But every CoD brought something new to the series, for better or worse.
CoD4 introduced the gameplay mechanics we're all familiar with, as well as bringing a fresh -at the time- setting in a industry drowning in WW2 shooters.
WaW may have changed little with the gameplay itself, but it's the only CoD that lets you play the campaign in 4-player co-op. It also started the zombie mode that's become a standard in 3arch's CoDs. It was also the first good CoD from Treyarch.
MW2 expanded upon the multiplayer by introducing a **** ton of new guns, attachments, and killstreaks; though balance got screwed in the process. There's also the deathstreaks, which gave those a helping hand when they weren't doing so well. IW also added their own take on co-op, which had 2 players taking on challenges meant for co-op; though most could be played alone. (cont.)
MULTIPLAYER MULTIPLAYER MULTIPLAYER. FOR ****'S SAKE, COD IS ALL ABOUT THE MULTIPLAYER, NO ONE PLAY THE SINGLEPLAYER! NOW MATTER HOW YOU SAY IT, COD IS STILL THE SAME ****** GAME OF SHOOTING BADGUYS WITH INVINCIBLE TEAMMATES! NO ONE WILL NOTICE THIS SO CALLED NEW THING ECAUSE THEY'RE TOO BUSY PLAYING THE MUTLIPLAYER!
As much as I prefer the single player. I have to agree with that.
Though, in a way, it's also a good thing. Because all the attention is on the multiplayer, Activision never felt the need to do ******** like take out part of the story and release it as DLC. As a result, every campaign feels complete.
That said, it's not like the campaign is completely ignored. Why would the dev's put so much effort in all the campaigns if no one played them?
BO added online splitscreen multiplayer. It also shook up multiplpayer a bit. It changed how weapons were unlocked, having players buy them with credits that can also be gambled on your or other's matches. It also has party modes like One in the Chamber and CS:S's Gun Game. And it let people play offline with bots. BO even gave the player character some personality for once.
I can't really defend MW3 here. It added it's own take on WaW/BO's survival modes, and a game mode, but it still felt like the same game.
BO2 is probably has the most change the series has seen since 4.The story changes based on what the player does, or doesn't do. Though it's very limited, it was still nice to have an impact on the story. There was also the strike missions, which added RTS elements of all things to the game. It was simple, but it was welcome change of pace. It added two new zombie modes, as well as moved zombies to the multiplayer engine; allowing for both more zombies and more players on the map. You could also play zombies with four people via splitscreen, but the framerate was ****. This is also the first game with DLC that adds new gamemodes, almost makes it worth the money. I haven't played any multiplayer, so I don't know what's different there.
Now that there's a third developer in the yearly cycle, I can only imagine what Treyarch, Infinity Ward, and Sledgehammer can do with the series once they get adjusted to the next-gen consoles.
But every CoD brought something new to the series, for better or worse.
CoD4 introduced the gameplay mechanics we're all familiar with, as well as bringing a fresh -at the time- setting in a industry drowning in WW2 shooters.
WaW may have changed little with the gameplay itself, but it's the only CoD that lets you play the campaign in 4-player co-op. It also started the zombie mode that's become a standard in 3arch's CoDs. It was also the first good CoD from Treyarch.
MW2 expanded upon the multiplayer by introducing a **** ton of new guns, attachments, and killstreaks; though balance got screwed in the process. There's also the deathstreaks, which gave those a helping hand when they weren't doing so well. IW also added their own take on co-op, which had 2 players taking on challenges meant for co-op; though most could be played alone. (cont.)
MULTIPLAYER MULTIPLAYER MULTIPLAYER. FOR ****'S SAKE, COD IS ALL ABOUT THE MULTIPLAYER, NO ONE PLAY THE SINGLEPLAYER! NOW MATTER HOW YOU SAY IT, COD IS STILL THE SAME ****** GAME OF SHOOTING BADGUYS WITH INVINCIBLE TEAMMATES! NO ONE WILL NOTICE THIS SO CALLED NEW THING ECAUSE THEY'RE TOO BUSY PLAYING THE MUTLIPLAYER!
As much as I prefer the single player. I have to agree with that.
Though, in a way, it's also a good thing. Because all the attention is on the multiplayer, Activision never felt the need to do ******** like take out part of the story and release it as DLC. As a result, every campaign feels complete.
That said, it's not like the campaign is completely ignored. Why would the dev's put so much effort in all the campaigns if no one played them?
yep
BO added online splitscreen multiplayer. It also shook up multiplpayer a bit. It changed how weapons were unlocked, having players buy them with credits that can also be gambled on your or other's matches. It also has party modes like One in the Chamber and CS:S's Gun Game. And it let people play offline with bots. BO even gave the player character some personality for once.
I can't really defend MW3 here. It added it's own take on WaW/BO's survival modes, and a game mode, but it still felt like the same game.
BO2 is probably has the most change the series has seen since 4.The story changes based on what the player does, or doesn't do. Though it's very limited, it was still nice to have an impact on the story. There was also the strike missions, which added RTS elements of all things to the game. It was simple, but it was welcome change of pace. It added two new zombie modes, as well as moved zombies to the multiplayer engine; allowing for both more zombies and more players on the map. You could also play zombies with four people via splitscreen, but the framerate was ****. This is also the first game with DLC that adds new gamemodes, almost makes it worth the money. I haven't played any multiplayer, so I don't know what's different there.
Now that there's a third developer in the yearly cycle, I can only imagine what Treyarch, Infinity Ward, and Sledgehammer can do with the series once they get adjusted to the next-gen consoles.
STILL THE SAME ******* ****** PIECE OF **** IT ALWAYS IS!
I'm not saying you have to like it, just that it's not the same thing every year.
Congratulations, you made me exceed the 2000 character limit for the first time.
I completely forgot that limit was there.
You just hate COD because you're terrible at it... Just kidding.
Cod 4 is superior, it doenst have dlc bs