Which COD game (won't be playing online)

candlegrease

High guys, I was told COD 4: Modern Warfare is the best COD game, but seeing as I wont be playing online, is this still the best option?

gimli2112

candlegrease wrote: »

High guys, I was told COD 4: Modern Warfare is the best COD game, but seeing as I wont be playing online, is this still the best option?

COD4, MW2 and Black ops all have good single player games imo. COD4 will be cheaper but it is an older game. Some of the set pieces in the later two are awesome. Wasn't a big fan of the WAW singleplayer.

I would say
MW2
Bops
COD4
WAW

krudler

COD4, purely for the Pripyat levels, awesomeness.

I liked MW2's single player as well, its much maligned but has some great moments

"ramirez! defend this position with this throwing knife!"

yimrsg

In terms of single player campaign then you should do Cod4 then MW2 as some of what happens in the second won't make sense without playing the prequel. Some of the same characters are in both.

The story in Cod4 is one of the best in the entire series, based in far more realistic settings and possible real world events. Multiple character perspectives, different settings for each and a different feel, covert vs overt operations. Some of the coolest bits in gaming are in this campaign.

MW2 IMO, was found lacking and turned into a bad M Night Shamylan movie with all the twists and turns. The plot is a little less grounded and can seem unrealistic but depending on the player you may like or dislike the less plausible setting. It does have it's moments but overall it falls short, it's good but not as good as COD4.

Black Ops campaign is a similar standard of single player to MW2 plus it has the feel of COD3 (I haven't played WAW) at times with similar missions/locations/etc. so if you've not played any of them it's going to be novel. I prefer a more plausible setting for a COD game so this and MW2 aren't my exact cup of tea but i'll still drink it. It get's very silly, especially towards the end, by that stage I was no longer immersed in the supposed covert world.

Ed Harris and The Abyss, if your going to rip it off at least mention the russian water tentacle as a joke.

Play COD4 then Mw2 then Black Ops. Also MW2 and Black Ops have other offline single/two player elements to keep it interesting, Special Ops and Zombies.

Others can tell you about whether WAW is any good.

Liam O

tbh I wouldn't buy a COD game if i wasn't playing multiplayer, campaigns are way too short...

Soby

with MW2 you have the spec ops with can be fun specially if you go for the hardest ratings.Can be fun ofline with friends

hightower1

I cant belive people are rating mw2 s single player... it was god awful. Propably the worst single player experience ever. Sooo many heavily scripted scenes strung together by a terrible incomprehensible plot. If I wanted all that I would just play MGS4.

MW1s single player on the other hand took it somewhat easier on the scripted events, had charecters you could relate and bond with, good level design and stayed away form the micheal bay school of thought of "blow everyting up so it looks better than what it really is" and the final scene in MW1 was litterly goose bump inducing.

MW1s single player is a million times better than MW2s.

gimli2112

hightower1 wrote: »

I cant belive people are rating mw2 s single player... it was god awful. Propably the worst single player experience ever. Sooo many heavily scripted scenes strung together by a terrible incomprehensible plot. If I wanted all that I would just play MGS4.

MW1s single player on the other hand took it somewhat easier on the scripted events, had charecters you could relate and bond with, good level design and stayed away form the micheal bay school of thought of "blow everyting up so it looks better than what it really is" and the final scene in MW1 was litterly goose bump inducing.

MW1s single player is a million times better than MW2s.

You're entitled to your opinion even when it's wrong!

krudler

hightower1 wrote: »

I cant belive people are rating mw2 s single player... it was god awful. Propably the worst single player experience ever. Sooo many heavily scripted scenes strung together by a terrible incomprehensible plot. If I wanted all that I would just play MGS4.

MW1s single player on the other hand took it somewhat easier on the scripted events, had charecters you could relate and bond with, good level design and stayed away form the micheal bay school of thought of "blow everyting up so it looks better than what it really is" and the final scene in MW1 was litterly goose bump inducing.

MW1s single player is a million times better than MW2s.

Hyperbole much? What was incomprehesible about the plot? it was pretty straightforward. MW2 is actually kind of bold in its story, putting you in the role of a terrorist for one mission and showing the US as not an invunerable entity of war. how many movies can say that? (except Red Dawn :pac: )

TimeToShine

hightower1 wrote: »

I cant belive people are rating mw2 s single player... it was god awful. Propably the worst single player experience ever. Sooo many heavily scripted scenes strung together by a terrible incomprehensible plot. If I wanted all that I would just play MGS4.

MW1s single player on the other hand took it somewhat easier on the scripted events, had charecters you could relate and bond with, good level design and stayed away form the micheal bay school of thought of "blow everyting up so it looks better than what it really is" and the final scene in MW1 was litterly goose bump inducing.

MW1s single player is a million times better than MW2s.

So you're implying both MGS4 and MW2 are awful? Are you kidding me? MGS4 is, in my opinion, easily the best single player campaign on PS3 right now. Unless you've played the other 3 or at least MGS3 you're obviously not going to have a balls notion whats going on, but that doesn't mean you can label it as " a terribly incomprehensible plot".

OP, I'd recommend renting the games for a week, it's more than enough time to finish the 8-10 hour campaigns in each.

Shammy

While i hated the waw multi-player , i found the single -player story much more challenging than any of the other cods, fair enough it mightnt be as pretty but definitely the most challenging , after that cod4 . I thought mw2 and black-ops while good are a little on the short side.

RMD

To be quite honest OP if you're not going to be playing multiplayer there's no much point in getting a CoD game. Have you got the latest Assassins Creed game? The single player is always great fun and lasts extremely long as long IMO, even once completed there's plenty of fun running around doing side missions.

If you have your heart set though on a CoD game then CoD4 without a doubt, I've found myself replaying the campaign multiple times it's that good.

Risteard

My favourite Single player game was WAW.

Of course completing it on veteran nearly cause me to snap it in half, but a good game nonetheless.

ReacherCreature

candlegrease wrote: »

High guys, I was told COD 4: Modern Warfare is the best COD game, but seeing as I wont be playing online, is this still the best option?

Just get Modern Warfare 4. If you like it, there's a strong chance you'll like Modern Warfare 2 and then Black Ops. They're all of a similar FPS vein but vastly different storylines. COD4 is out a bit but not very cheap.

Propably the worst single player experience ever.

Ridiculous statement. Have you played all of the single player games, ever?

Sooo many heavily scripted scenes strung together by a terrible incomprehensible plot.

Plot was over the top but comprehensible. Just needs thinking about and it's fine. Statements like this remind me of those who think certain films are confusing or they won't watch foreign language ones.

had charecters you could relate and bond with

So does MW2. Ghost is a great character for instance.

hightower1

ReacherCreature wrote: »

Ridiculous statement. Have you played all of the single player games, ever?

ffs its a common usage phrase, no one has ever played every single single player game ever created... use your common sense or borrow some elses for a while. Taking my statement literally is the very definition of ridiculous.

ReacherCreature wrote: »

Statements like this remind me of those who think certain films are confusing or they won't watch foreign language ones.

Fact - foreign language films do not make as much money as mainstream english language films... less people watch them , they seem as pretentious a the people watching them. sure there are fun ones like battle royal but by and large they are artsy and uninteresting to the average consumer hence their lack of ability to generate revenue.

ReacherCreature wrote: »

So does MW2. Ghost is a great character for instance.

No he wasnt , he was voiced and played by Gaz from MW1. A complete rehash of the exact same person for all intensive purposes and as such meant that he brought nothing new to the table and his death held no consequence or emotional weight seeing as he can just be "reincarnated" under a new call sign in the next game.




Oh and OP, if you want an honest review of the 1player check this out...

http://www.escapistmagazine.com/videos/view/zero-punctuation/1118-Call-of-Duty-Modern-Warfare-2

hightower1

krudler wrote: »

What was incomprehesible about the plot? it was pretty straightforward.

Are you joking? You definitely did not pay attention to the story in MW2. It makes more presumptions , half facts and then out right stupid statements its a laugh! What makes it worse is that these idiotic devices it comes up with are supports for the entire story!!! I would compare the story in mw2 to the story of any CSI episode in the sense that it starts off ok... starts making huge leaps of the imagination .. then tries setting up the rest of the story based on them and I dont think anyone is raving about the likes of CSI for its fantastic plot lines / story telling.




So your saying the story made sense and in particular the terminal level made sense also?????

Here are just a couple plot holes off the top of my head and this is without even playing through the game again.....

Plot hole #1

Your put under cover in a terrorist attack as your needed as a patsy to point blame at the US for shooting up an airport... yet not a single one of the terrorists is identified from the hundreds of cctv cameras in the place? In fact going by MW2s story the ONLY way that people know a criminals identiy is if they leave their dead f**king body at the scene.... the cops will not need to look at cctv or even check if the criminal acted alone.

plot hole 2
Task force 141 trace a bullet from the cctv footage... yeah thats not a glaring plot cursher! Not to mention the fact that they seemed to be the ONLY group looking at the cctv footage???? From that "trace" they know exactly the person who supplied round from the hundreds of thousands of gun shops in the world / military instillations / black market sources that could have supplied the extremely generic 5.56 mm round???

plot hole 3#
Can you also explain why Makarov would be buying ammunition form a gun dealer in south america for use in Russia? Russia being famous for amrs dealing illegally all over the world , specializing in both eastern and western guns / ammo.

Plot hole 4#
Your set up as a patsy so your time in the military is seen as military action..... yet later in the game we see the huge amount of military forces / gear that your up against from the general (cant remember his name), why bother root out a patsy, chance that they will go along with the mission and NOT blow your plan to the chain of command when you can just order one of your own to do it. It would stand to reason if the general goes to all this trouble to recurit a patsy from the armed forces that he already has quite a number in his own ranks to use.

The list goes on and on and on but in short the story is a complete mess , making no sense if you look at the situations with even a dab of common sense simply so it can drag you by the nose to the next whizz bang on rails shooter section piloting a hummer or chopper.


I love single player aspects its the very first thing I play when I get a game and mw2s was shocking bad. Mw1s was brilliant, be it giving you a massive level fleshing out back story of your CO, to desperate last stands against opposing forces to be saved in the nick of time all the way to the heroic finale scene.... It wasnt without its flaws but it certainly outclasses mw2s ridiculous mess.

hightower1

TimeToShine wrote: »

So you're implying both MGS4 and MW2 are awful? Are you kidding me? MGS4 is, in my opinion, easily the best single player campaign on PS3 right now.

Your right.... mg4 was a great movie... with a very limited amount of gameplay thrown in

gimli2112

hightower1 wrote: »

Your right.... mg4 was a great movie... with a very limited amount of gameplay thrown in

Have to agree with this and that Battle Royal is a great movie. I always skip cut scenes and it drives me mental when you can't. Did like MSG2 and 3 but by the time this came out I was just tired of the series.

In fairness the singleplayer modes of the COD games are pretty linear and will not appeal to all. Playing thru Blackops on the hardest level at the moment (am on a frustration break) but getting the grim reaper on the Escape from Vorkuta level was deeply satisfying.

bastados

COD4's SP is a step apart in quality and miles better than the others in the series...wowzer moments

krudler

hightower1 wrote: »

Are you joking? You definitely did not pay attention to the story in MW2. It makes more presumptions , half facts and then out right stupid statements its a laugh! What makes it worse is that these idiotic devices it comes up with are supports for the entire story!!! I would compare the story in mw2 to the story of any CSI episode in the sense that it starts off ok... starts making huge leaps of the imagination .. then tries setting up the rest of the story based on them and I dont think anyone is raving about the likes of CSI for its fantastic plot lines / story telling.




So your saying the story made sense and in particular the terminal level made sense also?????

Here are just a couple plot holes off the top of my head and this is without even playing through the game again.....

Plot hole #1

Your put under cover in a terrorist attack as your needed as a patsy to point blame at the US for shooting up an airport... yet not a single one of the terrorists is identified from the hundreds of cctv cameras in the place? In fact going by MW2s story the ONLY way that people know a criminals identiy is if they leave their dead f**king body at the scene.... the cops will not need to look at cctv or even check if the criminal acted alone.

plot hole 2
Task force 141 trace a bullet from the cctv footage... yeah thats not a glaring plot cursher! Not to mention the fact that they seemed to be the ONLY group looking at the cctv footage???? From that "trace" they know exactly the person who supplied round from the hundreds of thousands of gun shops in the world / military instillations / black market sources that could have supplied the extremely generic 5.56 mm round???

plot hole 3#
Can you also explain why Makarov would be buying ammunition form a gun dealer in south america for use in Russia? Russia being famous for amrs dealing illegally all over the world , specializing in both eastern and western guns / ammo.

Plot hole 4#
Your set up as a patsy so your time in the military is seen as military action..... yet later in the game we see the huge amount of military forces / gear that your up against from the general (cant remember his name), why bother root out a patsy, chance that they will go along with the mission and NOT blow your plan to the chain of command when you can just order one of your own to do it. It would stand to reason if the general goes to all this trouble to recurit a patsy from the armed forces that he already has quite a number in his own ranks to use.

The list goes on and on and on but in short the story is a complete mess , making no sense if you look at the situations with even a dab of common sense simply so it can drag you by the nose to the next whizz bang on rails shooter section piloting a hummer or chopper.


I love single player aspects its the very first thing I play when I get a game and mw2s was shocking bad. Mw1s was brilliant, be it giving you a massive level fleshing out back story of your CO, to desperate last stands against opposing forces to be saved in the nick of time all the way to the heroic finale scene.... It wasnt without its flaws but it certainly outclasses mw2s ridiculous mess.

You can pick plot holes in any game, and its a game,its not written for its plot, its to move you along to each sequence. Some of the best movies ever have massive plot holes, doesnt stop them from being great.

Lose the condescending attitude as well, I know you've established this "I r angry!!!" persona around here but it impresses nobody, and makes you come across like a childish dick who cant get a point across without insulting other posters.

hightower1

krudler wrote: »

You can pick plot holes in any game, and its a game,its not written for its plot, its to move you along to each sequence. Some of the best movies ever have massive plot holes, doesnt stop them from being great.

The OPs question was which (comparativly) is the best single player game so in this case we have no choice look at the single player aspect and as a result its plot be it good or bad.

krudler wrote: »

you come across like a childish dick.

krudler wrote: »

who cant get a point across without insulting other posters.

You take someone saying "you didnt pay attention" as an insult?? Im sorry that hurt your feelings but if thats all it takes to offend you then I think you may need to toughen up somewhat? *not an instlut - advice*

Also - as I pointed out above by quoting you.... your the person here name calling not anyone else. An excersise in showing your maturity if there ever was one. Highly ironic also so accuse someone of being childish whilst in the same sentence calling them a "dick" as you put it?

yimrsg

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UAeqVGP-GPM

30 seconds in.

Even better this was referenced in Cod4.

krudler

hightower1 wrote: »

The OPs question was which (comparativly) is the best single player game so in this case we have no choice look at the single player aspect and as a result its plot be it good or bad.





You take someone saying "you didnt pay attention" as an insult?? Im sorry that hurt your feelings but if thats all it takes to offend you then I think you may need to toughen up somewhat? *not an instlut - advice*

Also - as I pointed out above by quoting you.... your the person here name calling not anyone else. An excersise in showing your maturity if there ever was one. Highly ironic also so accuse someone of being childish whilst in the same sentence calling them a "dick" as you put it?

again with the condescending, you're insulting people passive agressively.

I didnt call you a dick, I said you come across as one, a bit of common sense or to borrow someone else's for a while would have made that clear.
see how that works?

anyway enough of the OT handbags. MW'2 campaign was fun to play through imo, giving out about it plot is akin to complaining you have to rescue the princess yet again in a Mario game, its not the point, the plot is a mcguffin to move you along to the next level, same as all video games. do we really care why Zelda has been imprisoned? doesnt matter, a well written plot is a bonus, but most games have simple A-B storylines, they're not complex storys. The ones that attempt that (MGS) are accused of being confusing and nonsensical (which MGS is in a lot of places)

Nuri Sahin

Mod note:

Please cut out any insulting remarks and aggressive tone of comment. Thank you.

sierra117x

No he wasnt , he was voiced and played by Gaz from MW1. A complete rehash of the exact same person for all intensive purposes and as such meant that he brought nothing new to the table and his death held no consequence or emotional weight seeing as he can just be "reincarnated" under a new call sign in the next game.

he was voiced by the same actor ....how does that in anyway mean the 2 characters are the similar for any intents or purposes . to the casual gamer simply going from mw to mw2 it would seem to a bit of a rehash but both characters have massively different backstories that define them his storey is actually a pretty decent one worth looking up they made it into a 6 part comic book series but i just cant seem to read comics the way i read books

Nuri Sahin

Gaz and Ghost are different characters who are voiced by the same actor.

Ghost will be the central character of the single player storyline in MW3 if you believe reports, where we we'll see how he came to join TF141.

hightower1

sierra117x wrote: »

he was voiced by the same actor ....how does that in anyway mean the 2 characters are the similar for any intents or purposes . to the casual gamer simply going from mw to mw2 it would seem to a bit of a rehash but both characters have massively different backstories that define them his storey is actually a pretty decent one worth looking up they made it into a 6 part comic book series but i just cant seem to read comics the way i read books

Well firstly the same voice actor would not necesserally mean doom forthe charecter but its the fact that the voice actor used the exact same accent, exact same inflections, exact tone, exact pace and manorisims for ghost as he did for gaz made both charecters feel like carbon copies of each other.

Secondly the back story for the "casual gamer" was never fleshed out seeing as the casual gamer will never read the Ghost comics. I have no opinion on his back story seeing as I didnt read it but it certainly would have helped the Ghost charecter define himself if he had his own backstory woven into the narative and gameplay.

If you look at the charecter as a comparison for mw1 vs mw2 the thinking becomes clear...

Gaz - popular charecter, his death was an emotion anchor, gave a "cool guy s.a.s" image lending a dab of reality / rep.

Ghost - All of the above PLUS a skull face mask so he stands out? (apparently?) without changing it too much.



Now look at the mw1 game and mw2 in the same light, basically IW made a great game in 1 and were ether shocked so much they decided to not change it (just a a little on top but not so much to make it unrecognisable)..... just like they did with Gaz / Ghost.

I honestly thought they were just poking fun at themselves to begin with but as the story went on I realized they were actually just trying to rehash in on a good charecter. You got the sense that when Gaz died in the end of MW1 they sat back and saw peoples reactions and said "s**t, they actually liked him! Dam how can we cash in on that emotional link now we have killed him off!!!!!!..... ah just slap a new name on and people will accept it". :eek:

With that kind of mentality I wasnt shocked in the slightest to hear rumours ofa Ghost based mw game but I will be even less shocked when they introduce Craig Fairbrass as "Gunner" or something a kin to this in MW3.

Mr. Manager

I cant be certain of this but I reckon the OP has stopped reading this thread somewhere about 15 posts ago.

He wasn't asking for an in-depth analysis of the lines, characteristics of the palyers movements, plot or anything like that.

Just wanted to know which was best.

cherryghost

COD4, then COD1, then COD2, then Blops, then MW2

sierra117x

hightower1 wrote: »

Secondly the back story for the "casual gamer" was never fleshed out seeing as the casual gamer will never read the Ghost comics. I have no opinion on his back story seeing as I didnt read it but it certainly would have helped the Ghost charecter define himself if he had his own backstory woven into the narative and gameplay.

ha yeah could have at least went for a different accent i guess . but thats what i meant anyway you wont get an kind of emotional investment in him if you only played the games i just stumbled across the back stories and while i never shed a tear watching him die the next time round i did get a little tug on my heart strings

either intentional or not im glad he was in both games and im happy for the similarities. he comes across as the bosses cheeky second in command but as the nice guy who helps out the noobie when all the grunting vets are making fun of his shoddy body count

gsnapp

black ops has the best story mode by far

yimrsg

gsnapp wrote: »

black ops has the best story mode by far

Since you're sticking to brief statements so shall I.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WrjwaqZfjIY

Ah what the hell I'll elaborate for you and give you the benefit of the doubt that you're not a troll, spammer or a banned rereg or all 3.

I'm pretty certain that the single player campaign was tacked together as an afterthought to the multiplayer. There is as much a cohesive story in the ingredients of bellybutton lint as there is in the storyline for Black Ops. The story is further hampered by woeful cut scenes with the drive to the pentagon to meet JFK are straight out of Driver for the playstation. Scalextric cars have more realistic physics.

Plot twists in First Person Shooters are a waste of time, no one in their right mind buys a FPS for a plot twist, if the campaign is simple to follow and lasts 8-10 hours it's good if it messes about jumping between increasingly unrealistic and disjointed settings and locations it's bad.

krudler

yimrsg wrote: »

Since you're sticking to brief statements so shall I.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WrjwaqZfjIY

Ah what the hell I'll elaborate for you and give you the benefit of the doubt that you're not a troll, spammer or a banned rereg or all 3.

I'm pretty certain that the single player campaign was tacked together as an afterthought to the multiplayer. There is as much a cohesive story in the ingredients of bellybutton lint as there is in the storyline for Black Ops. The story is further hampered by woeful cut scenes with the drive to the pentagon to meet JFK are straight out of Driver for the playstation. Scalextric cars have more realistic physics.

Plot twists in First Person Shooters are a waste of time, no one in their right mind buys a FPS for a plot twist, if the campaign is simple to follow and lasts 8-10 hours it's good if it messes about jumping between increasingly unrealistic and disjointed settings and locations it's bad.

*cough* Bioshock *cough*

yimrsg

krudler wrote: »

*cough* Bioshock *cough*

Yeah I agree with you on that but I'd consider it like more like oblivion, fallout & portal than a true fps like halo, battlefield, doom, unreal tournament. It's far too cerebral to be included with them.

liah

CoD 1 & 2 are the best by far if you're strictly playing singleplayer imo.

minidazzler

yimrsg wrote: »

Plot twists in First Person Shooters are a waste of time, no one in their right mind buys a FPS for a plot twist, if the campaign is simple to follow and lasts 8-10 hours it's good if it messes about jumping between increasingly unrealistic and disjointed settings and locations it's bad.

Even is places are unrealistic and disjointed, it's far better than going through the same places for 8-10 hours. It's good to have locations that are radically different, it means you won't get bored so quickly.

krudler

minidazzler wrote: »

Even is places are unrealistic and disjointed, it's far better than going through the same places for 8-10 hours. It's good to have locations that are radically different, it means you won't get bored so quickly.

This, variety is key in FPS games,cant just be war torn areas all the time or it gets dull. Some levels on COD games are just a chore to get through as nothing stands out about them, its the ones like the AC-130 mission on COD4 and No Russian that you remember, because its not just running and gunning in some decimated town.

yimrsg

minidazzler wrote: »

Even is places are unrealistic and disjointed, it's far better than going through the same places for 8-10 hours. It's good to have locations that are radically different, it means you won't get bored so quickly.

krudler wrote: »

This, variety is key in FPS games,cant just be war torn areas all the time or it gets dull. Some levels on COD games are just a chore to get through as nothing stands out about them, its the ones like the AC-130 mission on COD4 and No Russian that you remember, because its not just running and gunning in some decimated town.

As Krudler said they can be radically different or following a theme but the kicker is if they're simply tacked on. The piloting the blackbird bit of BlackOps was nowhere near as good as the Ac-130 on COD4. It was like playing Command & Conquer for a few minutes (I love C&C but not in the middle of a FPS). It's just attached to the campaign so there can be blackbirds in the multiplayer.

The parts in Vietnam were done likewise, the campaign in black ops was trying to do too much and failed at being cohesive. No Call of Duty tried to recreate the whole buildup & duration of WW2 because it would need about 3 discs and probably 5 years in development. Treyarch's campaign for blackops ran from WW2 to the Vietnam war. Just because something is cool on paper doesn't translate to cool in game. Pick a small timescale & don't drag all manner of obvious movie references into it just for the sake of it.

MW2 had the decency to separate the Campaign & the Special Ops mode, Black Ops hasn't.

minidazzler

yimrsg wrote: »

As Krudler said they can be radically different or following a theme but the kicker is if they're simply tacked on. The piloting the blackbird bit of BlackOps was nowhere near as good as the Ac-130 on COD4. It was like playing Command & Conquer for a few minutes (I love C&C but not in the middle of a FPS). It's just attached to the campaign so there can be blackbirds in the multiplayer.

The parts in Vietnam were done likewise, the campaign in black ops was trying to do too much and failed at being cohesive. No Call of Duty tried to recreate the whole buildup & duration of WW2 because it would need about 3 discs and probably 5 years in development. Treyarch's campaign for blackops ran from WW2 to the Vietnam war. Just because something is cool on paper doesn't translate to cool in game. Pick a small timescale & don't drag all manner of obvious movie references into it just for the sake of it.

MW2 had the decency to separate the Campaign & the Special Ops mode, Black Ops hasn't.

This I agree with, they should have possibly stuck to no plot twists in the first Black ops, and done another to complete the story because going through nearly 20 years in one game is a bit much. I love the variety in BlOps, but I will admit the story isn't as cohesive as it could have been.

The worst thing about ANY game based in the Vietnam war is the sheer amount of movies about the vietnam war, so developers love to insert references, which is annoying to be honest, I'd rather a game be so memorable that we reference it! Still a good game though with a good story too, if the time had been lessened and more related. (I should play campaign again to remember it all actually)

krudler

yimrsg wrote: »

Pick a small timescale & don't drag all manner of obvious movie references into it just for the sake of it.

Off the top of me head the COD games have referenced:

Saving Private Ryan
The Thin Red Line
The Big Red One (wasnt this the title of a COD game?)
Enemy at the Gates
Platoon
Full Metal Jacket
Apocalypse Now
The Rock (a few times in MW2, the gulag shower shootout and the flare scene on Whiskey Hotel)
Black Hawk Down
Red Dawn (the plot is abour Russia invading the States, its pretty much MW2 through and through)


And a good few others, its the nature of war games, some movie has always done it first so its gonna be some kind of reference, its pretty much impossible to have a game set in Nam without stuff on the soundtrack like The Doors or Creedence.

yimrsg

krudler wrote: »

Off the top of me head the COD games have referenced:

Saving Private Ryan
The Thin Red Line
The Big Red One (wasnt this the title of a COD game?)
Enemy at the Gates
Platoon
Full Metal Jacket
Apocalypse Now
The Rock (a few times in MW2, the gulag shower shootout and the flare scene on Whiskey Hotel)
Black Hawk Down
Red Dawn (the plot is abour Russia invading the States, its pretty much MW2 through and through)


And a good few others, its the nature of war games, some movie has always done it first so its gonna be some kind of reference, its pretty much impossible to have a game set in Nam without stuff on the soundtrack like The Doors or Creedence.

Black Ops also referenced the Abyss with it's mysterious underwater base & Ed Harris. Also Forest Gump. If a game tips it's hat in deference that's one thing just don't construct a game from film references.

Some battles in history were never carried out in a COD game and could translate superbly in the COD world, the battle of Kursk if they want to redo a WW2 game (there was a tank battle in COD2/3 but nothing of the scale of Kursk), or some of the shady work carried out by Mi5 & CIA in training the Afghanis against the Russians, or fighting the drug cartels and toppling governments in Central America.

The assault on Burger town in MW2 has overtures of Harold & Kumar go to white castle.