Okay, I, for one, could never see these Call of Duty games as continuing to improve on themselves release after release. However, the multiplayer in CoD4 is considered very evolutionary in the series. At first I couldn't really stomach the idea of buying yet another increment in this series, let alone tolerate the idea of a CoD5. Still, I was reading a recent magazine article on the game, and it sounded like it would be fun. I dig some of the ideas like have a 7-kill streak summoning a helicopter for you. It sounded like they had some good logic in their code to avoid spawn-killing, and the maps are supposed to be triple-checked to make sure there are no good camping spots. So, I'm wondering, is this another really great step in multiplayer gaming? Is this like Battlefield 2 or Counterstrike 1.6? Because I seriously couldn't see it that way, having played earlier Call of Duty games only a nominal amount, I couldn't imagine where CoD4 would bring out much new or good. I'm a big hater of corporate mergers (Vivendi/Activision) and sequelitis (not waiting with bells on for Diablo 3 or anything). Although, it still sounds like they came up with a good game here. I'm curious if anyone out there will run with a sequel unto it's death, or if it's like the sports games (after a while you just get roster updates and some random new gameplay changes). I tend to think sequels usually fall into the latter category, but CoD4 might be out there proving me wrong. Thoughts?
I think they do..... in some case at least. There are good and bad sequels, just like in Hollywood. I was hoping to get a good NHL game for my PC just to figure out EA just changed the package and didn't made anything new on their last game.
The CoD series, just like the Battlefield or Medal of Honor series, really been through the WWII story and they had to go for something else. The aspect of the Modern Warfare is a good plus in my opinion, as Battlefield did with its 2142 game.
Sequels are made because people asks for more.. Maybe one day we'll hit some kind of perfectness in video games.. but until then, I think there will always be demands from gamers for sequels.
CoD 4 was definitly worth it for me, I had played 1 and 2 on Pc, as well as tried 3 on xbox, and was seriously disappointed in CoD 3, the only reason I grabbed 4 was because my CoD 2 clan was shifting, but I ended up loving it. definitly the best in the series, except maybe CoD 1 I still play that... occasionally. -=GG=- servers for TDM are up and going, join up!
cod 4 was a step up in multiplayer from what i've heard, and its more popular than ever, but anyone whos been playing games over the past 10 years will realize that its going the same route of the tony hawk series and other critically acclaimed series that got milked.
They could've played it 'safer' I guess and jumped onto Vietnam........with the Battlefield exp. notwithstanding, Vietnam got some pretty piss poor releases and then everyone seemed to fast-forward to the 'modern day' and jump on that bandwagon (which is what I think happened here w/COD4).
Yeah, I guess I spent most of my CoD time in single player with CoD 3 on PS2. It just seems like the series had stagnated at that point, but maybe you guys are right. CoD4 may be better because of setting and MP. Still, I've heard the SP is a joke (short), and I'm not big on multiplayer for shooters. It does sound like CoD4 is a lot better than I thought it would be. Originally, I thought CoD was sort-of the multiplayer Medal of Honor for a while, and was going downhill lately. It's weird to see it bounce back like this. I may actually pick this up because as much as I love UT3, no one is playing. ...and I can't go back to WoW and Guild Wars. Hard for me to face the fact that a sequel actually got better and a corporate merger didn't hurt a major publisher.
Well before you do that, here's the thing, while it is really fun, it has major issues. Spawn killing has definitely NOT been fixed to any degree whatsoever, as on some maps you can literally just aim in the general direction of their spawn throw a grenade and get some kills. Camping is very easy to do as there are many spots. Triple checking obviously wasn't enough. Perks sound cool at first but in practice they are lame. Why not instead of perks just let you upgrade your character's attributes, because some of the perks, such as martyrdom, really start to ruin the game. The helicopters also aren't as great as they sound, because they always know exactly where you are and have pinpoint accuracy, and you only need 5 kills for an airstrike, which basically ensures you 2 more kills for the helicopter. This multiplayer definitely isn't the next step in multiplayer games, but it is still really fun.
The CoD4 singleplayer was great, but it was too short. The multiplayer is ok, but it is by no means "Evolutionary." It has the same defects as every other FPS. Laggy hitboxes/models, poor weapon/bullet registration, teamstacking, occasional hacker, and poorly balanced weapons.
Log in to comment