Xbox One Why are people so much harder on COD than other series?


New Member
Feb 18, 2013
This isn't as laser-targeted as it might be, but it's a very valid question. Why are people trashing this game when it hasn't even come out yet? Is it just because it's COD? What does that have to do with anything? What makes COD less worthy of tolerance than a million other games of less value and longevity? I personally don't even like FPS games all that well, but I have never manage the kind of virulent spleen the way other have against this title. I'll at least wait to play through it before I decide it's an abomination before the Spaghetti Beast of Delton Six.
You are always going to get those people who have to find a problem with everything. The negative ones, unfortunately, are usually the ones who speak up first. That is why it is always best to submit your own reviews on products, especially those that you really love.
Contrary types develop a noisy attention seeking dislike to anything that's popular.

The rest of the universe just get's on with enjoying the game.It's popular because it's fun - the end.
Honestly probably because the same game has been released every year...since my freshman year of college...5+ years ago! Any game that has rapid installments get criticized to no end because the players want to see what's different. This is true for every sports game. Can you think of another NON sports game that has been released to many times?
It's just like Fifa or Assassin's Creed, they keep spitting those games one year after the other and they don't even have that many changes to make up for a new release. But what pisses me off is that they still have the face to ask for $15 EACH PACK for stuff that should already be in the game in the first place.
Here is why. They pretend like they care for gamers while they don't give a damn about us.
Well from only playing COD on the PC I can tell you for a fact they make changes to the game and won't add them to the change log as they don't want fans to really know which changes are made if any at all. They say its so they can get feed back from their players bases solely on game play experiences. I like and dislike this theory. Dislike because sometimes it appears they don't change what fans are complaining about... but then on the bright side you play and get a non bias opinion due to not knowing what was changed.... lol
I think people have higher expectations for COD because it's been around for so long. Since the early days of COD we've all known new COD games would be coming out in the future, and the devs knew too, they've had incredible amounts of time to prepare and develop better games year after year, but we repeatedly get (for the most part) the same game with a different storyline and some added perks. Since COD 4 there haven't been that many major changes, and I (as well as lots of others, I believe) are waiting on more changes to be made. I think the COD dev's have the chance to really change up the formula, but they never deviate. Maybe because they don't need to, considering the entire world is hooked on COD for the most part. But I sure hope they will sometime soon.
its cod.. its gotten a good wrap for stable gameplay and run and gun...
most people put a target on cod i feel because it is basically the same game that started the fps shooter craze. its evolution is very small in comparison to say bf4. the general cod player tends to be younger and game play is cluttered with the most obnoxious chatter.. where cod made its mark it has not tried to really better itself since that time. sure we have gotten graphics and zombie mode...

most of the fps hard core guys went to bf3 because it started to give more elements of "warefare" damage,level damage with bullets and such. now we have levelution in bf4.. cod is now offering something similar but its a triggered event similar to bf4 but still lacks in environmental damage. basically what i m saying is you cant drop small buildings with rpg,tank ect ect like bf4. it adds to an element of play that is fun.

what is hard is converting from cod to bf4.. you would think its a easy transfer but its not. 1 is a run and gun lone wolf stuff. where 1 is very team oriented. you can run and gun but odds are you will die more often than not.. the map sizes in cod tend to be smaller. no vehicles ect ect.

now dont think that bf4 is aove cod because the things that make bf4 a fun game also make it a hated game. with the 64 players,vehicles,helo,damage allot goes on things happen fast even in the big maps. both games have a frustration factor... but i can do without the kids yelling crazy stuff over the mic.
Because CoD is possibly the best selling series at the moment, despite being a crappy lazily made rehash every single time.
I'm going on sc_shark's reason here and saying that it's because so fans look at COD as the start of the FPS craze which dominated the later part of the last decade/the last generation. Like never mind Doom, Duke, Wolfenstein, Quake, Counterstrike, Goldeneye, Unreal--FPS started with COD. It could be when the most vocal group became "aware" in gaming (actually joining communities, understanding gaming, following news beyond magazines, etc).

At the core, COD is the face of a genre that has run into a rut that even if you're a fan or not you can recognize, but it continues to have popularity. That "rut" comes from the story mode taking a massive backseat to online multiplayer--that's the actual rut. The more vocal segment will say "The gameplay is the same, it's the same game each time, etc." Well every game tends to ride specific mechanics until the wheels fall off 99% of the time. Even in reboots, the story changes but it largely the same game not to alienate anyone.
im going to agree with above post.

duke nukem,doom,quake,wolfenstine were all the big players of the day.. if you had a computer you had these games.. fps have always had a big following. cod is the realism of todays warfare..

cod is fun so is bf4 so will titanfall and halo.. they all have their nitch in the fps market. most all offer a different ply style. bot all get compared because they fall under the fps category.
Like others have stated, when games like COD had novelty in the past that makes it all the rage, the inevitability of it becoming over-saturated is there. And considering how the over-saturation may also lead to less chances of making imaginative and creative growth, the people being harder on it than other series is solely because of the reputation it accumulated. And when it comes consistency with any game that’s endured for so long, it’s about the development team and game studios that contribute towards that.

If there’s a shift between developers and studios, they will have different standards, and will often find ways to shortcut despite the game being AAA quality (or implied as). When you look at it in the perspective of gamers that played multiple COD games, they would garner a predisposition towards picking out minor faults, and whatever wildcards they can create and call it “horrible” or “deplorable.” It’s just one of those things like the Final Fantasy franchise where people often create attacks, and also take advantage of Internet sensationalism to lure those who don’t do research to also hate the game solely for the sake of hating it. I’ve had my personal gripes with the COD franchise myself, but if there’s ever a time where I want to cause havoc and enjoy 10 minutes of action, I still play older COD games.

Other games like Battlefield and such still have the creative potential there before they inevitably reach over-saturation themselves. But with COD, you could see as them making rehashes because it’s still going to garner a lot of sales either way. You could make COD analogous as Nintendo’s neutrality over the years. And there’s only so many things you can do with an FPS game before things get dull. But as long as younger players aren’t fixated on veterans' opinions of the franchise, they’re going to want to play any game to satisfy their impulses for action, and doing anything that doesn’t involve things they would naturally rebel against. COD’s neutrality with being repetitious and cutting corners at times is really a front on how they can easily take advantage of impulsively driven younger games.
I hear a lot of people giving so much smack on call of duty. If i mention it everyone is like you need to get battlefield. I still know a majority of people who still play call of duty also.
I hear a lot of people giving so much smack on call of duty. If i mention it everyone is like you need to get battlefield. I still know a majority of people who still play call of duty also.

The opposite is also true. Battefield and CoD fanboys are always at each others throats about which of their games is better.
Because this series gets a new release every year, they don't care about original content anymore they just want to sell more and more...
I'm hard on all shooters that decide to use the exact same mechnanics which therefore make them virtually identical. It's boring, monotonous and I'd really like some innovation in the FPS genre. also, ADS is the worse. I like my peripheral vision thanks.
Well I think that when you are the go to game that people refer to when they speak of these types of games in general, you are probably also more likely to get the harsher criticism. Call of Duty is what people use as a reference for this type of game, too, I hear it all the time. It might be the sort of thing that is a blessing and a curse at the same time.
Because people basically got used to getting disappointed throughout their gaming life, it happens when you start getting excited so much about a game and it ends up being bad, if that situation happens repetitiously, then it is going to be something you will get used to, that's how it works, that's my opinion though.