[QUOTE="gingerdivid"]I was quite disappointed by CoD2, for many reasons. For starters, all the great incremental changes introduced in UO were scrapped (with the exception of smoke grenades). It felt slightly slower, that razor sharp pace had gone, the recoil was tamed and I disliked the rechargeable health system. CoD 1 had a superb, cinematic campaign, for me it just felt more inspired, I remember the British mission were you had to hold the bridge from heavy fire and tanks, as it started to get intense, a fantastic orchestral score kicked in as the reinforcements were getting closer and closer, and who can forget the last mission where they recreated the world famous Riestag Flag scene. The commando missions were superb too, for me, CoD2 only started to get exciting towards right at the very end and by then, it was too late.
CoD1 and it's expansion are still my favorite CoD games and my favorite WW2 games, CoD4 was ok, but it was too short and the whole spawn point thing was far too transparent, it totally ruined any immersion that the game could of had. I still enjoy WW2 shooters, as I'm quite a history enthusiast, whether it be politics, medieval warfare or modern warfare. WW2 shooters do come too often, but CoD5 explores a different side of WW2, a side that other games have ignored, we wont be returning to Normandy and Carentean this time around. So let's see what happens, it could be interesting.
ReturnOfShinobi
I thought CoD2 was amazing from start to end, it had a more realistic feel for it, it was truely horrifying watching so many people die around you, whilst having to concentrate on the battle. CoD1s campaign was good, but it was only truely grat in a few levels, there were simply too many boring solo missions, or missions that felt uninspired. As for the rechargable health, im a fan of it, it kept up the intensity, i finished the game on Vet simply because every battle was so much fun to play again and again, and simply, it didnt feel cheap. On CoD4, it was backwards all the way, CoD2 had huge battles, CoD4 had small ones, CoD2 almost did away with blatant respawns, CoD4 was full of them, CoD2 didnt feel cheap on Vet, CoD4 it felt cheap even on Hardened.
CoD2 did feel a little more realistic despite the tamed recoil, as in CoD1 you always ran at breakneck speed. The visuals in CoD2 brought the environments to life, it was great to see the old maps return with an extra veneer of shine. There was also a shotgun in CoD2 :), which was very satisfying. I just never felt that CoD2 touched upon the heights of UO, so the hollow sense of disappointment reared it's ugly head, and all of the other CoD games after CoD: UO were tainted with the same brush. I can understand why people enjoy CoD2 more, but I felt that it took out things that I liked about CoD1 and replaced them with things that I disliked or simply didn't include things that I enjoyed in other installments, like vehicles online (I didn't like CoD2's new online maps either, I had excellent camping spots in ship and chateau :P). CoD 2 was still a great game and CoD4's online is great, it's not like the series has lost its appeal to me, it's just the old feel of CoD1 is gone and I guess that just acted as a deterrent for me.
EDIT: As for the commando missions, I thought they were enjoyable and there were still only two, if I rerember correctly.
Log in to comment