Call of Duty criticism 'unfounded,' Carmack argues

cvg

Id Software's John Carmack has stood up for Call of Duty and other titles that are looked down upon by "snooty" developers because of their popularity.

Talking to Industry Gamers, Carmack argued that criticism aimed at the likes of Call of Duty for not revolutionising with every iteration is unfounded.

"That's still a proven formula that people like, and it's a mistake to [discount that]. As long as people are buying it, it means they're enjoying it," he said.

"If they buy the next Call of Duty, it's because they loved the last one and they want more of it. So I am pretty down on people who take the sort of creative auteurs' perspective.

"It's like 'Oh, we're not being creative.' But we're creating value for people - that's our job! It's not to do something that nobody's ever seen before. It's to do something that people love so much they're willing to give us money for.

"So I do get pretty down on people that - you see some of the indie developers that really take a snooty attitude about this. It's almost as if it's popular, it's not good. And that's just not true."

Carmack went on to state that he's enjoying the success of Call of Duty because it has validated his way of thinking.

"It's interesting that over the course of it, once FPS kind of got out of being the sole property of id, it seemed clear to me that when we reached a certain level of visual fidelity, that third person was going to have certain significant advantages because you can use the tools of the director - these established, finely honed cinematography skills to do things in games that we never did before.

"I was more or less expecting third person to be the more popular set of genres and indeed it was looking like, with Gears' success, that even in the serious action [genre], that it might end up trending more that way," he continued.

"And I've actually been really happy seeing the success of Call of Duty, which is also a 60 fps game, which would validate some of my [thinking]. That was one of our big arguments internally as we were stressing over that, like, 'Y'know, I think some of the success of Call of Duty is because of how good it feels.'

"But seeing the huge success of that, it has been great to see it swing back towards people really seeing the advantages of first person perspective, the immersion that you get in the game - that you may be watching a kick ass movie in the third person view, but you're in the kick ass movie with first person. But there will forever be first-person shooters and third-person shooters and all of that. They're stable genres that will continue to be polished and improved forever after."

I'm a "let people enjoy whatever they like" kinda gamer,so I'm okay with this.

I enjoy the challenges the MP brings, I find it fun killing campers all over the world :twisted:

Hmm, sounds like mah man John has already got RAGE 2,3,4,5, & 6 in the oven !? :twisted:

I'm all for gamers buying what They like but for me, it's not CoD. :P

I can see where he's ccoming from.

But at the same time a lot of the critiscism isnt the game itself its just the fact its yearly release and multiple map packs, the games are enjoyable with friends but around 60-80% of the population i think of the game like to migrate from one iteration to another on consoles anyway.

Also the tech needs a bit of a boot up the backside in terms of certain things mind you Carmack's gonna defend it since the core of IW Engine is derived from his open source tech :P mind you that could be unfounded.

Haters gonna hate indeed! Some ppl think that everything other their favourite games is crap. Im not a big fan of CoD´s fast paced gameplay but have to admit they are good and polished games.

Carmack speaking the truth. :)

There was a point and time when I loved COD, but IMO it's Stale and boring now.

Basically, forget about your opinion, your feelings and listen to this guys opinion. Your opinion is less than his because well... he's better than you.

Seriously, I agree with what he's saying though. If people keep buying it, hactivision will keep juicing/milking it.

I enjoyed Black Ops a great deal.. But I HATED MW2 and WaW (except the Nazi Zombie mode)

My already high respect for Carmack is about to go through the roof after hearing this.

So true. Internet dweebs hate everything popular and successful, yet anything unpopular is the greatest thing ever. Internet livers hate the iPhoneBodyElite

ITS DOESNT HAVE FLASH!

/rage

I could care less either way about CoD anymore.

But, Activisions shameless pampering and basically buying off of reviewers is one of the worst things in gaming right now.

What about people with actual complaints about the gameplay and balance?

People buy it cause of the hype generated around the game, the millions spent of advertisment and the huge buzz. Spend enough money on getting your product "out there" and people will buy it no matter how crap. Seriously there was a university team going around advertising Wet toilet paper for sale, and people were buying it. Were in the age were we are told what to buy, what to eat, wear, how to look, music to listen to. Tv, ads, youtube, internet, its all a huge advertising tool for you to spend your money.

I'm not going to buy the next one....I didn't buy the last two.

People buy it cause of the hype generated around the game, the millions spent of advertisment and the huge buzz. Spend enough money on getting your product "out there" and people will buy it no matter how crap. Seriously there was a university team going around advertising Wet toilet paper for sale, and people were buying it. Were in the age were we are told what to buy, what to eat, wear, how to look, music to listen to. Tv, ads, youtube, internet, its all a huge advertising tool for you to spend your money.

sailor232

Yeah it has nothing to do with the fact its literally the most played fps multiplayer out there.. I am the first guy to be critical of CoD especilaly when it comes to the singleplayer.. But this is just wrong.

I think people have issue with the fact that they barely change. It's one thing with giving people more of what they want, but to do so without adding any new mixes in the formula for a yearly game is not acceptable imo.

Saying that COD is 'not creative' is an understatement to say the least. It's one thing having similar gameplay with ur last iteration that people loved, and another thing releasing re-skins of the same game every year.

I think people have issue with the fact that they barely change. It's one thing with giving people more of what they want, but to do so without adding any new mixes in the formula for a yearly game is not acceptable imo.

GD1551

I could care less either way about CoD anymore.

But, Activisions shameless pampering and basically buying off of reviewers is one of the worst things in gaming right now.

xLFTMx

[QUOTE="xLFTMx"]

I could care less either way about CoD anymore.

But, Activisions shameless pampering and basically buying off of reviewers is one of the worst things in gaming right now.

biggest_loser

They can like it all they want, but the games shouldn't be getting continuous AA and AAA scores.

I agree somewhat with Carmack, but mostly because I feel there is *too much* hate. The COD games aren't horrible, they're decent games and you can have fun with them, but since COD has been the same game since 2007, and the only thing they've added to them is more balance issues, :P Seeing the games sell a billion copies every single year instead of the far better games out there makes some people angry.

So the hate isn't unfounded, but at the same time there is too much hate for the series.

[QUOTE="GD1551"]

I think people have issue with the fact that they barely change. It's one thing with giving people more of what they want, but to do so without adding any new mixes in the formula for a yearly game is not acceptable imo.

001011000101101

Don't forget zombies.. And a completely reworked perk system.. The hilarious thing is this.. CoD would not be getting as much crap if it was released with a new graphics engine.. Afterall we all know the systemwars rule.. If its released with cutting edge graphics that are new, regardless of how much similar it is to the older games.. Its still a original sequel.. Afterall that is the first and main complaint I ever hear from peopel who see sequels that use the old engine again.. That theya re just being lazy and this is just a rehash etc etc.

[QUOTE="GD1551"]

I think people have issue with the fact that they barely change. It's one thing with giving people more of what they want, but to do so without adding any new mixes in the formula for a yearly game is not acceptable imo.

001011000101101

[QUOTE="001011000101101"]

[QUOTE="GD1551"]

I think people have issue with the fact that they barely change. It's one thing with giving people more of what they want, but to do so without adding any new mixes in the formula for a yearly game is not acceptable imo.

sSubZerOo

Don't forget zombies.. And a completely reworked perk system.. The hilarious thing is this.. CoD would not be getting as much crap if it was released with a new graphics engine.. Afterall we all know the systemwars rule.. If its released with cutting edge graphics that are new, regardless of how much similar it is to the older games.. Its still a original sequel.. Afterall that is the first and main complaint I ever hear from peopel who see sequels that use the old engine again.. That theya re just being lazy and this is just a rehash etc etc.

Zombies is not a new addition to black ops and the reworked perk system again does nothing to change the Cod formula.

[QUOTE="sSubZerOo"]

[QUOTE="001011000101101"] They added a lot of new stuff in Black Ops. Player cards, theater mode, bots, helicopter levels in SP, contracts, wager matches, the COD points system for unlocks and many new customization features for your character. That, and a bunch of new multiplayer maps and a new campaign. How is that 'barely' changing?

GD1551

Don't forget zombies.. And a completely reworked perk system.. The hilarious thing is this.. CoD would not be getting as much crap if it was released with a new graphics engine.. Afterall we all know the systemwars rule.. If its released with cutting edge graphics that are new, regardless of how much similar it is to the older games.. Its still a original sequel.. Afterall that is the first and main complaint I ever hear from peopel who see sequels that use the old engine again.. That theya re just being lazy and this is just a rehash etc etc.

Zombies is not a new addition to black ops and the reworked perk system again does nothing to change the Cod formula.

No its something unique tot eh series that no other game does.. And they consist of completely original maps.. If we used your flawed logic we could crap on pretty much any fps out there when it came to generic qualities.. Afterall Halo's multiplayers never really changed the formula, they only added bells and whistles, much like CoD.. If we used your logic I can't think of any fps sequel as hugely different.. Afterall if they weren't you erally couldn't call them a sequel half the time.. That is the point..

[QUOTE="GD1551"]

[QUOTE="sSubZerOo"]

Don't forget zombies.. And a completely reworked perk system.. The hilarious thing is this.. CoD would not be getting as much crap if it was released with a new graphics engine.. Afterall we all know the systemwars rule.. If its released with cutting edge graphics that are new, regardless of how much similar it is to the older games.. Its still a original sequel.. Afterall that is the first and main complaint I ever hear from peopel who see sequels that use the old engine again.. That theya re just being lazy and this is just a rehash etc etc.

sSubZerOo

Zombies is not a new addition to black ops and the reworked perk system again does nothing to change the Cod formula.

No its something unique tot eh series that no other game does.. And they consist of completely original maps.. If we used your flawed logic we could crap on pretty much any fps out there when it came to generic qualities.. Afterall Halo's multiplayers never really changed the formula, they only added bells and whistles, much like CoD.. If we used your logic I can't think of any fps sequel as hugely different.. Afterall if they weren't you erally couldn't call them a sequel half the time.. That is the point..

Halo's MP never changed the formula? Have you played Reach? Did you remember fire fight was included in ODST? Also World at War has zombies before black ops, I have no idea why you think zombies is unique to BO, BO did nothing new in the cod franchise to change up the formula.

Carmack is a typical COD fanboy confirmed :P

[QUOTE="001011000101101"]

[QUOTE="GD1551"]

I think people have issue with the fact that they barely change. It's one thing with giving people more of what they want, but to do so without adding any new mixes in the formula for a yearly game is not acceptable imo.

GD1551

[QUOTE="001011000101101"]

[QUOTE="GD1551"]

I think people have issue with the fact that they barely change. It's one thing with giving people more of what they want, but to do so without adding any new mixes in the formula for a yearly game is not acceptable imo.

sSubZerOo

Don't forget zombies.. And a completely reworked perk system.. The hilarious thing is this.. CoD would not be getting as much crap if it was released with a new graphics engine.. Afterall we all know the systemwars rule.. If its released with cutting edge graphics that are new, regardless of how much similar it is to the older games.. Its still a original sequel.. Afterall that is the first and main complaint I ever hear from peopel who see sequels that use the old engine again.. That theya re just being lazy and this is just a rehash etc etc.

I think part is to blame for the business aspect of it. Activision wants COD to be fresh in everyone's mind, so a yearly release is a must for them. Thats why there are 3 developers teams making the games now IW,Treyarch, and sledgehammer games. I also dont see any engine working for them this gen that could do what they are doing at 60 FPS. I did hear rummors that sledgehammer was going to be using the Cryengine in their game, but that project was put on hold to help IW with MW3.

[QUOTE="GD1551"][QUOTE="001011000101101"] They added a lot of new stuff in Black Ops. Player cards, theater mode, bots, helicopter levels in SP, contracts, wager matches, the COD points system for unlocks and many new customization features for your character. That, and a bunch of new multiplayer maps and a new campaign. How is that 'barely' changing?

001011000101101

"It's one thing with giving people more of what they want, but to do so without adding any new mixes in the formula for a yearly game is not acceptable imo."

This is part of my quote that you selectively left out, it was clear I was talking about from a gameplay perspective. How would I change the gameplay is irrelevant, I'm not a game designer, IW managed to change the gameplay in COD once, why can't someone do it again?

I didn't say I didn't like it... I have just gotten ****ing bored of it, but it's going to be more of the same.SaltyMeatballs

this

the hate is the fact it comes out every single year, i mean come on give it a break

[QUOTE="001011000101101"][QUOTE="GD1551"] None of those things changed the gameplay in the slightest except the helicopter mission, which is just one mission.GD1551

"It's one thing with giving people more of what they want, but to do so without adding any new mixes in the formula for a yearly game is not acceptable imo."

This is part of my quote that you selectively left out, it was clear I was talking about from a gameplay perspective. How would I change the gameplay is irrelevant, I'm not a game designer, IW managed to change the gameplay in COD once, why can't someone do it again?

Carmack is a typical COD fanboy confirmed :P

Swift_Boss_A

What he's not taking account of is that, these people, generally ONLY play COD. They don't try anything else, and so don't know if there's anything else they would enjoy more. They're told constantly that COD is the 'critically acclamied game of the year' and so they assume it is the best available. Not everyone of course, but many do. It's also a case of 'All my friends are geting. I dont want to be left out... Forever alone...'Indie_Hitman

i dont want to get it either but the bros.......*sigh* the bros only play cod...

[QUOTE="sSubZerOo"]

[QUOTE="GD1551"]

Zombies is not a new addition to black ops and the reworked perk system again does nothing to change the Cod formula.

GD1551

No its something unique tot eh series that no other game does.. And they consist of completely original maps.. If we used your flawed logic we could crap on pretty much any fps out there when it came to generic qualities.. Afterall Halo's multiplayers never really changed the formula, they only added bells and whistles, much like CoD.. If we used your logic I can't think of any fps sequel as hugely different.. Afterall if they weren't you erally couldn't call them a sequel half the time.. That is the point..

Halo's MP never changed the formula? Have you played Reach? Did you remember fire fight was included in ODST? Also World at War has zombies before black ops, I have no idea why you think zombies is unique to BO, BO did nothing new in the cod franchise to change up the formula.

You eman Reach where they added a few perks to the game? But nothing really changed than.. Afterall they just added a few extra bells and whistles.. Oh they pyut a survival mode in Odst? That barely anybody played and wasn't new to FPS what so ever? I am sorry but I can belittle any fps out there with the same kind logic you are using.. Reach added a assault mode, which has been done countless times.. They added a few "perks" which was nothing new.. It didn't change the overall formula of the game what so ever.. Funny yous ay Odst, because it was considered a disapointment by many.. IN FACT I actually find it HILARIOUS that you use Odst as a example.. Which shipped with Halo 3 mp unchanged.. And was widely considered a disapointment.

I guess that explains why Rage's gameplay looks so boring.

The issue isn't with CoD in and of itself, it's with the sheer number of developers/publishers who think the way to make a successful shooter nowadays is to do their level-headed best to rip off as many facets of CoD as they can without attracting a copyright infringement lawsuit. If CoD was an isolated phenomenon I don't think anyone would have a problem with it, but instead we get to deal with bull**** like the current MW3 vs BF3 pissing contest and developers morphing what were otherwise unique and interesting titles into bro shooters.