COD1 > COD4......

When COD1 came I passed on it for some reason and then never really played it.So then was never excited about COD2 and passed it as well.Then I decided to pick up COD4 for all the hype and it was pretty damn good although some times in the brief single player I felt it was getting repititive.But I was thouroughly impressed by the game.

Then I picked the original COD and I think it's much better than COD4.It's easily the best WW2 FPS I have played.COD4 gameplay just feels dumbed down in comparasion.

So anybody agree with me and howz COD2?

Okay: Dumbed down? How could COD4 be "dumbed down" from its predecessors? Please explain that to me.

CoD4 is better than its predecessors because of a number of factors:

1. Visuals and sound are stronger of course.

2. More story, with an emotional conclusion.

3. Smarter AI than the first game, such as how soldiers will take cover and throw grenades back.

4. Multiplayer mode is much stronger with great incentives such as rank and the ability to unlock new weapons.

5. All Ghillied Up is one of the best levels in a game in years.

But really - Dumbed down? Its a shooting game!

Okay: Dumbed down? How could COD4 be "dumbed down" from its predecessors? Please explain that to me.

CoD4 is better than its predecessors because of a number of factors:

1. Visuals and sound are stronger of course.

2. More story, with an emotional conclusion.

3. Smarter AI than the first game, such as how soldiers will take cover and throw grenades back.

4. Multiplayer mode is much stronger with great incentives such as rank and the ability to unlock new weapons.

5. All Ghillied Up is one of the best levels in a game in years.

But really - Dumbed down? Its a shooting game!

biggest_loser

Yeah, B.L. just owned your "dumbed down statement"

I'd like to know how COD4 is dumbed down as well. Please enlighten us.

Guys, of course it is dumbed down, it's a console port, right? it must be dumbed down. (not)

CoD 1 is good, but not that good. If CoD 4 had vehicles it would have been even better than it already is compared to previous CoD's and imo CoD 2 is better than 1.

CoD 1>UO> CoD 4> CoD 2

My reason for this is because CoD 1 is the one with the least respawning enemies.

And shooting in CoD 4 is like shooting a piece of paper.

You are correct.

Call of Duty 1 is epic, intense, immersive and challenging.

To me, Call of Duty 4 was a little intense, with smallish-scale battles that weren't very exciting, and the guns often had no recoil, making the gunplay easy and just plain boring, plus the uselessness of cover, and the respawning robot idiot enemies with no AI ruined the immersion.

Call of Duty has plenty of amazingly epic scenes. Stalingrad, Pathfinder, Caen Canal, Riechstagt..... only one I did find particularly "epic" in Call of Duty 4 was the nuke scene, which lasted all of 5 minutes.

The only thing I felt that was better was the story. Even if Call of Duty 1 had respawning enemies and also the lack of AI was present, it wasn't anywhere near as noticeable. Probably because the gunplay was so exhilirating in that game compared to Call of Duty 4, where I felt like I was using Paintball weapons on mobile and static cardboard mannequins (enemies and thin cover).

Okay: Dumbed down? How could COD4 be "dumbed down" from its predecessors? Please explain that to me.

CoD4 is better than its predecessors because of a number of factors:

1. Visuals and sound are stronger of course.

2. More story, with an emotional conclusion.

3. Smarter AI than the first game, such as how soldiers will take cover and throw grenades back.

4. Multiplayer mode is much stronger with great incentives such as rank and the ability to unlock new weapons.

5. All Ghillied Up is one of the best levels in a game in years.

But really - Dumbed down? Its a shooting game!

biggest_loser

2.I didnt see what was so emotional about COD4.COD1 is better at it as it captures the feel of WW2 better than any other FPS.

3.Again much better technology on hand and ya the enemy A.I is not so good on COD1 but foes fighting along us seem pretty good and you do realise that everything in COD4 is scripted?

4.I am talking about single player only here.

5.So one level?Most of the single player of COD4 involves mindless shooting with countless respawning enemies and it get's old even in a 5 hour campaign.You go one place,mindless shooting,another place again mindless shooting.Where's the variety?And COD1 feels more intense than COD4.Having more enemies on screen and more things going on doesnt make a game more intense not IMO atleast.

The core gameplay just feels better and more fleshed out in COD1 to me.Gunplay is also better in COD1 as in COD4 it just feels weak.

[QUOTE="biggest_loser"]

Okay: Dumbed down? How could COD4 be "dumbed down" from its predecessors? Please explain that to me.

CoD4 is better than its predecessors because of a number of factors:

1. Visuals and sound are stronger of course.

2. More story, with an emotional conclusion.

3. Smarter AI than the first game, such as how soldiers will take cover and throw grenades back.

4. Multiplayer mode is much stronger with great incentives such as rank and the ability to unlock new weapons.

5. All Ghillied Up is one of the best levels in a game in years.

But really - Dumbed down? Its a shooting game!

Spybot_9

2.I didnt see what was so emotional about COD4.COD1 is better at it as it captures the feel of WW2 better than any other FPS.

3.Again much better technology on hand and ya the enemy A.I is not so good on COD1 but foes fighting along us seem pretty good and you do realise that everything in COD4 is scripted?

4.I am talking about single player only here.

5.So one level?Most of the single player of COD4 involves mindless shooting with countless respawning enemies and it get's old even in a 5 hour campaign.You go one place,mindless shooting,another place again mindless shooting.Where's the variety?And COD1 feels more intense than COD4.Having more enemies on screen and more things going on doesnt make a game more intense not IMO atleast.

The core gameplay just feels better and more fleshed out in COD1 to me.

The core gameplay? Its all shooting! I think the missions in COD4 are a lot tighter and the scripting is sharper than some of the ones in the first game, particularly the British ones! What was with that boat level where you go around shooting everyone by yourself that was like something from MOH.

1. The ending of COD4 was quite emotional and surprising.

2. They are completing different time periods obviously so it is no use saying that COD1 was better at capturing WWII.

3. All the COD games are scripted.

4. I don't care - it still adds another dimension and a very long lifespan to COD4.

5. You and many others talk about "spawning" - it keeps the pressure on. You don't think there were spawning enemies in the previous games? Please. I really don't mind it. If you were immersed in the game you would be more focused on moving forward just as it would be in real life.

There is plenty of variety in the environments.

You are correct.

Call of Duty 1 is epic, intense, immersive and challenging.

To me, Call of Duty 4 was a little intense, with smallish-scale battles that weren't very exciting, and the guns often had no recoil, making the gunplay easy and just plain boring, plus the uselessness of cover, and the respawning robot idiot enemies with no AI ruined the immersion.

Call of Duty has plenty of amazingly epic scenes. Stalingrad, Pathfinder, Caen Canal, Riechstagt..... only one I did find particularly "epic" was the nuke scene, which lasted all of 5 minutes.

The only thing I felt that was better was the story. Even if Call of Duty 1 had respawning enemies and also the lack of AI was present, it wasn't anywhere near as noticeable.

aliblabla2007

I approve of this post.

1. Visuals and sound are stronger of course.

biggest_loser

Duh.

2. More story, with an emotional conclusion.

biggest_loser

Call of Duty 4's story is mediocre and generic, so this is not really a huge plus, if at all.

3. Smarter AI than the first game, such as how soldiers will take cover and throw grenades back.

biggest_loser

Funny, I saw them do that in the first game, but it wasn't as noticeable because the grenadespam wasn't so awfully high...

4. Multiplayer mode is much stronger with great incentives such as rank and the ability to unlock new weapons.

biggest_loser

I don't play Multiplayer but I am very sure that United Offensive is superior with it's larger maps and vehicles and all.

5. All Ghillied Up is one of the best levels in a game in years.

biggest_loser

It's just an unrealistic and horribly linear assassination mission. Granted, it's very cinematic and has a movie-like feel to it, and is well-scripted, but give me the epic huge battles of Stalingrad, Reichstagt, Pegasus Bridge and Red Square over that mission anyday.

[QUOTE="biggest_loser"]

1. Visuals and sound are stronger of course.

aliblabla2007

Duh.

aliblabla2007

The effort into creating these realistic visuals and sound effects deserves its merits still. It adds wholey to the immersion and chaotic atmosphere of the game.

2. More story, with an emotional conclusion.

biggest_loser

Call of Duty 4's story is mediocre and generic, so this is not really a huge plus, if at all.

aliblabla2007

Compared to COD1 which has no story at all bar being in WWII?

3. Smarter AI than the first game, such as how soldiers will take cover and throw grenades back.

biggest_loser

Funny, I saw them do that in the first game, but it wasn't as noticeable because the grenadespam wasn't so awfully high...

aliblabla2007

They are just more aggressive in this game than in the others. At least you can actually throw grenades back this time.

4. Multiplayer mode is much stronger with great incentives such as rank and the ability to unlock new weapons.

biggest_loser

I don't play Multiplayer but I am very sure that United Offensive is superior with it's larger maps and vehicles and all.

aliblabla2007

You haven't played it but you're sure that another game is better. Well done.

5. All Ghillied Up is one of the best levels in a game in years.

biggest_loser

It's just an unrealistic and horribly linear assassination mission. Granted, it's very cinematic and has a movie-like feel to it, and is well-scripted, but give me the epic huge battles of Stalingrad, Reichstagt, Pegasus Bridge and Red Square over that mission anyday.

aliblabla2007

You are one of the few people to not like that mission and I suspect that that is to put as much you know what on the game as possible. It is a really intense and spontaneous level. And at least it was something different and slightly inventive compared to those as good as they are, that you listed.

If thats what you want to play then COD5 is coming up, fresh from the oven!

I really liked COD4, but it wasnt the same thrill I got from firing up the dawnville and burnville demos. When I got the full version, I was even more thrilled. With COD4, that happened only during the nuke level and the flashback level.

As for the respawning enemies, COD4 abuses it easily. In COD 1 and 2, you'd expect lots of germans everywhere because its a war right? with lots of fighting men. With COD4 it was quite absurd how they fit a fricking division in the flashback level where weapons and armor supposed to be offlimits.

Call of Duty 4's story is mediocre and generic, so this is not really a huge plus, if at all.

Funny, I saw them do that in the first game, but it wasn't as noticeable because the grenadespam wasn't so awfully high...

I don't play Multiplayer but I am very sure that United Offensive is superior with it's larger maps and vehicles and all.

It's just an unrealistic and horribly linear assassination mission. Granted, it's very cinematic and has a movie-like feel to it, and is well-scripted, but give me the epic huge battles of Stalingrad, Reichstagt, Pegasus Bridge and Red Square over that mission anyday.

aliblabla2007

I wholeheartedly agree. I'm surprised you didn't mention the 'barrel' issue, or the importance of opening doors in-game.

The effort into creating these realistic visuals and sound effects deserves its merits still. It adds wholey to the immersion and chaotic atmosphere of the game.biggest_loser

But surely games are judged relative to their peers, not their predecessors? Call of Duty had solid visuals for its day, as does Call of Duty 4. Doesn't strike me as a huge point as to why the game is better.

Compared to COD1 which has no story at all bar being in WWII?biggest_loser

Call of Duty 4's story is better, but it's also so unimpressive as to be largely insignificant. To illustrate what I mean, having $200 makes you richer than than someone with $20, but it doesn't make you rich. Call of Duty 4's story is better, but that doesn't make it good. Going from 1 to 1.1 is not so huge an issue.

I found absolutely nothing emotional at all in Call of Duty 4. I mean, I picked up on the so-contrived-it-could-be-Spielberg emotional scenes, but I felt no actual emotion during them.

They are just more aggressive in this game than in the others. At least you can actually throw grenades back this time.biggest_loser

AI is a means to an end, that end being quality firefights. Better AI in and of itself doesn't necessary make for a better FPS. Call of Duty had crazier and more intense firefights that I found far more engaging, enjoyable and satisfying than the blandness of Call of Duty 4.

The effort into creating these realistic visuals and sound effects deserves its merits still. It adds wholey to the immersion and chaotic atmosphere of the game.

biggest_loser

This is just like saying that the graphics of crysis required more effort than half life 2 cuz crysis looks better.:?

COD1 Single player + COD: UO Multiplayer = Win

I was so disappointed when they dumbed down the MP for COD2. UO is one of my favourite multiplayer games of all time

Okay: Dumbed down? How could COD4 be "dumbed down" from its predecessors? Please explain that to me.

CoD4 is better than its predecessors because of a number of factors:

1. Visuals and sound are stronger of course.

2. More story, with an emotional conclusion.

3. Smarter AI than the first game, such as how soldiers will take cover and throw grenades back.

4. Multiplayer mode is much stronger with great incentives such as rank and the ability to unlock new weapons.

5. All Ghillied Up is one of the best levels in a game in years.

But really - Dumbed down? Its a shooting game!

biggest_loser

1. visuals do not make a game good.

2.; cod 4's story was rubbish, cliche rissen crap

3. cod 4's ai is crap, scripted rubbish

4. multiplayer get's old fast, linear levels, rubbish weapons with no recoil

5. that level wasn't that impressive, and it's certainly been done before in some other game.

You : fanboi

[QUOTE="biggest_loser"]

Okay: Dumbed down? How could COD4 be "dumbed down" from its predecessors? Please explain that to me.

CoD4 is better than its predecessors because of a number of factors:

1. Visuals and sound are stronger of course.

2. More story, with an emotional conclusion.

3. Smarter AI than the first game, such as how soldiers will take cover and throw grenades back.

4. Multiplayer mode is much stronger with great incentives such as rank and the ability to unlock new weapons.

5. All Ghillied Up is one of the best levels in a game in years.

But really - Dumbed down? Its a shooting game!

Artosa

1. visuals do not make a game good.

2.; cod 4's story was rubbish, cliche rissen crap

3. cod 4's ai is crap, scripted rubbish

4. multiplayer get's old fast, linear levels, rubbish weapons with no recoil

5. that level wasn't that impressive, and it's certainly been done before in some other game.

You : fanboi

someone's gonna be ticked off:P

4. Multiplayer mode is much stronger with great incentives such as rank and the ability to unlock new weapons.

biggest_loser

That's just a hoax to try and get you to play mindless hours trying for the highest level, and why not just start with all the guns?

[QUOTE="pseudodog07"]I could play COD1 for hours on end. [/QUOTE

Yeah, call of duty 1 had something no other fps had at the time. call of duty 4 is just like others.

[QUOTE="aliblabla2007"] [QUOTE="biggest_loser"]

2. More story, with an emotional conclusion.

biggest_loser

Call of Duty 4's story is mediocre and generic, so this is not really a huge plus, if at all.

Compared to COD1 which has no story at all bar being in WWII?

At least Call of Duty's story isn't completely implausible as to ruin the immersion. Also, as Fatshodan explained, having a bad story as opposed to not having a story at all isn't really much of a plus.

[QUOTE="aliblabla2007"][QUOTE="biggest_loser"]

3. Smarter AI than the first game, such as how soldiers will take cover and throw grenades back.

biggest_loser

Funny, I saw them do that in the first game, but it wasn't as noticeable because the grenadespam wasn't so awfully high...

They are just more aggressive in this game than in the others. At least you can actually throw grenades back this time.

I suppose AI is smarter if they charge at you like idiots as in Call of Duty 4 instead of staying back and taking cover before taking potshots like in the original.

[QUOTE="aliblabla2007"] [QUOTE="biggest_loser"]

5. All Ghillied Up is one of the best levels in a game in years.

biggest_loser

It's just an unrealistic and horribly linear assassination mission. Granted, it's very cinematic and has a movie-like feel to it, and is well-scripted, but give me the epic huge battles of Stalingrad, Reichstagt, Pegasus Bridge and Red Square over that mission anyday.

You are one of the few people to not like that mission and I suspect that that is to put as much you know what on the game as possible. It is a really intense and spontaneous level. And at least it was something different and slightly inventive compared to those as good as they are, that you listed.

If thats what you want to play then COD5 is coming up, fresh from the oven!

Cod 1 was truly a great game. It contained epic battles such as stalingrad,.I can still remember that guy shouting " for the motherland comrades! VICTORY OR DEATH! ". True, the AI and graphics when compared to that of COD4 are not that good. But hey, the game's graphics and AI were certainly good for it's time. Further, I really enjoyed those missions, in which our companions drove the car and we fired crazily at the enemies. Those missions really made the game much more fun. I still remember that aeroplane mission (in which we had to defend our aircraft) in united offensive.

COD 4 is also a great game. It lacks those "vehicle missions" but the action is quite fast.It also lacks the epic battles but then, it is based on modern warfare.........

Makers of COD 1 included those epic battles because they had actually taken place. The enemy AI and graphics,in COD4, are good too. The attempt to introduce a story, though was not exceptional, but was decent enough. Even though it lacked those epic battles, it did contain those epic moments. For example, the very first mission on the ship ( It's one of the best missions), the witnessing of events in the middle-east country through the president's eye, the ending cut-scene, the nuke scene and ofcourse, my favourite, the Captain Price stealth mission. Personally, I enjoyed COD4 multi-player a lot and consider it to be the best in the COD series.

In the end, I would say that both were really great games. I enjoyed playing both and if asked to choose b/w one of them, I would rather not choose at all.

[QUOTE="biggest_loser"]

5. All Ghillied Up is one of the best levels in a game in years.

biggest_loser

It's just an unrealistic and horribly linear assassination mission. Granted, it's very cinematic and has a movie-like feel to it, and is well-scripted, but give me the epic huge battles of Stalingrad, Reichstagt, Pegasus Bridge and Red Square over that mission anyday.

aliblabla2007

You are one of the few people to not like that mission and I suspect that that is to put as much you know what on the game as possible. It is a really intense and spontaneous level. And at least it was something different and slightly inventive compared to those as good as they are, that you listed.

Uhhh...yeah.... It was very intense and original when I played it as it first appeared in S.T.A.L.K.E.R. As always, the COD4 team did a great job of plagiarizing.

CoD2= best cod game ever.

Single player isnt as deep as CoD4 but the single player is the best out of them all.

[QUOTE="biggest_loser"]

[QUOTE="biggest_loser"]

5. All Ghillied Up is one of the best levels in a game in years.

bogaty

It's just an unrealistic and horribly linear assassination mission. Granted, it's very cinematic and has a movie-like feel to it, and is well-scripted, but give me the epic huge battles of Stalingrad, Reichstagt, Pegasus Bridge and Red Square over that mission anyday.

aliblabla2007

You are one of the few people to not like that mission and I suspect that that is to put as much you know what on the game as possible. It is a really intense and spontaneous level. And at least it was something different and slightly inventive compared to those as good as they are, that you listed.

Uhhh...yeah.... It was very intense and original when I played it as it first appeared in S.T.A.L.K.E.R. As always, the COD4 team did a great job of plagiarizing.

Ahh so no other game can be set in Chernobyl ever again I see and there were so many mutants jumping on Captain Price.

[QUOTE="biggest_loser"]

The effort into creating these realistic visuals and sound effects deserves its merits still. It adds wholey to the immersion and chaotic atmosphere of the game.

Spybot_9

This is just like saying that the graphics of crysis required more effort than half life 2 cuz crysis looks better.:?

I didn't say it required less effort at all. I'm saying they went to a lot of work to redesign the visuals to improve on the atmosphere and immersion.

For those who are saying that visuals don't make a game good: Well you would be the first ones to complain if they had just used the same graphics are dated if they didn't do anything with them at all.

[QUOTE="bogaty"][QUOTE="biggest_loser"]

[QUOTE="biggest_loser"]

5. All Ghillied Up is one of the best levels in a game in years.

biggest_loser

It's just an unrealistic and horribly linear assassination mission. Granted, it's very cinematic and has a movie-like feel to it, and is well-scripted, but give me the epic huge battles of Stalingrad, Reichstagt, Pegasus Bridge and Red Square over that mission anyday.

aliblabla2007

You are one of the few people to not like that mission and I suspect that that is to put as much you know what on the game as possible. It is a really intense and spontaneous level. And at least it was something different and slightly inventive compared to those as good as they are, that you listed.

Uhhh...yeah.... It was very intense and original when I played it as it first appeared in S.T.A.L.K.E.R. As always, the COD4 team did a great job of plagiarizing.

Ahh so no other game can be set in Chernobyl ever again I see and there were so many mutants jumping on Captain Price.

Right. Because setting the level in Chernobyl fitted so well with the rest of the story and wasn't a completely superfluous filler. Amazing too that they managed to set the level in the exact same 3 blocks of buildings that the guys who made S.T.A.L.K.E.R. did. Same time of day, same time of year. You're right. It's just a remarkable coincidence.

[QUOTE="biggest_loser"][QUOTE="bogaty"][QUOTE="biggest_loser"]

[QUOTE="biggest_loser"]

5. All Ghillied Up is one of the best levels in a game in years.

bogaty

It's just an unrealistic and horribly linear assassination mission. Granted, it's very cinematic and has a movie-like feel to it, and is well-scripted, but give me the epic huge battles of Stalingrad, Reichstagt, Pegasus Bridge and Red Square over that mission anyday.

aliblabla2007

You are one of the few people to not like that mission and I suspect that that is to put as much you know what on the game as possible. It is a really intense and spontaneous level. And at least it was something different and slightly inventive compared to those as good as they are, that you listed.

Uhhh...yeah.... It was very intense and original when I played it as it first appeared in S.T.A.L.K.E.R. As always, the COD4 team did a great job of plagiarizing.

Ahh so no other game can be set in Chernobyl ever again I see and there were so many mutants jumping on Captain Price.

Right. Because setting the level in Chernobyl fitted so well with the rest of the story and wasn't a completely superfluous filler. Amazing too that they managed to set the level in the exact same 3 blocks of buildings that the guys who made S.T.A.L.K.E.R. did. Same time of day, same time of year. You're right. It's just a remarkable coincidence.

Yeah they sent their spies over to GSC and THQ to copy it.

It wasn't filler at all - it was an important part in introducing the villain, an important turning point in the arc of the story.

Those blocks are in real life lol, the developers of STALKER don't own them. They can be used in others parts of fiction. Yeesh...

Like I get that you don't like the game okay. But really, to say they have copied it is just silly IMO

That level is a lot more exciting and spontaneous than that of STALKER.

Yeah and the level on cod4 is on rails, atleast stalker had some freedom, atleast stalker had some decent ai, cod4 overall was just flat out unoriginal.Artosa

The games are aiming for different things though. COD4 is a cinematic experience while STALKER is an open world. It is still quite a linear game though in many ways.

While COD4 follows the formula of its predecessors by taking the same intensity to a new setting it feels fresh and it also aided by the diversity of the varied environments.

CoD 4 didn't feel liek a pc game it was far too much a conosle shooter to me whilst CoD 1 felt liek a pc game.