Well, personally I prefer 3 as well but I still accept that Treyarch could have done far better with the game and did muck up a few things. Which is why you wont see me anywhere saying Treyarch are better than IW etc.

Now imagine if both companies got together and added the best from each game maybe then we would have the perfect COD.

I liked IW for COD2 because I liked the variety of the maps and the way some of the guns worked differently. More variety in weapons and countries.

I liked Treyarch for what they brought to 3. Examples being the bigger maps, variety of maps, classes, tanks/jeeps are not such a big thing but they were a nice touch. Oh and STICKY grenades. I can't ever imagine a COD game without sticky grenades now.

---

If you use Glitches or Team Kill on purpose - NO quarter will be given.
Don't make me 'nade smack you!

I'm glad CoD 3 is still going strong. My Xbox has had the red ring of death for the last 4 months and I have only just gotten round to sending it off for repair. I was a little concerned that when I got it back CoD 3 would be a graveyard on Live. Looking forward to some games!

 Seraph Xer0 wrote:

COD4>COD2>COD3

Treyarch sucks.

Eventually someone agrees with me

---

R.I.P. Tommy Burns

It's absurd that Infinity ward released COD4 without CTF, it's getting boring fast without CTF games. Also the "host quits the game" so the whole game ends is retarded and is annoying me more and more. They also easily could have added vehilces and more players to certain levels/gametypes.

COD3>COD4>COD2>Infinity ward fanboys

Call of Duty 2 has the best online game play and single player on veteran was the hardest out of the three.COD2 reigns over all the COD's.I just wish people would start playing it again.

COD 4 is not buggy like COD 3. That makes it more fun to play and you can find rank games in COD 4.

 

COD 3 = playing with vehicle whorez (NOOBS)

---

[-]http://card.mygamercard.net/lastgame/smox88.png[/-]

well ive been playing Cod4 for quite a while and i enjoy the online play more. i like the modern warfare better than wwII stuff. but the single player is must better that the single player on Cod3. but im not going to argue. unless people want to . i do like Cod3 and i think it just about matches cod4 on evrythiing but Cod4 just has that little bit better for example the graphics are way better.

hello people again lol. i just want to say were is the viva pinata post?. anyway everybody get on it if you have it its qaulity and maybe ill help you guys because i own at it and i have a bear took me ages.

 

hello people again lol. i just want to say were is the viva pinata post?. anyway everybody get on it if you have it its qaulity and maybe ill help you guys because i own at it and i have a bear took me ages.

 

 DarK07EndingS wrote:

well ive been playing Cod4 for quite a while and i enjoy the online play more. i like the modern warfare better than wwII stuff. but the single player is must better that the single player on Cod3. but im not going to argue. unless people want to . i do like Cod3 and i think it just about matches cod4 on evrythiing but Cod4 just has that little bit better for example the graphics are way better.

Well that's to expected because of the age difference. I can't say I find anything wrong with the graphics compared to that on COD4 online.

---

My Setup & Website.
Wii: 20819625 93312746, PSN: CASgamer398
Black Dingoo A320 owner.

 GREATMIGHTYPOO2 wrote:

Call of Duty 2 has the best online game play and single player on veteran was the hardest out of the three.COD2 reigns over all the COD's.I just wish people would start playing it again.

I miss COD2 too. Sure I can play it anytime I want to because I still have the game but I simply just wont play it. It's far too laggy for me. If they had only used the peer to peer system then I would play it again. I prefer the maps on 2 over 3 too (mostly) and I like how you get to be the Russian side as well as the Brits.

---

If you use Glitches or Team Kill on purpose - NO quarter will be given.
Don't make me 'nade smack you!

 Shihan Do Jack wrote:

Well I tried to enjoy COD4 on-line multiplay, but couldn't.  I'm back to COD3 - it's simply more challenging and fun.

COD4 has problems. It's graphics and audio are great - I don't even mind using modern weapons (Like the WWII weapons better).  It just has to many problems and limitations.  I like playing with friends, but not only on my team.  COD4 friends may only play team games and be on the same team.  That sucks - now I can't T-bag my friends, were's the fun? God, what good is having friends if you can't T-bag them.

They should not have change the game so much. They should have just changed the weapons and left the kits and multiplay alone. 

Check out my link in the COD4 forum.  I believe you will see why more players are go to jump back to COD3.

http://forums.xbox.com/2/16822572/ShowPost.aspx#16822572

For all the peolpe who love COD4, in case you think I didn't give it a chance; whenever I play I placed either 1 through 4 no matter what size the lobby; unless there was really bad lag and targeting problems.

Long Live COD3

Long live cod3. I think along with battlefield 2 it has (has im afraid-why do people move on :( ) been one of the bests online shooting games. I am afraid the dreaded 3 red lights has stopped me being able to cod4(i appreciate your views on saving my money but i just have to try it) but nevertheless cod3 was amazing. Also is cod4 similar to battlefield 2? I also agree with you about improving. I could also see the improvement. When i started i was using the BARand M1 and towards the end i could use the kar and sniper effectively. Also i finished veteran at the end which was frustating and extremely difficult and very challenging but you get a great sense of achievement when you are running around shooting your gun in the air on the final level!WOOT! how is COD4 veteran in comparison?harder, funner, longer? Long live Cod3 and battlefield modern combat!!!!!!!

I'm getting a bit fed up with CoD4 MP because of the high dependence of getting a host with a decent connection for it to be fair. This is exacerbated by the smallness of the maps and the powerfulness of the modern weapons. It becomes a cr@pshoot as to whether you kill or be killed. And its not my connection that sucks...I have 8Mbps down and 1.5Mbps up. I have also yet to be a host in a single game, which is quite bizarre, since I've played on servers that could only have been hosted by someone on a dial-up, they were that bad.

---

In Australia from 10th Nov - 8th Jan :-D

CoD4 is awesome, but nothing beats CoD3 clan matches, no game.

---

If we don't believe in freedom of expression for people we despise, we don't believe in it at all. - Noam Chomsky

I enjoyed COD4 single player more but i really miss the multiplayer on COD3. I think its much better than COD4 and the maps are better

  The OPs reason for not liking COD4 is an almost necessary feature. If the party could get on different teams then they would boost very easily. If they were able to get on different teams your reason for not liking it would be all of the boosting.

   And the person that said the host ended game is stupid, ROFL, does anyone remember COD3s launch? It was 10x as bad with connection issues, in fact that's why I quit playing it (I did port forwarding). Give them a chance to put an update in before you start criticizing connection problems. They have said that the update should add the ability to make someone else the host if he quits.

  You can like COD3 I won't criticise you for it, but at least think about your reasons for not liking COD4 before you go bashing it.

---

"To be prepared for War is one of the most effectual means of preserving peace".-George Washington.

 TCO Termanator wrote:

  The OPs reason for not liking COD4 is an almost necessary feature. If the party could get on different teams then they would boost very easily. If they were able to get on different teams your reason for not liking it would be all of the boosting.

   And the person that said the host ended game is stupid, ROFL, does anyone remember COD3s launch? It was 10x as bad with connection issues, in fact that's why I quit playing it (I did port forwarding). Give them a chance to put an update in before you start criticizing connection problems. They have said that the update should add the ability to make someone else the host if he quits.

  You can like COD3 I won't criticise you for it, but at least think about your reasons for not liking COD4 before you go bashing it.

One of the main reasons I don't like COD4 is the fact that is not peer to peer for connection. This makes it far too laggy for me and un-playable. It was the same on COD2. Yet here on peer to peer in COD3 I have no problems what so ever. So for that I will dislike the game and you can't change my mind on that. They wont change this or update it either.

---

If you use Glitches or Team Kill on purpose - NO quarter will be given.
Don't make me 'nade smack you!

 Paulytnz wrote:

 TCO Termanator wrote:

  The OPs reason for not liking COD4 is an almost necessary feature. If the party could get on different teams then they would boost very easily. If they were able to get on different teams your reason for not liking it would be all of the boosting.

   And the person that said the host ended game is stupid, ROFL, does anyone remember COD3s launch? It was 10x as bad with connection issues, in fact that's why I quit playing it (I did port forwarding). Give them a chance to put an update in before you start criticizing connection problems. They have said that the update should add the ability to make someone else the host if he quits.

  You can like COD3 I won't criticise you for it, but at least think about your reasons for not liking COD4 before you go bashing it.

One of the main reasons I don't like COD4 is the fact that is not peer to peer for connection. This makes it far too laggy for me and un-playable. It was the same on COD2. Yet here on peer to peer in COD3 I have no problems what so ever. So for that I will dislike the game and you can't change my mind on that. They wont change this or update it either.

  Peer to peer also requires the person playing to have a perfect router, and to know how to tweak it for hours until it's perfect. I'll take the laggy game 1 out of 10 times.

---

"To be prepared for War is one of the most effectual means of preserving peace".-George Washington.

 TCO Termanator wrote:

 Paulytnz wrote:

 TCO Termanator wrote:

  The OPs reason for not liking COD4 is an almost necessary feature. If the party could get on different teams then they would boost very easily. If they were able to get on different teams your reason for not liking it would be all of the boosting.

   And the person that said the host ended game is stupid, ROFL, does anyone remember COD3s launch? It was 10x as bad with connection issues, in fact that's why I quit playing it (I did port forwarding). Give them a chance to put an update in before you start criticizing connection problems. They have said that the update should add the ability to make someone else the host if he quits.

  You can like COD3 I won't criticise you for it, but at least think about your reasons for not liking COD4 before you go bashing it.

One of the main reasons I don't like COD4 is the fact that is not peer to peer for connection. This makes it far too laggy for me and un-playable. It was the same on COD2. Yet here on peer to peer in COD3 I have no problems what so ever. So for that I will dislike the game and you can't change my mind on that. They wont change this or update it either.

  Peer to peer also requires the person playing to have a perfect router, and to know how to tweak it for hours until it's perfect. I'll take the laggy game 1 out of 10 times.

It requires you to have an open NAT...if that takes hours to achieve then you shouldnt be allowed near the internet, or own a router.

---

In Australia from 10th Nov - 8th Jan :-D

 Neillydun wrote:

 TCO Termanator wrote:

 Paulytnz wrote:

 TCO Termanator wrote:

  The OPs reason for not liking COD4 is an almost necessary feature. If the party could get on different teams then they would boost very easily. If they were able to get on different teams your reason for not liking it would be all of the boosting.

   And the person that said the host ended game is stupid, ROFL, does anyone remember COD3s launch? It was 10x as bad with connection issues, in fact that's why I quit playing it (I did port forwarding). Give them a chance to put an update in before you start criticizing connection problems. They have said that the update should add the ability to make someone else the host if he quits.

  You can like COD3 I won't criticise you for it, but at least think about your reasons for not liking COD4 before you go bashing it.

One of the main reasons I don't like COD4 is the fact that is not peer to peer for connection. This makes it far too laggy for me and un-playable. It was the same on COD2. Yet here on peer to peer in COD3 I have no problems what so ever. So for that I will dislike the game and you can't change my mind on that. They wont change this or update it either.

  Peer to peer also requires the person playing to have a perfect router, and to know how to tweak it for hours until it's perfect. I'll take the laggy game 1 out of 10 times.

It requires you to have an open NAT...if that takes hours to achieve then you shouldnt be allowed near the internet, or own a router.

  I had an Open NAT and couldn't get into games. Whenever I did Port Forwarding it made it closed, with the same thing. Now what would you suggest I should have done with an Open NAT but still not being able to get into games?

---

"To be prepared for War is one of the most effectual means of preserving peace".-George Washington.

 TCO Termanator wrote:

 Neillydun wrote:

 TCO Termanator wrote:

 Paulytnz wrote:

 TCO Termanator wrote:

  The OPs reason for not liking COD4 is an almost necessary feature. If the party could get on different teams then they would boost very easily. If they were able to get on different teams your reason for not liking it would be all of the boosting.

   And the person that said the host ended game is stupid, ROFL, does anyone remember COD3s launch? It was 10x as bad with connection issues, in fact that's why I quit playing it (I did port forwarding). Give them a chance to put an update in before you start criticizing connection problems. They have said that the update should add the ability to make someone else the host if he quits.

  You can like COD3 I won't criticise you for it, but at least think about your reasons for not liking COD4 before you go bashing it.

One of the main reasons I don't like COD4 is the fact that is not peer to peer for connection. This makes it far too laggy for me and un-playable. It was the same on COD2. Yet here on peer to peer in COD3 I have no problems what so ever. So for that I will dislike the game and you can't change my mind on that. They wont change this or update it either.

  Peer to peer also requires the person playing to have a perfect router, and to know how to tweak it for hours until it's perfect. I'll take the laggy game 1 out of 10 times.

It requires you to have an open NAT...if that takes hours to achieve then you shouldnt be allowed near the internet, or own a router.

  I had an Open NAT and couldn't get into games. Whenever I did Port Forwarding it made it closed, with the same thing. Now what would you suggest I should have done with an Open NAT but still not being able to get into games?

There is a difference between having an open NAT for XBL (i.e. what you get confirmed when you do a network settings check) and having one for a specific game/p2p application. There is also the problem of having multiple NAT traversal methods (port forwarding/triggering, DMZ, uPnP) active at the same time as it confuses the firmware in some routers. So the rule of thumb is have one at a time.

All I know is I was able to instruct my sister (a certified technical idiot) on how to open the NAT on her daughter's 360, over the telephone, and that involved her setting up a static IP in her router...in no way did it require hours to achieve.

---

In Australia from 10th Nov - 8th Jan :-D

 Neillydun wrote:

There is a difference between having an open NAT for XBL (i.e. what you get confirmed when you do a network settings check) and having one for a specific game/p2p application. There is also the problem of having multiple NAT traversal methods (port forwarding/triggering, DMZ, uPnP) active at the same time as it confuses the firmware in some routers. So the rule of thumb is have one at a time.

All I know is I was able to instruct my sister (a certified technical idiot) on how to open the NAT on her daughter's 360, over the telephone, and that involved her setting up a static IP in her router...in no way did it require hours to achieve.

  I don't know then. Some people just have a router that isn't going to work right away. I tried everything I could see I did it without uPnP i did it just portforwarding. Like I said I sat aroud for hours on different occasions trying to change it I think I tried almost every combination I could think of and nothing.

   Like I said COD3 had tons of connection issues when it came out. IW has said that there next update will probably include stuff that will make the connections better. And in my opinion COD4 has A LOT more replay value then COD 3 and quite better graphics. 

  Just because your sister was able to do it right off the bat doesn't mean there weren't quite a few other people with the game not working whatever they did. A good example would be those connection help threads that were here on the forums and had hundereds of people posting for help with there router.

---

"To be prepared for War is one of the most effectual means of preserving peace".-George Washington.

CoD4's MP is awful. Just awful. Thank God there are still plenty of allied troops to snipe at Eder Dam.

 

 

Halo sucks my a s s. Keep that sh*t outta my CoD franchise.

Lets all just forget that COD4 has even come out. Play COD3 until you have achieved 1000 Gamerscore for it.

---

I need money$$$

Lol at people who say CoD3 is buggy, no it's not sometimes ranked rooms drop if the host doesn't have a good connection, well one out of three games I play in CoD4 right now gets disconnected, host leaves, lags out, or can't get my guys into the room, it is glitchy as ***, seriously CoD3 was not that bad for ranked, and if it bothered you that much play player matches.

---

If we don't believe in freedom of expression for people we despise, we don't believe in it at all. - Noam Chomsky

After giving COD4 a try for a couple of weeks, I have come to the conclusion that COD4 > COD3.   At first I couldn't stand it, because I'd take two steps and get shot in multiplayer, or get blown up by some dudes nade that I just killed.   The tactics are WAY different, and once you get it down a bit, it's a LOT more fun and challenging than COD3.  It just takes practice. 

---

Rose McGowan, if you're out there, call me!

 Joe Pool Tech wrote:

After giving COD4 a try for a couple of weeks, I have come to the conclusion that COD4 > COD3.   At first I couldn't stand it, because I'd take two steps and get shot in multiplayer, or get blown up by some dudes nade that I just killed.   The tactics are WAY different, and once you get it down a bit, it's a LOT more fun and challenging than COD3.  It just takes practice. 

Fair enough. Personally I have played it for 1 day now my k/d is about 1.75 and I am usually the top player or one of(as usual). You're right it is way different and I can see how so many people prefer it to COD3. I suppose 3 might be more of an aquired taste but I do think as an FPS it is better. If it wasn't for unlockables I wouldn't have played 4 so much. It just seemed every time I played 3 people were willing to communicate and wanted to work as a team and team work was much more apparent and rewarding. When I play 4 it just feels like it is a race to see who can get a heli, air strike or come first. It is good but just nowhere near as good as 3 for me.

---

My Setup & Website.
Wii: 20819625 93312746, PSN: CASgamer398
Black Dingoo A320 owner.

I can care less which company makes the dam game -realy who cares.  The bottom line is I'm going to play the game that is more challenging and more fun to play.  In this case it just happens to be COD3.

I still am playing COD4, but only to unlock weapons and to play with friends who still enjoy COD4; however, they are also realizing the problems with COD4.  I think that within the next month they will all be back to COD3.

COD 4 should have kept the same multiplayer structure, just updating the programming, graphics, and modernizing the weapons - that would have made a great game.  Although, I still like the WWII weapons better because it takes more skill to get a kill.

---

I may just be the last thing you see before you re-spawn!

My opinion .. COD2 multiplayer is better than COD3 .. never cared for COD3 multiplayer much .. and COD4 def. has more of a learning curve ..

long live COD3 just brought COD4 to play and within half an hour of playing online i was bac on COD3. COD4 just not good back to the shop it goes