Damn straight. The multiplayer was where it was at with that game. The maps were awesome. I'll never, ever, forget Foy. They even managed to impliment vehicles!

The nade indicator was horrible in CoD2 because it literally broke grenades as a gameplay mechanic. You couldn't cook them, so anyone who saw that indicator flash pretty much had all the time he needed to get behind a wall or closet. Bah, just another one of the reasons why CoD2 was a terrible, terrible, game. :)

In my humble opinion the Call of Duty game made by Treyarch, (COD3) is horrible.

They should really just let infinity ward make all of the Call of Duty titles.

Origionally I believe Treyarch was chosen to make CoD3, because at the time Infinity Ward did not do console games, or somesuch weak excuse. Since they are capable of pushing CoD onto consoles themselves now I feel that it would be wise to just give the entire production run of the series to Infinity Ward.


Also CoD:UO was in deed awesome. Although it is a shame that it never took off and gained the popularity that it deserved.

I'll throw my two cents in here.

I've played every Call of Duty for the PC to be released. I play in a realism unit that depicts the Third Infantry Division, we're in our 8th year of existence and many people acredit us with starting realism units and crazes. Anyways...

In my time in Call of Duty (and Day of Defeat before that) I have seen the franchise continue to sink lower and lower. It was said before that CoD: United Offensive was the best Call of Duty. That is completely true. It stretched the game into a larger realm of gaming.

The problem with Call of Duty, no matter what the theatre of history, is that it is way too limited. Call of Duty IV, while a great departure away from the standard Call of duty formula still holds A LOT of it's problems. Just about EVERYTHING in the game promotes spasstic arcade play.

For one, all of the maps are essentially dough nuts. Look at them and most of them are made up of circles within circles. It limits tactics and gameplay grossly. Tournament play is a joke. Both in ladder "normal" gaming and campaign based realism tournaments. Dominating a whole map with a single LMG and grenades blindly thrown? Please. Get out of here with that.

Perks. This was a pretty cool feature. But, when you see it for what it truly is you get over them quick. Activision found a solution to a problem they faced in CoD2. The PC community was pissed that they're patches were few and far between and we never got an expansion. CoD2 was also a huge step backwards. With perks and unlocks people are now occupied a little longer. That coupled with what a game mill Activision is now there's no worry about complainants from the NORMAL gamer aka the spazziod arcade Rambo freak.

The World War II setting is quite beat to death for me. The modern dress up was a nice change and the Pacific is interesting, but when you're like me and you've been playing and working in World War II for this long it gets old. Especially when the same themes and features are respresented over and over and over.

I'm much more open to games like Battlefield 2 and their mods, Forgotten Hope 2 and Project Reality. They represent a much expanded field of play and put players in a situation where they have to work together in order to complete objectives rather then just leveling to get an uber kit and spamming the same crap over and over.

The pacific!:roll: I really liked the single player of COD4 thought multi-player was nothing but a noobs camping ground. So i was hoping COD5 was going to be still modern combat or if they had to go back why not the vietnam war:hmm: Im sick of WW2 shooters. Oh well no doubt i'll still play it. :roll::)