|
I played this one and I liked it, I played World at War and liked it, but I still think the first one was the apex of the CoD franchise. It was a very cool Counterstrike killer and I played it more than any non-Battlefield shooter. I consider the most recent entries in the series to be a lazy and unforgivable chain of cash-ins that don't enrich the genre and don't advance the art of game design at all. The only video game franchise I can think of off hand that might be lazier is Madden.
|
#
¿
Mar 7, 2016 02:52
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ Apr 19, 2024 04:53 |
|
|
Back in the day though, CoD multiplayer was very Counterstrike-ish (I'm talking original CS, I haven't played CSGO so don't know what it's like). The first CoD multiplayer had no respawns in its default setting and took place on smallish maps. It was very tense and reminded me of a better Counterstrike with a WWII setting and iron sights, firing cones, going prone, and an overall more realistic feel. The two series have diverged hugely since then, and even by the time of Modern Warfare they were hugely different. I guess what I'm saying is that despite CoD becoming kind of the poster child for a same-from-sequel-to-sequel franchise, the first couple actually evolved quite a bit between titles with Modern Warfare probably being the biggest evolution. After that, they got pretty same-y.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 7, 2016 04:18
|
|