Already played those, might replay W 2009 it's been quite a few years.

All pre-assumptions aside the Call of Duty games are pretty good though from Modern Warfare and onward they're mostly multiplayer focussed and they're overpriced IMO.
If you want a good WW2 shooter I recommend the Brothers in Arms games, though the story is a bit too overdramatic for my taste, this is where CoD wins.

In terms of gameplay I favor the WW2 games, on PC that means War Chest and World at War.

The Modern Warfare series brought a higher immersion level for me, rather on-rails but still very engaging.
Black Ops is one of the best in the series when it comes to single-player campaigns. I have not played the sequels.
I enjoyed Ghost and Advanced Warfare for the action spectacle. They're like interactive action movies.

If you only get one I would suggest Black Ops or War Chest.

In general the best for single-player are the pre-Modern Warfare games, as well as Black Ops and World at War.
The others I only recommend if you can find them very, very cheap.

Alright fair enough, I'll check out Black Ops or War chest.
Probably will give the first two a look as well.

I played CoD2 (multiple times since its release), Modern Warfare (multiple times - great missions), Modern Warfare 2 (one time), World at War (great vietnam mission), Black Ops.

I would recommend CoD2 and Modern Warfare (the first one - includes an excellent mission somewhere that can't say, maybe it's spoiler).

The first two were beautiful. Great atmosphere, decent gameplay (though the scripting will make you cringe, seeing you squadmates doing nothing and the restrictions imposed on you in the levels - god forbids doing things differently). World at War is another good choice.

You could probably skip the Modern Warfare series/Advanced Warfare/World at War. The Black Ops series is actually the next decent part of the Call of Duty in both terms of gameplay and story.

IF you are into online gaming, than you would go for Modern Warfare 1/2/3, Advanced Warfare or Ghosts. All those titles have a decent online community (decent in numbers, toxic otherwise, but i have yet to see a modern online game without the added toxicity).

So in short, the more modern entries shine in the MP, while the WW2, older titles, have solid SP.

Heh...might be because the people behind the original Medal of Honor game and expansions are the same people behind COD (until Modern Warfare 2, minus World at War).

Those very same people managed to botch their Titanfall game after they've split from Activision (in rather nasty terms).

Dun worry, u not the only 1. I too find the 1st 2 CoD games too similiar with MoH:AA & it's expansions (Spearhead & Breakthrough). Now hving just learnt the reason they were made by the same ppl that explains a lot. Lol.

Anyway, i wld recommend CoD1 & 2. I can't say for the rest of the series as i didn't play them either but if u r looking for a gd WW2 FPS u cant really go wrong with the 1st 2 in the series.

Treyarch's World at War (COD5) isn't bad either in SP. Not on par with the first two, but still fun.

So, how come I cannot find the games in GOGs catalogue?

I actually enjoyed every CoD up to and including the World at war (except the third, which was console only), although this last one was probably the weakest of the bunch.

Because GOG isn't selling them?

Sadly this is the reason. It should be remedied at once. Here is to having CoD 1 & 2 relesed in 2h4min from now.

too lazy to look for a picture of a raised glass, sorry

good luck with that activision still sells the older cod games at a high price rate on steam and even on the sales they never go more than 50% off

That being said having played all of the cod games the one that i liked the most was cod world at war grab a copy if you havent played it yet.