Call of Duty.. Hey wait a minute ?!

(Azarael) #1

Sorry if some find this stupid or obvious.

After playing the Call of Duty demo a couple of times, I’d have to say that i’m pretty impressed. It took me a while to realize though that it is pretty much what the ET single player version was supposed to be. So I guess now we should have a pretty good idea about why the full version of ET was dropped. There’s a couple good reasons for thinking this.

[ul]1. Both produced by Activision.
2. Both based on rtcw engine.
3. Why release two identical games around the same time?
[/ul]
Seems to me that they decided to let Infinity Ward do the single player and leave the multiplayer to Splash Damage. I’m pretty sure once people start playing CoD there’ll be alot of calls for multiplayer as well.

(Ubiquitous) #2

They aren’t even remotely similiar, aside from the World War II theme. Wolfenstein is science fiction, with exaggerated rates of fire, and little realism. Call of duty is made by former Electronic Arts employees that worked on Medal of Honor, and have since formed their own company. It focuses on team tactics, and an emphasis on realism. (No monsters, realistic rates of fire, die easily) The single player version of Enemy Territory had some group teamplay ideas, but was retaining the outrageous sci-fi chicanery that Wolfenstein is known for.

(chavo_one) #3

Also, the bots that were being worked on for ET single player could follow commands. They also had specific class duties like in ET MP.

In Call of Duty, I have to say your teammates are pretty dumb, and don’t have very good aim. Plus there is a never ending stream of replacements.

(Azarael) #4

That’s true, but the idea of the two is still the same. I thought having to command you’re troops would have been too clumsy in ET anyway. As well, the sci-fi in rtcw isn’t in ET.

(Englander) #5

I think hes saying if the ET single player had come out it would have had SCI-FI elements in it.

(Ifurita) #6

Science fiction elements aside, the two games are worlds apart. In CoD, the only differentiator between you and the other soldiers are the weapons. While the AI is interesting, it performs much more along the lines of Quake 3/Team Death Match AI which has been around for quite some time. After all, everyone waits until you, the human player, plants the dyno.

In RTCW/ET, the main difference is the class AI. It is relatively simple to make a bot shoot, run away, be aggressive, shoot better, etc. It’s much more difficult to make a medic bot know whether to revive first then kill a defender or kill a defender first and then revive. Given the choice between 2 wounded team mates, which should be revived first? Revive both then give health or revive one, give health then revive the other. How does proximity to other friendlies, bad guys, or the objective get factored in. If the bot is an engineer, should the engy stay by teammates or go for the objective. This may change the closer to the objective you get. This may change given the number of each class on the team. The logic trees are infinitely more complex.

(Dawg) #7

Its my understanding that the release version of Call of Duty will include a MP aspect.

I found the SP demo pretty cool. Yes, the AI is somewhat limited, but the point is that YOU are the one playing the game - not them. Ergo, YOU have to achieve the objective.

I will probably give it a shot when it comes out.

I do have to wonder about Activision’s goals in pursuing two WWII-based games using the same basic game engine. There are differences between the games, certainly, but to the uninformed purchaser in the aisles of Best Buy, what will be the deciding factor. The market seems glutted with WWII games.

Dawg

(IgmanStein) #8

Too true. I liked the demo too but the last thing I want is another WWII game. That and it really feels too much like MOHAA to be an original experience.

(DrGonzo) #9

hey, why aren’t there any WWI shooter?? :???:

(Warskull) #10

WWII was an important war and is interesting to play. Imagine a WWI game. Sit in the trenches until the charge command is given then either mow down the enemy or charge and get mowed down. Wait and repeat. Wars previous to WWI have the whole horribly innaccurate weaponry factor and again the tactics aren’t very exciting gameplay wise. Wars after WWII just don’t have the same feel. When translating into a FPS the WWII theme seems to have it down the best.

(Ifurita) #11

I was looking for a Napoleonic era FPS myself.

(SCDS_reyalP) #12

A cavalry game with rideable horse could be pretty interesting. This could be U.S. civil war, spanish american war, nepoleonic era…
:moo:

I think a WWI game could be interesting too. Just because a lot of the combat was masses of people being mown down with MGs doesn’t mean that it ALL was. ET and RTCW don’t exactly represent the norm of WWII combat.

Korea could also be a good subject.

For myself I’d like to see the class system of ET/RTCW converted to something like the D&D universe… E.g. medic = healer, fops = mage, covops = theif etc. Give them various combat spells instead of guns, and maybe melee combat like JKII.

Am I offtopic yet ? :moo:

(Azarael) #13

I think a WWI game would be better as a strategy game like shogun or something. Like was already mentioned, the gameplay might get old in a hurry. Also a horseriding game could be really interesting. Don’t forget about a medieval type; fpl, fpsc, etc (first person lancer, first person sward chopper :wink: )

(Pamper) #14

Because WWII was the last “fair” war. Conflicts since then (at least anything the US has taken part of) were always one-sided. A game isn’t fun if you don’t have the feeling that either team could win.

(colic) #15

So will this be the last quake 3 engined game before DOOM3? And all thoose lovely graphics :slight_smile:

I just hope I get my Radeon 9800 pro working by the release date :angry: