End the Bias: Call of Duty Isn't Revolutionary (by Carl B.)

June 14, 2011, by Carl B. - Call of Duty is arguably the biggest name in the video game industry at this point. It has become such a cash-cow that Activision releases a new game every year, and they're even adding a new subscription based service to Modern Warfare 3. The most appalling thing about Call of Duty, however, isn't the milking. It's the attitude towards the series many publications hold – the thought that Call of Duty is actually revolutionary, that it's truly the king of modern shooters.

Call of Duty first released for PC on October 29, 2003, and it was praised for its intense, non-stop action and advanced game engine. Even then, though, Call of Duty was hardly the best first person shooter in that era. 2001's Halo: Combat Evolved took that crown with its large scope, storytelling, and visuals. Before Halo, there was the fantastic Perfect Dark, and even further behind that was Goldeneye 007, which still held up nicely in the early 2000s.

Pictured: The latest evolution of the shooter genre.
The fact is that Call of Duty had no major gameplay innovation. It was just a basic war shooter. What it did have, though, was the type of action that appealed to the more casual, mainstream gamer -- the type of person that thinks the Transformers movies are awesome because it has giant robots.

Go and play the very first Call of Duty game, and then play one of the more recent titles, preferably World at War since it is set in a similar setting. The only differences between the two games are the visuals and level size. World at War has bigger explosions than the first Call of Duty. Both games, though, both have linear level design, basic weaponry, and cover and shoot gameplay mechanics.

Pictured: Activision's upcoming Modern Warfare 3. Er, hold on, it's Modern Warfare. Modern Warfare 2, I mean.
Even more concerning is that Call of Duty has seen more than 12 entries in just eight years. In comparison, The Legend of Zelda has seen 14 entries in 25 years. Halo, a series that has been around longer than Call of Duty, will be getting its seventh game next year.

This brings us to the main issue: even though every new entry into the series is a carbon copy of the version before it – albeit with updated visuals – most media outlets give the games insanely high scores. What's the difference between Modern Warfare 1 and Modern Warfare 2? I don't doubt that the first Modern Warfare was a nice change for the series, but does it deserve a 94 average on Metacritic? Its direct sequel, Modern Warfare 2, shares the same Metacritic average. Black Ops sports an 88 average, but that lower score is probably due more to peoples' random dislike of Treyarch.

Pictured: Guess the Call of Duty title!
I enjoy some mindless shooting, but I do not subscribe to the thought that Call of Duty is the king of shooters. It confuses me that Black Ops, which has little to no improvements over the previous game, can be so critically acclaimed, while a game like Conduit 2 is bashed despite it being such a step up over its predecessor.

Is Call of Duty really a great shooter franchise? Let us know in the comments section below.