Sequels that saved a franchise

[Hell Kitty]

Call of Duty 2 killed my interest in the franchise. The first game and expansion were amazing, then they had to go and dumb it down and consolize it. Even worse, the only CoD coming out for PC now is a modern warfare terrorism shooter.

 

How was CoD2 dumbed down & consolized? The gameplay is just the same as the original.

COD2 had the infamous grenade indicator and the fact that your health could regenerate quite quickly, leading several of us to believe we were actually Wolverine of Xmen fame with severe amnesia fighting for three different governments because we could.

 

At least with medpacs you had the semblance of "hey man, it may be ludicrous but those there bandages are miracles in a box" where as now it was get hit by a tank, hid under a table for two seconds and that arm you just lost reappeared.

 

Also the levels were shorter, to the point where I no longer felt like I was actually in a war, rather in a series of semi related brushfights. And I think that the level designers decided that they could take a holiday after finishing half the game.

 

The only thing that I think can be truly been seen as "dumbing down" is the grenade indicator", and to claim the game is dumbed down compared to the original based on this is to completely ignore the actual meat of the gameplay. The change in the health system is not a dumbing down at all, it simply removed the worthless "hunt for a health pack to magically heal myself" element n order to focus on the gameplay of shootin' ****. Both the health kit and regeneration systems are completely unrealistic, you are simply criticising the one you don't prefer.

 

Having only recently replayed both CoD and CoD2 I can say that no, the levels were not shorter.

 

Then Came the Console only COD3 that EVERYONE hated (even Xplay gave it a very average 3)

 

Game Rakings disagrees with you.

[Volourn]

More importantly, i disagree. COD3 is awesome, and it's what got me interested in the series. i plan to buy the first two plus the new one when it comes out.

R00fles!

[GreasyDogMeat]

The healing system of requiring medical kits isn't just more realistic, but it increases the tension and danger of battle. If you get shot with a rifle and lose 60% of your health, you are in serious trouble and hiding under a table isn't going to help you. You are going to have to push on with the battle in your weakened state needing medical attention, and that is what the ktis represent. Bandages, morphine, splints etc. Yes, that may be unrealistic for healing supplies to make that next bullet less likely to kill you but it is far, far more realistic than 'taking a breather'.

 

CoD 2 is not only more unrealistic, but it destroys the tension. Again, when you are shot in 1, you are in trouble, in 2 all you have to do is duck... and voila, one or two seconds later you are back up to tip top shape. It also means Quake style rush the enemy tactics actually work fine. So what if you take a few shots in your mad dash at the enemy, just hide behind that wall. The lame healing system in 2 actually altered my play style. In 1, I took it slow and steady, staying with my squad, aiming around corners, making use of the prone position. In 2 I find myself doing these things far less becasue quake style run and gun works in 2.

 

I enjoy shooting **** as you said, but in a WWII shooter I prefer a bit of realism, intensity and a fear. Regenerating health kills that immersion. In the Halo series it works fantastically because it is a sci fi action shooter. It makes SENSE in Halo.

 

What I wouldn't have minded seeing is having your health regenerate to about 25% full health if you are wounded below that, but to heal beyond would require either medics or medical supplies. It boils down to there being actual CONSEQUENCES to being shot in 1 while in 2, there are none whatsoever.

Edited June 2, 2007 by GreasyDogMeat

[Calax]

Then Came the Console only COD3 that EVERYONE hated (even Xplay gave it a very average 3)

 

Game Rakings disagrees with you.

Honestly I only saw the one that they put out for the Wii (rowing minigame and all) but it seemed like it was a pretty average shooter set to the tune of "June 4th 1942"

 

More importantly, i disagree. COD3 is awesome, and it's what got me interested in the series. i plan to buy the first two plus the new one when it comes out.

R00fles!

unless your bokoshi, you might find that you prefer COD1.

 

Another difference between the first one and the others is that the others made you more of a one man army with one guy who always tagged along to do every essential action, while the first one had your squad actually able to sometimes stay ahead of you. You weren't always the one doing everything.

[TravisPennington]

Yeah meta. When I played the first Tomb Raider it was on PC and it was an awful experience. I did not enjoy it at all. To be fair, I was playing on a very poor system and the graphics were really bad. I think it was a Pentium 1 100 MHZ Processor, with 16 Megs of Ram? Maybe 24. I know it was after I upgraded the RAM so I could play the Quake demo. Did TR1 work with 3D Acceleration? I don't remember, I didn't have a 3D Card back then. It's amazing how different games were when you played them without a "3d accelerator", and then played them with one later on. Best example of this I can name is Jedi Knight.

 

But yeah, after seeing and playing Tomb Raider on a Playstation I was hooked. Some games are just better on consoles.

[samm]

Did TR1 work with 3D Acceleration?

It did look and run significantly better on a Voodoo-Chip.