Your views on the Call Of Duty franchise.

[Zhukov]

The original CoD had decent single player and crap multiplayer.
CoD 4:MW had decent/good single player and decent/good multiplayer.
MW2 had crap single player and decent multiplayer.
CoD:BO has crap single player and good multiplayer.

I haven't played the other games in the series.

 

[-Samurai-]

I've enjoyed every CoD since the release of the first one for PC.

What I don't enjoy are the people that picked up the series at CoD4 and say "MW2 ruined CoD!!!!!!!!!!!". You haven't even played half of the series. Shut up.

Then CoD "classic" comes out on consoles and people say "The mp sucks hurrr durrr.". The PC version of the game is still miles above anything recent in CoD. It was ported from PC to consoles. Of course it sucks.

 

[Iron Mal]

I've played all the games from 4 onwards (and that was mostly because me and my friend kept getting told that it was 'the most awesomest game ever!') and I've liked every game, they haven't been the masterpieces of the industry but they've still been fun despite their issues.

Sometimes, you just want to kill a bunch of Nazis, sometimes you just want to kill the Made-up-istan militia over and over, sometimes, just sometimes, you want to make 12 year old Americans kids so pissed off with you that you can hear the very seething hatred for you over the headset (I will admit I have my moments of griefing, it can be very thereputic).

In short, the CoD games are good (hell, I'd call some parts of them great) but I can understand why not everyone would be thrilled about them (something I can apply to another series of games with a fanbase who blow it's greatness and importance way out of proportion, yes, I'm looking at you Half Life).

 

[Okysho]

CoD 4 was ok, not a fan of the multiplayer( I just don't like FPS online multi) Story could have used a bit of work, but it turned out alright (not to mention popular)

WaW was good, even if the campaign was a bit... meh... there are a lot more situations that they could have dealt with but again I didn't expect much since it was an FPS and an attempt to appeal to the MW audience with a WWII setting. Wii version had no zombies, but whatever.

I miss the CoD3 campaign, I was disappointed it a lot of it, but I like the campaign and how it cycled between more than 2 factions so you got a little bit of what was going everywhere, plus Canadians!

I don't know much of the series outside of that... I'm just not a big FPS fan

 

[TheSeventhLoneWolf]

Staple popular wargame that other games are trying to be because it's popular, not because of certain mechanics.

That's what I think anyway, by no means is it bad, I just would like to see another franchise that is something different but fun at the same time.

 

[DazBurger]

COD MW1 was meh.
COD WAW was.. AWESOME!
COD MW2 could be great, but had a hacker problem.
COD BO? Boring and repetitive.. All maps are basically the same, all of them too small to use a sniper-rifle nor even support the 18 players most servers have... They lack open spaces, killzones and alternative routes.
Its now all about who shoots first, as everything of tactical value have been stricken from the game.


I'm fine about there being such maps.. But does it have to be EVERY SINGLE ONE!?

 

[Netrigan]

Call Of Duty is 100% dependent on its set pieces (and their ability to string those together in a coherent and compelling manner). When the game's levels are top-notch and flow together, then the franchise is among the very best in the FPS genre... when it's not, it's hopelessly mediocre stuff that no amount of trying to get us to care about the characters involved will fix.

This is why the Infinity Ward installments tend to be so much better than anyone else's efforts. They have just enough characterization to keep those set pieces moving, but don't make the mistake of thinking that anyone actually gives a shit about these people.

 

[TeH PizZa Guy]

The franchise is loosing its momentum. Yeah the games are great, but another game every year is too much. At this rate, Call of Duty will go to space, and as cool as it may sound it will suck.

 

[Good morning blues]

Call of Duty is one of the best video game franchises in history. I'm not a multiplayer gamer, and I've never even tried the multiplayer for any CoD other than the very first one, but the single-player campaign of every one that I've played has been fantastic. I'm actually planning on writing my honours thesis about this series in a few months.

 

[Timmons]

I understand that MW2 had balancing issues, such as the perks, quickscoping, noobtubes, certain killstreaks etc, but after 100 hours of play time the only things i found irritating were the harrier, commando and chopper gunner...
In that game you die so quickly, unexpectedly and frequently that if you were put in the same situation, even if the player had the worst gun and they spotted you first, you would still die.
I found the guns felt more like lasers- being that they were so powerful and had such little recoil.
As for the campaign, its short yeah, its short and sweet, if it were much longer it would out stay its welcome. And really, who buys a CoD game for the single player? if you want single player you would play Bioshock or Mass effect. But yeah she story was shit.

As for Black Ops, i found it much more fresh than MW2, the campaign was very intense and pretty graphic. The story was actually half decent this time and way more badass. Basically it was as fun as (the fun version of) hell. Though the guns don't sound as good.
The multiplayer is sooooo good basically, i'm having so much fun on it, its nearly balanced, the guns feel awesome, no guns are really that overpowered, the killstreaks are pretty fair and easy to counter, the perks are balanced, the maps are pretty generally better than MW2 but none stand out that much. The customisation options are great as well. Its addicting as fuck. My only problems are the snipers are now useless, the guns sound worse and it lags more than i'd like.

 

[CheckD3]

I like the MW franchises, the WWII stuff getting old quickly. CoD4's campaign is one of the best single player stories I've played. MW2 got me at the end, but was short, and I haven't gotten my hands on Ops yet to play single player

I like MW2 online, people complain, but it takes a lot to make me angry at multiplayer, usually being not good enough and getting owned...but I still have fun with online FPS multiplayer matches, regardless of how "broken" it is

Overall, I'm not a fanboy, but I enjoy the series. I want to get my hands on my own copy of CoD4 (saving up for it) and I got a discounted MW2 for myself from a friend, usually just rent. I won't pay full price for online, but they are growing and working on it.

I just wish they'd slow the releases down, we have 4 new CoD games, we have a WWII for those junkies, CoD4 original, then an updated version w/ MW2, and now a mix of the games with Ops, I think that they should give it a rest...too much ruins a good thing.

The franchise needs to slow down, but overall I feel that they're important in VG history, whether it's your butter and bread or not

 

[Gluzzbung]

I've found you only really need one game from each franchise like CoD, I only owned MW2 and have never owned any of the others, from Halo I only own reach and have never owned any of the others and with MoH I only even bought frontline on the console, I got the warchest on PC for the single player campaign (it kept me occupied gaming wise for about two months and i still haven't played the last expansion) I've only even owned one BF and a lot of other games are like this. The only FPS which I've played and thought wow I want more of this is bioshock and bioshock 2 was pretty much the same. There nothing about any of the other games that really compell me to buy more as all the developers have done is add a different campaign, add a few game modes to multi-player and buff up the price due to the success of the last game. So yeah, my view is theres nothing different about it much

 

[UnderCoverGuest]

Call of Duty 4 was where I made my beginnings, but I never look at anything as a franchise. To me, Call of Duty 4 is a great game, but that doesn't mean I like Call of Duty. I like certain songs by certain people, but that doesn't mean I like the genre.

When I played Call of Duty 4 for the first time, it was an above-average first person shooter in my mind. It had more realism than Counter Strike, more detail than Battlefield 2, and more choices than other first person shooters I enjoyed at the time. The story arc in singleplayer was interesting and immersive; and in multiplayer being able to kit myself out the way I wanted, with specializations of both the weapons I carried and the abilities I had gave me a great sense of purpose and uniqueness.

When I heard Treyarch was making Call of Duty 5, I decided to get it, especially since it had co-op (an ultimate defining feature in PC games). Sadly I was disappointed with that, as it was my introduction into World War II first person shooters and was sadly similar to all World War II games: it was about World War II.

Still in love with Call of Duty 4, and disappointed with Call of Duty 5, I set my sights on Modern Warfare 2. I was rather excited for it, until I discovered one of the first interview articles on the PC version in which one of the developers or whomever boldly claimed to screw PC gamers over. My disappointment far exceeded that towards Call of Duty 5, which was now suddenly not that bad a game.

Nevertheless, I decided to pick it up on launch day because of the promise of its "special co-op mode" that I figured me and a friend could enjoy. My tirade on Modern Warfare 2 is deep and extends for as long as the Grand Canyon, so I'll conclude that the only fun me and my friend had was breaking the game by making a mockery of it while playing it (for e.g., scooting on our asses in wounded mode trying to complete the challenges), and getting an .exe hack so we could use the console as the Gods of PC Gaming intended (should they exist so help my soul). Suffice to say Modern Warfare 2 was a console gamer's game; full of all the fun extras that came with Call of Duty 4, but with none of the appeal that PC games usually have towards creative and intelligent players.

With Call of Duty: Black Ops here now, I guess my view on Call of Duty is even more incomplete, but a friend of mine who picked it up said that while he had wanted to hate it even more than Modern Warfare 2, he's rather enjoying it. This makes me wonder if it really is an alright game and that I should get it; the suggestion being that it's a return to form with the console reactivated and multiplayer support being rather important to Treyarch--whose standing has increased considerably in my eyes since Modern Warfare 2. But as long as they bring back the map compiler, have maps that are still GTK Radiant compatible, and add modding capabilities back into the game, I'll be willing to declare it a great game...at least until I shoot Fidel Castro. That's going to be a pretty darned silly moment no matter what I try to think...

 

[PhiMed]

I havent played a single one. I played a little MoH , the first two and the pacific assault (last one was fun, especially after having to read some extremely annoying japanfanboy threads on here)
CoD always seemed like, well, another one of those and the modern Szenario is just not my cup of tea. I would love a nice shooter with a good campaign in the napoleonic or american civil war times.

REALLY? I understand that FPSs, in general, aren't particularly accurate, but the weapons and tactics of the Civil War and Napoleonic Wars era don't exactly lend themselves to FPS translation. That would be one boring game.

OT: I never really took a whole lot of notice of them until the first Modern Warfare. I was always more of a fan of the old MOH series. That being said:

COD 4 was amazing.

WaW was absolutely AWFUL (I think people defend it to be contrarian)

MW2 had some balancing issues that were pretty much game-breaking.

I haven't played Black Ops because I've resolved to keep my money away from Activision from now on unless they give me a really good reason to give it to them. I haven't seen anything about the game that suggests its special.

I dont care about too much realism. There was a very nice Half-life mod like that. Battlefields, Battlegrounds, something like that i think. I loved the game, The Mount and Blade Blackpowder Mod is also great fun. 6 out of 8 shots miss on long range and you have hell of a reloading time, but it makes the thing just more exciting, because every shot counts, plus you have nice melee. That with new tech, a good campaign and nice multiplayer, including linebattle mode. Yeah it would be something...new more or less. I dont care about yet another WW2 or some modern desert war crap. Perhaps a fictive ww3 story. Or good oll WW1. But everything else just looks the same.

Maybe I'll check those out, but point of order: very little of MW2 was set in the desert. It pretty much was WW3. Conflicts all over the world, and I don't remember a single desert level. Russia invades the US. That's WW3, in a nutshell. The single player was worth it for suburban Virginia and D.C.

 

[Benn_Walden]

I like the franchise. I like its safety; for i will always know that they will release excellent games. I like the story line (even if it is just WW2 sometimes. I thoroughly enjoy playing zombies on CoD 5 & 7 . Also tossing it in that i do play online, and i enjoy it as well.

 

[Legendairy314]

I've gotta say, I REALLY wanted to hate the franchise after MW2. I didn't even get Black Ops at release but ended up getting it to play with a few friends. After I found out I liked it more than 4 I don't know what to think anymore.

Damnit Call of Duty. You may be the Madden of the FPS genre but you make warfare fun. A Mutliplayer that focuses on RPG like progression, Single Player that actually has an interesting and fairly mature plot, and Nazi Zombies that offers some of the greatest co-op fun to be had. And to make matters worse you brought back Elena Siegman for more soundtrack goodness that I CAN'T STOP LISTENING TOO. I know it's not for everyone (and it has a bit of screamo too it) but I don't know if there's a better zombie slaying song.

 

[Assassin Xaero]

I went down hill when they started putting console gaming and it's genericness before PC.

 

[ClassicJokester]

Haven't played 1-3.

I absolutely loved Modern Warfare, once I got past the "getting your butt pumped because you don't know the maps" phase and figured out that I loved the G36. If I could find it, I'd be playing it now.

World at War was pretty fun, and I liked the bolt-action rifles. Then people discovered that the MP40 shot A-1 Rapesauce instead of bullets, and it stopped being quite as fun.

MW2 was an... interesting experience. It flip-flopped from being amazingly fun to controller-smashingly frustrating faster than John Kerry. On average, it was tolerable, as long as I was playing with friends.

Haven't gotten around to getting Black Ops yet.

 

[DustyDrB]

I played the first Modern Warfare because friends recommended it to me so much. But after I finished the campaign in about five or six hours I felt cheated. Haven't touched the series since, or any of the other clones of it. I didn't know it was so multiplayer-focused at the time. I didn't even have the internet in my apartment then, anyway.

I've always wondered something, though. Most people who get a Call of Duty game get it for the multiplayer, right? But then they release about one a year for the series, and people go and get the new game, taking away a lot of the community. So, do you feel like you have to get the new one to have a good online experience? And if so do you feel they should give it more time in between games (a year old game is still pretty new in my opinion)?