Talk:Call of Duty

"cod hating" controversy

Shouldn't there be a section regarding the popular phenomenon of "hating Call of Duty" and accusations that it has "dumbed down" gaming? Virtually every forum and gaming website on the internet has CoD haters and CoD hating posts. I'm not taking sides or anything, but clearly this is a major phenomenon that has been going on for the past 5+ years and has had a major impact on the gaming industry. So should there be a criticism section?--24.171.6.27 (talk) 02:07, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

Anything added in that respect needs to be in check with WP:V, that's the primary and arguably most central guideline that applies to all content on Wikipedia. As it applies here, it means that unless notable sources have covered this phenomenon, it shouldn't be mentioned in the article. Eik Corell (talk) 03:03, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

That's just other people's opinions. Definitely not worth adding. Cheetah255 (talk) 17:27, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

i think it should mention the CoD vs minecraft/tekkit war that outbreaks in the comments section of famous minecrafters (e.g. the yogscast) 86.173.121.122 (talk) 13:20, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

Again, read WP:V. Comments on a blog or podcast are not reliable sources. Dbrodbeck (talk) 13:51, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

New subsection

There should be a subsection in the game for the World at War series. World at War and Black Ops take place in the same universe. 75.174.96.93 (talk) 01:32, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

• Duly noted. You want something like Modern Warfare? --68.41.22.33 (talk) 04:50, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 12 April 2012

at:10/29/2003 text:"Call of Duty"
at:10/25/2005 text:"Call of Duty 2"
at:11/07/2006 text:"Call of Duty 3"
at:11/07/2007 text:"Call of Duty 4: Modern Warfare"
at:11/11/2008 text:"Call of Duty: World at War"
at:11/10/2009 text:"Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 2"
at:11/09/2010 text:"Call of Duty: Black Ops"
at:11/08/2011 text:"Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 3"
at:11/01/2012 text:"Call of Duty: Black Ops 2"

24.150.108.209 (talk) 22:51, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

 Not done: It isn't clear what you want done. Also, you need reliable sources for any factual changes. Thanks, Celestra (talk) 00:50, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

Call of Duty 9 to be revealed

Hey, can you update the information about the new Call of Duty 9? It was going to be revealed. Will you post it now or wait until the 1st of May, 2012?

Source is from the official page. Thanks ApekillerXD (talk) 14:02, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

Information about the reveal is already included in the article Call of Duty 9. -- ferret (talk) 14:13, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

Modify the introduction to the article - remove third person mention

Call Of Duty is stated to be a "first person and third-person shooter", but the latter is completely wrong because no game was released with such perspective, so the mention should be removed.

A third person spin-off (or chapter) was to be developed, but 6 months into production was put on hold/cancelled to let Sledgehammer Studios work alongside Infinity Ward to complete Modern Warfare 3. The demo they said they had, was never shown to the public, so it's just confusing to readers.

Here's a testimonial: Kotaku - whatever happened to cod third person game

– Bl4ckd0g (talk) 18:22, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

However, MW2 and I believe MW3 both feature 3rd person knife arena modes. -- ferret (talk) 18:51, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

Yes, there are multiplayer modes with third person, so it should stay. Dbrodbeck (talk) 21:34, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

critisms

Why is there no mention of the critisim that call of duty gets? fact: it is the most hated and milked franchise

We go by sources, reliable sources. Dbrodbeck (talk) 20:19, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

Once again, that is other peoples opinions, so it is not notable enough. Cheetah255 (talk) 17:29, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

Merging Call of Duty Online with Call of Duty.

There should be something on the Call of Duty page to tell a little bit about COD Online. And of course a link to the full page. Death180 (talk) 21:11, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

Merge and Redirect I think most if not all of it's content be put into the Call of Duty article and the Call of Duty Online become a redirect to Call of Duty. XapApp (talk) 01:46, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

Protected

I've fully protected the article due to the recent content dispute edit war; please work it out here on the talk page. Dreadstar ☥ 22:46, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

Editor TJD2 is pushing that an established consensus that World at War is part of the story and continuum of the Black Ops series, is incorrect. In view of his changes continuously requesting that a source prove this, I supplied [1], a known reliable source. TJD2's argument is one of semantics, that being "the same universe" (Distinct from the original trilogy and the Modern Warfare series) is not the same as being the same series. The game features characters that reappear in Black Ops and are an important part of it's story. I additional supply this RS's to back this further: [2] (References Reznov being the same as from World at War), an interview with Treyarch that directly states it the same Reznov in both games [3]. Black Ops continues characters and plots that began in World at War, making it logical to group the games together. Wikipedia isn't really required to have sources for explaining the exact method used to organize articles into logical groups. The three games are a related universe, and so should be kept together. On principal, I also feel the original version should be retained until the content dispute is concluded. The current protection freezes in place the BOLD move that is being contested. -- ferret (talk) 02:09, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

Does the site say SPECIFICALLY this game is IN the Black Ops series? No it does not. That's like saying since Final Fantasy X and Final Fantasy X-2 are set in the same world as Final Fantasy VII, that makes them a part of the "FFVII series". It is not an argument of semantics, it is a logical argument. A source that specifically states COD WaW is the first game in the Black Ops series is needed to justify this organization. Ferret, you say "BOLD" as if you are the one who is right. This is very subjective as you have no proof, sources, or evidence to support your claim. They chose to freeze my version because it is the most objective. WaW takes place in World War II; this can be sourced reliably. The fact that WaW was a part of Black Ops JUST because they share a character however is very SUBjective. Thank you Dreadstar for the protection by the way. TJD2 (talk) 03:58, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

I think the fact that you believe Dreadstar has endorsed your position simply because he did not choose to revert it prior to protect is a poor way of continuing this discussion. You're taking that as justification that you're right, and throughout this you've been pretty rude in your edit history notes such as "Don't change this without talking to me." This is borderline display of ownership for the article. If it would make you feel better, we can change the word "series" to "universe", because again, you are arguing semantics. The three games are related and as such should be grouped together. Instead of looking for a compromise like changing the word "Series" you very aggressively pursue your own view and go to admins with false accusations that you've been told "Sources aren't needed" (When you HAD been given a source, even if you disagreed with it). -- ferret (talk) 16:00, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

I never said I own the article, you are putting words in MY mouth. "Wikipedia isn't really required to have sources for explaining the exact method used to organize articles into logical groups." You did say sources aren't needed, this is not false. Compromise would not be to change series to universe, as with that it would still be organized as you saw fit. You are very aggressive even on this talk page with me; you act like I am being unreasonable and will only accept changes that are in no way correct. "Don't do this without talking to me" I NEVER said this. I never said the article was mine, I don't even edit COD that often. All I know is I had three angry friends over here point out the stupidity of the issue, and as I'm the one with the WP account I changed it to more objective organization. Read my last response pertaining to Final Fantasy VII. I don't know if you are familiar with the games, but the character ShinRah appears in FFX-2 and later creates the corporation ShinRah in FFVII on a different planet. This does not put them in the same series, it merely shows they set in the same universe. We still don't group by which game is in what universe though. One user commented and suggested grouping the games by developer. Ferret what do you think about that idea?TJD2 (talk) 20:22, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

• Several things, my protection in no way endorsed either side of this dispute per WP:WRONGVERSION. Two, stop making comments about each other and focus solely on the editorial content of the article. And three, looking at the lack of progress here, I'd recommend following the next steps in the Wikipedia:Dispute resolution process; top pick for this one looks to be WP:3O. Dreadstar ☥ 20:27, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

I agree. That's why I wanted to bring to attention the option of grouping the games by developer. A user had posted that on the template talk page and I thought it might be worthy of discussion here as well. TJD2 (talk) 20:53, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

• Third party opinion - Hi there, from reading the various points put forward by editors here and on the template talk page, sources given I have come to the conclusion that WaW should be included in the Black Ops series as certain story arcs appear to begin there that are picked up in BO and BO2. Cabe6403 ^{(Talk•Sign)} 12:00, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

We are exploring other options due to the amount of disagreement on the talk page. A third option would be to group by developer, but does anybody else have any ideas on how we could organize the CoD page/template and all reach a consensus?TJD2 (talk) 22:19, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

I have a proposition. I've edited the template to show how it might look should we choose to group the games by developers. I am trying to come up with a third option as Dreadstar stated (sorry Dreadstar I accidentally called you Dreadwaters on the template revision history for some reason my bad :D). What does everyone think?TJD2 (talk) 20:50, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

Sorry if I wasn't clear enough, but I didn't mean a third option, instead I was referring to a Third Opinion by a neutral uninvolved party; that request was answered by User:Cabe6403 above. Dreadstar ☥ 21:08, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

I was under the impression that option provided by editor TMV943, who stated on the template talk that we should group the games by developer, was the third opinion. user:Codename Lisa thought this was a good idea as well, and would be a good compromise for the dispute.TJD2 (talk) 21:27, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

I was really only looking at the dispute on this article; if there's consensus found for options here from the template talk page, then that's great! I was just clarifying what I was saying above. I've added Template talk:Call of Duty series to my watchlist as well. Dreadstar ☥ 22:23, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

Hi. Actually, I thought TMV943's suggestion is worth consideration; so, I considered and eventually rejected it. A later message of me in the template talk page reveals that. Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 11:05, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

I'd like to point out that a "third option" isn't required or strictly called for. If third party opinions' express a preference for either the original state with WAW under Black Ops, or the newer state of WAW under World War II, then that can form a consensus as well. If third opinions express a preference for the "third option", that works as well. However, Cabe's opinion cannot be simply negated because there are other options on the table. There are statements from at least five editors preferring that WAW be grouped with Black Ops. There is one editor preferring it be grouped under World War II, who also leans to a third option. There is one editor preferring the third option of grouping games by developer, which does not wholly address as it does not preserve the logical grouping that WAW is part of the Black Ops continuum. I won't speak for Codename Lisa as they have been fairly neutral, initially expressing that it be grouped with Black Ops but also suggesting the third option should be considered.

I don't believe the template should be changing while discussion is on-going. Grouping by developer isn't addressing the real issue and ultimately is a slightly adjusted version of TJD2's position. Even if grouped by Developer, there is still a question of whether the games under Treyarch should be organized with WAW under World War II or Black Ops. The developer organization may provide more information but does not solve the "series" issue.

I'd like to understand why TJD2 is opposed to organizing the template to show the story connection among the the three games, which are clearly of the same continuum and multiple sources are provided showing this. If the objection is to the game being labelled as a direct part of the series, then as I've suggested we can change the wording to indicate it is a particular universe/continuum. Ultimately, my position is that it is most useful for the reader to understand that the three games are related by having them listed together. -- ferret (talk) 00:47, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

I've been thinking about it and you're right Ferret; a good compromise would be to change "series" to "arc", "continuum", or "universe", as they share similar characters and story arcs. Let's just do that and put WAW behind Black Ops if thatd be cool with you?TJD2 (talk) 04:09, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

That's fine with me. I don't care that it's listed as part of the "series". Only that it's clearly connected to the "Black ops continuum" which is very useful to readers to understand the games are connected and are the same timeline. Another option is to just remove the word "series" entirely with no replacement. I'm not particularly attached to arc, continuum or universe, so whichever you like is fine with me. -- ferret (talk) 04:13, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

Okay. I changed it to "story arc". Glad we could come to a compromise.TJD2 (talk) 04:18, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

I don't really mind about MW and BO, but I don't think that the WWII games (1, 2, 3) constitute a "story arc." For all intents and purposes they're separate games that have no bearing on each other; they just happen to be about the same war. bibliomaniac15 02:27, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

Latest release

Hopefully someone is going to update the latest release of the game when it launches in 2 days. Gotta stay on top people. Majinsnake (talk) 01:23, 12 November 2012 (UTC)majinsnake

United Offensive is a unofficial addon

Don't buy "United Offensive" it's a uofficial mod/hack as well the "Operation Abver", "Operation Market Garden" and "The Secrets of Reich" e.t.c. and it shows on mods menu o_0, and what an such idiot counts this mod as official expasion pack and it's part of Call of Duty series? please remove this and the expsansion packs section. Call of Duty don't have official expansion packs at all! 109.174.115.63 (talk) 12:10, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

Return to Castle Wolfenstein also don't have official expansion packs at all, although it had many user-made unofficial addons/mods which include: Operation Trondheim — H.M. Special Forces, Operation Trondheim 2: Red Alert, Operation Trondheim 3: Iron Cross, Stalingrad, Time Gate, Project 51, Resident Evil (Призраки Войны), Диверсант (В тылу врага), Проклятие фараонов and Ставка больше, чем жизнь. 109.174.115.63 (talk) 12:13, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

Call of Duty 2 also had unofficial addon Holy War. 109.174.115.63 (talk) 12:14, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

"United Offensive" is an official expansion published by Activision. -- ferret (talk) 12:24, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

No "United Offensive" is an unofficial expansion but published by Activision. 109.174.115.63 (talk) 08:45, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

You're talking nonsense. Activision has worked with several developers to produce franchise games. To the best of my knowledge this was what they did here, and the developer - Grey Matter Studios, were later merged with Treyarch. Point is it's not "unofficial". Eik Corell (talk) 10:10, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

But actually it looks like in that way: it shows on mods menu and there's no flame death animations instead the character will repeatedly pain and die in normal way and not being burned like they do in World at War games. 109.174.115.255 (talk) 10:19, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

That's simply the way it was done back then, in that engine. UO is an official expansion. -- ferret (talk) 04:08, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

No! The official COD games are Call of Duty 1, Call of Duty 2, Call of Duty 3, Call of Duty 4: Modern Warfare, Call of Duty: World at War, Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 2, Call of Duty: Black Ops, Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 3, Call of Duty: Black Ops 2 and spinoffs Call of Duty: Finest Hour, Call of Duty 2: The Big Red One and Call of Duty 3: The Roads to Victory. all other games like "Operation Market Garden", "United Offensive", "Operation Abver", "The Secrets of Reich", "Holy War", "The Feat of Soldier" etc. are unofficial, buggy, showed in mods menu and received negative reviews just like many unofficial addons. 109.174.115.255 (talk) 16:16, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, but you're simply wrong. United Offensive is an official expansion pack for Call of Duty 1. Whether or not it is buggy is irrelevant. Whether it got negative reviews is irrelevant. (It didn't, it has an 87 on Metacritic with an 8.5 from users) -- ferret (talk) 17:22, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

No! United Offensive is an unofficial expansion pack for Call of Duty 1, It's buggy (i remember bug when you get in jeep on Bastogne 1 level, the error message pop ups that says CoDSP.exe has stopped working), shows on mods menu and does not show on Windows Vista/7 Game Explorer (Windows Vista/7 don't like unofficial mods uh) and there's no flame death animations, instead the character will repeatedly pain and die in normal way and not being burned like they do in World at War games. Call of Duty don't have official expansion packs at all! Plus the mp vehicles are only on Call of Duty 3 and Call of Duty: World at War (although the modders are used to add mp vehicles in Call of Duty 1 and Call of Duty 2), the sprint was first implemented only on Call of Duty 4: Modern Warfare (although the modders are used to add sprint in Call of Duty 1 and Call of Duty 2), the flamethrowers are only on Call of Duty: World at War and Call of Duty: Black Ops (although the modders are used to add flametrowers in Call of Duty 1 and Call of Duty 2). What the heck they count it as official and the part of Call of Duty series even through it's acts like that? 109.174.115.63 (talk) 15:29, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

Either find a reliable source to back up your claim that Activision's Call of Duty, United Offensive' is 'unofficial' or, frankly, go away. Your original research is meaningless here, as is anyone else's Dbrodbeck (talk) 15:44, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

Your argument flawed - What you're doing is throwing red herrings at us. Arguing about death animations or bugs in the game does not support your argument that it's unofficial. Eik Corell (talk) 13:27, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

Edit request on 17 November 2012

Hello, can you please me to change "Call of Duty is a first-person shooter video game developed by Ideaworks Game Studio, and published by Activision for the iPhone OS. It is a spin-off of the Call of Duty series, and based on the "Nazi Zombies" mode of Call of Duty: World at War. A sequel for the iPhone and iPod Touch includes Shi No Uma that was originally released on the Xbox 360, PS3, and PC." to "Call of Duty is a first-person shooter video game developed by Ideaworks Game Studio, and published by Activision for the iPhone OS. It is a spin-off of the Call of Duty series, and based on the "Nazi Zombies" mode of Call of Duty: World at War. A sequel for the iPhone and iPod Touch includes all of the maps that were originally released on the Xbox 360, PS3, and PC, and that is including Der Riese. RainyPoseidon (talk) 05:13, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

 Not done. Can you provide a source? gwickwire | Leave a message 19:22, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

Edit Request on 25 November 2012

Can you please change the Call of duty Black ops 2 Section so at the end it says The game has since been released on November 13 2012 here is my source:http://ca.ign.com/games/call-of-duty-black-ops-ii/xbox-360-126311

if you scroll down it will say release date november 13 2012 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 01infamous10 (talk • contribs) 18:18, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

 Already done. Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 18:32, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

Call of Duty: World at War is sorted as one of the Black Ops series on the wiki page. This can't be true or?

Must be an error on the wiki page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 178.132.253.117 (talk) 21:09, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

World at War is part of the same universe as Black Ops and contains several characters that appear in BO. It's sorted as such to show this connection to the BO story line. -- ferret (talk) 21:16, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

I know some of the characters carry over, but it's a bit weird to list WaW as part of the "Black Ops series" when WaW came out before BO. Generally a series is named after the first game. I couldn't find WaW in the template, expecting it to be listed in WW2 games, and was very confused. Some guy (talk) 01:22, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

That's why the word "series" isn't in use. See the section above titled Protected -- ferret (talk) 13:15, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

Request for comment at List of Call of Duty characters article

Hello, I have started an RfC here to discuss whether the List of Call of Duty characters should have the KIA/MIA markers or they should be removed. Please give your thoughts. Thanks! Some guy (talk) 01:18, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

I have been so sorry for deleting the info off the page, I only do that rarely, when I get so mad. I'll promise my next edit will be a spot of canon info. P.S. In the UK CodBO2 advert, the song "Back in Black" by AC/DC played. Cokerox (talk) 18:55, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

Link between Call of Duty and violent mass murders

I strongly feel that there should be some mention of the negative impact that Call of Duty has received in the media as it has been cited as a game played extensively by at least two mass murderers and is regularly cited as being the most violent game ever invented.

They are:

Adam Lanza Dec 14, 2012, killed twenty children and six adults

"The Connecticut school massacre gunman Adam Lanza spent hours playing violent video games such as Call Of Duty in a windowless bunker".

Anders Behring Breivik July 22, 2011, killed 69 people, mostly teenagers

"Anders Breivik 'trained' for shooting attacks by playing Call of Duty"

Aminto (talk) 17:56, 25 December 2012 (UTC)

They also both drank milk I imagine.... Is playing COD that important to these two guys' behaviour? If so, mention it on their pages, not on the franchise page. Dbrodbeck (talk) 18:21, 25 December 2012 (UTC)

Dbrodbeck (talk) 09:15, 26 December 2012 (UTC) I feel it's odd that previously the page didn't mention the word violent or violence even once! I've therefore edited it to talk more about the violence while still mentioning the most extreme cases as examples. I'm citing 7 different sources and there's plenty more out there, so I feel this is obviously a common concern of parents. If you disagree, perhaps you can suggest a new way of putting this on the talk page. (I know you're a big fan of Call of Duty, as you've previously defended it here too). Here's what I've said currently:

Connection between Call of Duty and Violence

Call of Duty has regularly been cited as an extremely violent video game, for example PC Magazine voted Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 2 as the most violent video game ever in 2012 .

It has also been repeatedly cited in the press in association with violent incidences, the most alarming of which are two mass murders and a suicide. These are:

Adam Lanza Dec 14, 2012, killed twenty children and six adults

"The Connecticut school massacre gunman Adam Lanza spent hours playing violent video games such as Call Of Duty in a windowless bunker".

Anders Behring Breivik July 22, 2011, killed 69 people, mostly teenagers

"Anders Breivik 'trained' for shooting attacks by playing Call of Duty"

Callon Green hanged himself and a coroner warned parents against allowing their children to play too many games like Call of Duty. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aminto (talk • contribs) 09:19, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

We need consensus to add stuff. Please look at WP:BRD. Keep in mind that this is the holiday season in much of the world, and, people may not be fiercely editing wikipedia for the next few days. By the way, the fact that I play video games has absolutely NOTHING to do with my editing, I assure you. Please see the archive, this has been discussed. [4] Dbrodbeck (talk) 13:32, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

Although there may be links I don't believe it adds any value to the article. It's no more useful than adding to an article about a food stuff that a murderer used to eat it in between killing his victims.CJKillerSam (talk) 22:11, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

Merger proposal

Proposed Merge from Call of Duty Online to Call of Duty; November 2012

There should be something on the Call of Duty page to tell a little bit about COD Online. And of course a link to the full page. Death180 (talk) 21:11, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

Merge and Redirect I think most if not all of it's content be put into the Call of Duty article and the Call of Duty Online become a redirect to Call of Duty. XapApp (talk) 01:46, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

I encourage tha making of a new article over adding something to an existing one. However, Call of Duty does require a section about the online envirorment and the online article is too small, so I would recommend to merge in this case.
Also, the section Call of Duty in popular culture (or similar) should be added. - ☩Damërung ☩. -- 00:35, 6 January 2013 (UTC)