RATE YOUR GAME on Call Of Duty SO FAR
MW3 8 out of 10 brilliant on clans game play mostly on top of the game but problems with clan badges update went pet tong
black ops 2 0 out of 10
you gave MW3 an 8 and BO2 a ZERO? hahaha goes to show how much players change.
The thread title is wrong
it should be: My biased ratings on all call of duty games
e.g. you rate W@W a 3 because you never really got into it. Of course everything will be slightly biased, but at least one could rate games based on objective criteria, and then the rating against those standards could be biased.
my opinion.. not going into details, because i dont care..
mw2: 5-10 noob didnt know the game, and was hacked
b01 : 3-10 didnt like the player movement, not a fan of the maps
mw3: 7-10 op guns, but alot of fun to play, liked the maps.. bad spawn killing
b02: 1-10 good attempt but over all fail on game mechanics
1) Hands down MW2 at number 1 with a 10. Just as far as graphics and the stunning looks of all the maps no other CoD can touch it. Also by far as the best overall map layouts and no other CoD comes close (except maybe WaW). The maps are almost a combo of MW1 and WaW style maps. The maps didnt have as much seemingly randomness to them. They were more realistic enviroments that enabled tons of strategy. It wasnt just a set up of routes and sight lines. it was routes and sight lines that centered around strong points.
MW2 has the widest skill gap of any other CoD. In other words if you throw an average player in there with a beast player on any other CoD the average player can compete. Throw the average player in there with the beast player on MW2 and they cant compete as much and this is due to map layouts and some of the powerful weapons and equipment. Alot of people try to say MW2 is a noob friendly game (ie Noob Tubes, Stopping power and etc) but its the most un-noob friendly CoD there is. Too easy to die and to man ways to die. Noobs get slaughtered in MW2 bottom line. Noob Tubes themselves only become effective when in the hands of a skilled player. If an actuall noob runs with it they will just get themsleves killed even quicker than they would with a gun. Of course they may get a few kills with it, just like they would with any other weapon.
Hands down MW2 is the pennicle of CoD.
2) BO2 with a 8.5. At 2 I would put MW3 (actually I would have it number 1) but that would just be me being biased toward my favorite CoD's.
The graphics arent quite as good as MW3 but the map layouts dont push the fast pace of MW3. All the while the BO2 graphics are ok and I must say most of the guns look awesome.
Map layouts have a good balance as far as play styles. Alot routes and sight lines but at least with some complexity.
Most previous CoD's would be ranked over this but BO2 is the newest and smoothest running CoD so for now I rank it at 2.
3) MW3 with a 8.0.
I know most non-rushers dont like MW3. I wish they wouldnt be as biased and look at teh game for what it really is. A smooth running game with awesome looking guns and nice graphics.
I think MW3 did good for the campers that played. No where to hide for them lol.I think they needed to experience that.
4) WaW with a 7.9. Second best map layouts of any CoD next to MW2. If you took BO2 and gave it WaW map layouts you would be looking at a CoD that could actually compete with MW2.
Lets face it tho this is one CoD where rifles got sht on lol. Coincidentally 3arc favors AR's hugely in all their other games besides this one.
5)MW1 with a 7.5. The most revolutionary CoD. The guns look ok and the graphics are overall ok but lets face it when compared to newer CoD's MW1 almost seems broken.
A lot of maps look the same and are layed out about the same. Not alot of variety. Nonetheless it changed the game and was still better than......
6)BO1 with a 6.5. Map layouts were ok. Graphics took a huge step back, like light years back. They did SMG's almost as bad as they did Rifles in WaW.
Guns in general all looked like sht and their wasnt anything good enough about the game to make up for these bad graphics.
If the map layouts werent pretty good I wouldnt even put BO1 on my list because I wouldnt even consider it a CoD.
Way off rating World at War. In my opinion, the best Call of Duty.
If you are a hardcore player World at War was by far the best yet.
Not to mention the origin of 'Zombies'
Also, the single player campagin very good.
Don't rate it a 3/10 if you have not really played it
If we are rating each title, I don't see the importance of listing which one was a favorite ... but I digress.
MW1 - 10 out of 10. As already noted, this game was revolutionary in too many ways to get into details. Back then we didn't know the term "balance" and that was made the game a 10 above all else. Sure, the AK-47 might have been the bomb, but back then we had to accept two things: 1) you had to earn your way up to that gun and 2) you still had to learn how to use it effectively.
WaW - I'm going to go with a 7 out of 10 on this one. This title had the widest diversity of map sizes and layouts of any COD to date. The graphics were in keeping with MW1. The tanks were a flop, true, but they brought a dimension to the game not seen since. The down sides to the game was that some of the weapons were a nightmare to use. I disagree that the MP40 was overwhelmingly better than all other guns. I could compete against it with the Thompson just fine. But the SRs had a very wide range of effectiveness. The biggest let-down of all, though, was the hacking. WaW surely was the most hacked COD ever.
MW2 - 6 out of 10. This title had more problems than a boat made out of sponges. Even so, when you could get into a lobby with legit players, the game was quite fun. Tubes DID get out of control (Three Days o' Tube which apparently few people were there to experience). The CG I found more appealing than the AC130, but neither streak reward was something that was impossible to defeat. One of the things I liked at first but grew to hate was the challenge system. COD took a wild negative turn in MW2 when it came to challenges and that did not get turned in the right direction until BO2. Map variety was not bad, I think with this title we began to see a shift toward limited routes. It wasn't super-bad, but some of the map layouts were not that great and, worse, those maps that did have bad layouts became the formula for every COD since then. In the end, too many glitches and this was also easily the second most hacked COD to date.
BO1 - 9 out of 10. The graphics were not the greatest, but they were liveable. I enjoyed the vast amount of customization that was available (weapon camos, sight reticles, lens colors, and face camo). I actually liked the idea of earning $ and using it as I wanted. The down side was that title continued the bad system of challenges. In BO1 we can clearly see a shift in map layout toward a distinct formula - limited routes to cross the map.
MW3 - 10 out of 10. And yes, I've liked this title since the day it was released. There has not been a COD with a greater variety of options as far as load outs and streak rewards. In BO1, COD began following a set formula for map design and it showed in MW3, I will grant that. I know there were plenty of complaints about the Support package, but so far, that option has been the ONLY fair response to camper clans and spawn trapping. The Specialist Strike package was something that would have been welcomed in every game that followed MW1. The Nuke in MW2 was one of the fun aspects of MW2 and we saw an even better version of it return to COD in MW3. Not since MW1 have we seen a COD that required as much critical thought, i.e., genuine emphasis upon paying attention and planning your moves well in advance.
BO2 - 6 out of 10. And that's being generous. Unless UAV Jammer/Cold Blooded/Ghost returns to what it had been in the five titles prior to BO2, COD reached its pinnacle with MW3. People can argue the merits of this dramatic change to the game all they want but the verdict is well-established: campers are still rampant in BO2. The terrible 5 second rule did absolutely nothing to change that dynamic of the game. But that's not the larger issue. To play video games, you have to invoke a suspension of disbelief. We all get that. But the level of suspension needed for BO2 is enough to make Halo seem plausible. The graphics, for a Treyarch game, were actually an improvement. The Pick 10 was okay, but overall I did not like it. Probably the biggest complaint I had about this game was the immense effort toward "balance" when, in reality, weapon and perk balance was never as big of an issue as people them out to be. The net result was a mostly "balanced" game, I will grant. But where the game is out of balance, it is grossly out of balance. Formulaic map layouts evolved even further in a really bad direction: literally every single map (sans DLC which I did not buy and thus, do not know about) has the exact same lay out. Each map may be different in size and the routes may have slightly different angles or curves ... but every single map has a clearly defined central area on either side of which there will be a room of some sort. There are three distinct routes to get from one side of the map to the other. Long lines of sight are available for snipers, but they have very narrow fields of view on most maps. I do, however, like the challenge system more than the system from MW2, BO1, and MW3. Weapon customization was an improvement over BO1 and in a better way: attachments. At the end of the day, though, BO2 was a major let-down ... reminds me far too much of Halo.
Everyone hate bo2, but still you all are on the forum talking about it good or bad. I haven't played any other COD games cause i was never a shooter-game type of person. i enjoy Zombies on bo2, so i'd say 8/10 for bo2 in my opinion. I never really seen any lag, hackers (CAMPERS ARE NOT HACKER...) just to make thing clear from ppl talking bout hackers all the freakin time when there is almost none on bo2, so stfu... Now like i said i dunno bout other cod game, so i can't rate em... But i'd rate the community 2/10... That's what make a game bad, the community. I added people over time that are good play, we have good games, bo2 is GREAT, stop crying or go play something else... Thanks and we won't see on ghosts since there will be no zombies I'm prestige 10 almost on MP so don't go all hatin' me saying i don't play MP, not cause i don't prestige fast dosen't mean i don't play it
Black Ops 2 had:
1 - The best create-a-class system in the series.
2 - Introduced an innovative pick-10 system
3 - Had the best player-reward system (scores for everything you do contributing towards your scorestreaks)
4 - Encouraged objective play by rewarding objective players in a way that no other CoD games have ever done.
5 - Some of the best weapon balance we've seen in the series.
6 - Maps that allowed for all sorts of different game play depending on your play style - run & gun, long-range, etc.
7 - A more pronounced gulf in skill - the skilled players could stand out from the unskilled players, which wasn't always the case in previous CoD games that tried to minimize the skill gap.
8 - One of the best competitive game modes we've ever seen in Call of Duty, in Hardpoint.
9 - Was one of the best looking CoD games we've ever had. It certainly looks better than CoD: Ghosts, despite Ghosts being wired for next generation consoles.
10 - Had a number of weapons / weapon features that we hadn't ever seen before: a 3-round burst SMG, a 4-round burst AR, a triple-bolt crossbow, a guardian microwave emitter, quad rotor drones.
11 - Standoff and Raid - maybe two of the most popular maps ever made in CoD.
Simply put, Black Ops 2 was the best CoD game made to date. I know it's not the popular opinion, but it's the right one if you are looking for innovation, creativity, and a general improvement to the series, which is something that we should all be looking for. It broke the mold, and gave us something different. That's not something that CoD always does
I was going to give a long, detailed response to you Tick7.
The reality is that 7 out of 11 of your claims here are subjective. They are personal opinions that you cannot support with hard evidence. Nor can anyone else. And the other 4 claims are made with heavy bias.
I just find it totally hilarious that so many players that said, "Adapt and get some skill" when BO2 first came out are now front and center complaining that they have to change they way they play with COD Ghosts.
MW2 by far the best COD, unlike BLOPs2 took a while to unlock the good stuff but you learnt to stay alive. Next MW3 or Blops 2, MW3 the better graphically and more challenging BLOP's 2 more fun. COD 4 was ok WaW was hacked to bits before I really could make an opinion. Blops 1 was **** !
Personaly, my favorites are and there reasons
Black Ops- story, redesigned multiplayer, and zombies
COd4: modern warfare 1- my first call of duty, everything is redefined.
the first 2 were good for the time
black ops 2 is my technologically favorite, the maps, the campaign, the excitement, the drones, the zombies, and the continued story of Black ops .