Opinion Piece

The Fanboys Are What’s Wrong With Call Of Duty

I love Call of Duty. To many people, the franchise has only been going downhill after Call of Duty 4: Modern Warfare, but to me, the Modern Warfare series has only improved with time. Although most people preferred that broken mess of a game – Modern Warfare 2 – to the latest installment, I like Modern Warfare 3 a hell of a lot more. I firmly believe there are some improvements that Infinity Ward could continue to make to the formula. But above all else, I still think that the franchise is doing a terrific job.

Now, there are many people who feel that Call of Duty is simply a repackaging each year, and there is a bit of a ring of truth to that, but not as much as they’d like you to believe. When I look at “Complete Editions” on store shelves – that’s re-releases of games with all of the current DLC included – and Capcom’s extremely shameless repackages such as… f*cking… Ultimate Marvel vs. Capcom 3, I have to wonder why it is everyone goes after Call of Duty first.

I have had debates with people over Ultimate Marvel vs. Capcom 3, where people told me “durr, well the game is cheaper, herpaderp.” This makes no sense because this implies that I wanted all of the DLC at once, rather than just one or two characters in the bundle. Considering the game has better balancing (so I’m told), and f*cking Spectator Mode, both of which should have been in the original release, I have to wonder in which fallacious world it’s okay to defend something like this.

This brings me back to Modern Warfare 3, the unspoked god of re-releases, so many gamers would have you believe. You’re probably wondering how this is different. Well, besides people defending Capcom instead of Infinity Ward and Treyarch (because apparently Capcom is slightly less guilty for giving you better deals on games or something), I will say something that may blow your mind. Ready? Take a deep breath.

Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 3 does enough to feel new again.

Yes, you heard me. I feel that the formula has been renovated enough to be fresh again. Of course, the campaign is feeling familiar – something I feel could use a little work such as with the grenade-spamming enemies, and enemies that seem to have faster rates of fire or deal more damage even with the same gun (or alternatively, turning every time you peak out from cover into a crapshoot as to whether or not you’ll die). However, Spec Ops Missions and Survival mode are certainly places that you’ll find your money’s worth. I enjoy Spec Ops more than the Multiplayer. However, having played the Multiplayer mode, I can easily say that it is a huge improvement over that unacceptable garbage from 2009. “Noobtubing” is much less of a problem – to the point that it’s almost eliminated, guns are far more balanced, and for fuck sake, you can’t dual-wield Model 1887 shotguns. Killstreaks have also taken on an overhaul, and weapon levels have been added in the Multiplayer. Several things have been done that make me feel like it’s a game worth $60, and if you still don’t think that, then go buy it on sale. At the time of writing, this game is less than $50 on all platforms on Amazon.com.

And yet, it’s these fanboys that constantly rag on Call of Duty for being repackages every year, presumably because it’s more popular than whatever they’re playing. When I say fanboys, this can extend to a number of groups, but the most endemic of them is the Battlefield 3 fans. Oh, it makes so much sense.

If people were to simply tell me that they preferred Battlefield 3 to Modern Warfare 3, I would have nothing against them. I still don’t. My beef lies with the fans that constantly rag on Modern Warfare 3 for being a repackage, insulting people who dare say they like it, and trying desperately to plug Battlefield 3. They make several (fallacious) points as to why Battlefield 3 is better, and every time I have to put up with this fanboyish zealotry, I feel a sharp pain in my head like I’ve been impaled by rebar. It’s their childish attitude that upsets me above all else.

They argue that Modern Warfare 3 has tiny maps, is a repackage of the same game (because we know all sequels are an entirely different game), and is full of run-and-gunners. Having played both games and previous Modern Warfare games, I feel I can safely say that the “tiny maps” argument is easily false. Though I can think of a couple of maps that are clusterfucks depending on the game mode you play (make a multiplayer map that accommodates to every single game mode in Modern Warfare 3 and tell me how easy it is), I am more than happy to say that most of the maps are great. I dare say that they’re even better than in Modern Warfare 2. Especially that overrated clusterf*ck Terminal.

As I’ve said, I’ve played Battlefield 3 (and I still own it… for now). So here are some of my complaints with the game: its campaign is an atrocious, dull corridor shooter with cheap thrills that constantly resorts to trying to be like Call of Duty (and I dare say, ripping off), with repetitive missions even by the standards that people set for its rival. Furthermore, you’ll constantly be scrambling to find cover that isn’t destroyed by the same bullet that one-hit kills you, because apparently they wanted to add the destructible terrain into Battlefield 3 as well. But it’s so sparsely used that it’s just one big needless gimmick that takes away from the game rather than supplementing it.

Oh, but all the effort has gone into the multiplayer, right? Well, Battlefield 3 does have some incontestably massive maps that are barely populated by games with 32 players… and yet they still have the worst spawning systems I’ve ever seen in a game. On multiple occasions, I have spawned literally within arm’s reach behind an enemy, only to have the perfect opportunity to assassinate them. How can you have maps that enormous and still have a spawning system this trashy? I once spawned in front of a sniper’s crosshairs on Modern Warfare 3 on the map Mission and that’s still better than all of Battlefield 3.

Starting guns are hideously underpowered such as the SVD (Dragunov), all to make the later sniper rifles look stronger in comparison. It takes five to six bloody shots to kill someone with a Dragunov, and for any sniper rifle, that is unacceptable. As for the vehicles… haha, what vehicles? I’ve seen only two in my time that I’ve played Battlefield 3, and I have played many matches. As for the immersion that people can brag about in the game, the animations that character models go into for crouching, proning, and other actions, it does nothing but slow the game down and turn what tries to set out to be a tactical game and utterly fails at into an earnest and shallow experience.

People have told me stuff like how Battlefield 3 is not a run-and-gun game, and yet every single game I’ve played has involved absolutely no teamwork. So the arguments that I hear are incredibly fallacious. And because I feel like throwing a couple low blows here, Frostbite 2 is a terrible engine. Apparently “realistic graphics” means to add an ugly blur to everything and have textures pop in from the aether. Second, Battlelog is Electronic Arts’ pathetic attempt at emulating Call of Duty: ELITE and making the game feel more like it belongs on Facebook. Even if you don’t feel that it’s like ELITE, it’s still pointless.

I don’t like writing reviews for games, but when arguing with BFanboys (as I call them), I feel I need to level this bullshit playing ground that they exaggerate in favor of Battlefield 3. There’s a reason why I like Modern Warfare 3 over Battlefield 3, and that’s because they’re better. This is the point where I expect someone to discredit my opinion by saying “well you shouldn’t compare games!” Which would be funny because besides Battlefield 3 shamelessly trying to clone itself from Call of Duty – and it shows in the single-player – they actually have a lot in common. Comparisons should be drawn to a small extent, but I feel that I have made a minimum of them when talking about Battlefield 3.

I’m not saying that there aren’t things wrong with Modern Warfare 3, Infinity Ward, or Activision. I would be acting exactly like the fanboys trying to ruin my delights to deny such a thing. Call of Duty: ELITE is a disgustingly overpriced service for anything other than acting as a season pass for future DLC, and it would be nice to see Infinity Ward and Treyarch touch up their previous games by actually dealing with the hackers that populate them. I have a feeling that Activision is holding back on their choke chain. However, this is less a problem with the game itself and more a problem with the companies pulling the strings. If you don’t like it, just play something else. Nobody is forcing you to pay for Call of Duty: ELITE (unless you like clans), and nobody is forcing you to play Modern Warfare 3 to begin with. Part of the reason that the game is still selling well is because it’s good. Not everyone is the same mindless drone that you accuse them of being, BFanboys, and don’t let yourselves – or anything else – tell you different. Call of Duty fans, don’t feel pressured by the fanboys who rag on your games for not being games. You have every right to continue enjoying the game, just as Battlefield 3 players can enjoy their own.

Disliking Call of Duty is okay. Insulting the people who like it is not. Next time you want to sell someone on your game, fanboys, make sure your argument consists of more than “you’re an idiot” and “it’s a repackaging! Wahh!” Maybe then, I’ll be willing to at least hear or read what you have to say. Until then, I’m going to go dropshot some noobs on Modern Warfare 3. Trololo.

22 replies »

  1. For saying MW3 is better game than MW2 lost all credit just there. MW2 was buggy. But it had better maps, better campaign (even though it made no sense), original spec ops. Only thing I liked about MW3 was survival mode. The hype that graphics are better, well they look the same to me since MW2. MW2 was far from perfect was a better game. Fail to mention re-spawning problems, guns are not balanced, maps are boring (not captivating), etc. Black Ops was a better game than MW3, aleast Treyarch made a well constructed campaign Zombie mode could have had more work done but was still good, Multiplayer apart from the Nuke town, there was more than enough done to make this a different game from WAW, wager mode, customise guns, new kill streaks etc. Most of this is not found even in this game. Treyarch next COD I will support not this excuse of a game.
    Point is from what it was to what it is now. Its repackaged MW2 with MW3 sticker, and thats the truth.
    Even Battlefield 3 on PS3 looks nothing impressive over Bad company 2.

    • omg i love you this is so true….i think that Mw3 is a terrible game i was so exited to open it and play it the first day but to only find out how dumb and not themed the maps were compared to black ops. I think they know MW3 was a way to take extra money from people and give them false hope in saying this was a new game and thats why they put it on ps3 and xbox 360s last years so they can have treyarch kick ass in the next generation of consules. I also think this is the same for BF3..they are saving BFBC3 for next genseration as well. in conclution Mw3 was a fail $60 map pack and bF3 also has a lot of problems but it does involve teamwork(sometimes) but it only doesnt when cod players come on becasue they are new. Iv played cod series all my life and bf3 was the first battlefield series i bought and i love it ..just needs a lot of patches and new map packs

  2. So you are saying that “it’s the fanboys that are wrong with CoD”.. then you go on to shamelessly troll Battlefield 3–and you say you “own Battlefield 3”, but from reading about your “experiences” with that game, it’s quite clear to me that you HAVE NOT PLAYED Battlefield 3. Here are the reasons why: 1. “What vehichles?” Unless you have switched the server browser in BF3 to “infantry only,” you would have to be blind not to find a jeep, buggy, tank, helo, jet, or APC on those maps, MULTIPLE times per match. 2. “BF3 has a broken spawn system.” Really?? That’s funny because you should be spawning on your squad mates or at the team base. Only game type with a “random spawn point” option is Team Deathmatch.

    So you wrote this whole article about how BF fanboys are ruining Call of Duty, but then you went on to bash another game???

    Your article is well written, however, it illustrates your point in quite an ironic way.

    • Also, this article is the epitome of Fanboy drivel and troll journalism. You’ve basically painted yourself as the crying kid in the school yard because all the cool kids are making fun of your new toy.

      Furthermore, if you think critically (and objectively–something you seem to have trouble with by the looks of your article), People who are “hardcore” dedicated gamers take issue with Call of Duty, not because “they like Battlefield 3 better”, but more because they see the CoD franchise as a tumor on the brain of the gaming industry. They see that “Call of Duty” games themselves are releasing annually with no innovation and very little else to distinguish one franchise release from the next. They see that other publishers in the Industry want a slice of the financial pie that CoD creates, so therefore the lack of creativity and innovation trickles across all development studios as developers scramble to create the next “Call of Duty” game. Most hardcore gamers have found that Battlefield 3 brings something new to the table in terms of the FPS multiplayer genre, and have latched on to it and are now extolling it’s virtues and casting out Call of Duty.

      • An interesting reply to the article. When Nick pitched the idea to me and read what he wrote I knew that it was going to illicit one hell of a reaction, whether it be good or bad. Clearly many people have an issue with what he said, but I do stress that it’s his opinion so of course it won’t match yours.

        On a personal note, I do disagree with much of what Nick said. I get the feeling that people will ask why I allowed it be posted on my site if I disagreed with what it states, but the reason is simple: Nick’s view is different from mine. I gave Battlefield 3 a 9/10 when I reviewed it, while giving MW3 an 8.5 because while I felt it was still a damn good shooter it was also a very familiar one.

        The spawn point debat is one that interests me: I’ve got mixed feelings on it because spawning on your squad, qhile a great idea, can sometimes be a pain in the ass as you’ll just end up in the line of fire straight away. of course that’s where communitcation with your squad comes in, but sadly Nick is right on that part: teamwork is a hard thing to find, despite the fact the game is built for it.

        The Call of Duty debate is doubtless one that will continue for a few more years at the very least. I can’t see it dissapearing because the Call of Duty series doesn’t have anywhere to go: it’s polished up its formula to the point where it can’t really change anything. The Battlefield series is starting to hit that point as well, but hopefully can deliver a stellar title in BF4.

        I would like some slightly larger maps in the next COD, though. 🙂

  3. I’m bashing Battlefield 3? This is directed at the fans that are trying to overhype the game – which I have most certainly played – while constantly flaming me for liking a game that they don’t. Of course I have to take the piss out of Battlefield 3 and let people know why I don’t like it.

    Although I don’t feel that any of the arguments that I’m receiving are deserving of a reply, I’m going to give one anyway. All of these arguments are just “Oh my god! You didn’t like Battlefield 3 but you like Call of Duty?! That can’t be right!”

    As I’ve said, I have to speak in my defense of Call of Duty, and against Battlefield 3 to demonstrate what it is I see in Modern Warfare 3 and don’t in its competitor. As for some of your points FunkMcNasty, I played Battlefield 3 on the XBox 360, and therefore I found few vehicles. I’m supposed to go find another server to play on? On XBox Live? I’d love to. Give me the heads up when you figure that one out.

    Also, if I was playing on “Infantry Only,” how would I have seen two vehicles in my time playing Battlefield 3? My point is that they barely ever show up. For a feature that seems to be so hyped up as one of the game’s strong points, I find that to be unacceptable. As for the spawn points, sure I can spawn on my squad mates, but that shouldn’t be an excuse for DICE putting in such an awful spawning system otherwise. People shouldn’t have to deal with this just because they found a lazier approach.

    Furthermore, when you say that it’s because people find Call of Duty to be a “tumor” on the industry and not because they find Battlefield 3 better, that demographic would fall under the group of people who respectfully abstain from Call of Duty. If they were to attack me for so much as getting a shred of enjoyment out of it, that’s the problem I have. If you read my article, you would know that I was focusing primarily on the Battlefield 3 fans that I have had to deal with. If you aren’t an overzealous Battlefield 3 fanboy, then this article is not directed at you.

    And finally, if people really want innovation that badly, they are free to play Battlefield 3. I find the innovation that I need in Modern Warfare 3. Fixing Modern Warfare 2’s issues was a step in the right direction, which I feel it did. If you disagree, then I’m sorry you were let down.

    I decided to address your argument because I saw a far more complex argument than “it’s just the same game as before!” An argument that could be extended to a multitude of games. Need I remind someone of Fallout: New Vegas? And don’t use that game as leverage just to keep the argument going. I’ve said all I feel I need to. Taking this further would only lead to a matter of opinion.

    In conclusion, I would like to say that even if you feel that Modern Warfare 3 is doing bad for the industry, that doesn’t mean people cannot still enjoy it. I like it. It’s a video game, and Modern Warfare 3 will stay that way until the end of time. If you don’t feel it innovates in the ways you want it to, then maybe Call of Duty just isn’t for you.

    If you feel my article was too ignorant, I hope that this reply will satisfy you. Either way, between this article and reply, I feel that anything more I say would be a reiteration.

    • a few things nick, I just am replying for the sake of a health debate, and because I think you missed a few things I said: you say “im bashing battlefield 3?” Here’s an excerpt from your article:

      “its campaign is an atrocious, dull corridor shooter with cheap thrills that constantly resorts to trying to be like Call of Duty (and I dare say, ripping off), with repetitive missions even by the standards that people set for its rival. Furthermore, you’ll constantly be scrambling to find cover that isn’t destroyed by the same bullet that one-hit kills you, because apparently they wanted to add the destructible terrain into Battlefield 3 as well. But it’s so sparsely used that it’s just one big needless gimmick that takes away from the game rather than supplementing it.

      Oh, but all the effort has gone into the multiplayer, right? Well, Battlefield 3 does have some incontestably massive maps that are barely populated by games with 32 players… and yet they still have the worst spawning systems I’ve ever seen in a game. On multiple occasions, I have spawned literally within arm’s reach behind an enemy, only to have the perfect opportunity to assassinate them. How can you have maps that enormous and still have a spawning system this trashy? I once spawned in front of a sniper’s crosshairs on Modern Warfare 3 on the map Mission and that’s still better than all of Battlefield 3.

      Starting guns are hideously underpowered such as the SVD (Dragunov), all to make the later sniper rifles look stronger in comparison. It takes five to six bloody shots to kill someone with a Dragunov, and for any sniper rifle, that is unacceptable. As for the vehicles… haha, what vehicles? I’ve seen only two in my time that I’ve played Battlefield 3, and I have played many matches. As for the immersion that people can brag about in the game, the animations that character models go into for crouching, proning, and other actions, it does nothing but slow the game down and turn what tries to set out to be a tactical game and utterly fails at into an earnest and shallow experience.” (end quote)

      Thats bashing the game, not the fanboys. Granted you stated plenty of times that you don’t like the BF fanboys cussing you out for your own preference in games.. I get that. Fanboys ruin everything, no doubt. But my point is, you’ve created this well written opinion piece about how fanboy trolls are ruining your experience with CoD because of their trolling and what not, but then you went on to troll against Battlefield, thus seemlingly become the type of gamer you profess to abhor in your article.

      You reply that you “are fighting fire with fire.” So basically your TRYING to start an internet flame war?? I don’t get it..

      Also, for your information, you CAN switch browsers to play BF3 on on Xbox 360. From the “multiplayer” menu, go to where it says “server browser.” Find one with proper connection and adjust server search settings as desired.

      Also, If you weren’t playing on “infantry only” (which, btw, is an option you’ll find in the server browser), I still find it really hard to believe that you couldn’t find a vehichle to use and that you only saw two during the game. Most BF3 maps have at least: 2 or more Main Battle tanks, 2 light armored vehichles, 2-4 infantry transport vehichles (humvee, jeep, etc), 1 attack heli, 1 transport heli… and those are the amound of vehichles EACH TEAM strarts with, not the amount of vehichles PER MAP. So thats 10-12 vehichles right there, and that’s not counting fighter jets and attack boats which only appear on certain maps such as Caspian Border, and Kharg Island. So in all that madness if you couldn’t find a vehichle, I just cant conceive that…

      Finally my only point about why most “hardcore gamers” hate on CoD is because CoD has become a money maker to the fullest extent. It is arguably the most popular videogame on the planet. If you ask any random person if they’ve ever heard of Skyrim or Uncharted they’d say “no”, but if you ask that same person if they’ve heard of CoD theyd say “oh yea, that’s that shooting game right?” Simply put, when a game, TV show, or type of music attains status as a pop-culture icon, it makes a ton of money, then everyone in the industry tries to create their own version of it to capitalize on the craze. Call of Duty has spawned a whole slew of garbage FPS games from developers/publishers looking for their slice of CoD’s cash pie. My point was that Hardcore gamers don’t want ot only have a market that’s flooded with un-original cookie cut games, they want innovation and a variety of genres to choose from. They hate on CoD because they see that it is killing the variety in games to some degree.

      Overall, I’m not going to hate on anyone for whatever game they like to play. I was a CoD guy all the way until BF: BAd Company 2 and BF3 came along and after playing those, I had decided I liked them better. Play what you want, I don’t hink anyone cares too much.

  4. all fps games are ssdd repackaged with “Lifelike graphics” and minus things fps fanboys whined about taken out.
    call of field duty modern battle3 is trash.
    games like cod belong in the bargain bin while good games with actual stories need to stay at the top.

    • I don’t quite feel that way about it, but that’s only really because of how well the games sell. Although my opinion in the FPS genre is plummeting, Battlefield 3 fanboys and people who justify their opinion by saying “it’s the same game every year!” while dismissing all sequels ever made are not making it faster.

  5. Now that, that’s exactly right.

    Call of Duty games aren’t exactly bad, per se.

    When it comes to the game, it’s actually quite a fun and entertaining arcady FPS game.

    When it comes to being called a fag by a nine year old who thinks he’s epic at FPS games and challenges you to a quick scoping match because you accidentally shot him with a sniper without scoping, well, that’s what’s wrong with the game.

    This whole Battlefield vs Call of Duty thing is laughable.

  6. The biggest problem you will encounter of constantly in MW3 and rarely in BF3 is a retarded kid calling you a f@@@ing F@g or other ridiculous things. Most of the people playing MW3 are kids. N4G.com had an article about two months ago that stated up to 65% of those playing MW3 are kids 18 years or under as opposed to only 20% of BF3. Why waste your time listening to those morons talk sh@t.

  7. Eh, my problem with the post is that you don’t just attack BF3 fanboys, you attack the game itself. It is in no way hard to point out the problems of a game without getting “emotional” about it and just start raging out all your personal bad experiences. You couldve handled it in a better way, but you really did set yourself up to be attacked from all positions. On another note, im my opinion, NO ONE should say ANYTHING about MW3 vs. BF3. I like both games, and I get tired of seeing “MW3 is better!!” on BF3 videos and the same on MW3 ones too. It’s a moot point, like comparing Crysis to Halo.

    • I assumed you were intellegent enough to read and no where in the post do I say that BF3 is better or worse than MW3. I am simply stating a fact that is common amoung myself and other players of the current and past COD games, the attitues of those who play. You are stuck on this stupid comparison of the games when it is you and only you comparing the game itself. How the hell did you get this gig anyways. Your points you make are for the most part not factual and ignorant.

      • Um, are you referring to my post? If so, I didn’t reply to yours, and wasn’t directing my comment towards yours. I was speaking of the thread, not your post, sorry for the misconception.

  8. Let’s all calm down. The reason I pointed out my problems with Battlefield 3 was because I was fighting fire with fire; in other words, trying to get the attention of the zealous Battlefield 3 army – or at least the people that hate Call of Duty but plug Battlefield 3 constantly. I really couldn’t care less if someone likes BF3 over MW3, just don’t shove it in my face.

    Plus, keep in mind, my biggest problem with this subject are the Battlefield 3 fans that constantly flame anyone who dares to say they enjoy Modern Warfare 3. What is this, the Shooter Inquisition? If people simply hate Modern Warfare 3 for “what it’s doing to the industy,” I respect that opinion. I just don’t agree. So let’s stay focused.

  9. i HATE mw3 with a passion!!! i enjoyed the series untill black ops. gotta say im a huge bf3 fan. It just boils my piss when cod fanboys like yourself make up blaitent lies like the vehicles one you said. cod is a broken game. deal with it. yeah im a bf3 fanboy and the game is no where near perfect. i’ll hold my hands up and admit it. but cod does not deserve the recognition it has! cod maps are a camp fest aswell. thats why i personaly hate the game. that and the stupid perks you get.

Leave a Reply! Seriously, I'm lonely. Talk to me. Hello? Anyone?