I think cod2 is pretty fun, I still play it sometimes (pc version though). I don't think I would buy any of the new cod games, I don't really play them enough to get another. Cod2 is fine for me now. I think a Civil War game in the cod series would be pretty cool, I would probably get that if it was made.
Was Modern Warfare a good idea at all?
- Thread starter Tech Kid Tom
- Start date
- Status
Waphlez
Fully Optimized
- Messages
- 1,976
- Location
- Ohio, United States
The reason Call of Duty was so popular was because they got the WW2 shooter right. Call of Duty 4 and even WaW, didn't feel like Call of Duty. No sense of faction/nationality or purpose like you have in a non-fictional conflict and the gameplay changed a lot. MW2 looks like the next James Bond or Rainbow Six game. Not CoD. No doubt, Infinity Ward are amazing at creating multiplayer shooters, but I don't agree with them slapping the Call of Duty title to these newer titles.
Disagree. There's only so much WWII you can do before it just feels like it's been done a thousand times before. Modern weaponry and settings were the only logical choices seeing as we haven't really won a major war since WWII. Going back in time doesn't make a whole lot of sense either. WWII was when weaponry as we know it was really perfected. Going back to any of the previous wars would make gun play frustrating, IMO.
dirkpitt45
Daemon Poster
- Messages
- 755
Infinity ward didn't make the call of duty name though, Activision did. They just sell out the name to infinity ward and junkarch (treyarch) to design the games. Then Activision physically produces them I think. Infinity ward doesn't have the means to mass produce any games they make so they stick with Activision. Activision wants it called call of duty so its called call of duty.
I don't think they need a "feeling" of nationality.. What about all the german people? How would you feel if the whole point was to go around killing americans? Neutrality is better, appeals to more people.
On a side note, world at war should not have the call of duty name. It doesn't deserve it, such a bad game. Reskinned cod4 with glitches and more lagg...
I don't think they need a "feeling" of nationality.. What about all the german people? How would you feel if the whole point was to go around killing americans? Neutrality is better, appeals to more people.
On a side note, world at war should not have the call of duty name. It doesn't deserve it, such a bad game. Reskinned cod4 with glitches and more lagg...
ricanflow
Golden Master
- Messages
- 6,317
- Location
- Euless, Tx
Sorry but cod4 was the best call of duty series game to date.
I dont see how cod2 or the other ones were better.
And waw was a nice refresh of wwII with the modern engine of the series.
I dont see how cod2 or the other ones were better.
And waw was a nice refresh of wwII with the modern engine of the series.
Waphlez
Fully Optimized
- Messages
- 1,976
- Location
- Ohio, United States
In CoD 4 /WaW the faction you were on (US/SAS/Russinas/terrorist) were just skins. You could start with any weapon, regardless if they should have that weapon considering their background. In the older versions of CoD you picked a side, and used their weapons, their was actually uniqueness to it. It made it more interesting. Even Counter-Strike has unique weapons per side.
dirkpitt45
Daemon Poster
- Messages
- 755
And which is more fun? Say you were the US, you get the m9, p90, m60, m40,m16, m4, basically all of the best weapons. Russians you'd get an AK-47, AK 74, RPD, rpg-7, and the dragonov. Who cares about unique weapons per side when you can use whatever weapon.
Unless the guns were all the same basically like battlefield 1943, that would be dumb. Weapons that look different but shoot the same are boring. Then with a massively popular game like cod4 people would just complain. Say one side is more OP than the other. Which it would've been, a team using m16's would likely beat a team using AK-47's.
Times are changing, no one wants "like good old times" we want new and better. To me, fixed classes is an old idea that has no place in fast paced first person shooters.
Also, you play as special forces units which have a far greater range and flexibility of weapons than normal units. They aren't just picking from the m249, m16, and the m4, they can use whatever they can get their hands on.
Unless the guns were all the same basically like battlefield 1943, that would be dumb. Weapons that look different but shoot the same are boring. Then with a massively popular game like cod4 people would just complain. Say one side is more OP than the other. Which it would've been, a team using m16's would likely beat a team using AK-47's.
Times are changing, no one wants "like good old times" we want new and better. To me, fixed classes is an old idea that has no place in fast paced first person shooters.
Also, you play as special forces units which have a far greater range and flexibility of weapons than normal units. They aren't just picking from the m249, m16, and the m4, they can use whatever they can get their hands on.
ricanflow
Golden Master
- Messages
- 6,317
- Location
- Euless, Tx
Yeah special forces isnt limited in any way in what they can use.
They will many times use the weapons of their very own enemies.
Fixed classes arent needed, i see no point to them.
They will many times use the weapons of their very own enemies.
Fixed classes arent needed, i see no point to them.
You must admit that modern warfare was a fantastic game, and many others will agree. The reason why they are calling the new one just "Modern Warfare 2" is simply because the first was so successful they can do without the Call of Duty branding and it can be it's own series of games. MW2 is going to be a sequel, the first sequel seen in the whole series of Call of Duty.
So basically to answer the original question, the Call of Duty branding isnt wearing thin, if anything they are doing the complete opposite - to keep the good old COD how it's meant to be and to have Modern Warfare a separate franchise.
Also, Activision is the publisher whereas Infinity Ward and Treyarch are the main developers. The first COD was developed by Infinity Ward, the same as COD 2, 4 and Modern Warfare 2.
COD 3 and World at War were developed by Treyarch, and I think COD 7 will be developed by Treyarch too which leads me to believe that COD 7 wont be as good as the ones developed by Infinity Ward.
So I only get excited about a new Call of Duty game when Infinity Ward develop it haha
So basically to answer the original question, the Call of Duty branding isnt wearing thin, if anything they are doing the complete opposite - to keep the good old COD how it's meant to be and to have Modern Warfare a separate franchise.
Also, Activision is the publisher whereas Infinity Ward and Treyarch are the main developers. The first COD was developed by Infinity Ward, the same as COD 2, 4 and Modern Warfare 2.
COD 3 and World at War were developed by Treyarch, and I think COD 7 will be developed by Treyarch too which leads me to believe that COD 7 wont be as good as the ones developed by Infinity Ward.
So I only get excited about a new Call of Duty game when Infinity Ward develop it haha
- Status
