COD1 > COD4......

COD4 and COD1 are phenominal (COD2 is also but i think 1 and 4 are better) and i have loads of fun playing either,

I personally think COD4 is better cuz comon, its 4 years newer and captures the best parts of COD with amazing graphics

COD4>COD1>COD2>COD3 for me

[QUOTE="bogaty"][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.

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.

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.

Yes, the fact that they just happened to introduce their villain in Chernobyl of all places makes perfect sense. I mean, where else would you expect to find an muslim terrorist other than in the heart of the Ukraine in a city still cordoned off at the time? Terrorists LURRRRVE gamma rays. Nothing to do with the fact that STALKER came out on the market near a year prior to COD4 at all, I'm sure. the COD team has a strong record of not completely ripping off level designs from things like the completely ahistorical river crossing at Stalingrad in the film Enemy At the Gates, the US Airborna assault on German artillery pieces at Utah beach in Band of Brothers, or the entire plot line from COD4 from the fiction of Andy McNab and Chris Ryan. Pure coincidence. You're right, I'm wrong. What a completely original and smurfy level that whole Chernobyl thing in COD4 was and damn those pesky Slavs at GSC for pre-emptively stealing COD4's thunder.

guys u can't compare, they are both different Games by the same developer . it isn't a comparison, each game have it's own settings, awards, technology (Sound, graphics, AI, etc...) + they are both from 2 different years, All i know is that if it is a CoD game, then it must still uphold the same level of intense gameplay as the series early start was. It must keep on the same tradition of being an AAA game.

Note: as long as they are done by the same developer. and as long as it is on the PC !!!! that's my opinion.

Yes, the fact that they just happened to introduce their villain in Chernobyl of all places makes perfect sense. I mean, where else would you expect to find an muslim terrorist other than in the heart of the Ukraine in a city still cordoned off at the time? Terrorists LURRRRVE gamma rays. Nothing to do with the fact that STALKER came out on the market near a year prior to COD4 at all, I'm sure. the COD team has a strong record of not completely ripping off level designs from things like the completely ahistorical river crossing at Stalingrad in the film Enemy At the Gates, the US Airborna assault on German artillery pieces at Utah beach in Band of Brothers, or the entire plot line from COD4 from the fiction of Andy McNab and Chris Ryan. Pure coincidence. You're right, I'm wrong. What a completely original and smurfy level that whole Chernobyl thing in COD4 was and damn those pesky Slavs at GSC for pre-emptively stealing COD4's thunder.

bogaty

The point of the mission is to show Prices training and how he knows the villain. It is a great introduction!

Onto the market a year prior? Lol! They were released last year with merely a few months apart.

All those things are inspired by real events obviously. Those other films don't own those.

You think NOLF wasn't inspired by Austin Powers or spy films? You think Commandos 2 wasn't inspired by all those war movies? Please.

Stealing COD4's thunder? STALKER doesn't get anywhere near it my friend!

Hail COD4! The 2007 GOTY!! Ha-ahahah!

I really liked COD4, and was never interested in WW2 shooters...But COD5 seems to have changed my mine, about WW2 shooters not just COD5

That brothers in arms series looks great also

I haven't played CoD1, because the WWII shooter genre never interested me in the least, but I just played through CoD4 and was blown away. I personally thought the story was fantastic, for a number of reasons.

Spoilers

I thought the Chernobyl bit in particular was really well executed and it fit perfectly with the character. He isn't middle eastern, as someone suggested, he was Russian. He just gave the middle eastern guy his Nuke. He's also the guy that talks about how their leaders screwed them over in the intro video, so the whole scene was a brilliant metaphor. The reason the character does what he does is his hatred for the leadership he believes screwed the people over and left them to fend for themselves, and Chernobyl is the perfect representation of what he's talking about. The fact that he loses an arm (a major loss of functionality and capacity) there just compounds the metaphor. That scene is the character. It couldn't have happened anywhere else.

[QUOTE="bogaty"]

Yes, the fact that they just happened to introduce their villain in Chernobyl of all places makes perfect sense. I mean, where else would you expect to find an muslim terrorist other than in the heart of the Ukraine in a city still cordoned off at the time? Terrorists LURRRRVE gamma rays. Nothing to do with the fact that STALKER came out on the market near a year prior to COD4 at all, I'm sure. the COD team has a strong record of not completely ripping off level designs from things like the completely ahistorical river crossing at Stalingrad in the film Enemy At the Gates, the US Airborna assault on German artillery pieces at Utah beach in Band of Brothers, or the entire plot line from COD4 from the fiction of Andy McNab and Chris Ryan. Pure coincidence. You're right, I'm wrong. What a completely original and smurfy level that whole Chernobyl thing in COD4 was and damn those pesky Slavs at GSC for pre-emptively stealing COD4's thunder.

biggest_loser

The point of the mission is to show Prices training and how he knows the villain. It is a great introduction!

Onto the market a year prior? Lol! They were released last year with merely a few months apart.

All those things are inspired by real events obviously. Those other films don't own those.

You think NOLF wasn't inspired by Austin Powers or spy films? You think Commandos 2 wasn't inspired by all those war movies? Please.

Stealing COD4's thunder? STALKER doesn't get anywhere near it my friend!

Hail COD4! The 2007 GOTY!! Ha-ahahah!

Are you being obtude deliberately? The mission could have taken place anywhere. Chechnya, Chelyabinsk, South Ossetia, or South Dakota. Rather than actually come up with something original, they simply ripped off the level design from STALKER.

As for historical events and films, recreating an historical event is fine. Being inspired by a film is fine. Completely ripping off a film is not. That level in COD1 where you cross the River Don into Stalingrad was stolen virtually scene for scene from Enemy At the Gates, historical innaccuracies and all. Even the boat design was the same in film and game (and neither depicted what the actual ferries looked like). In reality, the Soviet Army had more than enough rifles and ammo to go around by that point in the war, yet IW decided to steal the scene of the commisar doling out rifle or ammo, straight out of the film. River crossings took place at night to limit the effectiveness of German artillery and CAS aircraft, yet they lifted the scene straight out of the film.

Are you being obtude deliberately? The mission could have taken place anywhere. Chechnya, Chelyabinsk, South Ossetia, or South Dakota. Rather than actually come up with something original, they simply ripped off the level design from STALKER.

As for historical events and films, recreating an historical event is fine. Being inspired by a film is fine. Completely ripping off a film is not. That level in COD1 where you cross the River Don into Stalingrad was stolen virtually scene for scene from Enemy At the Gates, historical innaccuracies and all. Even the boat design was the same in film and game (and neither depicted what the actual ferries looked like). In reality, the Soviet Army had more than enough rifles and ammo to go around by that point in the war, yet IW decided to steal the scene of the commisar doling out rifle or ammo, straight out of the film. River crossings took place at night to limit the effectiveness of German artillery and CAS aircraft, yet they lifted the scene straight out of the film.

bogaty

Ripped off the level design? lol! Are you serious? Its a real place! The design was taken from photographs of the area.

Look familiar?!

Its not a rip off because those events really happened and can be represented in a medium. They are just inspired by films to give a cinematic quality.

You didn't have a problem with Commandos 2 being lifted from films like Saving Private Ryan, Bridge on the River Kwa, Guns of Navarone, Das Boot, The Great Escape, Is Paris Burning.

Oh and I almost forgot: STALKER is "inspired by" a 1979 film called....wait for it..Stalker!!

I would agree that CoD is superior to CoD4. At least in CoD and UO, it didn't feel like you the player were the enemies sole target. There was always people around you getting pegged off by the same people shooting at you.

UO was especially fantastic, both in singleplayer and multiplayer. CoD4 is a pretty game but I still prefer CoD and it's heavily modified Unreal engine.
foxhound_fox

COD 1 runs on a heavily modified Quake 3 Engine.

Ripped off the level design? lol! Are you serious? Its a real place! The design was taken from photographs of the area.

Look familiar?!

*clip*

Its not a rip off because those events really happened and can be represented in a medium. They are just inspired by films to give a cinematic quality.

You didn't have a problem with Commandos 2 being lifted from films like Saving Private Ryan, Bridge on the River Kwa, Guns of Navarone, Das Boot, The Great Escape, Is Paris Burning.

Oh and I almost forgot: STALKER is "inspired by" a 1979 film called....wait for it..Stalker!!

biggest_loser

COD 1 runs on a heavily modified Quake 3 Engine. biggest_loser

Agreed. CoD1 is better than CoD4. SP and MP IMO. The SP of CoD1 was more intense and it made you feel like you were in the battle. I got goosebumps playing CoD1 (especially when playing the Stalingrad portion), CoD4 was weak. The gunplay sucked. I mean it's absolutely terrible.

CoD1's MP was better. The maps in CoD4 are the main things that make the MP worse than CoD1 for me. They're too small and just not well designed. I loved most of the maps in CoD1 and UO (Hurtgen was my favorite).

Yes.

Oh, what? Hell no!

Agreed. CoD1 is better than CoD4. SP and MP IMO. The SP of CoD1 was more intense and it made you feel like you were in the battle. I got goosebumps playing CoD1 (especially when playing the Stalingrad portion), CoD4 was weak. The gunplay sucked. I mean it's absolutely terrible.

CoD1's MP was better. The maps in CoD4 are the main things that make the MP worse than CoD1 for me. They're too small and just not well designed. I loved most of the maps in CoD1 and UO (Hurtgen was my favorite).

trix5817

How does the gunplay "suck?" I don't understand that. There was nothing wrong with it, particularly compared to the first game.

The MP is better in COD4 because there is more incentive to keep playing because you can unlock new weapons and there are achievements too.

[QUOTE="trix5817"]

Agreed. CoD1 is better than CoD4. SP and MP IMO. The SP of CoD1 was more intense and it made you feel like you were in the battle. I got goosebumps playing CoD1 (especially when playing the Stalingrad portion), CoD4 was weak. The gunplay sucked. I mean it's absolutely terrible.

CoD1's MP was better. The maps in CoD4 are the main things that make the MP worse than CoD1 for me. They're too small and just not well designed. I loved most of the maps in CoD1 and UO (Hurtgen was my favorite).

biggest_loser

How does the gunplay "suck?" I don't understand that. There was nothing wrong with it, particularly compared to the first game.

The MP is better in COD4 because there is more incentive to keep playing because you can unlock new weapons and there are achievements too.

The guns have no recoil. They just feel like crap compared to CoD1. It doesn't feel like you're shooting a gun. Not to mention the sound of the guns are crap too.

I could care less about "incentives". I care about gameplay of the MP. Achievements and all that BS mean nothing to me. The maps just can't compare to CoD1's and UO's. They just aren't memorable. The only one's that are decent are overgrown and crossfire.

[QUOTE="biggest_loser"][QUOTE="trix5817"]

Agreed. CoD1 is better than CoD4. SP and MP IMO. The SP of CoD1 was more intense and it made you feel like you were in the battle. I got goosebumps playing CoD1 (especially when playing the Stalingrad portion), CoD4 was weak. The gunplay sucked. I mean it's absolutely terrible.

CoD1's MP was better. The maps in CoD4 are the main things that make the MP worse than CoD1 for me. They're too small and just not well designed. I loved most of the maps in CoD1 and UO (Hurtgen was my favorite).

trix5817

How does the gunplay "suck?" I don't understand that. There was nothing wrong with it, particularly compared to the first game.

The MP is better in COD4 because there is more incentive to keep playing because you can unlock new weapons and there are achievements too.

The guns have no recoil. They just feel like crap compared to CoD1. It doesn't feel like you're shooting a gun. Not to mention the sound of the guns are crap too.

I could care less about "incentives". I care about gameplay of the MP. Achievements and all that BS mean nothing to me. The maps just can't compare to CoD1's and UO's. They just aren't memorable. The only one's that are decent are overgrown and crossfire.

The weapons function just as they do in the previous games.

[QUOTE="trix5817"][QUOTE="biggest_loser"][QUOTE="trix5817"]

Agreed. CoD1 is better than CoD4. SP and MP IMO. The SP of CoD1 was more intense and it made you feel like you were in the battle. I got goosebumps playing CoD1 (especially when playing the Stalingrad portion), CoD4 was weak. The gunplay sucked. I mean it's absolutely terrible.

CoD1's MP was better. The maps in CoD4 are the main things that make the MP worse than CoD1 for me. They're too small and just not well designed. I loved most of the maps in CoD1 and UO (Hurtgen was my favorite).

biggest_loser

How does the gunplay "suck?" I don't understand that. There was nothing wrong with it, particularly compared to the first game.

The MP is better in COD4 because there is more incentive to keep playing because you can unlock new weapons and there are achievements too.

The guns have no recoil. They just feel like crap compared to CoD1. It doesn't feel like you're shooting a gun. Not to mention the sound of the guns are crap too.

I could care less about "incentives". I care about gameplay of the MP. Achievements and all that BS mean nothing to me. The maps just can't compare to CoD1's and UO's. They just aren't memorable. The only one's that are decent are overgrown and crossfire.

The weapons function just as they do in the previous games.

I don't think you understand. They don't have the same feel. Every FPS has a different feel. To me, CoD4's was crap. Sorry....

The weapons function just as they do in the previous games.

biggest_loser

It's not the gunplay mechanics that are worse in CoD4. It's the feel.

Call of Duty 1's guns kicked right out of your hand, were highly innaccurate, the PoV was larger (CoD4's 60 degrees vs CoD1's 80 degrees), were really loud and if it was sufficiently fast-firing automatic, then it's difficult to hear the "pause" of sound between each shot, making it feel like the automatic weapons fired and rechambered really quickly. This is actually realistic as you can't distinguish each shot fired from any automatic weapon in real life.

In Call of Duty 2, the recoil was reduced, the firing pauses became noticeable except for the MG42, which reused the same sound from the original game anyway.

Call of Duty 4 took everything another step further into a complete lack of skill required. When I played that game, the guns didnt kick at all, every weapon that you didn't fire sounded quiet, the PoV was reduced, meaning that aiming was easier. Also, the fact that you can basically shoot through everything thin enough for your weapon meant that the normal gunplay mechanics of "take cover or die" dissapeared, so all you need to do is try to spot an enemy hiding behind any thin surface, then shoot through it.

[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.:?

Smaller texture pallets, fewer polygons, less demanding physics engines, less complicated A.I. routines... I could go on. And your comparison would hold more water if you compared games that were just a bit more separated in time than HL2 and Crysis. Try COD4 and SoF2 maybe.

[QUOTE="Spybot_9"]

[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.

Johnny_Rock

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

Smaller texture pallets, fewer polygons, less demanding physics engines, less complicated A.I. routines... I could go on. And your comparison would hold more water if you compared games that were just a bit more separated in time than HL2 and Crysis. Try COD4 and SoF2 maybe.

And WTF both games are separated by full 3 years.:?

You do know that when newer technology comes,it's alot easier to have better graphics than before like geforece 8800,dual core CPU,plenty of RAM being mainstream?

HL2 was the best looking game ever when it came.It also had the best physics for it's time and still hold pretty well.Ya it didnt destroy every other game technically in an emphatic fashion as crysis currently does but have you heard one thing called optimization which also happens to require PLENTY of effort??:|

HL2 was optimized to run on even integrated graphics and was easily maxed out by the moderately high-end rigs of that time whereas crysis LOL you know yourself.....