Poll: Which Call of Duty game has the best multiplayer
- Thread starter Whoatemysupper
- Start date
Recommended Videos
I detest MW2 & 3.
I have played CoD from the very beginning nearly 10 years ago and genuinely hated on it shortly after MW2 came out (except for the Black Ops campaign), and I was even disgruntled at WaW.
CoD 1 was one of the best WWII games I have played this decade.
CoD 2 was not. Its multiplayer was average.
CoD 3 is the only CoD I had not completed the singleplayer of, and I thought nothing different of it than CoD 2.
CoD 4: MW has the best multiplayer because it was fresh, original and carefully though out. The game was regulated and patched for a good while and everyone was on equal terms despite your loadout. hit detection, matchmaking and local servers were sound. Pace was fast and good.
CoD: WaW is a less-balanced copy of CoD4, except it's set in WWII.
CoD: MW2 is broken beyond belief (in my opinion). It was okay on day 1, then on day 2 the javelin glitches started... then the care package glitches, then the horrid spawn system made its mark with the horribly unbalanced class combinations coupled with the unbeatable perks, stupidly buggy matchmaking system and god-awful hit-detection (like the kind where a kill-cam shows off a sniper annihilating the air 1 metre away from your elbow; an extremely fatal blow. I'm not even going to mention how an AI-controlled, mobile, light machine gun-in-the-sky with 99% accuracy and bullet kill is even remotely fair, especially when its kills amount to the next best thing to do exactly that but more.
Infinity Ward breaks apart at this point, shortly after the release of MW2. The games start giving the impression that their developers are running out of ideas, namely because they're heavily incorporating features similar to that of other games. See: Theatre mode, filesharing, hordemode, gungame and the likes, bounties, emblems, etc. DLC Ramps up quite a few notches.
CoD: Black Ops cleared a lot of stuff up, I enjoyed it for a few days then put it on my shelf. A balanced game ruled by host-connections and bad hit-detection is not one I want to be apart of. It's the same reason I despise playing halo games with anyone across the Atlantic, you're always 1 second behind the host and the game goes by the hosts computer. On Halo, it's tolerable though, because it's not as frantic and panic shooting or insta-kill but paced, so it can slide sometimes, but on CoD it's unacceptable.
Fishy-Smell: MW3. I just... How can you take a bad game, and actually make it worse?
I'd put money on it that this year CoD doesn't sell as well this year. I saved myself a good £40+ by not buying MW3. Can't say the same for my brother though, who did buy it and rarely touches it. I now own exactly 0 CoD game as I've sold them all to Gamestation for pennies over a year ago.
[hr]
Though to give the benefit of the doubt, if they ACTUALLY make a fresh, new CoD with BALANCED multiplayer (y'know, rock-paper-scissors?) on dedicated servers (which would clear up a lot of "hacking", hit detection and host/matchmaking problems); I would buy the game again. But since I sincerely doubt that will happen, I will enforce my active plans to never buy CoD again. A lot of my friends stand by me on this too.
I have played CoD from the very beginning nearly 10 years ago and genuinely hated on it shortly after MW2 came out (except for the Black Ops campaign), and I was even disgruntled at WaW.
CoD 1 was one of the best WWII games I have played this decade.
CoD 2 was not. Its multiplayer was average.
CoD 3 is the only CoD I had not completed the singleplayer of, and I thought nothing different of it than CoD 2.
CoD 4: MW has the best multiplayer because it was fresh, original and carefully though out. The game was regulated and patched for a good while and everyone was on equal terms despite your loadout. hit detection, matchmaking and local servers were sound. Pace was fast and good.
CoD: WaW is a less-balanced copy of CoD4, except it's set in WWII.
CoD: MW2 is broken beyond belief (in my opinion). It was okay on day 1, then on day 2 the javelin glitches started... then the care package glitches, then the horrid spawn system made its mark with the horribly unbalanced class combinations coupled with the unbeatable perks, stupidly buggy matchmaking system and god-awful hit-detection (like the kind where a kill-cam shows off a sniper annihilating the air 1 metre away from your elbow; an extremely fatal blow. I'm not even going to mention how an AI-controlled, mobile, light machine gun-in-the-sky with 99% accuracy and bullet kill is even remotely fair, especially when its kills amount to the next best thing to do exactly that but more.
Infinity Ward breaks apart at this point, shortly after the release of MW2. The games start giving the impression that their developers are running out of ideas, namely because they're heavily incorporating features similar to that of other games. See: Theatre mode, filesharing, hordemode, gungame and the likes, bounties, emblems, etc. DLC Ramps up quite a few notches.
CoD: Black Ops cleared a lot of stuff up, I enjoyed it for a few days then put it on my shelf. A balanced game ruled by host-connections and bad hit-detection is not one I want to be apart of. It's the same reason I despise playing halo games with anyone across the Atlantic, you're always 1 second behind the host and the game goes by the hosts computer. On Halo, it's tolerable though, because it's not as frantic and panic shooting or insta-kill but paced, so it can slide sometimes, but on CoD it's unacceptable.
Fishy-Smell: MW3. I just... How can you take a bad game, and actually make it worse?
I'd put money on it that this year CoD doesn't sell as well this year. I saved myself a good £40+ by not buying MW3. Can't say the same for my brother though, who did buy it and rarely touches it. I now own exactly 0 CoD game as I've sold them all to Gamestation for pennies over a year ago.
[hr]
Though to give the benefit of the doubt, if they ACTUALLY make a fresh, new CoD with BALANCED multiplayer (y'know, rock-paper-scissors?) on dedicated servers (which would clear up a lot of "hacking", hit detection and host/matchmaking problems); I would buy the game again. But since I sincerely doubt that will happen, I will enforce my active plans to never buy CoD again. A lot of my friends stand by me on this too.
Yes.DeadYorick said:
Sales show how many people bought something (no duh) and generally people don't buy things that are... bad. This is why we see so many people wearing brand name clothing or why they have certain appliances. You can't say a game that has hard proof that millions have bought and enjoyed is objectively bad which is what you insinuated. MW3 is currently the 5th top seller on Steam so it's not like people stopped buying it because it's bad.
Reviews are done by (hopefully) professional writers and analyzers who can identify pros and cons to a gaming experience. These reviews are made for the exact purpose of classing a game by it's quality. What do you think reviews are for? Just because you don't agree with some reviewer who likes a very mainstream game, fine but your view isn't objective. Reviewers often get a game at or before launch so if you think your online is buggy and broken think about that. The downside to reviews are of course is that they are pressed for time and may not be able to fully analyze the game (see ME3) but you can always wait some time and see later reviews like second opinions on IGN (though I don't like IGN because they aren't objective and their scoring system has its flaws).
If you ask me, the only objective way of determining a games quality is the sales because no one knows what else is influencing the reviewer's psyche. However if you identify a certain reviewer who's opinion you respect than that is good to determine whether or not you will enjoy it.
Oh, and I haven't played any of the others in depth (depth in CoD ha ha) in multiplayer online so please allow my ego to say that only what I like matters.
