Worst Call Of Duty Multiplayer So Far?

[3Quency]

In my opinion I do find Ghost's multiplayer to be not a patch on the earlier versions, the modern warfares had such a stronger map choice and intensity, what do you think?

 

[AndreiFL]

I think it's still a fun and intense MP. It could have been brighter, but it was pretty decent compared to other series. Almost all of the COD games had a great MP.

 

[powerfulmind]

It wasn't up to scratch but at least my enemies got more than a scratch.
Tomahawk to the face!

 

[ReaperTV]

It was way to laggy. Maps were terrible. The graphics were poor. I didn't enjoy at all. It could have been a decent game if there weren't any Ieds. That basically ruined the entire game for me. It got me so mad that I didn't even rage, just sat there and accepted it. The lag was a huge problem. Especially in competitive.

 

[gh0st233]

I haven't play this game to have a strong opinion on it, but I have watched a few videos of it on YouTube. And from what I've seen, it didn't even feel or look like a Call of Duty game. It felt a lot different, but in a bad way. I think that's why they don't change the engine, if they did, the game would change so drastically, and everyone would think of it as "the worst Call of Duty". I think we should look at it as a game that isn't bad, rather than the worst Call of Duty in the series. I don't even think it's the worst one in the series, I think Call of Duty 3 is the worst one in the series, definitely. That felt more like Day of Defeat, or something.

 

[js85]

I agree that it's the "worst" but I don't think that means it's unplayable. I go to it every now and then, but it didn't take long for me to discover that squads was way more enjoyable. I have a really big problem with campers and snipers -- being that I'm always the dummy to walk straight into their traps -- and that's what a lot of Ghosts consists of, unfortunately. I tend to love maps like Tremor and Warhawk, with a smaller playing field and less camping.

 

[moaz13]

When the levels are this badly designed and there's an infinite tunnel of corridors and corners you get shot from everywhere and the spawns are terrible. This is definitely the worst of them all.

 

[GlacialDoom_Imported3]

All the maps feel the same and the gameplay feels slower than the one of the earlier titles. I not only think this is the worst call of duty multiplayer, but the worst call of duty game altogether. The singleplayer campaign was alright, but I felt like it was trying too much to impress me, and that's why it failed. For example, I didn't give two shits when Riley got shot.

Getting back to the multiplayer, I found the performance on my mid-high PC to be atrocious, running way worse than it should have. A friend of mine pre-ordered the game and got fucked up by the 6gb of ram initial requirement.

 

[Yoso123]

The maps feel so boring and bland, not to mention big. Some series, like Battlefield, can do good with big maps since they have vehicles and more people in a match, but Call of Duty is about smaller lobbies with no vehicles. I can see why they added bigger maps (encourage people to stick together and flank), but it doesn't fit the run and gun style of 99 percent of Cod players. The trick to a good map isn't how big and open it is, it's just the design of the map. The devs were lazy, and created maps with big open spaces and random pathways. Counterstrike is a good example of good mapmaking. The maps are easy to memorize, but at the same time strategy is rewarded. Ghosts had the worst maps, and I won't even mention weapon balance, camping, killstreaks, etc.

 

[moaz13]

The maps feel so boring and bland, not to mention big. Some series, like Battlefield, can do good with big maps since they have vehicles and more people in a match, but Call of Duty is about smaller lobbies with no vehicles. I can see why they added bigger maps (encourage people to stick together and flank), but it doesn't fit the run and gun style of 99 percent of Cod players. The trick to a good map isn't how big and open it is, it's just the design of the map. The devs were lazy, and created maps with big open spaces and random pathways. Counterstrike is a good example of good mapmaking. The maps are easy to memorize, but at the same time strategy is rewarded. Ghosts had the worst maps, and I won't even mention weapon balance, camping, killstreaks, etc.

I agree with the ghosts criticism, but I think AW did killstreaks (score streaks) and loadouts much much better, except for the arbitrary locking of scopes and weapons behind nonsense levels, like cosmetic scopes behind a number of headshots for no reason (no reason a scope is better than the other, it's personal preference)

 

[KNH]

Like other people mentioned, the maps were my biggest problem with it. I kind of got bored with it and the campers were just killing me non-stop. I was really hoping for more when this came out but was sorely disappointed.

 

[nekroz]

The maps don't look really ugly, huge turn off to play in. DLC maps look better but, they aren't free...I also feel it's much too easier to kill people, that makes the game boring when you win too much or when you get crushed mercilessly...However the biggest problem is that playing on PC (which I do or did...), not very many people for matchmaking sometimes.

 

[bsthebenster]

I never had any problem with the lag people talk about. My main problem with Ghosts is that they encourage camping. Giant maps with tonnes of camping spots, the ability to have two I.E.D.s and the poor quality of short range weapons with the possible exception of the mtar. On most maps, it seems to make more sense to camp than to not camp.