Call of Duty - Page 2

Chris Britton · #21 November 26, 2008, 6:26 PM

Originally Posted by Ross Hendrie

WaW is harder? That's not possible.

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.

Recurring Villain · #22 November 26, 2008, 8:36 PM

Originally Posted by Ross Hendrie

(if you've completed that on Veteran I salute you)

I return your salute, sir.

Originally Posted by Ross Hendrie

WaW is harder? That's not possible.

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;

Originally Posted by Chris Britton

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.

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

Ross Hendrie · #23 November 26, 2008, 9:01 PM

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.

Chris Britton · #24 November 27, 2008, 4:32 AM

Originally Posted by Recurring Villain

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

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.

Recurring Villain · #25 November 27, 2008, 4:35 AM

Originally Posted by Chris Britton

Ah yes, I remember the grenade spamming, I also remember I liked CoD3, well WaW has quickly made me revise that opinion.

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.

Chris Britton · #26 November 27, 2008, 8:08 AM

Originally Posted by Recurring Villain

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.

Ross Hendrie · #27 November 27, 2008, 1:09 PM

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...

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.

Chris Britton · #28 November 27, 2008, 1:28 PM

Originally Posted by Ross Hendrie

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...

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.

Jamie Minty · #29 November 27, 2008, 3:09 PM

Originally Posted by Recurring Villain

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.

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?

Jamie Minty · #30 November 27, 2008, 3:12 PM

Originally Posted by Recurring Villain

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.

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

Ben Dawson · #31 November 27, 2008, 3:25 PM

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?

Chris Britton · #32 November 27, 2008, 4:33 PM

Originally Posted by Ben Dawson

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.

Ross Hendrie · #33 November 27, 2008, 4:34 PM

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

Ben Dawson · #34 November 27, 2008, 5:32 PM

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

Superkid11 · #35 November 27, 2008, 5:39 PM

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

Recurring Villain · #36 November 27, 2008, 10:34 PM

Originally Posted by Jamie Minty

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.

You should just throw them off a bridge, instead.

Originally Posted by Jamie Minty

And yep sorry got Treyarch and Activision mixed up, didn't they both make the Spiderman games?

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

Originally Posted by Jamie Minty

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

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?

Originally Posted by Ben Dawson

Hey, I just had this vision...why not have a futuristic CoD?

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

Originally Posted by Ross Hendrie

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

CoD4 was very near future...

Chris Britton · #37 November 28, 2008, 5:35 AM

Originally Posted by Recurring Villain

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.

Ross Hendrie · #38 November 28, 2008, 1:37 PM

Originally Posted by Recurring Villain

CoD4 was very near future...

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

And no New World Order drivel.

Chris Britton · #39 November 28, 2008, 1:49 PM

Originally Posted by Ross Hendrie

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.

Superkid11 · #40 November 28, 2008, 2:37 PM

Originally Posted by Ross Hendrie

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

And no New World Order drivel.

I was just messing around.