i hate it for the opposite reasons i like Battlefield:
-small maps
-non-destructible terrain
-killstreaks which are only good at high levels
-sniping is impossible/entirely quickscoping.
whereas BF has:
-massive maps
-destructible terrain
-no killstreaks
-sniping is easy and fun
the difference is
-i dont get boxed in to one area with 5 other guys then we all get mowed down
-it makes it feel more realistic
-i can go 5 minutes without hearing 'napalm incoming helicopter incoming care package incoming' and all i can get is a useless spy plane.
-i found out in one match of BF i'm an amazing sniper. ive been playing CoD for years and didnt know that.
Saw767 said:
The main problem i have with the latest CoDs is that they are heavily invested in XP. This is an FPS, not WoW. I remember the first CoD, no xp, no stat tracking, no ratios. Just get on, grab any gun for that country's team, and go. There were no perks, no killstreaks, and bigger maps that made using a sniper make sense. It played the same for everyone, every 10 kills, you'd get something, and 40 was artillery which had the same impact as everyone else's. No tubers, no knifers...it was fun.
The modern CoD is much more frustrating, slower, and it tries too hard. Suffice it to say, I still play the first one. Every time I go and buy the newest one, I get frustrated, and return to the first. Not sure if I will get this one.
I doubt I said anything new, these topics are numerous and I hope some fall on ActiVision's head soon.
thanks for reminding me. i used to love getting together with a couple of mates and playing CoD 3. wonderful times.
