Last Video, Read Description! Call of Duty WW2 Multiplayer Gameplay #271 Occupation
180I'm done with youtube. I'm more or less done with gaming as well. Xbox turned to shit as it's performance is bad, the community is absolute cancer, and has no good games at all, which is why they are forcing backward compatibility so much, so inefficiently. Old games can't be played due to lagging/lack of servers/noone playing it. New games are shallow, incomplete money suckers because:
a) they're just a remastered version of a good old game. (Have fun buying the game once again just so that you can play through the game again for 105th time, which you probably can do on the old gen console of yours or via backward compatibility for free)
b) game developers have forgotten what a real game is and now all they do is trying to sugarcoat their shallow product so that you buy something unfinished which they will try to complete with an armament of DLCs but more than half of it is just useless skins (which doesn't even add content to the still shallow game), but people still buy those games and DLCs for some reason. And by doing that people not just fullfilling developers' goals to make as much money as possible but also justifying them that these products worth buying.
As for Call of Duty (since my channel is most known for that I feel that I should mention it). There is sooo much to say so I start with MW3 which was my favourite for several reasons. But most of all it was my favourite because it actually felt good to play, in terms of:
1) Maps: The original multiplayer maps were perfectly designed. You had many options for choosing routes/places where to assault/flank/lay low for a bit. Every route had a purpose connecting different places which made it possible to be wherever you wanted to be with the knowing of what you can expect on the road and your destination. These maps were big and secluded, unlike *ahem... CoD WW2... ahem*. But why is it so important? Well if you played CoD WW2 you already know the answer to that, but let me wisen you up either way. It is importan because on small maps you can't move freely, and you're always in a constant threat of dying, especially if its not secluded, which is exactly the case in WW2. You can be everywhere in an instant (your opponent too) and you can see most of the map from anywhere (so does your opponent) and these 2 factors made that game so slow, campy, dying fest. Unlike in MW3 where you could always find a place where you were absolutely safe for an extended period of time, but you could join the action at any given point, which made it able to keep your streak going steady. Also there were I believe 15 original maps (not just 8). And mentioning streaks here comes point number two.
2) Streaks: In MW3 we had killstreaks. KILLSTREAKS. Not this bullshit scorestreak system. In MW3 a simple uav costs only 3 kills (300 score in TDM), 4 if you were running support streaks. At WW2 we got to the point that a simple uav costs 500 points, which is 5 kills in TDM. WTF? SRSLY? 5 fucking kills for a uav? (Even more if you play some other gamemode). In MW3 you had lethal killstreaks in assault, useful ones in support and had bonus perks in specialist. And what did we get in WW2? Things that are harder to earn than a diploma but worth less than a piece of used toilet paper. But wait... What did I say earlier? Perks?
3) Oh yeah... we used to have balanced, useful perks which we could chose however we wanted to, that are werent bound together to the division you chose... Fucking bullshit I tell you.
4) The setting: Why the fuck did we went so much into the future? To not have cancer cured still? Because exo skeletal movements/abilites/jetpacking IS cancer.
5) The mechanics: In MW3 everything felt nice (except the death streaks), from moving, turning, shooting, hitmarking, grenade throwing, getting hurt, healing up... EVERYTHING. I remember watching a Tmartn video where he said that in CoD WW2 they wanted to make you feel vulnerable by having your healing time extended to like 6-10 seconds. What a fucking joke considering the ammount of bullet one can take without dying... (nonetheless they already achieved vulnerability with the small maps and their openness). Well MW3 got it right with the damage the weapons output. The aiming system was great with its 10 different sensitivity level, while the thumbstick had at least 6 different state (meaning you had at least 6 different turning speed depending on the position of your thumbstick) unlike in later CoDs. And these are just some some of the aspects considering the mechanics.
6) Others: A not very appealing, but a lot more logically built, easy to use menu network.
No DLC weapons.
Good servers.
...
Yeah it sounds like I'm ripping on WW2, but that is the game I can contrast it real good with. But just so you know, after MW3 the CoD series just went downhill into a deathpit...
I almost reached the full lenght of the description now, so this was my rant for the gaming industry which has died for me.
Other Videos By KGeri97
Other Statistics
Call of Duty: WWII Statistics For KGeri97
At present, KGeri97 has 88,337 views spread across 275 videos for Call of Duty: WWII, with His channel publishing over 1 day worth of content for the game. This makes up 11.45% of Call of Duty: WWII content that KGeri97 has uploaded to YouTube.