We'll see about that, won't we? For me it's all good since I only play IO anywayshaffeysucks wrote:
CoD 4 will never be like a Battlefield game. It's all infantry.
I'd buy it just to shoot someone's ear off...
16 possible points on the head? And people complained about lag on BF2. Can you imagine the server and PCs required for a 64 player game to run smoothly with that level of detail? That’s crazy talk.
So what's the point of owning 2 games that are so similar?RedTwizzler wrote:
The CoD3 multiplayer is a LOT like BF2, in that there are different kits, such as Light Assault, Heavy Assault, Medic, etc. The weapon layout is very much the same: Light Assault gets an assault rifle, Heavy Assault gets a machine gun, Medic gets a rifle. Heavy assault drops ammo, Medics drop first aid... It's incredibly similar.
Last edited by Stingray24 (2006-12-13 12:13:38)
Fenris_GreyClaw wrote:
PBAsydney wrote:
Fuck consoles, PC ftw!
Amazing.
IO BF2 players and people wanting IO in BF2142 get called "cs noobs".
Yet there's no mention of that here.
IO BF2 players and people wanting IO in BF2142 get called "cs noobs".
Yet there's no mention of that here.
roflMagikTrik wrote:
I'd buy it just to shoot someone's ear off...
IMO, and in the opinion of most other vanilla CoD/United Offensive players, the Call of Duty series has been rolling downhill ever since they started releasing console games. IMO, CoD2 was complete shit, maybe not a bad game on its own, but definitely not in the same league as CoD/UO.
btw, United Offensive had jeeps and tanks, so some of the maps I found were very similar to some urban maps I played in Battlefield Vietnam.
But bottom line, as someone who's played over 1000 hours of CoD the past few years, I am very skeptical about this....... new timeline, new everything. I just hope they revert back to the old original CoD and UO way of thinking. Which was : Worry about gameplay, maps, and balance first, worry about how shiny the graphics are second. Sadly, that hasn't been the case with CoD2 and 3. And that may very well be because the series has been catering to console gamers. FPS's home is the PC, sorry folks.....
btw, United Offensive had jeeps and tanks, so some of the maps I found were very similar to some urban maps I played in Battlefield Vietnam.
But bottom line, as someone who's played over 1000 hours of CoD the past few years, I am very skeptical about this....... new timeline, new everything. I just hope they revert back to the old original CoD and UO way of thinking. Which was : Worry about gameplay, maps, and balance first, worry about how shiny the graphics are second. Sadly, that hasn't been the case with CoD2 and 3. And that may very well be because the series has been catering to console gamers. FPS's home is the PC, sorry folks.....
Last edited by Spearhead (2006-12-13 12:59:49)
Sounds pretty cool. Honestly CoD2 was a bit of a disappointment to me....yeah the graphics were way better, and the single player missions were pretty good. But for online play, I didnt expect to have only a couple different maps. Most of them were the same maps as the first CoD.
Nice, I love the series.
I agree... CoD/UO had maybe 30-40(?) maps which you could play, plus lots of other custom maps which were fit for competitive gameplay... but CoD2 only had 15 or so, half of which were taken from CoD... and they waited almost 8 months to release online punkbuster, custom map support, etc.{BMF}*Frank_The_Tank wrote:
Sounds pretty cool. Honestly CoD2 was a bit of a disappointment to me....yeah the graphics were way better, and the single player missions were pretty good. But for online play, I didnt expect to have only a couple different maps. Most of them were the same maps as the first CoD.
I'd like to see the trailer of the guy getting his helmet shot and spun around in circles...lol!
My thoughts exactly. Gameplay and maps first, graphics second. The catering to console gamers has made the game prettier, but less fun.Spearhead wrote:
IMO, and in the opinion of most other vanilla CoD/United Offensive players, the Call of Duty series has been rolling downhill ever since they started releasing console games. IMO, CoD2 was complete shit, maybe not a bad game on its own, but definitely not in the same league as CoD/UO.
btw, United Offensive had jeeps and tanks, so some of the maps I found were very similar to some urban maps I played in Battlefield Vietnam.
But bottom line, as someone who's played over 1000 hours of CoD the past few years, I am very skeptical about this....... new timeline, new everything. I just hope they revert back to the old original CoD and UO way of thinking. Which was : Worry about gameplay, maps, and balance first, worry about how shiny the graphics are second. Sadly, that hasn't been the case with CoD2 and 3. And that may very well be because the series has been catering to console gamers. FPS's home is the PC, sorry folks.....
Gameplay: COD1 > COD2
Graphics: COD2 > COD1
Fenris_GreyClaw wrote:
PBAsydney wrote:
Fuck consoles, PC ftw!
Add me on Origin for Battlefield 4 fun: DesKmal