I'm familiar with the "Circle Of COD" but IMO this one is well beyond what "normal COD bug volume" is. Some of the bugs are just silly and good for a chuckle, but when added together, it's just not possible to understand how a game was released with that many bugs right in front of one's face. I'm a software engineer and honestly some of the bugs are just not possible to understand - as in, they should be the simplest things to fix and it's just outright bizarre that they didn't get caught and remediated in the most basic automated as well as user testing. After the initial honeymoon period, I basically stopped playing Vanguard - the combination of incredibly low TTK, the dark color palette, and the very high number of bugs were the big turnoffs. That one is clearly subjective, so only point is the movement feels very different. I never liked the movement in Vanguard - yes it feels more realistic than Cold War's "ice skating" feeling but it also feels unnecessarily bouncy particularly when walking over terrain like snow - and the movement plus the way the camera moves feel unnatural and occasionally make me a tad nauseous. The quick pace can be a pro or a con depending on the map and how people are playing it, but in general I found the pace of Vanguard to be fun at first. Vanguard's gunplay is very nice - the guns feel a bit "hollow" (hard to explain) to me but they handle well and are fun to use. I've maxed out all the available Operators and maxed out maybe 24 of the guns thus far across a mix of weapon classes. When Vanguard first launched, I spent a bunch of time with it and had a good "honeymoon period" as another poster worded it :) I'd have to double check after work but believe I've logged maybe 5-7 days of game time on it. We play only Multiplayer (which itself has many game modes) and do not play Zombies. I play on PS4, and my daughter plays on PC. In its early going, I did hit some glitches in Cold War, but they were irritating bugs which were later fixed and were not intrinsic to the game's design philosophy. I'm an "Old Guy" at 43 years old and dig the graphics style (totally subjective), character continuity with previous COD games (also subjective), a weapons upgrade system that had sufficient flexibility but was not overly complicated (subjective again), and the greater skill gap (less subjective but still not objective by any means). Personally, I logged 37 days of game time in Cold War since its launch and it is my favorite COD to date. I can see why some people would prefer one over the other, and vice-versa, so you'll get a mix of comments which may not pertain to your personal preferences. Outside of both being named "Call Of Duty" they may as well be considered entirely different franchises. IMO only - try both games if possible and then choose. Thats not true halo is getting there halo infinite multiplayer actually happens to be quite good the campaign was better and atleast they have anti cheat that works cod has been a spawning ground for cheaters just as much as sitting water is for mosquitoes so cod does have competitors because there are games of better quality than cod games the only difference is people are excited for the cod games because there have been good ones in the past and are expecting them to be great so they get more sales cod 4 was the best of all but now its dead and there is no effective anti cheat so pretty much what is left is hackers and then the rest are players that didn't get the newest game and those people usually dislike the hackers ruining the game swbf2 also challenges cod because they are only at the second game and in the middle of making the third and swbf2 is not anywhere near dead the game still has a mass amount of players playing the game so battle front 2 is thriving even though the game had a rough start unlike cod vanguard which started out badly and still is doing quite badly
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |