What would you rate SCV out of 10 ?

Have to gang up on me? Wow, I bet you guys feel really tough and cool...

I played since CoD 3 and I enjoy each CoD game on console since.

3 for the multiplayer
4 for it's single-player
WaW for its co-op
MW2 for the multiplayer, co-op and single-player
BO for the multiplayer
MW3 for the single-player and multiplayer
 
coolfighter1993 said:
Have to gang up on me? Wow, I bet you guys feel really tough and cool...

I played since CoD 3 and I enjoy each CoD game on console since.

3 for the multiplayer
4 for it's single-player
WaW for its co-op
MW2 for the multiplayer, co-op and single-player
BO for the multiplayer
MW3 for the single-player and multiplayer
Click to expand...

LOL DID YOU SAY COD3?!
Call of Duty 3 barely even had a multiplayer scene, being that it was released only on PS2 and XBOX.

Call of Duty 4 was pretty good, since it brought something new.

World at War just proves the fact that Treyarch cannot make an FPS game at all. Adding tanks in COD multiplayer? SERIOUSLY? And the only gun people used in that game was the MP40. Seriously, there was no need to use any gun since the MP40 was perfect in every way.

Modern Warfare 2 was a huge noobtube fest, had loads of overpowered BS such as chopper gunner, which could hit an enemy from 50 yards away. The spaz had the range of a fucking ICBM, and so did the Models for a while. The UMP is severely fucking retarded. Seriously for a submachinegun, it had such bullshit damage. It did more damage than an LMG ffs. And lets not forget the rampant hackers that completely destroyed the game.

Black Ops was absolutely terrible in multiplayer. I don't know how you could even mention that game on the list. It tooks about half a clip just to kill 1 person. Sniper rifles were near useless since they took more than 1 shot to kill someone. Shotguns required a player to be literally 1 centimeter away from the enemy in order to just hit the damn person. Napalm was glitchy and would burn players on the bottom of a building if it hit the top floor, the spawn points were absolutely ridiculous, since players would literally spawn in 1 area, spawn camping was rampant. RPG's couldn't even kill 1 person anymore. Nuketown was by far the worst map in history, the graphics were downgraded, the guns looked terrible, people got RC-Cars by getting a mere 2 kills with a perk, the lag was absolutely terrible, the sound effects were terrible, hell just about everything in the game was terrible.

Modern Warfare 3 is basically a copy-paste of MW2 but balanced.

I can go on and on about the entire series. You picked the wrong person to argue with over Call of Duty.
 
CoD 3 was on the PS3 and the Xbox 360. Get your facts right.

I am right, deal with it. This is the final time I am replying in this thread. I got better things to do.

I have won the argument.
 
coolfighter1993 said:
CoD 3 was on the PS3 and the Xbox 360. Get your facts right.

I am right, deal with it. This is the final time I am replying in this thread. I got better things to do.

I have won the argument.
Click to expand...

Call of Duty 3 had literally almost no multi-player scene. Don't forget to mention the fact that all the guns too about 20 seconds to reload.
Learn your facts before you even try to argue.

Now gtfo
 
Honestly, the only thing keeping me from giving this game away(that's right, give away. I wouldn't make anyone pay for this) is the character creation. And even that was a disappointment.
I was the definition of excited when it came to this game before it came out.
I've explained what I can't stand about this game already and I don't feel like writing that book again.
This game was mostly half-assed.

I give it a 6.
And that's being generous.
 
from a casual perspective, i'd rate sc5 a 7/10.

it is a beautiful and fluid "pick up and play" fighter, but the lack of any real story mode or single player experience makes it a 7 tops from that POV. how can you play mk9 story mode, and then compare it to sc5? you can't. it is terrible. it also has new features such as CE that are a great visual stimulant and will do well to draw new eyes to the series on both casual and tournament levels. did i mention the netcode and online user interface? both are outstanding. it gets a 7 here only because of the lack of innovative or engaging single player play and story development, which are often the most important features to casual players.

that said, as a hardcore player, i love sc5's story mode. small, fast, skippable, and completely unnecessary; i think it is perfect.

however, as a hardcore SC fan, i give sc5 a 4/10 in its present state. the massive damage almost across the board, the comeback features, the emphasis on a few big guesses instead of a series of smaller ones, the obvious developmental shortcuts (LOL entire bottom row), the introduction of CE attacks that are handed out in the last round as a comeback mechanic and pretty much negate all traditional "frame-minded" gameplay, as well as add a large degree of randomness where before there was none, the increase in backdash (or pushback?) in much of the moves, which force- or at least STRONGLY encourage- a style of movement and whiff baiting more akin to tekken than any previous SC installment, the fact that there are three characters which may play like, say, raphael, and not one HWAAAAAAANG or BANGOOOOOOOOOOOOO...i could go on and on.

at the end of the day, all of my complaints can be summed into one sentence:

SC5, to me, feels more like a bastard child of DOA and tekken 6 than it does like the SC that i know and love.

because of this, it gets a 4. fix this shit, namco. please.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back