The problem with Call of Duty is... Call of Duty

Comixbooks

Fully [H]
Joined
Jun 7, 2008
Messages
21,947
The biggest problem with Call of Duty is Call of Duty. Every year a new game comes out that is the problem. Does the last game build on the previous game? Usually never..... once your Call of Duty game is outdated it no longer serves a function recently without single player mode there is little reason to even have the game on your hard drive with the latest COD BLOPS 4 and nobody to play with which is the reason to play Call of Duty in the 1st place.

Then again big companies like Activision have all the money so they can keep making Call of Duty games forever.
 
Last edited:
Playing devil's advocate here... The problem with Call of Duty at least to me is that the multiplayer is not sold separately. I have bought every Call of Duty game out (instead of BLOPS4 b/c multiplayer only) b/c of the campaigns. If they just sold the campaigns separate i'd be super happy.

Also, remember that every Call of Duty game takes 3 years to make since there are 3 studios making Call of Duty games; Infinity Ward, Treyarch, and Sledgehammer. So while every year there is a new Call of Duty game; at least they are putting a decent amount of time into it to make a decent game. Yes not all of them have been great, but like I said I only play the campaigns... I don't think i've ever played a single COD match online so I am likely not the core COD player the developers and publisher are trying to appeal to. I started playing COD when COD was all about the campaign... at least from the beginning of the series up to and including the Modern Warfare series and the Black Ops series. However the series does surprise me sometimes like with how good the campaign for Infinite Warfare was. That game has the single greatest campaign in COD history. It's also interesting to note that if you look at every time at E3 or in a commercial they are advertising a Call of Duty game, they are using footage from the campaign which they have to do to differentiate the games from each other. Otherwise people would (rightly so) look at the yearly COD offering as the same multiplayer formula but with different maps. I am excited for the new Modern Warfare's campaign. I will be curious what they do with it now that they're rebooting that series.
 
Playing devil's advocate here... The problem with Call of Duty at least to me is that the multiplayer is not sold separately. I have bought every Call of Duty game out (instead of BLOPS4 b/c multiplayer only) b/c of the campaigns. If they just sold the campaigns separate i'd be super happy.

Here is your $40 campaign and your $50 MP mode.

Don't give them ideas. :p
 
Here is your $40 campaign and your $50 MP mode.

Don't give them ideas. :p

For their multiplayer it might be better if they supported it longer then a year, there would be less fragmentation in their player base. Pubg has been selling tons, even when there was only 1 map in the game?

Might also make for more reqources for the single player campaigns.
 
I buy them strictly for the multiplayer offline bot mode. I get them when they are on sale since they like to keep charging premium prices even though they have been out a while. For instance I got Black ops 3 on sale recently and it's been out for quite a while.
 
For their multiplayer it might be better if they supported it longer then a year, there would be less fragmentation in their player base. Pubg has been selling tons, even when there was only 1 map in the game?

Might also make for more reqources for the single player campaigns.

I stopped buying them after the first few yearly releases, which was around the MW3 I think, so a long time ago now. Because it highly annoyed me that I could sink so much time and money into multiplayer, only to have none of it carry over to the next game, so I'd spend $100 on the game every year between the initial release plus DLC map packs (on top of my XBL sub since none of my friends played on PC), and then I don't get to enjoy any of that anymore in the next game unless I get to re-buy them again in another map pack in the new game. It's a hell of a scheme for sure, but I wasn't going to keep supporting that despite enjoying the game for the most part. I enjoyed the campaign as much as the multiplayer side as well.

So it makes much more sense to me to just turn the CoD franchise into a year sub service where they just constantly update the game with new DLC so that all of your progress and unlocks can carry over at least. CoD can easily be the WoW of FPS games. Though I'm not sure how it could work with 3 different dev studios with their hands in the game, but I'm sure they could figure something out like they can all develop their own DLC content still or just drop one or two of the completely if need be.
 
These days, you just have to buy/play the latest just solely to best avoid all the hackers. As soon as it stops receiving DLC, that's it, the hackers move in and the game's as good as dead.
 
Yeah it's pointless to prestige in a game that will be dead shortly after a year.
 
Yeah it's pointless to prestige in a game that will be dead shortly after a year.

Well in case the of CoD, I always saw prestiging as a fun way to mix the game up for everyone. So that even the very elite might be out one day with the shittest gear and die alot, but they're not angry about it since they chose it.

It's one of the things CoD does really well I think, 'cos I'm the guy that gets to the top rank and then just STAYS THERE. Why move!? Why do it to your own self!? :D:joyful::ROFLMAO:
 
I think I stopped caring about Call of Duty after Modern Warfare 3. I mostly played for the campaigns anyway. Call of Duty 2 will always be my favourite CoD.
 
The CoD franchise was dead for me after MW2. It's nothing but a money-grubbing shit show now.
 
Back
Top