The reason why they are doing this is for balancing, besides the Japanese have inferior weapons to the US and giving the germans PPSH43 also gives each team both sides of the coin.
Upvote
0
Call of Duty 5
- Thread starter Ralfst3r
- Start date
The reason why they are doing this is for balancing, besides the Japanese have inferior weapons to the US and giving the germans PPSH43 also gives each team both sides of the coin.
Balancing? How about actually giving the weapons some thought and balancing them while retaining the team based weapon system. I mean, that's how it worked before and it was just fine. This just looks like they're trying to find an easy way to balance the game without actually spending any time on it.
Upvote
0
In CoD2 if the game was German vs Russians you would have the MP44 as the gun that stands out on the German side and the ppsh that stands out on the Russian side. Balanced or not, sometimes I just want that 71 mag in my spamming frenzies!
So I see where they are coming from even if I don't like the change in team-based game-modes.
I think they should balance it so every weapon is usefull for something. Like they did in CoD2 to a certain degree. I don't know about pro-level play but on the Lans I played the game we all used different weapons and everyone of us claimed his was the best.
So I see where they are coming from even if I don't like the change in team-based game-modes.
I think they should balance it so every weapon is usefull for something. Like they did in CoD2 to a certain degree. I don't know about pro-level play but on the Lans I played the game we all used different weapons and everyone of us claimed his was the best.
Upvote
0
this, and perks in general sound crap - they're in cod 4, right?
could servers turn them off?
so,
+1 that minority.
though i appreciate they probably do a competent job with the series each time, I can't see any cod game ever coming close to the magic that was UO.
Upvote
0
I honestly don't get what's supposed to be so great about UO. The singleplayer campaign was a step backwards from CoD and the multiplayer was the same except that what made CoD's MP great (fast-paced deathmatch gameplay) didn't work on the big maps. Speaking of which, they looked horrible. Partly because of the lack of detail but mostly because they didn't look realistic at all. They looked like pieces of landscape that was scaled down only horizontally to make the deathmatch gameplay work better. They have this Brecour map in CoD that is open but looks fairly realistic and plays pretty well too. The big open maps in UO are far worse. Well, UO had vehicles. That's about the only step up from CoD IF you like horribly arcadey vehicles that don't really fit in the game and are just there because at that time EVERY shooter had to have vehicles of some sort.
It DID have some great missions here and there in the SP campaign and deployable MGs ARE kinda cool (except it wasn't implemented that well) but all in all I can't see why so many people like UO so much better than CoD.
Anyway, in my opinion CoD2 beats both when it comes to multiplayer so CoD5 will have to live up to that for me instead of having to live up to UO. Co-op is definately a little head-start already.
It DID have some great missions here and there in the SP campaign and deployable MGs ARE kinda cool (except it wasn't implemented that well) but all in all I can't see why so many people like UO so much better than CoD.
Anyway, in my opinion CoD2 beats both when it comes to multiplayer so CoD5 will have to live up to that for me instead of having to live up to UO. Co-op is definately a little head-start already.
Upvote
0
Murphy, people who like UO MP don't think that "fast-paced deathmatch gameplay" makes it fun. And I'm one of them.
Upvote
0
Point taken, but I think UO didn't change the gameplay enough to work as anything BUT fast-paced deathmatch. If anything it broke the original.
I think the same about UT2004's ONS mode. It has the same weapons, the same movement but you can't use either because the maps aren't suited for it. The open maps and vehicles feel like a forced addition - especially since the vehicles, like the ones in UO, feel so arcadey.
Some people prefer ONS over regular gamemodes because they don't like the movement or the weapons anyways and they aren't any good in regular gamemodes but they like the strategy involved in ONS. Valid opinions to be sure, but in my opinion it does not enhance the original gameplay, it just butchers it.
That's something UT3 did kind of well. The WAR gamemode has lot more interesting maps than ONS in UT2004. They are smaller, tighter, have good indoor areas where infantry can rock UT style but the vehicles are still important (and they feel a lot better). WAR actually enhances the regular gameplay with the addition of vehicles and doesn't just replace it.
In my opinion if someone likes CoD they should play CoD and if they like semi-realistic vehicluar combat they should play Battlefield 1942 or one of it's mods because it's a LOT more refined than UO is, it offers even bigger maps that don't look like comic-book versions of landscapes, it offers much better vehicles and even infantry combat is more suited to the longer ranges. Just my opinion of course. Every game or gamemode has fans who like it for what it is.
I think the same about UT2004's ONS mode. It has the same weapons, the same movement but you can't use either because the maps aren't suited for it. The open maps and vehicles feel like a forced addition - especially since the vehicles, like the ones in UO, feel so arcadey.
Some people prefer ONS over regular gamemodes because they don't like the movement or the weapons anyways and they aren't any good in regular gamemodes but they like the strategy involved in ONS. Valid opinions to be sure, but in my opinion it does not enhance the original gameplay, it just butchers it.
That's something UT3 did kind of well. The WAR gamemode has lot more interesting maps than ONS in UT2004. They are smaller, tighter, have good indoor areas where infantry can rock UT style but the vehicles are still important (and they feel a lot better). WAR actually enhances the regular gameplay with the addition of vehicles and doesn't just replace it.
In my opinion if someone likes CoD they should play CoD and if they like semi-realistic vehicluar combat they should play Battlefield 1942 or one of it's mods because it's a LOT more refined than UO is, it offers even bigger maps that don't look like comic-book versions of landscapes, it offers much better vehicles and even infantry combat is more suited to the longer ranges. Just my opinion of course. Every game or gamemode has fans who like it for what it is.
Upvote
0
WOW, how I hated to play deathmatch in a WW2 shooter. It just seemed stupid and wrong and I avoided it like the plague. Hate hate hate It was either TDM or CNQ, or possibly one of the other objective based gamestyles.
I always saw UO as more of an add-on to COD, and at the time, I liked it alot. Of course, at the time, I didn't play anything else, so I had nothing to compare it to at that time.
Other than the graphics being better, I thought COD2 sucked. It was ok when new, but the novelty wore off quickly and I actually prefered going back to COD/UO. Saw the other console only CODs, my son played them a bit when a friend brought his console over, he really thought they were lame.
RO came along in there, and we all know what happened
Never played COD4, not really a modern weapon fan, but I heard it was a bit better, but still mostly shoebox type maps from what I have seen. Definitely looked good from the screens. I might have liked it a bit more than say COD2, but you wouldn't get the RO gameplay, so in the end, I would still have been disapointed.
I am really interested in a WW2 Pacific game, and while I hope COD5 is really good, I know in the end, the gameplay will be sorta lame, especially compared to RO. I hate perks, you know the tanks will probably be a bit arcadey, etc. I might get it, because of the theme and all, but I still like this quote I saw on another forum from a COD4 mapper...
------
QUOTE:
Just what we need. Another CoD4 - 60 years. Fighting on an island too small to play baseball, a sniper in every tree, grenade dysentery and everything else on fire.
Lets see. The game is released, followed 90 days later by the mod tools (probably broken). Within the next 90 the game dies.
****. No need to say "I told you so..."
------
You have to admit, that is funny
It was either TDM or CNQ, or possibly one of the other objective based gamestyles.I always saw UO as more of an add-on to COD, and at the time, I liked it alot. Of course, at the time, I didn't play anything else, so I had nothing to compare it to at that time.
Other than the graphics being better, I thought COD2 sucked. It was ok when new, but the novelty wore off quickly and I actually prefered going back to COD/UO. Saw the other console only CODs, my son played them a bit when a friend brought his console over, he really thought they were lame.
RO came along in there, and we all know what happened
Never played COD4, not really a modern weapon fan, but I heard it was a bit better, but still mostly shoebox type maps from what I have seen. Definitely looked good from the screens. I might have liked it a bit more than say COD2, but you wouldn't get the RO gameplay, so in the end, I would still have been disapointed.
I am really interested in a WW2 Pacific game, and while I hope COD5 is really good, I know in the end, the gameplay will be sorta lame, especially compared to RO. I hate perks, you know the tanks will probably be a bit arcadey, etc. I might get it, because of the theme and all, but I still like this quote I saw on another forum from a COD4 mapper...
------
QUOTE:
Just what we need. Another CoD4 - 60 years. Fighting on an island too small to play baseball, a sniper in every tree, grenade dysentery and everything else on fire.
Lets see. The game is released, followed 90 days later by the mod tools (probably broken). Within the next 90 the game dies.
****. No need to say "I told you so..."
------
You have to admit, that is funny
Last edited:
Upvote
0
You played neither CoD4 or CoD5 but of course you can already predict it's total failure(because cod games tend to always fail, only hundred thousands playing it online, how lame), cool.WOW, how I hated to play deathmatch in a WW2 shooter. It just seemed stupid and wrong and I avoided it like the plague. Hate hate hate
I always saw UO as more of an add-on to COD, and at the time, I liked it alot. Of course, at the time, I didn't play anything else, so I had nothing to compare it to at that time.
Other than the graphics being better, I thought COD2 sucked. It was ok when new, but the novelty wore off quickly and I actually prefered going back to COD/UO. Saw the other console only CODs, my son played them a bit when a friend brought his console over, he really thought they were lame.
RO came along in there, and we all know what happened
Never played COD4, not really a modern weapon fan, but I heard it was a bit better, but still mostly shoebox type maps from what I have seen. Definitely looked good from the screens. I might have liked it a bit more than say COD2, but you wouldn't get the RO gameplay, so in the end, I would still have been disapointed.
I am really interested in a WW2 Pacific game, and while I hope COD5 is really good, I know in the end, the gameplay will be sorta lame, especially compared to RO. I hate perks, you know the tanks will probably be a bit arcadey, etc. I might get it, because of the theme and all, but I still like this quote I saw on another forum from a COD4 mapper...
------
Just what we need. Another CoD4 - 60 years. Fighting on an island too small to play baseball, a sniper in every tree, grenade dysentery and everything else on fire.
Lets see. The game is released, followed 90 days later by the mod tools (probably broken). Within the next 90 the game dies.
****. No need to say "I told you so..."
------
You have to admit, that is funny
Last edited:
Upvote
0
You are missing the point, I couldn't care less if it sells a billion copies, all that matters to me is if it is a failure in my eyes.
The quote was someone elses... It just sums up what will probably be my thoughts on the game when it is released.
The quote was someone elses... It just sums up what will probably be my thoughts on the game when it is released.
Upvote
0
Well Mr Moe I can safely say you're wrong, as COD4 is a superb game online! And I really think you're missing out.
COD5 has a lot to prove to the world and would want the same success as COD4.
The perks sound very intelligently put together. Heck I wouldnt know where to start when creating a perk FOR A TANK!!!
Im sure the tanks will be mult-crewed and will be as jump in and play as RO is. Sure it will be less realistic, but not as bad as the BF series thats for sure!!
Im totally against nerfing weapons so I would rather have realistic weapons within unrealistic load-outs!
COD5 has a lot to prove to the world and would want the same success as COD4.
The perks sound very intelligently put together. Heck I wouldnt know where to start when creating a perk FOR A TANK!!!
Im sure the tanks will be mult-crewed and will be as jump in and play as RO is. Sure it will be less realistic, but not as bad as the BF series thats for sure!!
Im totally against nerfing weapons so I would rather have realistic weapons within unrealistic load-outs!
Last edited:
Upvote
0
The problem with the COD games is that even when they are bad they are still pretty darn good.
Upvote
0
More people playing doesnt necessarily mean that it is better.
It's like a metalband playing top40 popsongs because they get more airtime that way
Upvote
0
Umm, CoD1 and UO worked just fine with team-specific weapons, so I see no reason why to go with the CoD4 approach to it. It makes no sense and just seems like a shortcut to actually giving balancing some thought. Now, how would you know if something was nerfed or not once you played the game?
That's what betas are for and weapons in every game you played and liked have probably been edited (nerfed or buffed) in the development process.
CoD 5 MP will become boring really quickly to me if it pursues the same shoebox map size like CoD2/4.
That's what betas are for and weapons in every game you played and liked have probably been edited (nerfed or buffed) in the development process.
CoD 5 MP will become boring really quickly to me if it pursues the same shoebox map size like CoD2/4.
Upvote
0
Yes it does, in this case. When a game is getting only 90+ review scores and has one of the biggest fan bases plus sold millions of copies then the game no doubt is good and especcially a success. And in this case your personal opinion does not matter at all.More people playing doesnt necessarily mean that it is better.
It's like a metalband playing top40 popsongs because they get more airtime that way
If there's a game and 100 people of which 95 absolutely love the game while 5 dislike it then you can very well say that it's a good game.
Last edited:
Upvote
0
