What has Call of Duty given us?

[forbizzle]

A lot of first person shooter reviews lately have been focused on the lack of originality of the game in question. Reviewers castrate games like Killzone 2 for being derivative, and for some reason praise games like Halo and CoD4. But anybody who has been playing shooters for a while can tell you nothing has been new in the past decade.

Garnett Lee recently said on the Listen Up! podcast (4g1up), that he saw a preview of the new Battlefield Bad Company sequel and it was "really channeling CoD4". Which struck me as crazy, because the feature that everyone seems to praise in CoD4 (ranking + weapon unlocks) was stolen straight out of the battlefield series. Ironsights have been in games since the 90s and everything else was pretty much stolen from Counter-Strike.

Everything that can be done has been done a million times, the best a developer can do is chose to polish the experience into something that is fun to play. So why is it worth bringing up that a game lacks originality?

[az0madman]

For me, CoD4 brought to the table an incredible single player experience. It was unlike any other FPS I've ever played in terms of presentation, that's for sure. Definitely a game that can be used as a benchmark. I can't say much in terms of multiplayer because I haven't played the Battlefield games so I don't know if they had the perks system and leveling up.

And from the reviews of Killzone 2 I saw, there wasn't a lot of hate for it's unoriginality. They'd acknowledge that it doesn't bring anything new, but that because it's such a polished experience, it doesn't matter. It's still fun.

As for originality in games, I'm going to argue that not everything has been done when it come to video games. It's limited by its technology, and when a new system comes out, there's a whole new opportunity to be creative. I think that's why there might be backlash at Killzone 2 because it was viewed as 'next-gen gaming,' so expectations of something new were high.

If there's one problem I see with 'unoriginal' gaming, it's that often times it's been done and done better. For every Rock Band, there's at least one Rock Revolution. Sometimes you just got to ask, why bother?

[gta_bmx]

I don't like when developers try to fix something that isn't broken. If a game play mechanic just plain works and is fun and easy to use, why drastically change it, just for the sake of change? It's ridiculous. If there's an awesome FPS engine or a style of game that just plain works great, I have no problem with developers merely reusing it and polishing the graphics.

For example, EA Sports NBA Live: NBA Live '04 has awesome game play mechanics and is real fun (GC and PS2). I bought NBA Live '07 (PC and PS2), and it's fundamentally broken. Terrible mechanics, sloppy movement, imprecise, and the camera angles are horrible. Sure, you can see shading under their armpits, but who cares if the game play is broken? They should have kept the '04 engine and just updates the rosters and do more work on the graphics (which are pretty good anyway).

[forbizzle]

As for originality in games, I'm going to argue that not everything has been done when it come to video games. It's limited by its technology, and when a new system comes out, there's a whole new opportunity to be creative. I think that's why there might be backlash at Killzone 2 because it was viewed as 'next-gen gaming,' so expectations of something new were high. In video games as a whole, there's a lot of ground yet to be covered, but in the FPS genre really nothing is new. And a lot of people would be happy to play the exact same game they played 15 years ago if there was enough of a community to support it. See the popularity of Quake Live, or the fact that more people play Counter-Strike 1.6 than any other game on Steam.

New games bring new graphics, but often nothing of quality in terms of gameplay is anything more than a refinement of something that existed long ago. And there's nothing wrong with that. I wish more developers spent time trying to create the best experience more than trying to make their mark.

[lybertyboy]

I was at the demo with Garnett so I know what he was talking about. He wasn't referring to how the game played, but rather the way it used scripted events to move the story along. He's right btw, it looked a lot like COD.

[randomlyrossy]

I think the reason CoD4 gets the praise etc that it does is because while yeah most of what it did has been done before, it took elements from lots of places and put them together in an exceptionally polished package. The singleplayer while not having the most deep story had fairly compelling and interesting one and had lots of well executed, intense setpieces,

Then the multiplayer was just so addictive and fun, the nailed the pace of the progression and just mastered the mechanics to make an incredibly good experience.

[dolson]

COD4's campaign was awesome. However, most people praise the multiplayer, and many people I know haven't even touched the single-player!

I think people were way too forgiving of COD4, simply because it WASN'T another WW2 shooter, which was the biggest shooter complaint for a while.

Myself, I enjoy many shooters, and I enjoy WW2 shooters, too.

For Garnett to make a comment about Battlefield ripping off COD4, that strikes me as pretty ignorant... He doesn't need to know every detail of every game ever, but if you're gonna make accusations like that, then it's one of those times where you might wanna do some research. I'm not saying I'm perfect myself, but I don't get paid to work on my gaming site.

Anyhow, I try and ignore reviews and such for the most part, especially when complaints of unoriginality come up. Things I really care about are - is the game fun? is the saved game file locked? how long is the campaign? Those kinds of things make or break a sale for me, more than "this game copies another. So unoriginal."

[forbizzle]

I was at the demo with Garnett so I know what he was talking about. He wasn't referring to how the game played, but rather the way it used scripted events to move the story along. He's right btw, it looked a lot like COD.Fair enough, there wasn't enough context I thought he was talking about multiplayer. CoDs single player is one of it's major strengths, but I wouldn't call it original either. It's just a really well directed game, and if the pacing of BF is starting to channel that I think it's a good move. Especially since the idea of Bad Company is to provide a single player experience.

And Rossy re: CoD4 having a polished experience, I really have to disagree. They took as many ideas and game modes as they possible could, and lifted maps out of the single player game. Basic MP concepts such as spawn protection were completely left out, and in general most games are just random explosions and campers.

Some things worked out, and players are able to find game mode and map combinations that work well for them. But it's hardly polished, it's just pretty.

[darknessgp]

... everyone seems to praise in CoD4 (ranking + weapon unlocks) was stolen straight out of the battlefield series. ...

I thought it gave the multi-player point counter thing... Also, who is praising it for ranking and unlocks? I've yet to hear anyone praise it.

[dh_jin]

as a PS3 fanboi i found it seriously difficult to pick up KZ2 knowing the next modern warfare is coming.

that should say something about how amazing COD is… or at least about KZ2…

[logant]

COD 4 has good multiplayer. But no multiplayer match can beat the feeling I got when I played single player COD 4. The "All Ghillied Up" mission felt like an intense 12 hour mission (even though it wasn't even close to that) the feeling I got when I was crawling past the enemy, my heart was beating so hard. That's what I love about video games, but the thing is, most games don't provide that. Mirrors Edge did especially in one particular mission where you were being chased by this specially trained free runner and you were slowed down and had to get to the elevator. I felt like I was running for my life (in a video game, but I've run from something and it was pretty similar) the stress of thinking "one wrong step and I fall" and also at the same time not knowing where to go, and then actually getting to the elevator, desperately waiting for it to open, and getting out just in time.

That's the thing I kind of hate about games now. I would rather a developer spend time working on a really good and long single player and just skip multiplayer. People always say "It needs multiplayer or I won't buy it because it doesn't have replay value" but at the same time if it's a really good game with a really good story I don't know how much I would have cared about multiplayer.

[dolson]

COD 4 has good multiplayer. But no multiplayer match can beat the feeling I got when I played single player COD 4. The "All Ghillied Up" mission felt like an intense 12 hour mission (even though it wasn't even close to that) the feeling I got when I was crawling past the enemy, my heart was beating so hard. That's what I love about video games, but the thing is, most games don't provide that. Mirrors Edge did especially in one particular mission where you were being chased by this specially trained free runner and you were slowed down and had to get to the elevator. I felt like I was running for my life (in a video game, but I've run from something and it was pretty similar) the stress of thinking "one wrong step and I fall" and also at the same time not knowing where to go, and then actually getting to the elevator, desperately waiting for it to open, and getting out just in time.

That's the thing I kind of hate about games now. I would rather a developer spend time working on a really good and long single player and just skip multiplayer. People always say "It needs multiplayer or I won't buy it because it doesn't have replay value" but at the same time if it's a really good game with a really good story I don't know how much I would have cared about multiplayer.

I don't agree about Mirror's Edge being good at all, but I do think a single-player only Call of Duty game would be excellent. Or Modern Warfare, whatever. I'd buy it for sure. I'm not a fan much of competitive multiplayer, especially in games like CoD. Mind you, I was into Battlefield for a while.. But that's besides the point.

[logant]

I don't agree about Mirror's Edge being good at all, but I do think a single-player only Call of Duty game would be excellent. Or Modern Warfare, whatever. I'd buy it for sure. I'm not a fan much of competitive multiplayer, especially in games like CoD. Mind you, I was into Battlefield for a while.. But that's besides the point.

BTW I'm talking about one very small section of Mirrors Edge that lasted maybe 30 seconds to a minute.

[dolson]

BTW I'm talking about one very small section of Mirrors Edge that lasted maybe 30 seconds to a minute.

Doesn't matter. :)

[logant]

You honestly liked nothing about Mirrors Edge? Not even a tiny bit?

[jc-magnus]

I think Call of Duty (4 in particular) brought a higher level of polish and an all aroud great product. The Campaign was short but sweet and I enjoyed every second of it. The multiplayer is certainly awesome and I still play it (I switch between WaW and MW).

Other shooters tend to favor one mode over the other, or simply just feel like they added something for the hell of it. For example, I love Far Cry 2's single player, but I think the multiplayer is terrible.

It's almost like Call of Duty is this stable platform that you know you'll always get enjoyment out of, while there are these other games that are still out there struggling to find their own identity or "thing". It's hard (for me) to look at a game and not say "Meh... CoD4 does that better".

[lonelyspacepanda]

Anybody who has been playing shooters for a while can tell you nothing has been new in the past decade.


That sounds like a loaded statement to me. Innovation is a relative term. I have a friend that defends the survival horror genre to death, claiming that the games have been innovating over the years despite keeping the same camera and controls (i.e. Rule of Rose has a retarded dog, Fatal Frame has a camera for a weapon).

However, can you honestly say to yourself that there was a game remotely like Fallout 3 or Mirror's Edge 10 years ago (or even 2)? I certainly can't. People need to get over that titles like Doom and Half-Life, which brought about many, many innovative concepts, are once in a generation; I'm talking about innovations, like NPCs, scripting events, multi-layered levels, etc. Anyway, innovation alone doesn't make a great game.

There will be Mirror's Edges and there will be Call of Dutys: a game that refines what previous titles in the respected genre have done, while adding on a unique theme, setting, and/or story. The Call of Duty series, Infinity Ward's efforts at least, have always been adding a more grounded realism to the genre. That's their niche along with heavily scripted scenarios that give a cinematic feel without detracting from the gameplay--something simple enough on paper, but hard enough to do in execution that they have very few equals (perhaps, Killzone 2 and handful of others).

[talkingorange]

I'll somewhat echo what lonelyspacepanda wrote in that, for me, CoD4 is all about controls. Whether in multiplayer or single-player, they've nailed the console FPS better than any other game I have played and the PC version is smooth as silk as well. Most of the game is definitely derivative of what has come before, but the raw mechanics are so well defined as to make the experience enjoyable regardless of the setting or story.

[dolson]

You honestly liked nothing about Mirrors Edge? Not even a tiny bit?

Well, I somewhat liked the demo. If you want my full thoughts, though, I did review (http://www.tawkn.com/?review_id=13) it.

I'll somewhat echo what lonelyspacepanda wrote in that, for me, CoD4 is all about controls. Whether in multiplayer or single-player, they've nailed the console FPS better than any other game I have played and the PC version is smooth as silk as well. Most of the game is definitely derivative of what has come before, but the raw mechanics are so well defined as to make the experience enjoyable regardless of the setting or story.

I know Metroid Prime 3 "isn't a FPS" but the controls there are much better than anything else I've ever played. Including COD4. But I guess it's kinda cheating, in a way..

[dagreatcow]

What has call of duty given us? well only the greatest game ever to exist, which happens to be called Modern Warfare.

[jrklein]

I believe the COD series has offered great single play as well as multi-player (which I find playing more). Personally though in recent releases I find myself still playing a lot of Modern Warfare over World at War. That is just my preference, but Modern Warfare 2 looks and hopefully will be amazing!

[icu]

But anybody who has been playing shooters for a while can tell you nothing has been new in the past decade.

...

Everything that can be done has been done a million times, the best a developer can do is chose to polish the experience into something that is fun to play. So why is it worth bringing up that a game lacks originality?

First of all I'd like to mention that there are more than a few shooters that have shown great innovation in the past 10 years (there would be a rather long list I think). Perhaps you were overstating a bit so here' s a few from the past couple:

Portal - FP puzzle game
L4D - great advances in COOP online multiplayer

Ok, I'm a Valve PC fanboy, but there are others who have taken risks (we see ARMA II taking "realism" to new levels etc.). Generally, however we cannot blame the devs since taking chances is often seen as too risky.

Now if the true innovation of COD4 is that it has made playing an FPS on a console enjoyable then they deserve a prize (I haven't enjoyed a console FPS since Perfect Dark ;) )

I suppose most things have been tried, but not everything has been perfected so there is always room for inspired innovation.