[Multiplatform] Call of Duty 5, World At Bore

Originally Posted by russ

The low level assault rifles are all single shot and have tiny clips. You don't get access to a useful AR until level 37 with the SGT-44. The low level submachine guns suck. They are weak, inaccurate, and have unwieldy levels of recoil. That would be ok, except the the top level submachine gun that you get access to in the 50s, has a huge clip, insane rate of fire, very good power, and very little recoil. The only weapons truly worth using in WaW are the high level weapons in each weapon class.

It's really not that big of a deal. The bolt-actions are some of the best guns in the game with stopping power, and assuming you can aim they'll serve you well at any level. Not to mention the MP40 is one of the best guns in the game and it unlocks really early. And it's far better than the PPSH. Plus, you have the rifles like SVT and Gewehr that kill in a couple hits and have almost no recoil. They're beyond adequate.

I mean, really, most of the guns in each class are almost identical in terms of damage. You can do well with most of the guns you start with or unlock by level 10, as they're comparable to the later guns. Only time it's an issue is with the MGs and Bolt-Actions if you use them as snipers. For the former, the later MGs outclass the early ones in almost all regards. For the latter, the PTRS is by far the best sniper rifle. But, those are the only two cases really.

Quote:

Also, there are tanks. In multiplayer matches. Tanks. Multiplayer. Broken.

It only takes one satchel charge to blow up a tank. It's ridiculously easy to kill them.

CoDWaW isn't great, but it's not that bad either. I was pretty surprised at how well it turned out, considering CoD3 was abysmal.

Most amazing jew boots

Originally Posted by Vampiro

CoDWaW isn't great, but it's not that bad either. I was pretty surprised at how well it turned out, considering CoD3 was abysmal.

It's not terrible because they've basically ripped off CoD4 added stupid shit and given it a WWII theme, and CoD4 was a fantastic game, so a poor-man's CoD4 was never going to be outright bad (though if anyone could do it Treyarch were the team).

The fact remains that the next Call of Duty should have built on the excellent work done with CoD4, not aimed to try and match it at best. In some respects I'm glad Treyarch stayed away from modern day combat, since it means they've not managed to tarnish that theme with their poor design yet. Bring on IW's Modern Warfare 2 I say.

I am a dolphin, do you want me on your body?

Well, it is a sequel. I don't know what you really expect. Why wouldn't Treyarch rip-off CoD4? They tried branching out and doing something different with three and we all know how that turned out. Better to play it safe and make a good game then try something different and make a bad game. Hell, I'm actually enjoying multiplayer and I never really expected that.

As for MW2, at least we know it'll be great. The jump from 1 to 2 was pretty big and from 2 to 4 was massive, so it's pretty clear we'll see CoD4 trounced in terms of quality. But now, I just view the odd numbered CoD titles as an expansion/reskinning. I could continue playing CoD4, or I could just play CoD5 and have a "new" experience. If treyarch keeps that up I won't really complain. It's a pretty good value considering the Variety map pack was 10 dollars, right?

I was speaking idiomatically.

Originally Posted by Vampiro

Better to play it safe and make a good game then try something different and make a bad game.

Do you work for Activision? (i.e. you are wrong with that statement right there). Previously it would have been EA, but as recent years have shown they are actually trying something different, and whilst it's not turning out amazing games every time I will applaud them for at least trying.

Your attitude there is what leads to mediocre efforts like World at War, and why we suffer with crappy sequels that 'play it safe'. Sequels have their place, but the best ones expand on the formula, they experiement and they try new things.

What kind of toxic man-thing is happening now?

You're saying "better to play it safe" is wrong? If anything that's the motto for this generation. Of course Activision would rather play it safe and have a good game ship than leave it to chance and see another CoD3. Let's face it, Treyarch isn't a good developer and most publishers as is would rather play it safe than try something fresh and new. Obviously innovation is always needed, and new IPs will always come out, but with the cost of developing huge titles ripping off CoD4 is a pretty damn good idea. Leave the innovation to proven developers with the skills to pull it off.

Really, Treyarch's role in the franchise is that of a stopgap, something to keep the cash flowing in while IW takes the time to develop a brand new game. Their role isn't to go crazy and do something new and exciting. That's just the reality of it. My attitude isn't what leads to games like CoD5, it's a publisher wanting to make as much money as possible. I'm only impressed with the game because it wasn't a miserable failure, but I'll still enjoy it if it's possible. I can accept what the game is, and whether that was the case or not, Activision will still put out a CoD7 that's likely to be a reskinned CoD6.

Most amazing jew boots

Originally Posted by Vampiro

It's really not that big of a deal. The bolt-actions are some of the best guns in the game with stopping power, and assuming you can aim they'll serve you well at any level. Not to mention the MP40 is one of the best guns in the game and it unlocks really early. And it's far better than the PPSH. Plus, you have the rifles like SVT and Gewehr that kill in a couple hits and have almost no recoil. They're beyond adequate.

I mean, really, most of the guns in each class are almost identical in terms of damage. You can do well with most of the guns you start with or unlock by level 10, as they're comparable to the later guns. Only time it's an issue is with the MGs and Bolt-Actions if you use them as snipers. For the former, the later MGs outclass the early ones in almost all regards. For the latter, the PTRS is by far the best sniper rifle. But, those are the only two cases really.

Valid points for the most part, results of styles of play I assume. I will contend that the PPSH is better than the MP40 because of how silly the MP40's recoil is. If you take more than 3 consecutive shots with it, at a target 10 feet away, one shot will hit where you pointed, one shot will hit about 5 feet to the right, one shot will hit somewhere else entirely. It's main advantage is that it has a silencer. I only play hardcore, so I generally don't worry about showing up on the radar. But as I said, I am willing to consider your other points as style of play issues. All I know is that my k/d was about 0.80 when I hit level 37 and got the MP44, and I'm now at 64 and have a k/d of 1.05, using the MP44 since 37, and the PPSH in Hardcore S&D since I unlocked it.

Quote:

It only takes one satchel charge to blow up a tank. It's ridiculously easy to kill them.

I probably have about a 10:1 k/d ratio in tanks. Blowing one up with a satchel charge is easier said than done considering how difficult it can be to get close to one.


Also, Infinity Ward has exclusive development rights going forward for the Call of Duty franchise, I believe, so the great game vs. Treyarch reskin debate will not matter much longer.

What, you don't want my bikini-clad body?

Quote:

Valid points for the most part, results of styles of play I assume. I will contend that the PPSH is better than the MP40 because of how silly the MP40's recoil is. If you take more than 3 consecutive shots with it, at a target 10 feet away, one shot will hit where you pointed, one shot will hit about 5 feet to the right, one shot will hit somewhere else entirely. It's main advantage is that it has a silencer. I only play hardcore, so I generally don't worry about showing up on the radar. But as I said, I am willing to consider your other points as style of play issues. All I know is that my k/d was about 0.80 when I hit level 37 and got the MP44, and I'm now at 64 and have a k/d of 1.05, using the MP44 since 37, and the PPSH in Hardcore S&D since I unlocked it.

The MP40's recoil is highly manageable if you burst the gun. It's one of the few automatic guns that do 50+ damage without stopping power, so two bullets should be a guaranteed kill no matter what. And since the firerate is as slow as it is, bursting or shooting single-shot is very easy, and thus, it's a very deadly gun handled right. Though if you play hardcore I guess it's a moot point anyways. Everything is basically a one or two hit kill.

But yeah, MP44 is one of my favourite guns. It's just such a smooth gun.


As for tanks, idk, I have no problem blowing them up. The average tank driver is incredibly dumb. I usually just run up behind them when they're looking forward, toss a satchel on the ground behind it, shoot my pistol to get their attention and then proceed to run away. 8 time out of 10 times the driver will promptly turn around back back up right over the satchel.

Otherwise I just toss it in a choke point.

Jam it back in, in the dark.

I think the point is though, that it's rather counter-intuitve for the low level weapons to be the ones that require some skill to get kills with and the higher level ones being easier, seeing as how one would assume that people who've been playing the game longer in order to reach higher levels would be the more skilled ones and therefore be the ones able to get the kills with the shittier weapons, no? The whole concept of giving better guns to better players is a stupid one as it introduces a needlessly steep learning curve for new players.

What works better in my opinion is a system like Frontlines has where your secondary weapons upgrade during the match as you get kills and capture objectives. This means everyone starts from a level playng field and the huge point bonuses you get for capturing objectives as opposed to killing people encourage people to play tactically rather than treating as just a deathmatch. By the time you get to the third round of most matches there are people with the full on sentry guns, air bombs, rocket drones and so forth and yet none of these are particularly game breaking as they all have a long recharge time.

If you must have weapon unlocks for experience, do it like in Rainbow Six where the guns available at the start are by and large as effective as any you unlock later. I've unlocked everything in the game and the MP5 which is available right from the start is still pretty much my weapon of choice. Any other differences are in recoil, aiming speed and so on and not so huge as to give someone a huge advantage, so much as just suit a style of play perhaps a little better. It just makes for a more balanced game and stops new players getting murdered all the time because their equipment isn't up to scratch.

There's nowhere I can't reach.

Originally Posted by Shin

seeing as how one would assume that people who've been playing the game longer in order to reach higher levels would be the more skilled ones and therefore be the ones able to get the kills with the shittier weapons, no?

Ideally? Yeah, sure.

If there's one thing that COD4 has taught us, it's that ranking up ain't no fucking thing and it's about as useful a barometer for player ability as TrueSkill is in Gears or the rank system is in Warhawk.

Considering even the worst player just has to grind for levels/rank since there's no real backwards progression, the unlock order really doesn't mean shit except for the first half a day the thing's out for.

This thing is sticky, and I don't like it. I don't appreciate it.

Quote:

If you must have weapon unlocks for experience, do it like in Rainbow Six where the guns available at the start are by and large as effective as any you unlock later

Too bad the Mtar and Famas were so horrible unbalanced. And the MP7. And the Spas. But yeah, I get your point. Though CoD4 had it perfect honestly. Some guns were definitely superior but you could own right from the get-go seeing as the M16, MP5 and M40 were all unlocked from the start.

But like Spread said, it's pretty moot. You level up very quickly in CoD and you'll have a decent arsenal in an hour or so. Not to mention what you do start with is pretty good like I said. SVT, Thompson, trenchgun, Type 99, Springfield, etc are all really good guns.

The thing with CoD games is that, generally, weapons in the same class do similar damage and have similar stats. It's just that there's one or two standouts that people like to focus on. Also, yeah, the typical high leveled player in CoD is amazingly bad. Even with "better guns" they can't do shit with them so it's not like it really gives them an advantage.

How ya doing, buddy?