I could not disagree more! The video-game industry isn't some magical machine that makes Call of Duty and CoD-esque games for no reason - you, the consumer, buy them - you demand for them! There's so many hypocritical people here who spout hate for Call of Duty, yet they've still brought one or more of the games in the franchise; they support it. We're talking about an industry that operates for profit. Consumers [u]are not[/u] mind-less beings, forced to buy whatever comes their way! If you want to see other games in the first-person shooter genre with fresh forms of gameplay then don't buy CoD and CoD-esque games. That's how you send a message to the developers, to the publishers - don't buy what they're selling. Innovation is driven by the consumer! If you want something different, buy and support games that stand out. Such games do exist! How many of you cry out for a "hardcore arena first-person shooter"? Here's a list from the top of my head: * - [url=http://www.quakelive.com/]Quake Live[/url] (free) * - [url=http://www.warsow.net/]Warsow[/url] (free) * - [url=http://account.hirezstudios.com/tribesascend/default.aspx?ok=]Tribes: Ascend[/url] (free) * - [url=http://www.teamfortress.com/]Team Fortress 2[/url] (free) * - [url=http://www.xonotic.org/]Xonotic[/url] (free) * - [url=http://red.planetarena.org/]Alien Arena[/url] (free) * - [url=http://www.nexuiz.com/]Nexuiz[/url] * - [url=http://www.warsoup.com/]Warsoup[/url] (not yet released) In the early days games like Quake and UT were all that was. If you wanted to play a FPS that's the kind of game you'd play - there wasn't an alternative. Then games like Counter Strike paved the way for a new audience. Yet still, Call of Duty has grown the audience by offering something new. Should it be despised because it's the most popular? No! It's brought more new players into the FPS fold than any other game; Players then have the chance to branch out into other FPS games, CoD-esque or not. What John Gibson struggles with is not players who're uncomfortable with anything that's not Call of Duty, he's gripe is with a philosophy that the whole industry has perpetrated; "play how you want to play". Single-player games are excelling at this, giving players choices, and they continue to grow in popularity. However, if you want a skill intensive, competitive multiplayer game that philosophy is harder to incorporate into your product. A game of skill relies on there being incorrect and correct moves, but that's the problem: what if the user's idea of play is doing all the incorrect moves? He'd continually be the loser, and that's not much fun. What Call of Duty has done is it's incorporated the "play how you want to play" philosophy into a multiplayer environment with great success! The ratio of incorrect moves to correct ones had to be shrunk in order for it to work, but this creates a more dynamic, less-linear mode of play: you can play how you want to play. Players embrace that philosophy in single-player games, and they love it in their multiplayer games too. It's why Call of Duty is so popular. Red Orchestra 2 is, from what I gather (I've never given it much eye), a war simulator. You deal with realistic weaponry in a realistic environment, and just like how real soldiers require training, players need to practice before they feel comfortable in this simulated world. To ask such a game to parallel in popularity with a game designed to be easily accessible, and easily playable is ludicrous. Anyone can jump into Call of Duty and have a bit of fun, it's easy entertainment. The same cannot be said for Red Orchestra 2. I do not think CoD is taking potential RO players either. If CoD ceased to exist would RO be more popular? Would other games be more popular? I don't think so. The audience CoD targeted would shrivel up and that's all. Perhaps a new game, similar to CoD, would take it upon themselves to revive that audience, who knows... I don't think Call of Duty has "taken individual skill out of the equation so much". It asks its players of a different kind of skill, something I apparently lack. People here know I'm an avid [url=http://www.quakelive.com/]Quake Live[/url] player, and I bet I can beat any one of you at it; I'm decent at it. Before that I was a decent Halo player, and I've always been terrible at Call of Duty. Oh, before I finish up this post, because I feel I've been ranting too much, I have this one question to pose: hasn't the industry always been this way? I think the developers of skill intensive, competitive games struggle with the fact that video-games are seen as entertainment, not an esport. Players don't want to poor hours and hours into a game to learn the basics. Player's don't want to be dominated by better players. They just want to have some fun.