Best Call of Duty (Campaign)

Which CoD do you guys think has the best single player campaign?

World at War, especially the Soviet campaign.

CoD 2 or 4. maybe 2 is better

2

Call Of Duty 4 has a great campaign, even though it's shorter than the average shooter. World At War is as emotional as Call Of Duty 4 was. Call Of Duty 2 is really good as well, and it's longer than both games, but not combined. Try to pick up World At War. It has a long Campaign and it's really emotional.

So which do you think is better out of WaW and 2?

And roughly how long is 2?

United Offensive.

CoD2, W@W campaign sucks and was way to short, same with cod4. CoD2 was the best by far. It was also about 2-3 times longer than WaW and cod4s campaign.

So which do you think is better out of WaW and 2?

And roughly how long is 2?

will952

WaW.

2 lasts about 10 hours. The first campaign is great, it's set during the siege of Stalingrad and it's the shortest. The second starts in Africa, then moves to Normandy (British), and the American campaign is set in Normandy and on the Rhine. About half of the game is set in Normandy, and it sucks really, really hard.

It's cheap, go ahead and try it. It's worth it for the Stalingrad and African bits, although neither are as good as the WaW campaigns.

Any Campaign by Infinity Ward is great. WaW was not so good.

[QUOTE="will952"]

So which do you think is better out of WaW and 2?

And roughly how long is 2?

Baranga

WaW.

2 lasts about 10 hours. The first campaign is great, it's set during the siege of Stalingrad and it's the shortest. The second starts in Africa, then moves to Normandy (British), and the American campaign is set in Normandy and on the Rhine. About half of the game is set in Normandy, and it sucks really, really hard.

It's cheap, go ahead and try it. It's worth it for the Stalingrad and African bits, although neither are as good as the WaW campaigns.

What about the Zombie mode in WaW? Good enough to make it a worthy purchase just for that + Soviet campaign?

What about the Zombie mode in WaW? Good enough to make it a worthy purchase just for that + Soviet campaign?

will952

I think COD 4>2>5>3

World at War's Pacific campaign wasn't fun. Commendable for Treyarch to actually do it, but that whole theatre of war isn't overly interesting compared to the Ostfront. Reznov was a bastardization of Price, and the levels other than the urban combat were nothing special. The endings for both campaigns felt weak and rushed, especially the American one.

4's campaign, while short, was extremely well done. There were some lulls, but overall it was pretty exciting from begining to end. Felt like a nice Tom Clancy novel-adapted-film and didn't overstay its welcome to get too repetitive.

3 was unbearable. Just truly boring save for the first level. AI team mates were stupider than ever and it lacked the intensity of 2.

2 was pretty cool, but yeah, the American campaign turned out to be the weakest of the three, although it had its moments. The only bad level in the whole game was probably just the final one, since it was an unsatisfactory conclusion to a great game...

[QUOTE="Baranga"]

[QUOTE="will952"]

So which do you think is better out of WaW and 2?

And roughly how long is 2?

SF_KiLLaMaN

WaW.

2 lasts about 10 hours. The first campaign is great, it's set during the siege of Stalingrad and it's the shortest. The second starts in Africa, then moves to Normandy (British), and the American campaign is set in Normandy and on the Rhine. About half of the game is set in Normandy, and it sucks really, really hard.

It's cheap, go ahead and try it. It's worth it for the Stalingrad and African bits, although neither are as good as the WaW campaigns.

The Pacific campaign feels fresh because it wasn't covered in many games, has great scripted moments and a very grim and violent atmosphere. The Japanese tactics are cool. I'd rather play in trenches, abandoned temples, cave systems and hazy jungles than in yet another goddamn French village... The ending of the Pacific campaign was bad though. Anway, for how long do you play in trenches? 80-90 minutes? The levels are different enough, unlike in COD2, which has the same village theme over and over and over and over again. The urban combat in Africa is pretty similar to the one in France, and once the novelty wears off, it ain't that great. It could've been saved by good scripting, but unfortunately the cool scripted moments are too rare.

This 5 hours campaign is 10x more epic than the COD2 campaign and is not repetitive at all. COD2 is too long and too repetitive, Normandy drives me crazy. I didn't even finish the game because it's so unbelievably boring.

The Soviet/Russian parts are the best in every COD game.

buy 5 now, not 2. WaW is on sale for 1/2 on Steam, though both games are good.

4 was great, loved the mission in Prypiat.

COD2>COD4>COD1>COD5>COD3.

United Offensive.

I never played cod2 or 3 campains, but I think cod4's would still top both of them.

I might not agree with myself anymore, but my best memories of enjoying a call of duty campaign go out to Call Of Duty:Finest Hour pretty sure I played that on the Xbox, cant explain exactly why guess when i was younger without online available or reviews to point out the negativesI appreciated the SP part of games much more.

cod2 was the best for me, then uo then cod 1

One was amazing, two was a bit long, four was perfect, but I think 5 had some of the best action. I hate to say it.

Three was boring, finest hour is meh, and big red one was ok.

United Offensive.

JackBurton

CoD 2 has an amazing campaign. One of my favorirte games.

cod WaW is a mod of CoD4, too expensive for what it brings to the table, which is nothing new gameplay wise. CoD 2 however has a long story that cover a lot more of the war. While the American part isn't that great the British Africa missions are outstanding, best campaign in any game. The Russian campaign in CoD2 is also excellent (better than WaW's USSR campaign in my opinion). Those 2 alone are longer than WaW or CoD4s campaign. CoD2 is by far the best. SF_KiLLaMaN

"Expansion" would be a better term, and it's 25$ on steam this weekend so if you don't already have COD:4 it's worth it for the multiplayer alone. I agree that for regular price $50 it seems too expensive, since there is no new engine or anything, and doesn't really add much to COD:4

World At War. Best Campaing Ever. But 4 isn't bad either

Call of Duty 1, easy. 2 got horribly stale after the tank fights in Africa. 4 was too short and too derivative.

CoD2's campaign was overshadowed by brothers in arms, at least for me.