getDare Truth or Dare - girls, Call of Duty?

Quote:

Originally Posted by SlutPuppy (Post 309704)

I have COD3 and I love it XD

Oh poor choice!

Let me educate you on the reason why :-)

(Note: This is a pretty long-winded commentary on the CoD series so far, which is probably totally irrelevant. Oh well, i'll still post it anyway!

Spoiler:

Call of Duty (1) was developed by Infinity Ward, and was widely praised at the tiem of its released. Main Competitor was the Medal of Honour series and Brothers in Arms, but MoH was all about lone wolf stuff, and BiA was more tactical, with less of the arcade gameplay which people who played CoD sought. Plus, it had awesome multiplayer! Especially bolt action only servers. The singleplayer was basically Enemy at The Gates ("The man with the rifle shoots! The man without the rifle follows! When the man with the rifle is killed, the man WITHOUT the rifle PICKS UP THERIFLE AND SHOOTS!"), Band of Brothers (101st airbourne, some identical things like piano in the street e.t.c, and The Longest Day (Glider Assault on Pegasus bridge e.t.c)

Oh, this game also was made up of massive win because it featured Captain Price.

Then, its expansion pack, United Offensive, was released. Unlike the first game, this was developed by a studio called Grey Matter. It added vehicles and new weapons, but nothing drastic.

With the success, the game became a franchise, with a bunch of pretty poor console versions being released, developed Treyarch, who absorbed Grey Matter studios.

CoD 2 was then released, this time on both PC (superior) and Xbox360 (One of the only decent launch titles, so it became popular. Gameplay felt alot weirder than PC)

This added the Halo-Style health system, ratehr than using the classic health pack drop system, but was essentially just a prettier version of CoD1/UO, although it added the nifty system where your buddies would call out dynamic speech things like 'SERGEANT DAVIS! JERRY BEHIND THE CRATES' when an enemy was behind the crates.

While it did have a fun training mission where you played a Russian soldier throwing potatoes instead of grenades, it was just more of the same. Oh, and it lacked Captain Price.

Then, CoD3 came along. This time, it was produced by Treyarch, and a PC release was excluded. What does this mean, you may ask:

1) Worse graphics. Okay, prettier than CoD2, but no where near PC tech at the time (See: Oblivion, Crysis)
2) Rubbish Multiplayer gameplay: Average PC Server size, 32. Average Xbox360, 8-12. Small cramped maps e.t.c
3) Treyarch made it. This means it is generally bad.

Then, Infinity Ward reopened the series with Modern Warfare, which was pretty awesome in basically everyway. It is not the uber-game people sometimes say, but it actually does what it aims to do pretty well, and has a pretty good plot to boot.

CoD5: World at War was Treyarch's next offering. Using CoD4's engine, it was actually a pretty good game. Haven;t played online, but supposidly its all rubbish. Apart from Nazi Zombies, which is awesome.

Cod: MW2 - Despite what most of its 13 year old console fanbase will say, I think this is actually a poorer offering of CoD4. IW basically try to crank everything up to 11, losing the believability of the plot and adding some gimmicky bits to multiplayer. Still a good game, but the multiplayer is unbalanced and yo udie within miliseconds, rather than half-seconds. Which is silly. ("Hurrrrr durrr spray and pray")

Right, i'll shush now... Don;t even get me started on 'hardcore' vs regular :-p