Call of Duty receives undue criticism among the gaming community.
Debate Rounds (4)
The Call of Duty Franchise is a record-breaking series of games for all systems that has time and time again sold in large amounts. The newest entry, Call of Duty: Ghosts by InfinityWard sold one billion dollars into retail within the first week (1).
Call of Duty is a easy, reflex-oriented multiplayer game. However, there is a great deal of depth within the system and gun statistics (as of MW3). The game is fair to all parties and has enough gamemodes to entertain for a while. With the Prestige system, the multiplayer doesn't lose it's luster (to me, anyway) for a long while.
My argument is that the amount of criticism CoD receives is undue, and that while it is not a perfect franchise, deserves a lot more respect than most people currently give it.
Con will argue that Call of Duty is somehow degrading Gaming as a whole (in a E.T. sort of way) or is uninspired to the point that it does not deserve such respect.
First round for acceptance only. New points may be brought up in rounds 2 and 3, but round four is for rebuttals only.
Shoot me a PM if interested.
I asked for the first round to be acceptance, but I suppose the debate will just go a bit longer. Ah well.
The first thing that struck me about your argument is that it was not divided into concise, clear points. As a result, responding will be a bit difficult. Next time, could you please break it into, say, a paragraph per main point? I would be very thankful.
Firstly, I will be stating my platform.
The Call of Duty Franchise is a long-running series alternately developed by Treyarch and InfinityWard, and released by Activision. They are First-Person shooting games with a heavy emphasis on multiplayer being fast-paced and crazy, but keeping single player a factor as well. The first game in the series (simply titled Call of Duty, released in 2003) received a 9.3 score from IGN (1), and the latest one (Call of Duty: Ghosts, released a whopping 10 years later in 2013) got a still-respectable 8.8 (2). Any series that has run for that long in the ever-changing gaming environment, and maintained that level of quality, is one that we should at least take note of.
I will use my remaining characters to respond to your many points.
"Call of Duty has suffered from a lack of innovation in the past couple of years. If you look at the past few Call of Duty games they are all pretty much rehashes of the previous game, with shorter campaigns different maps and less guns."
Fair enough, Call of Duty (hereafter referred to as CoD) is getting formulaic. But I have a question for you. When a system is working, why would you change it? Consider, for example, the Metal Gear series (thought by many to be one of the greatest game series of all time). Metal Gear Solid 1, 2, 3, 4, and (coming soon) 5 have all retained a stealth style. Has anyone gotten angry over the fact that all the games involve cardboard boxes and cover, CQC and a 3rd person perspective?
"The campaigns for me are a massive problem because they are short and do not really bring anything to the table and as I have mentioned are ever shortening."
This point is an interesting one to me. Many times when critics review the CoD games, they mention that the singleplayer campaign, while not the longest possible, is a fun and engaging one year in and year out (despite being a tad formulaic, but I already covered that.) I personally enjoyed CoD MW3's singleplayer mode immensely. But don't take my word for it, go and watch any of GameSpot or IGN's reviews on recent CoD games (BO2, MW3, Ghosts, MW2 especially), and you'll see that they tend to enjoy the singleplayer mode.
"However I will not go into much further detail on the mater, unless requested, due to the lack of Call of Duty players who actually play on the campaign and purchase the game for this reason. Although I will say that even fans of Call of Duty seem to dislike the campaign which is a serious problem."
But let's continue here: There are games (DoTa 2, TF2, World of Warcraft, Star Wars: The Old Republic) where there is absolutely no singleplayer whatsoever! Does this make them horrible games? I would argue no, no it does not. The singleplayer can be crap (or even non-existent) and the multiplayer brilliant (Left 4 Dead, Halo 4, etc) and the game will still be considered one of the greats.
"If you look at Call of Duty as a franchise it started with Call of Duty 1. Call of Duty 1 is clearly a clone of counter strike in my opinion."
I had to do a bit of research into that one. Call of Duty 1 was not actually considered a CS clone, or even replacement. It was taking a shot at Medal of Honor, which was a dominant game name at that point (and still has a pulse, somewhere). In fact, the codename for CoD was "Medal of Honor Killer" before it got its iconic title. (3) Comparing CoD to CS is fair, as both of them are FPS's, but I think the differences outweigh the similarities (no regenerating HP, heavy multiplayer-based gameplay before CoD even thought about trying to make that it's main selling point, etc). (4)
If anything can be said about CoD, it is that it was a copy of Medal of Honor (which is very similar in style and tone). Both games had very high points (Medal of Honor: Vanguard is one of my all-time favorite PS2 games), and dueled for around eight years. The difference was in the multiplayer.
Look, Microsoft took the idea of Windows from Apple (though legally, see (5)), but that doesn't disparage how amazing Windows XP was. The argument that it is a ripoff of anything only proves that Activision is full of capitalists (a debate for another time.)
"Anyway, despite this Call of Duty 1 was a good game for its time and at that time in 2003 the gaming community were on board with it."
"At this time the gaming community was unlike it is now dominated by actual gamers, today it saddens me to see gaming dominated by teenagers and pre-teens looking for some fun rather than a dedicated intellectual and community fanbase it had previously...."
To conserve characters, I cut out the rest of that quote. The claim that this generation of "gamers" are not "true gamers" is a sketchy one at best.
It seems that your primary concern is that gamers are too fixated on one game... or is it that they are not passionate enough about their game? Those seem contradictory in terms. I consider myself a CoD fan, and have a blast playing it. But I also play Portal, Bioshock, Half-life 2, Gran Turismo, WWE2k14, Team Fortress 2, DoTa 2, and on and on. Not all are multiplayer, and not all are even shooters. Am I a "real gamer"?
And consider the facts (6): The average age of a U.S. "gamer" is 30, and only 32% are below the age of 18. Console bestselling games are Action, Shooter, and Sport, while PC takes RPG, Strategy, and Casual.
Perhaps by "console gamers", you mean "people who like action-y games". But is that really fair, to claim that "People who like action-y games" are less "gamers" than you? I don't think it is. Perhaps with age, CoD loses it's luster and more thoughtful, insightful, strategic games take effect.
Perhaps that is truly the heart of this issue. But what do I know? I'm not a "true gamer", not if I enjoy action-y shooters. Not according to your argument as I understand it, Con.
I apologize if I sound harsh, but I am simply attempting to get my point across in an effective manner without passing the character limit. I thank you once again for your time debating me.
I eagerly await your response.
(4) Note: Watch this video and you will see exactly what I mean. While both are "realistic" first-person shooters, there are plenty of gameplay differences. www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y3B3FLaqchsR06;
To be honest, I do not think that I can make that compelling an argument for Metal Gear considering I have never really got that into one, but I will attempt to make one nevertheless. To say that metal gear has also suffered from a lack of innovation would be incorrect. If you look at the difference between Metal Gear 1, and Metal Gear Rising, you will see a massive number of innovations and changes. The difference is that gameplay changes, while in CoD the changes in gameplay are non-existent.
While yes the standard formula is working for them, that is still not what gamers like. That is the main reason why it receives criticism is because of this. Gamers want games that change and innovate and CoD does not offer that. CoD offers the same old gameplay with different maps and often less guns. That is not what the gaming community want. The gaming community are all for changes, for innovations. While Treyarch, or Infinity Ward or whoever might not care about that because it makes them money that is not what gamers want. They are more interesting in games that will be different than their predecessor and offer something new. While, yes Metal Gear solid stuck to the same sort of gameplay mechanics they also brought in new things, most notably long campaigns to keep gamers interested offering something new. CoD on the other hand offers repetitive online mode to keep players playing their game. That is the difference between CoD and Metal Gear, it is a different kind o frepetitive. And why should Infinity Ward care? Well because games that change and innovate while it may be taking a risk, will get more praise, more praise from the gaming community and more sales which has shown throughout gaming history.
Comparing CoD to Starcraft is just plain stupid. Surely you can realise that Starcraft and CoD are different games marketed at completely different people.The majority of CoD players I would bet have never even heard of starcraft let alone played so to compare the two is irrelevant. In addition Starcraft has had massive gameplay changes between the two games and a large amount of time and effort went Starcraft while CoD has suffered from a lack of innovation. Also Starcraft is played by completely different people and while Starcraft is a game of strategy and skill CoD is a MUCH more simplistic game.
The main problem that I have with your argument is that you said that the criticism it receives from the gaming community is unjust. What the F***have IGN got to do with anything. IGN may be a reputable gaming network but I think that we can agree that the gaming community seem to not care what IGN give CoD, so please leave them out of it. You know that the gaming community and real gamers seem not to like CoD as you are arguing against that, so then throwing in IGN scores are irrelevant because that has failed to change our minds up to now so throwing things at us that we are already aware of is not going to change our points of view.
My point was not that gamers are not real gamers, but MOST CoD players are not real gamers. That is the thing that amazes me most about CoD it is a game that is popular without being played by actual gamers and was one of the first video games to be popular without being that popular with the gaming community. I am saying that MOST CoD players are not actual gamers which is one of the reasons actual gamers do not like it because of its fanbase. And come on I am not talking about the age of gamers, but I am talking about the age of CoD gamers. I am not calling all CoD gamers not real gamers, but the vast majority are not. I don't know what you are talking about but I did not use the word action-y that is when your argument began to make assumptions. I did not even mention the games that I liked and you were already telling me games that I did not like, and opinions of mine that I did not say. Yes I am saying that most CoD players are not `proper` gamers which is why people who are gamers do not like it. And to clarify anyone who plays a game is not a gamer it is someone who is passionate about and interested in games and tends to play many different games. I would use you as an example of an actual gamer because you claim to play a number of games. I find it hard to consider someone a proper gamer when they tend to stick to playing one game.
Metal Gear has been subject to a lot of spinoffs from the "Main Series", including Metal Gear: Peace Walker, Metal Gear: Portable Ops, and Metal Gear Rising: Revengance. By mentioning the main series, I was simply pointing out a franchise does not need to reinvent itself in order to be relevant.
"While yes the standard formula is working for them, that is still not what gamers like. That is the main reason why it receives criticism is because of this. Gamers want games that change and innovate and CoD does not offer that. CoD offers the same old gameplay with different maps and often less guns."
Let's use another game as an example here. The original Super Mario Bros. games were very similar in style and scope. They were all platformers, with the same plot, and a few different gimmicks (raccoon tails, overworld maps, Yoshi) to keep them fresh. Did anyone complain?
Yes, CoD is very similar to how it was in 2003, but with the addition of killstreaks, new game modes (demolition, kill confirmed), new multiplayer modes (zombies, extinction), and new campaign ideas (stealth missions, underwater/space missions), I would say CoD is adding enough to remain relevant.
"Well because games that change and innovate while it may be taking a risk, will get more praise, more praise from the gaming community and more sales which has shown throughout gaming history."
"Comparing CoD to Starcraft is just plain stupid."
I never compared CoD to Starcraft. If you reread my post you will not find a single use of the game as an example, but you will find Warcraft, which was made by the same company. You are correct, they are both entirely different games.
"The main problem that I have with your argument is that you said that the criticism it receives from the gaming community is unjust. What the F***have IGN got to do with anything."
I was simply using IGN to provide another insight into the quality of the game, so I didn't come off as gushing. I wanted to use an outside source to validate my claim that the CoD franchise is rather high-quality.
"My point was not that gamers are not real gamers, but MOST CoD players are not real gamers. That is the thing that amazes me most about CoD it is a game that is popular without being played by actual gamers and was one of the first video games to be popular without being that popular with the gaming community."
And here is the fatal line. I am attempting to prove that CoD is recieveing undue criticism, and you are claiming the criticism is warranted by the type of player that gravitate toward the game.
Consider this line of reasoning:
"The Patty-wagon is one of the most fuel-efficient and stylish cars on the market right now.
But, it tends to be driven by road-raging teenagers.
Therefore, the Patty-wagon is a horrible car."
This doesn't make any logical sense. Just because the people who play CoD are not "real gamers" does not give us the right to claim the games are poor in quality. We have no logical reason for hating CoD. Now, we might hate the "squeakers" who play CoD, but that does not change or even impact the franchise's own quality. It is logically incoherent to claim that the type of user invalidates the product.
CoD Ghosts sold $1 BILLION dollars into retail (to stores), (1), shattering records and amazing many (a lot of movies don't make that much.) Claiming that CoD is entirely populated by "fake" gamers, and that the CoD franchise, despite not being what "actual" gamers want, has outperformed nearly every game in history.
As a result, I believe that my claim stands, that CoD itself receives undue criticism from the "gaming" community, that was really directed at the "squeakers" who play, which is also unfair because there are a lot of "real gamers" who also enjoy CoD.
Thank you once again for being my opponent in this debate.
Oh, before I forget, you claim CoD gets shorter stories, less maps, and less guns. Is this a personal opinion, or do you have a source?
ThePacifisticAtheist forfeited this round.
I could try to bring up new points, but my own rules prohibit me. As such, I will simply say I quite enjoyed my first debate, and hope to have more in-depth debates in the future.
Thank you all for reading.
ThePacifisticAtheist forfeited this round.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by ej3467273 2 years ago
|Agreed with before the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Agreed with after the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Who had better conduct:||-||-||1 point|
|Had better spelling and grammar:||-||-||1 point|
|Made more convincing arguments:||-||-||3 points|
|Used the most reliable sources:||-||-||2 points|
|Total points awarded:||1||0|
Reasons for voting decision: Con ff.
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.