Will Call of Duty 4 be like Call of Duty 2?

I've heard this question asked a few times so I thought I'd make a thread about it. As 80% of Call of Duty veterans were let down, I was extremely let down by Call of Duty 2's multiplayer (single player is always good if it comes from Infinity Ward). After looking at Call of Duty 4, it looks like it has some aspects of CoD 2 that should be left behindand forever forgotten. I sincerely hope Call of Duty 4 is nothing like CoD 2, because I've always loved Call of Duty. Me and my buddy played the game religiously until CoD 2 came out...then he went with CoD 2 and I pretty much stayed with the first one. Let me list some reasons incase none of you have compiled your own complaints about CoD 2:

-First of all, the aiming dynamics of CoD 2 was completely ****ed. I've been playing first person shooters for YEARS, and I never have ANY problems with hitting a moving target except for Call of Duty 2. It's the stupid fact that you have to LEAD people in order to kill them (up close). When the hell did that become logic to Infinity Ward?

-The grenade spam. You could spawn with 3 grenades (assuming you have a bolt action rifle), throw them all into the enemy's spawn point and get a few kills effortlessly.

-The hand-holding. I'm sure all of you know what I mean by this. Any hand-holding done by the game completely removes the skill factor of the game (or most of the significant factors anyway). Things like the sci-fi regeneration health system - whenever you shoot your weapon you're automatically marked on the map for everyone to see,

-The fact that for a run-and-gun type of a game, it's far too easy to kill another player. In the first CoD, you actually had to put more work (50% more, maybe?) into your strategy to kill another player. CoD was a spray/pray type of a game, but it was a spray/pray type of a game that took skill and fast-thinking. Furthermore, you couldn't just simply spray your gun and shoot someone in the face around the corner so as effortlessly as you could in Call of Duty 2. Lastly, it was far too easy to camp and kill someone. Especially with a sniper rifle. When killing someone in Call of Duty 2, I feel no real satisfaction that I feel in most first person shooters when I play them online against other players. Why? Because it just feels too skillless and noobish.

So, with horrible aiming dynamics, the terrible grenade spam, the stupid map design, the hand-holding, and the skillless kill system, I have high doubts about Call of Duty 4's multiplayer - but at the same time, I'm really hoping it isn't anything like CoD 2 and I will really enjoy playing it like I did the first Call of Duty. What do you all think?

I don;t play MP muchLonelynight

What do you think, though.

im in the CoD4 Beta on the 360 right now. let me tell you this, its good, better than CoD2. Don't lose sleep over it, the game will deliver :)ThE_SoCK

You're held to some restriction upon playing CoD 4 beta to release info about it, right? Well I guess I'll take your word for it 'til I get a chance to play.

What's anyone else think about it?

[QUOTE="Lonelynight"]I don;t play MP muchSkullheart

What do you think, though.

I think it probably will be good, 64 player online sounds good as long as it doesn't turn into a frag feast

[QUOTE="Skullheart"]

[QUOTE="Lonelynight"]I don;t play MP muchLonelynight

What do you think, though.

I think it probably will be good, 64 player online sounds good as long as it doesn't turn into a frag feast

If anything I just want good map design. That's my second main complaint about CoD 2...the maps were too close together and horribly designed.

If anything I just want good map design. That's my second main complaint about CoD 2...the maps were too close together and horribly designed.

Skullheart

Ya, I can't really play a game that has lousy map design

yea,.. should not be able to nade spam the other teams spawn.

play BF2 instead

I really have to ask, how much did you play CoD2, online, and on which servers, or 360?

Cause it matters alot on the server, not the actual game. You shouldn't have to use a lead time, at all. Only the time you would have to is if -you- lag really bad, or the server lags. Most servers have 'nades limited to one per person, the actual type is called "TWL PuB" It also removes Shotguns, except to one person, and the same with the sniper, allowing less spam.

im in the CoD4 Beta on the 360 right now. let me tell you this, its good, better than CoD2. Don't lose sleep over it, the game will deliver :)ThE_SoCK

YES!!tq,tq,tq,tq,tq

im in the CoD4 Beta on the 360 right now. let me tell you this, its good, better than CoD2. Don't lose sleep over it, the game will deliver :)ThE_SoCK

Why don't you tell us some more...:)

I really have to ask, how much did you play CoD2, online, and on which servers, or 360?

Cause it matters alot on the server, not the actual game. You shouldn't have to use a lead time, at all. Only the time you would have to is if -you- lag really bad, or the server lags. Most servers have 'nades limited to one per person, the actual type is called "TWL PuB" It also removes Shotguns, except to one person, and the same with the sniper, allowing less spam.

IvIajora

Considering how much my good friend loved it so much, I played it for a good year...and I'm sick of it now (PC version...the way Call of Duty was meant to be created).

And no, it's not just me. I have a good internet connection and usually play on servers where I get 20-70 ping. The thing is though, is that the game is just stupidly designed for online play. I played F.E.A.R. online and played on servers that ranged my ping from 350 to 550 and didn't have to lead my damn bullets, which are going faster than the speed of sound.

Call of Duty 2 is just stupid online. Single player is great, but multiplayer was just a complete failure compared to the first one. I did however notice that in single player (CoD2) I had to lead them but not as drastically. My point is...if you're up close, point-blank up front and personal next to your opponent, there's no logic in you having to lead your shot into your enemies. No logic what so ever. Also, the grenade indicator is stupid beyond hell. That's another point I meant to make when creating this thread...

All I know is, I've played the Call of Duty series for years. When I installed Call of Duty 2 on my PC and ran it, it was an entirely different game than the first Call of Duty. HUGE failure of a choice right there that let down many veterans like myself, forcing them to go back to United Offensive or the original CoD.

But seeing how my good friend loved it (lived down the street from me), I played with him and honestly enjoyed a lot of my moments on there, but ended up just getting more and more frustrated because of the way the game is designed. I played it for one good year, and I'm still no better than when I started out. Why? Because the game is horribly designed for online play, like I said.

Give me any other shooter and I won't have any problems. I've played first person shooters for years and Call of Duty 2 should be no different or more difficult for me to get the aiming dynamics down...but it is. So, if Call of Duty 4 doesn't change anything else, just at least change the aiming dynamics and get rid of that stupid ass lead that's so unlogical.

Yes, from far away you must lead someone into a shot. But you don't have to aim 10 miles ahead of the person to hit them like you do in CoD 2 (exaggeration). Obviously I've had more than a dozen dominations on a server in CoD 2...taken first place, etc...but it seems to be random if I do so. In the first Call of Duty, there's a challenge for me, but I usually don't have much of a problem taking first place on a random server (on my team, at least - just incase I'm on a sucky team which is usually the situation).

dang, you have alot of reasons for not liking CoD2... i just didn't like the mp cuz there was no real PURPOSE to it, you just ran around and killed people, that's why i always liked CS,DoD more. but the new cstom class thing in CoD4 sounds kinda interestingzaman48

Yeah it does sound interesting. I like the fact that you'll be able to give a custom name to your class as well.

I started MP with the first CoD, sure the first one was awesome online, but it was nothing compared to CoD: UO online, that was probably the best MPFPS I have ever played, the guns were balanced, Maps well designed, portable machine guns, Tanks and Jeeps and some of the best game types too, Base Assault for example.

Once CoD 2 came out the first thing I did with it was head strait to Multiplayer. I played a few games on a few different maps, I thought the aiming was better in CoD 2, I was able to hit moving targets with the Kar98k, I had never done that on the first ones.

But the thing that ruined the MP for me was the lack of Vehicles or poratable machine guns, It was a step down from the great CoD: UO.

As long as CoD 4 is like CoD: UO, everthing will be fine.

Still, PC or 360, im not sure which to get it for.

I started MP with the first CoD, sure the first one was awesome online, but it was nothing compared to CoD: UO online, that was probably the best MPFPS I have ever played, the guns were balanced, Maps well designed, portable machine guns, Tanks and Jeeps and some of the best game types too, Base Assault for example.

Once CoD 2 came out the first thing I did with it was head strait to Multiplayer. I played a few games on a few different maps, I thought the aiming was better in CoD 2, I was able to hit moving targets with the Kar98k, I had never done that on the first ones.

But the thing that ruined the MP for me was the lack of Vehicles or poratable machine guns, It was a step down from the great CoD: UO.

As long as CoD 4 is like CoD: UO, everthing will be fine.

Still, PC or 360, im not sure which to get it for.

reelbigfish

Well that's what I meant by CoD 1...I meant United Offensive as well. My friend hated UO for the vehicles (well more the actual vehicles than the game itself...artillery and such), but I found it really fun which is why I'm pondering getting Battleifeld 2 or not.

I thought Call of Duty was an excellent game.

Call of Duty 2, on the other hand, was pretty weak.

The complaints center around two main problems: poor sound and way too easy.

I have an Audigy sound card with EAX2. So the sound issues aren't from poor hardware, but rather from weak sounding weapons, and ambient soldiers that never shut up. The volume of their chatter was louder than the report from firearms. In particularly the one I was discharging!

Secondly, the game would allow you to charge and duck as you health recovers, rendering challenging tactics meaningless. Gameplay was way too simpilistic.

Overall, I stamp Call of Duty 2 with the signage of "Consolized". If Call of Duty 4 follows in the footsteps of the second edition, I won't buy it.

I thought Call of Duty was an excellent game.

Call of Duty 2, on the other hand, was pretty weak.

The complaints center around two main problems: poor sound and way too easy.

Subcritical

If you thought COD2 was 'way too easy' youa) played with the cheats; b)must be an extremely talented player c) you were not playing on the hardest difficulty.

COD4 will not be like COD2. It won't be able to recreate the balance and beauty that the WW2 setting brought to the franchise. From thetrailers forCOD4, I get the impression itwill be acheap remake of B2 rather a new, fresh game with its own distinct flavour.

[QUOTE="Subcritical"]

I thought Call of Duty was an excellent game.

Call of Duty 2, on the other hand, was pretty weak.

The complaints center around two main problems: poor sound and way too easy.

asl2006

If you thought COD2 was 'way too easy' youa) played with the cheats; b)must be an extremely talented player c) you were not playing on the hardest difficulty.

COD4 will not be like COD2. It won't be able to recreate the balance and beauty that the WW2 setting brought to the franchise. From thetrailers forCOD4, I get the impression itwill be acheap remake of B2 rather a new, fresh game with its own distinct flavour.

I hope not, BF2 is such an awful game imo.

[QUOTE="Subcritical"]

I thought Call of Duty was an excellent game.

Call of Duty 2, on the other hand, was pretty weak.

The complaints center around two main problems: poor sound and way too easy.

asl2006

If you thought COD2 was 'way too easy' youa) played with the cheats; b)must be an extremely talented player c) you were not playing on the hardest difficulty.

COD4 will not be like COD2. It won't be able to recreate the balance and beauty that the WW2 setting brought to the franchise. From thetrailers forCOD4, I get the impression itwill be acheap remake of B2 rather a new, fresh game with its own distinct flavour.

Actually Call of Duty 2 was fairly easy mainly because of two reasons:

1. Grenade indicator. If you're not smart enough to see your enemy throwing a grenade at you and hear it bouncing next to you, then you deserve to die.
2. Regeneration of the health. I could take 50,000 bullets into my body as long as it's not concecutive.

[QUOTE="asl2006"][QUOTE="Subcritical"]

I thought Call of Duty was an excellent game.

Call of Duty 2, on the other hand, was pretty weak.

The complaints center around two main problems: poor sound and way too easy.

Skullheart

If you thought COD2 was 'way too easy' youa) played with the cheats; b)must be an extremely talented player c) you were not playing on the hardest difficulty.

COD4 will not be like COD2. It won't be able to recreate the balance and beauty that the WW2 setting brought to the franchise. From thetrailers forCOD4, I get the impression itwill be acheap remake of B2 rather a new, fresh game with its own distinct flavour.

Actually Call of Duty 2 was fairly easy mainly because of two reasons:

1. Grenade indicator. If you're not smart enough to see your enemy throwing a grenade at you and hear it bouncing next to you, then you deserve to die.
2. Regeneration of the health. I could take 50,000 bullets into my body as long as it's not concecutive.

you know,he's right..its QUITE easy...yeah,the aiming is KINDA hard,but if you know when to shoot,and when to cover..you can win it..(i think)

[QUOTE="Skullheart"][QUOTE="asl2006"][QUOTE="Subcritical"]

I thought Call of Duty was an excellent game.

Call of Duty 2, on the other hand, was pretty weak.

The complaints center around two main problems: poor sound and way too easy.

fly_trooper

If you thought COD2 was 'way too easy' youa) played with the cheats; b)must be an extremely talented player c) you were not playing on the hardest difficulty.

COD4 will not be like COD2. It won't be able to recreate the balance and beauty that the WW2 setting brought to the franchise. From thetrailers forCOD4, I get the impression itwill be acheap remake of B2 rather a new, fresh game with its own distinct flavour.

Actually Call of Duty 2 was fairly easy mainly because of two reasons:

1. Grenade indicator. If you're not smart enough to see your enemy throwing a grenade at you and hear it bouncing next to you, then you deserve to die.
2. Regeneration of the health. I could take 50,000 bullets into my body as long as it's not concecutive.

you know,he's right..its QUITE easy...yeah,the aiming is KINDA hard,but if you know when to shoot,and when to cover..you can win it..(i think)

CoD 2 just generally sucks compared to the first one. All the hand-holding just destroyed all the skill factors that the CoD series had.

yea,.. should not be able to nade spam the other teams spawn.

play BF2 instead

Cra2y

But don't play on Karkand if you don't like nade spawn spam

1. Grenade indicator. If you're not smart enough to see your enemy throwing a grenade at you and hear it bouncing next to you, then you deserve to die.Skullheart

I don't know if it's just me, but I could never see gernades in Call of Dooty 2. I would have died many, many times if it weren't for that gernade indicator. However, I never had problems avoiding gernades in the first Call of Dooty. I can't explain it. It just seemed a hell of a lot easier to see and avoid gernades in the first game. Anyone else agree?

Edit: Was there a way to disable the gernade indicator in Call of Dooty 2?

I am in the Xbox 360 beta for CoD4 and I think there are a couple things you wont really like about it.

One of the things i know you will not like is the game still has the spray and pray feel to it. With the perks avalible to you, you will be able to shoot through thin walls and stuff. And some people just unload their RPK's and M249's through the walls trying to hit someone.

Its not as bad as I make is sound though. Not many people do it (mind you there are around 8k people in the beta currently) and I have only met the ocasional few that do.

Another thing that I think you wont like is that when you do fire, you appear as the red dot on the map. BUT there is a gameplay element to it. By using your weapon upgrades, you can get a silencer. The silencer allows you do stay off the radar when shooting. I think this creates more emersive gameplay and tactics so i dont have a problem with it at all.

Any conformation on Vehicles in multiplayer?

I am in the Xbox 360 beta for CoD4 and I think there are a couple things you wont really like about it.

One of the things i know you will not like is the game still has the spray and pray feel to it. With the perks avalible to you, you will be able to shoot through thin walls and stuff. And some people just unload their RPK's and M249's through the walls trying to hit someone.

Its not as bad as I make is sound though. Not many people do it (mind you there are around 8k people in the beta currently) and I have only met the ocasional few that do.

Another thing that I think you wont like is that when you do fire, you appear as the red dot on the map. BUT there is a gameplay element to it. By using your weapon upgrades, you can get a silencer. The silencer allows you do stay off the radar when shooting. I think this creates more emersive gameplay and tactics so i dont have a problem with it at all.

Bohica28

I could tell that it has a spray/pray feel to it from the video clips. The question is whether or not the aiming is fixed.

If you dont like it dont play it.

It is that simple

If you dont like it dont play it.

It is that simple

Baron_14

Wow, thank you. If it wasn't for you coming into this thread, I never would have seen the light!

I'm trying to find out if CoD 4 will be like CoD 2 before I spend my money to play it and see if I like it then.

Actually Call of Duty 2 was fairly easy mainly because of two reasons:

1. Grenade indicator. If you're not smart enough to see your enemy throwing a grenade at you and hear it bouncing next to you, then you deserve to die.
2. Regeneration of the health. I could take 50,000 bullets into my body as long as it's not concecutive.

Skullheart

actually in cod2 the nades are almost impossible too see/hear without indicators: thats why they added them. they where too lazy too make the nades right. cod2 is a terrible game.

[QUOTE="Skullheart"]Actually Call of Duty 2 was fairly easy mainly because of two reasons:

1. Grenade indicator. If you're not smart enough to see your enemy throwing a grenade at you and hear it bouncing next to you, then you deserve to die.
2. Regeneration of the health. I could take 50,000 bullets into my body as long as it's not concecutive.

Lord_Bedwyr

actually in cod2 the nades are almost impossible too see/hear without indicators: thats why they added them. they where too lazy too make the nades right. cod2 is a terrible game.

I don't know which version of CoD 2 you're playing, but I can see and hear them just fine. But yeah, it's a terrible game (online multiplayer wise).

yes u guys will like. its very quick, i think quicker than CoD2 (not sure havent played it in awhile). PLENTY OF WEAPONS to choose from. An experience system that lets you work towards new ranks so you can unlock new guns, perks, add-ons. But since its quick, you might be dying or killing in one two shots. It feels good on the 360 but it might differ on the PC with the mouse/keyboard combo.

Be patient guys, its good. :)

CoD3 ROCKS!!! non stop action

i cant lay my eyes out from the screen!