I played this game a month ago and don't recall this. You're imagining it, or berating them for having efficient LODs on lower settings. The Xbox 360 had specs better than most PCs at the time of release so this wouldn't be because of consoles either way.
I played at maximum specs on PC and this was particularly noticeable with some of the longer guns like the STG44.
deep shadows' ambitious deus ex clone is better than most people give it credit for, but some aspects of it feel cheap, such as the main plot missions requiring vast amounts of money you need to get. you normally do this by finishing every possible side quest
Okay, fair enough I never beat CoD 1 on Veteran so I can't comment about balance on that difficulty. I do still think CoD 1 has good mission variety, but like any CoD, it's more fun second playthrough when you kinda know what to expect (applies to health packs especially). I have beaten Modern Warfare and World at War on Veteran and they were a bitch. I gotta say this is the first time I've ever really heard a defence of the of the endless respawns/grenade spam in those games. Not sure I totally agree, it felt cheap a lot of the time (especially in WaW when iirc, grenades aren't even being thrown - they just spawn on top of you), but I respect the position and do appreciate the need for aggressive play they baked into the later titles.
These mechanics (among others, like regenerating health) were clearly implemented to enforce player aggression as already mentioned, and these mechanics fulfilled their design goals, and those design goals led to a more fun and dynamic gameplay experience in my opinion.
I do know the reputation that game has with grenades, yeah. I finished it on Veteran years ago but it's been too long to comment. I recall the American campaign was largely somewhat dull Japanese trenches instead of more urban type environments, so that probably has a lot to do with it.
I don't remember sprint being a relevant factor at all when I played UO some months ago. You aren't that much faster and it doesn't last very long. I suspect it's a more relevant factor in twitchy multiplayer duels at close quarters and with movement tricks.
I don't see how you can see this as an issue, but you can't simultaneously see the endless and incredibly dull ruined city soviet levels (that have zero fucking dialogue) in CoD1 + UO as an issue. Yes, fair enough, the starting Soviet missions in CoD2 do drag a bit, but the British and American campaigns in CoD2 easily beat anything in CoD1 + UO.
I haven't played 1 or 2 at highest difficulties, if I ever do, I wouldn't be surprised if a lot of this is true.
My memory of the CoD 1 campaign is,
Yeah, it's just a blatant rip off of Enemy at the Gates. The solo Stalingrad parts were the worst imo because they lasted about three lifetimes and you only ever fought a handful of troops at once.
Definitely agree on this, wish WaW let you drive a fast cruiser tank in some context instead of going back to the much more boring T-34.
"You're still alive? Well, uh... good! That's good! Good for you!"
That's because Infinity Ward was made up of developers formerly with the same studio that made MoH: Allied Assault. CoD1 was basically just MoH with more involved friendly teammate AI, everything else was basically the same design. CoD2 totally revamped health, utility, enemy AI and level design and made what I think is a better game and made CoD into something unique.
How? What does it make worse? I think it just results in making the player less risk averse because there's no uncertainty where you might find your next healthpack. There's an argument to be made for designing a game around fixed health items only, like Quake and Doom is. But CoD isn't that type of game, CoD is not "deterministic" in the way Quake or Doom is since AI behavior, spawns and the damage you take is always a little different and a little random. CoD, of course, also exclusively has hitscan damage, so that design is IMO just objectively worse than regenerating health.
It's really not, hardly any more than CoD1. The solo missions were some of the worst because it eliminated the additional depth that was gained from CoD having good teammate AI that can tie down enemies for you to flank.
I never really interpreted CoD as a game where you're meant to take big risks - rather, you're meant to find cover, lean out, engage in firefights, and then move up to the next bit of cover, advancing bit by bit until you hit a trigger. That's pretty much mandatory on Veteran.
They were some of my favourites, I think the combat in CoD1 is pretty fun despite being very simple. The dam in particular is very welcome after Pegasus Bridge, going straight from a team-based level where the player is almost superfluous (until the comical tank scourge near the end) to a level where the player is in total control of the pace of things.
Far Cry is great. Have you tried FarOut Widescreen? Includes the tent AI fix and works on my Win10 PC.
I've already outlined what I mean by risk averse: cornerhacking/headglitching, savescumming and camping. I see this as low tier, boring gameplay that CoD1 basically forces you to do, particularly on Veteran, and on not-Veteran you're still incentivised to play that way because there's never the knowledge of where the next health item is.
You don't have to, though. That's my point. CoD1 doesn't force you to move forward when you find a gap, enemies keep spawning until they don't so you can just camp from a far away place and only move up when they're out of spawns. CoD1 also often did a flat amount of spawns, which meant that even if you got to the next trigger or checkpoint really quick, there was no reward, you're still going to have to kill the same flat amount of enemies or get shot in the back.
I can only agree to disagree. It just takes away all of the spectacle from CoD imo.
based
bullshit from behind? undeniably based, like a classic shmup
Man this was cool as fuck, played the multiplayer demo a shitload and then some. The first game that really nailed that jungle-fight feeling.
It isn't true at all period
RTCW was Gray Matter right? Same studio that handled United Offensive?
F.E.A.R. is also better than all shooters released in the nineties. But Ash probably dont want to hear that. The game is pure 100% FPS combat goodness.
Very different beasts.
In the sense they are clearly inferior. It was good for the nineties but quickly grew outdated. Yes if you love zoomfest, it got speed but the combat is pretty bad.
