How is C.O.D Better Than LOZ

[willsfairysword]

when i made a transition to middle school i was a big retro gamer by my age and my favorite games series of all time is zelda and my least favorite game series (which i hate) is call of duty but every one at my school is a C.O.D fans and they all hate zelda.So a lot of them say "zelda sucks and c.o.d is awesome"
but i alway defend games i love but they still say zelda sucks i wanted to know if people at ZD agree with my reasons so here are a few reasons i hate C.O.D and love zelda



the graphics
a lot of my friends and piers say the graphics are amazing but i tell them graphics dont matter and game play is the way a game is good but they say graphics do matter. so i say they have to look appealing they say the graphics of C.O.D are appealing.so i give them my definition of appealing graphics for graphics to look appealing in my definition is that they must be colorful and full of life and C.O.D just looks bland and lifeless in zelda the graphics are colorful and upbeat.

the game play
game play is the most important thing in a game to me in zelda you can lock on to enemies and preform flips,jumps and slashes in C.O.D all you do is aim and shoot people aim and shoot people aim..and..shoot people (the best example is the mission titled "no russian")thats all you do in C.O.D go around a shoot people but in zelda you figure out puzzles and find towns.

the items and weapons
in zelda you find items like hookshots and musical instruments while in C.O.D all you get is gun that all feel the same in my favorite FPS halo all the weapons are different in they're own way not much else to say.

last the fan base
most fans of zelda have opinions on other games they think some games are good or bad but they dont think there are "real or not real games"in most of the C.O.D fan base they often say if a game is "real or not" and a lot of they're definitions often say that a game must have shooting or killing other fans say zelda,sonic,pokemon and mario are for babies and have no contributions to the gaming industry and i often
think to my self what did C.O.D do.

so those are my reasons do you agree or dis agree

also my friends call link gay

 

[JuicieJ]

A fanbase isn't exactly a good reason to hate a series. They don't have anything to do with the quality of the games themselves.

 

[Zorth]

the graphics
a lot of my friends and piers say the graphics are amazing but i tell them graphics dont matter and game play is the way a game is good but they say graphics do matter. so i say they have to look appealing they say the graphics of C.O.D are appealing.so i give them my definition of appealing graphics for graphics to look appealing in my definition is that they must be colorful and full of life and C.O.D just looks bland and lifeless in zelda the graphics are colorful and upbeat.

The graphics in CoD are superior, at least since Modern Warfare 2. Which art style is more appealing is subjective but the latest CoD engines deliver a lot more detail than any Zelda game does, just look at fire, smoke and lightning detail and compare it to a Zelda game, it won't be miles ahead but it looks better. However I think this might change with Zelda U unless Sony and Microsoft decide to release their new consoles by then, which will most likely be superior to the Wii U and then again we'll have the same scenario.

the game play
game play is the most important thing in a game to me in zelda you can lock on to enemies and preform flips,jumps and slashes in C.O.D all you do is aim and shoot people aim and shoot people aim..and..shoot people (the best example is the mission titled "no russian")thats all you do in C.O.D go around a shoot people but in zelda you figure out puzzles and find towns.

Aiming and shooting people on veteran difficulty or in multiplayer is harder than figuring out the ultra hardcore puzzles which Zelda games deliver. You also don't just aim and shoot people, if playing serious multiplayer battles you'll have to have some co ordination with team mates, throw some stun/flash/explosive grenades, capture flags/plant bombs and just pay attention in general more than you have to do when playing a Zelda game.

the items and weapons
in zelda you find items like hookshots and musical instruments while in C.O.D all you get is gun that are all the same in my favorite FPS halo all the weapons are different in they're own way not much else to say.

Understatement of the year?

In CoD you have way more of a variety of items/guns you can pick from than Zelda. The guns may serve the same function, which is to kill the enemy players, however they never look the same. Just the amount of guns you can pick from is a lot more than items you can use in Zelda and the guns in CoD can be equipped with a lot of different attachments & camoflauges, and let's not forget that you can pick anywhere from 10-20 different perks for your character in multiplayer which give boosts to different attributes for your gun.

last the fan base
most fans of zelda have opinions on other games they think some games are good or bad but they dont think there are "real or not real games"in most of the C.O.D fan base they often say if a game is "real or not" and a lot of they're definitions often say that a game must have shooting or killing other fans say zelda,sonic,pokemon and mario are for babies and have no contributions to the gaming industry and i often
think to my self what did C.O.D do.

Mario, pokemon, zelda and sonic are games aimed at children for the most part, however this doesn't have to be a bad thing at all but some people just don't like playing these kinds of games, they like playing games where there is blood, explosions and guns. This is just personal preference and just because Person A. thinks good games should have blood & violence doesn't mean that's the case. :p

Every game makes their own contribution to gaming industry in their own way, in CoD's case it would be the custom class system, multiplayer and probably even the zombie mode.

so those are my reasons i hate C.O.D id like to know if you hate C.O.D and your reasons

I don't hate CoD, however I don't think it's the most creative series in the world either. The CoD games haven't delivered anything ground breaking since 2009 IMO and it will probably stay that way for a long time. I could almost say the same for Zelda games, to me they've been the same for a long time and like CoD added a few new mechanics here and there but nothing ground breaking yet with the exception of Motion Controls ofc.

 

[Tearbender]

in terms of fanbase, yea COD steals this one. I mean the Zelda fanbase has known to be pretty awful, but still COD takes it. Everything else I pretty much agree with you.

 

[Azure Sage]

I would have to say it isn't better than Zelda. CoD has guns, which makes it lose by default in my book. ;p

Other than the fact that I hate guns, CoD is basically the same-old-same-old, while the Zelda franchise is constantly evolving. It's better for a franchise to be constantly evolving becaus there's a lot more creativity. CoD can stay the same and still make tons of money, though, and if you ask me, it's because CoD is built on guns and violence. People these days seem to be obsessed with that kind of thing, so naturally it's going to sell better than a game that isn't. However, Zelda still sells well and it doesn't have all those things people these days have an unhealthy obsession over. If you ask me, Zelda takes the cake for that.

And let me say this right now: Just because a series is more successful and sells better does not mean it is of better quality. That is certainly true in this case.

 

[DarkestLink]

Hard to argue when so many Zelda fans go on and on how much the series sucks. And a lot of Zelda fans don't seem to have come to grips with the fact it's a casual series either.

But regardless, COD is a FPS. The lowest form of gaming.

 

[Hanyou]

How old are your friends? They sound like middle school students.

Graphics: Most Zelda games have a strong visual style, which is more important than graphics. If they can't appreciate a strong visual style, then they have no taste. I'll bet they think the Star Wars prequels look better than the original movies as well, and Prometheus looks better than Alien, never mind the fact that technical wizardry is not coupled with, you know, art in the second case.

Gameplay: Well, Zelda gameplay certainly offers more variety. I really don't know what to add here. Some people like FPS games, and that's fine. While I enjoy Goldeneye and Doom, which also offer strong level design, the modern FPS just feels like shooting stuff.

Items and Weapons: I don't even know how this affects the quality of any game.

Fanbase: I know plenty of CoD fans who don't think Zelda games are "for babies."

 

[willsfairysword]

my friend at school range from 10 to 12

 

[Hanyou]

my friend at school range from 10 to 12

When I was that age, I tended to shy away from things I thought were too "kiddie." I stopped watching Disney movies. My parents didn't let me play anything overly violent and I was into Pokemon and Ocarina of Time (it was new at the time), but paradoxically I still saw other things as too childish for me. I thought Goldeneye was awesome because you shot people, I thought "dark" books and movies were good.

It might not be much comfort, but when they start going to college, which isn't far off, they'll stop dismissing things as "kiddie."

“When I was ten, I read fairy tales in secret and would have been ashamed if I had been found doing so. Now that I am fifty, I read them openly. When I became a man I put away childish things, including the fear of childishness and the desire to be very grown up.”
― C.S. Lewis

Sounds like they're afraid of fairy tales.

 

[Kazumi]

This is another situation where I'm certain that I've voiced my opinions in other threads, but I'll do it again here. Call of Duty and Zelda are two very different series of games that are designed to appeal to two very different audiences. Call of Duty is an arcade shooter, primarily designed to appeal to the casual audience of gamers that want something simple that they can sit back and enjoy alone or with friends. Zelda is an action-adventure game designed for people that like to think through puzzles, explore, ect. I find it very much difficult to compare the two games in the ways that people usually do, particularly in this thread. I'd like to explore a few reasons as to why I find them complex to compare and why I think that any kind of person can and should have appreciation for both ends of the spectrum.

Firstly, people tend to compare the gameplay in the games. Many Zelda fans cite that CoD is "boring" or "un-innovative". While I can see the perspective of which they're coming from, I find this a rather moot point in a number of different ways. Firstly, a game doesn't have to change drastically between instalments to improve, and I think that this is something that both Zelda fans and Nintendo themselves often fail to understand. I feel that oft times simply refining and building upon what you have is a better way to make a good sequel than having "sweeping changes". Call of Duty has a fun, simple formula that works and I personally don't see any issues with it. I agree that it's nice to see a bit of change from time to time, but for what CoD is, it definitely works. On the other hand we have Call of Duty fans that will often claim that Zelda is "childish" or "not mature enough". These people are stupid. They can't understand that a game doesn't need to have cursing or intense violence to be mature, and should be ignored at all costs. The gameplay in Zelda has varying levels of depth and complexity between the instalments and parts of the game, but the fact of the matter is that calling it childish is a rather ignorant statement to make, as it's definitely not the case. Essentially what I'm trying to get at is that both parties make the mistake of simply claiming that what they like is superior without really forming a well-informed opinion, especially since it's difficult to compare two vastly different styles of gameplay.

Secondly, many fans of both series will often insult the fans of the other series for liking their respective games. I'm a believer that one should keep an open-mind and be able to enjoy a wide variety of games in a wide variety of genres across a wide variety of platforms. I believe that these people that will toss around uninformed insults should also be ignored at all costs, however for the sake of argument I will say that both fan-bases are equally at fault. The most die-hard fans of each respective series are pretty much equally ignorant, and they both need to realize that some people enjoy thing number one, others enjoy thing number two, and others enjoy both. There is no right or wrong game to enjoy, and there is nothing wrong with having a fun time playing Call of Duty and having a fun time playing Zelda. Additionally, it shouldn't matter what the age or gender is of the person who is playing the game. If they're enjoying it, then all the power to them. Zelda isn't necessarily aimed at children, and I don't believe that Call of Duty is necessarily aimed at "hardc0re" adults either. For these reasons I feel that arguments about the fan base of one game or the other are essentially moot, and both fan-bases need to be less ignorant.

As a bit of a side-note, I'd like to point out that the graphics in both Call of Duty and Zelda are absolute ****. Pardon my language. As a long time PC gamer I find it particularly funny when console gamers use arguments about graphics to determine whether or not a game is better. The fact of the matter is that if you're playing a game on a console, be it a Wii or a 360/PS3, it's going to look absolutely terrible. Therefore I feel like arguments about which game has better graphics is rather silly and pointless. If you want to play a game simply for the graphics (which there is absolutely nothing wrong with by the way), then both Call of Duty and Zelda are definitely the wrong places to be looking. In terms of the actual art-style and direction of the two respective series, neither of them are particularly impressive in my opinion. There is a time and place for both the "shades of brown" and more colorful art styles, but neither of the games has an especially impressive or awe-inspiring art direction. Which style you prefer is definitely up to personal preference, however this is once again another situation where I feel like a person should be able to enjoy both, and shouldn't hate one or the other simply because it's not the one that they enjoy the most.

In a conclusion of sorts I'd like to reiterate that Zelda and Call of Duty should not be compared in most of the ways that people commonly do. They're two very different games that appeal to different audiences, and if you can't enjoy both than that's a real shame. However, that doesn't mean that you should be flinging **** at the other crowd that enjoys the game that you don't. Both Zelda fans and Call of Duty fans are at fault in such a situation. In my books there is a time and place for both Call of Duty and Zelda. I don't necessarily feel that Call of Duty is better than Zelda, and likewise I don't feel that Zelda is necessarily better than Call of Duty. Further more, I believe that both parties should have the decency to respect the opinion of the other. Unfortunately that's not always the case, but what I really don't want to see in this thread or here on ZD is people mindlessly insulting Call of Duty when they don't really have an informed opinion, of course the same goes for CoD fans.

 

[Hanyou]

There is a time and place for both the "shades of brown" and more colorful art styles, but neither of the games has an especially impressive or awe-inspiring art direction. Which style you prefer is definitely up to personal preference, however this is once again another situation where I feel like a person should be able to enjoy both, and shouldn't hate one or the other simply because it's not the one that they enjoy the most.

I'm sorry, what?

I play games on PC too, but I can't imagine a universe in which The Wind Waker and The Minish Cap are not objectively awesome-looking games.

I think this requires some explanation.

 

[Kazumi]

I'm sorry, what?

I play games on PC too, but I can't imagine a universe in which The Wind Waker and The Minish Cap are not objectively awesome-looking games.

I think this requires some explanation.

Fair enough. While writing this I thought of Wind Waker, which did have an incredible and very well realized art direction. Minish Cap had a very similar style that took advantage of everything that the GBA had to offer. Both games still hold up very well by today's standards. However I failed to actually mention those two games in my post. I will agree that both of those games are very beautiful in terms of direction and style.

Additionally, it seems like you though that I was saying that PC games are just have inherently better art direction? Because that's definitely not what I was trying to say, and I apologize if it came off that way. What I was trying to get at was that people who will say, compare the sizes of textures between console games or the tessellation, anti-aliasing, ect. are being rather silly. A game on a console can still have very beautiful and well realized art direction. Dishonored is a great example of recent game that did just that (though it did have a PC port).

 

[RegalBryant]

Fanbase wise, although CoD players are likely to look down on Zelda players, Zelda players are also likely to look down on CoD players.

 

[Burning Beast]

I've played a small amount of C.O.D, and I will admit I enjoyed playing it... that said it was a really old COD rated T, and I don't play or enjoy playing M rated games so theres one reason I like the Zelda series far more, also I like the puzzle elements in Zelda, at first they weren't that great imo, but I got used them and have grown to love them, meanwhile, COD is basically run around shoot as many people as you can before they shoot you, with very little strategy involved, sorta like ssbb, also I'm not really a big fan of the graphics in cod, but the same time I understand that the graphics could appeal to some other people it just wasn't very appealing to me. Items and Weapons, well I think both series's have good of weapons/items. Fanbase? THERE IS NO CONTEST HERE!!! If you have a conversation with a Zelda fan he can why a game is good or bad, meanwhile if you have a conversation with cod fan he will tell that game sucks or oh that games for babies but if you start to criticize COD he will shut you down you can't talk to them about it, that's my experience.
So to answer your question How is COD better then Zelda? It isn't.
Also Link is not gay!

 

[RegalBryant]

with very little strategy involved,
Also Link is not gay!

1. There is too strategy.

2. Even if he was, there is nothing wrong with that.