• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

Call of duty fans .. come here

IHateMyJob2004

IHateMyJob2004

Lifer
Update: Bought CoD 4. If I like it, I'll grab MWF2. If that's good, I'll probably try out one of the WW2 based games.

I have an Xbox 360. I was going to get COD 4 since it is $5 at Gamestop. But I noticed that a lot of these older CoD games are nearly as cheap ($6, $7, etc).

Is there any reason to do them in a specific order? Should I just get "the best one" and that's it? Should I get the first of a story arc and play the story arc? I am only interest in single player!

Really need advice. Hope to buy today.

Those under $10 are as follows ...

WW 2 story arc:
Call of Duty 2: Game of the Year Edition
Call of Duty 3


Modern Warfare story arc (modern day):
Call of Duty 4
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 3
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 2

Black Ops story arc:
Call of Duty: World at War
 
Last edited:
cod 4 and modern warfare 2 has the best stories.

Black Ops 1 has the best multiplayer. MW2 was addicting as well but BO just had more solid gameplay. Never felt like there was a cheap gun. MW2 you would get tubed or random bs shotgun sniping.
 
--MW has a story line. It's a decent story, but the sequels (MW2 and MW3) have some of the worst overall balance in the series, and the MW series as a whole falls short on the MP side because of terrible Perks, IMO (stuff like Juggernaut and Stopping Power and commando). The good part of the MW series was its maps, though MW3 even failed on that.
--The WW2 games have no connected story.
--WaW doesn't connect to Black Ops (beyond Zombies), to my knowledge. I skipped WaW, and I don't think that there is a single time I thought that an element from Black Ops needed to be explained with a previous game.

I'd personally take the Black Ops pair of games, if you want something to play online as well. The first Black Ops really pointed out a lot of the flaws with the MW series, IMO, while the Black Ops II stuff is maybe inferior to its predecessor as a whole (particularly the maps), but it's still better than the MW2 and MW3 mess.

From a campaign-only standpoint, I'd say go with the MW trio. If there is ANY chance you'd want to go online, I'd take Black Ops, as it has a solid story and vastly-superior online balance.
 
CoD 1 and 2 are the only ones I've actually played the campaign on, but I hear good things about 4. The way the ended it was pretty ballsy at the time IIRC.
 
The best call of Duty games were...

COD4.

COD: Modern Warfare 2

COD Black Ops.

Black Ops is a lot of fun.

The rest of them...eh...COD:MW3 is okay, but not quite as good as COD:MW2. COD Black Ops 2 stinks. I hate it. The SP is like the STar wars prequels.
 
I don't think Ghosts campaign is all that terrible but the story is very far fetched. The most bothersome thing I'd say is the length of the actual missions.

It's obviously not cheap yet, but if someone is really into CoD it's worth looking at. I am not a huge CoD fan and don't buy any of them. I play them when someone I knows has them.
 
COD 4: MW = best SP story

COD: WaW = boring SP/story

COD: MW2/3 = meh SP

COD: BO = decent SP/story

COD: BO2 = very convoluted/confusing SP/story

Having said that...just buy them all when they are cheap ($5-10).
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top