what do you think about Call Of Duty?

In my opinion i think that Call Of Duty was good untill they made MW2 which had a terrible campaign and no plot in it. It is totaly crap compared to World at War which had a great campaign and a much more enjoyable gameplay including the Nazi Zombies mode. i have not played MW3 and from what i heard it is meant to be "good" but im still not getting it as i want about 5 other games other than MW3. i have made a poll to see where people stand with C.O.D. you can choose a multiple choice as long as they are related to other choices you have choosen

I've said it's good and bad.. because it is.. there are many aspects of Call Of Duty which are good, like Nazi Zombies or a good campaign but then there's stuff like MW3. They obviously rushed the game, didn't have any new, fresh ideas for it and didn't know when to just stop making call of duty.. I think modern warfare and world at war are very good, but the ones like MW3 aren't that fascinating..

I voted for three options: "Good", "Bad" and "Epic". Epic because, well, let's face it - that's exactly what the first Call of Duty was. It revolutionized the genre of first-person shooters. I still can't forget its dramatic (yet also historically accurate) depiction of the battle of Stalingrad. It's just one of those moments in gaming that stays with you long after you've played through it. But that wasn't the only thing, almost everything about the game was stellar. For a 2003 release, it was truly ahead of its time. The United Offensive expansion pack didn't re-invent what CoD did, but it did add some nice new features that refined the experience.

Call of Duty 2 was not as special and not as great, but it was still a very good addition to the series. While its regenerating health system was something I did not like, I guess the general public thought otherwise at the time of release (since it has become a standard in most FPS games ever since). Call of Duty 4: Modern Warfare was better, but still not as stunning as what we've seen in the first part of the series. Of course, thanks to the new technology and evolving state of gaming, Modern Warfare had some spectacular scripted events. Yet - in the end - its campaign was a little bit disappointing anyway, with a plot that utilized racism and showed American imperialism in a good way, as well as being overly short. Overall, CoD4 was almost just as revolutionary as the first game, but only in multiplayer.

World at War was awesome. It was really nothing new, and yet it somehow managed to make an old & overused setting more than enjoyable. Its stronger atmosphere, darker themes, bloodier battles, more dramatic portrayal of war and its entertaining Nazi zombies game mode make up for the lack of new features in both singleplayer & multiplayer... enough so that I'd say the game is equal to CoD4 in terms of overall quality (probably better in singleplayer, but worse in multi).

I've missed out the other instalments in this commercially successful series of shooters because, although I have played most of them, I never completed them as I own only CoD, CoD: UO, CoD2, CoD4: MW and CoD: WaW. I may eventually get MW2, BO and MW3; though I'm more than certain that those three games struggle to be good by simply not offering enough new features and innovative content - if any at all.