IGN: Call of Duty is Boring and Needs to Change

It needs some fresh new changes. the Franchise is becoming bland

babycakin

It is boring and needs to change imo. Probably wont though as it still makes loads of cash.

I would rather them go abck to COD1/COD2 gameplay.

[QUOTE="babycakin"]

It needs some fresh new changes. the Franchise is becoming bland

Shielder7

Exactly. Number 1 video game in sales. Fastest selling game of all time. Not number 3, not number 2, #1! How did they achieve #1 status? By leaving the game the same as it always was. Not to mention, good publicity, bad publicity, it's all publicity. Even the people that don't play Call of Duty talk about it constantly. Everyone is always talking about Call of Duty. Activision probably loves the fact that people are constantly talking about their games, good or bad, because the more people talk about it, the more it gets into peoples heads, and even bad publicity equals more sales.

meh COD needs to change in to a better game and improve on what it already has. For starts get a new engine, and get rid of IW and let Treyarch take over.

meh COD needs to change in to a better game and improve on what it already has. For starts get a new engine, and get rid of IW and let Treyarch take over.

GTSaiyanjin2

So they need to change their game in hopes of not being #1 anymore in sales? Sounds like a smart business decision.

There's a chance that if they changed the game engine and tweaked the gameplay, they would mess up. The only time it would be smart to overhaul your game and make major changes would be if it was majorly losing popularity and sales were bombing. Sales are higher than they've ever been for CoD, so clearly they are doing everything right. People obviously don't want change, they want the game to remain exactly the same. The only people that want the game to change are the people that don't play the game, and Activision doesn't care about those people. But I'm sure that Activision appreciates the fact that people who don't play their games are constantly talking about their games regardless, because that's just more publicity for them.

meh COD needs to change in to a better game and improve on what it already has. For starts get a new engine, and get rid of IW and let Treyarch take over.

GTSaiyanjin2

[QUOTE="GTSaiyanjin2"]

meh COD needs to change in to a better game and improve on what it already has. For starts get a new engine, and get rid of IW and let Treyarch take over.

Shielder7

Exactly. Activision probably won't even consider changing the game in any way, shape or form until it at least drops out of the top 10 in sales, and I don't see it dropping out of the top 10 anytime soon. Probably not for 10 years.

If any of you guys here had used your comments that they gave MW3 a 9.0 and they are being hypocrites with this article and posting all this in the IGN comments,their fanboys will just say to you"well you do know that IGN isn't one person or that guy who made this article didn't review it". Ether way we know that IGN will score the next one a high score. I know that the writers there have different opinions but you can't just go give the series a high score and then allow a article saying how boring it is and then give it a high score again.

Warhawk_

Exactly. Even though it is different human beings reviewing the game and releasing the articles, they are representing IGN as a whole and they are essentially just contradicting themselves. Kind of like how they gave Skyrim an almost perfect score, and then went on a rant about how buggy the game was and how unacceptable it was on the PS3 version, when they gave the PS3 version the same score as the PC and 360 versions.

IGN's credibity has just gone out the window as of late.

[QUOTE="Shielder7"][QUOTE="GTSaiyanjin2"]

meh COD needs to change in to a better game and improve on what it already has. For starts get a new engine, and get rid of IW and let Treyarch take over.

arkephonic

Exactly. Activision probably won't even consider changing the game in any way, shape or form until it at least drops out of the top 10 in sales, and I don't see it dropping out of the top 10 anytime soon. Probably not for 10 years.

IGN's credibity has just gone out the window as of late.arkephonic

[QUOTE="arkephonic"]

[QUOTE="Shielder7"] It will do that they day it stops being number 1 in sales and not a moment before, in fact it will probably need to drop below 5 for them to spark a change, don't like it don't buy their games.Shielder7

Exactly. Activision probably won't even consider changing the game in any way, shape or form until it at least drops out of the top 10 in sales, and I don't see it dropping out of the top 10 anytime soon. Probably not for 10 years.

Good point. Yeah, I mean I wouldn't mind a change in the Call of Duty formula, but I can also see that it would be totally dumb for them to change the game when it sells so well every year.

[QUOTE="arkephonic"]

[QUOTE="Shielder7"] It will do that they day it stops being number 1 in sales and not a moment before, in fact it will probably need to drop below 5 for them to spark a change, don't like it don't buy their games.Shielder7

Exactly. Activision probably won't even consider changing the game in any way, shape or form until it at least drops out of the top 10 in sales, and I don't see it dropping out of the top 10 anytime soon. Probably not for 10 years.

I think the only thing holding back COD atm is the current gen consoles. I never said they need to reinvent COD. But change is natural when you move to a new engine. I like COD the way it is right now, but changes for the better are welcome as long as the game still fells like COD. The reason i said I want IW out is because they have made the worst COD games to date.... MW2, and MW3. Sure the games sell, but I rather play a COD game and actually be good like all the rest of them.

IGN's credibity has just gone out the window as of late.

arkephonic

And yet, they'll still give the next Call of Duty a 9.0 when it comes out. :roll:

And yet, they'll still give the next Call of Duty a 9.0 when it comes out. :roll:

DarkLink77

[QUOTE="arkephonic"]IGN's credibity has just gone out the window as of late.

Shielder7

ROFL! Seriously, I see way more intelligence from the average poster on System Wars than I do from the average article posted on IGN.

[QUOTE="Warhawk_"]

If any of you guys here had used your comments that they gave MW3 a 9.0 and they are being hypocrites with this article and posting all this in the IGN comments,their fanboys will just say to you"well you do know that IGN isn't one person or that guy who made this article didn't review it". Ether way we know that IGN will score the next one a high score. I know that the writers there have different opinions but you can't just go give the series a high score and then allow a article saying how boring it is and then give it a high score again.

arkephonic

Exactly. Even though it is different human beings reviewing the game and releasing the articles, they are representing IGN as a whole and they are essentially just contradicting themselves. Kind of like how they gave Skyrim an almost perfect score, and then went on a rant about how buggy the game was and how unacceptable it was on the PS3 version, when they gave the PS3 version the same score as the PC and 360 versions.

IGN's credibity has just gone out the window as of late.

No, no no no. They are not "contradicting themselves." They can publish whatever editorials they want. Would it be better if they stifled the voices of their writers/editors? I'm sure that would go over swimmingly with their employees. IGN is fine as long as you go in expecting typical gaming news and journalism, which is the only reasonable thing to expect. I'm sure they don't go into staff meetings and obsess over whether everyone's opinions are in alignment, nor should they.

And I like how people think that when a game gets a 9.0, that it's hypocritical to turn around and lambast certain elements of that game. This is why numerical scoring will never work. Ultimately, games are all about fun, and a reviewer will be inclined to give a very fun/unique game a high score despite it's shortcomings. However, that doesn't mean there aren't some criticisms to be leveled toward the game.

Edit: Keep in mind, I'm not really a fan or even follower of IGN/it's articles, but this line of thinking about gaming publications is just nonsensical...

IGN is right but maybe they should change up their site a bit just saying. And besides IGN gives every COD game at least a 8.5 so IGN sounds kinda of stupid saying this.

"Numerous studios worked on Modern Warfare 3. Multiple companies. Let that sink in. Creative powerhouses composed of some of the industry's greatest talent put their heads together to make...the same thing." So true, but previous posters here are right, if they feel this way then stop handing out 9's like raffle tickets.gamebreakerz__

...they? "They" may not feel any particular way, especially given that "they" are many individuals with many different gaming experiences/preferences.

A question: If you worked for IGN, and they let you post an opinion piece about how stale you believed COD to be, but still those chosen to review COD were giving the series 9's and up, would you quit your job because of the importance of uniformity of opinion over GAMES? This just isn't a realistic perspective. IGN allowing their editors to air out grievances with the franchise should be just fine with everyone, even if those chosen to actually review and score the games love them.

Different gamers, different opinions.

Plus, creating imaginary controversies within the gaming community because of illogical viewpoints like yours and everyone else's in here gets them more site visitors. So, why wouldn't they let their editors do opinion pieces like this?

Ultimately, games are all about fun, and a reviewer will be inclined to give a very fun/unique game a high score despite it's shortcomings.Assassin_87

No. The inherent flaw with judging games based on 'fun' is that 'fun' is an entirely subjective term and, as such, a useless one in a review that has the remotest pretense of being objective. If a reviewer gives a game a high score on the sole basis that it is fun, that is virtually the same as saying "I like this game because I like it". A reviewer will have to explain what makes the game fun and take more objective/technical elements into account (graphics, performance, etc.).

The reviewer giving a game a high score on the sole basis that they like it just does not cut it for someone who basically gets paid to give gamers advice.

This is from one writer FROM IGN, not IGN in whole.

So it would make sense for another writer to keep giving the games 9.0+..... over and over....

TrapJak

[QUOTE="Assassin_87"]Ultimately, games are all about fun, and a reviewer will be inclined to give a very fun/unique game a high score despite it's shortcomings.DraugenCP

No. The inherent flaw with judging games based on 'fun' is that 'fun' is an entirely subjective term and, as such, a useless one in a review that has the remotest pretense of being objective. If a reviewer gives a game a high score on the sole basis that it is fun, that is virtually the same as saying "I like this game because I like it". A reviewer will have to explain what makes the game fun and take more objective/technical elements into account (graphics, performance, etc.).

The reviewer giving a game a high score on the sole basis that they like it just does not cut it for someone who basically gets paid to give gamers advice.

:|

The only things that can be objectively "good" about games involve the integrity of the engine, the lack of serious flaws like bugs or obviously unintuitive control layouts and other such concrete ideas.

Almost every other part of the game experience, should a game not be buggy or broken in any significant way, will boil down to personal preference. Therefore, video game reviews will never be objective beyond "the remotest pretense." A 10/10 for one gamer will stand the chance of being a 5/10 for another, no matter how professional they are trying to be.

For instance, have me review Tetris and I'll give it a six all day. Some would give it a perfect score. Gaming doesn't lend itself well to objective analysis.

A question: If you worked for IGN, and they let you post an opinion piece about how stale you believed COD to be, but still those chosen to review COD were giving the series 9's and up, would you quit your job because of the importance of uniformity of opinion over GAMES? This just isn't a realistic perspective. IGN allowing their editors to air out grievances with the franchise should be just fine with everyone, even if those chosen to actually review and score the games love them.Assassin_87

Of course not, but it is rather strange that, whenever IGN has a controversial opinion, it is voiced several months after the release of the game in question, while the most financially influential article, the review itself, always seems to go with the safe route and just praise the game. The exact same thing happened with New Super Mario Bros. Wii, and if I'm not mistaken, the editor who used that game to prove that Nintendo had run out of ideas, was actually the same guy who gave the game an 8.5 some months earlier.

Noone's saying that IGN editors cannot have different opinions, but it's just that the controversial/critical opinions tend to come at a point where it doesn't really matter anymore, which is enough reason for skepticism.

[QUOTE="Assassin_87"]A question: If you worked for IGN, and they let you post an opinion piece about how stale you believed COD to be, but still those chosen to review COD were giving the series 9's and up, would you quit your job because of the importance of uniformity of opinion over GAMES? This just isn't a realistic perspective. IGN allowing their editors to air out grievances with the franchise should be just fine with everyone, even if those chosen to actually review and score the games love them.DraugenCP

Of course not, but it is rather strange that, whenever IGN has a controversial opinion, it is voiced several months after the release of the game in question, while the most financially influential article, the review itself, always seems to go with the safe route and just praise the game. The exact same thing happened with New Super Mario Bros. Wii, and if I'm not mistaken, the editor who used that game to prove that Nintendo had run out of ideas, was actually the same guy who gave the game an 8.5 some months earlier.

Noone's saying that IGN editors cannot have different opinions, but it's just that the controversial/critical opinions tend to come at a point where it doesn't really matter anymore, which is enough reason for skepticism.

Well, companies like money. Integrity always goes out the window when a corporate entity with as much influence as Activision is breathing down your neck.

But, I'm not trying to defend IGN against what you're saying. I understand completely, it does seem a bit suspicious. I just think the overall reaction is a little misguided, maybe.

:|

The only things that can be objectively "good" about games involve the integrity of the engine, the lack of serious flaws like bugs or obviously unintuitive control layouts and other such concrete ideas.

Almost every other part of the game experience, should a game not be buggy or broken in any significant way, will boil down to personal preference. Therefore, video game reviews will never be objective beyond "the remotest pretense." A 10/10 for one gamer will stand the chance of being a 5/10 for another, no matter how professional they are trying to be.

For instance, have me review Tetris and I'll give it a six all day. Some would give it a perfect score. Gaming doesn't lend itself well to objective analysis.

Assassin_87

A review itself is not objective, but it does base itself partially on objective observations. You can't call a game original if it isn't original. You can't say a game has great graphics when it doesn't have them. You can't say a game has good sound design when it has unprofessional voice acting and the guns sound like firecrackers. You can't say a game has a lot of lasting appeal when the campaign is linear and 5 hours long. And you see, these are all very basic points covered in nearly any given review on a serious website. Personal sentiment of course plays a part, but to think a score is entirely based on how much you like the game is infantile.

For example: in terms of how much I enjoyed them, the Super Mario Galaxy games are probably not even in my top 50. Yet I would give both games very high scores as I acknowledge they are intricately designed and perfectly polished, and take the maximum out of the console. Contrarily, Rampage: Total Destruction is one of my favourite games ever, yet I would not give it a high score because, objectively speaking, it's not a very good game. It's monotonous, technically inferior, controls dubiously and has archaic design. Yet I think the game is fun. See how useless that term becomes used on any other level than a personal one?

[QUOTE="Assassin_87"]:|

The only things that can be objectively "good" about games involve the integrity of the engine, the lack of serious flaws like bugs or obviously unintuitive control layouts and other such concrete ideas.

Almost every other part of the game experience, should a game not be buggy or broken in any significant way, will boil down to personal preference. Therefore, video game reviews will never be objective beyond "the remotest pretense." A 10/10 for one gamer will stand the chance of being a 5/10 for another, no matter how professional they are trying to be.

For instance, have me review Tetris and I'll give it a six all day. Some would give it a perfect score. Gaming doesn't lend itself well to objective analysis.

DraugenCP

A review itself is not objective, but it does base itself partially on objective observations. You can't call a game original if it isn't original. You can't say a game has great graphics when it doesn't have them. You can't say a game has good sound design when it has unprofessional voice acting and the guns sound like firecrackers. You can't say a game has a lot of lasting appeal when the campaign is linear and 5 hours long. And you see, these are all very basic points covered in nearly any given review on a serious website. Personal sentiment of course plays a part, but to think a score is entirely based on how much you like the game is infantile.

For example: in terms of how much I enjoyed them, the Super Mario Galaxy games are probably not even in my top 50. Yet I would give both games very high scores as I acknowledge they are intricately designed and perfectly polished, and take the maximum out of the console. Contrarily, Rampage: Total Destruction is one of my favourite games ever, yet I would not give it a high score because, objectively speaking, it's not a very good game. It's monotonous, technically inferior, controls dubiously and has archaic design. Yet I think the game is fun. See how useless that term becomes used on any other level than a personal one?

Of course thinking that a score is based on how much you like a game is infantile.

However, some of the things you mentioned are still subjective. Graphics, for instance. Name an objectively good looking game for me. Odds are we'd find someone who disagrees, unless you say Crysis or something along those lines.

Really, the point is, reviewers will never satisfy everyone. They just won't, no matter how objective the approach.

Then again, maybe we just expect different things out of game reviews.

I love how half the points are completly contradictory to what COD is.

Take away set pieces? A cod staple? Morons.

Add vehciles in mp? When COD is about the infantry experience? Wtf

Also, the stuff about not milking it is such an obvious one. Doesn't take a proper journalist to say that. Wtf are they getting paid for. Morons

I love how half the points are completly contradictory to what COD is.

Take away set pieces? A cod staple? Morons.

Add vehciles in mp? When COD is about the infantry experience? Wtf

Also, the stuff about not milking it is such an obvious one. Doesn't take a proper journalist to say that. Wtf are they getting paid for. Morons

OB-47

Lol, tell me about it. The people that work at IGN may have different opinions, but they should refrain from allowing articles like this to be published, especially after they review the game in question a 9/10. It just makes the entire website look bad and contradictary. I'm sure there is someone who oversees the entirety of the activity on the website, just like Gamespot does, or who knows, maybe they don't. It sure seems like IGN doesn't, LOL!

They're like, well, the PS3 version of Skyrim is significantly worse than the PC and 360 versions, but we rated it the exact same score 2 weeks ago. Then they rate CoD MW3 a 9, and then publish an article saying how boring it is and how it needs to change. No one is asking their employees to have a universal opinion, but it makes the entire website look bad when they allow so many contradicting points of view to be published. That's why places like Gamespot actually oversee what does and doesn't get published, because they don't want to look unprofessional like IGN does.

And yet, they'll still give the next Call of Duty a 9.0 when it comes out. :roll:

DarkLink77

I love IGN for doing this, but if they keep giving high scores to these games then I guess not changing wouldn't matter to them.

I love IGN for doing this, but if they keep giving high scores to these games then I guess not changing wouldn't matter to them.

mitu123

How can anyone praise IGN for writing something all forumites could? I bet anyone of you could write this stuff. And those tools get paid for it. Also some points are stupid as hell. IGN really is a joke

[QUOTE="mitu123"]

I love IGN for doing this, but if they keep giving high scores to these games then I guess not changing wouldn't matter to them.

OB-47

How can anyone praise IGN for writing something all forumites could? I bet anyone of you could write this stuff. And those tools get paid for it. Also some points are stupid as hell. IGN really is a joke

[QUOTE="OB-47"]

[QUOTE="mitu123"]

I love IGN for doing this, but if they keep giving high scores to these games then I guess not changing wouldn't matter to them.

mitu123

How can anyone praise IGN for writing something all forumites could? I bet anyone of you could write this stuff. And those tools get paid for it. Also some points are stupid as hell. IGN really is a joke

True that. It's quite amusing what attention seeking headline they'll do next.

COD is crap IGN is crap.

Nah CoD should stay as it is, what needs to change is the people buying it, they need to stop :P.

If they change anything they will piss off fans. CoD will be the same until the game series finally dies out, which at this rate could be 20 years.

A fanbase like CoD's or any game that has a dedicated following doesn't want major changes or innovation. They want their game to be exactly how they know and love it.

This is why small game developers have a hard time expanding their games. They end up making a game for a small audience that is faithful but cannot change anything about the game without potentially losing their current fanbase and hoping that they pick up new players.

Wasdie

Honestly, I would like to see them piss off their fans by changing it. :P Not because I hate COD and Activision. I just want them to do something different and better instead of the same thing over and over. You'd think with all their big budget funds, they could do more with it. And no doubt, some of the developers are talented, but their talents are put to waste. Not much they could do when their big boss Publisher has their hands tied to make more COD games.

I totally get what you're saying from a business standpoint. Developers need to survive and Call of Duty has managed to give them unimaginable riches and job stability. I can't hate them for that.

Nah CoD should stay as it is, what needs to change is the people buying it, they need to stop :P.

SapSacPrime

COD mutliplayer support make the campaign boring...men i wish a full-campaign FPS with no MP