Call of Duty series question.

Drez

Do these like...follow each other plot-wise or anything? I know, probably a dumb question considering these are based on World War 2, but I have this idiosyncrasy where I cannot play iterations in a game series out of order if there is a continuous plot.

I picked up Call of Duty 2 GOTY for Xbox 360 yesterday for 25 bucks, but I have Call of Duty and it's expansion here for the PC untouched.

I'd really like to jump into CoD 2 for now and play the PC version later, but...well, any thoughts on this, I guess?

Also, how's CoD 3?

bruin

You could definitely play them in any order, the don't follow eachother in any way really except that they're set in the same war. No characters or anything cross games, I believe.

COD3 is basically COD2 but slightly prettier and in different settings. It's worth picking up if you liked 2. $40 at Circuit City.

Doronron

There is no story that links CoD and CoD2. Even within the games themselves, you control different people at different points in history. In some cases, those points in history aren't even in chronological order.

If you were talking Brothers in Arms, you'd be fucked.

Vegan

I've wondered that, too. And, are they all essentially the same game, cranked out every year with newer tech and features? Is it "enough" to just play the most recent one?

Captain Charisma

I thought 2 was a better game than 3.

xzzy

Vegan wrote: »

I've wondered that, too. And, are they all essentially the same game, cranked out every year with newer tech and features? Is it "enough" to just play the most recent one?

Each iteration messes around with the actual pay mechanics a bit.

Other than that it's a pretty run of the mill WW2 FPS, though the ones I've played have yielded enough satisfaction that I've never regretted spending money on them.

K7 Avenger

They are completely separate entities. Feel free to play them in any order you wish, it won't matter.

Allon

Captain Charisma wrote: »

I thought 2 was a better game than 3.

I thought 1 was a better game than 2.

//just one more, and the cycle will be complete!

ginguskahn

Captain Charisma wrote: »

I thought 2 was a better game than 3.

Absolutly, 2 is enjoyable and can be had for cheap, 3 is like being Raped in the ass by 8 million Nazis.
I have Cod3 on loan from a friend, and I feel cheated even though I didnt pay for it, the only reason Im still playing is to pass the time 'till GRAW2 comes out. The only good part is being able to throw back grenades, the rest is a step back.

Amongst its sins are long boreing cutscenes that, not only cant be skipped, but play every time you continue from where you last played, even though you are halfway through the level at that point. It also plays the Outro to the LAST level EVERY TIME as well.
You will die, alot, for no good reason.
Your team mates make GRAW team mates look like brain surgeons.
Every level is basically "Take that House/Church/Taven/Town/Country, your on point.
I could go on, but I think you get the idea.

CZroe

What about the console exclusives? Big Red One, Finest Hour, CoD3, and whatever is on the way to the PSP. I've got all the CoD games and expansions I can get for PC, but I've just sorta ignored all the console spin-offs like I ignored Battlefield 2 Modern Combat... that is, until they decided to make CoD3 a console exclusive. Another question: Will CoD3 REMAIN that way?

Captain K

I've never played any CoD games other than the first one, but I was really impressed with the first. It's about ten thousand million times more fun than any Medal of Honor game.

Basticle

I loved 1 when it came out but I tried to replay the SP a couple of months ago and the Quake 3-era level design (let alone engine) is really showing its age

Tzen

CoD was so awesome when it first came out that I seriously made weird little squealing noises of sheer joy while I was playing it. No, I'm not joking. The game was that fucking awesome. Leaning. Going prone. Iron sights. It was like my WWII FPS wet dream come true. Some of the level design was just fucking awe-inspiringly awesome to look at. The dam... GOD damn. It's just kinda sad that the Omaha Beach level was wasted on MoHAA.

I agree with Basticle, though. It has definitely aged. That said, CoD2 was pretty sweet, and I liked it even better on the Xbox 360 for the brief time I played it on a kiosk at Wal-Mart.

Captain K

You felt like such a pimp when you flanked an enemy squad. Suddenly all their cover was worthless and you could just gun them down.

bongi

Captain K wrote: »

I've never played any CoD games other than the first one, but I was really impressed with the first. It's about ten thousand million times more fun than any Medal of Honor game.

did you never play allied assault

or are you just a bit

"special"

BornToHula

Tzen wrote: »

CoD was so awesome when it first came out that I seriously made weird little squealing noises of sheer joy while I was playing it. No, I'm not joking. The game was that fucking awesome. Leaning. Going prone. Iron sights. It was like my WWII FPS wet dream come true. Some of the level design was just fucking awe-inspiringly awesome to look at. The dam... GOD damn. It's just kinda sad that the Omaha Beach level was wasted on MoHAA.

I agree with Basticle, though. It has definitely aged. That said, CoD2 was pretty sweet, and I liked it even better on the Xbox 360 for the brief time I played it on a kiosk at Wal-Mart.

To be fair though, Call of Duty United Offensive had the Battle of the Bulge. I just about creamed hearing the screams of all those German soldiers charging my position.

The fight for Pointe Du Hoc in Call of Duty 2 was pretty fucking awesome as well. A little scripted, but it was pretty amazing the amount of tension they placed you under. Same with the Battle for Hill 400 or whatever it was.

I'd love a Vietnam game in the same vein as this. At least for the singleplayer portion, Men of Valor was a little too arcadey and a little lackluster and Vietcong was just unforgiving with some dumb AI.

jedijz

In terms of story I think BIA has one of the better WWII stories or at least better written. In COD the story is more of an excuse for the grand set pieces.

bruin

jedijz wrote: »

In terms of story I think BIA has one of the better WWII stories or at least better written. In COD the story is more of an excuse for the grand set pieces.

Definitely true. I'm really looking forward to next-gen BIA.

Pancake

bruin wrote: »

jedijz wrote: »

In terms of story I think BIA has one of the better WWII stories or at least better written. In COD the story is more of an excuse for the grand set pieces.

Definitely true. I'm really looking forward to next-gen BIA.

Hopefully they'll do something more with the gameplay this time around, though. I never played Earned in Blood, but only because I'd grown absolutely tired of the way the first game played. It was really intense and exciting at first, but by three hours in, I was just wishing the game would be over. That's not to say that it played badly, but it never really changed much and I started to find it boring enough that I would develop dull headaches while playing.

I did enjoy the presentation and at first, though, but eventually a lot of the deaths of characters started to feel rather gratuitous in their gore and overall lack of anyone caring for more than 10 seconds and lacked the punch the Gearbox probably hoped they brought with them. It kind of felt like they were trying to bring forward the "horrors of war" that no other WW2 game really does, but they did it in the most shallow way possible.