Okay so for the past 3-4 years the COD has been the same rehash series with little to no change. I can understand people hating that and not likeing the milkage from the series. However people say they hate the ENTIRE franchise which would mean COD1 and COD2 and COD4 are awful too. Call of Duty 2 for PC and Xbox 360 was a really enjoyable game that was designed well. I don't understand why people hate on COD2 too when that game is fine.
ToastRider11
you'd be surprised how many people i met in college and when i joined the army that thought call of duty 4 modern warfare was the first game in the series...i know it sounds utterly stupid...but its true
that being said...i i think call of duty 4 is the best in the series and ive been playing it again recently on pc...ive played the others with my bro whenever im there and they just feel broken...the killstreaks in cod4 were interesting and they freshened up the genre...but the latter games took them waay too far and made them game breaking...
and i think the reason people hated cod2 (and im not the biggest fan of what it did) was cause it was the first game to heavily rely on the regenerating health concept...while it was a tight game and played well...i think the regenerating health concept is broken, while med packs arent exactly fair either (finishing a firefight and coming out with 10hp and gettin spit on and dying isnt ever fun) it completely changed the online experience for more fps games...i grew up playing quake 3 and unreal tourney 99 and counter strike...thoses games took much more skill and gettin hit wasnt nearly as forgiving(duck for 2 seconds and off you go)
but to answer ur question
cod1 was good and so was its expansion
cod2 was good...but it changed online fps games with the regen health and made campaigns a no brainer for these days
cod4 was good...added onto what cod2 did and made one of the best modern online experiences out there
cod waw+....thats where everythign goes down hill and they embelish on the WRONG parts of the game
Log in to comment