Was it for this daddy died ? (Call of Duty 4/7/8, 2007 – 2011)

That’s no april fools’, I expect a new Call Of Duty to be published this year around November. I notice that, according to Steam, I already played around 137 hours to Modern Warfare 3 (MW3), while the year before I played around 191 hours to Black Ops (BOPS), which one I left untouched since then.

I won’t go in details describing these games, and keep focused only on multiplayer. I almost assumed Den Kirson would never release anything about MW3. I’ll only point out I found myself playing to Modern Warfare (MW1 from 2007) recently, when it comes to FPS. So I’m not sure I’ll invest money in Call of Duty in 2012.

The obvious most notable nuisance is the publisher greed: When you pay 60 € for a game, you don’t expect to buy a DLC to get 3 maps a few month later, it’s just unfair.

But, most annoyingly, recent CoD games seems somehow unbalanced. It’s not about the weapons set, this is usually fine. It’s more about these extras, like Killstreaks and all. In BOPS, Killstreaks are just omnipresent, you spend your time changing to a FLAK-class, and on some maps with easy kills like Nuketown Killstreaks makes to much difference. In MW3, Killstreaks are somehow balanced, easier to workaround, except for the AC130 and Pave Low that makes an horrendous difference over the game outcome. But how easy it is to get a grenade-launcher attachement to most weapons is what completely breaks the game, allowing über-low player to get many easy kills, with no sense of strategy or teamplay. During some games, you have to wonder if game publishers really believe that real modern warfare is just about throwing nades with an attachment on a rifle, with no concern of safety for your own team. Sadly, the peer-to-peer server model of MW3 removes from you the usual ability to pick a server with proper admins that bans tubers. Even worse, recently, the feature that autoselect games for you/your team no longer allows you (aside from forcing you to play Ricochet when you only want to play Hardcore, forcing an unrealistic feature in a supposedly realistic setup) to pick random hardcore game modes. So your forced to pick by hand a game mode and when you select, say, Headquarters you easily end-up facing a team of unskilled childish tubers that destroy your team utterly because it’s not so hard to tube when you can predict easily where the enemy is (ie capturing or protecting the Headquarters),  kind of team of tubers unfit for other modes like Search & Destroy.

Would they fire a nade against an enemy 3 feets away? If it was MW3, they would.

I wonder why these games have such obvious unrealistic drawbacks. Maybe it is not a bug but a feature: I guess it makes the games more appealings to eleven years old gamers. Fact is I have more fun playing MW, a game from 2007, with servers where players misbehaving get banned, where random hardcore game mode is still possible, where you can easily carry anti-aircraft weaponry to avoid Killstreaks being too much a nuisance. And visually, it does not make much difference, as all these games use the same rendering engine. Hum, What have we done, Maggie what have we done?

2 thoughts on “Was it for this daddy died ? (Call of Duty 4/7/8, 2007 – 2011)

  1. Pingback: People say we couldn’t play… They gave us the boot (Call of Duty, 2012 RIP) « Line Them Up (& Put Them Down)

  2. Pingback: People say we couldn’t play… They gave us the boot (Call of Duty, 2012 RIP) | Crusader ✟ Ping

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s