Dark Souls take over CoD's fan base. More methodical killing; less bang-bang, you're dead and more dodge-dodge-parry-riposte, you're dead. Dark Souls online with a whole bunch of players at the same time would be brilliant, utter madness! It hasn't quite got the simplicity that the CoD crowd goes for, and From Software hardly has the chops to make something so large competently online, so it'll never happen...

#37 Posted by kagato (899 posts) -

Call of Duty isn't popular because it's the best playing game; it's popular because it is easy.

Even when you're bad at it, the hooks are there. And it is impossible to be THAT bad at it, because the game itself is incredibly simple and requires little skill compared to most other multiplayer shooters.

Agreed, i think the issue is that you earn xp regardless of how poor you play so you are rewarded just for taking part. This leads to people never getting any better and just coasting along until they reach max level. Thing is, the alternative is dont give the bottom players xp and then they stop playing because they cant make progress, its a broken model and i have no idea how it can be fixed.

#38 Posted by RetroMetal (188 posts) -
#39 Posted by EveretteScott (1449 posts) -

What IS sad is people are actually arguing over this.

#40 Posted by Sooty (8082 posts) -

Battlefield even does infantry combat far, far better than Call of Duty at this point. It's a bit dumb to say they are two different beasts now as Battlefield 3 at least accommodated for the HURR DURRRRR I WANNA SHOOT RESPAWN SHOOT mentality with Close Quarters.

#41 Posted by Andorski (5204 posts) -

@sooty said:

Battlefield even does infantry combat far, far better than Call of Duty at this point. It's a bit dumb to say they are two different beasts now as Battlefield 3 at least accommodated for the HURR DURRRRR I WANNA SHOOT RESPAWN SHOOT mentality with Close Quarters.

I've rarely played CoD on PC but on consoles the hit detection and latency is pretty decent. I can't say the same for BF3. Even in ~50 ping servers I am constantly getting shot behind corners. I also experience my bullets hit an enemy (seen by my crosshair's hit notification and by the enemy model's hit animation) who fires back and kills me, only to see that I did no damage to them from the kill cam.

This isn't too noticeable when playing your usual "large-scale maps with vehicles" style games since infantry crossfire isn't happening every second. When playing on small maps with infantry-only it becomes glaringly obvious.

#42 Posted by Claude (16254 posts) -

A dude at work said he got it. Already played multiplayer for 30 some hours or so. He's like, you getting it? Hell no, I said, I suck at games like that. The same guy bought GTA V and never touched the story, just waited for the online. I have another buddy at work who bought it. They love that shit. Good for them, I guess.

By the way, these guys have never heard of some of the games I play. They actually kind of roll their eyes at me. I mean, I play GTA V and all, but I have also played Limbo, Trine, Bastion, Lone Survivor and a shit load of other indie games. How about Divinity II, nope... Heaven forbid I mention my goddamn Wii and games like Metriod, Galaxy, or even the obscure shit like Fishing Resort, which is good by the way. Got another friend who likes Diablo, but yeah, no, sorry.

Triple A or no way for the mainstream.

#43 Posted by HellknightLeon (454 posts) -

@hailinel: I like your icon. Staple in the forum. XD

I can't wait to see what the next BoF game is.... wait... thats Breath of Fire right? What are you guys getting worked up about?

#44 Edited by billyhoush (1192 posts) -

I see a lot of my friends being put off by and sick of the military setting. I see more seeking games like Borderlands and Destiny. What are those types of FPS called? Loot/RPG FPS?

#45 Posted by Pierre42 (82 posts) -
@claude said:

A dude at work said he got it. Already played multiplayer for 30 some hours or so. He's like, you getting it? Hell no, I said, I suck at games like that. The same guy bought GTA V and never touched the story, just waited for the online. I have another buddy at work who bought it. They love that shit. Good for them, I guess.

By the way, these guys have never heard of some of the games I play. They actually kind of roll their eyes at me. I mean, I play GTA V and all, but I have also played Limbo, Trine, Bastion, Lone Survivor and a shit load of other indie games. How about Divinity II, nope... Heaven forbid I mention my goddamn Wii and games like Metriod, Galaxy, or even the obscure shit like Fishing Resort, which is good by the way. Got another friend who likes Diablo, but yeah, no, sorry.

Triple A or no way for the mainstream.

Yeah same thing happened to me in my workplace. I've played a fair few cool games, but everyone at work talks about GTAV, or FIFA or COD/BF to the point that it's like I feel I'm being increasingly marginalised in gaming. I'll talk about other games to them from time to time but I just get looks like "What is this guy talking about?" when I explain things to them. I once said "Why buy the next FIFA? It's fundamentally the same!" and one of them argued "No the Rosters are updated and there's shiny new *insert FIFA trailer jargon here* physics" and I just groaned.

#46 Posted by Claude (16254 posts) -

@pierre42: Yeah, but I should mention, there's a dude that plays his Vita at break. Today he was playing Rayman Origins. I liked that. Actually, I asked him what he was playing and it fucked his shit up. He had to start the stage over. Kind of felt bad for that.

#47 Edited by SarcasticMudcrab (146 posts) -

Its a shame this series has gone the direction it has, but there are games out there for the people who dont like it.

CoD is designed for your casual crowd, which is fine, it is what it is. If thats not you then look somewhere else.

#48 Posted by MildMolasses (3214 posts) -

The sad truth is that a lot of you are worrying about what others enjoy playing instead of just playing the games you like. Get over it

#49 Posted by Karkarov (3008 posts) -


So instead of getting pissed at CoD, perhaps you should cheer for someone in the industry to actually make a better game.

Or you are like me and you realized years ago that competitive multiplayer FPS had done everything it was going to do and isn't going to get any better and you quit playing them. Instead I go play games like Borderlands 2 with friends and just crank up the challenge setting. A helluva lot more fun that Modern Warfare mark 7 will ever be.

#50 Posted by haffy (673 posts) -

I haven't played the CoD games in a while, but how is the game not balanced? Everyone gets the same shit. It's hasn't changed to CS style where one team gets access to certain weapons or something has it?

Also the game is probably still fun. I get less and less interested in the CoD series each year because the accumulated hours between the games add up too high for me. But there's plenty of people getting into the franchise each year for their first time. I bet the majority of people here who hate on the CoD franchise now, have probably been on the receiving end of this shit before in terms of some multiplayer game. For me it was back when CoD 4 came out and the Halo vs CoD arguments were at there worst, also had people saying CoD 1 or 2 was the only one worth playing, while others were saying CS was the only shooter worth playing because of how competitive it was. But I didn't give a fuck because playing CoD 4 with my friends was fun as shit, and hopefully the people who still enjoy the games just carry on enjoying them selves and ignore all this dumb negative bullshit.