CHUD.com Community › Forums › VIDEO GAMES & RPG › Video Games › Call of Duty is dangerous
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Call of Duty is dangerous

post #1 of 25
1/2/04 at 6:37pm
Thread Starter 
I literally passed up sex last night for this game.

The Multiplayer version is more addictive than anything before on Earth. And the Single Player game ain't too shabby, either.

Plus, I still have Rainbow Six, Prince of Persia, and Crimson Skies beckoning me.

HELP ME.
Reply
post #2 of 25
1/2/04 at 6:42pm
Getting this soon. My bro literally locked himself in his computer room for 20 hours when he got this. His wife was not impressed.
Reply
post #3 of 25
1/2/04 at 8:23pm
I've wanted to buy this game for quite some time now, and I've been in the mood for some FPS goodness recently.

Thing is, I have a slight problem - my computer is rather down and out compared to recent standards.

So let's assume that I have a 933 MHz, 256 RAM, about 7 GB of HD space free and a mid-level GeForce 2. Would I be able to play this game and actually enjoy it?
Reply
post #4 of 25
1/2/04 at 8:31pm
Is this just available for PC, or is it also out for XBOX?
Reply
post #5 of 25
1/2/04 at 10:35pm
Quote:
Originally posted by MooMoo
I played the demo and thought the graphics were horrible.

Someone compare this game to BF1942 or Day of Defeat (the Halflife mod).

I can't see this being better than BF1942 based on the 30 seconds I played the demo.
Well you did only play it for 30 seconds, that's a little fast to make such a harsh judgement on it. Play it through, and you'll get a taste of why it's so good.
Reply
post #6 of 25
1/2/04 at 11:12pm
Quote:
Stench:

Thing is, I have a slight problem - my computer is rather down and out compared to recent standards.

So let's assume that I have a 933 MHz, 256 RAM, about 7 GB of HD space free and a mid-level GeForce 2. Would I be able to play this game and actually enjoy it?
You certainly can. My wife's computer has the same config. It plays without a hitch, as long as you keep the screen resolution (and details) at a reasonable level. As for this baby on my alienware...heaven.
Reply
post #7 of 25
1/2/04 at 11:22pm
Quote:
Originally posted by MooMoo
I played the demo and thought the graphics were horrible.

Someone compare this game to BF1942 or Day of Defeat (the Halflife mod).

I can't see this being better than BF1942 based on the 30 seconds I played the demo.
Don't you notice a vinculum in all of MooMoo's critiques of games?

(Hint: It's in a different colour in the quote.)
Reply
post #8 of 25
1/3/04 at 1:51am
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally posted by jonvoight's car
Is this just available for PC, or is it also out for XBOX?
PC only. There is a console version coming out in 2004 for XBox and PS2, but it won't be the same exact game and is even being done by a different developer (same producers and publisher, though).

I say you'd need at least a 2 GHZ machine with at least 512mb RAM to run this thing properly... to say nothing of a good video card.
Reply
post #9 of 25
1/3/04 at 1:56am
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally posted by MooMoo

I can't see this being better than BF1942 based on the 30 seconds I played the demo.
I like BF1942, and Call of Duty kicks the hell out of it. It's the best WWII FPS out there, bar none. I loved Medal of Honor (all versions before "Rising Sun") and Return to Castle Wolfenstein. Call of Duty is the best elements of those 2 put together and multiplied by 10.
Reply
post #10 of 25
1/3/04 at 2:52am
The graphics are beautiful Moo Moo what the hell are you talking about? Anyone that judges a game based on a demo hasn't been around very long.

I have a 1.4 Ghz with a Radeon 9800xt and I run at 1600x1200 with 8xAA and 16xAF with no problems. Silky smooth. Amazing game.
Reply
post #11 of 25
1/4/04 at 2:55pm
I'd love to know, is Mr.Cunningham a r337 sn1p30R, or does he favor the close range SMG?

I stick with the bolt action rifles.
Reply
post #12 of 25
1/4/04 at 6:15pm
I rock with the Thompson.
Reply
post #13 of 25
1/5/04 at 12:23am
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally posted by Kyle Reese
I'd love to know, is Mr.Cunningham a r337 sn1p30R, or does he favor the close range SMG?

I stick with the bolt action rifles.
I normally use a Thompson. Every now and then I'll use an M1, or the Russian or British bolt-action rifles. Either way, I prefer close-range action.

The sniping pussies in the game piss me off. But that's also why I enjoy flanking around them and coming up from behind with a nice spray of point-blank metal.

Constant grenade-tossers are the worst, though.
Reply
post #14 of 25
1/5/04 at 9:32am
Find servers with FF on.

What's your online name, Carl? I'll have to get you in my sights.
Reply
post #15 of 25
1/5/04 at 11:04am
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally posted by Dave Davis


What's your online name, Carl? I'll have to get you in my sights.
"Kraut Killer"

What's yours?
Reply
post #16 of 25
1/5/04 at 11:18am
"Flash Bastard".

I almost always play Axis, but I pretty much only play sd and retrieval maps. I'll kill you!
Reply
post #17 of 25
1/5/04 at 12:34pm
Thread Starter 
Sounds good! I'm almost always on the Allies side.

It's on!
Reply
post #18 of 25
1/5/04 at 12:44pm
Has this game taken a tumble in price yet or am I asking this question WAY too early?
Reply
post #19 of 25
1/5/04 at 12:48pm
Thread Starter 
I picked it up at EB for $39.99 last week.
Reply
post #20 of 25
1/5/04 at 1:09pm
Not too bad...

I played the demo (which was much too short) and was quite impressed. But then I hear multiplayer is even better.

Of course I just got back into Desert Combat which is just too freaking awesome.
Reply
post #21 of 25
1/5/04 at 1:34pm
Thread Starter 
Trust me, the Multiplayer version of "Call of Duty" is all the WWII FPS action you'll ever need.

I played on a server last night with 52 players (about 26 each side). It was a tdm (Team Death Match) on the Carentan map (one of my faves). And we actually used real tactical WWII era battle protocols. For instance, we have about 16 guys holding/charging the line with supressing fire, while the remaining 10 or so would go to the left or right flank and come around from behind. It was great.

I'm pretty aggressive, though... so it's not unsual for me to finish a TDM round with 20+ kills and as many (or more) deaths.
Reply
post #22 of 25
1/5/04 at 2:16pm
I was a pretty good Ace (always top 2 or 3 on a map) in Medal of Honor so I think that should translate well over to Call of Duty.
Reply
post #23 of 25
1/5/04 at 7:38pm
Thread Starter 
Probably so, as Call of Duty was developed by the original Medal of Honor team.

However, be warned... Call of Duty's pace is not nearly as slow as MOH's. And that's just the Single-Player. You have to be more than a Marksman to wit your way through the MP version.
Reply
post #24 of 25
1/5/04 at 7:42pm
Thread Starter 
BTW, Target now has Call of Duty for $39.99
Reply
post #25 of 25
1/5/04 at 7:47pm
"Exxxcellent."

As for it being faster...good stuff. That is the one thing I noticed about the demo was I had to move a bit quicker in response to the AI.
Reply
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Video Games
CHUD.com Community › Forums › VIDEO GAMES & RPG › Video Games › Call of Duty is dangerous