'Call of Duty: A Tumor on the Face of Gaming?'

Here's a new editorial I wrote about the Call of Duty series: Call of Duty: A Tumor on the Face of Gaming?

I'm trying to perfect my content, so I'd like to see what you guys think of it; both positive, and.... not so postitive. 

I like the idea of your editorial, it's actually a good one :) I don't like how you started it, I would have likely just left after the first sentence. You made a strong supporting argument for your opinion while addressing the naysayers, and it was overall well done!

That title is a fabrication; merely there to get you to read this. Now that you're here, you might as well stay so I can offer you an un-biased opinion of the series.(In all honesty, I really don't like how you put this.Even if you are intent on using a ploy to get people to read, it helps to not be so point blank and abrupt about it, it will actually put people off. The fact that you also phrase the title as a question already lends to the idea that you are going to address the opinion that the game is a tumor; it would be more clever and better-received if you had played with it a bit, like having the title as "Call of Duty: A Tumor on the Face of Gaming" then went on to say something like, "At least that's what you'd believe most gamers are thinking when reading gamers' comments..." then support your opinion that it's not that bad and these games have strong points, as described below.)

They're not bad.

What?! Are you mad? You bloody, sniveling moron!(I'd break this up a bit, stylistically, to really make it stand out.)

I can understand that many of you are offended at the very thought of someone having anything nice to say about the series, but allow me to drop the bomb again, in case you missed it, and don't wanna go back and double check. They're not bad. In fact, I would add that some of them are pretty good, even great.

[pic]

A normal day in the world of Call of Duty.

In case you have quite literally been under a rock, or in a Turkish prison for the last 6 years (you'd be better off under the rock), allow me to fill you in: Call of Duty isa 2003 first-person computer game created by Infinity Ward, with a narrative set in World War II, which just happened to spawn a couple of sequels. CoD 2 was a launch title for the Xbox 360, and kept the WWII theme of its predecessor. Soon after, CoD 3 was released on many consoles, as well as a launch title on the Playstation 3, and also had the WWII theme. At this point in time, you may or may not have heard of the series, because it was not very intrusive; they were just a trilogy of FPS, and not exactly pervasively popular. Then, in the Fall of 2007, Infinity Ward released their Magnum Opus, Call of Duty 4: Modern Warfare.

Now the series was cool! It was set in modern times, as opposed to the WWII setting of the originals, with a wholly epic narrative, innovative, massively popular online multiplayer; and it all came in box with a shiny, new M-rating. At this point in time, you couldn't go anywhere on the internet, or hang out with you gamer friends without hearing about this amazing shooter.

After COD4, another studio, Treyarch, released the fifth game, which would serve as a prologue to their Black Ops series: World at War. It returned to the WWII setting of the originals and introduced an element which would later become the only reason some people bought the Treyarch games: online/local co-op zombie murdering!

[pic]

In 2009, Infinity Ward released Modern Warfare 2, which, like 4, won numerous GOTY awards. This is the point when people started getting hit with "Call of Duty Fatigue". The mulitplayer had some pretty whack servers, and was somewhat glitchy. The story was also cited as being lame and uninspired. It also generated controversy when it came to a mission that allowed you to murder innocent people inside of an airport; the controversy may have made it seem amazing, but in reality, it wasn't a very fun mission, and was actually brutally, unfairly hard. (What does the brutal difficulty levelhave to do with the controversy?)

Many people who left the COD ship after MW2 would end up missing out on Treyarch's next game in the series: Black Ops. It included much improved multiplayer servers, and an advanced version of zombies, along with an intricate, epic (mind-screw) of a narrative, set in the Cold War. This is the point where people started to notice the annual releases, as well the alternating between Infinity Ward and Treyarch. Most didn't sit with this too well, claiming that Activision (the publisher of the series) was just milking stupid (stupid doesn't seem to fit with what you're trying to say, I'd use a better adjective here) gamers, continually releasing the same game every year with a palette swap and a hefty price tag of $60, along with another $40 for all the DLC level packs.

[pic]

The most badass zombie killers in history.

At no point did this piss people off more than with the release of Modern Warfare 3. With a subpar campaign, lame multiplayer, and not very many changes, additions, or redeeming values, a lot of people had completely written off the series as garbage (you wouldn't know this due to all the hundreds of millions the series makes each year, though). Those people would miss out on what is perhaps the the greatest installment of the series since CoD 4.

Black Ops 2.

Black Ops 2 was the first time in the series since World at War to include significant new additions. The campaign was better than ever, with truly epic moments and quality writing. The zombies had been tweaked, and the multiplayer was very much revamped, with lots of new toys and levels. It now featured the ability to offer color commentary during matches, giving the whole affair an e-sport feel.

[pic]

Black Ops 2 has the best graphics of the series; being the newest, this is rightfully so.

Now that you're all caught up, let me tell you just what makes the series great: the controls. The controls are fantastic. Even if you hate the games, you have to admit they control very smoothly, and are fun to play, even though they're just "mindless shooters". The campaigns, even if they don't have great stories, or the best writing, are undeniably epic, with some very memorable set-pieces (such as the "All Ghillied Up" mission from CoD 4), among the most epic of this generation. (Excellent defense!)

A new entry, Ghosts, is scheduled for release this year, for next-gen consoles, a year after Black Ops 2, and will include a new engine, dogs, and AI-powered tropical fish. Even though the games are released annually, they are worked on by two separate developers, who work on the games for about two years before they are released to the general public. The development may sound troubling, but the games aren't broken, so its not a problem. (Why do you think this sounds troubling? I don't quite get the tie-in here.)

[pic]

Those fish are the most next-gen thing I've ever seen.

Whether or not you enjoy Call of Duty, it is firmly planted in our culture. Small-town video game stores have entire tournaments set around the series' games, and millions flock to retail stores each year, with a $60 in their pocket, patiently waiting to get their hands on a copy so they can dive into some fast-paced, mindless multiplayer fun; and epic, if sometimes dumb, (where does the "dumb" come from?) narratives.

While it may not reach the levels of quality associated with the likes of Bioshock and Half-Life (what are you definining as the quality of these particular games that you think CoD lacks? This phrase is not really tied in to the rest of the piece. Or, perhaps you mean "respect"?), the Call of Duty series contains considerably fun first-person shooters with smooth, fluent controls. (I would put something to seguay from your thesis statement saying that CoD has a place in gamers' library to the reaction that people are still going to "flame on", like, "This game may never reach the levels of respect associated with the likes of Half-Life and Bioshock; sadly, the vocal majority of the gaming community has yet to accept this series for what it really is: a fun, FPS with smooth and fluent controls, and a worthwhile addition to the libraries of any FPS fan.")

Flame on, internet. Flame on.

 

Here's a new editorial I wrote about the Call of Duty series: Call of Duty: A Tumor on the Face of Gaming?

I'm trying to perfect my content, so I'd like to see what you guys think of it; both positive, and.... not so postitive. 

rigbybot127