CoD 4.. Worth buying ?

Hello there..

I'm waiting for my copy of CoD 4 (BO) and the more I read about it .. the more I wonder if I'll make a good move.

I already have TF2 which is a great MP FPS.. I like it a lot.. But I really enjoyed games like BF 2142 and their war feeling.. Which I don't really get with TF2.

And then I still hear echoes of BF2 (Which I never really tried for real..). Seems like a lot of people is still playing this game.

So.. the question is : Is CoD 4 is really the best online war simulation FPS out there right now ?

Totally awesome multiplayer. best in series and that says ALOT, single player im not so happy with, but multi is worth it.TheWalrusKing

Best in the series for multiplayer?? i dont know about that, i do agree its good, much better than CoD2, but i dont think its better than CoD:UO. Granted it does have some nice innovative features, but it just doesnt have the same skill lvl as UO. I still get the feeling that they noobed up the game a bit.

It sucks. Seriously, one of the worst examples of hype and fanboyism. The single player campaign is typical COD fare. Criminally short, completely linear, and so heavily scripted that there's zero replay value. The gameplay is farcically bad. Maps are tiny little rat mazes that you wander through, stopping only to blaze away at the endlessly spawning pop-up enemies. You supposedly have squadmates, but you can't interact with them in anyway whatsoever. They're just pointless eye candy, who follow you around from checkpoint to checkpoint. The environment is no better. There's zero interactivity. No destructable terrain, no way to move objects. Hell, you can't even open a door or climb through a window. Then there's the tired old artifical map boundaries consisting of kevlar hedges or the world's longest apartment building with no doors or windows. (not that it'd matter as things like doorknobs are too complex for your bel-end on screen avatar to comprehend).

Ballistics are right out of a G.I. Joe cartoon with a liberal sprinkling of the A-Team thrown in. Everyone seems to be able to absorb lethal amounts of punishment with no ill effects. You character can take multiple rounds to the gut and all he needs to do is walk around the corner, take a few deep breaths and suck it up and he's fine. Weapon ranges are pathetically short and there's no consisency. On one level, you're taksed with firing off the world's supply of 40mm grenades from a pintle mounted Mk 19 grenade launcher in a helicopter. For some reason, grenades fired from this helicopter have the ability to destroy BMP-2 armoured personnel carriers. Later in the game, you might choose to arm yourself with an assault rifle with a 40mm grenade launcher attachment. Same ammo, same grenades but now, completely ineffective against the same BMP-2s.

The story is laughable. The US portions were ripped right out of the pages of a 14 year old ADD victim's wet dream. Sticking with their grand tradition of blatant plagiarism, the hacks at IW lifted the SAS portions of the games straight out of the novels by real-life SAS troopers Andy McNab and Chris Ryan. Hell, the little thieves at IW didn't even bother to change the names of the characters. One hopes a lawsuit is in the works.

Multi-player is your standard twitch stuff. Small maps, everything at close range, spawn in, whip grenades about at random and be guaranteed kills.

The game's crap.

@ Bogaty--Sounds like COD should've stuck with WWII then?Huskerz09

COD4 is a great game the single player campain is thrilling and the multiplayer is possibly one of the best since counter strike or even better perhaps.

You'll hate the multiplayer at first then after about 2 hours of playing you'll love it and it'll make you think that the story mode is boring which is it compared to the multiplayer.

A defant buy just for the multiplayer.......

@ Bogaty--Sounds like COD should've stuck with WWII then?Huskerz09

No, I think the whole series is very poor. The subject matter really isn't all that relevant although I personally am more interested in WWII than near future hypothetical stuff. The problem is that, as games, the COD series jsut aren't very good. Sure, they have very good production values and the sound effects are first rate, but the actually gameplay is tragically shallow. It's a lot more like sitting in a train car on one of those crappy amusement park rides like Pirates of the Caribbean or the Haunted House than it is a game. You're really nothing more than a spectator who is being lead down a pre-determined course. At certain points, something jumps out and goes boogety boogety boogety. Might give you a little jump the first time, but you find out that it's the exact same thing in the exact same spot, every time. Clicking the moust button to fire is about all you do. Not much different than clicking the shutter on the camera.

I hear people toss around words like "cinematic" when describing COD. Well, watching a movie is a passive event. If you want to enjoy something "cinematic", go watch a war movie.

The COD games just aren't very good. They're a triumph of style with no substance.

It's a lot more like sitting in a train car on one of those crappy amusement park rides like Pirates of the Caribbean or the Haunted House than it is a game. You're really nothing more than a spectator who is being lead down a pre-determined course. At certain points, something jumps out and goes boogety boogety boogety. Might give you a little jump the first time, but you find out that it's the exact same thing in the exact same spot, every time. Clicking the moust button to fire is about all you do. Not much different than clicking the shutter on the camera.

bogaty

this is called a hyperbole.

No, it's called being unimpressed with a game that's excessively scripted, completely linear and ridiculously short.bogaty

basically, you're just complaining that cod games are rail shooters. but to liken a rail shooter to a roller coaster ride is called an exaggeration. there's a whole lot more to it than just watching and clicking on the mouse. and besides, in cod games your characters are soldiers who are supposed to follow orders and go where they're told to go (and they're not supposed to open doors on their own). what's the point of complaining that you're not given freedom in a game like that? that'd be like complaining that you aren't given the freedom to drive outside the oval in nascar racing.

Firstly, I compared it to a ride like Pirates of the Caribbean, not a roller coaster. Roller coaster actually implies you might find it exciting.

Secondly, I don't consider it an exaggeration at all. I have my honest opinion on what I think is a sub-par game. You want to argue, why not post concrete examples of why you think that isn't the case rather than attacking me or my message? Your specious argument about soldiers following orders and not daring to open a door on their own is risible. I served as a combat engineer for 3 years and did spend time in combat. Believe it or not, we didn't actually have to seek permission to find our own way through a building.

Finally, comparing the game to a NASCAR racing sim is drawing a false analogy. One knows what to expect from a NASCAR racing sim. One knows that they'll be driving around an oval. The meat of the game comes in the levle of detail and realism in the driving physics, not the track itself. Similarly, a game purporting to mimic real world modern day conflict should offer up something more varied than spray and pray your way from point A to point B by following this and only this route. Don't worry about anything such as doors, windows, ladders, or fire escapes that you see. They're just window dressing and have no effect on the tactical environment.

As a game, COD fails to deliver what it promises. It's short. It's completely linear. It offers nothing in the way of replayability and the single player portion is criminally short. Hell, there are episodic games like Sam and Max that sell for 1/5th the price and offer up 4 times the hours of gameplay.

If you're really interested in playing a game about modern or near future warfare that is robust, has a lengthy single player campaign, is wide open and non-linear, and comes with an expansive mission editor, check out ArmA.

Firstly, I compared it to a ride like Pirates of the Caribbean, not a roller coaster. Roller coaster actually implies you might find it exciting.

Secondly, I don't consider it an exaggeration at all. I have my honest opinion on what I think is a sub-par game. You want to argue, why not post concrete examples of why you think that isn't the case rather than attacking me or my message? Your specious argument about soldiers following orders and not daring to open a door on their own is risible. I served as a combat engineer for 3 years and did spend time in combat. Believe it or not, we didn't actually have to seek permission to find our own way through a building.

Finally, comparing the game to a NASCAR racing sim is drawing a false analogy. One knows what to expect from a NASCAR racing sim. One knows that they'll be driving around an oval. The meat of the game comes in the levle of detail and realism in the driving physics, not the track itself. Similarly, a game purporting to mimic real world modern day conflict should offer up something more varied than spray and pray your way from point A to point B by following this and only this route. Don't worry about anything such as doors, windows, ladders, or fire escapes that you see. They're just window dressing and have no effect on the tactical environment.

As a game, COD fails to deliver what it promises. It's short. It's completely linear. It offers nothing in the way of replayability and the single player portion is criminally short. Hell, there are episodic games like Sam and Max that sell for 1/5th the price and offer up 4 times the hours of gameplay.

If you're really interested in playing a game about modern or near future warfare that is robust, has a lengthy single player campaign, is wide open and non-linear, and comes with an expansive mission editor, check out ArmA.

bogaty

i would hardly call what i wrote 'attacking.' if you feel like i was attacking you or your message, then i apologize, i guess. but certainly, my intention wasn't to attack. i just felt like what your wrote was an exaggeration and made that clear, in case the op was deterred from what he read. because who wants a game in which you just watch and click the mouse button?

the game is a lot more than that. you don't get to make many choices on how to engage the enemy, but it certainly involves more than pointing and shooting. if you play on the veteran level, standing still and shooting at enemies will guarantee frustration (suppression fire, exploding cars, grenades, etc.). you're constantly forced to move, but at the same time, you can't just move forward or sideways anytime you want to. you have to be aggressive, but you also need to pick your spots. and in some levels, you need to actually plan out what you're going to do, like the level where you're waiting for a helicopter to pick you and your injured leader up. you have to set up the claymores in a way that makes sense, and you need to pick the right spot to snipe from (and even then, you can't just stand around in one spot, cuz the grenades or dogs will get you). anyway, my point is that it's not so bleak as you make it sound. certainly, the game's heavily scripted, but it does have its moments (and they're very memorable, imo).

and i can't really make an argument in regards to what i wrote earlier about soldiers having to follow orders, since i never served in the army. it's just something i assumed to be the case. if you say you have experience and you were given the freedom to go wherever you wanted and could charge into a house whenever you wanted in situations that the soldiers find themselves in cod4, then i guess i'll take your word for it.

Well i for one liked cod 4 - to call it linear and heavily scripted well you should know that most popular games (ala hl2, my bad! etc) are linear and are scripted. Now cod 4 is an amazing sp experience, short but who cares quality over quantity. Now for mp its pretty fun, sure its twitchy, sure the maps arent that big(addressed with mods im sure) but when you look at the amount of people that play cod 4 mp your opinon is moot, people disagree, over the weekend i checked the stats and cod 4 had 50000 people playing, only behind cs:s - the next closest game was bf2 with only 20000. So its doing something right, maybe you just got owned by 12 year olds and cant take it lawl.

http://www.game-monitor.com/search.php?game=cod4

Well i for one liked cod 4 - to call it linear and heavily scripted well you should know that most popular games (ala hl2, crysis etc) are linear and are scripted. Now cod 4 is an amazing sp experience, short but who cares quality over quantity. Now for mp its pretty fun, sure its twitchy, sure the maps arent that big(addressed with mods im sure) but when you look at the amount of people that play cod 4 mp your opinon is moot, people disagree, over the weekend i checked the stats and cod 4 had 50000 people playing, only behind cs:s - the next closest game was bf2 with only 20000. So its doing something right, maybe you just got owned by 12 year olds and cant take it lawl.

http://www.game-monitor.com/search.php?game=cod4

kenz

Crysis is not linear or heavily scripted.

K i didnt say servers......i said players...50000 players on the weekend.

ATM 17000 people are playing, Id say thats pretty good.

K i didnt say servers......i said players...50000 players on the weekend.

ATM 17000 people are playing, Id say thats pretty good.

kenz