Quote:
Originally Posted by Favourtism
they should use there common sence, The CoD 5 Beta was amazing if you ask anyone who had it
then when the game came it, It was the worst cod game every.
Printable View
Quote:
Originally Posted by Favourtism
they should use there common sence, The CoD 5 Beta was amazing if you ask anyone who had it
then when the game came it, It was the worst cod game every.
Well, I heard the perks are RPG style, where you earn them through completing challenges based on them, such as iron lungs is breathing in with sniper, extreme conditioning is running alot
The game will have armour and clothes (Yay) so basically cod + rainbow 6 vegas + morrowind = best game ever
I doubt that about perks personally, It's not cods style.
Also you can't say cod:waw is worst cod ever, it's not much different to cod4 lol (in terms of how u play, not guns/maps etc.).
No offence, but you always post these rumours which are complete ********.Quote:
Originally Posted by HC0R3H00LIH00P
There's no confirmation of any of that. ;\
Someone never played CoD3 then.Quote:
Originally Posted by Jord
Actually the reason why most people hated Call of Duty World at War was because of a few things
- Horrible spawn system
- Unbalanced weapons (SMG's > Everything)
- MP40 damage glitch
- The amount of un-needed perks added
- Horrible map design
nah I didnt like it because it was going in the past. i prefer modern > ww2Quote:
Originally Posted by PaulMacC
What do you mean horrible spawn system? CoD4 wasn't exactly lacking the exact same problem, CoD4 had countless un-needed perks, unbalanced weapons and some of the maps were awful, you can't say those are why people hated it when CoD4 had exactly the same issues, I mean the perfect example is the M16, that gun would be just about everything hands down, you didn't need any other weapon.Quote:
Originally Posted by PaulMacC
I agree. I think a lot of people didn't like WaW because of the tanks in multiplayer and going back to WW2. WW2 is my favourite setting though so it didn't really bother me.Quote:
Originally Posted by Neil
Yea I wasn't keen on the vehicles, all TA had to do was add a MP section that was with vehicles and one without, shame they didn't do that, but yea, I prefer WW2 anyway, the guns were 100x better than modern weapons, but almost everyone on that plays CoD on this forum is too interested in super high technology, the problem with MW is that it's no where near as realistic as the WW2 ones, you can't compete with WW2 because modern combat is pretty much go in, exract VIPs, supress enemies, modern weaponary is mostly to hold the enemy back or force to bring them down, not to kill, when you have them going rambo style as military operatives it just breaks the realism, which is why I prefer WW2 shooters because the guns were made to bring what they hit down, powerful, loud, the combat was to go in seize the objective whatever that may be and do whatever you had too in order to complete the objective, modern combat is not like that, they don't run into rooms shooting every single person, the major flaw with CoD4 that I had was when you had to kill Zakheav or whatever his name was, your objective was to kill him, it wouldn't of been that, why would you kill the guy that has all the information you need?Quote:
Originally Posted by Stitch