Why is Call Of Duty so popular? (Discussion Thread) Thread

After seeing Call Of Duty hitting the top on xfire for many years, I decided to buy my first CoD game. Call Of Duty Modern Warfare 2, yes. While playing it I actually noticed over-exagerated special effects which harass our vision... It is just too damn unrealistic, not to mention all sparkles flying everywhere and the grenades which seem to be more like the ones from Half-Life 2. The gameplay itself looks like a UT3 mod which made an attempt to be a realistic mod. But anyway it failed... Are there things I am missing in Call Of Duty Modern Warfare 2? It just doesn't make sense this game is popular, it so no different from UT games or simple other shooters... And the graphics are actually way too fancy. I am still a fan of ArmA 2. The game succeeded in being realistic, the only thing I hate is the travelling. But that becomes undone when you arrive in your firefight. Then you have fun for a good few hours clearing a single town with friends in coop mode.

Please t ell me, why Cod? Why WoW? World of Warcraft is just too expensive, I can't imagine people are playing a game for which you need to pay every month... Oh yeah, Call Of Duty is simply a mod of CS:S maybe. With the AddOn of ironsights duuh!

Now please I want a clear answer. Why!

people play cod because it is that is my only answer now accept it ..... the rest of the world has. no mader how hard u resist u will always come back and play ..... and WOW i have no idea it may just be what people like

Hollywood Glam !

MW2 was awesome (i didn't think so until I played it).

From what you're using to describe it, I'd say you're relatively young (your profile says you're 20). First CoD came out in '03, you'd be 13 @ that time, most likely you didn't play it. If Doom invented main stream FPS & Half Life told a decent story (hard to do when all you do is point & shoot), CoD put you in the middle of a full scale war (three games that completely changed the expectations of players, and greatly increased the player base with each series). The later games stayed on that path (I didn't play anything between CoD 2 & MW2, CoD2 didn't impress me except the American missions, the Russian/British felt like a 100% rehash of the first game).

One thing that sets the series (at least in the start) apart from other games is that it based on real events & experiences of people who did what you did in the game. So in CoD1, pretty much everything you (the player) does is based on what soldiers living @ the time the game was made did in WW2. Not 100% accurate of course, the game's fiction, but simular to the movie Pearl Harbor.

If you don't like it you don't like it. i'd sya you don't like it because you're saying "eh, it's a mod". IMHO you're comparing it to 3rd rate games & not viewing it as a whole. You're saying "this is like THAT game I played, that is like this OTHER game I played". For comparison, I'd happily say HL2 is like Quake 1, except less interactive in the environment & UT3 is like UT, except not as played.

I'd suggest you download a demo of Quake 3. The CoD games are based on Q3A (two of the most popular franchises ever are based on id tech... and still used id tech in them!) & the feel is the same. Then play a game based on an Epic tech engine & you'll notice a difference right off the bat: by default the mouse "feels" different, the movement is "different", etc. It's strange how me & lots of other people "felt" the gameplay differences between UT & Q3A back in 99 & you can still "feel" the differences between the engines today. MW2 "feels" like Doom 3/ETQW/Prey & Borderlands "feels" like UT/2k3/2k4 to me. Go figure (I didn't know Borderlands was made from UT3 until after I started playing it!).

But for "why do people play CoD?" Same answer as to why people even bought HL2 or any of Valve's other released: because they'll buy whatever comes out with the name attached to it. But to saw anything in CoD is a mod to CS:S? That's a very uneducated statement. I don't like HL2 one bit & have a list of reasons it's a worthless game but I at least recognize what they did to make it & the work involved.

Eh, the series went to shit after they went multiplatform anyway. CoD2 and CoD:MW were still "fun" but just not the same. CoD and UO remain the greatest ones.

Its probably the excitment, the diversity, the story and the Multiplayer. all in all its a great all rounder.

To make a point on the realism, I recall a developer noting this:

Kemuel wrote: ...Modern Warfare 2 may seem to capture image of war, but
studio head Vince Zampella says that with Modern Warfare 2 Infinity
Ward aims for entertainment, not realism.
“We go for authenticity not realism,” Zampella told Official
PlayStation Magazine. “We’re not making a sim, we’re making
entertainment. We want it to look real like an action movie."

[Source]

I liked Modern Warfare because it really introduced me into some real multiplayer game-play. Other than a handful of rounds in FarCry and some long hours with Rainbow Six: Vegas, I wasn't really much of an online gamer. Fortunately Modern Warfare changed that quite a bit. No doubt I had to check out Modern Warfare 2.

I like Modern Warfare 2 for it's action content. Game-play is faster paced, you have more options for killing your opponent, and other than the occasional nuke, its good fun. I don't think comparing it to CS:S or UT are very good comparisons. Each of these games seem the same from first glance, but like mostly everything, there is a different level of game-play depth once you really start playing it.

To be honest, I didn't like ArmA 2 in any way, shape, or form. I do know if I was to continue playing it, I'd very much like it, as long as I didn't keep getting picked off by snipers every time I spawn.

Edited by: JustDaveIsFine

Minuit wrote: Because it's fun.

Yeah i agree why else whould they play it, DUU..

Is there actually some kind of cool zombiemod for this?

Well the multiplayer, I would like it slightly slower paced gameplay. Because it goes way too fast for my eyes. And what I hate is that ennemies most of the time seem to spawn in your back.

Aside from the gameplay, the engine is beautiful. It has something integrated which changes from one server to another when it becomes too laggy. This is really a good feature... But I hate the matchmaking, I really would like the classic server browser with some bigger maps.

And at some part it is fun, if you can kill someone. Well I will return to ArmA 2 most of my freetime . By the way who knows Virtual BattleSpace? It seems we cannot buy it unless we are in the military...

Hendrix wrote: Its probably the excitment, the diversity, the story and the Multiplayer. all in all its a great all rounder.

Can anyone else offer a straighter answer than this ?

djjonastybe wrote: By the way who knows Virtual BattleSpace? It seems we cannot buy it unless we are in the military...

VBS1 is available by means of ILLEGAL INDUSTRY KILLING METHODS, but VBS2 doesn't seem to be out there.

Because they pick up chicks playing this Vidja

I know I found VBS1 on rapidshare... But I don't feel like trying it... From the videos it seems identical to ArmA 2... I would pay anything for VBS2...

By the way I hate the knifing in CoD 6... Some people walk arround or run around very fast knifing you in the back all the time... Others walk around very silly with dual shotguns... Hell and the UAV system which is stolen from the BF series! Not taking in count that the game is very frustating because you die all the time, it is a great game... I only hate dying all the time lol...

you do realize UAVs are a real life device right? so bf in turn stole it from real life, the horror >_>

Really what gets people for Modern Warfare is that it is modern warfare. It's fun to think that you are actually in war. Of course the game play, characters, and story aren't so bad either. I personally like the SP better than the MP by far, although the MP is still great.

I like it because it's relatively easy to learn, not too realistic while on the other side not being too arcadey. It's starting to feel too arcadey with all the "longshot" and "headshot" messages though.. hardcore gamemode ftw (:

djjonastybe wrote: Not taking in count that the game is very frustating because you die all the time, it is a great game... I only hate dying all the time lol...

This, sir, made me LOL. My advice is: practice some more (btw, some people seem to misinterpret "practice".. practice <> camping.)

To me the answer is really obvious.

There are a couple of things that make it popular:
1. There is a lot of action
2. It's accessible
3. The Unlocks

1. Fast respawns, small maps, and sprinting make it easy for players to quickly zip around the map and find the action. There are also three gameplay elements, the UAV, the shooting indicators, and the heartbeat sensor that detect enemy players and make it much easier for players to find enemies to kill. Killing is actually easier than in the first Modern Warfare, and it usually takes no more than 3-5 bullets to kill an enemy. The kills happen very quickly, and when you have a fast respawn coupled with the sprint system you'll find that players are typically rushing to get back into the battle. There are just more kills happening per minute than most of the other games out there. In my humble opinion MW2 is one of the fastest games out there.

You'll find that most players will gravitate to playing Team Deathmatch, but there is Team Hardcore where the dynamics are very different, but my argument still stands because most players are playing Team Deathmatch.

2. It's accessible

I think it's really easy to get into the game and start to kill people. When you start out you probably won't be on the top player in every game, but at the very least you will get a handful of kills. This is very important because it contributes to players from getting discouraged and quitting the game before playing more and acquiring more skill. Most casuals aren't going to stand for the time it takes to get good at a more hardcore game, so Call of Duty's instant access to at least some level of success by shooting baddies in Team Deathmatch serves to be at least a mild level of satisfaction that will keep them hooked to the game for a longer period of time.

3. The Unlocks

The unlockable perks, weapons, medals, titles, and call signs are what weapons and armor to the World of Warcraft players. They act as sort of a digital crack and play an important role in keeping the interest of the player when the core gameplay has worn thin.

I'll go with the "because its fun" crowd.

djjonastybe wrote: By the way who knows Virtual BattleSpace? It seems we cannot buy it unless we are in the military...

Seriously, do not get VBS. It's $3000 a seat, and you'll get better use out of ArmA or ArmA II for a much more sane price. It's not even that realistic by default either (well some things it is realistic enough for, but other things like turret rotation speeds and the GUIs... )

Call of duty 1 changed gaming altogether.It was the first FPS that i finished the single player on.Not to mention the fantastic Multiplayer back then. Unfortunately the new titles are fun, just not what i want out of call of duty.

I've only seen screenies of the game aside from a watching someone else play the game...

And, the game looked amazing. From what I hear, it's like a huge rush and the multiplayer seems to be amazing. I'd love to be playing it now!

COD1 changed WW2 games and shook up EA on the PC gaming platform. It gave MoH and BF1942 a run for its money. Plus it was focused on SP which most FPS at the time were neglecting.

Although its hugely popular today, Im surprised how well they kept the basic formula intact.

korge wrote: It gave MoH and BF1942 a run for its money..

MoH, sure. BF1942? Not a chance, they're not even on the same scale.

djjonastybe wrote: Is there actually some kind of cool zombiemod for this?

Thanks to the guys @ IW and IWNET not possible

other CODs are great MW2 for PC (Since he is talking about Xfire) has been bought mostly by the average consumer that doesnt check on gaming news ect and doesnt know he is getting a lame console port.

DNAz wrote:
other CODs are great MW2 for PC (Since he is talking about Xfire) has been bought mostly by the average consumer that doesnt check on gaming news ect and doesnt know he is getting a lame console port.

Hmm... Your thought process is skewed from personal bias.

Just because a game is a port does not mean it is bad. GTA4, Gears of War, and Max Payne are simply a few examples of ports that are still good games regardless of their system.

GTA4, Gears of War, and Max Payne are simply a few examples of ports that are still good games regardless of their system.

Those series are designed with consoles in mind though, nothing is lost in the port over. Call of Duty was more of a PC oriented title for years, and had gameplay features PC users had come to expect (lean, LAN, dedicated servers, higher number of players, custom video options, etc). It fits the dictionary's definition of lame (crippled or disabled, inadequate, unsatisfactory, out of touch with modern fads or trends). It's not a bad game, but the pc version is certainly a lame port.
.

Edited by: Cryrid