Call of duty is always different.
New guns, attachments, gameplay, maps, kill streaks, game modes, campaign, and better graphics for the most part.

It's Call of Duty, if you want it to be different you're playing the wrong game.

Famous_Energy wrote With the next title soon to be release, you start to hear people complain and say it's the same every year. If you think about it, every game that has a series is the same. The only thing that is different is a few things, different story different areas/maps, different fighting ways/weapons etc.

The people who complain about it still buy it, I just don't get why people say that. To me, call of duty is different every year. Yes it's kinda the same but a lot does change if you're an actually call of duty fan.


I would like to hear what you guys think.

I disagree with you.

Call of Duty in my opinion is the same stuff over and over again, They don't even add anything game changing to the new ones. Let's take Battlefield for Example you can destroy buildings and change the way the game is played in one move with CoD it's just the person with the most powerful gun and who plays the game a lot will kill you.

I don't really play CoD Although i did enjoy BO1 but BO2 sorta killed it for me. The way i see it is CoD is just a bunch of people running around shooting other people the objective of the game is normally ignored by idiots who think K/D will say everything.

I personally moved from CoD to GTA in 2011 and will not be returning to CoD.

Now i know many people are going to have a go at me and disagree with me Most probably because you are Staff on this website and they would prefer to agree with you then debate it and risk getting into your bad books for some Unknown reason but yeah that is my opinion

i agree with you, but i like certain aspects of it like blowing up buildings n stuff but i dont like what they have done with the sniping to try and make it more realistic and little things like that but im probs gonna get battlefield 4 anyways since my parents wont let me get 18's anymroe :/

The game was innovative in it's change from COD5 (re-skinned COD4) to Modern Warfare 2. That game brought so many changes to the series in many ways including additions to multiplayer (killstreaks ect.) However since then the game has been basically the same.. I mean sure new maps.. new story.. some new guns... but it all feels so dull, it doesn't excited me to play Call of Duty like it used to.

So I would say it is the same every year other than the one major change year in MW2.

This really grinds my gears :@

Right people grab your popcorn as I pic apart the original posters statement and leave him speechless.

You said that it is people who complain about it who then buy it. Well I complain about it and haven't bought it in years.

You say every game which is part of a series is the same but you aren't grasping the differences in the way which other game's change and develop. Look at Call of Duty. It has been near enough the same old features for years. The developers believe that they can get away with a new cycle of maps and weapons which is not good enough. To start with the CoD stories will never be looked fondly upon as the campaign is short, lacks a decent story and any form of single player depth. This forces the game into relying on its multiplayer to make people happy which in my opinion any credible game cannot do as when you think of the best games of all time they more often than not have a great singleplayer campaign and depth.So in CoD relying on multi-player driven success they have created their own death trap. When it comes to multiplayer for any game there is not too much which can be changed and will become a bit old feeling.

Now if you look at the likes of GTA on the other hand. You will see a game which is still going strong. Why? Well that is because GTA innovates and sets the bar. Games like GTA have a singleplayer which you can play for hours and hours which is something Call of duty does not have. When you look at the depth of a game like GTA it is almost a disgrace that CoD gets the success it has.

I enjoy the games. I get bored of them after 3 months but that's usually because I've played it too much. In my opinion the franchise is getting abit stale, but all the criticism COD gets is not needed because 90% of people that give it slack still buy it.

I know this because me and all my friends think the franchise sucks but deep down we love it.

The game is soo simple. It's what makes it so fun. It's a pick up and play game.
You could call it a key to success

CelticBhoy1967 wrote Right people grab your popcorn as I pic apart the original posters statement and leave him speechless.

You said that it is people who complain about it who then buy it. Well I complain about it and haven't bought it in years.

You say every game which is part of a series is the same but you aren't grasping the differences in the way which other game's change and develop. Look at Call of Duty. It has been near enough the same old features for years. The developers believe that they can get away with a new cycle of maps and weapons which is not good enough. To start with the CoD stories will never be looked fondly upon as the campaign is short, lacks a decent story and any form of single player depth. This forces the game into relying on its multiplayer to make people happy which in my opinion any credible game cannot do as when you think of the best games of all time they more often than not have a great singleplayer campaign and depth.So in CoD relying on multi-player driven success they have created their own death trap. When it comes to multiplayer for any game there is not too much which can be changed and will become a bit old feeling.

Now if you look at the likes of GTA on the other hand. You will see a game which is still going strong. Why? Well that is because GTA innovates and sets the bar. Games like GTA have a singleplayer which you can play for hours and hours which is something Call of duty does not have. When you look at the depth of a game like GTA it is almost a disgrace that CoD gets the success it has.

You have a fair point but you can't compare this to GTA. Compare it to Battlefield. To be honest there is never anything drastically different about BF apart from new guns, maps and better graphics, the campaign's are even shorter and not anywhere near as gripping as COD's but no one complains about that.

CelticBhoy1967 wrote Right people grab your popcorn as I pic apart the original posters statement and leave him speechless.

You said that it is people who complain about it who then buy it. Well I complain about it and haven't bought it in years.

You say every game which is part of a series is the same but you aren't grasping the differences in the way which other game's change and develop. Look at Call of Duty. It has been near enough the same old features for years. The developers believe that they can get away with a new cycle of maps and weapons which is not good enough. To start with the CoD stories will never be looked fondly upon as the campaign is short, lacks a decent story and any form of single player depth. This forces the game into relying on its multiplayer to make people happy which in my opinion any credible game cannot do as when you think of the best games of all time they more often than not have a great singleplayer campaign and depth.So in CoD relying on multi-player driven success they have created their own death trap. When it comes to multiplayer for any game there is not too much which can be changed and will become a bit old feeling.

Now if you look at the likes of GTA on the other hand. You will see a game which is still going strong. Why? Well that is because GTA innovates and sets the bar. Games like GTA have a singleplayer which you can play for hours and hours which is something Call of duty does not have. When you look at the depth of a game like GTA it is almost a disgrace that CoD gets the success it has.

I don't see why someone would be speechless. It should be a given that one cannot compare a game like Call of Duty to one like Grand Theft Auto. GTA is a free roaming game. It would be comparable to games like Skyrim or even Assassin's Creed. Battlefield or Halo would be comparable games to Call of Duty. Call of Duty's stories aren't bad stories, they just lack emotion for the most part. They are short, true, but they are known for multiplayer just as Battlefield is. Halo is really the game that balances both campaign and multiplayer. Battlefield has short stories that are a nice touch (just as Call of Duty), while Halo has medium sized stories that truly mean something to that world.

I don't see much innovation from GTA anyway. Tech and knowledge of current tech has grown quite a bit since number 4, so they capitalized on that for visuals and the total amount of activities that is included. The base of the game is still the same and still plays the same. I will give GTA 5 credit on shooting gas trails to light a fire and blow up cars though. That is a very nice addition. Sure, you can play golf and tennis, but games like those (bowling and darts, which I must say I miss bowling) were in the last one. The shooting seems to be taken from Red Dead Redemption and driving from Midnight Club (at least pulled and altered slightly from.) It just seems like a collection of games that many have played in one. The only difference I see is that they take years off, so their audience gets an itch for something new. Call of Duty could have had the same effect if they waiting years to produce another. The two games aren't comparable in the sense of the depth of the two, but I think all games are comparable marketing and producing wise.

i hate it when people say cod never changes and they say that before it even comes out cods putting in new multiplayer features, a new campaign, and new game modes just like any other new game so what makes cod so different?