CoD 5 - too much like CoD 4?
- Thread starter Cargando
- Start date
Recommended Videos
GOOD GOD. Is this thread serious? We've heard it so many times, we really have.
EDIT: Welcome to the escapist ^_^ We don't like repeat threads. Oh and to stay on topic, yeah its CoD4 reskinned and improved.
EDIT: Welcome to the escapist ^_^ We don't like repeat threads. Oh and to stay on topic, yeah its CoD4 reskinned and improved.
I know...we gotta put up with it. I've not played WaW, but how can MODERN warfare compare to 60-odd years ago?WrongSprite said:
I think that Treyarch was attempting to copy CoD4's online component while adding nearly pointless things like tanks and being able to be rezed out of Last Stand. They did this because they saw the amount of money, sucess and money that the CoD4 online play brought to Infinity Ward and thought they could make lightning strike again, but Treyarch had a shorter lightning rod that had bits of string tied to it.
World at War is reskinned, but definitely not improved. Seriously it's just much worseWrongSprite said:
I like CoD 4, its campaign is gripping and the online is great, but personally I like CoD 5 more due the setting in WW2.
I can't explain it, its just my opinion.
I can't explain it, its just my opinion.
Yeah, that sure went well, huh?Cpt_Oblivious said:
Actually, I'm starting to get sick of these threads.
But I shall reply: No, it's not enough like CoD4. It should have JUST been CoD 4 with different weapons and enemies. Simple. CoD4 was almost a perfect FPS.
Has it ever actually been acknowledged as the fifth instalment of the COD series? I know everybody called it COD5 but personally I have never actually acknowledged it as a true fifth instalment, there are so many video game companies out there who just re-skin games and give them a new story, it's a common thing and rarely are these mistaken for the next instalment. Maybe if we look at this as what it is rather than the fifth instalment of a series where we expect something special we can actually respect the game for what it is.
To be honest I thoroughly enjoy it and in online play I find the older style weapons have a certain charm to them.
To be honest I thoroughly enjoy it and in online play I find the older style weapons have a certain charm to them.
They all play exactly the same, I have played 2,3,4 and 5 and let me tell you no fucking variation. I had a smigen of fun with them I suppose but realistic war games... not my thing. I respect it if you think it is your thing but otherwise not for me, I'll stick with me Halo thanks.
*Covers mouth in surprise*Strong Intelligent said:
OH SHIT!!
Dammit dammit damn damn damn... I had been making such progress.
*sigh*
Reset and try the test again to see how long I can go without mentioning Halo.... DAMN IT okay starting now.
P.S no offence but it's pronounced V-rex, you know I was pardoying Trex so hence Vrex.
There wasn't that much time in development from cod4 to cod5 they probably just wanted to milk the cash cow so they used the setting of cod 3 but with cod4s online supremecy and basically just added new MP maps coz the campaign was devilishly short
No it's not like COD4. COD4 was great, COD5....well lets just say my disc got something spilt on it and I'm not sad.
The campaign was incredibly repetitive and the online was terrible, don't get me wrong there were a couple of really good maps on there but I found that a lot of the maps were the same. I just really couldn't get into that game. I wanted to love it after COD4 but it just didn't cut it for me.
The campaign was incredibly repetitive and the online was terrible, don't get me wrong there were a couple of really good maps on there but I found that a lot of the maps were the same. I just really couldn't get into that game. I wanted to love it after COD4 but it just didn't cut it for me.
I like it better myself, thats just your opinion. I prefer the WW2 setting, and I thought the campaign was spectacular compared to the monotinty of COD4.classyplatypus said:
