The Downfall of the Modern FPS | Why Call of Duty Sucks
80A brief preface: This is all coming from a gamer who wants satisfaction for spending time mastering a game; if what you find fun differs from me, it’s probably better that way – you’ll be enjoying games a lot more than I will.
Call of Duty is breaking records. Since CoD:4 Modern Warfare, the first person shooter series has taken the video gaming world by storm, perennially outselling most games on the Xbox 360 and the PS3. Black Ops was labeled the “best-selling entertainment title of all time”, selling over 7 million copies in the first day of release, and Modern Warfare 3 is looking to gross more than it, boasting a 32% increase in pre-orders. Battlefield, the rival FPS franchise, has been selling more and more each year as well, culminating in Battlefield 3 recently selling 5 million copies its first week.
The problem with the two FPS’s: nothing, if you’re Activision or EA. Or if you’re just a casual gamer looking to simply shoot down some people on the weekends. But for more hardcore and competitive gamers, the departure in quality of first person shooters has been very, very apparent.
Call of Duty is leading the charge for this drop of FPS quality, but why would it fix anything? Technically, at a fiscal standpoint, it’s not even “broken”, in fact it’s doing better every year! This is the reason for the loss of innovation in the FPS genre – if a game wants to be successful, it has to follow the “tried and true” structure laid down by Call of Duty; a cinematic, linear, single player campaign, fast paced, gun-on-gun multiplayer. Video game publishers aren’t willing to take risks in trying to sell unconventional takes on FPS’s, so innovation is almost shut out completely across the board.
Campaigns
When did it become mandatory for a first person shooter to have a single player campaign? Battlefield 1942 and Battlefield 2 didn’t and they did fine – the games were received as groundbreaking and people couldn’t stop playing them. It started with Call of Duty, who from the onset included a campaign. CoD:4 brought it to the mainstream, though. Modern Warfare’s single player mode was filled with explosions, flashy cut-scenes, and no creativity whatsoever. You had to go where the arrows pointed, and do exactly what you were told. Battlefield followed suit with the Bad Companies and Battlefield 3, including short, “intense” campaigns in an attempt to attract more buyers (campaigns make better commercial fodder).
The problem is that the developers started spending more time in making these modes and less in multiplayer modes, where gamers barely even spend any time in the single player (most players probably play one play-through – 6-10 hours, while spending weeks or usually, months, on the multiplayer).
An Ode to the Casual Gamer
With the success of Call of Duty and Battlefield heading into more watered down versions of their previous selves, the key to success in the FPS industry has become obvious – cater to the casual gamer. Game developers have found that for more people to buy their game, they have to make the average gamer feel like (s)he is good at the game. Hard-to-learn games apparently aren’t worth playing anymore… Easy, instantly gratifying games are?
- Call of Duty has had a recurring theme – guns with ridiculously small amounts of recoil. This takes away the need to have any skill for gun-on-gun combat; you don’t need any practice, you just point and hold the trigger. Sniper rifles in the Modern Warfare series simply zoom in and one-hit-kill at any range, requiring very little skill.
- Grenade launchers (commonly known as “noob-tubes”), have been a part of Call of Duty that has angered the community every single year, but the developers insist to keep them in the game, to cater to gamers who can’t aim. They’re perennially labeled as annoying, overpowered, and bluntly, dumb, but yet they have stayed in the game. Modern Warfare 3 has even tried to hide the fact that grenade launchers are still in the game; in the previous games, there was a unique symbol in the kill-feed if someone was killed by a grenade launcher. Not in the last installment of the franchise – the symbol in the kill-feed is gone, so basically, the developers are trying to hide the fact that people are getting killed by the noob-tubes and pretend away the problem.
- Knifes kill in 1 hit. Guns kill in 2-4 hits. Knifing is easy – another ode to the casual gamer. Similar to the grenade launcher, you don’t really have to aim your knife. Many interesting ideas about knifing taking 2 hits to kill from the front and 1 from the back have been suggested, but to the chagrin of the gaming community, no changes have been made.
- In addition to easy to use weapons, death-streaks, basically benefits for dying many times in a row, have made a comeback in Modern Warfare 3. There’s absolutely no need to reward players for doing badly… the only use for them is for securing the sub-par-player demographic.
CommentsLoading...
As a casual gamer, I can agree with most of what you're saying. I argue that the campaign is fun and the plot engaging. Yes, it's cut and dry, but what exactly are you looking for? Goldeneye was the same way, socom was the same (1st and 3rd, I know).
The kick and deathstreeks, I completely agree. Also the noob tubes. Although they have taken a lot of damage away from them.
The knifing I just don't know. Knifing someone twice in the front would be absolutely impossible, from my experience.
Sniper rifles, good god, fuck them. "quick-scoping" should not be a term that exist.
What I'm saying is, I agree, but at the same time I am the demographic they're shooting for. I don't have that much time to play so I enjoy getting on for an hour here and there to play a few games, and with cod that's easy to do.
Battlefield is all about tactics and team play. CoD is for those who like out and out gun play. I like Battlefield more than CoD!
This I why I stick to my good old counter strike, they just don't make skill based shooters like that anymore..
What makes me finds Call of Duty(minus ones that sets in WW2) overrated and sucks is: it's characters are just bunch of wimpy and boring Humans with guns.









Nexis19 6 months ago
I agree with you entirely. I happen to be one the few gamer's in my area that isn't 100% obsessed with call of duty. Honestly i fail to see the point in going to a midnight launch of a game, which the majority of my friends did, just to get a game with a four hour campaign, an unbelievably unrealistic combat system and to lose their social lives screaming at a high pitched fourteen year old that just murdered them with a grenade launcher online. Gaming is about getting involved in the game and its story as you try to master it and reach the peak of your potential in said game. Its not about saying to you friends two days after the game is released "I'm level 55". Im sorry but when my friend said this to me i thought three things. 1 Dude i haven't seen you in days. 2. Why does it look like you haven't slept in days? and 3. Get help! Honestly for dedicated gamer's who play a game for the experience the drop in quality of FPS games is tragic at best. Great hub i thoroughly enjoyed it!