Call Of Duty 2 and World at War are the only CODs that remained true ...

To the formula that made Shooters fun, balanced multiplayer with no perks or any of that stuff and most importantly, the campaigns COD 2 and WAW campaings were carefully written, interesting to play and made a little sense, while we all know that World War 2 will never be portrayed accurately in any media we have today given the magniture of the event, at least the games were a decent attempt to catch the atmosphere, not the actual feeling of course but at least the atmosphere, the environments, the weaponry etc

The new modern warfare games seem to be all about the multiplayer, and what I always cared for the most about the COD series was the campaign, Modern Warfare 2 felt so rushed and generic, who feels the same way? Now that the core team behind the original COD2 left, The only half decent COD project I'm interested in is Treyarch's which is supposed to take place in vietnam or so I heard :P

Who feels the same way about the COD series, it was lead astray by we all know who...that kotick guy.

:oops:

To the formula that made Shooters fun, balanced multiplayer with no perks or any of that stuff and most importantly, the campaigns COD 2 and WAW campaings were carefully written, interesting to play and made a little sense, while we all know that World War 2 will never be portrayed accurately in any media we have today given the magniture of the event, at least the games were a decent attempt to catch the atmosphere, not the actual feeling of course but at least the atmosphere, the environments, the weaponry etc

The new modern warfare games seem to be all about the multiplayer, and what I always cared for the most about the COD series was the campaign, Modern Warfare 2 felt so rushed and generic, who feels the same way? Now that the core team behind the original COD2 left, The only half decent COD project I'm interested in is InfinityWard's which is supposed to take place in vietnam or so I heard :P

Who feels the same way about the COD series, it was lead astray by we all know who...that kotick guy.

AgentA-Mi6

The worst problem with the single player in Call of Duty these days is the writing. It is so maniqueist, so dehumanizing that it is just imoral (the atempts at the latest one just made it worse). It is a war game with villains and all this crap - like most shooters - but they take it to a completely different level.

The first ones had mostly pacifist deathquotes and even anti-patriotic ones in a testement to the horror that is war, without letting go of the action. Now in the latest ones they quote Cheney and idiotic military manuals, eventually reusing some old ones. There's even one, wich I can't recall, that doesn't even have these.

If I can recall correctly the 2nd CoD, ended up with footage of american and russians fraternizing over conquered Berlim and some dubbage over it from a russian character saying something like: "We didn't care wether we were americans or russians, we are brothers".A simple yet moral approach to ideal that soldiers, warriors in any army are above all men, equal and entitled to the same rights. Now, i don't even need to explain.

I agree with you, but I've always been more a fan of the Battlefield games, anyway.

not going to speak for World at War, but COD 2 was hella uninspired rehash of Call of Duty 1. IT was trying to basically relive the strong points of COD 1 with inferior execution. It's Infinity Ward's honest problem to be frank. They know how to start a good thing, but when they need to make a sequel on it. It feels uninspired.

CoD 4 modern warfare brought COD to a new age. Sure it stayed true to the formula, but it was tightly paced, varied at times, and it was expertly polished. The strong moments were well executed and had some subtlty to them. Modern Warfare 2 on the other hand tries to rehash and cash those moments in a more blockbuster micheal bay feel and completely missed the point. COD 2 is like that to COD 1. It tries to spark some of the same grand moments in COD 1 but without the care and execution that went into making the first round memorable.

When it comes to I-Ward. Call of Duty 1 and Call of Duty 4: Modern Warfare is when they have been on point with their formula into making a great game.

Call of Duty 2 and Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 2 are when they tried to back up a great performance and under delivered by a wide margin. Not that it's ever hurt their critical/commercial success though.

The worst problem with the single player in Call of Duty these days is the writing. It is so maniqueist, so dehumanizing that it is just imoral (the atempts at the latest one just made it worse). It is a war game with villains and all this crap - like most shooters - but they take it to a completely different level.

The first ones had mostly pacifist deathquotes and even anti-patriotic ones in a testement to the horror that is war, without letting go of the action. Now in the latest ones they quote Cheney and idiotic military manuals, eventually reusing some old ones. There's even one, wich I can't recall, that doesn't even have these.

If I can recall correctly the 2nd CoD, ended up with footage of american and russians fraternizing over conquered Berlim and some dubbage over it from a russian character saying something like: "We didn't care wether we were americans or russians, we are brothers".A simple yet moral approach to ideal that soldiers, warriors in any army are above all men, equal and entitled to the same rights. Now, i don't even need to explain.

Masculus

but COD 2 was hella uninspired rehash of Call of Duty 1. IT was trying to basically relive the strong points of COD 1 with inferior execution. It's Infinity Ward's honest problem to be frank. They know how to start a good thing, but when they need to make a sequel on it. It feels uninspired.

jg4xchamp

I kinda agree, COd WaW was really the only Cod that I can say that I thoroughly enjoyed completely.

but then again Ive always preferred historic shooters over modern shooters.

Its weird, I like both ends of the spectrum

historical and futureistic sci fi shooters

but when it comes to the middle ground I hate things taking place in todays world :P

[QUOTE="jg4xchamp"]

but COD 2 was hella uninspired rehash of Call of Duty 1. IT was trying to basically relive the strong points of COD 1 with inferior execution. It's Infinity Ward's honest problem to be frank. They know how to start a good thing, but when they need to make a sequel on it. It feels uninspired.

mitu123

both modern warfares were two of the finest FPS campaigns i've ever played.

your logic is laughable.

To the formula that made Shooters fun, balanced multiplayer with no perks or any of that stuff and most importantly, the campaigns COD 2 and WAW campaings were carefully written, interesting to play and made a little sense, while we all know that World War 2 will never be portrayed accurately in any media we have today given the magniture of the event, at least the games were a decent attempt to catch the atmosphere, not the actual feeling of course but at least the atmosphere, the environments, the weaponry etc

The new modern warfare games seem to be all about the multiplayer, and what I always cared for the most about the COD series was the campaign, Modern Warfare 2 felt so rushed and generic, who feels the same way? Now that the core team behind the original COD2 left, The only half decent COD project I'm interested in is Treyarch's which is supposed to take place in vietnam or so I heard :P

Who feels the same way about the COD series, it was lead astray by we all know who...that kotick guy.

:oops:

AgentA-Mi6

[QUOTE="mitu123"]

[QUOTE="jg4xchamp"]

but COD 2 was hella uninspired rehash of Call of Duty 1. IT was trying to basically relive the strong points of COD 1 with inferior execution. It's Infinity Ward's honest problem to be frank. They know how to start a good thing, but when they need to make a sequel on it. It feels uninspired.

jg4xchamp

I'm not really agreeing with the topic title, but I will say that World at War gets too much hate from the CoD fanboys. I played and beat the campaign and it was really fun. Maybe not as thrilling as CoD4's campaign, but still great. SilverChimera

I agree, I personally feel that Sgt. Reznov was one of the best characters in any of the cod games released.

[QUOTE="SilverChimera"]I'm not really agreeing with the topic title, but I will say that World at War gets too much hate from the CoD fanboys. I played and beat the campaign and it was really fun. Maybe not as thrilling as CoD4's campaign, but still great. dragonfly110

I agree, I personally feel that Sgt. Reznov was one of the best characters in any of the cod games released.

:P

But seriously, I loved the WaW campaign and Sgt. Reznov too.

[QUOTE="SilverChimera"]I'm not really agreeing with the topic title, but I will say that World at War gets too much hate from the CoD fanboys. I played and beat the campaign and it was really fun. Maybe not as thrilling as CoD4's campaign, but still great. dragonfly110

I agree, I personally feel that Sgt. Reznov was one of the best characters in any of the cod games released.

WaW was literally CoD4, just made into WW2.. Exactly how much did they change? You say that MW is just rehashs, unoriginal, etc. What did WaW add to the formula. WaW was simply emulating the massive success of MW1, it took the exact same formula, transferred it to WW1 and added Nazi Zombies. MW2 innovated more than WaW did.

Funny thing about people saying MW2 is imbalanced is that according to them SO MANY THINGS are imba. Shotties, assault rifles, ump, noob toobs, OMA, air support, stinger missiles to shoot down air support, pain killer, final stand, claymores, cold blooded, stopping power, last stand, tactical knife, commando, heartbeat sensors, thermal scope, a good 1/2 the game if you ask a few people. I agree with a few things (noob toobs, maybe AR's for being too versatile, but I use em mostly anyway), but frankly its just that weaoons in MW2 are powerful. Any gun in the game will kill very fast if yoou run into somebody. Thats why ikts hard for anything to be too imba. everything kills fast.

[QUOTE="dragonfly110"]

[QUOTE="SilverChimera"]I'm not really agreeing with the topic title, but I will say that World at War gets too much hate from the CoD fanboys. I played and beat the campaign and it was really fun. Maybe not as thrilling as CoD4's campaign, but still great. SilverChimera

I agree, I personally feel that Sgt. Reznov was one of the best characters in any of the cod games released.

oh god yea, from the moment the game opens its one gigantic nazi japanese and american blood bath :P

World at War had perks, and it was more unbalanced than Modern Warfare 2. It's obvious you never played the game, so please don't comment about it. It's bad enough the internet is full of Halo Haters who don't know anything about the game, we don't need more of your kind.Blaze092

I have to say World at War's campain completely blows Modern Warfare's campain out of the water. WaW actually feels makes you feel like your a part of the war. Modern Warefare is just a uninspired and confusing campain. Its Mutiplayer is better than Waw but not by much. In my opinion it seem when it comes to the call of duty campains Treyarch is better than Infinity Ward.

Yeah CoD2 is still my favorite. Before the series just got totally ridiculous lol

CoD 2 and WaW were the most enjoyable in the series and I certainly didn't get as pissed off playing those games as bad as I do in CoD4 and MW2. I would play them still but playing multiplayer games with no one I know is kind of boring, and they don't have as many people playing them as CoD4 and MW2 anyway.