Call of Duty Thread - Potential return to form? Or nothing but cope on the horizon? You decide!

This current talk about shotguns reminds me of my prior experience with them; I was a shotgun main in most of the CoD games I played up until BO4, and they still stayed a decent part of my arsenal. If I might sperg a bit:

CoD 3: Main gun of choice was the Trench Gun, obviously. Not the greatest, especially when it came to ranged engagements, but I had some fun back in the day riding... well, shotgun in a motorcycle and hitting people with drive-bys.

CoD 4: M1014 for me. Not that I really disliked the W1200, but I prefered the faster fire rate of the semi-auto.

WaW: In all honesty, I preferred the Double Barrel; Trench Gun might've had more ammo, but something about the DB just felt a lot more satisfying to use, and it just felt more "fun" to try the classic boomstick out. Given the larger map size, they were more situational; if I wasn't using them as my Primary, then I had one as my Secondary, like on my PTSR build.

Blops: Either the Olympia or the SPAS-12 with a Suppressor in this one; while shotguns weren't always my main gun in this game - that was the Stoner 63 with a Red Dot - I still loved to pull out the shotgun on smaller maps and just run around for a bit. Funnily enough, I found the Olympia to be the more fun of the two, even though the suppressed SPAS was better.

Blops DS: As expected, both shotguns -the Remington 870 and Ithaca Model 37 - were my go-to guns for this game. Mostly because they were pretty consistent in the Campaign; Multiplayer I used snipers and launchers, while Zombies... I never could do well in.

Blops 2: Originally, it was the R870, but after getting some more experience I ended up switching to the KSG. The slug rounds genuinely looked and felt more satisfying to use, and after the 870 got nerfed, the KSG became my main. If I remember right, I actually got Diamond Camo on the shotties as well.

Ghosts: This was the game that kinda resulted in shotguns falling out of favor; back when I first got this one on PS3, I tired to main the MTS-255, only to find it wildly inconsistent, and unable to reliably kill people at close range. Coupled with the larger map size, and I quickly developed issues with the game as a result; nowadays I'm having a lot more fun, but I'm still trying to figure out which shotgun I even like. Bulldog's obviously the best - hell, I still see people using it online - but... I just really hate the gun's design, frankly.

AW: Going against the grain slightly, I found myself maining the Tac-19; not the fastest firing rate, but it's the one I found myself having the most amount of fun with overall back in the day. That said... nowadays, the S12 is definitely the new meta shotgun of choice, thanks to the full-auto fire rate. Hell, it basically is the new meta, replacing the ASM1 and Bal-27.

Blops 3: Back on the PS3, the KRM-232 wsa my main gun; again, the pump just felt more satisfying to use, especially with the shit netcode. Later in the game's lifecycle I switched to the 205 Brecci, as the semi-auto fire was better at providing a consistent damage range.

IW: While I was more of a melee guy this game, I still found time for shotguns; in this case, the M.2187 Akimbo and the Proteus. The former was notorious for being overpowered as shit during the game's lifecycle; special mention goes to the Thunderstruck variant, which allowed for three-round bursts, as there was a glitch that, for whatever reason, gave it a ridiculous amount of range. No joke, you could out-shoot snipers, and it pretty much dominated the meta for months until it finally got fixed. Aside from that, the DCM-8 was also a fun one - still got a saved clip of me going on a decent rampage with it.

MW2019: Found some usage with the Model 680; funnily enough, with slugs and a long barrel, along with a decent sight, you'd make a decent marksman rifle. Also funnily enough, I was never fond of the 725 in this game...

Blops Cold War: Mained the Haur 77 for Multiplayer; as expected, the good ol' pump-action was my baby. Zombies instead got the Gallo SA12; semi-auto, good damage, available off the wall, what's not to love?

Aside from those, I either can't remember the guns I preferred - like in MW2 or MW3 - or I didn't really touch the shotguns all that much, like in Blops 4 or WW2. Or they just weren't my favorites, like in Vanguard or MW22/MW23.

This is by far the worst problem with modern COD titles. Lack of consistency and a general theme. The main 3 modes are no longer connected, back then you'd at least make some connections between, say, the campaign and Zombies, but nowadays that just doesn't happen anymore. Like you said, multiplayer is the part of the game that's suffered the worst possible consequences from this move. It's just a mishmash of barely related assets. None of it fits together well.

There's been thematic issues since... I'd say Advanced Warfare, really. While prior CoD games had some goofy cosmetics - face camos in Blops, Zombie camos in Multiplayer in Blops 2, goofy outfits in Ghosts, etc. - they either didn't affect the game all that much, they fit well with the overall world/lore, or they actively gimped your character. I'd say it's actually the faster movement and focus on smaller maps that helped encourage goofier camos. Let me try to explain.

AW's Exo movement made camo less important; with the gameplay being more focused on movement and less about stealth, like in HALO, it meant that the devs could really start to get creative with sillier skins. Even future games that went back to "boots-on-the-ground" combat still kept faster movement, like in BO4 or MW2019, thus making camo and appearance less important. Threat recognition is still a thing; it was easier in the older games because, with everything being slower, you could actually identify who was who based on the camo. As things got faster and faster, though, it meant that camo and proper color palates were less important, thus easing up on the restrictions.

Incidentally, it's worth noting that the two more "modern" CoDs that feature the most grounded movement - MWR and WW2 - feature less overtly ridiculous bullshit in terms of cosmetics. While there is still some crap that's pretty "out-there", like black female Nazis, the Grim Reaper, knights, and St. Paddy's cosmetic faces, the majority of colorations and designs tend to be more subdued and not quite as overtly outlandish as, say, Spawn in MW22 - the Reaper and knight outfits in WW2 still maintain a subtle color palate for the most part, for instance, while the majority of the character outfits in MWR only affect the head, leaving the actual uniforms still looking fairly military-esqe. These work, because you can't just dodge bullets like you could in the other games; you have to take things a bit slower, thus making threat recognition - and thus, camoflauge - a good deal more important. Probably why the two games aren't as popular with the community; you can't dress up as a hot pink ninja and go dashing and jumping around everywhere.

People talk about Fortnite being the "main reason" why CoD's failing, but there were issues years before Fortnite was a thing. That's not to say Activision's chasing of trends didn't fuck things over, it's just that there were issues before all that. Hell, there was a number of weed titles you could get back in MW2; games have just gotten more ridiculous since then.

You may be right since CoD is trying to chase the Fortnite trend with collaborations. People love to spend.

Of course, the Fortnite trend-chasing has certainly had a rather... drastic... effect on CoD's monetization model. Battle Passes, limited-time events and cosmetics, insane crossovers... it's all certainly become a lot more ingrained into CoD's identity now, especially with the extreme obsession with Warzone. Again, there were issues before hand; the Supply Drop system from AW-Blops 4 come to mind, as you'd have to either grind a ton or spend IRL money to get a chance to get certain items, including overpowered guns. That said, that gear would still always be theoretically available - I still haven't unlocked certain gear items in IW, even with the Infinite Keys glitch - and it was still fairly cheap in most regards, with players even being able to unlock Drops just by playing the game, not to mention the Salvage system in some games and Key exploits in others.

The Fortnite focus really just accelerated an already-existing issue; the FOMO shit forced people to play at certain times or risk losing out on certain gear, or spend money to try and speed the process along if they didn't have enough time. It's predatory as fuck, and while there has been some hope - Fortnite itself has been getting an increasing amount of backlash towards the amount of FOMO shit in their game, despite what the kiddies say - you still have retards like the guys at Activision keeping it all alive because they're too greedy.

It's actually the other way around: All three modes were doing it's own thing and maybe Multiplayer was roughly based around single player campaign maps before. Now, EVERYTHING is connected to get multiplayer and zombies guys hooked up on Warzone and vice versa. It's most apparent in the cringe "stories" Warzone tries to tell that sometimes try and have a crossover with zombies universe. Shit like this is why I am glad Aether story ended in BO4, before this cringy crossover shit happened, with Dark Aether in Cold War being a neat little side story.

That's taken from Fortnite as well, actually; originally, the Battle Royale and Save the World (campaign) modes were mostly separate, but the devs started focusing more on the BR stuff and started trying to crowbar in all of the different game modes, including Save the World, LEGO, Rocket Racing, and even Festival, to try and connect with each other. The different between Fortnite and CoD is that Fortnite's lore and story were designed for goofy crossover shit; CoD, meanwhile, is rapidly losing its identity over a bunch of cosmetic shit that don't even fit the general setting. Hell, if they REALLY wanted to make a proper Fortnite copy, they should've tried to create a new storyline instead of piggybacking off of the Blops and MW stories. Hell, the Ghosts, Advanced Warfare, and even Infinite Warfare plotlines all would've worked significantly better than the more grounded plots.
 
Blops DS: As expected, both shotguns -the Remington 870 and Ithaca Model 37 - were my go-to guns for this game. Mostly because they were pretty consistent in the Campaign; Multiplayer I used snipers and launchers, while Zombies... I never could do well in.
You've actually played a DS CoD? How was it?
CoD 3: Main gun of choice was the Trench Gun, obviously. Not the greatest, especially when it came to ranged engagements, but I had some fun back in the day riding... well, shotgun in a motorcycle and hitting people with drive-bys.
More like the only shotgun of choice. That said, that shotgun has decent range from my experience. If the reticule turns red, it could kill in 1-3 shots.
 
You've actually played a DS CoD? How was it?

Oh, it was pretty shit. Controls were awkward, Campaign was a bit... random - meant to serve as a side story to Black Ops, mostly just some background plots - Multiplayer was a pain to connect to, and Zombies was a nightmare to play for multiple reasons. To break it down:

Campaign was basically just a bunch of loosely-connected levels detailing a side story taking place during the Cold War; mostly just a random mismatch of plots about fighting though Cuba and Vietnam, with a few other areas thrown in, mostly about just breaking into Soviet-controlled areas and wreaking shit. The two main characters were Michael Shaw, a U.S. S.O.G. member who evidently fought alongside Alex Mason, and Yuri Raslov, a former Spetsnaz who defected after his team tried to turn him into a martyr for Russia in Afghanistan. Overall, not really a solid campaign, but... it worked, and gave a small appetizer to the larger Blops series. Alex Mason even made a few camos; I think part of the plot takes place after Mason escapes Vorkuta, but before he gets attached to Hudson, with part of the plot being about Mason getting interrogated alongside Shaw due to the failure of the Bay of Pigs. Don't quote me on that though, it's been a LONG time.

Multiplayer I never did much in; maps were all generic, and I only ever got to play some 1-v-1 deathmatches against another guy. Wasn't really much to write home about, frankly; you ran around and shot other people, though the connection was crap as it was on the DS, not to mention the awkward control scheme made fights weird. That, and the online servers got taken down now, so... yeah, it's a bit useless.

As for Zombies, it was... something. There were only four maps - three in Russia, those being House, Facility, and Overlook, and one in Vietnam/Laos, that being Temple - but they all had the same general layout; three rooms/areas with two doors, first one 5,000 points and the second one 10,000, and they were all notorious for being glitchy and difficult to really play. House was a cramped nightmare, Temple was admittedly spooky, Facility had a rather random layout, and Overlook was based partially on the hotel from The Shining. The "Mystery Box" was a random weapon locker that you bought a weapon from, but you couldn't get a preview of beforehand; you'd potentially try to get an LMG, only to get stuck with a pistol or the China Lake. Zombies killed you in one hit, and could also run through walls and hit you from REALLY far away on higher rounds; did I mention that there were Zombie dogs/Hellhounds that had the same capabilities, but were also faster and more difficult to hit?

Oh, and apparently the two characters in this mode were the aforementioned Shaw and Yuri; apparently, apart from the World Leaders/"Five" team in Blops, this was the first official time there were campaign characters in Zombies, though Zombies was also considered to be non-canon then (I think) so take that with a grain of salt.
 
  • Like
  • Informative
Reactions: Wright and Nome
you can't dress up as a hot pink ninja and go dashing and jumping around everywhere
It makes me extremely MATI when people say this is how COD "always" was.

Also, good point about how speed makes camouflage less relevant. Your eye's drawn to movement, and moving slowly and keeping still are now excoriated as playing wrong. You didn't mention this, but ahead of either MWII or MWIII, the devs said a "problem" they were fixing was how characters blended into the environment. So they had the exact opposite philosophy, wearing camo should give you no advantage over wearing hot pink, and if somebody's running around like a nut and gets shot by someone they didn't notice, it's a gameplay problem.
 
Campaign was basically just a bunch of loosely-connected levels detailing a side story taking place during the Cold War; mostly just a random mismatch of plots about fighting though Cuba and Vietnam, with a few other areas thrown in, mostly about just breaking into Soviet-controlled areas and wreaking shit. The two main characters were Michael Shaw, a U.S. S.O.G. member who evidently fought alongside Alex Mason, and Yuri Raslov, a former Spetsnaz who defected after his team tried to turn him into a martyr for Russia in Afghanistan.
I believe all the DS "demakes" of Call of Duty are just side stories. MW3: Defiance is a prequel to the console versions of MW3, around the same time as the ending missions of MW2. The last mission of Defiance takes place at the beginning of MW3 where you are in NYC.
 
  • Informative
Reactions: Nome
That's taken from Fortnite as well, actually; originally, the Battle Royale and Save the World (campaign) modes were mostly separate, but the devs started focusing more on the BR stuff and started trying to crowbar in all of the different game modes, including Save the World, LEGO, Rocket Racing, and even Festival, to try and connect with each other. The different between Fortnite and CoD is that Fortnite's lore and story were designed for goofy crossover shit; CoD, meanwhile, is rapidly losing its identity over a bunch of cosmetic shit that don't even fit the general setting. Hell, if they REALLY wanted to make a proper Fortnite copy, they should've tried to create a new storyline instead of piggybacking off of the Blops and MW stories. Hell, the Ghosts, Advanced Warfare, and even Infinite Warfare plotlines all would've worked significantly better than the more grounded plots.
It is very obvious that COD is just Fortnite for men in their 30s, hence why I want nothing to do with it. I want COD, not a shitty copy of a game I have no interest in.

Re: Shotguns
I loved using WA1200 in COD4, one of my most used guns there to this day. I didn't really bother playing MW2 as much as other people, but I remember the 1887 or double Rangers were a beast. Never bothered with shotguns much in BO1 since there were so many OP SMGs and ARs, but when I did I mostly did so to style on people, so I used an Olympia. I already talked about WaW, BO2, Ghosts and AW and BO3, MW3 had a load of good shotguns too and I think I used KSG or Striker the most, I certainly used a lot of KSG in BO2 since it was a slug firing shotgun there(again, more claims that I was "hacking" when taking people out from longer ranges). IW I also didn't have much experience with, but REAVER and 2187s were pretty fantastic. Weapon variants coming back from AW made a lot of difference as to what you used, I wish they would come back but in the current state of the games, there is no way they would not be even more P2W. BO4 had some really wonky weapon balance thanks to low amount of attachments and 150 health as well as the game pretty much being a boost COD without the jetpacks. Striker came along later on during the game's life, before that I remember the pump shotgun being useful but having really low ammo capacity. MW2019 I did not play for a very long time but I remember the generic pump shotgun the game came with was very similar to WA1200 from what I remember, also that the double barrel was really OP when I used it. Classic WW2 titles didn't really have shotguns from what I remember, they just had the 1897 so there was no variety.
 
We're back into shotgun discussion now? I found a new shotgun that can pack a wallop: Bryson 800 from MWII, inspired from the Mossberg 590. Its pump action, buckshot bullets could catch somebody by surprise if you camp or flank them. If you even cut the bore in half with a barrel and stock, it could do one-shot kills in close range.

The slow pump speed and bullet reload can be a hinderance if each shot doesn't connect, but when it does, it feels powerful in your hands.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Nome
Can we get a remaster of 2011 MW3 already? I wanna save New York from the Huns again.
I get why people criticized MW3 heavily back when it was released, sure, it was just MW2 recycled over again with new guns/assets but come on. It easily had some of the coolest missions in the original trilogy. Especially the ending, the ending was a bit of a cliffhanger but getting the opportunity to kill Makarov with your own hands was easily the most gratifiying thing ever. I'd love to see it remastered as well, multiplayer too. But at this point I don't know if they're gonna go ahead with it. Been over 5 years since MW2:R
 
I get why people criticized MW3 heavily back when it was released, sure, it was just MW2 recycled over again with new guns/assets but come on. It easily had some of the coolest missions in the original trilogy. Especially the ending, the ending was a bit of a cliffhanger but getting the opportunity to kill Makarov with your own hands was easily the most gratifiying thing ever. I'd love to see it remastered as well, multiplayer too. But at this point I don't know if they're gonna go ahead with it. Been over 5 years since MW2:R
MW3 was absolutely better than MW2 in my mind. Multiplayer was much more enjoyable and actually balanced, Survival Mode gave us actual single player content this time around and there were even more Spec Ops missions, that includes DLC ones. One of those was a prototype for Atlas Gorge map in AW if I recall.
People who claimed it was just MW2.5 simply never played it, ie same people who just dismiss Ghosts as the "Fish AI" game without ever even bothering to watch a single gameplay video of it.
 
I get why people criticized MW3 heavily back when it was released, sure, it was just MW2 recycled over again with new guns/assets but come on. It easily had some of the coolest missions in the original trilogy. Especially the ending, the ending was a bit of a cliffhanger but getting the opportunity to kill Makarov with your own hands was easily the most gratifiying thing ever. I'd love to see it remastered as well, multiplayer too. But at this point I don't know if they're gonna go ahead with it. Been over 5 years since MW2:R

The game was a complete package. A thrilling single player campaign, an extensive coop mode, classical survival/horde mode, and a variety of multiplayer suites. I even enjoyed the DLC. I put thousands of hours into the COOP and Survival missions. One of my favorite games of all time.
 
MW3 was absolutely better than MW2 in my mind. Multiplayer was much more enjoyable and actually balanced, Survival Mode gave us actual single player content this time around and there were even more Spec Ops missions, that includes DLC ones. One of those was a prototype for Atlas Gorge map in AW if I recall.
People who claimed it was just MW2.5 simply never played it, ie same people who just dismiss Ghosts as the "Fish AI" game without ever even bothering to watch a single gameplay video of it.

I love MW2 but it doesn't hold a candle to MW3. Every campaign mission in MW3 felt like an adrenaline ride on crack. My favorite parts of MW2 were the "Wolverine bits" - saving Burger Town from the Russians. It felt like MW3 extrapolated on that. Some of the main criticisms of the game back in the day were about how unrealistic a Russian invasion of the Eastern Board of the United States was... umm its a fucking video game, who gives a shit?

We went from saving New York 14 years ago to fighting in abandoned factories in made up Middle Eastern shitholes in the latest trilogy. I don't want to fight against drug cartels or shadowy government groups, I want a fictional real world conflict that pits me against the best the rest of the world has to offer.
 
I love MW2 but it doesn't hold a candle to MW3. Every campaign mission in MW3 felt like an adrenaline ride on crack. My favorite parts of MW2 were the "Wolverine bits" - saving Burger Town from the Russians. It felt like MW3 extrapolated on that. Some of the main criticisms of the game back in the day were about how unrealistic a Russian invasion of the Eastern Board of the United States was... umm its a fucking video game, who gives a shit?
That settles it I’m buying it when it’s on sale on steam again.

But is the DLC worth it?
 
I love MW2 but it doesn't hold a candle to MW3. Every campaign mission in MW3 felt like an adrenaline ride on crack. My favorite parts of MW2 were the "Wolverine bits" - saving Burger Town from the Russians. It felt like MW3 extrapolated on that. Some of the main criticisms of the game back in the day were about how unrealistic a Russian invasion of the Eastern Board of the United States was... umm its a fucking video game, who gives a shit?

We went from saving New York 14 years ago to fighting in abandoned factories in made up Middle Eastern shitholes in the latest trilogy. I don't want to fight against drug cartels or shadowy government groups, I want a fictional real world conflict that pits me against the best the rest of the world has to offer.
My biggest complaint about the invasion isn't how unrealistic it is, but rather that Russians aren't using Russian guns. The generic AK-47 with synthetic parts I can buy, everything else like Spas 12s and FALs I can't. They did a little bit of a better job with giving them proper weapons in MW3 but it's still pretty far off. MW2 should have had way more Russian weapons, instead of just whatever gun came up in whatever action movie was being screened in the office at that point in time(or for MGS member berries in case of FAMAS).
Funnily enough, BO1 had way better arsenal for Russians despite half the guns being anachronistic for 1960s, and even then we can pretend they're super secret prototypes or something. No Russian infantryman is going to use a Vector .45 SMG for any reason.
That settles it I’m buying it when it’s on sale on steam again.

But is the DLC worth it?
Pirate it, despite how old these games are they are still full priced and almost never on sale. DLC is pretty much never on sale, so you will have to pay full price for maps you will never play in multiplayer either way. Don't give Activision any money, you should be able to find a torrent easily enough and download the game in no time with how small it is by today's standards.
 
That settles it I’m buying it when it’s on sale on steam again.

But is the DLC worth it?

I played the Survival Maps and Co-op maps quite extensively, I would recommend them; however, wait until there is a sale. Some of the DLC co-op maps are quite good - escorting a tank through Hamburg, fighting through waves of PMCs and helicopters on a Dubai rooftop, infiltrating a diamond mind in Siberia for example.
 
  • Informative
Reactions: Dagoth AMOGUS
Can we get a remaster of 2011 MW3 already? I wanna save New York from the Huns again.
It was heavily rumored they were working on it but Activision shelved it cuz they're cunts and moved the redone maps to one of the new games (might've been MWII)
 
My main problem with the OG MW3 campaign is that, after the first act, the game starts to heavily reuse assets and ideas from the previous two games, no doubt a result of its troubled development.
 
Sorry for the late replies, I was a bit busy.

It makes me extremely MATI when people say this is how COD "always" was.

Also, good point about how speed makes camouflage less relevant. Your eye's drawn to movement, and moving slowly and keeping still are now excoriated as playing wrong. You didn't mention this, but ahead of either MWII or MWIII, the devs said a "problem" they were fixing was how characters blended into the environment. So they had the exact opposite philosophy, wearing camo should give you no advantage over wearing hot pink, and if somebody's running around like a nut and gets shot by someone they didn't notice, it's a gameplay problem.

Thanks for mentioning the whole "eyes are attracted to movement" bit, that's kinda what I was thinking about but couldn't figure out how to write it. Also, the whole "issues with seeing people" bit shows just how stupidly out of touch both Activision and the community are; they really are trying to get rid of CoD's roots in favor of a shitty Fortnite clone. Probably because of the amount of literal kiddies that played the game, incidentally. Ironically... well, I'll talk about that later.

Funny thing is; if the team really wanted to incorporate crazier color palates into the game, they still could've done that while keeping the military theme. Hell, there was an actual pink military camo used by the Brits, albeit for desert operations and on their vehicles; there was so much potential that they (Activision) could've used while still acknowledging the series roots, and... they ignored all of it.

I believe all the DS "demakes" of Call of Duty are just side stories. MW3: Defiance is a prequel to the console versions of MW3, around the same time as the ending missions of MW2. The last mission of Defiance takes place at the beginning of MW3 where you are in NYC.

Is Defiance any good? Never played it, saw some mixed reviews for it, but I'm curious.

It is very obvious that COD is just Fortnite for men in their 30s, hence why I want nothing to do with it. I want COD, not a shitty copy of a game I have no interest in.

The irony here, is that CoD is doing a lot worse with the crazy shit than Fortnite is, for a variety of reasons.

The big one is, as discussed, thematic consistency; Fortnite was designed, lore-wise and from the ground up, to incorporate crossovers and generally crazy shit, it being an explicit multiversal storyline lore-wise and designed to have broad appeal marketing-wise. Meanwhile, CoD is a series defined for fast-paced military action, it being a lot more niche in terms of overall setting and plots; the crossovers and crazier cosmetics just don't really make sense without a lot of justification, like for Ghosts (post-apocalyptic storyline defined by people having to scavenge and find what they could, not to mention the whole issue with the Cryptids) or the Multiplayer backstory from BO3 (entire game is set in a virtual world, with Multiplayer explicitly being a collection of training simulations ran by an unknown group to help collect battlefield data in even the most extreme parameters) or even Blackout from BO4 (it's another massive training simulation set in rural California designed to test a variety of fighters with a variety of backgrounds in a variety of situations, as well as canonically a location where the Aether/115 was located; Richtofen indicates that their involvement in Blackout is a "shared 115-based delusion", Revelations hints that the Apothicons may have had some influence in setting the whole scenario up somehow, and Seraph did end up working with Primis at one point during the events of Blackout - likewise, Primis Dempsey ended up working with Task Force 141 in CoD: Mobile).

This is where CoD is failing first and foremost; the current crossovers and general insanity don't have any sense of justification for the most part - I could admittedly see the Godzilla stuff in Vanguard, though that's more to do with the OG Godzilla's themes more than anything, and even then CoD didn't set it up properly while Fortnite still did it a LOT better - and entire plotlines feel like they were just shoved in without any regard to how they actually fit. Yes, stuff like Alucard or The Boys look good on paper, but they don't fit the game or its themes in action, making everything just come across as random and disjointed.

Another issue is the cosmetics and, as mentioned above by @The Ugly One, how your eyes are attracted to movement; there's WAY too much shit on the screen. As someone who's played both CoD and Fortnite (yes), Fortnite is a LOT more visually clear; yes, there's cosmetic bullshit and some flashy effects, but at the very least you can actually register where and who gunfire is coming from. With CoD, you have so many ridiculously tracers and death effects and SFX parts of certain weapons and skins that you can't even remotely tell where in the hell anything is, not helped by every skin being this neon-colored blob so you can't even tell who friend or foe is.

Not helped by Fortnite being 3rd person - and easier to see shit - while CoD is mostly stuff to 1st person, limiting the FOV.

Activision's monetization model is another issue; Fortnite is continuously supported year after year and is mostly free-to-play aside from one mode (costing a single payment of $15), and the majority skins can be used in all game modes, and a variety of playstyles and maps are supported. Meanwhile, while Warzone is free, Activision keeps dropping support for CoD games after a single year - regardless of how well they went - each new CoD is roughly around $70, skins and cosmetics don't tend to carry over from CoD to CoD, all of the modes are increasingly becoming copies of Warzone, even Zombies, and the games are increasingly designed to appeal to coked-up jackrabbits running around on variants of Shipment. Also, CoD's cosmetics are significant;y more expensive on average.

Put simply, Activision is trying to create an "adult Fortnite"... without any of the long-term sustainability, thematic consistency, entertainment, ease of play, variety or general fun that the other game has. They're motivated by greed and the stupidity of the CoD community, and the retards keep supporting them.

(Before anyone accuses me of anything; I'd actually strongly recommend avoiding Fortnite at this point. Game's in a REALLY bad position right now, and I'd recommend avoiding it until Epic listens to the community and stops with the predatory shop stuff. Which isn't likely to be any time soon, at this rate.)

I love MW2 but it doesn't hold a candle to MW3. Every campaign mission in MW3 felt like an adrenaline ride on crack.

I'm going to be honest with you guys, I had trouble getting into MW3, though that had more to do with the Campaign. On PS3 for whatever reason, I had a ton of issues getting missions to play properly; characters would just stop at certain points and wouldn't progress, textures or level chunks wouldn't load, you name it. Oftentimes, one or more sound bit - like dialogue, music, etc. - would cut out if the game failed to load properly, which was at least a helpful cue to know to quit. Took me nearly a month just to beat the Campaign...

My favorite parts of MW2 were the "Wolverine bits" - saving Burger Town from the Russians. It felt like MW3 extrapolated on that. Some of the main criticisms of the game back in the day were about how unrealistic a Russian invasion of the Eastern Board of the United States was... umm its a fucking video game, who gives a shit?

The New York missions were great, I agree. I'd say Mind the Gap was mine, personally. Mostly because it was the one mission that didn't fuck up for me back in the day.

We went from saving New York 14 years ago to fighting in abandoned factories in made up Middle Eastern shitholes in the latest trilogy. I don't want to fight against drug cartels or shadowy government groups, I want a fictional real world conflict that pits me against the best the rest of the world has to offer.

I'm so fucking sick of "Vondel", "Urzikstan", "Avalon", or whatever made-up politically safe area they made for the game this time. It's just exhausting and takes away from the worldbuilding.

It was heavily rumored they were working on it but Activision shelved it cuz they're cunts and moved the redone maps to one of the new games (might've been MWII)

I think part of it was that they didn't want the remaster of an actual good CoD interfering with any of the new releases; I heard rumors that the MW3 remaster was actually in the works years ago, but Activision shelved it to focus on the current year CoDs.
 
I think part of it was that they didn't want the remaster of an actual good CoD interfering with any of the new releases; I heard rumors that the MW3 remaster was actually in the works years ago, but Activision shelved it to focus on the current year CoDs.
MWR took a lot away from Infinite Warfare. They will never let that happen again. In my very first MWII match, I ran into somebody who had some kind of effect that made me explode into hearts or pink cubes or something when I died. It was an incredible turnoff, and I completely lost interest in the series. Bewildering, too, as I thought people getting tired of that kind of silly, Saturday Morning-style crap was the whole reason MW2019 existed in the first place.
 
Excuse me for whaling but goddamn, can they make ONE good Adler skin?
1746122711660.webp
 
  • Lunacy
Reactions: The Last Stand
Back