New CoD revealed

[gaijinkaiju]

what is this? Reboot? Remaster? Weirdly named sequel?
I mean come on, you have the infinite and advanced warfare series, give us more of that, not a rehash of stuff we've seen three games of already.
who asked for this

 

[Samtemdo8]

Seems to be now having a Campaign again.

 

[Arnox]

Did they seriously fucking name this game just "Modern Warfare"?

Fuck off. So tired of this. "Hurr durr, time to name the new game the same thing as the old one because we're unoriginal fucks." Now I can look forward to using Modern Warfare and confusing people as to whether I mean the fourth CoD or this shit.

Oh, and for the record, I think CoD4's campaign's aged kinda badly.

 

[Monoochrom]

Interesting, perhaps this will decide whether CoD finally fully ends it's time in the Sun or if this will lead to a renewal.

And how did that Plot age badly?

 

[Arnox]

And how did that Plot age badly?

Not necessarily the plot, but the gameplay sequences are kinda bland and sometimes annoying. Especially if you consider it against the likes of the original Black Ops.

 

[Vendor-Lazarus]

Did they seriously fucking name this game just "Modern Warfare"?

Fuck off. So tired of this. "Hurr durr, time to name the new game the same thing as the old one because we're unoriginal fucks." Now I can look forward to using Modern Warfare and confusing people as to whether I mean the fourth CoD or this shit.

Wholeheartedly agree on this. That's one more thing I've come to hate with modern games.
How the fuck is this confusion ever a good thing?

Well, though the solution could be as sinple as just giving the release year, it's still hugely annoying.

 

[Arnox]

Wholeheartedly agree on this. That's one more thing I've come to hate with modern games.
How the fuck is this confusion ever a good thing?

Well, though the solution could be as sinple as just giving the release year, it's still hugely annoying.

I take a no-nonsense approach when it comes to names like this. I forcefully give it a numbered designation. This will be Modern Warfare 4 now. End of story. They had the chance to name it something else, but they didn't. So now it's Modern Warfare 4.

 

[Monoochrom]

Not necessarily the plot, but the gameplay sequences are kinda bland and sometimes annoying. Especially if you consider it against the likes of the original Black Ops.

You realize that Black Ops is not the First in it's Series? That would be World at War, same continuity. And I just disagree. Neither is particularly grand, both are competent. And the Stealth Level All Guillied Up is a particular Highlight, can't really think of any segment that particularly stuck out to me in BlOps.

World at War was, by the way, pretty much Modern Warfare with WW2 Skins.

 

[Arnox]

You realize that Black Ops is not the First in it's Series? That would be World at War, same continuity. And I just disagree. Neither is particularly grand, both are competent. And the Stealth Level All Guillied Up is a particular Highlight, can't really think of any segment that particularly stuck out to me in BlOps.

World at War was, by the way, pretty much Modern Warfare with WW2 Skins.

There is a big difference between the two. Black Ops embraces its over-the-topness and imbues itself with a ton of 1950's/60's personality and charm along with it. The locales are generally more memorable as well, from a russian gulag to the jungles of Vietnam, there was rarely a dull moment. And on top of that, Black Ops makes small changes here and there to the gameplay that really add up to provide a better experience.

CoD4 probably would have been a lot better had it been more realistic, and it seems like it's trying to be, but it fails in many respects, and what could have really carried it, gameplay-wise, falls flat. If they'd have the gameplay be like Insurgency's, I probably would have liked it a lot more.

And don't give me that, "Insurgency came out after CoD4." nonsense. While it did, Infiltration for UT99 was doing what Insurgecy did long before even HL2 was a thing.

 

[Vendor-Lazarus]

I take a no-nonsense approach when it comes to names like this. I forcefully give it a numbered designation. This will be Modern Warfare 4 now. End of story. They had the chance to name it something else, but they didn't. So now it's Modern Warfare 4.

I'd have to disagree about that, as it's only setting you up for more frustration when they do release Modern Warfare 4..
Are you gonna call that 5 then? ,)
Just sigh, and say [game name](year). Not AS much public confusion when you talk about it then. ^^

 

[Monoochrom]

There is a big difference between the two.

It's CoD. That is a overstatement, I know it, you know it.

Black Ops embraces its over-the-topness

Not really, both Series arguably take themselves too seriously. Maybe they were so cheesy that you thought it was intentional? It wasn't.

and imbues itself with a ton of 1950's/60's personality and charm along with it.

You are not wrong. I however don't think you are being fair. Modern Warfare's aesthetic was a risky choice at the Time. Certainly moreso then having the same kind of aesthetic years later with a slight 50's/60's lean.

The locales are generally more memorable as well, from a russian gulag to the jungles of Vietnam, there was rarely a dull moment.

CoD's have been designed with a Action Film-like Story Presentation ever since Modern Warfare. I don't find Jungles particularly memorable. The Gulag was Nice. Personally, I enjoyed the Sniper Mission in WaW most out of that Series (However, I did not play it past BlOps 2).

And on top of that, Black Ops makes small changes here and there to the gameplay that really add up to provide a better experience.

Such as? Also, I on the other hand would point out that Modern Warfare (as a Series) had smoother core Gameplay then the BlOps Series.

CoD4 probably would have been a lot better had it been more realistic, and it seems like it's trying to be, but it fails in many respects, and what could have really carried it, gameplay-wise, falls flat. If they'd have the gameplay be like Insurgency's, I probably would have liked it a lot more.

And don't give me that, "Insurgency came out after CoD4." nonsense. While it did, Infiltration for UT99 was doing what Insurgecy did long before even HL2 was a thing.

I have neither knowledge nor experience with either of those. Are you saying you consider BlOps to be more realistic? Can't say I agree, so if that's what you are saying, it'd be interesting to know why.

 

[Arnox]

I'd have to disagree about that, as it's only setting you up for more frustration when they do release Modern Warfare 4..
Are you gonna call that 5 then? ,)
Just sigh, and say [game name](year). Not AS much public confusion when you talk about it then. ^^

No this is correct. This will be the fourth MW.

 

[Arnox]

It's CoD. That is a overstatement, I know it, you know it.

Maybe I was exaggerating some, but the differences are still somewhat substantial.

Not really, both Series arguably take themselves too seriously. Maybe they were so cheesy that you thought it was intentional? It wasn't.

Nah, Modern Warfare actually had a message behind its madness. Black Ops just wants to tell a neat story. Both are good in that regard.

You are not wrong. I however don't think you are being fair. Modern Warfare's aesthetic was a risky choice at the Time. Certainly moreso then having the same kind of aesthetic years later with a slight 50's/60's lean.

It was kinda risky considering the slew of WWII games we were getting at the time, but that's why I said it hasn't aged well at all. Not that it was by itself a bad campaign. What CoD4 did, gameplay-wise, was rather different at the time, but nowadays, what was great back then is now samey and overdone now. It could have stood the test of time if it was more realistic, but they made it too arcadey, so it feels like a really well done Quake 3 total conversion that's nevertheless hampered by the limitations of the arcadey engine it's using instead of an actual gritty modern shooter a la ARMA, Insurgency, or Infiltration.

Such as? Also, I on the other hand would point out that Modern Warfare (as a Series) had smoother core Gameplay then the BlOps Series.

I actually can't remember anything specific besides the AI being pretty bad, so you kinda got me there. Also, for some reason, friendly fire (me shooting at teammates) was really common and annoying due to a combination of them being in front of me a lot and it being hard to differentiate them from other enemies.

Are you saying you consider BlOps to be more realistic?

lolno. It does just feel better to play though. Again, I can't remember the particulars now, but BO gameplay generally feels more polished than CoD4.

What I WILL say is that the MP for CoD4 is still good in its own way and worth a revisit.