Do I like it? Hell yeah. I'm probably the only Call of Duty fanboy that isn't a douche, frat boy, little kid, or over-the-top rabid about it.
MiracleOfSound said:
Yeah, I love it - even though it drives me mad sometimes.
The campaigns are great and action packed and the multiplayer is always just those few tweaks away from being amazing.
Plus I've never played a shooter that felt better to control.
There's no game that trumps it in feel. Gameplay, movement, animations, weapons usage, everything just flows perfectly.
Lots of games have iron sights. Do they flow well? No, actually. At best, they're as functional as Call of Duty's. Usually, they're alright, but flow poorly in comparison. At worst, even normal iron sights are simply an overlay. I. Hate. Overlays. There's a reason I trained myself to be able to snipe with not but an ACOG.
Lots of games have fast gameplay. Does it flow well? No, actually. At best, it's simply Call to Duty: More Different, like Bad Company 2. Usually, they just try to take the formula, and run with it in a different direction. That never ends well. At worst, it just sucks. Period. The game is so shit that the gameplay is just a horrible attempt to blatantly rip off Call of Duty, and they fail at it. I cannot name any examples for that last one, but I know there are some, out there...and that makes me sad.
Lots of games have weapons that focus on fast-paced combat. Do they work well? No, for the most part. Lots of games have assault rifles that can be used at every single range; jacks of all trades, basically. But they never really catch on to the feel, and the modular nature of Call of Duty's assault rifles. What about SMGs? Well, they can certainly be used at close range, and they can also be used at medium range with real life marksman "training"; but, again, they don't have the modular nature, adrenaline pumping feel, or even the fast fire rates of Call of Duty's SMGs. What about sniper rifles? This may be the only area where other games are
vastly superior. I don't like Call of Duty's snipers, never have. They encourage you to quick-scope, spawn camp, and generally be a douche. Note that when I say quick-scope, I don't mean seeing an enemy, aiming, and firing. You can do that in pretty much every game, and it requires marksman "training". I mean MW2-era quick scoping, where you do 360s, and be a complete douche, and unsportsmanlike in every way imaginable; all the while having your hand held by Sleigh of Hand Pro, sniper rifles that are quicker to aim at base level, and aim
bot assist. Although, if you're into quick scoping, and NOT having instant-aim douchebaggery, actually using your years of marksman "training", you could do worse than the Call of Duty series. Although you
will get curb stomped by SMG troopers, and shotgunners, at close range. And assault rifles at long range. All of which out-snipe sniper rifles, without using the aforementioned broken quick-scoping set from MW2. And if they're using one of the more snipe-happy assault rifles, like the SCAR-H, with Sleigh of Hand Pro? Good luck killing them, period, let alone with your damn rifle. Shotguns are also not the forte of Call of Duty. They use magical shells full of pellets made of sand, that dissipate in mid-air at a certain range. Whereas in the aforementioned game, Bad Company 2, you're free to go man hunting, and pepper a sniper at really long distance until he dies. What about pistols? In Call of Duty, the pistols do have a kind of luster, but they're by no means godly. It's up to the player to go the remaining 50% to turn pistols into primaries. The main things about Call of Duty's pistols, is that they're Hollywood accurate when you're aiming down the sights, they don't decrease your movement speed while doing so, and since they're so light, vaulting over stuff, climbing things, etc. doesn't leave you open to attacks, unlike all other weapons.
Lots of games have movement, some have a slight parkour feature, and most have sprint function. Do they flow well? No, actually. In Call of Duty, you move about the area freely. By that I don't mean the maps have no limits, I mean you're free in how you move about the maps. Movement flows well, whether you're running, jumping, parkour-ing, shooting, aiming, sprinting, or any combination thereof. Movement is light, almost fluttery, but still controls very well. Other games are generally rather awkward in comparison. Especially since in most games, you can't sprint any direction but straight forward. You can't even sprint forward, but at an angle! I know that
I can do that in
real life! So in not only a
game but a game that runs off of
Hollywood physics I should be able to run around freely. And movement still flows the best that I've seen in Call of Duty, in regards to vaulting over chest-high walls, climbing ladders, running across rooftops, etc.
What about the animations? Player animations are smooth. First-person weapon animations are not only smooth, but they're dynamic. If you run out of ammo, you have to cock the weapon before you can fire, just like in reality. Well, assuming you don't cancel the animations, since the add ammo time is less than the reload time. Given engine technology, lots of games have smooth reloads now. Hell, I played Alliance of Valiant Arms the other day, a
free-to-play game, and the animation smoothness was at Call of Duty levels. But most games don't have the same smoothness in single-round reloads, like with some rifles, and shotguns; or dynamic reloads, for when you run out of ammo. It's either you reload the whole thing, including cocking the weapon again, even if you only fired one shot, or you never pull the bolt back, even when you run out of ammo, like there's always a bullet in the chamber, even if you pulled the trigger, and there was a *click* sound.
All in all, yeah, I still like it. I like other games, I even like other genres, but Call of Duty still rocks, in my opinion. And I don't think I'll get either on launch day, but I'll end up with both MW3,
and BF3. Take that, one-or-other fanpeoples!
