Is this game worth for the campaign?

[Normandia]

Are there co op missions that give a good replayability? This game is too expensive for a 3 hour campaign

[brimstone]

nobody plays spec ops

[Dennis]

the SP is pretty good.

[tyl0413]

Campaign is not bad but not amazing either, I wouldn't pay $30 for it personally, maybe for half of that it's fine.

[QUAKETALLICA]

Originally posted by Normandia:

Are there co op missions that give a good replayability? This game is too expensive for a 3 hour campaign

It's not a 3 hour campaign. It's a CoD campaign, which is always roughly 6 hours on Regular, but I personally played it on the hardest setting, aka Realism difficulty, which is essentially the usual Veteran difficulty with all the HUD turned off. I specifically wanted the crosshairs off for immersion, and this seemed to be the only way to do it, otherwise I would've gone with Hardened which is what I usually pick.

Long story short, no, it is really more like around 10+ hours if you play on the harder difficulties, which you should. It forces you to play the game more realistically and less action movie-y, which suits the tone of the campaign movie more.

And imo, it is one of the best campaigns in the entire series, and the best of all the Modern Warfares, even better than the original CoD 4, and easily far better than MW2 or 3.

However, multiplayer on the other hand is rather mediocre. Tons of recycled old maps, and lacking game modes that were there back in the 360 days like demolition, one in the chamber, sticks & stones. How do you have fewer game modes than the originals you're rebooting? There should be more, given it's been like 8 years between MW3 and MW '19.

Ground War is a cool novelty, but in practice, why would you ever want to play such a watered down, barebones version of Battlefield? If you wanted to play a real Battlefield game, BF 4 or 3 or Bad Company 2 are a third or less of the price at $10 or sometimes even $5 on sale. Even Battlefield 2 from 2005 was far more in-depth than this game's attempt at a Conquest mode. I'm certainly happy that CoD is including this mode, but realistically why would you ever want to play it?

[lil dookie]

Ye, the campaign is great, fun missions

[lil dookie]

Originally posted by QUAKETALLICA:

Originally posted by Normandia:

Are there co op missions that give a good replayability? This game is too expensive for a 3 hour campaign

It's not a 3 hour campaign. It's a CoD campaign, which is always roughly 6 hours on Regular, but I personally played it on the hardest setting, aka Realism difficulty, which is essentially the usual Veteran difficulty with all the HUD turned off. I specifically wanted the crosshairs off for immersion, and this seemed to be the only way to do it, otherwise I would've gone with Hardened which is what I usually pick.

Long story short, no, it is really more like around 10+ hours if you play on the harder difficulties, which you should. It forces you to play the game more realistically and less action movie-y, which suits the tone of the campaign movie more.

And imo, it is one of the best campaigns in the entire series, and the best of all the Modern Warfares, even better than the original CoD 4, and easily far better than MW2 or 3.

However, multiplayer on the other hand is rather mediocre. Tons of recycled old maps, and lacking game modes that were there back in the 360 days like demolition, one in the chamber, sticks & stones. How do you have fewer game modes than the originals you're rebooting? There should be more, given it's been like 8 years between MW3 and MW '19.

Ground War is a cool novelty, but in practice, why would you ever want to play such a watered down, barebones version of Battlefield? If you wanted to play a real Battlefield game, BF 4 or 3 or Bad Company 2 are a third or less of the price at $10 or sometimes even $5 on sale. Even Battlefield 2 from 2005 was far more in-depth than this game's attempt at a Conquest mode. I'm certainly happy that CoD is including this mode, but realistically why would you ever want to play it?

Ground war is quite fun and if u are battlefield player u will like it with a lot of ppl like both the games. Ground war is easier to get killstreaks aswell if you follow teammates etc and the ground war maps are good.

[QUAKETALLICA]

Originally posted by vingtje:

Originally posted by QUAKETALLICA:

It's not a 3 hour campaign. It's a CoD campaign, which is always roughly 6 hours on Regular, but I personally played it on the hardest setting, aka Realism difficulty, which is essentially the usual Veteran difficulty with all the HUD turned off. I specifically wanted the crosshairs off for immersion, and this seemed to be the only way to do it, otherwise I would've gone with Hardened which is what I usually pick.

Long story short, no, it is really more like around 10+ hours if you play on the harder difficulties, which you should. It forces you to play the game more realistically and less action movie-y, which suits the tone of the campaign movie more.

And imo, it is one of the best campaigns in the entire series, and the best of all the Modern Warfares, even better than the original CoD 4, and easily far better than MW2 or 3.

However, multiplayer on the other hand is rather mediocre. Tons of recycled old maps, and lacking game modes that were there back in the 360 days like demolition, one in the chamber, sticks & stones. How do you have fewer game modes than the originals you're rebooting? There should be more, given it's been like 8 years between MW3 and MW '19.

Ground War is a cool novelty, but in practice, why would you ever want to play such a watered down, barebones version of Battlefield? If you wanted to play a real Battlefield game, BF 4 or 3 or Bad Company 2 are a third or less of the price at $10 or sometimes even $5 on sale. Even Battlefield 2 from 2005 was far more in-depth than this game's attempt at a Conquest mode. I'm certainly happy that CoD is including this mode, but realistically why would you ever want to play it?

Ground war is quite fun and if u are battlefield player u will like it with a lot of ppl like both the games. Ground war is easier to get killstreaks aswell if you follow teammates etc and the ground war maps are good.

I disagree. As someone who's been playing Conquest since the original Star Wars Battlefronts from 2004 and 2005, the "Ground War" is a joke even compared to the Conquest in those games or hell even the original Battlefield 1942. I would easily play 2042 over Ground War.

The handful of maps are ass, vehicles are barely present, there's no classes like medic or engineer or assault that encourage teamplay, no reviving fallen teammates, the bullet mechanics in modern Battlefield are far superior, no destruction which Battlefield has had since like 2008 or 2009, and plus it's Call of Duty so everyone's a camping sniper a**hole. If you get mad at people who don't PTFO in Battlefield, of course it's way worse in CoD.

In short, if DICE had put this out and called it Conquest, they would be nailed to a cross and burned at the stake. It would go down as the worst Battlefield ever, way worse than BF V and 2042.

So why should Call of Duty get a free pass? They are the gaming giant, after all.

If your primary reason for getting this one is "Ground War," then don't, because literally any Battlefield game would be the same thing done a million times better.