| ZenfoldorVGI said: Since you're going to be argumentative, let me respond. Your argument had a basic misconception. CoD games can be generalized. In reality, they are vastly different depending on entries. When you lump them together, you really have no argument. You have a generalization, that is incorrect. If I said "the problem with all Deus Ex games." If I started off a paragraph like that, why would you even bother reading further? You shouldn't. It's an ignorant phrase, and I should be busted out on it. Deus Ex games are vastly different, and share very few similar traits. MW manages that. It is vastly different than every other CoD game I've played, and is easily far superior. Most critics agree that it's vastly different, and most also agree its not very similar. By your posts, I don't even know if you've ever played CoD4, or are just speaking on the series in general. Now, that might be my misunderstanding. Did you realize that this comparison started with CoD4, or did you think someone else generalized the series, and you were just commenting with a generalization of your own? As far as needing a defense against it, I don't think that was the goal of my post. You and I diagree about CoD4 having significant problems, I would assume, but I can only judge by your generalization of the whole series. You never commented on that particular game. Also, I've always said HL2 was great. In fact, the things you've said about the game, I've already realized, long ago, when I played it, and gave it rave reviews. It's a fantastic game. Arguably better than CoD4 based on its length alone, and the pacing is great, yes. CoD4's campaign is also great though. You shouldn't deny that, even if you don't believe it. It's just argumentative, against popular belief, and will obviously start a fight with the vast majority of people who did enjoy it. What it amounts to is insecurity in most cases. You have to promote one game at the expense of another, simply because someone else interjected a comparison. That's not right. What am I defending exactly? |
I have played and completed the single player campaigns of Call of Duty, Call of Duty 4: Modern Warfare and Call of Duty: World at War. All for PC. I have also played but not completed the single player campaign of Call of Duty 2.
So when I say that the 'problem I have with Call of Duty, and has had since the first game, is that it lacks pacing' I'm talking about the fourth installment but from the perspective of the entire series. I agree that each game varies in quality, with Modern Warfare at the top, but ALL the games have a consistent problem with pacing, too many enemies and lack of variation among the enemies. The best moments in the series (most of which occur in part 4) suffer from this.
And in your post, far from adressing this issue at all, you sidestepped and said something that was completely beside the point. So I was sincerely curious as to what you were talking about. I can see now what you meant by it.
Modern Warfare's campaign is good, bordering on great. If they could fix the pacing issues it would be on par with Half-life 2. It easilly beats out every other game in the series though, and before battle fatigue really sets in it's a wonderous experience.
This is invisible text!
