(My opinion) Why the call of duty series failed

Hello everyone!

 Today I would really like to talk about something that I have thought about a lot in the last months. I just would like to rant a little bit about the call of duty series. Now, I am not going to completely bash this game, however I would really get my point across why this particular game series angers many players around the world (including me). I will focus on the multiplayer side of the games! Let's get started!

  For my first point I want to identify which games of the series are good and which are bad. The red vertical line separates the good and the bad games. The left shows the acceptable ones, the right side- the frustrating ones. Now I have to admit- I haven't played the first 3 call of duty games thoroughly. I don't really want to name the reason, but let's say it wasn't an age issue. I did however looked at the multiplayer game footage of the 3 call of duty games and I did not see any issues there.

  

 

I had the opportunity to play the first call of duty this year for a short while. I did finish the campaign on the hardest difficulty and even spend some minutes in the multiplayer, however I don't want to spend too much time talking about the first call of duty games! All I can say is that those game were great for their time, every newer game had more to offer then the last one and I think the developers kept the game series in a good line that way. The ww2 setting was loved by everyone.

    Now let's talk about Call of duty 4: Modern warfare. I spend much more time with cod4: modern warfare, though I did play modern warfare 2 before I played cod4. That helped me to see the improvements of the 2 games of the franchise. All I know is that Cod4 is still considered the milestone of the cod series, many people still worship it,  many still  play it daily. Now for the big question: Is cod4 better then cod MW2?? I am not completely sure to be honest! But let's check the image I made for the debate.↓↓↓↓

After viewing all the points I don't really have to introduce MW2. This is how I compare the two games, you might argue with the points but I think I couldn't describe the two games better at this point. Now moving on...

  Cod World at war and Black ops were developed by Treyarch. World at war takes place again in a ww2 setting while Black ops focuses on the cold war. I don't think I need to compare those two games. To make it short: Waw went back to the old ww2 setting, improved since the ww2 call of duty games (some might argue with that) but still included martyrdom, second chance (last stand), the Mp40 was overpowered (but I think they fixed it later). I liked Waw and not a lot of people complained about it.

Many say that black ops is just a shitty game, I however don't see a big problem with it except the unbalanced ak47u maybe. Treyarch had many new ideas like codpoints, they however did not remove second chance perk which is basically last stand, they used many different new guns and the game mechanic was different (to a certain extend). I guess it was disappointing to see second chance still in the game, however the new additions to the game balanced it out I guess. At least they didn't packaged mw2 over and sold it as a new game (which we will talk about right now). I  thought the Vietnam, Berlin Wall and Havana maps were INCREDIBLE. And several new things introduced like: sticks and stones, bullet in the chamber, wager matches, customizable emblem, emblems on guns just showed the hard work of Treyarch.

  And now let's talk about the really bad site of cod. I saved the worst for last, so to speak. Cod Mw3 and Black ops 2...oh boy. I really don't waste your precious time so I will keep it short. But damn, where do I start?

 I haven't played black ops 2, but I saw this video, and after watching it yourselves, you will know why:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3uqkUZ83lBA 

and here just a look how they present Cod: Ghosts. Just seeing that video explains a lot

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oxRf90LWK9c 

And now I want to sum everything up. You saw how I timeline of the cod series, and you saw the changes of the game. Now, some people might say that I treated the newer games unfairly, however this blog post is really based on many different opinions, not just my personal one. Maybe black ops 2 and modern warfare 3 aren't all that bad, but looking at the way the developers of Call of duty absolutely ignored the biggest issues with the series, just shows me what the cod series is all about- making empty promises. Perhaps they don't feel the need to change the game issues, if they already know, that people will buy their newest game no matter what. It is a great disappointment, but hey, Activision owns the game series, and nobody is forced to play their games.  Perhaps it's so frustrating that the newest games gain the most attention on the internet, machinima and all the others game reviewers rate the game very positively (I wonder why) and in this way fool people to try the new game.

 The newest Cod: Ghosts isn't released yet, but I can assure you: they did not learn a lesson. And they will never learn except the gamers of the world stop buying their repackaged games.