Call of Duty criticism 'unfounded,' Carmack argues

The criticism is pretty founded if you ask me.

[QUOTE="-The-G-Man-"]

[QUOTE="viper-kid"]

If the customers find value then who are you say its not valuable. Valuable= worth spending money and Cod's sales are going up so it obviously has more value than BF.viper-kid

it doesn't matter what the customer thinks. customers are sheep that will buy anything they're pointed toward.

Sheep because they buy whatever advertising tells them to.

COD games are good games that tell compelling stories, have fun multiplayer elements in which there's a real sense of progress as you unlock weapons and Prestige, and gunplay that feels good. The games deserve a lot less hate than they get and ought to be looked at less in terms of "COD is great/crap" and instead like most other games which we look at in terms of "Hey, it doesn't appeal to me but I can see why others like it".

M13L13S

CoD has no story what-so-ever. Its very poorly written...yet never gets criticized for it. Yet one game that brought in a good writter gets heavily criticized for doing the same game, but better. The gunplay does not feel good. I'm sorry but guns have recoil, bullet spread, and aren't laser-bullets with stupidly large hitboxes. Not to mention game-breaking auto-aim... I can see why others enjoy certain games, but not CoD.

I agree for the most part, but I do think the shooter genre needs something new.

So true. Internet dweebs hate everything popular and successful, yet anything unpopular is the greatest thing ever. Internet livers hate the iPhone, COD, any successful movie (Transformers, Avatar), you name it. That's why I tend to stay away from the loneliness of the Internet hermitsBodyElite

[QUOTE="M13L13S"]

COD games are good games that tell compelling stories, have fun multiplayer elements in which there's a real sense of progress as you unlock weapons and Prestige, and gunplay that feels good. The games deserve a lot less hate than they get and ought to be looked at less in terms of "COD is great/crap" and instead like most other games which we look at in terms of "Hey, it doesn't appeal to me but I can see why others like it".

ChubbyGuy40

CoD has no story what-so-ever. Its very poorly written...yet never gets criticized for it. Yet one game that brought in a good writter gets heavily criticized for doing the same game, but better. The gunplay does not feel good. I'm sorry but guns have recoil, bullet spread, and aren't laser-bullets with stupidly large hitboxes. Not to mention game-breaking auto-aim... I can see why others enjoy certain games, but not CoD.

I can't judge Homefront's story since I haven't played it but other than some questionable things such as the No Russian level the stories of the COD's have made a lot of sense and have been well written IMO. That's just subjective and not something either of us can argue well. Yeah guns do have recoil, bullet spread, and aren't laser-bullets. I can totally agree. However in the case of MW, MW2, and BO, you're a member of elite organizations of soldiers. Those guys have spent tons of time shooting guns. They should be good with them and if you gave me or even another member of the military the same gun and we/they had a contest, they should win. So that factors in. The other factor would be the fun factor. Would you enjoy the game if only maybe a quarter of your shots went where you intended? I know I wouldn't. If COD did that, everyone would complain the game was broken. And if you're gonna complain about that, then why not complain that health regens? Real wounds don't just heal. That's just a game element we've come to enjoy. COD doesn't brand itself as an ultra-realistic shooter and since other parts of the game aren't completely realistic, I don't see why guns shooting straighter is a huge issue.

John Carmack is a genius so anything he says is correct.

[QUOTE="M13L13S"]

COD games are good games that tell compelling stories, have fun multiplayer elements in which there's a real sense of progress as you unlock weapons and Prestige, and gunplay that feels good. The games deserve a lot less hate than they get and ought to be looked at less in terms of "COD is great/crap" and instead like most other games which we look at in terms of "Hey, it doesn't appeal to me but I can see why others like it".

ChubbyGuy40

CoD has no story what-so-ever. Its very poorly written...yet never gets criticized for it. Yet one game that brought in a good writter gets heavily criticized for doing the same game, but better. The gunplay does not feel good. I'm sorry but guns have recoil, bullet spread, and aren't laser-bullets with stupidly large hitboxes. Not to mention game-breaking auto-aim... I can see why others enjoy certain games, but not CoD.

Homefront was criticzed for the campaign's short length, and repetitive gameplay. The story was praised however, especially for it's brutal depiction of the NKR's occupation.

I can't judge Homefront's story since I haven't played it but other than some questionable things such as the No Russian level the stories of the COD's have made a lot of sense and have been well written IMO. That's just subjective and not something either of us can argue well. Yeah guns do have recoil, bullet spread, and aren't laser-bullets. I can totally agree. However in the case of MW, MW2, and BO, you're a member of elite organizations of soldiers. Those guys have spent tons of time shooting guns. They should be good with them and if you gave me or even another member of the military the same gun and we/they had a contest, they should win. So that factors in. The other factor would be the fun factor. Would you enjoy the game if only maybe a quarter of your shots went where you intended? I know I wouldn't. If COD did that, everyone would complain the game was broken. And if you're gonna complain about that, then why not complain that health regens? Real wounds don't just heal. That's just a game element we've come to enjoy. COD doesn't brand itself as an ultra-realistic shooter and since other parts of the game aren't completely realistic, I don't see why guns shooting straighter is a huge issue.

M13L13S

That No Russian level made no sense. The police should've easily been able to bring them down. I know it was their intend to stay alive, but that is an element I cannot overlook. Russia must have the worst police/SWAT team in the world. Story is arguable, but there's no background to any of it and there's no feeling or emotion. Nothing really connects and they just can't let anyone die.

I'm pretty sure even these elite militia (Which you're not in the multiplayer. You're Marines, ect.) they can't even get headshots from miles with dual uzis by aiming at feet.

I do complain about that quite a lot. Health regen has NO place in modern military shooters. We didn't really enjoy it...it was forced upon us. It doesn't brand itself that, but even credible news outlets/resources/ect actually called it that. I'm not saying shooting guns straighter is an issue, but CoD really does have very large hitboxes, autoaim, and laser bullets (they do not suffer from conditions or standing/crouching/running/ect.)

Homefront was criticzed for the campaign's short length, and repetitive gameplay. The story was praised however, especially for it's brutal depiction of the NKR's occupation.

EliteM0nk3y

Some website did criticize it's story like that though. Sorry but if you throw in a single player, no matter how serious (unless it's like BF2, Brink, or any other game that just fills the MP levels with bots) it should be counted equally for the score. The MP in CoD games are not good enough to carry it to 9.0+. Homefront is how CoD should be. It's just as repetitive and has a very short campaign. The story and setting was far above CoD however. That opening scene was far better than MW1's scene. They did not hold punches.

[QUOTE="M13L13S"]

I can't judge Homefront's story since I haven't played it but other than some questionable things such as the No Russian level the stories of the COD's have made a lot of sense and have been well written IMO. That's just subjective and not something either of us can argue well. Yeah guns do have recoil, bullet spread, and aren't laser-bullets. I can totally agree. However in the case of MW, MW2, and BO, you're a member of elite organizations of soldiers. Those guys have spent tons of time shooting guns. They should be good with them and if you gave me or even another member of the military the same gun and we/they had a contest, they should win. So that factors in. The other factor would be the fun factor. Would you enjoy the game if only maybe a quarter of your shots went where you intended? I know I wouldn't. If COD did that, everyone would complain the game was broken. And if you're gonna complain about that, then why not complain that health regens? Real wounds don't just heal. That's just a game element we've come to enjoy. COD doesn't brand itself as an ultra-realistic shooter and since other parts of the game aren't completely realistic, I don't see why guns shooting straighter is a huge issue.

ChubbyGuy40

That No Russian level made no sense. The police should've easily been able to bring them down. I know it was their intend to stay alive, but that is an element I cannot overlook. Russia must have the worst police/SWAT team in the world. Story is arguable, but there's no background to any of it and there's no feeling or emotion. Nothing really connects and they just can't let anyone die.

I'm pretty sure even these elite militia (Which you're not in the multiplayer. You're Marines, ect.) they can't even get headshots from miles with dual uzis by aiming at feet.

I do complain about that quite a lot. Health regen has NO place in modern military shooters. We didn't really enjoy it...it was forced upon us. It doesn't brand itself that, but even credible news outlets/resources/ect actually called it that. I'm not saying shooting guns straighter is an issue, but CoD really does have very large hitboxes, autoaim, and laser bullets (they do not suffer from conditions or standing/crouching/running/ect.)

I do agree with some of your points. I'm not saying COD's perfect, just that it can be a fun game to gamers and have redeming values which a lot of people pretend it doesn't. Also not trying to be a jerk, just like having a good debate with a fellow gamer.

-The No Russian level is just for publicity and had no place in the game.

-They actually do let some people die (Sergent Jackson in MW, Ghost in MW2)

-That's true. I was more adressing the single player in which weapons seems much more balanced. Multiplayer needs some refining done. No way you can mow some one down across the map with a silenced UMP.

-I like the regen but to each his own. Just the way COD is layed out and the singleplayer/ online maps are, I think no health regen would pracitically ruin the game. Open the maps up and I could see it being a good thing though.

-Also another valid point in regards to branding.

-And yeah the hit detection needs work also. Can't tell you how many times I've seen that kill cam and the sniper's at least 4 in off my head and yet gets a head shot. I think the laser bullets work for COD simply due to the fact that the levels are so much smaller than say something like BC2 where the bulletdrop is a difference maker and a lot more noticable.

I do agree with some of your points. I'm not saying COD's perfect, just that it can be a fun game to gamers and have redeming values which a lot of people pretend it doesn't. Also not trying to be a jerk, just like having a good debate with a fellow gamer.

-The No Russian level is just for publicity and had no place in the game.

-They actually do let some people die (Sergent Jackson in MW, Ghost in MW2)

-That's true. I was more adressing the single player in which weapons seems much more balanced. Multiplayer needs some refining done. No way you can mow some one down across the map with a silenced UMP.

-I like the regen but to each his own. Just the way COD is layed out and the singleplayer/ online maps are, I think no health regen would pracitically ruin the game. Open the maps up and I could see it being a good thing though.

-Also another valid point in regards to branding.

-And yeah the hit detection needs work also. Can't tell you how many times I've seen that kill cam and the sniper's at least 4 in off my head and yet gets a head shot. I think the laser bullets work for COD simply due to the fact that the levels are so much smaller than say something like BC2 where the bulletdrop is a difference maker and a lot more noticable.

M13L13S

Maybe if we were still on CoD4, I'd have some respect for it. I even managed to enjoy Black Ops some, but the only quality CoD games were 1 and 2 IMHO. I know you're not trying to be a jerk. Very mild/neutral in your posts.

-That's all it was for, but really one game that deals with a few days in the middle east gets shut down because of public backlash. Yet a game that lets you shoot innocent civilians in an airport, among other things, has even more backlash but is allowed to be released?

-They let so many die...and just switch to another character. I'm fine with playing with more than one character, just don't let us play him for an extended period just to see him get off'ed when the game isn't even over.

-I mentioned that because it was happening to me in MW2 on PS3. I rented it the day it came out and wow, such BS. I'm sorry but any MP that allows that is an automatic failure in my book.

-I'm a counter strike/battlefield guy. You shouldn't have regenerating health at all. It's a stupid aspect that was introduced in Halo but suddenly every game just had to have it. You shouldn't be able to hide for 10 seconds and have all your health back.

-They are very small, but there's no variables at all. The large hitboxes are due to the controller. Even BC2 on PC has small hitboxes because we can actually manage to aim there, but with consoles you have to have auto-aim. Their aiming and gunplay makes CSS seem uber accurate.

COD gameplay is fine. But to keep rehashing the same graphics engine over and over again, its not good. Make a run and gun game with most modern visual features, thats it.

I'm a huge fan of John. He knows how to create a straightfoward-get to the point shooter. He's oldschool when comes to gameplay, and on the graphics the guy's a god, a wizard.I wish he worked on Duke Nukem Forever, the game would have been more like doom 3, shooting focused, no driving, no small duke **** and more oldschool style with modern graphics.

[QUOTE="M13L13S"]

I do agree with some of your points. I'm not saying COD's perfect, just that it can be a fun game to gamers and have redeming values which a lot of people pretend it doesn't. Also not trying to be a jerk, just like having a good debate with a fellow gamer.

-The No Russian level is just for publicity and had no place in the game.

-They actually do let some people die (Sergent Jackson in MW, Ghost in MW2)

-That's true. I was more adressing the single player in which weapons seems much more balanced. Multiplayer needs some refining done. No way you can mow some one down across the map with a silenced UMP.

-I like the regen but to each his own. Just the way COD is layed out and the singleplayer/ online maps are, I think no health regen would pracitically ruin the game. Open the maps up and I could see it being a good thing though.

-Also another valid point in regards to branding.

-And yeah the hit detection needs work also. Can't tell you how many times I've seen that kill cam and the sniper's at least 4 in off my head and yet gets a head shot. I think the laser bullets work for COD simply due to the fact that the levels are so much smaller than say something like BC2 where the bulletdrop is a difference maker and a lot more noticable.

ChubbyGuy40

Maybe if we were still on CoD4, I'd have some respect for it. I even managed to enjoy Black Ops some, but the only quality CoD games were 1 and 2 IMHO. I know you're not trying to be a jerk. Very mild/neutral in your posts.

-That's all it was for, but really one game that deals with a few days in the middle east gets shut down because of public backlash. Yet a game that lets you shoot innocent civilians in an airport, among other things, has even more backlash but is allowed to be released?

-They let so many die...and just switch to another character. I'm fine with playing with more than one character, just don't let us play him for an extended period just to see him get off'ed when the game isn't even over.

-I mentioned that because it was happening to me in MW2 on PS3. I rented it the day it came out and wow, such BS. I'm sorry but any MP that allows that is an automatic failure in my book.

-I'm a counter strike/battlefield guy. You shouldn't have regenerating health at all. It's a stupid aspect that was introduced in Halo but suddenly every game just had to have it. You shouldn't be able to hide for 10 seconds and have all your health back.

-They are very small, but there's no variables at all. The large hitboxes are due to the controller. Even BC2 on PC has small hitboxes because we can actually manage to aim there, but with consoles you have to have auto-aim. Their aiming and gunplay makes CSS seem uber accurate.

-I don't get that either. It's ok to slaughter innocent civilians but not to show a real life conflict? Dumb. Six Days sounded like a very interesting and potentially genre changing shooter.

-For Jackson, it was a very "emotional" moment when he died trying to save the chopper pilot who got killed. Kinda reminded me of Black Hawk Down. Ghost is the only other one besides Jackson and the main guy you're playing as that feels like a "good" death.

-The multiplayer was to me the most fun I had with the exception of Halo 3. I don't know about the PS3 version since I played on 360.

-I like the BC2 model of health with health regening really slowly and there being a need for medics and that hiding for those 10 seconds won't heal you fully.

-I can't really adress this point since I've never games on the PC due to never having gamed on it since my newest PC is from at least 2004 and I just have laptops now.

Look at this guy, he's practicaly saying he doesn't need to work hard on future titles, knowing that people will buy them anyways.

every game/person who's on top get hated on wickidly...simple and plain

I'm fine with people enjoying Call of Duty and if they're having a good time then I leave them be. However, what I find annoying is when they critize other FPS franchises for not being similar to Call of Duty.

klusps

i was actually having a discussion about COD with a friend of mine. i mentioned yearly releases. and he said that its good that they do that because after a year a game isn't worth playing. This is the kind of mindset COD is putting into people.