CoD3: Running around and bonking people in the head with your bazooka is fun as hell
CoD4: Great despite all the grenade spam
WaW: I only kept because of Nazi Zombies
MW2: Multiplayer wanted me to turn genocidal on all the hackers
Black Ops: Desperately needs it's multiplayer patched
I am not being a sheep, I simply enjoy the games. Modern Warfare 1 and 2 are pretty similar, true, but that's because they are a series within one story arc (see half life 2, hl2 ep1, ep2). The only formula that they stick to is: Big conflict, standard mission, plot exposition, big epic ending. They have similar gameplay in the sense that you shoot enemies and they fall down. Sometimes with a sniper rifle, sometimes with an assault rifle. To say such things as people "being sheep" because they like a game is just narrow minded. I never saw any adverts. Played MW1, heard that MW2 was coming out. Played MW2. Enjoyed both immensly.
Just because I like somebody that heaps of people like does not make me a sheep. Sometimes you gotta realise that when something gets this popular it gets that way for a reason.
Black Ops and World at War are so different it's not funny. That's like saying that all the Matrix or Star Wars movies are the same (not saying matrix sequels are good by the way, just in case I incur the wrath of more haters). They could be considered expansion packs for one reason: the games are too short.
Aw man this thread is asking for controversy. I might get annoyed at playing COD online, but I'm getting annoyed at the people, not at the game. And they're still better than the majority of games that get produced.
I agree to a certain extent. The writing in Modern Warfare 2 suffered from this I think. Some of the speeches during the map cutscenes were just trying to do the whole "epic dialogue" thing which didn't really do it for me. "One bullet to unleash the whole nation, which means... - He's our ticket to Makarov". That line just pissed me off.
I agree to a certain extent. The writing in Modern Warfare 2 suffered from this I think. Some of the speeches during the map cutscenes were just trying to do the whole "epic dialogue" thing which didn't really do it for me. "One bullet to unleash the whole nation, which means... - He's our ticket to Makarov". That line just pissed me off.
Yep. You hit the nail on the head. The developers have the world eating out of the palm of their hand, where all they have to do is put in some "super-cool, ultra-modern technology" or, like you said, "epic dialogue", and people are amused by it like moths on shiny objects. It disgusts me.
I liked every single call of duty game ,some more some less ,im not really into fps multiplayer so i just finished the campaign on rental and never touched it again. And unlike so many others i enjoyed BO's campaign and didnt find it confusing or whatever the problem was for some people. Wouldnt say its the best damn thing in the world but its good entertainment for around 7 hours or more if you like the mp. Only problem i have with this game is that people wont stop talking about it ,good or bad idc ,its everywhere..
Yeah, the series is fine, but it's just becoming that one game that all the teenage boys with consoles (Pardon that statement but they don't play on a PC unless it's World of Warcraft.) play, because it's the most popular.. They practically turned "hard-scoping" into something to be hated for, if you're a sniper and you don't quickscope you're a noob! - -
It's fun and all but if I wanted a challenge in multiplayer (I'm average at first person shooters, and I'm always at the top of the scoreboard in CoD4) I'd go play Quake Live..
I played the first Call of Duty when i was three, and sadly, to put it bluntly, it hasnt been a great since World at War.
To an extent i enjoyed MW2, but its campaign was shitty compared to any of the games before it. Haven't played Black Ops yet so maybe that first comment is a little rash, but from what ive seen, the campaign looks equally shit, at least, according to Russ [which i trust over ign any day].
My favorite in the series is, honestly, a close call between 2 and 4. Two had really amazing graphics [that can still hold up now], great pacing and narrative, excellent set-pieces that were very intense and exciting. I dont hear a lot of praise for it, which really surprises me.
Call of Duty 4... you know for obvious reasons.
And World at War, Nazi zombies and a pacific theater campaign, which helped keep the game fresh, and it kept changing things up, from massive Russian battles to intense, gritty, in the trenches hand-to-hand combat in the jungles.
Before you say anything, yes, i play the multiplayer as well. Its just that it was mainly singleplayer focused until MW2.
I agree to a certain extent. The writing in Modern Warfare 2 suffered from this I think. Some of the speeches during the map cutscenes were just trying to do the whole "epic dialogue" thing which didn't really do it for me. "One bullet to unleash the whole nation, which means... - He's our ticket to Makarov". That line just pissed me off.
Yep. You hit the nail on the head. The developers have the world eating out of the palm of their hand, where all they have to do is put in some "super-cool, ultra-modern technology" or, like you said, "epic dialogue", and people are amused by it like moths on shiny objects. It disgusts me.
It wasnt Infinity Wards fault. It was ACTIVISONS. They just wanted to cash in to add to their money pile. This accusation can be justified considering they fired the two lead guys at IW about a month after it was released. It should also be noted that Activison was the main writer for the story [or rather, the guy(s) who kept having cold war wet dreams who worked at Activision mainly wrote the story].
i love every single game in the series except 3 be3cause 3 was lame. they all have amazingly fun campaigns (except 3) and from number 4 on, they all have amazingly fun multiplayer. i'd say the call of duty series or the half life series is the greatest fps series ever!
I should point out I am not a fanboy, I've only played Modern Warfare and World At War on single player and I've enjoyed both games. The subject at hand is that lately C.O.D. is becoming a marmite franchise, Modern Warfare 2 especially with some people saying it's 'Teh Best Game EVAR.' (I will now punch myself for using that phrase) and others saying it's a steaming pile of monkey arse spunk. Judging the games as a whole - not campaign vs multiplayer or which developer is better - what are your feelings towards the franchise?
the Call of Duty franchise is not one I'm a fan of, but I can appreciate the appeal. It seems to be a franchise particularly good at what it does, an I can't knock it for that.
Now if only my friends would stop buying every damn game in the franchise and then pissing and moaning to me, I would have no complaints about the franchise period.
I've played the game since the first, and I've played all of them except the two that came out on the PS2.
In my opinion, the game has maintained the fluid combat that I first fell in love with, but overall I'm unhappy with the direction it seems to be headed.
Ever since MW, the game has become a mercenary shooter. There is nothing to be gained from playing as either OpFor or the US Marines. In the first, second, and third, each team had a list of weapons available to them at spawning. The differences between teams was most heavily felt in the first vanilla. I hated that they added unlockables and perks. They reward play time rather than ability. I've played UO far longer than MW, still do, and I never once thought unlockables were a good idea, they distract from actually playing the game.
I don't like how small the maps have become. To give you an idea, here are two overlays from, "Large" maps. The first is from UO, which is in my opinion, Call of Duty at it's peak. The second is from BO.
Jungle, despite being called a, "large" map, is designed so that all fire fights are short to medium range. The hills and the way the map curves creates scenarios where there just isn't a place useful for long range fire fights. Foy, on the other hand, has a vast diversity of ranges from the room to room fighting in the actual town, to the open fields on the outskirts where tanks and snipers dominate(this was also the CoD that did tanks right, and one of the few to include them.) In fact, the most brought back map from CoD is Carentan, which is the map most alike the ones players are used to in the later games. You will likely never see Hurtgen on Xbox live. There was a time when snipers and submachine gunners both had to play to their advantage rather than having the maps be so small that SMG's never have to worry about their targets being too far away to hit. Play a match on Hurtgen with a thompson, and you'll be dead by the time you rush the bridge.
I also dislike the over abundance of information. The minimap shows you exactly where you are, and even the position of enemy fire. All you had in UO was a compass with the general direction of your allies and objectives. If someone fired a weapon, you had no way of knowing from which direction or from whom the bullets came from. If you were to throw a grenade, the enemy could only hear the sound of the grenade's impact. There was no grenade indicator to baby people. But what would probably be most jarring for players used to MW and beyond is the lack of a damage indicator. You don't know if you shot that guy or not until he died. You have no idea how much health he has left when you have five and sprayed him as he ran for cover. Overall, the abundance of information is, for me, a handicap that distracts from gameplay.
There's also some smaller things. In the place of heath bars, we now have regen. Melee has went from a sensible, humiliation weapon, to a viable strategy. In place a fluid name system, we're stuck with tags and callsigns. Nazi Zombies is stupid. I play this game to shoot and be shot at, not to play a glorified game of Duckhunt. The campaigns have shifted from regular soldier in a large number of armies fighting for a cause to specops super soldier with a douchebag personality. In my opinion, the first Russian level of the first CoD is best in the series*, even though you never shoot anyone in that level. Sprinting and perks remove the purpose of using a mobile weapon. I never liked these things.
I don't really recognize CoD anymore. It's still the same fluid combat, but it seems that with each new addition they try to bury it under more and more frivolous crap. It's really telling how detached from its roots CoD has become as almost everyone in this thread is judging it based on the franchise post-MW. Sorry for the tl/dr.
This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
