Call of Duty v9 - Still not as shit as BF3! - Games

[QUOTE=dass;32205292]It was that, except for the backwards thing. Also... Will MW3 PC have lean? Don't really care if it does tbh but... Oh well.[/QUOTE] God I hope so. There were way too many instances in Modern Warfare 2 where I though "Fuck, if only I could lean..."

[QUOTE=trotskygrad;32206547]and I'm pretty sure that the "Reaper Plane" (lol, who the fuck calls it that anyways)[/QUOTE] Wow no need to be a dick. I get that you know a bunch about military stuff but wow no need to be a know-it-all. They call it a Reaper UAV in the game, I was calling it a Reaper Plane just because it's a plane that is called the Reaper. Yeesh.

[QUOTE=Lizzrd;32202571]Half of the guns in black ops weren't even on the drawing board in 1968.[/QUOTE] I send nukes out everytime I get 25 kill in real life :downs: My names Zillamaster55 I rate people dumb for making a joke, jokes aren't good cod is srs bsns

I'm glad they've released a Black Ops strategy guide. I've been looking so long for a walkthrough of the campaign, I mean it's so hard to know where you're supposed to go!

Come to think of it, isn't it good that Mw3 looks like mw2? MW2 had great graphics, so that's a plus side. But wait, it also was promised to play like CoD 4. If it does, then that's good too. Why does it get shit on for playing like 2 amazing games? Wait.. it also seems to have lots of variation like WaW and Black ops.. That's also good. Basically they put the best parts of each cod game, 4- black ops, into one game. It STILL gets shitted on for reasons unknown. And yet it has the best parts of each cod game? Why.

I just think they should focus on the online part, maybe even no singleplayer, may seem weird for a game to release without singleplayer, but games like BF and CoD are known for the online and if the just focused more on the online/multiplayer then they'd get a good deal out of the online, enough time to balance it out, add things, improve things and then maybe a campaign or maybe even just a short co-op campaign, yeah the campaigns are fun, but 10 hours for single player is too short.

I honestly think CoD will never lose the shitty rep it has, unless they make a game that is perfectly balanced, have a nice dose of teamwork, tons of variation, and can draw BF players to CoD.

Going by how Battlefield fans seem to react in every Call of Duty thread (and some Battlefield threads) they can stay with BF. Also the nice thing about CoD is it does let you choose your experience. You can have a pretty tight teamwork intensive environment if you want to, but the game also delivers a fast paced arcade experience that is preferable to those of us who miss classic shooters before the era of engine gimmicks and class-based multiplayer. CoD should stay CoD and Battlefield should stay Battlefield. The only thing that needs to change is peoples perspectives about the people who play them.

[QUOTE=SoUl_ReApEr2;32213170]I just think they should focus on the online part, maybe even no singleplayer, may seem weird for a game to release without singleplayer, but games like BF and CoD are known for the online and if the just focused more on the online/multiplayer then they'd get a good deal out of the online, enough time to balance it out, add things, improve things and then maybe a campaign or maybe even just a short co-op campaign, yeah the campaigns are fun, but 10 hours for single player is too short.[/QUOTE] Yeah, but unlike Battlefield, Call of Duty's campaigns are fun. Fun meaning: There's actually a storyline, insane or not, and realish characters. Not this BACK IN 1945 THERE WAS THIS JAP WEAPON THAT BLEW UP AN ISLAND, ONE THING LEAD TO ANOTHER AND THE RUSSIANS ARE EVERYWHERE FOR NO REASON, HERE HAVE AN XM8

[QUOTE=Zillamaster55;32213318]Yeah, but unlike Battlefield, Call of Duty's campaigns are fun.[/QUOTE] IMO, BFBC2's campaign was shorter than CoD's. Took me a day to beat, meanwhile let's say... black ops, took me around 2 days. Not to say one campaign is more fun than the other's..

[QUOTE=PyroCraz3d;32213332]IMO, BFBC2's campaign was shorter than CoD's. Took me a day to beat, meanwhile let's say... black ops, took me around 2 days. Not to say one campaign is more fun than the other's..[/QUOTE]Took me longer to finish BC2's campaign, and it was much more enjoyable.

I loved BC1's campaign, funny characters, writing, and fun levels. Linear as hell but what shooter isn't? BC2 was a huge disappointment. They made all the characters more serious, your foe is typical Russian special forces who you mow down by a truckload, and it was short as hell. I seriously beat it on normal in 4 hours. MW2 took me 6 hours on normal and 10 hours on Veteran. Black Ops took me 8 hours on Hardened. When you have an FPS campaign that is shorter than three different Call of Duty campaigns, you fucked up somewhere.

[QUOTE=Zillamaster55;32213318]Yeah, but unlike Battlefield, Call of Duty's campaigns are fun. Fun meaning: There's actually a storyline, insane or not, and realish characters. Not this BACK IN 1945 THERE WAS THIS JAP WEAPON THAT BLEW UP AN ISLAND, ONE THING LEAD TO ANOTHER AND THE RUSSIANS ARE EVERYWHERE FOR NO REASON, HERE HAVE AN XM8[/QUOTE] Oh look let's get defensive about the campaign even though the post I just quoted cleary said the campaign is [b]FUN[/b], once again someone says something that wasn't even bad about CoD brings BF into the argument. [editline]10th September 2011[/editline] [QUOTE=Zillamaster55;32213318]Yeah, but unlike Battlefield, Call of Duty's campaigns are fun. Fun meaning: There's actually a storyline, insane or not, and realish characters. Not this BACK IN 1945 THERE WAS THIS JAP WEAPON THAT BLEW UP AN ISLAND, ONE THING LEAD TO ANOTHER AND THE RUSSIANS ARE EVERYWHERE FOR NO REASON, HERE HAVE AN XM8[/QUOTE] Plus you just proved my point, dice focus mainly on MP which is why the campaign isn't so good, while IW or who ever focus between them both.

[QUOTE=Raidyr;32213424]I loved BC1's campaign, funny characters, writing, and fun levels. Linear as hell but what shooter isn't? BC2 was a huge disappointment. They made all the characters more serious, your foe is typical Russian special forces who you mow down by a truckload, and it was short as hell. I seriously beat it on normal in 4 hours. MW2 took me 6 hours on normal and 10 hours on Veteran. Black Ops took me 8 hours on Hardened. When you have an FPS campaign that is shorter than three different Call of Duty campaigns, you fucked up somewhere.[/QUOTE] BC 1was fairly unlinear if I recall, you could deviate from your path to explore small villages for weapons and gold

[QUOTE=carcarcargo;32213513]BC 1was fairly unlinear if I recall, you could deviate from your path to explore small villages for weapons and gold[/QUOTE] In the same way you could deviate from the path in Call of Duty to get ammo from a store room. It was a minor distraction. When I refer to the linearity of a game I mean the routes that you can take to completing it. Giving you a fork in the road where one place leads no where and one place gets you closer to "the end" is as linear as just taking you to the end.

I've enjoyed all of the Call of Duty campaigns, the only one I never finished was the CoD2 campaign cause I just don't like it for some reason. MW2 campaign is alright but it felt soooooo unrelated to MW1. [editline]10th September 2011[/editline] Hopefully MW3 will actually take off where MW2 left it and play out good :v:

[QUOTE=PyroCraz3d;32213117]Come to think of it, isn't it good that Mw3 looks like mw2? MW2 had great graphics, so that's a plus side. But wait, it also was promised to play like CoD 4. If it does, then that's good too. Why does it get shit on for playing like 2 amazing games? Wait.. it also seems to have lots of variation like WaW and Black ops.. That's also good. Basically they put the best parts of each cod game, 4- black ops, into one game. It STILL gets shitted on for reasons unknown. And yet it has the best parts of each cod game? Why.[/QUOTE] Because people must hate its 60€ price tag no matter what, even making up stuff for it. I'm starting to think they want the game but just can't buy it, so they hate it. Seriously, most of their reasons are so awfull and nitpicky.

[QUOTE=dass;32213809]Because people must hate its 60€ price tag no matter what, even making up stuff for it. I'm starting to think they want the game but just can't buy it, so they hate it. Seriously, most of their reasons are so awfull and nitpicky.[/QUOTE] Then the other half of the CoD community get their mother's to buy it them :v:, does seem plausible.

I finally found a reason to justify the weird weapon in the MW2 campaign. Remember how in MW1, the "Russians" used a variety of different weapons, not just Skorpions/AKs? Maybe the Russian Military switched their main assault rifle to something like the FAL/Famas because of the revolution. MW3, the Yanks/Frenchies/Brits can be using the AK, because this is supposed to take place after the invasion. Maybe they ran out of ammo on their [Insert weapon here] and decided to pick up a ruskie's weapon. And vice versa

[QUOTE=Wormy;32213867]Christ. Here i take a look at the thread and i instantly see people posting about Battlefield. I am not surprised.[/QUOTE] Christ, here I take a look at this [b]cod[/b] thread and decide to try start an argument.

[QUOTE=Wormy;32213867]Christ. Here i take a look at the thread and i instantly see people posting about Battlefield. I am not surprised.[/QUOTE] We were just comparing Single player, jeez.

Both single player campaigns had their upsides and downsides. Battlefield had more to do and also vehicles were used well, MW2 had good set pieces.

[QUOTE=Wormy;32213867]Christ. Here i take a look at the thread and i instantly see people posting about Battlefield. I am not surprised.[/QUOTE] Who the hell cares if we're talking about Battlefield, and who cares if we're comparing it with CoD? Like seriously, why do people get so mad when you try to discuss, compare two games and argue.

[QUOTE=Zillamaster55;32213847]I finally found a reason to justify the weird weapon in the MW2 campaign. Remember how in MW1, the "Russians" used a variety of different weapons, not just Skorpions/AKs? Maybe the Russian Military switched their main assault rifle to something like the FAL/Famas because of the revolution. MW3, the Yanks/Frenchies/Brits can be using the AK, because this is supposed to take place after the invasion. Maybe they ran out of ammo on their [Insert weapon here] and decided to pick up a ruskie's weapon. And vice versa[/QUOTE] To be honest, I think the devs just got lazy.

[QUOTE=carcarcargo;32214204]To be honest, I think the devs just got lazy.[/QUOTE] Even if they did, it can still make a smidge of sense for them to be using those. Unlike Brak Opsh.

[QUOTE=Zillamaster55;32214219]Even if they did, it can still make a smidge of sense for them to be using those. Unlike Brak Opsh.[/QUOTE] Well I think everyone agrees black ops' weapons of choice were pretty damn retarded. I mean why would Russian's be using a prototype of a french wepon

[QUOTE=carcarcargo;32214266]Well I think everyone agrees black ops' weapons of choice were pretty damn retarded. I mean why would Russian's be using a prototype of a french wepon[/QUOTE] It wasn't even the correct version, the one shown in black ops is the F2 i think, with a lower carry handle and side based charging handle. [editline]10th September 2011[/editline] [QUOTE=SoUl_ReApEr2;32211192]I send nukes out everytime I get 25 kill in real life :downs: My names Zillamaster55 I rate people dumb for making a joke, jokes aren't good cod is srs bsns[/QUOTE] Instinct, sorry :v:

[QUOTE=SoUl_ReApEr2;32213829]Then the other half of the CoD community get their mother's to buy it them :v:, does seem plausible.[/QUOTE] With hope, 20 old retail games I have here will provide the money for it. Among them is MW1, since I can get it on steam aswell and have the whole modern family in one place.

[QUOTE=dass;32215478]With hope, 20 old retail games I have here will provide the money for it. Among them is MW1, since I can get it on steam aswell and have the whole [b]modern family[/b] in one place.[/QUOTE] they all get along so well, it's so cute

[QUOTE=Zillamaster55;32213847]I finally found a reason to justify the weird weapon in the MW2 campaign. Remember how in MW1, the "Russians" used a variety of different weapons, not just Skorpions/AKs? Maybe the Russian Military switched their main assault rifle to something like the FAL/Famas because of the revolution. MW3, the Yanks/Frenchies/Brits can be using the AK, because this is supposed to take place after the invasion. Maybe they ran out of ammo on their [Insert weapon here] and decided to pick up a ruskie's weapon. And vice versa[/QUOTE] The wiki has another theory on MW2. Since Russia was sort of falling apart or something, they bought black market weapons. Something like that. [editline]10th September 2011[/editline] [QUOTE=trotskygrad;32215508]they all get along so well, it's so cute[/QUOTE] Something tells me thats a sneaky criticism comment... Hm.