17-07-09, 07:39 PM
Here is a gross, gross nerd out:
CoD originally made waves because it had all the good level design and balancing of previous shooters but it also strung together an amazing story with great set pieces. Nearly every level had at least one memorable moment. The russian levels were especially potent.
No.2 introduced the recharging health bar to PC games and built on the first. Although not as impressive due to the existance of no.1 it was still a great game with good set-pieces.
No.3 was developed to make money off the name of the game. Infinity Ward weren't involved. It was an average game (which is astonishingly shit compared to the rest of the series)
No.4 was the first modern-day shooter that got the feel just right. It was a game with lots of automatic, powerful weapons but it wasn't a Rainbow Six style game where getting shot = deaded. Not to mention, again, the amazing story telling and solid multiplayer (easily the best multiplayer shooter on Xbox and PS3, which helped cement it immensely within the public consciousness)
No.5 was back with the cash-in developers. They went back to WW2 and made an above-average game. It still didn't come close to comparing with 1/2/4.
That's my history of Call of Duty. It was an equal to every other top-notch game at the time gameplay wise but managed to include a genuinely powerful story as well, something that was sorely lacking from shooters at the time (and still today, if I'm honest). The sequels have managed to sustain that level of quality, something absent in nearly every franchise out there.
It feels realistic yet is arcadey. It has (consistently) the best stories in the genre. It has memorable, clever level design. It has the best multi-player available on consoles). Buy COD4.
CoD originally made waves because it had all the good level design and balancing of previous shooters but it also strung together an amazing story with great set pieces. Nearly every level had at least one memorable moment. The russian levels were especially potent.
No.2 introduced the recharging health bar to PC games and built on the first. Although not as impressive due to the existance of no.1 it was still a great game with good set-pieces.
No.3 was developed to make money off the name of the game. Infinity Ward weren't involved. It was an average game (which is astonishingly shit compared to the rest of the series)
No.4 was the first modern-day shooter that got the feel just right. It was a game with lots of automatic, powerful weapons but it wasn't a Rainbow Six style game where getting shot = deaded. Not to mention, again, the amazing story telling and solid multiplayer (easily the best multiplayer shooter on Xbox and PS3, which helped cement it immensely within the public consciousness)
No.5 was back with the cash-in developers. They went back to WW2 and made an above-average game. It still didn't come close to comparing with 1/2/4.
That's my history of Call of Duty. It was an equal to every other top-notch game at the time gameplay wise but managed to include a genuinely powerful story as well, something that was sorely lacking from shooters at the time (and still today, if I'm honest). The sequels have managed to sustain that level of quality, something absent in nearly every franchise out there.
It feels realistic yet is arcadey. It has (consistently) the best stories in the genre. It has memorable, clever level design. It has the best multi-player available on consoles). Buy COD4.