Well, I joined this wiki a couple of months ago. It was the first wiki I had found (outside of Wikipedia), and I really like it. I can hop on, browse around, and either add some information to make an article more comprehensive, or clean up some bad grammar to make it more palatable. It really is addicting, but I don't change things just for the sake of changing things.

Besides, Call of Duty is one of my favorite game series of all time, prehaps second only to Uncharted. My opinions on the main games in the series:

  • Call of Duty - The classic. While it sure has aged since 2003, it's not hard to imagine how awesome it was when it was released.
  • Call of Duty 2 - A good launch title for the 360. It didn't advance that much since the first, but it was pretty (at the time), and the multiplayer was fun.
  • Call of Duty 3 - Treyarch's first take on the series was the definition of 'safe.' No risks were taken, no achievements were made. However, it was a very solid WW2 shooter, and between the gorgeous graphics (again, for 2006) and 24-player multiplayer, it was almost universally good in what it did, which is more than you can say for some shooters these days.
  • Call of Duty 4: Modern Warfare - The beginning of the formula that most 'current' Call of Duty's are classified under. The graphics were mindblowing at the time, and it still looks good today. The storyline wasn't super-compelling, but the quality of the campaign was consistently great, and the multiplayer somehow took gameplay concepts that shouldn't work in theory (perks, killstreaks, etc.), and made them work.
  • Call of Duty: World at War - Despite what many think, as a game by itself, I enjoyed Call of Duty: World at War more than Call of Duty 4. Sure, Modern Warfare innovated the whooey out of the series, but if given the choice between the two today, I would want to play World at War. It was more in-your-face, more brutal, the way war should be portrayed. Despite everyone's hatred of the MP40, the multiplayer was more than playable, even if the inclusion of tanks was more of an "Uh, ok, so that's there..." decision. Not only that, but World at War really introduced co-op to the series, and between the co-op campaign, Zombies, and split-screen multiplayer, World at War was a game I readily pulled out when friends came over, at least before the release of Black Ops.
  • Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 2 - This was a game that really made me reconsider what I defined as a 'good' game, or even a decent one. On one hand, it's well below standard for the Call of Duty series. The storyline slams plot holes in your face, even if you're not looking for them, and, on the whole, the campaign really didn't stimluate much of any response out of me. Infinity Ward, take note; after 2 or so hours of non-stop gunfire and explosions, it really does become white noise. Even on my first playthough, I really had to drag myself to finsih the campaign, even though I loved previous single-player experiences in previous games. Multiplayer definetly had it's fair share of flaws, enough of which forced me to play World at War and Call of Duty 4 until Black Ops was released. However, it's not the horrid mishmash of awfulness some make it out to be, it presented some interesting (albiet unbalanced) gameplay concepts, like Riot Shields and user-picked Killstreaks. Still, the drab maps and the fact it takes about a tenth of a second to either die or kill someone really turned me off it. However, Spec Ops is fun, for the most part. There are times where it really tapped into that old-school pleasure of beating a level after dying a trillion times, but there are also times where it was just flat-out frustrating (I'm looking at you, stealth-based Spec Op missions). Modern Warfare 2, overall, covered the spectrum from bad to good, and was decent in the end. While I would definetly play it over the recent Medal of Honor, it can't hold a light to other games in the series, and some other great FPSs (the best of which is Goldeneye 007).
  • Call of Duty: Black Ops - My current love. By that, it's one of the only two games I've played since January (the other being Rock Band 3). First, the campaign is fantastic. Contrary to what Infinity Ward believes, the fact that my character has a voice and personality actually draws me more into the story, which is great in Black Ops; it's simple, yet personal and dramatic, all while being epic at the same time. The number of "Wow, that's awesome!" moments were off the chart, and the level design is generally great. The multiplayer makes some obvious adjustments to the previous year's formula, and most of the new ideas it introduces are great, while some are just flat-out awesome (I'm happily looking at you, Combat Training and the Theater). Then there's the Zombies; a beautiful compilation of old and new game design, wrapped around fun gameplay and surreal 4-player multiplayer. Honestly, it deserves to have sold as many copies as it did, and it's my third favorite game of all-time (the first two being Uncharted 2 and the previously-mentioned Goldeneye 007, and the fourth being Rock Band 3).

So, in order, my favorite Call of Duty games: Black Ops, World at War, 4, Modern Warfare 2, 3, 1, 2. Also, I recently picked up a copy of Big Red One, although I have yet to play it.

Finally, my opinion on the whole Treyarch vs Infinity Ward dispute: I vote Treyarch. While I don't think Infinity Ward sucks or some other narrow-minded comment, but Treyarch just makes games I find more fun, and are generally smarter with their game design. I'm casually looking forward to Modern Warfare 3, even if the fact they had to bring in two developers to help mid-production is definetly not a good sign.

Mrmorozov987 23:06, March 10, 2011 (UTC)

Community content is available under CC-BY-SA unless otherwise noted.