Originally posted by Smasandian
Still, its a stupid word.So he/she isnt good at the game, why do complain? I dont understand.
Yeah, there is a mute in some games, but I still like the free PC online that isnt filled with 14 year old boys with high pitched voices.
Because you don't want your team to lose. 😉
I was wrong.
There isnt a prestige mode. When I play, I either see the 5 stars, or the lieutenants patches, but I never realized that they have different patches for 30 or so up. I thought that was the prestige mode.
So there isnt a prestige mode in the PC version. I find that somewhat strange actually.
Originally posted by SmasandianTrue, but it's just a word.
Still, its a stupid word.So he/she isnt good at the game, why do complain? I dont understand.
Well, they aren't very challenging, are they? And you eventually grow bored of them, yeah sure, I could play private matches but then you don't rank up or complete challenges. Why assume I'm complaining? I don't think I am.
The majority of COD4 players are quite bad. the cod 4 rank system is broken in this respect, u dont need to be good just lucky and play alot.
There is alot of low skilled M16 players out there.
In resepct if may just be that me and RaiJin are good players
all the same the cod4 has a lot of unskilled high prestige players (n00bs)
yes the ranking system is a bit of a dud. i just dont like it when people slag others off for not being very good. they've paid the same amount of money as you to play it so let them. give advice and help them become better, you'll feel better for being looked at as the good gamer whos pretty good instead of the arrogant ****.
What might seem like a noob isn't always a noob.
I don't think of myself as a noob, not when I play seriously.
But sometimes when I wanna just have fun I must look like one, I take a LMG and just run in Rambo style never letting go of the fire button until I am either dead or the only one left standing. This seems noobish, but it's just fun now and then.
It's not your typical ranking system like Starcraft but more of system that keeps you engage when playing online.
Most shooters dont have it and the few that do like Battlefield 2, Rainbow Six Vegas and CoD4 is designed for people who play the game alot so they still feel like their accomplishing something.
It's not to find out who is the best. You cant because your not professionally competing against each other. Your playing on public servers and there is probably no logical way of finding who is the best and who is the worst because of that.
So the ranking system is perfect for CoD4. It's reward people for playing online not to showcase who is the best or not.
Originally posted by vandalworksAnd why do you keep assuming I don't give advice? Look, when I see someone swedish (preferably) who could be playing a whole lot better, I add them to my friends list to personaly give them advice and hints in private matches.
yes the ranking system is a bit of a dud. i just dont like it when people slag others off for not being very good. they've paid the same amount of money as you to play it so let them. give advice and help them become better, you'll feel better for being looked at as the good gamer whos pretty good instead of the arrogant ****.
Why all this hate?
Originally posted by MorridiniI love doing that with my M60, you almost get a kick out of it.
But sometimes when I wanna just have fun I must look like one, I take a LMG and just run in Rambo style never letting go of the fire button until I am either dead or the only one left standing. This seems noobish, but it's just fun now and then.
Yeah.
Call of Duty is brilliant. Its expansion pack is pretty fun. Call of Duty 2 is also good and Cod3 is more of the same.
Battlefield 1942 is one of the most innovating online shooter and really fun to boot.
Medal of Honor: Allied Assault is good. A tad bit dated though.
I cant think right now of any other ones.
Originally posted by Smasandian
Yeah.Call of Duty is brilliant. Its expansion pack is pretty fun. Call of Duty 2 is also good and Cod3 is more of the same.
Battlefield 1942 is one of the most innovating online shooter and really fun to boot.
Medal of Honor: Allied Assault is good. A tad bit dated though.
I cant think right now of any other ones.
Call of Duty isn't that brilliant. It's a good game if your into run and gun games. If you really look at it it's just a linear game with good graphics. And it's not as engaging as some other fps. CoD's multiplayer does however add more to the experience.
But my CoD order starting from best to worst is: pt.4, pt.2, pt.1, pt.3.
And Battlefield 1942 was great but nothing tops Battlefield 2 as the most innovative online shooter. At least back a couple of years ago.
MOHAA was the online shooter i've played the most out of any online multiplayer shooter. That followed by Cod 1 and 2. BF '42 and 2 weren't as solid as these 2. But they were way better than the MOHAA "Spearhead" exp. pack. which was way better than BF Vietnam, to me. The only thing that was good about that game (BF:V) was it's soundtrack.
How can you say that Call of Duty 4 and 2 were better than Call of Duty when both are identical than the first Call of Duty.
How could you possibly say that Call of Duty is a linear shooter with good graphics when 4 and 2 are linear shooters with good graphics.
Call of Duty at the time was brilliant. It took what Medal of Honor did and put the intensity to 11. It was great.
You might like 2nd and the 4th better but their exactly the same as the first. All the problems that are associated with the first Call of Duty, can be compared to the rest of them.
Again....how can you say that BF2 was the most innovating shooter when its the same gameplay as BF1942, but modernized and added a better squad mechanic. Hardly that more inflentual than the first.
Call of Duty games (I'm lumping MoH into it because its roughly the same) are entirely different experiences online than BF1942. Call of Duty are pure arcade shooters while BF1942 is a strategic shooter with an RTS type vibe. Each one is not better than the other because their not comparable in terms of online.
Personally i find COD4 the best FPS for multiplayer, and i find it far better than that out dated piece of shit counter strike which i am surprised to see some people still playing in lan centers.
COD4 > Cs : cz
What i don't get is what is so great about Cs expecially when compared to COD4? It is problably that "buy" system along with the fact that i find it has shitty gameplay.
To Smas, by what you are saying is that a sequel that has all the feautres of the original game but with slightly new stuff and some changes can never be better then the original. Which I can't agree upon, having not played CoD, I can't compare it to CoD 4, but even if they are very similar, I don't see any reason to say that it can't be better then CoD just because it is a sequel.
Heh, just saw a fun youtube clip:
YouTube video
Originally posted by Smasandian
How can you say that Call of Duty 4 and 2 were better than Call of Duty when both are identical than the first Call of Duty.How could you possibly say that Call of Duty is a linear shooter with good graphics when 4 and 2 are linear shooters with good graphics.
Call of Duty at the time was brilliant. It took what Medal of Honor did and put the intensity to 11. It was great.
You might like 2nd and the 4th better but their exactly the same as the first. All the problems that are associated with the first Call of Duty, can be compared to the rest of them.
Again....how can you say that BF2 was the most innovating shooter when its the same gameplay as BF1942, but modernized and added a better squad mechanic. Hardly that more inflentual than the first.
Call of Duty games (I'm lumping MoH into it because its roughly the same) are entirely different experiences online than BF1942. Call of Duty are pure arcade shooters while BF1942 is a strategic shooter with an RTS type vibe. Each one is not better than the other because their not comparable in terms of online.
I meant the Call of Duty series, when I said Call of Duty, when I was referring to its linear gameplay. And they’re not all identical. Sure they all practically have the same type of linear gameplay structure most FPS’s have but more importantly they do have added and distinguished features in the game that may make it a better and different, or non-identical, game.
And CoD1 may've been brilliant “at the time” but I don't think i'll be able to withstand or tolerate another CoD game. CoD5'll take place in WWII, again, and treyarch's making it, and the made CoD3 which i hated. And i dunno about CoD putting MoH(aa)’s intensity to 11. I’d say CoD was 2 times better than MoH. Or twice what MoH was. I’d say that CoD was the MoA of it’s time. CoD, with MoH’s influence, ushered in a new era in FPS’s.
And there’s a stark difference in between BF’42 and BF2 online. BF2 features a completely different interface and newer gameplay additions the likes I’ve never seen.
And CoD style games my not be comparable to BF style games to you (even though, at their core, they’re both FPS more than anything else.) but I’m equally into both styles (strategy (BF) and tactic (CoD)) types of gameplay, give or take a few things, so I compare them, rightfully.