Call of Duty: World at War? - Page 3

lukas · 11-25-2008, 04:54 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bretskate

The originals outdue the new ones by far in gameplay and competitive online play. They have better graphics and more features but the classic Vcod, uo and CoD2 were one of the best competitive online games.

I'm not saying CoD4 and CoD5 are bad, just the competitive play for them are bad.

no offense but you dont know nothing about competitive play, cod4 was at twice as many LANs as the other cod's and cod4 was a more competitive game due to its fast pace and spectator friendly gameplay.

Bretskate · 11-25-2008, 05:56 PM

Maybe I'm just stuck in the CoD2 competitive era but I know CAL, CEVO teams didn't particularly like CoD4 and most didn't even move onto CoD5.

You can ask a lot of competitive players and they will say CoD1 is classic.

synergy · 11-25-2008, 05:59 PM

I would have to agree. While CoD4/5 have some cool MP features, the original CoD is a much better competitive game. It was more about skill than about what you could do with perks. Since BF2, MP games have been somewhat imbalanced because of the whole ranking system and unlockable kits, etc.

Gabb · 11-25-2008, 06:24 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by synergy

I would have to agree. While CoD4/5 have some cool MP features, the original CoD is a much better competitive game. It was more about skill than about what you could do with perks. Since BF2, MP games have been somewhat imbalanced because of the whole ranking system and unlockable kits, etc.

COD4 actually did it best with the weapon unlocks since most of the weapon unlocks are mostly sidegrades instead of upgrades ( just like in TF2 for the most part ). BF2 on the otherhand was ridiculous where the unlocks outclassed the standard weapons severely ( the L96 being better then the m24 and m95, the PKM and G36 being godly, the autoshotgun for the AT class dominating, etc etc ).

Also for those that are saying COD4 wasn't good for multiplayer...I have no idea what your talking about, it has one of the most active lively multiplayer scenes around for competitive play. Most leagues get rid of nearly all the perks anyways so they aren't a factor.

The main complaint I really have against the game in a competitive high level of play is, I really dislike the fact that proper scoping/leaning technique is a must and always thought the smoke emitted from your gun severely reduces my vision when I'm firing ( burst firing included ) compared to games like CS or BF2 where there is no smoke obscuring your view when you fire...I dunno to me it just seems sorta like a fire first and look for the reticle to hit them first ( the AK, the best rifle in the game, has ridiculously low recoil to allow this ) and always kind of gave me a not so fully 100% in control of my aiming and shooting. Also the hitboxes seem kind of unusually big and the penetration.

Lower level pub play wise though the game was perfect except for the horribly imbalanced grenade launcher ( lets not start THAT argument again ). Oh and hardcore mode also ruined most of pub play ( I can write a whole essay on why hardcore mode actually requires lower amounts of skill compared to regular ) since most servers are on that mode anyways.

Waphlez · 11-25-2008, 07:55 PM

In UO you can sprint. CoD1/UO is really the only CoD that got high amounts of players right and you didn't have to worry about levels, unlocks, what "class" your using. Just picked a gun and went at it. There was also no wall spamming, breath-holder, didn't stay in scope when sniping, hit indicator, UAV, "noob tubes" etc. in the first call of duty which is why I think UO takes more skill and therefor more competitive. Now any idiot with a machine gun, deep impact, and bandoleer can just spam buildings waiting for the little cross to show that you hit an enemy. The least they could do is remove the indicator when you shoot someone through the wall. Not to mention UO was perfect to play 40-64 people with, not as many maps were as much as a cluster-f*** as the new ones are.

Call of Duty 2 was okay, but I went back to UO when 2 came out. Wasn't as good IMO. Being a heavy bolt-action user myself I do like the return in WaW.

Bretskate · 11-25-2008, 09:16 PM

Promod helped CoD4 but still wasn't a solid competitive game imo.

ricanflow · 11-25-2008, 09:36 PM

How is it not competitive??

Its the second most frequently played multiplayer game on xfire.

Call of Duty 4: Modern Warfare

Waphlez · 11-25-2008, 10:12 PM

All multiplayer games are competitive to an extent. My point is: because CoD 1/ UO takes more skill it makes it a much more competitive environment compared to newer iterations of CoD. The same ccould be said for Counter-Strike, after Source was released a lot of players felt 1.6 took more skill and stuck to it.