Why do people have this huge hatred for this game all of a sudden. Pretty much every one is saying is rubbish but I dont see whats wrong with it. Yes cod 4 is better I don't deny that but its still a great game.
I think that some people dislike it because it seems like a step backward for the series. Whenever a sequel doesn't live up to its predecessor(s), fans riot.farmerboy219 said:Why do people have this huge hatred for this game all of a sudden. Pretty much every one is saying is rubbish but I dont see whats wrong with it. Yes cod 4 is better I don't deny that but its still a great game.
ThisUltimatheChosen said:I think that some people dislike it because it seems like a step backward for the series. Whenever a sequel doesn't live up to its predecessor(s), fans riot.farmerboy219 said:Why do people have this huge hatred for this game all of a sudden. Pretty much every one is saying is rubbish but I dont see whats wrong with it. Yes cod 4 is better I don't deny that but its still a great game.
AI is ok. Maps in COD games are always linear. Multiplayer is broken (stupid tanks). Graphics is as good as COD4, if not better (which is pretty good). It did everything well, but 1 thing badly, but it's so bad, that a lot of people now hate it (stupid tanks). And dogs>helicopters at least to me.Mazty said:Because the AI is awful, the maps are linear, the multiplayer is broken, the graphics suck and the entire game feels like a giant step backwards in the FPS genre.
It does nothing well but a lot of things badly.
It was WW2 before it was present daynot a zaar said:It's not made by Infinity Ward, it's just taking the Call of Duty name and putting it on a WW2 shooter.
Is it? I don't see how that could be, its the same as CoD4, isnt it?Mazty said:the multiplayer is broken
Maybe you should read what you quoted again, I don't think you understood what I'm saying.farmerboy219 said:It was WW2 before it was present daynot a zaar said:It's not made by Infinity Ward, it's just taking the Call of Duty name and putting it on a WW2 shooter.
No, it's taking Call of Duty 1 and slapping on nicer graphics and a different story, like all Call of Duty games have been so far.not a zaar said:It's not made by Infinity Ward, it's just taking the Call of Duty name and putting it on a WW2 shooter.
And we keep winning. USA USA USA oh wait im irish ahhh the propaganda is working.Jetstar said:Because we have too many WW2 game already. We've fought the war like 50 times now.
Are you saying that COD4 is better than COD5 because call of duty shouldn't be a WW2 shooter? Your point doesn't make any sense.not a zaar said:It's not made by Infinity Ward, it's just taking the Call of Duty name and putting it on a WW2 shooter.
Thunderhorse31 said:I liked W@W a TON more than most people I know, but that said, I agree that it's slower, less polished, less balanced, and indeed a step backward for the series.
If W@W came out a year before Duty 4, we'd probably be singing its praises - but like the above poster said, when a sequel takes a step in the wrong direction, then fans riot.
Personally I think the game is decent, but also has to live in the shadow of the CoD4 juggernaut, making it sucky by comparison alone.