Call of Duty 2, and why you don't like it. Please explain...
This topic is locked from further discussion.
Hmm, I don't hate it. I just don't like it as much as BF series.
1. bunny hopping and shooting accurately is just not right. Granted it's possible, but impractical.
2. shooting from a sniper rifle standing and just sucking in a breath doesn't really work.
3. The whole regeneration of health with out aid is kind of silly. Personally I think every game shouldn't have ways to heal yourself. If you get shot, you get shot...deal with it. Always liked that about the Tom Clancy games.
4. grenade indicator...ghey, if you can't tell a grenade landed close to you with that sound, you deserve to gte blowed up.
5. As far as the SP of it...just too repetative, take this bunker, wait here and push back a German advance, watch out for those tanks
Those are my dislikes in a nutshell. But, I still play it from time to time and have grown to appreciate some of the good aspects of it. It's not all bad, just some very quake-ish style combat but with older guns.
4.
Well, I need a health bar which doesn`t regenerates itself, when i am hiding behind cover hence I prefer Call of Duty1 and United Offensive.
Craven
Â
- the hand-holding, like grenade icons, mantle hints, health regeneration etc. It felt totally out of place for a game set in WW2, and more appropriate for some Sci-Fi setting. It may have been there to help beginners, but they seemed to assume everyone was a beginner because you can't turn the hand-holding off without mods. As a long-term FPS player I found the hand-holding to be extremely annoying.
- you can jump while aiming down sights and still get an accurate shot.
- you can get headshots across a map with an SMG, and still hop around like a demented rabbit.
- you still have to equip a pistol to run faster across the battlefield. This was a daft idea in the original Call Of Duty, and it's still daft now. Call Of Duty United Offensive introduced a decent sprint function, and Infinity Ward should have taken that on board. It doesn't matter if someone else developed United Offensive - because all of these games carry the Call Of Duty name, and there should be some level of continuity between them, with each successive game building on the technological leaps of it's predecessor.
- the environments are still pretty much indestructable, and that fact hurts immersion. Putting in a couple of vases and bottles that can break is simply not enough when you can't destroy windows or doors or crates with the grenades in your arsenal. Other games released prior to CoD 2 included decent physics and destructable objects, so it did not make sense for CoD 2 to ship without them, especially considering it was supposedly aiming for greater 'realism' in terms of a major conflict.
- clipping issues. The same still suffers a lot from clipping issues, with corpses hanging in mid air because their toe is caught on a rock, or guns/parts of bodies showing through walls betraying positions of enemies. A proper physics/ragdoll system would have overcome some of these issues, as would lowering a weapon when coming up close to a wall.
Single Player
- although the AI marginally improved from the previous versions, it still felt like enemies were predictable, because they respawned and ran to the same cover, or it felt like a duck shoot when they kept popping their heads up. The 'flanking' moves simply felt scripted (with enemies spawning in), rather than the AI actually being smart enough to work it's way around your position. By comparison, the AI in FEAR and Far Cry was quite good and challenging.
- clone syndrome. The game still suffered from enemies/allies all looking too much alike. Even a game like Soldier Of Fortune 2 managed to overcome this by mixing and matching different heads and gear.
- the 'story' was not as engaging as in the previous Call Of Duty, and the game felt a bit disjointed probably because the focus seemed to be more on large set-piece battles, and you could chop and change some of the missions.
- I didn't care about any of the characters because they simply were not developed enough. By contrast, in Brothers In Arms you get introduced to each member of your team, and you learn more about each of them as the game progresses so you start to care about them. If you are going for a 'cinematic' feel for a game you should not ignore the story element, because the best war movies are those with good stories and memorable characters.
-
Multiplayer
- most of the maps were too small for the PC version, especially considering the PC version can support up to 60+ players. The maps were designed for the console version which only supports 8 players, and it shows.
- due to the small sizes of the maps, it is possible to throw nades across the map into enemy spawn points, and so nade spamming is more prevalent in CoD 2 than it is in the previous versions of the game. It also does not help that you can pick up nades from fallen enemies, so you nearly always have nades to throw. It might be more realistic to be able to do this, but it also hurts the gameplay and with large numbers of people on a server it rapidly degenerates into a nade party.
- the spawn logic was still broken, so you kept spawning in the firing line which contributes to spawn raping.
- the spawn locations on some of the maps are simply atrocious and also lead to spawn raping. You only have to look at the farmhouse spawn on Brecourt, the spawn at the rear of the bombed building on Moscow or the end of the railway platform on the redesigned Railyard to see that they can all easily be camped from across the map by snipers, and fire can be rained down on the spawn areas.
- you can use the sniper rifle like a railgun by quickly zooming in, holding breath and shooting. It feels less 'skillful' than sniping in the original Call Of Duty. You can even jump while zoomed in and still get a shot, which just feels stupid.
- due to the health regeneration players start to believe they are invulnerable and run around with an SMG spraying and praying, and ducking for cover for 5 seconds when they get hit. In my view it has contributed to even more run-and-gun ****gameplay, rather than make people think about their next move. When you get hit in CoD 1 MP, I think players tend to become more careful to ensure they do not put themselves in the firing line until they can find a health pack to heal themselves.
- they allowed the use of DX7 and DX9 renderers which contributed to accusations of cheating, because people were seeing different things on screen. Under Dx7 all the smoke/dust/snow effects are switched off, making it easier to see targets. In addition, distant foliage etc. is not rendered properly until you zoom in, which contributed further to accusations of cheating. The framerate also seems to affect the firing rate of weapons, which led to people spamming smoke grenades to lower framerates for those running older systems.
- there was no anti-cheat out of the box, in spite of the fact that cheating/hacking was well known from previous CoD games and had resulted in those games supporting Punkbuster through patches. Not including anti-cheat out of the box was a major oversight and led to a lot of headaches for server admins.
- maps were not tested thoroughly enough to prevent 'glitching', ie, being able to jump to areas not intended by the map designers, including jumping out of map boundaries and into locations where you cannot be seen or shot, but you can shoot out at other players. This is as bad as wall hacking, and many of these map glitches have never been fixed by the developer, but there are now some workarounds from the mod community to 'kill' players entering glitch areas.
- they did not include HTTP redirect out of the box, in spite of the fact that it again was included in a patch to previous versions of the game, and allows players to download new content (maps/mods) faster. This was a bone of contention with mod makers and it took a long time for this oversight to be corrected by the developer.
- no access to vehicles in MP. Although I prefer infantry combat, I did enjoy taking out tanks/jeeps in CoD UO, and it would have been nice to have that option in CoD 2. Notice I said option, because I know there are a lot of players who hated UO, but seem to ignore the fact that many of the additions to that expansion can be turned off server side when running a server - including the vehicles and additional weapons. When I saw the use of sticky bombs in single player, I thought it would have been good to be able to do the same thing in multiplayer, but the option simply was not there.
- no ranks - again, this was a welcome addition in CoD UO, and you gained additional gear as you progressed in rank.
- LMGs (MG42s etc) can be fired endlessly because they do not overheat or require reloading. This seems daft, particularly when guns did overheat in the previous version of CoD.
All in all, the game felt like a major step backwards from CoD UO, and even a regression from the original CoD due to all the hand-holding elements and leaving out things that had been added to the previous games via patches. I installed and uninstalled CoD 2 several times, and relaly tried to like it, but in the end I just found it to be more frustrating than enjoyable, which is a shame because I like the improved graphics, the mantling, the North Africa setting, and various other elements. Hence I have a like/hate relationship with the game. It is currently not installed on my PC.
Please Log In to post.
Log in to comment