First, that answer wasn't for you, stop jumping at posts.
You do know how a forum works, right?
The key for singleplayer is "IMMERSIVE" and they delivered that with every COD game available yet.
First, that's debatable and second, I wasn't talking about the singleplayer.
I specifically clarified that.
I loved every bit of COD, COD4 and had really good time in their multiplayer. I have 1000+ hours in RO, I play IL-2, Lock-On, Falcon 4, Armed Assault, OFP, Hearts Of Iron, SH4 and those kind of stuff; but it doesn't give me a "right" to call a game bull**** because it's not "realistic enough"
I'm sorry, but who cares what you've played? Where did I call CoD5 "bull**** because it's not realistic enough"?
Ever since my first appearance in this thread I said that CoD was
never realistic and I liked the fast twitch-shooter gameplay in CoD2's multiplayer. Why would I attack CoD5 for offering similar gameplay?
I was talking about
visual realism (in italics again, for the cheap seats). I didn't even say I dislike the new direction myself (though I do). I attacked people like you who jump on those who criticise the game for this new direction because they happen to not like it. You didn't even post, "hey, who cares, at least the game is fun". That's something DraKon would say and it makes perfect sense. If you don't care about
visual realism you can take the gameplay for what it is and if it's anything like the old games it IS fun. Respect to him for defending this position on a forum full of realism-nuts. You said:
Why it is "no more a ww2 experience"?
This is either a case of total denial of the posted screenshots, blissful ignorance or trolling. It's less of a ww2 experience because we don't even use ww2 equipment in it anymore! It doesn't matter how realistic said equipment behaves. It's not even ww2 equipment to begin with!
Why is CoD4 less of a ww2 experience than CoD3? Well, why? The gameplay is still good, isn't it? It's even better in CoD4, isn't it? So why is it less of a ww2 experience?
There's no point in dive jumping into the thread and start trolling right away, COD won't change.
It HAS changed. That's what people are talking about if you didn't notice.
CoD5s mp is the logical consequence of CoD4s. In fact your standard CoD2 wasnt much different than that either, just that back then there were no points/ranking etc. but gameplay itself was the same basically(I played it for 2years online). Only on a few selected servers it was different as in more tactical etc. And same goes for CoD4 and 5(hardcore mode).
I specifically stated that the
gameplay might still be as fun as ever but that the
visual realism (I even put it in italics) suffered a great deal compared to previous titles. People are turned off by that and that's understandable even by someone who does not care.
What's funny is that it's obvious to a blind man that they didn't care for
visual realism this time around when there are aimpoints on guns yet you people still claim that it's as much of a ww2 experience as the old CoD games were. That's simply not true. The gameplay may not have changed much but that's not what reasonable people were complaining about.
This isn't even an attack on the game itself. Some people don't like that visual direction, just as some people don't like the art style of Halo or Gears of War yet you jump on everyone who utters even the remotest bit of criticism against this game.
Being an ignorant and 'standing by that statement' won't make it any better. How is it nonsense when for every cod so far the community created zombie mods?
It doesn't need to be any better. That's why I stand by it...
Just because the community made the same mods for every game doesn't mean they are any good or should be in the main game. There are excessive weapon type mods for almost every modable game out there. Full auto-redeemers for UT2004,
or this little gem for CoD2. There are also nude-patches for every darn game with female characters, celebrity voice-packs and cheaply made "camo" skins for weapons for almost every modable game... Are such things fun to mess around with? Maybe. Do they attract players? Sure, for an hour or two. Some even like it longer. Is it nonsense? Yes, yes it is nonsense. Should such things be in the vanilla game? No, in my opinion they shouldn't.
At least not if the game wants to be taken seriously (of course such things are fun in, say, Timesplitters). Which brings us to the start of the loop again. The old CoD games wanted to be taken seriously. Notice how on the mainstream media they were always praised as realistic and sometimes even criticised for being 'too realistic'? As Rak pointed out, the average gamer can't tell make-belief realism from realism and as the games always had action packed but immersive singleplayer campaigns they were taken serious and they were regarded as realistic. How serious do you, personally, take a game that comes with a zombie mode, points popping up over killed enemies and obvious anachronisms in the equipment so it doesn't even feel like ww2 anymore (to those who criticise it for that. I'm sure there are enough people who won't even notice)?
An honest answer would be, "not at all, but if it's fun I don't care. I can disable most of what I don't like and I play it for the fun gameplay and the great and smooth graphics not necessarily for a ww2 experience. That's what the singleplayer is for." That's something I could imagine hearing DraKon say.
What's so hard to understand when people who would want to play it for the ww2 experience pass on the game because that's not what it offers to a degree that these people would like?
Why the "it's fun so shut up" attitude?
