Call of Duty 5 - World At War

[WelcomeToLibertyCity]

I really don't think that there will be another MP. But if there is, it won't include an Area 51 map, seeing as it wasn't called that until 1950.

[TwindSkittle]

It wasn't called Area 51 until 1954 but the US was active there during WWII

 

A Brief History of Area 51

During World War II, the Army Air Corps (precursor to our modern Air Force) built several runways in Nevada, including a pair of small runways at Groom Lake. They named the spot the Army Air Corps Gunnery School. After the 1940s, the runways were abandoned.

 

In the early 1950s, the CIA entered a partnership with Lockheed to develop high altitude aircraft to use in surveillance missions. Kelly Johnson of Lockheed helmed the project. He formed a department of engineers and test pilots that eventually took on the name Skunk Works. The Skunk Works department was famous for being very secretive and nearly fanatical in the pursuit of their goals.

 

 

[Pat]

I really don't think that there will be another MP. But if there is, it won't include an Area 51 map, seeing as it wasn't called that until 1950.

Pay more attention to the video. There's a segment which rumors that the next map will be set seven years in the future, which would be 1953.

 

Do you have a link for that confirmation, James? I'm not doubting you, I'm just really pumped for the idea that we could be killing zombies in Area 51. There's so much potential for the Nazi Zombie storyline.

[El Zilcho]

OMFG. My Dad decided in his infinite wisdom to unplug the connection in order to use the phone line (due to an internal wiring problem this is the only way to use the phone). At that very moment I was at Round 29 in a stable position to reach at least 30+. And it f*cking disconnects it, and 29 doesn't even show up on the f*cking leader boards. I don't f*cking believe this, I actually lost my best run ever with mates because of some f*cking sh*tty timing, this is soooooo gay.

[WelcomeToLibertyCity]

Sh*tty luck Zilcho... what console you on?

 

Cause I use my friends GT sometimes when I'm at his house, maybe we can try. I've gotten to 29 on split screen with him before.

[El Zilcho]

Sh*tty luck Zilcho... what console you on?

 

Cause I use my friends GT sometimes when I'm at his house, maybe we can try. I've gotten to 29 on split screen with him before.

I was on Xbox 360. The fact he was in a mood because he had to pay some bills or some sh*t was just ridiculous, he usually has the common courtesy to tell me he's gonna disconnect it. Unbelievable, I was more gutted than in any other game ever in my hole life.

[Bates_GTA]

After playing Cod4 again for a couple of days, i've realised how much WaW Multiplayer sucks compared. The range of guns everyone is willing to use, the fact all guns are fairly equal in different regions just made me realise what a bag of boringness WaW is compared.

 

/Grr

 

[oldage]

I play both and I don't really see what's so bad about WaW's multiplayer.

only the lag is horrible, other then that I seem to prefer waw a bit because there are more weapons

[Bates_GTA]

Whats the point in having so many weapons when everyone is going to settle for the MP40. I just feel the physics are useless aswel at times.

[oldage]

Whats the point in having so many weapons when everyone is going to settle for the MP40. I just feel the physics are useless aswel at times.

yea that's true, and I'm feeling that the MP5 is the MP40 of cod4.

 

[Bates_GTA]

The MP5 isn't a beast at long range though & it's beatable from close range, for example AK74u is a good gun to counter it. Meh i dunno, i've just grown sick of playing it, it's too predictable.

[Panz]

Yeah, I only use the MP40 to do challenges. It sucks 100% long-range. I don't see the appeal in it. So many people use it, yet it's an AWFUL gun...It only ever works close range, but that's it. I've always loved the STG-44, and I think it's way underappreciated.

As for multiplayer, CoD4 is just too predictable for me. WaW seems to bring something different with each game and, to me, demands more tactics rather than just spamming grenades. I'm probably one of the only people that prefers WaW, but that's just me.

 

Randomly Placed Betties = Win

[Bates_GTA]

I agree with you in a way. Cod4 is only predictable for me due to the maps, thats all. Ultimately i just find WaW boring & no fun anymore, too many ways for n00bs to look good. Where as MW is just alot more fun & involved more skill.

[Panz]

I think that WaW requires more skill in certain game modes. Modern Warfare is just throwing grenades, overloads of snipers, people who noob tube spawn points in S&D, and sprayers. You're right about the predictable part of CoD4. It's pretty easy just to know where a claymore will be or where a sniper will be. There's that in WaW but less of it. I think the consistent addition of new maps helps keep it exciting even if they do suck. I still think WaW requires a bit more skill generally than CoD4.

[oldage]

most of those things only happen to me in WaW.

I only saw one guy that killed me with a noobtube or whatever it is on cod4

[TwindSkittle]

When I prestiged out on WaW I decided to go back and try to rank up somemore on MW and I realised why I liked WaW so much better when it came out. The grenade spamming, the grenade icon whether it's friendly or not, the noob tubing. but the thing I noticed more than anything was that the guns all seemed the same, except for the M14, and if people werent sniping they were run & gun/spray & pray. There just seemed to be no variety in the guns or the game play and it all seemed so repetitive and monotinous.

 

I am concerned that my issues with the weapons are not going to go away in MW2. Although there are alot of MP40 whores in WaW they are not unstopable and nothing is more satisfying to me than owning a whole team of jug40 whores with a rifle.

[oldage]

Although there are alot of MP40 whores in WaW they are not unstopable and nothing is more satisfying to me than owning a whole team of jug40 whores with a rifle.

this, and I know how that feels like

it's just giving me a warm feeling when they all camp at a HQ location and one well thrown grenade takes them all out.

 

 

[DC93]

I think that WaW requires more skill in certain game modes. Modern Warfare is just throwing grenades, overloads of snipers, people who noob tube spawn points in S&D, and sprayers. You're right about the predictable part of CoD4. It's pretty easy just to know where a claymore will be or where a sniper will be. There's that in WaW but less of it. I think the consistent addition of new maps helps keep it exciting even if they do suck. I still think WaW requires a bit more skill generally than CoD4.

That's because MW has been out for two years, all seasoned players of CoD4 will know all of the things you said in your post. Give it another year and I reckon the same will be said about WaW too.

[FullMetal]

Skill required in any Call of Duty game since Call of Duty 2? Don't make me laugh. Well, Call of Duty 2 still required skill (bolt action rifles and such)... but apart from that the automatic weapons were overpowered and the (multiplayer) maps were made so small that (bolt action) rifle players would always be disadvantaged.

 

 

[TwindSkittle]

Skill required in any Call of Duty game since Call of Duty 2? Don't make me laugh. Well, Call of Duty 2 still required skill (bolt action rifles and such)... but apart from that the automatic weapons were overpowered and the (multiplayer) maps were made so small that (bolt action) rifle players would always be disadvantaged.

God how many times do we have to read this same post from you? You do realize that WaW has quite a few bolties right?

 

Case in Point:

Last night I was playing TDM with .Joe. (LFC-JC9), we were teamed up with couple randoms against a clan of 5/6 players. Every single person on this clan was using an MP40 with Juggernaut. I spent a couple games owning them with a Carbine and .Joe. with a Kar. Finally after running smack in lobbies I tell them that both .Joe. and I will use bolties against their Jug40's and we will see who is crying in the end. .Joe. and I went a combined 43-6-5 on Courtyard, which is a ratyher small map. Upon re-entering the lobby after the match only 2 of the clan were left and they promptly left to join their other bitch mates. Oh and BTW I was using an Arisaka no scope and .Joe. a Kar no scope.

[Petarkco]

Ive been playing this game for the last few games, and it is the best game I have ever played (that is bound to change). It is so epic. Five f*cken stars.

[Panz]

Nice, Twind. Way to show 'em. We've gotten that before, too. We call people out for being MP40-whores, and their whole clan claims they can beat us, and once we beat them, we just kinda say, "So where's the ownage we were supposed to get?". They just get quiet and/or leave.

 

I love the Kar98k without a scope. It's a great thing to run around with, especially on maps like Seelow.

[Minic]

I don't mind the Kar98k, but i prefer the Arisaka or Mosin-Nagant unscoped, they're beasts in normal game modes with a scope, and it can be suprising how well you can do with them in some games full of people using automatic weapons. I really like that Treyarch had a bunch of Bolt-Action weapons (Yes i know there were loads in WWII) in the game and that you didn't have to scope them for them to be used.

[FullMetal]

Hardcore/non hardcore matter alot. Bolties are weak in 'core' play. So yes the bolt action rifles that are in the game are still weak in core... so it doesn't matter skill isn't required to play. Even in hardcore overpowered automatic weapons outplay a bolt action rifle. But still, (really) good 'bolties players' beat automatic weapons any day.

 

It's not that I suck at the game nor that I get beaten by them ... I just find it ridiculous that automatic weapons are super accurate and have an insane rate of fire. While bolt action rifles need two up to THREE shots in the chest to down an enemy which is just insane.

[TwindSkittle]

Hardcore/non hardcore matter alot. Bolties are weak in 'core' play. So yes the bolt action rifles that are in the game are still weak in core... so it doesn't matter skill isn't required to play. Even in hardcore overpowered automatic weapons outplay a bolt action rifle. But still, (really) good 'bolties players' beat automatic weapons any day.

 

It's not that I suck at the game nor that I get beaten by them ... I just find it ridiculous that automatic weapons are super accurate and have an insane rate of fire. While bolt action rifles need two up to THREE shots in the chest to down an enemy which is just insane.

Man I'm not trying to pick a fight here but I didnt say I was playing HCTDM I said TDM. I would say that your experiance with WaW is minimal if you think that all bolties take 2 or 3 shots to kill. At most they take 2 and would only be because the other person had Jug or your a poor shot. And honestly with bolties all it takes is a headshot and it doesnt matter what perks they're using. In the match I mentioned in my last post my first 3 kills were headshots and they were all from >10-15 meters. Oh and the Arisaka is the 2nd weakest boltie, i just like it because of the fire rate.

[VCRules86]

Personally, I prefer to rape some faces with a scopless Springfield with a bayonet

[Bates_GTA]

Hardcore/non hardcore matter alot. Bolties are weak in 'core' play. So yes the bolt action rifles that are in the game are still weak in core... so it doesn't matter skill isn't required to play. Even in hardcore overpowered automatic weapons outplay a bolt action rifle. But still, (really) good 'bolties players' beat automatic weapons any day.

 

It's not that I suck at the game nor that I get beaten by them ... I just find it ridiculous that automatic weapons are super accurate and have an insane rate of fire. While bolt action rifles need two up to THREE shots in the chest to down an enemy which is just insane.

Sounds to me like your talking about normal Rifles, not bolt actions. Like Twind said, Bolts take 2 shots at most.

[TwindSkittle]

Personally, I prefer to rape some faces with a scopless Springfield with a bayonet

Springfield is my least favorite. It is the weakest and I don't like the iron sights. As a sniper though it is accurate and thats a plus but it is still the weakest. The bayonet is a must without a scope.

[FullMetal]

Hardcore/non hardcore matter alot. Bolties are weak in 'core' play. So yes the bolt action rifles that are in the game are still weak in core... so it doesn't matter skill isn't required to play. Even in hardcore overpowered automatic weapons outplay a bolt action rifle. But still, (really) good 'bolties players' beat automatic weapons any day.

 

It's not that I suck at the game nor that I get beaten by them ... I just find it ridiculous that automatic weapons are super accurate and have an insane rate of fire. While bolt action rifles need two up to THREE shots in the chest to down an enemy which is just insane.

Sounds to me like your talking about normal Rifles, not bolt actions. Like Twind said, Bolts take 2 shots at most.

Nope, Kar98 takes 3 shots most of the times. Arisaka for some reason 2. Springfield 3. Mosin Nagant 2/3 (it depends, 50% chance to only need 2, 50% chance that you need 3).

 

Well those are my experiences with the PC platform. Might be that they've fixed the issue on the consoles but not on the PC (eventhough they stated that they have fixed it for both platforms).

 

And my experiences with World at War are far from minimal. Eventhough I hate the 'newer Call of Duty' titles because they are so 'console-FPS' like... I do play the games alot since I have a soft spot for the Call of Duty franchise.

 

But believe me, I've played World at War ALOT. More than Call of Duty 4 eventhough I played that game also a alot.

[The-King]

Hardcore/non hardcore matter alot. Bolties are weak in 'core' play. So yes the bolt action rifles that are in the game are still weak in core... so it doesn't matter skill isn't required to play. Even in hardcore overpowered automatic weapons outplay a bolt action rifle. But still, (really) good 'bolties players' beat automatic weapons any day.

 

It's not that I suck at the game nor that I get beaten by them ... I just find it ridiculous that automatic weapons are super accurate and have an insane rate of fire. While bolt action rifles need two up to THREE shots in the chest to down an enemy which is just insane.

Sounds to me like your talking about normal Rifles, not bolt actions. Like Twind said, Bolts take 2 shots at most.

Nope, Kar98 takes 3 shots most of the times. Arisaka for some reason 2. Springfield 3. Mosin Nagant 2/3 (it depends, 50% chance to only need 2, 50% chance that you need 3).

 

Well those are my experiences with the PC platform. Might be that they've fixed the issue on the consoles but not on the PC (eventhough they stated that they have fixed it for both platforms).

 

And my experiences with World at War are far from minimal. Eventhough I hate the 'newer Call of Duty' titles because they are so 'console-FPS' like... I do play the games alot since I have a soft spot for the Call of Duty franchise.

 

But believe me, I've played World at War ALOT. More than Call of Duty 4 eventhough I played that game also a alot.

In my experience the Mosin Nagant is a guaranteed one hit kill unless you hit an extremity rather than center mass or the head, or the target is using Juggernaut.