Schlorgan said:
deathstrikesquirrel said:
Ashbax said:
spindle said:
Thunderhorse31 said:
madness, they improved it in every way
BLASPHEMY!
HEATHEN! GET OFF THIS SITE RIGHT NOW!
\
thanks for that, he needed it
1.he was talking to you 2.found call of duty 4 just cruching along on multiplayer and i found the nuke scene boring and not the tearsheader everyone said which in WaW i cared about the story and moral choice scenes were great
Did you just say WaW had story? MoH: Pacific Assault made a far better attempt at the war in the Pacific than WaW. Kiefer Sutherland played Roebuck and should've been great, but he sounded so false throughout the whole thing, as though Roebuck had spent the entire game stoned. I admit the Russian campaign saved WaW slightly by being fun, and Sgt. Reznov is one of my favourite characters ever, but there was no story, just "Kill the enemy and win the war bizzatches.", as well as a few "I hate the Germans very much and they will lose."s.
I felt absolutely nothing for my characters. In fact, whenever one would meet a grisly end I would cry with relief at not having to put up with them any more. There's only the one moral choice scene, and it happens so fast you don't care; the characters were so fake that when one died I shot at the other one (Roebuck's supposedly emotional acting just made me feel like he was trying to address a piece of wood and trying not to yell "Cut!" and storm off to his trailer) to end my suffering. It felt slightly worth it I guess when I hoisted the Soviet flag over the Reichstag with, perhaps not believable, slightly insane Sergeant leading the whole Soviet army, but at least likeable, Reznov, but really, CoD4 just leaves WaW dead in a bayou some miles back behind it.
I'm not saying WaW is a bad game, it just isn't what you should make to follow-up Modern Warfare.