Well another year has past & another Call Of Duty is out, except, it has cunningly just been named: "Modern Warfare 2"
Honestly. Are you people really that stupid ?
I played COD4 after being told by most people on my XBL friend's list: "It's the best shooter you'll ever play"
I'd played the older COD games & was not overly-impressed, but I thought I'd buy it to see what all the fuss was about...... only to finish the campaign the same day I bought it.
Then I get on to the Multiplayer, that everyone raves about, only to find everyone running about like headless chickens, shooting the first thing that moves (Which I was doing on "DOOM" 15 years ago) & the players not running around were camping at spawn points trying to pick people off as they spawn. Then there's the mind-numbingly stupid "Perk" system that completely destroys the balance of the game in multiplayer.
And, please, don't try & call me a noob, just cause you disagree with what I'm saying. I've been playing video games for 20 years & I play shooters more than anything else, so behave.
Fast forward a year. I go to a friends house and he insists we play COD WAW, again being told it's the best thing since the last Call Of Duty. (Not a good start). We do the campaign, which, like drunken sex, is brief & instantly forgettable. (Much like COD4) and low & behold......... the multiplayer plays like every other Call Of Duty ever made: Run, shoot, kill, run, shoot, kill, die, spawn, REPEAT.
Honest-to-God, how the hell can these games be considered revolutionary & ground-breaking shooters ?
They do NOTHING that every other FPS hasn't done before. Like I said: 15 years ago, I was running around like crazy shooting people on DOOM over a LAN, which was great fun....... 15 years ago.
Nowadays, you expect more from a shooter than the old run & gun routine with zero strategy.
I keep hearing: "But, ooooh, it's really realistic, that's what makes it so good".
Is it really that realistic ? Er....No, it's not and if you're going to base how good a game is on it's realism, maybe you should play some of the old Rainbow Six games on the PC where, if you took one shot, it was over.
Is it really more realistic than Rainbow Six or Ghost Recon ? Simple answer... NO.
What bugs me the most, is the morons who go out & buy franchise games like this every year, thinking it's going to be 10x better than the previous year. They know in their heart of hearts, there's barely any difference from the year before, but they'll still play it for hours on end without any complaints.
It's getting to the point that the COD franchise has basically become like the EA sports games: People are taken in with the slick marketing & hype and like mindless zombies, they'll go out & buy it, without fail.
Well, I'm going to break the trend & I'll be giving Modern Warfare 2 a WIDE berth & let the zombies enjoy it.
Normally I reserve judgement 'til I play a game, but not this time, because I know it wont be any different from the last one.
I've played better games of this type on the current gen of consoles: BF: Bad Company, Brothers In Arms: Hells Highway, Rainbow Six Vegas, GRAW. All far superior to the COD games, because they offered something different to the gamer, other than Run & Shoot.
I know I'm in the minority when I bash the COD series, but I really don't care. I'm not doing it to be deliberately controversial or rub the COD fan-boys up the wrong way, I just genuinely don't see what all the fuss is about with these games.
Surely, I'm not alone.