6? What the fuck where have I been
It’s even better if you call it by it’s number of release in the whole chronological series, which would make this call of duty 52.
I feel oldno its call of duty getting oldcall of duty is old
Same. I played the first one and it was ok.
I dunno I find these games are always the same and there’s no point in playing every release.
Years ago I told myself I’d play every 3rd COD game because of this, but haven’t played one since the 360.
This is Call of Duty 22.
Is it really that good?
Also, If I have never played any CoD, how and where should I start?
If you mean singleplayer campaigns: as far back as you can stomach the graphics of.
If you actually want good campaigns, Black Ops 1 is fuckin legendary. World At War was also great. As is Modern Warfare (2007) and Modern Warfare 2(2009). Modern Warfare 3 (2011) was also good. Black Ops 2 was good. I wouldn’t bother with any further Black Ops games- one of them doesn’t even have a campaign iirc.
For the much much newer titles, Modern Warfare (2019) was good. Modern Warfare (2022) was also solid. Modern Warfare 3 is ‘last years title’ being referred to in the OP.
None of these are narrative masterpieces exactly- the closest is probably the Black Ops games. With that said, they’re very much ‘action movie’ videogames. Tons of crazy set pieces, unique segments, and then the cutscenes that usually tie together a reasonable enough plot to be interesting.
If you mean multiplayer: honestly just jump into Black Ops 6. None of the older titles are likely to be a great experience at this point. Or just spend your time on a better game lol
Are the stories related in the campaigns? Or are they stand alone like Battlefield games?
It depends a lot on the series, for exanple Modern Warfare usually has related campaigns, for both its modern and original trilogies. Bkack ops is way more unrelated
They’re related. Plus Warzone season trailers also count as lore.
Some of them are related. Some of them aren’t.
Black Ops and Modern Warfare are generally two separate series- the Modern Warfare games are all related.
Black Ops is a lot more complicated. Black Ops 2 is a direct sequel to Black Ops 1. Technically Black Ops 1 is sort of a sequel to World At War, as well. They share a major character, but it’s kind of a minor thing and you won’t be missing a ton.
Black Ops 3 has basically nothing to do with the rest- it takes place in 2065 and basically the only thing that links it to the previous games is a throwaway line related to a previous villain and some text logs.
Black Ops 4 didn’t have a singleplayer campaign.
Black Ops 5 is Black Ops: Cold War, it is related to 1 & 2 but it’s less of a direct continuation and more just the same characters are involved iirc.
Black Ops 6 follows up Cold War, but again is just the same characters.
Personally, I’d suggest doing World At War, Black Ops 1, Black Ops 2, Cold War, and then Black Ops 6 for the ‘full experience.’ If you wanna circle back around and do Black Ops 3, you can do that pretty much whenever because as I said it’s unrelated. You can drop World At War if it doesn’t interest you without any real issues. As I said, it just sets up a single character. Dropping any of the others you might actually be confused on plot and characters at points, idk.
Modern Warfare is a lot simpler. Just do them in order.
I’m not super into CoD and the last one I played (not counting remasters) were Advanced Warfare campaign and some Black Ops 3 multiplayer. They were okay but at that point I was quite tired with the series. I started BO6 on my XSX and the single player campaign is quite fun. I probably won’t be touching multiplayer on the account of being old.
The thing about CoD campaigns is that you have to suspend your disbelief and go with the flow of what game is throwing at you. There’s a lot of scripted scenes where you just have to push through to progress to next scripted scene. If you play to exploit that you won’t get much enjoyment. Treat it like a amusement park ride and it’ll treat you with bombastic set pieces.
I’m not sure if I’m missing anything lore-wise. Black Ops 1&2 which I played were heavy on spy / CIA stuff, plot twists and I enjoyed them a lot. So far I’m just assuming BO6 is cryptic on purpose like older ones so it doesn’t bother me that I jumped without playing previous ones.
Technically CoD games have always been rather accomplished with nice visuals while targeting 60fps (but not making a big deal out of dropping to 50 or so). BO6 looks very good.
Overall it’s not some revolutionary or overly ambitious game but it’s quite competent equivalent of a popcorn flick.
If you’ve never played a CoD at all, I would recommend just playing the campaign (might be buggy atm though). It usually teaches all the necessary skills in order to be at least of some use in PvP, even when you aren’t a pro in shooters.
Other than that, the Zombies mode is nice.
The original modern warfare or original black ops is a great place to start. Sadly you’ll never experience the way multiplayer was back then but the campaigns are pretty good
CoD 2. Best campaign of the series imo. But it is a very different game from anything since MW. And of course it is some 20 years old by now.
I’m confused by this, I didn’t think mw3 was received poorly and playing blops6 I definitely think mw3 was better.
Would you pay 70€ for DLC that was repackaged into a standalone game.
I watched a video because i was curious since i have only played call of duty 4 and mw2 and then warzone. People talked about how the operators and skins didn’t transfer. That tells you everything about these games. They could all be dlc’s but then they couldn’t sell people new skins. And people actually buying them is pretty grim for gaming in general
They’re going for the sports model. Why update a game for free when they can change the skin, kind of update the graphics, repackage the same story and call it a new game?
