Phobus
Forum Staple
Posts: 2138
Registered: 10-06 |
DoomUK said:
It's just that with every new CoD game people say it's better than the previous one, and so far it's been a proclaimed paradigm I just can't recognise.
I can chart minor improvements between the entries that I've played in each studios series, but there tends to be some mitigating losses too. For instance, World at War had a co-op campaign that made Veteran difficulty pretty liveable, but it also had severe grenade spam (however you played the campaign) swarms of Japanese bansai charges in the American missions and a real love of infinite swarms, requiring you to reach certain points to shut those off. Annoying design based around the multi-player oriented gun play and movement speed. Black Ops lost the co-op capable campaign (sadly) but also dropped the grenade spam, made less use (but not none, unfortunately) of infinite swarms. It then added in things like Dead Ops Arcade and other easter eggs and goodies hidden away in the collectible intel and that computer terminal, whilst also expanding upon the popular zombies mode. Still multi-player oriented gun play and slow movement being worked with though. They're both, broadly speaking, the same game, but Black Ops does it better IMO.
If you don't like the older ones you're unlikely to enjoy the current one either, but there do tend to be significant changes. I was quite surprised at how much I enjoyed playing through Black Ops (Veteran wasn't much fun though - you die too quickly and easily so it all becomes a tiresome trial-and-error exercise thanks to the auto-saving) and was even more surprised to see how much difference there was between my approach and my brother's, even when playing on the same difficulty in the same section of map (and therefore how much choice the player has taking on the prescribed challenges).
|
11-28-12 04:20 
