COD 7: Vietnam details

NuFc_kNoXiE_KiLa said:

making a non-frustrating game is basically impossible, as something will always annoy you. but balanced? yeah CoD:WaW had the mp40 which was overpowered, but i dont see what isnt balanced in MW2. dont bother saying the killstreaks, because it is very easy to destroy a chopper gunner or w/e if you keep a javelin class. all the guns are balanced and all have good/bad points.

btw whats wrong with bringing one out every year? ONE? your emphasising it like its loads, but as long as theyre amazing and keep us occupied, theres no problem?

The Model is very strond and not balanced. You can kill with one shot from a mile away

PS3 Trophies said:

They adjusted the Models ages ago, now it sucks instead

Well i still play with it and i dont see any difference

Yeah the winchesters are a bit weaker now, still think a single model has high range though, but i tihnk the spas has an uber range on it, even without a grip! also ump45 gets 4 hit kills with a silencer from any range (just tap fire), this can be quite annoying,   i can see why its so overused. the rifles either have no recoil or loads of recoil, Scar being no recoil F2000 being loads of recoil. infinite amount of noob tubes with either OMA or scavenger? what were they smoking when they allowed that? heartbeat sensors kind of ruined the joy of HCSnD for me, i dont want to be forced to use ninja!

   But what do i care? im getting BFBC2 soon (hopefully tomorrow!) 😛

This vietnam setting could be interesting, depending on how do they do the story, although knowing the CoD series it'll be short, all other the place, and a war game cliche in every way. sstill if they present the story in a way which shows how evil this war was (ie america napalm bombing villages comes to mind), and the reasons behind why the americans did what they did, because this story will be crap and short, but id like to at least learn something from it

NuFc_kNoXiE_KiLa said:

making a non-frustrating game is basically impossible, as something will always annoy you. but balanced? yeah CoD:WaW had the mp40 which was overpowered, but i dont see what isnt balanced in MW2. dont bother saying the killstreaks, because it is very easy to destroy a chopper gunner or w/e if you keep a javelin class. all the guns are balanced and all have good/bad points.

btw whats wrong with bringing one out every year? ONE? your emphasising it like its loads, but as long as theyre amazing and keep us occupied, theres no problem?

I think it was the UMP that was overpowered? Idk, I haven't played MW2 in a very long time.

well if they brought out one every 2 years they could have done much more improvements. Like Assassins Creed 1 and 2. 2 Years and look at the improvement from AC1 to AC2.

I agree with the above. Releasing a new Call of Duty each year is something I suggest the developers stay away. What are they really doing excpet repeating the formula? Add a decent seven hour singleplayer, a multiplayer that will get fanboys hyped up, and its sold. I would hope atleast some are smart enough to realise that aside from the new title, guns and scenery any Cod is technically the same as the other. In my oppinion Call of Duty 2 and 4 will never be touched, no matter how many new killstreaks are added to the game, and its sad to say rather than improving the series, its slowly going down.

Yes, I am a sucker for a decent war game. But even I must draw the line at some point. Not only am I tired of walking into the local gamestore to keep seeing a different Call of Duty game ready for preorder, but maybe I wont be so sad after all to see the series burn to the ground at some point or another.

emdeepee said:

Am I missing something here? These games are 2 years in development not 12 months, yes they are released every year (by different developers) and yes they are very similar (aren't most games of the same genre??), but they're still better than some new IP's.

exactly, they should be treated as different games. think about it COD4:MW came out 2007 and MW2 2009, isnt that 2 years ratchet?

btw antony, the model's were reduced ages ago, and there is a massive difference believe me.

imo, as long as they keep bringing them out to a great standard (which they have done) i'll keep buying them (:

emdeepee said:

Am I missing something here? These games are 2 years in development not 12 months, yes they are released every year (by different developers) and yes they are very similar (aren't most games of the same genre??), but they're still better than some new IP's.

In the last month I've tried Infamous, Mini Ninja's and Brutal Legend and was bored shitless with all of them. I'd rather spend £40 on (another) COD than GI Joe: Rise of the Fcuking Cobra 2.

Yes WW2 has been done to death, but so have near-future space shooters and there's a boat load of new games of that kind on the horizon.

I'm not a COD fanboy, today is coincidentally the first time I've played MW2 in 5 months (and apparently I still suck at it!!).

I am aware that each game spends two years in development, but think about the pressure the devs must face. They MUST release a new CoD game every year, in November, just in time for Christmas. This means the devs might not have all the time they want to fix up and finalize the game, so they just rush it a bit. 

Personally though, I would much rather play a new IP than an over-done, unoriginal FPS. My reasoning – I know exactly what to expect when I play a CoD game. The SP is going to be 5 hours, and the main character is never going to talk or show any form of depth at all. I also know that there is going to be a wise-cracking character, and an angry sergeant that yells every damn word. 

All I want is a CoD game to go above and beyond, like COD4. Remember how nice CoD4 was when it came out, because it was something new, no more WW2 setting, and new guns.