I was looking forward to create this thread since I was a member from the old MI6 forums. Really, guys, all the modern video games are completely based on "Call of Duty" elements and always developed on its gameplay, including the annoying regenerating health and the disgusting QTE system. The latest three 007 video games really let me down, I hated those video games' gameplay, you're just have to shoot an opponent. Until "From Russia With Love", no video game in the franchise was based only on shooting, but also you'll have to use your mind to solve logical elements and think like a smart secret agent, not today's spies who only run like Jason Bourne (I'd prefer to call him an assassin instead of a spy), kill everyone for nothing, or just chasing rogue businessmen, not stopping super villains who use silos to launch their missiles from...
However, back to "Call of Duty", in those games, there are nothing in the plotlines but spoilers. None of their stories make sense and even they do, they are bunch of rubbish stories. In "GoldenEye 007" (Nintendo 64), you are authorized completely to use your mind, think like a proper spy to access to your rightful route to save the world. All of the games were based on this method until Activision handled the franchise and destroyed it.
I hate "Call of Duty" franchise. Who's with me?
Comments
Anyway, the original COD is a classic!
EDIT
Am I to asume then, JamesBond, that you were/are KTBEU's codenamecobra?
in terms of the Bond games - I liked the gameplay of Blood Stone, except i would've liked more stealth missions mixed in..... by perfect Bond game would be one that would be more like a Arkham Asylum / Splinter Cell style gameplay... you got your action moments - but you also need to use your wits...... something not so linear, a little more open and expansive - not so restrictive..
Though Global terror is named Global Storm here in the UK, Conflict Denied Ops was just... possibly The worst game i have ever played. Desert Storm is my favourite game of all time :)
Anyway back on topic:
I have absolutely nothing against the CoD franschise, it plays a huge impact in the gaming world. I find it extremely addictive, fun, and exciting (Especially MW2, come on MW3!) I think that most haters only 'hate' it because they either are a 'battlefield' fan, (Ps, i do absolutely love Bad Company 2, so no offense to anyone), they havn't played it, just because of some idiotic friends saying it's 'cr*p' or they just have played, but have not played properly/fully.
1. Conflict: Desert Storm II
2. Conflict: Global Storm
3. Conflict: Vietnam
4. Conflict: Desert Storm
And it ruined QOS
Quantum Of Solace ruined Quantum Of Solace... lol - not Black Ops....... that game was easily one of the most forgetable Bond games i've played since probably 007 Racing.... the campaign was alright, but it was so stiff and weird at times.... not to mention the multiplayer was essentially just a beta of MW... it stunk.... the only multiplayer that was worse, was what was put into Blood Stone..
there are big differences between the 2 franchises... to the average person, who hasn't played both at any length, they seem exactly the same, but trust me there are big differences...
#1 is the frame rate between the games - i can't remember the exact numbers, but COD:MW has a lot higher frame rate, which makes the game look a lot clearer, and not so blurry, especially during action sequences where you gotta move fast....
#2 is style of gameplay between the 2 games..... COD has a very no nonsense, and easy to grasp approach, especially towards it's multiplayer.... it's essentially a run and gun style of game - no cover system (as you gotta duck behind objects, or manually move behind walls to dodge gunfire).. this adds to the point i was making that it's essentially "run 'n gun"... there is very little actual tactical strategy involved......
BF functions - not as a simulator, but on a much more tactical approach... you can't just run into the open and quickly try to knife someone (you might get picked off by a sniper from a long way away).....
#3 multiplayer is probably the biggest difference.... again, COD's run and gun gameplay makes it easy to essentially run around their small maps, and knife people - not only that, but because a lot of their levels are so close quartered, it's prime for campers.. which if your like me, annoy the hell out of you...
BF's multiplayer maps are about 10 times larger than COD's, so simply running and knifing is not an option... not to mention, campers can easily get eliminated through destructible environments - meaning if you keep getting killed by the same joker who isn't moving - pull out an RPG, and level the wall he is hiding behind... not only is there destructible environments, but the ability to jump into tanks and aircraft to decimate your opponents with... and you don't need to get killstreaks to use them - they are there at the very beginning of the level for anyone to use - and yes.. if you want to bring down a whole building - hit it with enough artillery, and it will come down... something again, COD can't do..
i personally prefer Battlefield over COD on all levels... do i still enjoy the COD games? yes - for what they are... i personally only play the multiplayer for Zombies anymore.. if BF did Zombies - i would never go back to COD lol..... but BF takes everything about COD and perfects it - plus gives you so many more options as to what you can do in the game to eliminate your opponent or enemy.. where as COD is very strict, and very linear..
Rant over.