IS COD Worth Buying?

[Flame]

I thought I stick this post in the COD public area.

I have read a number of magazine reviews about this game and I get mixed feelings.

I love bf1942 - its game play and graphics engine.
I tend to buy the best hardware, so I like to push the envelope with the games.

Now the big downer for me with COD is that it uses the Quake 3 engine.

For those who have played and love both games:
How does it conpare graphics wise?
Can you see the difference comapred to Bf42?
Game play wise, how does it rate? (inparticular Internet Mutliplayer)
Vechicle wise?
Weopon Wise?

Give me both barrells, I want to hear from mainly ppl who have played both.

Cheers

[CH0PPER]

There are no vehicles, the gameplay is awsome and I like the realism of the maps etc. Only thing I dont like about the game is the zoom on alot of the guns, I find it harder to see and prefer to shoot off the hip. Although some have mastered them (ned). Its a good game....

[Fox]

I play both games chump and I prefer BF, this doesn't mean CoD is bad. It's that BF suits my style of game and play.

CoD is better with the graphics - hmm - maybe - dang, they're both good. Maybe BF is better. :P

Bf is a different genre imo to CoD. BF and Tribes are different to CoD/CS/Q3. The vehicles and the longer ranges make a different game. CoD has a higher "twitch" factor and certainly on pubs, CoD is less team oriented.

Vehicles - well CoD simply has none.
Weapons. Hmm. So many games model weapons realistically and CoD is no different to BF or Vietcong. You really can't tell the difference in terms of realism. Variety? They all have a variety of weapons so even then there is little difference.

Both barrels? IMO :-

BF is my preferred because there are more maps, vehicles and multiple roles to play. The twitch factor is far less and the maps are so wide, flanking maneuvors and genuine tactics can be accomodated.

CoD is twitch and cheats (PB is anticipated). The maps are small so they get boring quickly. The maps are designed with choke points to funnel the action in to one or two places. This leads to repetition. BF has few choke points, just many area's of contention.

BF has many different roles including medic and engineer. CoD has snipers or smg (yes, there are other weapons but these are the only two real roles).

CoD has some appeal as it is real close and it takes less than 10 seconds to engage the enemy. BF requires more than this in travel time to reach the front line.

CoD encourages good covering techniques that BF really can't do. A buddy can lay down some serious cover fire on a section while a mate flanks or advances. BF has no cover fire. BF has no serious cover available so HMG's simply aim to kill in BF.

So in a nutshell. BF has variety in roles and maps and style of play. CoD - you either twitch with a smg or you twitch with a rifle and may the fastest reaction win.

[Ned]

There is one negative to this game for me and that's the apparent random inaccuracy of the SMGs. I was playing against Belta the other day and I walked past a spot where he was camping. He let loose with a SMG less than 4 feet away. It took me a few seconds to even realise where he was. I turned around a killed him with a couple of panic shoots!! I had lost NO health 8O I've also been where Belta was... many times. With the SMGs you cannot rely on your crosshair.

I played the demo of Hidden and Dangerous 2. This seemed to me to be a cross between BF1942 and CoD. Vehicles plus CoD weapon physics. This game also had the crosshair dilemmas of CoD. I hope this isn't the future of the fps genre. It can be annoying when you have someone in your crosshair while shooting only to miss. At least with a crosshair dependent game you can tell if you deserved to miss.

The main future game that I'm waiting for is Medal of Honor - Pacific Assault. I really hope this doesn't follow CoD's style of weapon accuracy.

Yes CoD uses the Quake3 engine but it's highly modified.
And yes it's worth buying - in my opinion. The Soviet Campaign is the best single-player gaming I've experienced and the rifle action alone makes the multiplayer game well worth it.

...plus what CHOPPER and Fox said.

[Delim]

It all depends on what yah like. I agree totally with ned about the whole crosshair thing. I have played medal of honor since allied assault release which seems like years ago. The one big plus of medal of honor over cod is the fact that if your target is lined up(which isnt always easy) they go down. Its a bit disheartening to miss kills in cod just because the game decides to miss on its own. I also prefer the lean on medal of honor to cod, you know bending your upper body to see around corners. The graphics arent much different on either game imo, small differences. CoD is good for short bursts of excitement, but its not like a MMO where I can play for hours and hours on end. If you can get a good price on it you really cant go wrong. Its short action packed excitement on good looking maps with your online buddies.

[Smash]

I'll weigh in too...

CoD is cool. I've played FPS games since the early 90's and online FPS since Novalogic released Delta Foce (back when things were 640.480 ech). And I liked DF and DF2 more then this. The graphics are nice. In total agreement on the lack of accuracy on the SMG's...part of which may be lag. I like the game overall.

What I don't like, and anyone thats been on TS with me already knows these:

you dont get credit individualy for completing objectives. So if you die 10 times to get a map then do it and win the game for the team...you finish last in the list with crappy stats.

The cover is CRAP. You feel and look to yourself like your completely concealed, but to the enemy your standing out in the open. Americas Army is an example of a game that does this particular thing EXTREMELY well, COD unfortunatly doesn't.

Your crosshairs continue to wiggle in a supported prone position. Even standing (with a military sling) IRL you can hold your sights steadier then you can prone in this game. /bragging on I qualified IRL in the navy with an M1 carbine. I shot expert, and thats from all three shooting positions, timed and at a rather long ass distance. As I recall I only dropped 2 shots out of the X (I dont remember exacly and would have to dig it up in my personell record copies) ring and that was admittedly from Kneeling (most uncomfortable shooting position possible), so when a game causes me to be less accurate then I can be IRL its very frustrating. (I havent' shot a fiream in 2 years so I probably couldn't hit shit now honestly...ahh the memories of youth). /bragging off.

RUN speeds are WAY too slow.

Too few maps.

Ok I'll shaddup...LOL I'm really just playing this till something better comes out. I'm hoping BFV in a couple months or WoW later this year will be good so I can play something I really like alot.

[Flame]

Thanks everyone for your great feedback!

I get the impression that COD is a Quake 3 MOD, as nothing new has been added to the basic game play.

I cant live without vechicles now that I have them, I thought this was strange of the box cover shows tanks.

I think I will stick to BF42 and wait and see what BF:V turns out to be.

Cheers

[Smash]

See ya then! I think most of us are buying it the day it releases.