Call of Duty
 

I watched the trailer for this and it looked really crap.

It seemed less like an apocalypse and more like Neighbours.

If you cats want an apocalypse go get fallout 3 mmkay

Fallout does look very good but I'm not much of an RPG fan!

The first part was very good, I think the next parts may become more "Neighbors" but we'll have to wait and see!

I play good games, not genres of games. You should check it out regardless.

Do they have robots?

My mates got it so I'll try it out at his. CoD W@W? I don't think I'll ever get over the CoD addiction ... I wanna play new games! Maybe Little Big Planet will pull me away!

No ... don't think so ...

World at War? You'd honestly prefer to play that than Fallout? Treyarch couldn't make a good game if they tried. If you really have to play COD, play COD4. Infinity Ward know how to make an FPS.

What I should have added on was Zombies and Survival generally :P

Quoted for truth, WaW only looks good as it's on the CoD4 engine. It's not a crap game but it's nowhere near CoD4 standards, for starters the plot is harder to follow, gameplay feels less smooth, the characters are hardly fleshed out and you don't get attached to them even if you did cast Gary Oldman and Kiefer Sutherland. But I do admit the Zombie mode is fun, until I get Left 4 Dead that is.

Left 4 Dead is like a kick in the head every time I remember I'm broke. Goes something like;

RV: "GEE ID REALLY LIKE TO GET LEFT FOR DEAD."

RV's Wallet: "no fuck you buddy"

RV: "FINE I WILL GO AND SWEAR AT PEOPLE ON THE INTRAWEB."

L4D: *kicks rv in the head*

So the wallet is your nemesis too then? I don't know how much longer I can stretch out Fallout 3 for all the awesome it is. Might fire up Portal again to do the map challenges and advanced maps. For me it feels more like a steel toecap boot to the balls in my opinion.

I think W@W is the exception, of course it is built on the CoD4 engine but IMO multiplayer is better (CoD4 got to dull as I played it sooo so much) and single player on W@W is very good, characterization is exactly the same as in CoD4, facial features-wise!

W@W is definitely worth a go, it should be the exception to the rule that Activision are on the crap side!

No one's saying bad things about Activision. It's Treyarch that they all hate.

Why alternate between developers anyway? Going by how less popular CoD3 was to CoD4, it doesn't make much sense to bring Treyarch back into the fold. Unless they have noticed how poor MoH is doing at the moment, and dont want a single developer to run out of good ideas. Any thoughts?

It means they can put out more games in the same span of time. Every two years IW works their magic, then Activision use Treyarch to cash in on the leftover hype. If IW was forced to make a new COD game every year, they most certainly wouldn't be of the same quality. Although, they would still probably be better than Treyarch's 'efforts'.

Nonetheless, people like Mr. Minty can't seem to tell the difference, which is unfortunate.

True. :(

You know what's worse? WaW has so far performed better than COD4. What the hell is wrong with people?

PS. You know RV is back when your thread gets hijacked. Holy shit that rhymes lets write a rap guys.

My guess is due to the online aspect and the Zombie mode. The Online aspect has been noted as a good point of WaW. I've not done it myself due to the nature of my Uni network not allowing an Xbox to get connected.

At least this time next year CoD6 will be here and will be in the right hands. But leaving the franchise in the hands of Infinity Ward and getting a game once every 2 years is going to generate more hype anyway. CoD4 still had an active online community last time I checked.

CoD2 still has an active online community. :P It rocked a lot aswell.

Yeah, so I think we all agree Treyarch are pretty shit.

P.S. Thread split?

Thread split gets my thumbs up.

Also does anyone notice the AI is progressively worse on WaW? It's more apparent on Veteran mode.

Im sure that will be all too apparent, judging by how impossibly hard some parts on CoD4 are.

What areas did you all find the most impossible on CoD4? For me it's the epilogue(if you've completed that on Veteran I salute you), the very last mission, the part in the Chernobyl mission where you have to carry Captain MacMillan, and escaping from the farm in that town with the safehouse.

I've done all of CoD4 on veteran even the epilogue mission. I managed to do all that a couple of weeks before WaW came out, and it was much easier to do veteran on CoD4 then it is on WaW. It's made me notice a few more flaws with the game.

WaW is harder? That's not possible. :confused:

It probably is not generally. But my experience of it so far makes me feel it is. The AI feels pathetic, especially on your side; what i found on CoD4 was if i was stuck on a certain bit It would be easy to find a way around it, five tries later I would have gotten past that part.

On WaW it's much harder, there was one bit where I had to clear out a cave, but i was getting ripped to shreds by machine guns, So i used Smoke Grenades so I could sneak in and Flamethrower them. However your allies never leave cover, expecting you to advance and lead the army as a Private, and when I did both sides spammed grenades, and of course I got trapped between the two and was blown to shreds. I lost count of how many tries it took me to get through that one part.

I return your salute, sir.

Poorly playtested or thought-out game mechanics often make games more difficult, not due to issues of skill but due to issues of shittiness inherent to the game itself.

Considering Treyarch's track record, this is not surprising.

Case in point;

The same grenade spamming issues were in COD3 as well (guess who developed that?).

There were grenade issues in CoD2 aswell, where it sometimes autosaved when a grenade was about to explode and everytime you respawned there wasn't enough time to escape. Although I guess that's more of an autosave issue.

Ah yes, I remember the grenade spamming, I also remember I liked CoD3, well WaW has quickly made me revise that opinion. Veteran is needlessley harder due to Treyarch being unable to grasp the 'If it ain't broke, don't fix it' rule. It took me about a week to clear CoD4's campaign on Veteran (Epilogue took another few days). I've been on Veteran in WaW a week and not done half of it.

COD3 wasn't so bad, it just wasn't anything special. Compared to 4 it may as well have been Daikatana. But compared to WaW it was a masterpiece, mostly because it just aped COD2 to the letter and left it at that. When Treyarch tries to 'innovate', kittens die.

Hopefully CoD6 will take place in a new war then. I wouldn't mind seeing Vietnam or the Falklands personally.

You're never going to get the Falklands, it wasn't large scale enough and didn't have enough major battles for a game, except maybe Goose Green or the advance on Stanley. It would be a developers dream come true though, nothing but green fields and slow rolling hills from horizon to horizon... :P

I don't know about CoD6, maybe some sort of fictional thing like CoD4 again. If they could do the SAS thing well again, then id welcome it.

The advantage CoD4 had was that it was not bound by history, allowing the develops much more creative freedom and ensured you were even more in the dark. With WaW you know what happens during the war so your not going to be so surprised by the plot.

I think people saw how popular CoD4 was and instead of getting it, they thought they'd wait for CoD W@W, thats what some people I know are doing, I still tell them to get CoD4. And yep sorry got Treyarch and Activision mixed up, didn't they both make the Spiderman games?

Have you actually played W@W, theres nothing wrong with the online modes! There great ... but it is exactly the same as CoD4

Hey, I just had this vision...why not have a futuristic CoD? Not Necessarily CoD6, but maybe further down the line. I can't exactly post much in this thread 'cos I've only got the first CoD, but what does people think of the idea of a CoD set in the future?

Tactically that happened in CoD4 through hints in the main story.

I dont think it would work unless it was a very near future. That would be interesting though.

Yeah, that's what I was thinking...maybe 2012?

I think gaming will be the last thing on everybody's minds when the New World Order begins.

You should just throw them off a bridge, instead.

Yes, they did. That was the pinnacle of Treyarch's achievement. Why Activision would give CoD to a licensed game developer is beyond me.

I played it with my friends on co-op and vs over lan a few days ago. They took the online system and perks, and slapped a new, shitty skin over the top. To say 'there's nothing wrong' with a game as justification for playing it doesn't suffice for me. I play good games, not game that there 'is nothing wrong' with.

Why would I shell out money for a game I've already got with a WWII skin?

That's popularly believed to be what Infinite Ward is doing, actually.

CoD4 was very near future...

Took place around 2011 or 2012 I think, since apparently the level in Chernobyl took place in 1996, about 15 or 16 years ago by one of the characters reckoning.

It was more present day to be fair... where was the near-futuristic technology?

And no New World Order drivel.

Ross, it was set about 4 or 5 years ahead, I doubt technology would have advanced that much in that time so expecting futuristic technology is pretty high standards here. I thought it was present day myself untill that Chernobyl mission pretty much gave away the rough time.

I was just messing around. :P