LOL, Call of Duty 'Classic' on XBLA.

gunsmoke on 3/12/2009 at 14:20

(http://reviews.teamxbox.com/xbox-360/1823/Call-of-Duty-Classic/p1/) Link.

Read this guy's take on playing CoD 1 now. He acts like it is like from launch-era PS1 or something. God, I am actually re-playing the game on PC right now, and it isn't a whole heck of a lot different than CoD 2 and 3.

Besides, I can't imagine playing this on a game pad. It is challenging enough on mouse/kb and it was designed for that. That is another point, it was designed for kb/mouse. Recent games tend to be designed with both that and controllers in mind, but this was PURE PC gaming. :rolleyes:

I wonder if they will try to port United Front sometime, that would be a fucking nightmare on controller. It is tough as hell on PC.

Aerothorn on 3/12/2009 at 14:28

"The gap in technology between 2003 and 2009 for video games is like a 30- or 40-year gap in movies."

This is bullshit. Mind you, I was explaining the other day that games "change" much faster than film, but I felt I might be stretching it when I said a game from 1998 was like a film from 1975 (general-advancement wise; obviously movies don't have the rapid visual change). But Call of Duty = film from 1969? What? It's not that old, and the gameplay is pretty much identical to the later iterations of the franchise.

Bonus quote: "Call of Duty, while still a very primitive version of what the story would become"

What story?

mothra on 3/12/2009 at 15:42

seems everybody can be a games journalist, most of the time it helps if you CAN'T play any game proper or have no knowledge of gaming, its history and technology. then you get any job and can write any review.

CCCToad on 3/12/2009 at 16:38

Of course it helps. Much like in politics, a lack of any knowledge on the topic makes you much more of a sucker for hype.

Renzatic on 3/12/2009 at 16:46

Ah, technology. Just in the past 6 years alone, we've seen such huge, HUGE advances in graphics rendering tech. Such as shaders that make things bumpy, somewhat prettier lighting, and maybe sometimes slightly higher quality voice actors.

THE FUTURE IS FAN-FUCKING-TASTIC! I CAN'T BELIEVE I COULD EVEN BEAR TO PLAY VIDEOGAMES BEFORE THE ADVENT OF SUPER POLY NORMALIZED PARALLAX OCCLUSION HORKY HUNKY DORY SHADERS! WHAT A FOOL I WAS!

steo on 3/12/2009 at 17:35

I think the gist of it is that nowadays everything is glossy, blurry and blindingly bright.

Renzatic on 3/12/2009 at 17:44

Oh yeah. How could I forget Cataract Simulation Shaders.

To play this a bit serious for a second, I do find HDR and bloom to be quite nice when done tastefully. Problem is, it so very rarely is. Most of the time it's jacked up to nuclear blast brightness for no reason other than to make things look slightly better by concealing graphical flaws off in the distance.

Sulphur on 3/12/2009 at 20:42

Oy, don't knock technology. We wouldn't have gotten to the state where games cost gazillions of dollars to emulate Michael Bay flicks and sport even dumber storylines in comparison without it.

Such an achievement deserves some amount of consideration.

Volitions Advocate on 3/12/2009 at 22:09

Wasn't MOH:AA released in 2001? How could COD be considered direct competition when it was released 2 years later (and if I recall correctly, had many of the same people on the dev team)

gunsmoke on 4/12/2009 at 01:10

Quote Posted by Volitions Advocate

Wasn't MOH:AA released in 2001? How could COD be considered direct competition when it was released 2 years later (and if I recall correctly, had many of the same people on the dev team)

Quote:

Back in 2003, Call of Duty was released to compete directly with EA's highly successful Medal of Honor series

They never mentioned Allied Assault, they mentioned the series. Check up on just how many games in the MoH series had been released by 2003. In case you are lazy, it is 6 proper games and 2 expansions.