since my computer bit it, ive been playing on xbox live a lot. i play a lot of mw2, i dont know why...i dont really enjoy it anymore. the worst aspect of it is the more you progress and become higher in rank the less fun it becomes. at first it was pretty cool because the people youre playing with are new to the game as well and havnt learned how to exploit the game mechanics. now i get in a match everyone is some form of a sniper class jumping around dancing and going prone quickscoping you the moment you spawn. its just garbage, all of it. and im not sure other games are any better. i used to play quake, then halflife deathmatch and counter-strike and unreal tournament and they all seemed broken. a couple decades and the gameplay is still basicly the same tired simple shit, same problems every generation.
I played a ton of Call of Duty 1-3 online and campaign. CoD 4 was really good, but I much rather play Halo 3 at the time. CoD 5-now and future, what the fuck are they doing, how does anyone find these games fun. Really, they should of just stuck with the class-based model. I play all the campaigns, but I don't buy them since CoD MW2 (worst multiplayer of all time). I can usually beat them in a day, so I just find a friend who calls the current CoD the worst game in the world, then I borrow the disc for a day or two before he wants to play it again.
Yeah, it really does seem like everything is about this fucking game these days and people who aren't arsed or don't play it that much in my experience seem to be treated like they have hepatitis or cancer. Once you've established you really aren't arsed the conversation seems to go sombre. Fuck 'em, wear your "I don't play this" badge right on your sleeve mate. At the end of the day, what does it matter? Thanks, my PSN ID is the same as my username here mate Xeauron, feel free to add me though make sure you mention assembler in the request so I know who you are. As always just my opinion on this matter, lots of people like the reality thing, I prefer the ultimate escapism that silicone chips these days can offer. Why go 7,000 miles when you can go 700,000,000 light years away, but that's just me. Above all else I always say, do whatever you enjoy the most. Modern warfare fans never hurt anyone in my experience nor do killzone fans, except when they clash in pathetic forum arguments. Do what you want to do and enjoy yourself, this isn't a dress rehearsal, this is life and you only get one shot - fucking enjoy it, stop worrying about what anyone else thinks.
Meh, the way I see it, it was his money (I assume) and he's free to do what he wants with it; even if he wants to spend it on a game that's nearly the same as its predecessors. Hell, people buy Madden and FIFA each year, and that's even worse, since sports games aren't even worth the price they charge for them. Also, not that anyone cares or anything, but I just finished Turok 2. I clocked just under 18 hours, which I believe is a very good amount of time for a FPS of its age. When you figure that the single player campaign for COD is about 4-8 hours, I just played about 2-4 CODs. I never understood how gamers accept such a short single-player campaign in modern First-person shooters. I'm not saying that games should have a 40+ hour campaign, but I think 15-20 hours is a fair amount.
Because most people just buy them for the multiplayer. And also because gamers these days start whining if a game is challenging at all.
Ah yes, I remember a time when games focused on having a good single player mode, with a multiplayer mode being a cool bonus. Good times...
Thats is so true! yeah its not like the Nintendo 64 days or PS2 days with Multiplayer gaming or singleplayer campaign gaming too lol if there was a "like" button on this site i would've agree to your comment man
There are many things about CoD that I do not like, but there is one thing I think the developers did right: 60 frames per second. To anyone who doesn't know what that means, check this out: http://www.boallen.com/fps-compare.html See the difference? Most console developers just accept 30 frames per second because "60 is too difficult", like an underachieving high school student settling for a C because "an A is too much work". Sure the graphics take a hit, but I think it's worth it, as it provides a much smoother, and more fast paced experience; just ask any PC gamer. If Infinity Ward/Treyarch can do it for each CoD they fart out, then so can other developers if they put some effort into it. Tales of Vesperia ran at 30 fps during cutscenes and exploration, and 60 fps during battle. In other words, it ran smoothly during the action, when it mattered most. I'd take that any day over super-gritty-ultra-realistic graphics that can barely do 30 fps.
I can't agree more. Problem is that right now, console games are more focused on "graphics" and not FPS. For instance, BF3 has terrible input lag, because of the "HD Graphics"
Medal of Honor was also out before CoD - CoD was made by ex-Medal of Honor developers. I remember playing the original Call of Duty after having it on preorder way back on my P4 3.06GHz machine. The graphics were good for the time but the most amazing element (for me) was the audio and it was an enjoyable game. The multiplayer was just basically World War 2 Quake, which is not a surprise given as it was based on the Quake engine and set in WWII. The only thing that has changed since then are the rewards and the setting, both of which have simultaneously propelled and ruined the franchise.
