Quote:
Why slow the game down and make it more open? Then have two series that are the same? Screw that.
CoD is at its best when its smaller, tighter, faster. There is a reason the smaller more action heavy maps are usually the most voted on. MW3 sucked mainly because the maps are so big and slow the pace of the action.
CoD is first and foremost and high adrelanine action title. Tactics and planning come second. If I wanted more of athinking man's game, that's why Battlefield exists. They are two different monsters within the same genre, and cater to different people. I for one wouldn't touch CoD if it became a BF clone.
Quake, Unreal, TF2 are a bit too fast paced for me.
I agree COD is more like an arcade game... this is what made it so popular in the first place. The smooth controls and high paced action were the two key aspects that made COD4 popular. COD does take a lot of intelligence though: it's the primary difference between a 1 KD player and a 3 KD one. Because it's so easy to kill people in COD, there
has to be some sort of intelligence factor involved in the game, otherwise it would just all be a pointless gun fest where everyone plays at a similar level.
The reason why people vote for smaller maps is because these are the nubs that want more action (kills). Nuketown is a good example. The only reason decent players ever like this map is to get a high SPM. I haven't met anyone decent who actually liked the design of it, other than from an aesthetic point of view. MW3/ BO had smaller maps but they were poorly implemented; the tight corners, lack of cover (well except MW3's numerous headglitching spots), dull aesthetics, significant vintage points, etc. All these contributed to slow gameplay which is ironic because you'd assume the smaller the map, the faster the gameplay.
And this is what separates COD4 from the rest. COD4 had many medium sized maps that were intelligently designed, allowing
good players to navigate the map efficiently if they had the intelligence to make use of it. Numerous flank routes, lack of noob-attracting vintage points, good number of cover while not being complete headglitching spots, etc. I used to play with an MLG player named LyaR... he had a 5 KD in COD4 and knew the map like the back of his hand. It took me a while to grasp the designs of the COD4 maps and by then, it was stuck at a 3.1 KD. Btw anyone know if COD4 is playable at the moment on PS3? I remember I got stuck at the menu.
I'm not exactly sure what happened with the transition from MW1 to MW2, at least in terms of map designs. IW developers are just far too intelligent to make maps like Derail and Estate... but perhaps the newly implemented killstreak system was part of the reason. Newly added killstreaks warranted a bigger map design, so killstreaks wouldn't be totally overwhelming are would be easier to take down.
Didn't realize there was a COD thread on Head-Fi. If anyone wants to add me, I'll be playing for two days (that's when I move into college dorm) on MW2. Not sure if I will play COD in college. Playing on a F grade connection sucks so playing on a university connection will be quite something else. I'm an alright player on PS3 so if you want to add, message me. My credentials:
130k kills, 2.72 kdr, always first in reg TDM (until I downgraded my connection), 31 days played, use a variety of guns/ killstreaks, team player, 2000 accolades for highest kills and 1900 for highest KD.
4k kills, 4.71 kdr, 12(?) hours played
And I
only play MW2. Sold BO because it was too boring and connection dependent. Never owned MW3 because I could tell it was a mess. We'll see about BO2... I won't judge until it comes out. But it's Treyarch: enuff said.
