Call of Duty is the Best First Person Shooter.
Debate Rounds (4)
At its core, the COD series is an unimaginative attempt suck money out of real life war and is subliminally teaching our impressionable youths to believe that anyone who's not American is a terrorist, in my opinion. That being said, my main point is that your argument is based on an opinion and even if the rest of the world were to agree with you, it will never be true.
As you mentioned earlier, Call of Duty actively has a very large sales pitch, achieving a life times sales of over 124.5 million. (http://www.vgchartz.com...) This fact alone show's that, yes no matter what your opinion is of the series your still compelled to buy. These numbers show that it outclasses other FPS games in sales and revenue which are key factors in this debate.
Whether it be a joy of calling in the AC-130 to lay waste to the enemy team, or calling a M.O.A.B or Tactical Nuke, one cant deny the enjoyment of kill-streaks. For those who dont know, kill-streaks are a mechanic in the game, which allows a player to call in air/ground support to further enhance assist their team or earn more kills, based on the consecutive number of kills one gets. It can be anything from a small plane that shows the enemy location to taking control of gunner of an attack helicopter. Kill-streaks are an innovative part of call of duty, that many FPS shooters lack, they keep the game fresh and enjoyable and are the source of many challenges and enjoyable moments in the game.
One thing about call of duty is teamwork, no matter how you might look at this, it is evident that you need a team to win. Though their may be problems, such as campers, ragers and rude teammates which make this difficult. Partying up with friends and working together to secure objectives has always been a fun experience.
Just search on you tube about Call of Duty and you will find it isn't an easy game to master. It requires strategy, planning, and really good aiming skills. You have to plan where to place certain things, where to camp take cover, etc etc etc. Very few people can just pick up the controller and start wasting the enemy team. Call of Duty is a skill based game which requires effort and time to master.
CAMPAIGN LENGTH AND FUN
The campaign is a very important and integral part of the game, yes other games have campaigns but non have the intensity and the general entertainment of the Call of Duty campaign. At times your a ranger defending your homeland from the Russian army, or silently sneaking on the a nuclear terrorist in the middle of Chernobyl. Call of duty offers you a wide range of experiences that you can get to be take part off. Another key thing about Call of Duty, is that it allows you to empathize with character, which give you satisfaction when the villains die, or distress when the protagonist is killed.
CRITICS LIKE IT
The simple fact is that, the game receives top scores every time, from top gaming reviewers such as metacritic and IGN. I think the main point here is that a professional multi-million dollar reviewers wouldn't give a "A bullet buffet with a stealth mission or two does" the highest ratings in History.
When it can comes to maps, Call of duty is one of the few games, that gives the player a wide variety of maps. Which can range from a suburb in the USA to a Mall in Germany. The variety in size and location make it innovative and fun.
Overall, Call of Duty is an absolute must play for those who have never experienced the beauty of video games. It's been around for a while, at the price of only $60. Pretty good deal if you ask me. Then again, according to sales, you and your family members own at least least two copies that are kept in every household, so there's always that.
"This fact alone show's that, yes no matter what your opinion is of the series you're still compelled to buy. These numbers show that it outclasses other FPS games in sales and revenue which are key factors in this debate."
I've never felt any form of urge to buy any COD. Maybe I should have clarified that the only COD game I bought was MW1 and the others were given to me by friends. Furthermore, you never stated that sales and revenue were key factors in this debate in your initial post, therefore, they're actually not.
The kill-streaks idea was not innovative, there were turn based games that implemented a similar concept before COD. COD only introduced that concept to a broader audience. The only real competition COD has is BF (which I also think is better than COD) which is pretty much COD but bigger maps and you can drive. Furthermore, a lot of other FPS lack the simple elements those two games have, there's not much to compare and that's why it's so easy for some people to say COD is the best. Also, I actually could deny the enjoyment of kill-streaks maybe they're boring since they haven't changed much since MW1. Also, the main people who get the higher tier kills-streaks (AC130S or MOABs) are the campers and hardcore COD gamers who pretty much make the game unenjoyable for the rest of us. I hear my friends scream bloody murder at that game with all sorts of unheard of profanities that are actually more innovative than the game itself. It's almost masochistic.
I agree that COD can be (not always) fun while playing with friends but in my eyes that makes friendly playing a crutch, not a merit. People have different work schedules, school, and other obligations. My point is people won't always be able to play with their friends and playing alone is like walking into a lion's den. Some people may enjoy being ravaged by super teams and campers but those of us who are looking for fun are eventually going to lose interest. Playing with friends isn't always fun either. I remember times when it seemed like my friends were going to kill each other over that game because someone got their kill stolen or something else.
For those who are true COD fans putting in all that effort may be enjoyable but to someone who only plays COD to have fun with friends, may not care to try and "master" COD but will still suffer the pwnage dealt out by hardcore gamers and campers. What baffles me is how people continue to torture themselves with that game.
A critic isn't some video game god, they're just people who decided giving their OPINION of a video game was what they wanted to do for a living. Their opinions are as disregard-able as any other person. Also, there are games that get high ratings that I don't believe deserve them, which makes a critic's review even less respectable in my eyes.
I'm speaking for myself and my friends but out of all the maps in each COD game there are only a couple that are fun no matter how cool or diverse you make them sound.
"Overall, Call of Duty is an absolute must play for those who have never experienced the beauty of video games." COD is a FPS and nothing else and cannot appeal to everyone. COD MW1 was one of my first games for 360. I had some fun, it was something new and better than any other FPS I had played at the time. I even had fun getting wrecked. However, the novelty wore off and no COD game felt like something new since then. COD is a shallow game that doesn't begin to immerse a new gamer to the depth of video games. It's a basic FPS with bunch of glitter and fireworks. I didn't truly begin to enjoy games until I started playing games like Mass Effect where I could actually make choices that carried weight and changed the course of the game.
Another thing, it seems that a lot of people tend to do what they see others doing. I think an essential part of COD's success is the sheepish nature of our society. That may sound crazy but to me it makes more sense than people raging at the same repetitive game series for years out of enjoyment. Every COD game since MW1 isn't worth $60 since they're all pretty much DLC and expansion packs.
According to reality, there hasn't been a COD game in my 360 since 2010 and their won't be until they step their game up.
The first point I would like to bring up is about sale's and revenue. Yes I did not state that were very key factors in this debate, but their are very good measures of how a game does. Certainly they dont not show if the game is the best FPS, but I am 100% certain that a game which generates such high qualities in sales and revenue must be competent to some degree.
My second point I would like to make in this Debate, is that though valuable your individual opinion does not matter. Though you may not buy Cod, millions of others do and will continue to do so. Same with kill streaks though you may feel they are not innovative but we have to look at the facts, you didn't state any other game that has kill-streaks, which also includes battlefield.
My third contention will address maps, and your other individual arguments, as for maps my simple response is with call of duty, you die, you re spawn in, within 5 secs your back into the firefight, in battlefield you die, watch your opponent who killed you for 5 sec, and spawn in on the other side of the map, where it takes 5 min to join the firefight, I spend more time trying to reach the actual objective than trying to actually kill people honestly it should be renamed walking field 3, but that is my own opinion, the main point is that since cod, has smoother game mechanics at 60 FPS frames per second, more party option with friends, Kill streaks, more weaponry, quick scoping and weapon camos it beats BF3.
Another point I would like to address is your argument regarding playing with friends, yes I agree that people are busy but the majority of people who play call of duty dont share the same opinion of you, I have been in tons of games playing alone, and I am not even that good and like most people who work and come from a busy day, I enjoy just sitting down and having a good time, yes though there are people who care about stats, the majority of the cod community just enjoys having a good time, and yes though there are campers, and other such burdens, these will come with any game that you fill find no mater what. You also bring up a point about critics, and yes these are just other peoples opinions, but these people are educated in their profession, why do we listen to a doctors, a teacher, lawyers or a professionals opinion? it because there statements which usually come from knowledge and expertise in their skill, carry a lot more weight that you or I. That is why they should be considered very seriously in this debate.
In regards to your last contention, where your quote my concluding statement, I would like to say that COD is a game that anyone can pick up and master easily because of its Arcade Style shooting, where as other games require a degree of patience and skill to even be competent at. You also bring up Mass Effect, where you can change the story line etc. However with the recent title of black ops 2 this also is applicable to the cod campaign. ( http://www.gamesradar.com...). Also me and thousands of other gamer's have never bought the expansion packs, which means the game's price is 60$.
Finally I would like to conclude this argument by stating that their was no response to my arguments on effort and campaign. I would also like to state to new arguments on Call of Duty's superiority as a FPS shooter
Zombies and Special Operations.
Along with multiplayer, many gamer's also have the option to battle together against hordes of zombies which features its own story line and has gained significant popularity ( http://www.ign.com...) the same is with Spec Ops, mode with the modern warfare series, which pit you and a partner in a series of bonus mission with their own special objectives, and the option to survive endless waves against enemy forces using your own arsenal, support and perks.
As far I am aware call of duty, is the only FPS shooter to have its own established professional, in the major league gaming circuit. This alone is another reason which show's the depth of the game.
http://forums.yogscast.com...) while I was researching for information to support one of my claims. Had I known you were paraphrasing other people's work I would have withdrawn from this debate in round 1. Honestly, in the world of philosophy we're both right. In your eyes Call of Duty is the best FPS ever, which makes it true. However, I disagree, making it false. The argument you presented was completely arbitrary and the victor will likely be decided by whomever has the popular opinion with the people on this site and not by their debating prowess.
I devoted hours meticulously typing the response I made for that post only to find out it was someone else's words reworded.That being said, I will make my final point and withdraw from this debate due to loss of interest.
More than anything, the COD series can thank the transition to the next generation of consoles. COD4 was the first FPS to capitalize on the multiplayer function of the 360. Take the multiplayer away, then compare it to other FPSs and it probably won't be as great to anyone. As I said, COD4 was a good game and it left people wanting more. The COD series dominated the FPS scene leaving no room for any other FPS to grow and developers were likely discouraged to attempt to challenge its dominance. The reason why COD sold so much is the same reason the last Fast & Furious movie was a "success". The people (mostly men) in this country have an unhealthy obsession with explosions, guns and macho men that they wish they could be and cannot fully appreciate artistry or complexity. That and most people lack the ability to seek something new and even worse, are content with being fed the same game every year. Also, my own observation is that a lot of the people who play COD have a very narrow spectrum of gaming experience, only playing games like COD and maybe some sports games. Being a gamer since I was 5, (now 20) I have enough experience to say that games like COD are a dime a dozen.
What you should have said was "Call of Duty is the Best Multiplayer FPS" because the multiplayer is the only thing COD has going for it. Had you said that, I wouldn't have even bothered because I don't play enough multiplayer FPS games to know or care to dispute you on that.
On the the statement you made about critics. If there is any education at all that goes into becoming a game critic, it doesn't begin to compare to the grueling years of schooling that any of the professions you've stated require, I would know, I'm in college for nursing. Furthermore, a lot of times a game critic will write a review of a game pertaining to a genre of games that they like, therefore making it a biased review and compromising its integrity. Playing video games has been one of my main hobbies for 15 years and I've played all types of games. FPSs, RPGs, MMOs etc. With my gaming experience and writing ability all I need is to make a call and I could be reviewing games for a living, however, I'd rather be a nurse.
As I stated before, I've been a hardcore gamer for 15 years and developed a love for gaming in general, all I need is the nametag that says "employee of IGN" and it's official, yet you've still disputed me all the same. Why is that? Because you have a different opinion, which is why I never go by what critics say. An opinion carries as much weight as you choose to carry, including a critic's.
Sgt.Swag forfeited this round.
GeorgeGheeIV forfeited this round.
No votes have been placed for this debate.
You are not eligible to vote on this debate
This debate has been configured to only allow voters who meet the requirements set by the debaters. This debate either has an Elo score requirement or is to be voted on by a select panel of judges.