Jump to content
Banner by ~ Ice Princess Silky

Is Call Of Duty's Influence Damaging The Shooter Genre?


1Bit

Recommended Posts

While I know a plethora of people who aren't the biggest fan of BDobbinsFTW and his continuous preaching on his YouTube channel, I believe his recent video has actually brought up an interesting point about modern gaming and how Call of Duty has possibly affected the way that first-person shooters will be handled for years to come.


 


In the video, along with quotes from developers and using examples, he explains how Call of Duty is such an expansive and successful franchise that other games trying to compete with it like Halo and Battlefield, have to sacrifice part of their own identity in order to leech fans off of the franchise. Every game has a focus group, a small band of gamers to play the game early and tell them what works and what doesn't; the problem is that these focus groups will play Call of Duty in the majority of cases, so when they play a game that isn't enough like Call of Duty, that becomes a criticism of theirs. 


 


I could explain more, but honestly the video does an incredible job of explaining all the information and it is a great watch:



  • Brohoof 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

(edited)

Good!

 

I hope other shooters continue to draw influence from Call of Duty. I've tried many shooters, and none have been able to match the fluidity and consistency of COD's gunplay and overall depth.

 

I disagree with the video's claim of COD being successful due to "skill compression". Individual skill is not "out of the equation". Good players in COD will dominate, bad players will not. COD grew in popularity because it has massive depth (tons of unlocks, maps, game modes, weapons, perks, etc) and excellent shooting.

Edited by Rivendare
  • Brohoof 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

 

Good!   I hope other shooters continue to draw influence from Call of Duty. I've tried many shooters, and none have been able to match the fluidity and consistency of COD's gunplay and overall depth.   I disagree with the video's claim of COD being successful due to "skill compression". Individual skill is not "out of the equation". Good players in COD will dominate, bad players will not. COD grew in popularity because it has massive depth (tons of unlocks, maps, game modes, weapons, perks, etc) and excellent shooting.

 

Fair enough, we all have opinions after all and I doubt Call of Duty would have nearly the same following if people didn't enjoy it for various reasons. I mean, I personally stopped playing after MW3 but meh.

 

I would argue a game like Battlefield has a much larger depth to it in comparison, and a game like Halo generally provides a better skill gap while still providing an entertaining, casual basic layer. 

  • Brohoof 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Intriguing topic!

 

Personally, I would find that it is true that Call of Duty is damaging the shooter genre. When it first came out, it was a revolutionary shooter that earned the hearts of a large proportion of the gamer demographic. Because of this, it is natural that when they introduced many game mechanics, other games followed suit.

 

However, I would definitely agree that this has caused other companies (e.g. EA, Bethesda) to adopt this policy of terrible, terrible launch-day issues. It has definitely become a "quantity over quality" policy ever since Activision has been (and continues to be) receiving a huge profit from the continued release annually.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

(edited)

It's not necessarily Call of Duty's fault, but many companies try to leech off the success of the series instead of creating an identity of its own and that's the problem. Double horrible if it's an already existing franchise

 

Take Doom for example, I haven't played the game myself, but judging from what I've seen the game's still Doom, it doesn't need to be Call of Duty and it's still successful. This is in stark contrast to Medal of Honor, which has was trying to reinvent itself trying new things(like Paratrooping in Airborne) after peaking at Allied Assault/Frontline, but at one point they just said "fuck it, we're copying Modern Warfare", went to modern warfare, and after two unsuccessful attempts the series has been on hiatus since

Edited by Optimus Prime
Link to comment
Share on other sites

(edited)

I disagree with the video's claim of COD being successful due to "skill compression". Individual skill is not "out of the equation". Good players in COD will dominate, bad players will not. COD grew in popularity because it has massive depth (tons of unlocks, maps, game modes, weapons, perks, etc) and excellent shooting.

 

 

There is actually a very good Extra Credits video on the topic of 'Balancing for Skill' that goes into this, and they explain why this 'skill gap compression' is indeed key to COD's success. However, they also show why it is a good thing in games (as is briefly mentioned and then forgotten about in this video), and that others should learn from it.

 

---

 

On to the video itself.

 

The idea that the COD series has gone too far in 'skill gap compression' is an interesting one, although I imagine that if one were to test a generally capable but inexperienced (at COD) FPS player such as myself against a COD veteran then I would have little chance... but get the occasional satisfying victory that would keep me playing. 

 

Where the video goes wrong is stating that "having more depth means higher skill gaps and steeper learning curves."  This is incorrect, as (see the video I linked above) linear increases in skill need not lead to linear increases in power. Ideally, increasing skill should give diminishing rewards; enough to keep you ahead of those less skilled, but only just. This keeps the challenge and desire to improve for all players, not just those less skilled.

 

Then he starts complaining about the game not being deep and challenging enough, which really annoyed me. Blaming players for enjoying a game like COD is wrong - pure and simple. They aren't cowards, they aren't [expletive]s, they want to play a game that the enjoy because that is what video games are for.

 

Rather angry bit:

 

 

 

It is completely unacceptable to criticise players for choosing a simple / shallow game that they like because "they should be pushing themselves" or that they should feel inadequate because "that's what real life is like." If I wanted a challenge I would fire up Hearts of Iron III or Wargame because those are challenging games that I enjoy and am slowly getting better at, but there is nothing wrong with running through Dawn of War II for the nth time smashing xenos to bloody pulp for an evening - maybe I just want to feel like a superhuman warrior for a while, and that is the game for me to escape into at that time. In the same way, I am sure, many are drawn to COD, and there is nothing wrong with that.

 

 

 

 

Now, there is some criticism that can be leveled at developers for following COD too closely, but as I will repeat (and cannot repeat enough) depth does not require a cliff-face of a learning curve (pay attention, Paradox, as I know you make good games - I just wish I could play them) so the main issue is that of identity. Red Orchestra 2 was not trying to be COD, which could perhaps have been made clearer to the playtesters (and later players) - not explicitly, but through game design and presentation. If it looks like COD, which it does at first sight, then people will try to play it like COD. I had the good fortune of having watched 'Enemy at the Gates' only a day before I picked first played RO2, so I played it like the snipers from the film and had an absolute blast as a result. Making clear what the players are in for is important in a niche game like RO2 (and yes, it is fairly niche, as are most complex games. As a result, you shouldn't expect them too often) so that they don't go in expecting COD.

 

When you have games that try to imitate COD such as Battlefield and HALO  (apparently - having played neither, I will take it on trust that they have) the issue is that the identity and direction of the game is lost. This is a problem when the expense of a game demands a large audience, and so they make a game to appeal to a large audience, but the audience that likes the type of game they are imitating is not to blame. Now, there are other issues that consumers can do something about *cough*wedonotpreorder*cough* but raging at people for playing games they like is not the solution to that. 

 

Rant-ish bit:

 

 

And finally, because the video did not get this: depth does not require a steep learning curve and increased skill should be rewarded by ever-smaller amounts of power. It's not easy, but no-one said game design was easy. Oh, and the way you indicate that a game is bad to a developer is to not buy it (and not pirate either - just don't play it.) Vote with your wallet and they will listen.

 

Edited by Once In A Blue Moon
  • Brohoof 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I love how that commentator bitches about the lack of a skill gap, while demonstrating its existence in the gameplay.

 

For "lack of a skill gap" to be a thing, everybody's K/D should perpetually hover around 1.0, and going much higher than that should be near herculean, if not downright impossible. We wouldn't see people reliably jetting around the map and taking out dozens of enemy players if it was all a "slot machine." This isn't a botmatch. There are real people behind each of those characters you are killing. That is the precise definition of the "skill gap" you claim is missing.

 

I don't even play CoD anymore, and I'm sick of stupid arguments like these. CoD gets dull after a while. I completely get why it's a problem that other shooters are changing themselves to fit into this amoeba that is Call of Duty. I'm not happy with that, just like I'm not happy with Fallout 4 being dumbed down to be more like Skyrim, or SWTOR being turned into a linear World of Warcraft facsimile. It's fine to want a more diverse gaming market, but this is primarily the fault of developers and their stupid focus groups.

 

He mentions Tripwire, the Red Orchestra devs, and how their focus group repeatedly just told them to turn it into Call of Duty. Well, of course it did. If you've played or even watched Red Orchestra, the word "niche" will instantly come to mind. Red Orchestra doesn't compete with Call of Duty because it isn't a damn thing like it. Red Orchestra is a game where you need to adjust the angle of your iron sights whenever you take a shot at any hefty range. That's obviously more detail and grit than most players would care to dive into. Instead of building a focus group full of just about anybody, they should have made a focus group out of people who already know a thing or two about realistic, tactical shooters. Perhaps they should have invited fans of Red Orchestra 1 to participate. I can guarantee that they wouldn't bitch about how it "wasn't CoD."

 

I'm all for variety. I love it. But you can't expect niche titles to do well with the mass audience. And it's not the gamer's fault if your game isn't their cup of tea. By all means, find your audience, expand the market. Just don't bitch and moan when people don't choose your game over another one.


 

 

COD grew in popularity because it has massive depth (tons of unlocks, maps, game modes, weapons, perks, etc)
 

 

Popping in real quick to say that's not "depth," it's breadth.

 

I define the difference like this: if your game has one level, depth is the level of player agency present in that level, and all the different ways that each player can approach it. Regardless of content quantity, depth is what the player can do with that content.

 

Breadth is the number of levels; the amount of content present, regardless of depth.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Simply put, yes. Call of Duty, with Modern Warfare, brought forth many wonderful thigns to gaming, specifically for multiplayer, but nowadays, the series is a poison. The COD series is the best example of a company taking a franchise and milking it into the ground because of pure greed.

 

The COD series is by far the largest franchise out there that simultaneously has:

1. A $50 season pass every year

2. Has Micro-transactions

3. Has no dedicated servers

4. Costs $60 on top of all of this

 

Call of Duty is not a poison only because of its now shallow gameplay, but because of the horrendous business practices it entails. Locking content behind paywalls despite the content already being made, having micro-transactions and a season pass but no dedicated servers, releasing yearly with nearly every aspect being outdated and even the campaigns now are horrendous, with Black Ops 3 having one of the most facepalm inducing single player campaigns I have ever played.

 

This series isn't just a bad influence in gameplay, it is a clear target for over publishers and developers to take incredibly greedy routes with their games, because apparently that works. Call of Duty is riddled with all of these problems and greedy tactics yet people still buy it, year after year.

 

THAT is why Call of Duty is dangerous for this industry now. It is paving the way for insane amounts of greed taking over gaming and Activision is leading the way.

  • Brohoof 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

 

It's not necessarily Call of Duty's fault, but many companies try to leech off the success of the series instead of creating an identity of its own and that's the problem. Double horrible if it's an already existing franchise

 

It's a lot harder than it sounds nowaday to keep an identity and yet still remain incredibly successful, especially when you're competing against Call of Duty. Hell, the new DOOM takes ideas off of all of the popular Shooter games nowadays, and that's why its multiplayer has received so much criticism. There's only so many fans of the FPS genre to go around, and when the majority are controlled by CoD, it's very difficult to stay unique and yet somehow draw fans in to the franchise. Gamers today simply expect something similar to CoD for it to be enjoyable, and it's incredibly irritating.

 

This isn't a new thing either, the idea of copying bits off of pre-existing games has been a thing for years.

 

 

 

For "lack of a skill gap" to be a thing, everybody's K/D should perpetually hover around 1.0, and going much higher than that should be near herculean, if not downright impossible. We wouldn't see people reliably jetting around the map and taking out dozens of enemy players if it was all a "slot machine." This isn't a botmatch. There are real people behind each of those characters you are killing. That is the precise definition of the "skill gap" you claim is missing.

 

The point is it is not a skill gap with a learning curve. Becoming good at a Call of Duty game is effectively as much as playing the game for longer. Skill is a grind in that game, nothing more (at least from my experience) If the argument that "because it's PvP" means there is a skill gap, you could say any game has one which just isn't true.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

 

The point is it is not a skill gap with a learning curve. Becoming good at a Call of Duty game is effectively as much as playing the game for longer. Skill is a grind in that game, nothing more (at least from my experience)

 

This doesn't make any sense. Are you saying it's a bad thing that you get better as you play? That's not even entirely true, since there are certain gamers who are just naturally better at the game than others.

 

 

 

If the argument that "because it's PvP" means there is a skill gap, you could say any game has one which just isn't true.

 

I'm saying it's there because the evidence can be seen in every scoreboard in every match ever played in every game. When one team dominates the other, that's a skill gap. When a player has 2.0 K/D, that's skill gap. When a commentator runs around the map and turns the match inside out, that's a skill gap.

 

A skill gap is visible any time where some players reliably do far better than others.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

 

This doesn't make any sense. Are you saying it's a bad thing that you get better as you play? That's not even entirely true, since there are certain gamers who are just naturally better at the game than others.

 

Everyone gets better as they play for the most part, that's not the problem. There should be more to the learning curve than just that. For example, in Battlefield you have to learn the bullet drop mechanic, the best way to operate vehicles to win in a 1v1 against another, the tactics associated with each conquest map. The different classes all have different learning curves. That is a good skill gap in my opinion. A player can still pick up a gun and play, but it's not the same as CoD where that is basically all there is to it. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

(edited)

Considering Battlefield's support from its fans, I'd say that it isn't damaging it as much as it used to. What I find so damaging about CoD is how every single year it's magically the same game. Hell, Advanced Warfare took Titanfall's basic parkour concept and applied it to their own game... There's a lot of games that aren't really that original though. Look at Five Nights at Freddy's, you could say the same about it damaging the indie genre, but at least we can safely assume it isn't. 

 

Personally, I think there isn't a lot that Call of Duty can damage since at its core it's... unique for being so unoriginal. 

Edited by Looks
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Please don't start fights but I actually love Infinite Warfare.

 

Nothing wrong with it buddy, I'm sure you're not alone considering the trailer did still receive a lot of likes  :twi:

 

Just be prepared for the hate you may receive around the interwebs. It's not a particularly great game to like at this point. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It doesn't damage the genre, it just damages it's own devs and the trust of fans in companies. The first few cods from last gen were fantastic, but they slowly just became complete shit. It doesn't help that a lot of games follow this now. And this next sentence will be off topic, but DooM has the best multiplayer i've played in a while, a lot of those who critise it just wanted a quake clone mp.

 

The biggest problem in my opinion with call of duty, is that they don't listen to fans. They just produce the same game every year now, i have fifa for that already.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It obviously is as BF has been rushing their games and are now dumbing down their gameplay to infantry focused combat.In BF3 there seemed to be a balance of infantry and vehicle maps if anything BF3 was actually more leaning towards vehicular based gameplay.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest

I like how when games trying to mimic CoD, CoD gets blamed for being too successful, but we are not pointing the blame at who actually deserves it: the people trying to mimic CoD. Seriously, it's not CoD's fault it's successful, but it is totally the fault of other games for blatantly copying CoD in hopes of an easy cash in due to lack of creativity. Overwatch proved that you don't need to copy CoD to be successful, so there is really no one to blame except the people who lack creativity.

 

I am not going to blame CoD for other people copying CoD. Everyone else should get more original and come up with new game ideas instead of leaching off of CoD.

 

 

 

you could say the same about it damaging the indie genre, but at least we can safely assume it isn't. 

 

 

I would say that is debatable. :P

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

 

Overwatch proved that you don't need to copy CoD to be successful, so there is really no one to blame except the people who lack creativity.

 

To be fair, they copied TF2 instead. And that's still an Activision game, so they don't really need to compete with their own shooter ;) 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest

To be fair, they copied TF2 instead. And that's still an Activision game, so they don't really need to compete with their own shooter ;)

 

Yeah but they also could have just copied the age old formula, but they didn't. :P

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Nothing wrong with it buddy, I'm sure you're not alone considering the trailer did still receive a lot of likes  :twi:

 

Just be prepared for the hate you may receive around the interwebs. It's not a particularly great game to like at this point. 

Nah I have good reasons to love IW and have my whole .txt file of the reasons which is like 20 lines and will mute all of the haters out there.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Not only is CoD's influence a cancer on FPSs, it's a cancer to the gaming industry as Activision pulls the same shit every year, and people bitch about them doing the exact same things they've been doing for the last few years, and then millions still eat it up.

 

I know say this over and over again, but...

 

STOP 

 

BUYING

 

INTO

 

THIS

 

CRAP

 

We vote with our wallets, and if we keep giving them money for what is basically Groundhog's Day, the FPS series, it gives them further incentive to not deviate from the formula. Of course the competition has to dumb down their gameplay so that people will actually buy it. If next year's CoD was hardcore, I might actually like it. But no, it won't change because the same idiots who keep buying the same rehashed bullshit every year won't be happy, and won't give the money to Activision that they so desperately crave.

 

Fuck Call of Duty.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Look, I really can't wait for Infinite Warfare, If you ask me, I believe these people are judging a book by it's cover.

 

Here are my two opinions on it on Deviantart.

 

http://mdscarfaceone.deviantart.com/journal/GO-SADIQ-COD-Infinite-Warfare-and-Other-Shit-607390693

 

http://mdscarfaceone.deviantart.com/art/What-Sonic-Fans-Believe-In-598792432

 

 Really, which do they want? An  Unrealistic Shooter, or a Lazy Retcon?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Really, basically, I like the fact that you can call down a spaceship and get into it, fly into space and fight, then do an assault run (ETC ''Throttle'' or the mission in Black Ops where you kill  Vietcong),  land, then run on the wall, you even have a robot buddy similar to D-Walker from MGS or R2-D2. And Brian Bloom is in it. Even if most of you don't know who he is.

 

I really hate all those people, IMO, the fact that they haven't even seen everything or even PLAYED the game, is a problem. And they are basically judging a book by it's cover.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

(edited)

That may have seemed true a few years ago, when companies were pumping out nothing but generic modern military shooters in an attempt to capitalize on CoD's popularity, and changing Overstrike to Fuse.

Nowadays we seem to be getting more games like Shadow Warrior, Metro, Wolfenstein: The New Order, Overwatch, and most recently Doom of course. Hell, even Battlefield of all things seems to be breaking the mould now. I'm pretty sure the FPS genre will be fine.

Edited by SpaceOnion
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Join the herd!

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...