![header[1].jpg](https://i.imgur.com/E409yDh.jpg "header[1].jpg")
I know people like to shit on modern Call of Duty games, but what about the originals?
I was asking my friend if he knew of any good WW2-based fps and he recommended the first two CoD games. Anyone here have any thoughts on them? Haven't really touched the series before outside of a few instances.
Big red won (one?) was good, exept for the desert part after defending the stuart tanks, that part sucked. But the rest of the campaign was good. I played finnest hour up to where you play as the russians for the second time so i dont know if its good after that but for the most part that was fun as well.
Gove them a try if you want OP.
>>331321561
The original CoD + UO expansion pack are the ONLY good games in the entire series.
Afterwards, they started designing them for console audiences, copying the regen-health and 2-gun limit from HALO, and making things more and more "cinematic".
The MP was way better as well. No perks, no kill-streaks, just pick your weapon and fight man vs man. The maps were not tiny, flat and broken pieces of shit, but actually had lots of verticality, various flanking routes, strongholds people tried to usually keep, and just way more depth.
I still recall the times when I used to crawl around the edges of the maps, just to surprise a building full of half-blind snipers with my SMGs.
>>331321959
>big red one
>finesh hour
Those are console-CoDs, you casual kiddo.
True men play THE Call Of Duty + United Offensive.
Modern warfare 2 is by the best cod disregarding the explosives.
>>331322306
get lost Xbox fag.
>>331322164
Jeez sorry, i only had a xbox from a thrift store and only got a pc Back in 06.
If you dont mind me asking, what is the difference between the consol and pc versions of the game?
>>331322016
The only perk that I could think of was in United Offensive when you got 40 kills and could call in arty. Still the first two cods are the best.
>>331321561
I love how call of duty turned from a game that showed that you arn't the only one on the battlefield, that the AI are struggling to push forward just as much as you are
And then modern warfare games come out where you literally walk a linear path to the end of the game
I absolutely loved CoD: UO's Base multiplayer. Spent so much damn time playing that as a teen doing clan matches and shit. It's been years since I've played it and I haven't come across a more satisfying multiplayer experience yet.
>>331322432
>what is the difference between the consol and pc versions of the game?
They are totally different games. THE CoD + UO are the original games, and only on PC (and Nokia N-Cage, lol).
Several maps still found in modern Cowadooteh titles are just re-skinned version of CoD1's MP maps, like Carentan, Brecourt... etc.
The best maps ever however are Harbor, Railyard, Pavlov and Hurtgen.
Seriously, when was the last time you had an actual large, open FOREST as a map in CoD?
>>331322569
My biggest problem with modern CoD campaign design is the best strategy is always to just sprint towards the exit because enemies will just keep spawning.
I'm aware MoH:Allied Assault did that before even the first CoD was released, but it was only a few stages.
world at war was pretty good. The coop was fun and mowing down Germans in a insane asylum with a double barrel shotgun and FG42 doesn't get old.
>>331322863
Clan matches in base assault were always fun as fuck. At the end of the game I didn't care if we won or not. Having 32v32 players battle it out with tanks and infantry at the last base is just an experience I'd love to have again.
Do you remember what clan you were in? Also what version did you play on. I remember the community was split between 1.4 and 1.5
Anyone got that picture of the covers which ends with "Not you again!"?
>>331322874
Harbor is a good map. I remember being a clan and doing 5v5 search and destroy rifles only. Can't say I liked Hurtgen since most people just grabbed a sniper and did some annoying shit.
>decide to grab old xfire screenshots for the thread
>apparently xfire is shut down
Well that sucks. I had some pretty nostalgic screenshots saved.
Never played COD 1, but I know COD 2 is pretty good.
WaW was already well on the way towards casual streamlining but I still like it
>>331322164
>not liking finest hour
Do not count miles, count only the number of germans you have killed.
>>331323439
I was pretty much the dedicated sniper-hunter in each game, packing either SMGs or M1 carbine, depending on the mood and map.
The rage on the chat was usually so damn sweet. Some kids seriously considered sniper-rifles to be the only way to play the game.
>>331324225
I never even played FH, because I don't do console-shooters in general.
I can still quite confidently predict that anything it offered could already be found in PC original, probably in higher quality.
>>331324087
CoD2 was the beginning of the casualization.
I liked every call of duty up to and including MW.
But then again, I was 17 and hating on CoD wasn't a thing yet.
Here's a hot pro tip: Every single CoD game has the same gameplay. The only thing that changed was the little additives that piled up into the monster we know and love.
If you cannot stand the way you move and shoot in the modern CoDs, you won't like it in the old ones.
>>331325029
>MW.
>hating on CoD wasn't a thing yet
Oh yes it was
>>331325194
>Every single CoD game has the same gameplay.
Yeah, no.
There's a miles of difference between Blops3 (and just about all post-MW games) and CoD1.
There was a significant paradigm shift between CoD1 and 2 alone, which simply changed to the next gear during CoD4.
The current-age Cock'o'doote gameplay looks like if someone put puch of rabid rats into a way too small cage.
>Not playing Enemy Territories instead of cod back in the day
>>331325546
That's map design, level design. I'm talking about core shooting mechanics and movement. That hasn't changed.
>>331321561
Having played the series on PC starting with the first, I could not recommend the first COD over any later game in the series.
For the shit that COD games get for being "linear", COD1 SP had the most setpiece funnels and halls. They knew the static health was shit since the AI had overbearing accuracy that often let them get a one shot kill on you by chance so they deliberately placed medkits in huge piles everywhere and in the middle of the one doorway you have to pass through so you have no choice but to pick it up and stay topped off.
COD1 multiplayer had several technical and design flaws that made it very poor. The two key things were in networking and in the weapon design.
While other shooters including Quake 3 had some means of lag compensation or synchronization, COD1 had none. Anything even close to triple digit ping and you had to be psychic with your shots. It wasn't leading, you had to shoot at them where they'd be a tenth of a second or longer later at point blank. It wasn't until COD2 (a limited version that the PC community continued to stupidly disable based on misinformation) and COD4 that IW had implemented their own anti-lag system.
In COD1, only the Bolt Action was accurate. Every other weapon had big random spread even when sighted. Automatics were so inaccurate that you were likely to miss even at very close range. There were even some anomalies in the design where hip spread was more accurate than sighted spread (BAR sighted versus hip prone).
COD1 had a single damage value at all ranges and relied on the spread as the "balance". It was no mystery why players flocked to the bolt actions and a few like the MP44 - you could hit what you aimed at (not really, still had to shoot way ahead of moving targets).
United Offensive solved none of those issues, it made some worse even. The disconnect between where you saw the enemy and where you needed to shoot was further aggravated.
COD2 was an improvement in every way.
I vaguely remember a specific part of the first or second game. The opening level where you have to escape the panzers (battle of the bulge shit I think) was fun
>>331326069
I think that was UO, the expansion for the first.
>>331325480
It wasn't a synonym with casual dudebros and exaggerated MLG pro plays like it is now.
>>331322874
CoD 1 got ported to the 360/PS3 a few years ago, don't know if the port is any good though.
>>331321561
WW2 COD's are good. They're short twitch shooters but they're fun and worth a pirate.
The COD franchise started to get really shitty in singleplayer department with 4. World at War is the last good singleplayer COD game.
>>331321561
They hold up well if u like campaign fps
>>331325747
>That's map design, level design
How's any of that have anything to do with regenerating health, fucking auto-aim, kill-streaks, etc?
The current CoD games lack recoil and impact in the shots, and just about all guns are the same.
>>331328635
That was never addressed. Too many rabbits in a cage was the only thing that was actually said, everything else was just nonsense. Regen, auto-aim (FUCKING auto-aim, oooh it's just the worst thing ever!), kill-streaks are all little things added over time. The old CoD games lack recoil and impact, and just about all guns are the same.
>>331328989
you really should go back and play CoD 1 again.
Then compare it to any of the later multiplat CoD games. There's a gigantic difference from where I'm standing.
WaW was the only modern CoD game that attempted to restore some of that realistic feel to the series, having some recoil and relatively slow reload speeds, not to mention an actual gore system.
>>331322164
>meanwhile the image is from fucking cod 3
>>331331026
CoD 3 doesnt have a health bar retard, along with looking alot better and never featuring russians, 3 did feature canadians though
>>331331026
the hell are you babbling about?
