Multiplayer Military Shooters

[backstept]

Call of Duty
Call of Duty 2
Call of Duty 3
Call of Duty 4 World at War
Call of Duty 5 Modern Warfare
Call of Duty 6 Modern Warfare 2
Call of Duty 7 Black Ops

what is the 'call' of these games? why are they so popular? why do 'new' ones come out every year, and why do people buy them?
what's the attraction to being in a small map with tons of dudes killing and getting killed over and over again?
do these games actually have a story mode?

 

[John Clark]

I haven't played all of them but there is usually (In my opinion) a decent single player mode with storyline attached.

(Edit to add - For the multiplayer part of the game, I haven't actually played that much and the versions I've played are the PC version)

 

[Servo]

1. Call of Duty isn't the only military shooter out there.
2. The maps aren't all small.
3. If you're any good, you won't get killed "over and over".
4. All these games have an SP campaign which follows a story.
5. You got 4 and 5 mixed up in your list.
6. People bitch about yearly CoD releases, but don't bat an eyelid at yearly Fifa or Madden games.

 

[captcalhoun]

lots of people wanted to be soldiers as kids, never made the grade and now get to act out their fantasies whilst also calling other people 'n00b', 'fag' and 'motherfucking prick' for not leaving because they're hosting an MW2 match and said screamer has shit ping and the host doesn't see why he should fucking leave, especially if you're going to adopt that kind of language.

 

[Mistral]

1. Call of Duty isn't the only military shooter out there.
2. The maps aren't all small.
3. If you're any good, you won't get killed "over and over".
4. All these games have an SP campaign which follows a story.
5. You got 4 and 5 mixed up in your list.
6. People bitch about yearly CoD releases, but don't bat an eyelid at yearly Fifa or Madden games.

The satisfaction of a well-coordinated team pulling out a win has a lot to do with it. Plus, there's at least some skill involved for you to measure yourself against the performance of others.

 

[Jax]

If someone asked me to explain COD games these days...

It allows people under the legal age of the game to use foul language and pretend their gods among chimps, while the rest of us normal folks us play without the need to refer to one's mother.

plus Bobby Koitech is such a prick, he needs annual games to make enough $$$ to pay The Devil off from taking him to hell.

 

[darthraidr]

what is the 'call' of these games?

not sure...

why are they so popular?

they are generally well made and generally fun for some people.

why do 'new' ones come out every year, and why do people buy them?

well they are new games, no reason to add quotes around it. new ones come out because the previous ones sold. people buy them because they enjoyed the game, or are curious about the game.

what's the attraction to being in a small map with tons of dudes killing and getting killed over and over again?

i am not sure. each person finds fun in a different way. some people enjoy competing.

do these games actually have a story mode?

yes

 

[Captain Pike]

Activision keep pumping them out. They tend kill anything remotely popular to death with endless sequels (see Guitar Hero), though if people keep buying them I guess they are vindicated in that regard.

Personally I prefer a bit of good old Battlefield 1942 if I am looking for a military type multiplayer fix.

 

[backstept]

6. People bitch about yearly CoD releases, but don't bat an eyelid at yearly Fifa or Madden games.

oh don't get me started

I mainly started this thread out of a desire for more original ideas in gaming . . . it seems like a lot of titles these days are sequels and spinoffs

 

[darthraidr]

imho, originality is overrated.

i love to see more games focus on refinement and polish than how to re-invent the wheel.

that's not to say originality and innovation are bad, but they often come at the expense of tried and true standards.

 

[Aragorn]

Call of Duty comes out every year for the same reason Guitar Hero comes out every year -- Activision is trying to milk the franchise names for all they're worth. It's only a matter of time before they release a Guitar Hero/Call of Duty hybrid game.

 

[Servo]

I don't see the problem, as long as there isn't a drop in quality. I'll keep buying CoD games for as long as I find them fun to play, seeing as that is one of the major aspects of why people play games, myself included. The thing is, it's an aspect which is entirely subjective.

Still, whatever people say about the MP side of the CoD franchise, the campaigns for the last 3 outings have been pretty solid, both in terms of gameplay and story. As long as that's the case, people will keep buying them, despite all the people who want to bitch about how Activision is "milking the franchise to death". Who cares? As long as I get a decent game for my money once a year, I certainly don't give a shit.
Once a year seems about right to me. I'm usually just about getting bored with the last game, as the new one is coming out - as is the case with MW2 now. I can count on the fingers of one hand how many times I've played it in the last month, because I've personally gone as far as I can with it, and am ready for something new. Which is why I'm glad my copy of Black Ops will be landing on the doormat tomorrow morning.

People seem to forget that two seperate developers work on these games, so it's not like they're getting rushed out every year, they're in development for the better part of 2 years. Can the Fifa or Madden games say that?
Not that I care if people want to buy a new sports game every year; that would be hypocritical of me. Still, I find it funny that a lot of people who cry about Call of Duty's release every year, will go out and spend £35 each year on a new Fifa or Madden game - a game which is essentially the same, but with some additional skill moves, and updated teams. But then people will argue that the CoD games are the same, but with different guns and settings. Like I said, subjective.

I've had a blast playing the last 3 CoD games - both on and offline, which is why I'll continue to buy them until that is no longer the case. Everyone elses bitching over trivial shit is just background noise. Play whatever you get the most enjoyment from. Fuck everyone else's issues.

 

[Goliath]

The only multiplayer military shooter I play is Red Orchestra: Ostfront 41-45. That has no single-player campaign at all. One side takes the part of the Germans, the other takes the part of the Soviets, and they fight until one side wins.

I enjoy this game for a number of reasons. First, I like the Eastern-Front setting and weapons, and the attention to historical detail in general. Second, I enjoy its comparative verisimiltude: death comes easily, and tactics and teamwork are rewarded. Third, it also rewards skill and practice: the most common weapon is a bolt-action rifle, which is not at all easy to use, especially without crosshairs. Fourth, there is (or at least was) an active modding community, producing both new maps and full-conversion mods like Darkest Hour, which covers the campaign in northwest Europe in 44-45.

As for the general appeal of such games--in my opinion, they're really no different from any other competitive team sport. They have a playing field, and two teams, and rules, like RL games: they're just played online, instead of IRL. In that sense, playing Red Orchestra is no different from playing softball, and has much the same appeal, especially if you join a clan and take part in competitive play, as I have.

The puerile behaviour of many online gamers just comes with the territory. In my opinion, it's a problem with the internet in general, rather than online gaming in particular. When there are no consequences for rude and vulgar and antisocial behaviour, many people--especially young males--will choose to be rude and vulgar and antisocial, the same way they do in an online discussion forum.

In some ways, I have found the RO community to be better-behaved than some others, in part because it seems to attract a somewhat older and more serious-minded type of player. I've certainly never encountered the sort of behaviour that is quite common in, say, the Left 4 Dead community when playing RO. But on the down side, the chance to play the Germans on the Eastern Front attracts a small number of racists and neo-nazis and SS-lovers. Luckily, they're not all that common, and are banned from many servers which have rules against racist usernames or remarks.

I guess, overall, this type of online competitive play either appeals to you, or it doesn't. If it appeals to you, you have to put up with a certain amount of assholery and douchebaggery. If it doesn't, you don't.

Personally, I'm looking forward to the release of Red Orchestra: Heroes of Stalingrad in the near future.

 

[Servo]

The thing about other people is that they're very easy to mute. I mute everyone as a matter of course when I go into a lobby. I don't particularly want to talk to them, and I don't give a shit about what they have to say to me. If I'm playing with friends, I'll either be in a party with them, or in a squad in gamechat with everyone else muted.
Sure, I may miss out on talking to the odd decent person here and there, but it also means I don't have to put up with dickheads. A fair trade, in my opinion. I have enough online friends to play games with anyway.

 

[Goliath]

^Yes. Mute is definitely your friend.

When I play with my clanmates, we use Teamspeak, which allows us to circumvent in-game chat entirely.

 

[-Brett-]

6. People bitch about yearly CoD releases, but don't bat an eyelid at yearly Fifa or Madden games.

I have a gut feeling that there isn't a whole lot of overlap in those populations. The Fifa and Madden crowds don't mind buying a new version every year because it's probably the only video game they'll buy that year. The CoD crowd are more likely to also buy Halo, Killzone, GTA, etc.

 

[Servo]

6. People bitch about yearly CoD releases, but don't bat an eyelid at yearly Fifa or Madden games.

I have a gut feeling that there isn't a whole lot of overlap in those populations. The Fifa and Madden crowds don't mind buying a new version every year because it's probably the only video game they'll buy that year. The CoD crowd are more likely to also buy Halo, Killzone, GTA, etc.

Not really. If they're to be believed, the people who whinge about CoD don't buy it because of "franchise fatigue" or whatever buzz term is currently fashionable. That was my point. They won't buy CoD because it comes out yearly, and they claim that's too often (i.e; milking the franchise), but they'll gladly buy a new sports game every year.

On the flip side, I can think of at least 6 people on my friends list who buy CoD and Fifa every year without moaning about it, cause they enjoy playing both.

 

[Jax]

^ I will only get both after price drops and if am very bored.

 

[Servo]

^ I will only get both after price drops and if am very bored.

Yeah, but that still implies that you would be prepared to buy both, at some point. And as far as I'm aware, you're not a CoD whinger.

It's the people who bang on about franchises being milked that I'm mainly talking about. It's fashionable at the moment to hate Activision. So people will slag off CoD, Guitar Hero and Activision so they can look like one of the cool kids, but I can guarantee that 90% of those people will buy a yearly sports game without batting an eyelid, when effectively EA are doing the same thing with Fifa and Madden, as Activision do with Call of Duty.

But then, you don't get as many keyboard warrior cool points for attacking EA. At least not as many as you get for attacking Activision.

 

[Captain Pike]

I don't think everyone who criticizes a developer for rehashing ideas is necessarily doing it to be fashionable.

I enjoy the CoD games, but I also realize that they are just essentially reskinned and re-scripted from last years release.

With sports games it's kind of different. People expect a certain type of game when they buy a Fifa or a Madden or a Shane Warne Cricket. And because these kind of games are marketed on their realism and up-to-dateness, a new edition is expected, more or less, once a season. I mean, the moment a member of the Australian cricket team is replaced by someone new, everybodies game is out of date. The moment Chelsea or Germany or whoever change their regular star lineup, in the real world, their copy of Fifa is out of date. The moment the F1 championship has different competitors, their copy of an F1 game is out of date. They want the licensed team listing in their version of the game to reflect what is current.

These kind of changes drive the constant re-issues of sports games, and people have come to expect it. Not excusing it, but this is why, essentially.

Often these re-issues don't score that big with some of the more independent critics unless there is some fundamental leap forward in gaming evolution.

I don't blame developers for rehashing a good thing. Although I do think that often these single player campaigns in shooters are way too short, and yes they should mix it up a bit more.

Seriously though, how long can they just keep selling us the same game and expect a AAA rating from the critics for it? Surely they will get a minus point or two for originality?

Well, that would be the case, and should be the case imo - though in the real world it seems to me that there are some reviewers who are able to be influenced one way or another, and some who are bought and paid for by game developers who give them a free pass on their lack of originality.

No biggie. It just means that we as consumers have to be a bit more careful. Though I wish there were more developers who were prepared to take risks. It seems these days there just aren't that many, and most have fallen back into taking an easy route and producing cookie-cutter titles.

Not that there is anything wrong with that. It's a bit like the music industry (or any commercial venture, really). Some people like top 40. They don't care that it's a bit homogeneous. Others wish to explore something different.

Ppl like formula. It means that they know what to expect. Some, however, yearn for something more.