CoD and you...

[Synapse]

What are your thoughts on Call of Duty (CoD) as a series, gameplay, etc. (and do not even talk about how unrealistic this game is, :p)?

I just got MW2 and I only play multi-player (the single player story is simultaneously stupid, implausible, and not entertaining), but I find that I have little patience for most of the game modes. My favorite two are Domination and Demolition (due to the tactical nature of their gameplay) and I have yet to level up enough to play Search and Destroy (with any proficiency) or any of the Hardcore games (as I haven't unlocked them yet). Basing my experience off of MW2, CoD's multi-player is ludicrously fast (like Unreal or Counter-Strike fast). The definition of a "good" sniper, for example, in this game is running around at ground level just headshotting guys who run up to you like maniacs and not patiently waiting for the "perfect" shot (unless you like a guy with an assault rifle to pick you off that rooftop).

Personally my favorite part of this game is playing it like I did Starcraft: playing to win and learning from watching other people (although I'm pretty aggressive still, my Kill/Death ratio is something sad like 1:3~4). I don't get a "thrill" out of the brutal methods the game sometimes allows you to employ in order to eliminate people, rather I enjoy learning about how to outsmart opponents, memorizing maps and weapon techniques, etc. while other people are just in it for that "fun" I mentioned above.

Anyone have any thoughts, musings, strategies, etc.?

[AngryGroceries]

Meh. I've only played MW2 once. I did actually own Cod4 though.
I didn't like it too much. It's more about finding a good spot to pick off the enemy or ambushing the enemy, and less about the actual fight itself. The fight itself is over in a few bullets...

I much prefer games like Tf2 or Halo where when you confront someone there's actually a pretty good length of time where you're fighting... it feels more personal and skill vs skill instead of being mostly situational advantages. I don't doubt it takes skill to regularly get in those situational advantages, but that kindof gameplay just isn't for me.

Also with CoD if one team is slightly better than the other, killstreaks basically make zero chance of an underdog winning. Having little chance for a comeback makes the gameplay pretty uninteresting to me.

[Synapse]

I didn't like it too much. It's more about finding a good spot to pick off the enemy or ambushing the enemy, and less about the actual fight itself. The fight itself is over in a few bullets...

Actually, the fights in CoD boil down to who has the movement and aim-based advantage, not exactly who has the situational advantage. I've killed guys in the "best" spots ("Buzzkilling" isn't difficult when you know where people go to camp). And the fact that fights are over in a few bullets makes the two advantages of skill (movement and aiming) much more realized; few get what I call a "cheap" kill in CoD.

I much prefer games like Tf2 or Halo where when you confront someone there's actually a pretty good length of time where you're fighting... it feels more personal and skill vs skill instead of being mostly situational advantages.

You probably play these games differently than I do, then. The skill is inherent in CoD, but the match of who's a better player happens in less than 10 seconds in CoD. In Halo and TF2 (of which I was good at both games for the reason I'm pretty good at CoD), the fights were slower, but it still happened to be that a player who could aim faster and avoid more of the enemy's fire won, exactly like it's in CoD.

I don't doubt it takes skill to regularly get in those situational advantages, but that kind of gameplay just isn't for me.

Fair enough, it took me some time to get used to CoD's much faster gameplay relative to TF2 (specifically, I never played Halo that much as I hated it).

Also with CoD if one team is slightly better than the other, killstreaks basically make zero chance of an underdog winning.

You forget that killstreaks reward skilled players. If you are skilled enough and on a losing team, a good killstreak such as the Chopper Gunner (especially in a match like Search and Destroy where respawning occurs only after the completion of a round) can turn the tide of a battle. And if you're "WTF PWNx0R" amazing, you can get the Tactical Nuke and end a game right there. However, rewards which require 10 or more kills are out of reach for terrible (as in the example you describe -- I believe you are talking about the bad killstreaks the mainstream players obtain) players and I think that's fair. A team should be allowed to get annihilated if their players cannot play well; that's how life works anyways. If one cares too much about whether CoD is fair -- well, they'll be disappointed.

Having little chance for a comeback makes the gameplay pretty uninteresting to me.

As I said before: if you are good enough at the game, you can get kills and have a chance at getting a comeback, especially in certain modes like Search and Destroy and Team Deathmatch. Even Demolition/Domination matches are not completely team affairs, but merely if you can play well with an emphasis on cooperation.

And I don't particularly care about getting a good score (in game terms: a high K/D ratio), I care about the entertainment value within the match, the experience I obtain (both literal in-game XP and to me as a player). The winning is nice, but I think CoD and every other FPS are in the same vein to me: your individual performance outweighs a team score or a general "win" or "loss" for that particular match.

[rahdam]

I need to defend counter-strike here. Competitive counter-strike is a SLOW affair; the good AWP does wait for the right shot until shit hits the fan.

[Zodd]

In terms of walking speed I think it is MW2<MW1<Unreal Tournament is it not? MW1 is quite technical I think, it's all about checking corners fast and efficiently. I only play hardcore because in normal mode it matters less if you shoot a guy from behind or from the front, in hardcore mode if you see someone from behind it's over for him.
The radar/strike/chopper is totally unfair. If someone is good he can easily get radar, thus more easily a strike, and with strike you just call a strike in the middle of the map and depending on how many players there are in the game you've most likely got 2 and can call a chopper.
When you suck and/or your team sucks then most likely you will have less radar/strike/chopper, not just because of that you kill less by gun/grenade/knife but allso because the other party get's easy radar/strike/chopper BECAUSE they use radar/strike/chopper.

Copy and paste from another thread
"COD4 I'm quite competitive. I play very fair; no p90, saw, grenadelauncher, camping, claymores, grenade perk, last stand, martyrdom, cheats, juggernaut, throwing random grenades. It's just simply egocentric to use these things. The game can get quite on my nerves if I get owned by lesser players, that's when I start using desert eagle only. When I play with only a desert eagle it's obvious my score isn't that good and when I play with handgun only my playing will become better, sometimes I'm really good with just handgun.
I only use UAV jammer, extreme condition, bomb squad (though now I'm reading bandolier doesn't give you more clips but more rounds in each clip, so I'll probably replace bomb squad for bandolier now), most weapons with silencer otherwise red dot."

Search and Destroy is my favourite mode, followed by Sabotage, prefferably with less than 10 players total. Team deathmatch is allways fun.

[AngryGroceries]

You probably play these games differently than I do, then. The skill is inherent in CoD, but the match of who's a better player happens in less than 10 seconds in CoD. In Halo and TF2 (of which I was good at both games for the reason I'm pretty good at CoD), the fights were slower, but it still happened to be that a player who could aim faster and avoid more of the enemy's fire won, exactly like it's in CoD.

Hmm, that's more or less what I'm talking about though. In CoD if you have fast reflexes, know the map, and can aim well, you win.
In Halo and Tf2 you can avoid enemy fire much better than in CoD, though. Aiming in those games is also a bit different. CoD aiming is more or less mostly point and click. There are grenades, but you don't actually use those when actually confronting somebody unless you both suck.

Halo still has a large point and click element to it, but things like plasma grenades, the needler, plasma weapons, brute shot have a second layer of gameplay that compliments the point and click.

The element of shields also dampens the point and click element.
I don't have that quick of reflexes and I don't have incredibly good aim, yet in games like Halo I consistently win 4v4 team slayer [to 50 kills] matches with around 30 kills and 5 deaths. When I'm confronted with an enemy in Halo I might take 2 or 3 direct shots before I even start retaliating.
The thing about Halo and TF2 is that there is a lot of strategy going on in a particular fight on top of the basic skills of aiming and reflexes. I can throw a grenade that will force my opponent out of a position of killing me, because if they follow it instantly eats their shields and I can time a headshot as the grenade explodes. They'll have to step back or die, even assuming they have perfect aim and they've been firing at me first. After that, I can use my scenery to navigate around my opponent while we're both taking fire, even trying to jump over them simply to hide my head while leaving his head exposed.
There are a million things you can do in any given scenario, and it has much more strategy to it. It's all about manipulating where the other player HAS to go, getting yourself into positions where you take non-lethal hits, predicting what the other player is going to do, and more. There is much more thought involved. Tf2 is even way better at this than halo, but Halo is set up in a way where one good player can make a difference for the entire team, while TF2 doesn't care if you're absolutely amazing, if your team sucks you'll lose. I still love both of those games, though.

In a CoD scenerio, I'd just be dominated by that guy who knew the map better, had quicker reflexes and better aim. In Halo or Tf2 he might even be able to dodge fire better than me, and take much less overall damage, yet I can still win if I successfully predict what he's going to do and come up with a quick counter-strategy. Really good fights last for 30-40 seconds or even more because of constantly changing strategies and counter strategies. The person who fails to out-think fails.

I could go on and on about this, so if you want me to I will. :p


Fair enough, it took me some time to get used to CoD's much faster gameplay relative to TF2 (specifically, I never played Halo that much as I hated it).

Slow gameplay vs fast gameplay I guess.


You forget that killstreaks reward skilled players. If you are skilled enough and on a losing team, a good killstreak such as the Chopper Gunner (especially in a match like Search and Destroy where respawning occurs only after the completion of a round) can turn the tide of a battle. And if you're "WTF PWNx0R" amazing, you can get the Tactical Nuke and end a game right there. However, rewards which require 10 or more kills are out of reach for terrible (as in the example you describe -- I believe you are talking about the bad killstreaks the mainstream players obtain) players and I think that's fair. A team should be allowed to get annihilated if their players cannot play well; that's how life works anyways. If one cares too much about whether CoD is fair -- well, they'll be disappointed.

Yeah... rewarding the skilled is extremely sucky to the losing team though. Instead of being mildly dominated and feeling like you have a chance, you're completely beat to the point where you'd survive longer just putting the controller down.

[Seducer]

I've played every COD except for #3. I have #3 but I just haven't played it yet. I've only played multiplayer in cod #5 waw. I don't really like multiplayer all that much in any game. I would rather play through an engrossing story than play an overly simple multiplayer game against a bunch of horrid people online and be insulted. I played Nazi Zombies a lot for a few months last year. That's the only MP game I've ever really liked. I think I've had about enough of COD, Halo, and GoW. Too much of the same old stuff.

My main criticism of COD is that it relies too much on providing a cinematic experience, like you're watching a movie. There's not enough depth to the gameplay. It's often just a glorified shooting gallery. Sometimes I dislike being shot to death every inch I move. But overall I liked those games.

COD should now make a VIET NAM GAME!!! And also a real Iraq game, with real life middle eastern locations and battles. Enough ww2 and phoney modern conflicts!

[rahdam]

They ARE making a vietnam game...check IGN, think I saw something about it there

[ya lyublyu tebya]

I could never play anything multiplayer. It'd wear out my socialization batteries. :laugh: I do loves me the opportunity to kill things and not have anyone actually get hurt, though. I stick to console RPGs and the occasional one-person fighting game.

On a random note, I find it amusing that people hear the Russian anthem and go, "Hey, that's the CoD song!," kind of sad, but also highly amusing. (It's actually the Soviet anthem, by the way. Same tune, different words.)