Call of Duty 4 Review

The Call of Duty series is a benchmark for first-person shooters. The first title refreshed the already-tired World War II setting by added a gripping gameplay-based narrative, while the second was an important launch title for the Xbox 360. The newest chapter in the series, Call of Duty 4, is a new standard for the series and the genre. Set in modern times, the title breaks the mold of previous CoD titles in other ways as well. Most intriguing is its online 'character' development system, which takes some of the great ideas used in Battlefield 2 to the next level. Though the game suffers somewhat from overly-familiar gameplay in the single-player component, you'll probably be too busy gawking at the scenery to care. Read on for my impressions of this extremely attractive series update.

• Title:Call of Duty 4: Modern Combat
• Developer/Publisher: Infinity Ward/Activision
• System: 360 (PC, PS3)
• Genre: First-Person Shooter
• Score: 3/5: This game is par for the course in many ways, but is likely to be a classic for the genre. Any gamer might enjoy renting it.

The fact that it's even worth mentioning the story in a warfare-focused First-Person Shooter sets Call of Duty 4 above most of its contemporaries. As in previous CoD titles, Infinity sets you in the midst of an epic combat. With the new modern setting, instead of facing down Nazi Germany or Imperial Japan, terrorists are the order of the day. The game avoids any uncomfortably weighty questions of nationality by placing the conflict in fictionalized nations, but the themes will be familiar to anyone who has read the newspaper lately. What makes these confrontations even more meaningful is that, like in previous Infinity titles, we get to see the conflict from multiple angles. In this case, by swapping between British and American troops as they work to quell the epic conflict boiling on the edge of the Middle East and former USSR. Though I felt the characters were better developed in CoD 2, you'll find yourself appreciating recognizable voices and names over the course of the game. The story accomplishes its goal admirably; you always feel a sense of purpose as you move through the game, and rarely are you left confused about what your current objective should be. The game also has one of the most amazing credit sequences I've ever seen in a title before. It's powerful on a visceral level, and shouldn't be missed.

How you accomplish your objective-of-the-moment is going to feel very familiar to anyone that's played a warfare FPS in the last few years. Yourself and a small group of soldiers move through a map, accomplishing minor goals in preparation for a larger set-piece battle near the end of the level. The tried-and-true core of the CoD series remains almost unchanged, and there's nothing wrong with that - because it's fun. Gameplay is tweaked in a few notable ways by the modernization of the setting. You'll occasionally do a stealth-style mission aided by nightvision (obviously absent from WWII), weapons now fire right through walls, and it's no longer a requirement to ditch the terrible American weapons for their superior German equivalents a few seconds into each level. In fact your default assault rifle is quite serviceable, and I found no real need to snag another weapon over the course of the game. Grenades felt a bit sloppier, likely due to their weighing less than WWII potatomashers. Both shooting through walls and tossing grenades back at enemies (another new move) are tactics the terrorists can make use of as well, improving their combat effectiveness. These groundpounding elements are broken up by some very enjoyable rail-shooting sequences. They are welcome diversions when they're injected into the story, with one nightvision-only sequence particularly well done.

For many players, the par-for-the-course gameplay and well-done single player story are just sidelines to this game's best offering: a full melding of RPG sensibilities with online FPS play. Much like the accolades offered in Battlefield 2's online component, Call of Duty 4 features a wealth of medals and awards to be handed out via multiplayer. The difference with CoD 4, though, is that these accolades are wrapped up inside a 'leveling' and 'class' structure, netting you the warfare FPS equivalent of superpowers. The ability for your bullets to pass through walls more easily, a larger inventory, new weapons, and a tweakable 'character class' all lead you through 55 levels of advancement. It's probably one of the most ambitious persistent elements to an FPS yet, and certainly the most advanced to come to a console. I haven't had as much time as I would have liked with this element, but it's quite a sight to behold the first time you enter that part of the game; it's sort of like opening a menu and stumbling into a MMOG hidden inside your FPS.

"Quite a sight" was actually one of the first things I thought when I began playing the game. There's an early level that places you at the far end of a broken and battered highway, raised up above street level. Your vantage point when you first enter the mission has you looking out over the battle-scarred ruins of a city. The terrorists are everywhere, and as a result smoke and anti-aircraft tracers light the sky. There are fires off in the distance, the sound of combat, and the occasional blast of a rocket explosion. It's an amazing image, a centerpiece for the title's visual imagery in the same way the title sequence is a centerpiece for the game's story. The sound in the game is likewise impactful, with 'Saving Private Ryan'-esque head ducks and dodges required by the zip of bullets and whiz of shrapnel. Probably the game's strongest suit, Call of Duty 4's presentation is a masterwork of modern gaming. It's easily one of the most beautiful games I've seen on the 360.

Overall, though I quite like Call of Duty 4, its core gameplay tries very hard to be humble despite the amazing presentation and strongly told tale. The basic, moment-to-moment activities you'll be performing in the game are so rote at this point that it's hard to get overly excited about the experience. When compared with titles like Rainbox Six Vegas, it's also hard to understand why I can't more effectively duck behind cover. In a game ostensibly touting modern military tactics, it's altogether unclear why 'duck' and 'crouch' are my only two real options when avoiding withering enemy fire. Even still, this game is a watershed for the CoD series. It's a breakthrough in technology and story for Infinity Ward, and sets the bar incredibly high for future modern warfare FPS titles. Via the online shooter component the game also has quite a bit of 'replay' value, and is a quality showing in the midst of a very busy holiday gaming season. Call of Duty 4 is worth a look from any fan of the genre, if only for an example of how to tell a story in the midst of a terrible (and timely) war.

Comments

Review

[Haelyn]

Though the game suffers somewhat from overly-familiar gameplay in the single-player component, you'll probably be too busy gawking at the scenery to care.

I think that sums it up. Zero innovation, prettier eyecandy.

Re:Review

[Anonymous Coward]

I don't get this whole anti-graphics attitude on slashdot. Are you trying to argue that having better visuals *isn't* a good thing? A game doesn't have to be revolutionary to be good. If it has no flaw in it, doesn't that make it a great game? If the existing gameplay is already good, why should it be completely overhauled?

Re:Review

[clubby]

And thank goodness for that. The last thing I want in a CoD sequel is innovation. Give me more of the same, but prettier and with new stuff. Innovation is for non-sequels, IMHO.

Re:Review

[MBCook]

That's what I got from this review. It actually sounds kind of fun (I only play FPSes once in a while) and sounds like an improvement of the "purer" FPSs that I've played (never played a CoD). But is really doesn't sound like too much more than an incremental improvement.

Yet I've seen reviews placing it at 90-100%. Super Mario Galaxy (a game that is quite a bit of a leap compared to other platformers) is in the same territory.

This game got a very fair score here at /. I'd have even called a 4/5 fair. But it annoys me to read so many reviews that say the graphics are great, the gameplay is mostly the same as last year, new element X is fun, Y is annoying, and the camera makes the game very hard to play. 99%.

Re:Review

[heartless_]

I will continue to pay $50 for this sort of story telling and immersion, even if it is only 6 hours a game.

Re:Review

[ad0gg]

COD4 is more like a movie than a video game. Haven't passed the game yet but gameplay and story are quite enjoyable though I wish the AC130 gunship level was a little longer. On a side note, games can be too innovated. Forexample, mario galaxy. Great game only issue is that its gameplay is so innovated that my brain has not adapted to it yet. I get motion sickness after an hour of play. I wanted to continue playing but couldn't. Maybe i'll buy some dramine for tonight's gaming session.

Re:Review

[JPriest]

I tend to be one of the "same game, different graphics" kind of grieffer. It took just one Saturday for me to beat the game, but it was definitely worth renting. It was one of the few games that left me thinking "man I would like to see this on an HDTV". It felt way more real than many other similar games I have played before it. it certainly sets raises the bar. I don't have time to play the game online, but if I did I would probably buy it.

Re:Review

[TheGoodSteven]

Its not that visuals aren't a good thing, but if game developers are going to put more time into a game, I rather it be developing gameplay than making it look nicer. Doom 3 was a very pretty game, but it got boring very quickly. Prey wasn't revolutionary in anyway when it came to graphics, but boy was that a fun game. But I guess thats the name of the game; if video games came out that had excellent gameplay, then people might keep playing those same games for years, without putting their money into the next really pretty game. Counterstrike is a perfect example of this, not pretty by any means, but it still has one of the largest, if not the largest, fanbase out of any games. This is why I've shied away from buying games anymore unless they are really the talk of the town. Gimme an emulator and General Chaos over Call of Duty X. Now get off my lawn!

Re:Review

[moderatorrater]

I don't get this whole anti-graphics attitude on slashdot I don't get the false homogenization (I may have just made that up -- (c) moderatorrater 2007) of slashdot users.

Some people (like the reviewer) value pretty graphics , some people value a new gameplay experience through new mechanics (like the gp). When you get right down to it, a game is a set of mechanics with a story thrown around it. The new brand of casual games cut away the story in favor of emphasizing mechanics, as do board games and most non-computer games. For some people, these mechanics are the most important part of the game by far, so they have a problem with a new game which uses the same old mechanics with new visuals. This is especially true in an area where these new visuals cost another $60-$70.

Re:Review

[JohnnyBigodes]

Despite agreeing with the general statement, I'll have to say:

"In this case, not correct".

What the review has totally failed to mention is the sheer intensity of the combat in this iteration. I've played CoD1 and 2, and 3 was god-awful. Now *that* was totally no innovation, same game as before, with shaded and bump-mapped graphics.

In Call of Duty 4, the best rough description I can give for the combat is that "there's shit flying EVERYWHERE". From the smoke to the flames heat effect, HDR (eye brightness adjustment) exploding cars, tracer bullets, laser beams (w/ Night Vision), the debris, all the bullet marks, a copious number of corpses left around, the really neat depth-of-field as you aim down the ironsights, etc... All of this contributes so that despite that, intrinsically, nothing here is *revolutionary*, it is a culmination of all the good stuff from before, which only happens because Infinity Ward built such a great (and fast!) graphics engine. It's very *evolutionary*, and has a good amount of little touches. The story, all the character voicings, the immediate briefing-to-mission fades, the "mini-missions" (one of the coolest things EVER is the mission where you're shooting shit below from an AC-130 plane), and so on. The combat system has some minor changes. Now you usually have 2 or 3 paths to pick to get to your target, and many larger locations present additional strategic challenges. There are also some new weapons, like Claymores and C4 for snipers (the sniping mission in Prypiat is one of the coolest).

Oh, did I mention the engine is FAST? Probably one of the fastest engines ever written, in terms of "prettiness/speed ratio". It's just "another FPS", sure, that's a fact, but it's also by far one of the best. Played Crysis, next to this it's just "pretty, but meh".

Re:Review

[Anonymous Coward]

Saying Java is nice because it works on all OS's is like saying that anal sex is nice because it works on all genders.

it isn't?

Re:Review

[MattSausage]

Any review that barely touches on multiplayer does a serious disservice to those who would play this game. This is easily the most engrossing and impressive multiplayer FPS to come out in the last two or three years. The fact that your 'superpowers' really feel like they do some good without completely overwhelming the battle and the relatively rapid pace of advancement means a game can still feel balanced even if you are playing with people many many levels ahead of you. This is easily a buy for anyone interested in multiplayer FPS games. If you're in it for the single player only, absolutely worth a rental because the campaign is only five or six hours long, but it is a very impressive five or six hours. But be ye not fooled, this is a multiplayer game first, a single player game second. To suggest this game has no innovation speaks TOMES about how you have not played the game and are dismissing it, most likely because you are a halo fanboi. So there!

Re:Review

[king-manic]

I think that sums it up. Zero innovation, prettier eyecandy. Doesn't that describe 80% of all human endeavors.

Re:Review

[fastest fascist]

Have you played a game recently? I have, and usually I can't play more than 30 minutes at a time due to it just feeling like a total chore. Less graphics, more actual innovative gameplay, please.

Re:Review

[Anonymous Coward]

Care to receive?

Re:Review

[modecx]

I've only played the demo, but I will be getting the game for PC later on tonight.

Here's my perspective: I'm an FPS hog, but have never laid my hands on a CoD game prior to starting the demo. Basically, I've been playing Battlefield 2, 2142, Day of Defeat, Counterstrike, America's Army and some other recent title for a while. I recently upgraded my gaming computer and haven't laid my hands on a lot of the shiny, newer FPS games.

I'm all for improved graphics, if it adds to atmosphere. The thing with CoD4 is that it's got a metric assload of atmosphere. After an hour of messing around with the various difficulty levels in the demo and trying stuff out, I got a little motion sick, to be honest. I mean, I didn't have run to the bathroom to retch, but it's the closest I think I've ever come to that due to motion related stuff, and I do not get sick on planes, boats, or anything else, even if I'm watching someone empty their stomach--probably due to my love of FPSs.

If someone strapped a high def camera to a soldier's helmet and put him in a similar situation, I imagine the result would be pretty close to what you see in the game play. My second run the next day didn't hit me that way, but it's still pretty powerful. Actually, the detail in the game isn't all that noticeable when you're running and gunning.

Sure, if you sit there and look around, it's pretty stunning; but if you sit there, you and your squad are dead! For the most part, the game keeps you going pretty much constantly. One cool thing I noticed in the demo is how an overhead illuminating flare is used to light up the battlefield in the last encounter of the demo. I mean, it looked pretty freaking good, created shadows all over the place, etc. Likewise, the night vision segment was really good, and it just feels real unlike it does in most other games.

I think a problem the /. crowd has with super snazzy graphics is that games with great graphics are often poorly done in other areas, simply because the game studio concentrated only on graphics and not other (more important) game mechanics, and as a result the game becomes generally un-fun and disappointing. IMHO, from what I've seen, CoD4 is not one of those games--I do think it's going to be a very fun, compelling game, and the graphics, sound and play do make it an immersing experience.

Re:Review

[htnprm]

Yip. Games I happily go back and play are System Shock 2, Half-Life and Home World. I wouldn't bother replaying anything I've purchased in the past few years. As a result of this, I buy fewer games now than I used to. It's all just the same rehashed stuff, with pretty graphics.

Re:Review

[hairyfeet]

Well I can't speak for the poster above, I for one am sick of games with great eye candy and A.I. that is dumb as a sack of hammers. I personally would be happy to trade eye candy for opponents that aren't retards. And I am sick of most games just sticking an online multiplayer like that makes it better. Because I'd much rather play offline than deal with a bunch of foul mouthed 14 year olds that get pissy if they lose and rude if they win. I know that A.I. is not as easy to sell as eye candy, but hopefully as we are starting to get to the point where all games are about as realistic as they can get without being FMV, we will start to see companies start selling A.I. and physics the way they are selling the "ooh,pretty" now. At least that's my 2c, YMMV.

Re:Review

[tompaulco]

I thank you for this comment. I was looking at the review and not sure if he was speaking of a single player focused game, or a multiplayer focused game. I have no interest in multiplayer games, so thanks to your comment, I will give this a pass. $50 for 5-6 hours of campaign time? No thanks. I've got over a hundred hours into GT4 and I am less than 10% done with it. I have probably 30 into GTA Vice City stories, and am only 20% complete. Now I understand many these days want to buy a $50 game, look up the cheat codes for unlimited weapons, blow through the game in 5 hours and then go on to the next $50 game, but I look for much more reward for my money.

Re:Review

[sortius_nod]

Agreed, it's one reason I think Crysis is a pile of dogshit.

Don't get me wrong, beautiful game, awe inspiring. It just sucks balls, same mechanics as FarCry (which was a shit game with a shit story and sexy graphics), same story as every 2-bit military game.

To be honest, if you want to do a game with no story (or even just a done to death story), make a multiplayer game.

Recent releases from Valve show the way. While I think Valve is full of dickheads who destroy other people's games (counter-strike), they do wonderful work on their own. TF2, no story really, just a few clips between each map, great mechanics and fairly good graphics - excellent game. HL2:EP2, excellent story, excellent mechanics, "ok" graphics - excellent game.

The industry need to wake the fuck up to themselves really. Rehashing the same plot with sexier graphics doesn't work.

The amusing thing is that games that have used the same graphics but continued and built the story are vastly more entertaining than sexy graphics and the same plot.

Re:Review

[Anonymous Coward]

How much of Crysis could you have played? It was just released 4 hours 14 minutes before your post? Unless you're trying to compare a prelease demo to this game you obviously own. +5 Fanboy

Re:Review

[Skillet5151]

Oh, did I mention the engine is FAST? Probably one of the fastest engines ever written, in terms of "prettiness/speed ratio". It's just "another FPS", sure, that's a fact, but it's also by far one of the best. I don't know what your hardware configuration is, but the demo ran quite poorly on the auto detected settings (at 1280x960) for me and didn't look all that impressive.

With a:
7900GS
X2 4000+ 2.1 Ghz
2GB DDR2

I'm redownloading the demo now to give it another run through because of everything good I've been hearing. Maybe I just need to tweak a few things manually.

Re:Review

[The Analog Kid]

Doom 3 was a very pretty game, but it got boring very quickly.

Clearly, Id's forte isn't in good storylines, character development, or anything else that would make a good story to play through. They are in the business of making game engines that provide excellent visuals and then making a lot licensing these engines to other developers who in turn will make great stories using Id's engines. Quake 3 was only really popular because of it's multiplayer (did it even have a single player?), and mods.

Re:Review

[JohnnyBigodes]

Demo didn't seem to run as fast as the full game, but it might have been psychological effect. Also check the settings manually, perhaps it's leaving some performance-hitting stuff on. I went with only 2xAA and Medium level of corpses (less geometry = good) and by my Eye-O-Meter, it only ever goes under 50FPS during the most intense stuff.

I've got a good rig sure (8800GTX), but I can tell you that CoD4 runs comparatively a LOT better than most recent games (and many old ones too). For instance, between: Bioshock, Crysis, CoD4, and UT3, I'd rate them in speed vs. graphics terms as so: CoD4 / UT3 / Bioshock / Crysis. Oh, and the engine actually supports AA out of the box. Take THAT and smoke it, Epic!

Also, take attention that Nvidia's been on a "beta" drivers spree lately, might want to update those.

PS- Crysis doesn't run *that* bad, really, after all, pretty stuff is demanding, but I'm sure they could/should have optimized their engine better.

Re:Review

[Anonymous Coward]

Played Crysis, next to this it's just "pretty, but meh".

Oh c'mon, Crysis is hardly *just* "pretty".

It has fantastic freeform sandbox levels, and innovative nanosuit gameplay (how many other FPS games let you crush someone by throwing a boulder at them, then powerjump on top of a building and cloak, Predator style?).

That, combined with the absolutely stunning graphics, put Crysis head and shoulders above just about everything else out there, including CoD. I'll make exceptions for Bioshock and Portal. ;)

Two things suck about Crysis, the generic story and steep hardware requirements. But gameplay is king, and Crysis is outstanding here. Not to knock CoD's gameplay, which is great... guess I just prefer non-linear to rail-shooters.

Re:Review

[JohnnyBigodes]

Well fair enough, to each his own :) By "Played" meant "I played", which is my opinion. I haven't tried the full game yet (hope they've improved the engine's speed a bit tho), but the demo had this odd thing about "seen this before" about it (apart from the obvious Far Cry). I think my main problem with it was the fact that apart from the suit, the rest of the game didn't seem, _in the demo_, to bring anything all that new before, not even in evolutionary terms, as I described CoD4.

In any case, I hope to be proved wrong with the full game. Another great game can't hurt, of course :)

Re:Review

[NMerriam]

I think that sums it up. Zero innovation, prettier eyecandy.

Man, I'd pay $100 for an updated, prettier version of Fallout or Star Control. Sometimes there's no point in messing with a winning formula, just update the engine and add some bling so that it doesn't look dated.

I played the single-player CoD4 all the way through and loved it. I'm glad I suck at FPS, otherwise I'd be playing multiplayer all the time.

Re:Review

[Tuidjy]

Innovation is not always a good thing. There is something to be said for keeping mechanics that work.

I loved Call of Duty I to obsession. I still play it between new games, with my house rules - hardest difficulty, restart level when killed. I was turned off by the 'revolutionary innovation' that let you wait for ten seconds to fully heal any wound and never bought any sequel after the demo that introduced it. And no, you cannot just 'not use it', the way you can avoid health packs is some other games. I completely ruined my immersion.

I guess now is the time to ask...

Is there a setting or mod that removes the regeneration from Call of Duty IV?

Re:Review

[NMerriam]

I never loaded the demo, so I don't know if it was poorly optimized (which seems to happen quite a bit).

I honestly expected CoD4 wouldn't run well enough to play on my system, which is an "ancient" Athlon64 @1800Mhz with 3GB of old DDR memory. My 7600GT is a decent card that seems to perform a hell of a lot better than it seems anyone gives credit for. I can play just about every game released at 1280x1024 with all the settings turned to max except AA/AF, which I usually leave at 2x.

CoD4 is not only playable, I turned every visual setting to max and even was able to leave the filtering at 4x, I still get 20-30fps depending on the scene. I suspect Crysis will kill my system, but CoD4 seems to be a ridiculously efficient engine -- even smoother than HL2 but with better effects at the same frame rate.

Re:Review

[Anonymous Coward]

"Rehashing the same plot with sexier graphics doesn't work."

Sales numbers prove you wrong.

Re:Review

[McFadden]

I think a problem the /. crowd has with super snazzy graphics is that games with great graphics are often poorly done in other areas, simply because the game studio concentrated only on graphics and not other (more important) game mechanics, and as a result the game becomes generally un-fun and disappointing. IMHO, from what I've seen, CoD4 is not one of those games--I do think it's going to be a very fun, compelling game, and the graphics, sound and play do make it an immersing experience.

If I could mod you +5 I would. I couldn't agree more. The Wii effect, emphasising gameplay over graphics is a good thing IMHO, but unfortunately it's become so 'trendy' to follow this line, that certain reviewers (including unfortunately the individual who gave this game 3/5) have allowed it to blinker their view to the point that they can't see beyond the graphics, and actually appreciate the quality of the game for what it is.

*** Warning - may contain minor spoilers.

The cinematography in this game is outstanding. From the prologue involving the SAS raid on a cargo ship smuggling nukes, to the main opening car ride through the streets of the Baghdad-like middle-eastern city and the subsequent execution of the country's president, the story is woven with great finesse and attention to detail and it rarely lets up, allowing you to suspend your disbelief and get throughly involved in the action. It is as immersive an experience as I have ever had during a videogame. Clearly a lot of time has been spent on voice acting to produce something which is significantly better than the average. And the enemy AI is excellent, to the point where they actually make more effective use of tactics and cover than I do.

The training mode gives you just enough to get you started, but leave you feeling like a raw recruit. The first mission in particular beautifully combined the calm, coordinated teamwork of highly professional soldiers on a mission, with the utter pandemonium and complete lack of focus that occurs when suddenly enemy combatants start ambushing you from all directions.

Another point the review singularly fails to mention (and this is a sad reflection of the quality of the editorial on Slashdot) is the superb technical achievement Infinity Ward's game engine has turned out to be. I recently downloaded the Crysis demo, which although a demo, appears to be pretty much a feature complete run through of the opening mission. It runs like 3-legged dog, with my rig managing a barely playable 20fps at a resolution of 1280x800 with everything set to 'medium'. From what I've seen so far though, CoD4 is actually at least as good as, if not more beautiful lookin than Crysis, and yet I can run it with every setting on maximum, at 1920x1200 and barely even see a flicker of slowdown. I would never have believed my Radeon X1900XT (these days very much a mid-range card) would be capable of what I've seen with my own eyes.

I'm really glad I bought this game before I read the Slashdot review. Although I've never really placed much trust in the quality of 'journalism' (for want of a better word) on this site, giving this game 3/5 is more about the reviewer's petty prejudices and grandstanding to the 'graphics aren't everything' crowd, and less about the quality of the game. It's true... graphics aren't everything, but that's why it's a shame that Zonk can't see that CoD4 has so much more than just eye-candy.

Re:Review

[Anonymous Coward]

Agreed but disagree.

They did what they did previously BETTER, was self innovating.

I don't think i've played a game capable of mixing real game play while being pushed through a story line but not to envasively and the eye candy at super high rez.

Now on to crysis a real mans game for a real system.

Re:Review

[JackieBrown]

"that get pissy if they lose"

Even more annoying - to me at least - is when the players on the losing side quit before the game ends just because the don't want to be there at the end.

It always deflates the win for me.

Re:Review

[Propaganda13]

So as long as you have pretty eye candy, you'd be happy eating dots and being chased by ghosts around a maze?

A game doesn't have to be revolutionary to be good, but a sequel should improve gameplay. It should not be a graphics update plus maybe a new map pack.

Side Note: A good mod community will increase the lifetime of any game.

Re:Review

[packeteer]

Man you just can't make gamers happy. If they change the game play and keep the graphics nearly the same people complain its not what they know and like. Look at Starcraft and Counter Strike, 2 of the most popular games ever. The gameplay is so solid nobody wants it to change. Notice how CS:Source didn't really take off other than the fact it has to be played in the big tourneys. Solid gameplay is important and once you get the perfect gameplay dont change it too much. People will happily play add ons with new features but are generally the same game.

Look at games like chess, the same game play has lasted hundreds of years. The chess boards have gotten ornate and computer chess can show some cool pieces but its the same solid game play people want and EXPECT.

Though the game suffers somewhat from overly-familiar game play in the single-player component, you'll probably be too busy gawking at the scenery to care

This is a review from someone who wants everything new. They don't really care about the game they just want it to be new and shiny. Something to distract them. I know a lot of people play video games for the same reason they watch TV, to distract themselves for a while. If you really want new game play look outside the FPS genre. There are some subcategories of FPS games that you might want to try but stop complaining that they didn't throw the baby out with the bathwater and redesign what works.

Re:Review

[LKM]

I agree. I own a PS3. Games like R&C or Uncharted get great reviews, but I did not even finish the demos for these two games. Sure, they look incredible, but R&C plays basically the same as the PS2 versions: follow a predefined path and shoot everything; and Uncharted is Gears of War on an Island: follow a predefinied path and shoot everything; plus, you can take cover.

I've played these games before. I see no reason to play them again. The game I play the most right now is EA Playground. Sure, it's pretty crappy, and the graphics are bad, but at least it's something fresh.

Re:Review

[Blue_Bawls]

I would have to agree. I don't mind kick arse graphics(I love eye candy), but if the game lacks enough playable content that will keep me occupied for hours...eye candy or not, it really isn't worth my time or the big bucks to spend on it.

Re:Review

[ShadowsHawk]

I enjoyed the gunship as well. The problem that I had was I had a hard time picking out which guys were mine. I wish they had made them a different color rather than a non-obvious 'blinking'.

Re:Review

[Gravatron]

Bingo. CoD4 has some of the best firefights for an FPS ever. Bullets zip all around you, and even though your cover if your behind something thin. Grenades rain down on you at times, giving you a great "oh shi!!!" moment as you scramble to throw it back. Probabaly the first really good example of this is the news station stage. ITs pure chaos, but damn is it fun. To cool you down from this are several more silent missions, where the goal is often to sneak by or take out silently anyone you can, and to pick your targets wisely. The ultimate example of that stage was the first part of the sniper misison, where you maby have to shoot 2 people to clear it, if your careful about who you avoid.

Re:Review

[Anonymous Coward]

well honestly, this is a sequel in name only. a war game set in the present(or near future) is quite a departure from ww2 combat. they were just trying to capitalize on the name brand most likely.

Re:Review

[tommertron]

You're equating good gameplay with good character and story development. For me, if I want character and story, I read a book or watch a movie. I play games to experience playing a game. Sometimes a story can make the gameplay compelling, but without gameplay, it's dead to me.

And that's why I take issue with your swipe at Id. I never played Quake, but Doom (and especially Doom 2) represented amazing gameplay to me. The level design and re-playability were phenomenal. They weren't just about aiming and shooting, they were about managing ammunition, health levels, and strategizing who to take out first and what route to take to avoid death. That, again, to me, remains the cornerstone of a great FPS, and Id invented it with Doom.

Re:Review

[modecx]

You know, you struck on pretty much all of the points which I forgot needed to be addressed, and you're 100% right on all counts.

I kind of laughed when I read how you felt about the cinematography. Yeah, the cut-scenes are as cinema like as anything I've seen before, but due to the confining urban nature of the battleground(of the first map, at least), the game does feel as much like you're watching a movie as it does that you're playing a game. Unlike a lot of FPSs, which have a disappointing "rail shooter" feeling, CoD does seem to take you along a fairly confined path, but manages to not feel much like you're on a rail. I suppose that's due in part to the squad nature, it feels like you're on a mission.

Re:Review

[Anonymous Coward]

I agree with you totally, this game is by far the most intense and visually stunning game ever to come out of the Call of Duty series. Everything looks like an action movie (black hawk down leaps to mind) down to the last little detail, the panicked duck of an enemy you just caught by surprise, the stumble as he is hit in the leg and the crawl backwards across the floor as he shoots at you with his pistol.

Also the game runs INCREDIBLY fast. My computer is not top of the line. I can just about run Company of Heroes on sub-medium and the crysis demo had no chance, but I thought, hey just for the heck of it, lets see what happens if I put everything up to high, I wanna see if my computer blows up or anything. Wham! I'm trapped in some middle east restaurant cowering for my life as the bullets zing over my head and grenades fly left and right. It has run completely flawlessly, not even one millisecond of jump, for about a week now.

This game officially rocks. Not advised for people over the age of 60, with screens bigger than 30 inches or sub woofers attached to their speakers because you WILL suffer a heart attack and die...quickly.

Re:Review

[The Analog Kid]

A single player game (yes I know Doom 3 had multiplayer but it is a regression from present-day FPS) should have a decent storyline, I'm not saying that a video game needs to have deep character development but it should have some elements that make up a story.

Re:Review

[tommertron]

Really? One of the most popular single-player games out there is Tetris. What's the storyline for that?

Same with Serious Sam. Great first person shooter that didn't even pretend to try to have a story-line. Just lots of monsters, and shoot them and live. Sorry, I just don't buy that a story is necessary for a game, and for me (and I know it's just an opinion) I think trying to shoehorn a linear storyline into something that's inherently non-linear hinders the game.

Re:Review

[The Analog Kid]

Tetris doesn't pretend to have a storyline, nor does Serious Sam. I didn't say that a story is a necessity either, what I'm saying is, if your game is going to have a plot, it should be decent, and that's not Id's strong suit, but it doesn't matter, since Id uses their games to showcase their engines.

Outstanding Game

[clubby]

I've beaten it once, and I'm looking forward to doing it again! Excellent production values, solid controls, amazing performance given how good the graphics look. On my machine (MBP) CoD4 looks much better than Crysis at equal frame rates. Good job!

tough time

[JustNiz]

Its a tough time for any new FPS game released right now as Crysis and Unreal Tournament are both on the shelves within a few days.
Seems like they should have released earlier or waited a few weeks. COD4 will just get lost in the noise.

Re:tough time

[insanius]

um....considering, last night there were 60,000+ people playing it on xbox live last night around 9pm eastern, i would say CoD4 is making the noise, not getting lost in it.

Re:tough time

[JustNiz]

ahh I didn't realise it was also out on xbox. I thought it was PC-only.

Re:tough time

[mobby_6kl]

Ehm, I don't think COD4 is the game to "get lost in the noise". It might not have been hyped up nearly as much as Crysis, but it's one of the most popular FPS series which seems to rank pretty high on google trends.

Re:tough time

[SCPRedMage]

PC, 360, and PS3, actually.

4?

[polar red]

But when will 5 come out ?

Re:4?

[Anonymous Coward]

Your sig: Iraq has cost >130000 lives (=40* 9/11) and $1,500,000,000,000, or $20000 per American family.

40 * 9 / 11 is definitely not > 130000...

Playstation2

[FudRucker]

i hope they release a Playstation2 version, i rolled the credits on "Call of Duty 3" and did enjoy the game very much...

Re:Playstation2

[Bartold]

Ya, I'm hoping for a 486SX version myself.

I'm having fun on multiplayer

[Boomer_Zz]

There are still some bugs to work out though. I like the choice of guns and the fast leveling up (to get more guns).

The perks you can give your character (2 of them) are cool, so people can assign them to their own strengths as a player.

I do notice some people who seem to be able to see through smoke / through walls (google it). Admins can catch it, but it's so early I don't think many know what to look for. The kill cam helps anti-sniping if it's enabled on the server you play on.

Re:I'm having fun on multiplayer

[someonehasmyname]

You actually have 3 perks, but having an M203 grenade launcher attached to your primary weapon replaces Perk 1. So if you remove the M203, you can select a total of 3 perks.

Re:I'm having fun on multiplayer

[Boomer_Zz]

Yes, I should clarify, two perks are "character based" one is extra equipment.

Not quite

[TheMeuge]

Repetition is not ALWAYS a bad thing.

All of the Call Of Duty games feature a familiar type of gameplay... but the fact is that the creators of the games have gotten this down to a science... and have repeatedly(!) created a very immersive gameplay experience. Because every level and game are slightly different, and have their own perks, COD has not devolved into a mindless rehash, but has rather brought an opportunity to purchase a title that has a good chance of being as enjoyable as the last, with a non-existent learning curve.

Are they being original with every iteration? Certainly not. But they've provided enough of a variety of environments, stories, and settings, that COD is still enjoyable, years after the first one revolutionized the WWII FPS arena.

Re:Not quite

[Serge_Tomiko]

The OP probably thinks Mario Galaxy is the greatest thing ever

Re:Not quite

[Anonymous Coward]

Yeah just like Megaman!!! Get with it people!

Re:Not quite

[xhrit]

Repetition is not ALWAYS a bad thing. All of the *Madden NFL* games feature a familiar type of gameplay... but the fact is that the creators of the games have gotten this down to a science... and have repeatedly(!) created a very immersive gameplay experience. Because every level and game are slightly different, and have their own perks, *Madden NFL 08* has not devolved into a mindless rehash, but has rather brought an opportunity to purchase a title that has a good chance of being as enjoyable as the last, with a non-existent learning curve. Are they being original with every iteration? Certainly not. But they've provided enough of a variety of *players, stadiums, and weather*, that *Madden NFL 08* is still enjoyable, years after the first one revolutionized the *sports* arena.

Re:Not quite

[mike2R]

Repetition is not ALWAYS a bad thing.

Quite, I'm not a huge FPS fan and I doubt I'll play this game, but I'm always pleased when a sequel is made to a game I like.

There seems to be a carry over from the dislike of movie sequels into games as far as I can tell. I hate sequels to great movies - almost without exception they're made simply because they're a safe bet; an attempt to recreate a previous success by doing more of the same with the expectation that name recognition will ensure a profit. They don't add anything to the original, they simply (and obviously) try to cash in on its success.

Games aren't like that. At the end of the day it is the gameplay that is important in a game - yes the plot might advance in a sequel, but this isn't what the sequel is about. The sequel is the same game, but with several years more development and user feedback incorporated into it - it's an improved version of the same game. When I like a game this is what I want.

I loved the original Civilisation. Civ2 was the same game but so much better. Civ3 built on the Civ2 base and refined it considerably [I know there are some who hate anything after Civ2, I've never really understood why myself]. Civ4 (now on it's second expansion pack) is a really great game that I'm playing at the moment.

I wouldn't play the original Civ anymore - it was amazing at the time, but things move on. But the ongoing development of the Civilisation series has provided me with a string of great games for more years than I want to count.

At the end of the day a game is about the gameplay mechanics. The same game with improved gameplay is better than the original. While I agree that new original games are a good thing, that doesn't stop me appreciating incremental improvements to existing games,

Re:Not quite

[pinchhazard]

Ah, our old friend the parenthetical exclamatory point. When I see a (!), even in such a crass place as slashdot, I immediately know that I can stop reading and forget what I have already read. This small slip of the fingers has rendered you a retard in my mind.

Re:Not quite

[enderjsv]

Wow! Why all the hate for the exclamation point? He may not be the most popular puncuation mark but at least he's peppy. If you're gonna hate, hate on the semi-colon. He and the ampersand can both kiss my ass!

Re:Not quite

[mcmonkey]

Repetition is not ALWAYS a bad thing.

You can say that again.

Re:Not quite

[LKM]

The OP probably thinks Mario Galaxy is the greatest thing ever

Are you implying that it isn't?

Re:Not quite

[geminidomino]

Wow! Why all the hate for the exclamation point? He may not be the most popular puncuation mark but at least he's peppy. If you're gonna hate, hate on the semi-colon. He and the ampersand can both kiss my ass! Wow, are you on your period or what?

*ducks and runs*

Comparison vs Battlefield 2142:

[mikeasu]

Got my copy of CoD4 yesterday. Gorgeous game, but knew that from the demo. Gameplay is pretty typical I think - actually comes pretty natural. Comparing multiplayer to BF2 or BF2142...just different. CoD4 seems a bit quicker paced. Understandable, since there are no vehicles in CoD4, therefore, the maps were made smaller. Vehicles - FPS players seem to either love them or hate them. I think in the BF series, esp. 2142, they did a good job of varying strengths and weakness in the vehicles. Allowed for wide variety of tactics. And the maps in 2142, esp. Titan mode lent themselves to interesting strategies. The round or two of multiplayer CoD4 last night - first impressions...very good. Quicker action, but still (at least the map type we were in, Sabotage I think) playing as a squad makes a difference. All in all - a very good purchase for a FPS fan - not a replacement for 2142, but a good change of pace.

Re:Comparison vs Battlefield 2142:

[ninjagin]

Question:

One of the greatest setbacks that CoD has suffered within my gaming group is the lack of CO-OP multiplayer on the LAN. We prefer to start our own server and play with the bots. 2142 forces you to gain rank -only- in online PvP play, which we think sucks big donkey dick (though we just found a cheat that allows you to build rank for LAN-only play). Does CoD4 offer a CO-OP LAN multiplayer option?

Re:Comparison vs Battlefield 2142:

[mikeasu]

Ninjagin, There are rumors about co-op as downloadable post-release, patch or something, but nothing like that right now.

Re:Comparison vs Battlefield 2142:

[Anonymous Coward]

Vehicles - FPS players seem to either love them or hate them. I think in the BF series, esp. 2142, they did a good job of varying strengths and weakness in the vehicles. Allowed for wide variety of tactics.

I'm a vehicle hound... CoD:UO was right up my alley.

Unfortunately, they (the folks who made CoD:2) didn't put vehicles in the second version of the game (or the 3rd?). So I haven't bothered playing it.

Plus all the compromises they had to make with CoD:2 in order to get it to run on the console platform.

COD4 SERVERS ARE ALL JACKED UP

[Anonymous Coward]

Don't try it right now if you are thinking about it.. the online multiplayer mode is 100% jacked up right now and has been for several days. Can't join matches unless its a private match.

this is on the 360..

when it worked it was hella fun.. but it dont work anymore

Re:COD4 SERVERS ARE ALL JACKED UP

[Anonymous Coward]

xbox live has been messed up since this past saturday, on and off...let's start a class action lawsuit for crappy service we pay for. YAAAAAAAH, MONEY BACK FOR CRAPPY NETWORK INFRASTRUCTURE!! they really need some network upgrades or superior QoS

Re:COD4 SERVERS ARE ALL JACKED UP

[cliffski]

multiplayer works flawlessly on the pc, just played for the last hour.

Re:The ZeroPunctuation review

[sammyF70]

Duh .. wrong game ... Can i mod myself down? Please? That's what you get for writing something on /. while having a splitting headache.

FPS evolution

[leadfoot]

Having played First Person Shooters since Doom, I have to say COD4 on the PC has set the new standard for me. Starting with Doom(never finished), Doom2(finished), Quake 2(Introduced Multiplayer Deathmatch on LAN),Unreal Tournament, Half Life(finished single player several times over), Quake III, MOHAA, COD and COD2(finished single player several times), Far Cry (finished single player), Half Life 2 (finished up to the end of EP1). COD4 has sealed the deal as the greatest so far, w because of 3 scenes. Gunner on an AC-130, sniper with the Ghillie suit and the final, slow-mo scene are the best. For those who haven't made it to the end yet, I'll leave that spoiler for others. I just sat there with my jaw agape as I watched the credits rolling. Just prior to this, I was reminded of the dam(damn?) escape sequence in COD, while riding in the truck shooting the other vehicles that were following. Other highlights, modern weapons, night vision, the Javelin! I almost got wiped out just watching that missile do it's work :) At the same time that I was playing COD4 I was working my way through MOH Airborne. I would not recommend that you do the same, because the gameplay differences are pronounced, with MOHA coming out as the lesser game, both in looks and in gameplay.

I just checked out the multiplayer briefly this morning, and have to say the new class/promotion feature seems to be a refreshing change, as I have seen this on some COD/COD2 mods. I'll have to see how that plays out as I get higher and higher.

Anyhow, I give COD4(PC) 2 thumbs up!!!

Re:FPS evolution

[popeye44]

I think you summed it up. Not terribly new gameplay. but an excellent environment. It tops my list of military games and i've played the whole series. The Ac-130 level was real enough that I got a bit squeamish playing it! As they say if a game feels too short it's usually because you had a lot of fun playing it.

Re:FPS evolution

[Anonymous Coward]

The Ac-130 level was real enough that I got a bit squeamish playing it!

That's because you're a faggot. How does it feel to be a faggot, faggot?

Re:FPS evolution

[ShadowsHawk]

Same here. I actually felt a little guilty when I was mowing them down.

Am I being overly critical?

[arwendt]

Am I being overly critical or is anyone else bothered by the monochromatic look to most MP maps?

the single best single player experience in years

[DragonTHC]

I can't think of a better single player game I've tried in ten years.

It was simply amazing.

3/5?

[Zebra_X]

Nah - maybe 4/5 or 4.5/5. There are a number of aspects of this FPS that set it apart from others:

1 Physics. In the first level you are on a ship, as you walk around, run, and aim, you have to compensate for the roll of the ship. This is one of the first examples of this I've seen - it was a great effect and I'm pretty sure not super easy to do.

Bullet penetration through "soft" targets such as walls is really realistic - it also makes you re-think what "cover" really is.

2 Sneak. In most games of this genere it's kill or be killed. Taking a page out of metal gear solid, there are some levels where sneaking can keep you from getting into a fight - especially as a sniper.

3 There is one level entitled "Death from above" where you are a gunner on an AC-130. The level was very easy - but the dialog from the "crew" of the Spectre was really cool. When you scan over an area where there are bad guys the spotter will say "Get those guys" or "Yeah take them out". In some cases it's difficult to see because of cover and things - so the added verbal confirmation that you are about to kill the right guys was really impressive.

4 The enviroments flowed well.

5 Online play is challenging and engagning with a wide range of matches and game play, some lag though and "replay" is not always what you "saw" right before you died.

6 Wide range of weapons

7 Air support, UAV, and Helicopters as added bonuses for killing streaks

A FPS is an FPS but CoD 4 has really pushed the state of the art - you have to play with your eyes and ears not some crazy HUD that will always tell you where the bad guys are. There is the element of "maybe i can get that guy through a wall" - in a way this game redefines "cover" for the FPS genere. I also like the fact that dying is easy enough - it's not like it take a clip to take you down, three bullet strikes in a row is about all you can take.

Also, in the second to last level in the missle silo - there is a computer that looks remarkable like J.O.S.H.U.A. of war games. Mad props to the designers for including that.

Overall - a ton of fun to play.

Hoorah.

Re:3/5?

[Boomer_Zz]

3 There is one level entitled "Death from above" where you are a gunner on an AC-130. The level was very easy - but the dialog from the "crew" of the Spectre was really cool. When you scan over an area where there are bad guys the spotter will say "Get those guys" or "Yeah take them out". In some cases it's difficult to see because of cover and things - so the added verbal confirmation that you are about to kill the right guys was really impressive.

I must say that this was completely cool. By far my most favorite level, and by far awesomeeeeeeee... I had forgotten about it, and it looks extremely realistic.

Re:3/5?

[anethema]

Just to let you know, the actual last level happens after you go through the credits. It is on an airplane. Basically killing highjackers. Kind of neet.

Gunship level was by far the coolest.

Re:3/5?

[Anonymous Coward]

Actually, it was named W.O.P.R.

Re:3/5?

[kernelphr34k]

I agree with you on alot of points you've made. What really struck me is that when your working on an objective you can be a gunner in a helicopter one mine, and next your in CQB mode the next. I love it how your role changes around accordingly to the situation. Had the game for a few days and I run home to go play after work. Overall great fun!! I set it to the hardest mode, and started playing. Tough indeed!

Re:3/5?

[pete-classic]

There's a book called "FM 21-75: COMBAT SKILLS OF THE SOLDIER". Chapter 1 is entitled, "Cover, Concealment, and Camouflage". They are, in descending order of effectiveness, the things that save your ass from enemy fire.

You seem to have just noticed the difference between "concealment" and "cover". Now you have the vocabulary to match.

Carry on.

-Peter

Re:3/5?

[Zebra_X]

Ha ha - thanks for the correction. for some reason i remember it as joshua.

Re:3/5?

[Darth]

In the first level you are on a ship, as you walk around, run, and aim, you have to compensate for the roll of the ship. This is one of the first examples of this I've seen - it was a great effect and I'm pretty sure not super easy to do.

I used to know a guy whose father worked for a defense contractor. His dad worked on a system to aid targeting systems in compensating for the roll of ships at sea when firing their guns.

It amuses me that after many years we've finally developed the physics of our games to the point where we've recreated, for fun, the problem he was trying to solve.

This isn't a criticism of the feature or the game. I just found it really amusing.

Re:3/5?

[Anonymous Coward]

W.O.P.R. ; joshua was the password (after Dr. Falken's dead son, errr... nice password "doc" )

Correction for summary (CoD3: Hot Potato)

[u8i9o0]

... tossing grenades back at enemies (another new move) ...

Call of Duty 3 allows you to pick up and return live grenades. See "#7. Hot Potato".

Capture the Flag

[zenderbender]

The Call of Duty series has been my favorite of the FPS games on the PC. I couldn't wait for COD4 but after I installed it I wanted to take it back to the store. It was missing my favorite game type - Capture the Flag.

Re:Capture the Flag

[AresTheImpaler]

if it's like hte xbox 360, it has it.. but you need to unlock it by lvling up. i think you need about lvl 15 to unlock all the multiplayer types.

3/5, seems a little harsh.

[lattyware]

I think it's a better game than you give it credit for. The single player was extremely fun, far over and above the average game, and the multiplayer has enough grip to it it's above average too. I'm not going to go into details because, frankly, I can't be bothered (Maybe it's good for lazy gamers, who knows), but it's definitely worth 4/5, at least.

Calling All Players

[Anonymous Coward]

Ready, Aim, Fire.

Re:Infinity Ward Should Thank Bungie

[Pojut]

I think you missed the memo where it said (very explicitly) that the models used in the online Halo 3 BETA looked alot like Halo 2 because they were the same exactly models from Halo 2. The reasoning? Wanted to keep the download size as small as possible (which makes complete sense)

If you are gonna troll a game, at least get your facts right. You might want to delete that particular post out of that text file you keep on your desktop...

Graphics, and all that noise.

[Pojut]

As others have stated, I don't really understand what the problem is if a game has good graphics, good gameplay, but doesn't do anything new. Much like Gears of War, the graphics are a major part of what make COD4 so immersive and so good...the action in the game is downright intense, the sound is fantastic (definately one to put the stereo up to 11 for) and the story is engrossing. The game is a bit short for my tastes (10-15 hours is the sweet spot for shooters, IMO) but what is there is still great.

Liek others have said, a game doesn't have to be original or super innovative to be a great game...with COD4, it's clear to me that the team focused on multiplayer moreso than single player (hence the "lacking" single player campaign). While I personally would choose gameplay over graphics, in some cases the graphics directly impact the gameplay.

Or would you prefer Ace Combat 6 to have the same graphics as the old 5 1/4" floppy game MiG-29?

Re:Graphics, and all that noise.

[Oriental_Hero]

Heh, well if you've been playing games since Doom, it's nice to get some variation.

One variation I have seen recently (amidst the "realistic" shooter or WWII fad) is ordering your team around.

Its funny that your rank is Sergeant but you don't seem to be giving anyone any orders. I've only played the demo on the PC, but no-one else has mentioned this in the reviews so I presume that this is not a focus of the COD series.

The entire Ghost Recon series (Advanced Warfighter 2 is the latest)lets you place your colleagues and really take charge of your squad if you want.
As does the Rainbow Six series albeit in a much more urbanised environment.
Brother's in Arms is another but WWII based.
Heck, even Star Wars: Republic Commando does it!

Nolan Bushnell is correct in that most FPS are just dressed up prettier Dooms.
The above though, have added a new dimension when playing the single player campaign.

I think COD4's "new" dimension (aka Unique Selling Point) is in the multiplayer in the "perks" you get with rank in playing online. Rather than focusing on equipment like the Battlefield series, they've given some abilities like the shooting thru walls or the last stand.

I wish however, that they'd done what Enemy Territory:Quake Wars did and lose the game bonuses once you quit a game. Makes the online games much more skill based. If I decide to play this game in 3 months after I've finished (Bioshock/Assassin's Creed/Crysis/Stalker/Episode2/Stranglehold - why, I believe COD4 is looking distinctly uncomfortable in the looks front, standing with that crowd!), I don't believe it's fair to have someone with much better weapons solely because they've played longer... Heh the issue with mixing it up with MMO games is you get the issues too! The good players in ET:QW will always/usually end up with the "rewards" in that game, but at least everyone starts out even...

Intense

[Malenfant]

I've played a lot of FPS games, and this is the first ever to give me nightmares.

The realistic graphics, and human enemies take things to a whole new level.

Video games now have the power to move people emotionally even more than film can.

Re:Intense

[theantipop]

Hell, Super Paper Mario moved me with its story and characters. Graphics may help, but aren't necessary. I think what you hinted at is correct, though, in it's all about the level of interaction that you feel in good games.

Re:Intense

[John Pfeiffer]

Tell me about it. After playing missions like 'Charlie Don't Surf' and 'War Pig' on Veteran difficulty, it took several hours for me to stop hearing the sound of bouncing hand grenades occasionally.

overloaded

[doublefrost]

They did not expect that many people to play online, hence the server problems, which will probably be up and running fine soon.

some nitpicks:

[Simulant]

the first title refreshed the already-tired World War II setting by added a gripping gameplay-based narrative, while the second was an important launch title for the Xbox 360. The first TWO titles were developed by Infinity ward for the PC and the the third title, for the Xbox 360 only was devoloped by someone else.

terrorists are the order of the day. This "you are fighting the terrorists in COD4" thing is starting to get annoying. I've seen it crop up in more than one review. It's my impression that you are up against highly organized and well armed, fictional, middle eastern bloc army. The sides are definitely equally matched which almost by definition would not be true if one side were terrorists a la Al Qaeda. I'm also not aware of any terrorist attacks taking place in the game (though I've admittedly not finished the single player campaign yet) unless you count the assassinations by the 'good' side, or the maryrdom perk which any side can use in multi-player. If you want to think you are fighting terrorists then fine but... it's not even a remotely realistic depiction of fighting terrorists, which IMHO would make a seriously disturbing & boring game.

Score: 3/5 I respectfully disagree. At least 4/5 if not better. Multi-player will give this game legs.

Re:some nitpicks:

[Vr6dub]

Agreed. On both points. I will add...the game plays a lot faster than COD2 with the newer automatic weapons. People new to the series (ommitting COD3) may be frustrated at first until they get up to speed. Think Counter Strike.

Re:some nitpicks:

[Boronx]

"The terrorists are everywhere, and as a result smoke and anti-aircraft tracers light the sky."

Thanks. I was wondering whether the terrorists were using tracers everywhere or flying ground support.

Re:some nitpicks:

[MMaestro]

I won't nitpick on the justifications, but roughly mid-way through the game (without giving away spoilers) WMDs get involved and it becomes clear that this is not a (ultimately) not a war for oil or big businesses. Oh and you don't spend the entire game in the middle east so you're not always up against a "middle eastern bloc army."

Re:some nitpicks:

[Oriental_Hero]

LOL, I wondered if anyone was thinking the same thing!

Your vantage point when you first enter the mission has you looking out over the battle-scarred ruins of a city. The terrorists are everywhere...

Heh, in my mind if the "terrorists" are everywhere, you might call them "resistance" or even "freedom fighters"!

Also makes you ask if you are "liberating" or "invading".

Funny thing is that there are plenty of games that has you start on the "wrong" side fighting the "good" fight, only to realise and throw you lot in with the "good" side to turn the tables and bring justice to all.
LOL I have an image of the game sending you back into the White House to kill the perpetrator of this atrocious war... :) But that probably wouldn't sell very well in the US and would be deemed anti-troop ;)

Re:some nitpicks:

[Gravatron]

When your not in the middle east, your fighting a group of ultra-nationalist russian rebels, who are pretty well equpt and fight viciously. In the times where WMD come into play, its ether an act of spite or revenge, and not really terrorism. I really enjoyed how they purposesly avoided using terrorists as a villian, as thats become something of a cliche.

Re:some nitpicks:

[Anonymous Coward]

When WMDs first come into play, its NOT an act of spite or revenge, its a trap designed to entangle the Americans. If you pay attention to the pre-mission briefings, its a classic "Russian ultra-nationalist wants to return to the USSR" story. The game has virtually nothing to do with terrorists or terrorism (not counting the bonus "final" mission).

question about the RPG "element"

[Some_Llama]

In typical online RPGs you are segmented somewhat from the higher level players when you first start out.. this gives you a chance to buff up and then take other players of equal and higher rank and have a chance of winning.. does anyone know how they handled this problem?

I am leaning more and more towards buying this for the online component, but being killed 5000 times until i get enuf "buffs" to be able to offer a challenge to anyone who has been playing since day one is something that still makes me hesitant.

From the review it sounds like the buffs you get are really powerful in online play.. has anyone had a chance to experience these first hand?

Re:question about the RPG "element"

[Chaymus]

While they certainly don't adhere to averaging a teams player-ranks I actually don't find the buffs to be too much of an offset. I would say some of the guns are broken and require buffs (snipers took a beating since beta), but both the M16 & Mp5 as starter guns is more than one ever needs to get enough points under their belts against better players. In general while this has an RPG element to the game, it's not a signficant advantage to prevent someone from getting progress.

Also, I have never seen someone lose points, (could maybe happen on FF gameplay but that comes after a few levels). If you want to just sit there at spawn anytime you're on a team that wins it will progress you to more guns.

Re:question about the RPG "element"

[another_twilight]

Not entirely.

Caveats - I have just finished playing online for the third time - a total of perhaps 5-6 hours of play, but I have been playing FPS' for ... some time. I have played a couple of the previous CoDs but not been a big fan. Xbox 360, mostly with and against Australians - YMMV.

When you begin, you have access to some basic packages that include standard weapons and pre-set 'perks' (the ability to sprint for longer, take more damage, have your rounds do more damage or penetrate further etc.). For the first few levels, that is all you can use. In my case, by the time I had familiarised myself with the controls and gameplay, I had advanced sufficiently to be able to create my own arrangement of weapons and perks and even unlocked a couple of them.

I have been playing almost entirely with people 20-30 'levels' above me and while their skill and familiarity with the maps is evident, this is much more significant than their weapons (which you can collect and use when they drop them) or perks.

The more advanced weapons are slightly better than standard, but usually at some sort of cost (more power but more recoil for e.g.) and so require more skill to use. In my case, I am happier sticking with the basic weapons than picking up someone else's. The perks that I have seen are more flavour than anything else (drop a live grenade when you die - easy to spot and dodge; pull a pistol and shoot from the ground for a few seconds before you die - surprised me the first time, now I make sure they really are dead).

I am used to being able to learn how many shots it takes to kill someone, how far a person can run before they stop etc. Having some weapons do more damage and some people with more HP adds an element of randomness that is frustrating that ability, but is a refreshing change to the standard FPS. Things are a little more uncertain. I find myself watching someone that has dropped, just to make sure they stay down. Firing a few more rounds than I think will do, just in case it doesn't. Perhaps as I play more I will unconsciously adapt to these elements, but for now it has significantly increased the play time required before I 'learn' the game. Which is fantastic.

The gameplay may be similar to a lot of other material in this genre, but it is packaged and presented in a very polished fashion and the progression is both addictive (one more round and I'll level ...) and adds depth and dimension.

Re:question about the RPG "element"

[DMeans]

I've played the game through once, and online several times. I didn't have any problems holding my own with other players who heavily out ranked me.

Re:question about the RPG "element"

[Chili-71]

Rank and perks come pretty fast as you conquer challenges and amass kills, but unfortunately there isn't any isolation between high ranking players and noobs (newbies, first time players). The perks (buffs, you called them) give you more choices of weapons and abilities. One of the perks is endurance and another is stopping power. Put these two together and you can do some real damage.

The lack of balance between high ranked players and the lowly private is what keeps me from giving COD4 multiplayer 5 stars. But then again, life comes at you from all different directions and it isn't always fair. So, when I can best a high ranked player I feel I have really accomplished something.

Re:question about the RPG "element"

[Some_Llama]

"The lack of balance between high ranked players and the lowly private is what keeps me from giving COD4 multiplayer 5 stars. But then again, life comes at you from all different directions and it isn't always fair. So, when I can best a high ranked player I feel I have really accomplished something."

And i have no problem paying agaisnt a stacked desk as long as I have a "chance" of coming out on top, but like a mod for CS (warcraft) used to do, is give the good players such an advantage, if you joined the map late you would never progress out of the bottom 5 players..

Doesn't sound like this is the case here tho...

Refreshed? Really?

[justinlee37]

The first title refreshed the already-tired World War II setting by added a gripping gameplay-based narrative

The minor typographical error here aside, does anyone really think that a "gripping gameplay-based narrative" is an innovation?

Re:Refreshed? Really?

[Gravatron]

At the time, CoD reset the bar for a story and environmental feeling in a ww2 game. Before then, it was all Metal Of Honor style, where the only story was what was in the pre-stage briefing. CoD, however, told you most of the story as you played, and made you feel like a solder, and not like a guy playing a solder.

Expansion Pack

[ToxicBanjo]

Given how well COD1 did, and the subsequent COD:UO I really hope they do an expansion pack for COD4. Let's see some vehicles and additional game types.

Besides, just wait till the mod teams get at the game! COD:UO "Barbarossa" (f'n massive size for the time) was easily the best map I've ever played for a COD game. I'd love to see that kind of epic battlefront for COD4. Let the snipers actually have a place to snipe!

Re:Expansion Pack

[WuphonsReach]

Yes, I'm kind of cooling my heels waiting for a CoD:UO type expansion again. Something that allows map makers to have fun but still have combined arms battles.

I tried my hand with Tuchola Forest to match Barbarossa, but I never found the last 200 hours needed in order to polish it up to the same level. I still wish I had finished it, but I also knew that it was about 20-30% too large of a map that needed to be trimmed down. Plus the issue that population #s on the CoD:UO servers were dropping fairly steadily. (Note: I didn't make the Barb map, but I learned an awful lot from it and from talking to the creator of Barb. I just wish I had created Tuchola about 12 months earlier.)

Making tiny infantry-only maps just doesn't suit what I want to design for. So I've shelved my design skills for almost two years now. Not sure what I'll design for next (if ever). It has to be a really good game before I'll consider sitting down and spending 300-500 hours working on a map again.

Re:The ZeroPunctuation review

[Dilaudid]

No - I think you've got a good point. If there isn't a zero punctuation review, why the fuck is slashdot reporting it? Mod the article down, it hasn't happened yet, please repost when Yahtzee's had time to look at it. I was genuinely interested in what he makes of 4, and of the whole CoD series. I couldn't give a fuck what Zonk says - I *need* to know what Yahtzee thinks. Or Maddox.

Anyone looking for depth in multiplayer combat...

[Tibor the Hun]

Anyone looking for depth in multiplayer combat should check out the fantastic Enemy Territory: Quake Wars.
Tons of options, development, and best of all no persistent unlockables.
Smart teamplay is the name of the game there.

Yes, it is arcady, and not a strategic shooter a-la Rainbow Six, but who wants to sneak around on silent footsteps for half an hour, just to be finished off by one bullet...
It is not a standard deathmatch, or capture the flag. It has many elements and different play modes, asymmetric but balanced teams, vehicles, deployables and absolutely beautiful maps.
It is not a clone of COD, BF, but a successor to Wolfenstein Enemy Territory, which was released for free by the same team that developed Quake Wars, set in the Quake universe, during the Strogg invasion of Earth (Pre- Quake II).

Check it out...Link.
And to boot, it has a free demo map you can download and get a taste of the action. But noobies beware, this can be an overwhelming game at first, and can take months to master even a single class on one side.

Multiplayer?

[sheldon]

This is practically a worthless review. Ohhh, the startup sequence is so pretty! ohhh... Who cares. In BF2 I deleted the movie files so I don't have to put up with that crap on startup.

The real question I have is how is multiplayer play? Nobody buys these games to play the singleplayer maps. That's lame ass boring. But there's always a difference between MP and SP. I tried singleplayer and thought it sucked, and I'm disappointed they didn't put up a multiplayer demo like BF2 and RTCW had done.(which is why they became so popular, BTW)

That's what I would have preferred to hear about.

Re:Multiplayer?

[devolutionist]

Here's my take on multiplayer... I was expecting a lot and got very little. I thought the multiplayer was absolutely horrible as far as gameplay went. Visually it's great... but it's Counterstrike. If you were to blindfold me and sit me in front of a PC running it, my first impression would've been that this was a CS:S mod. The points system is totally bolted on - points are stored locally, not on a server. So if I play from my laptop or from my desktop with the same account, my points will be different. Now all that alone isn't the end of the world. The worst thing about it was that there is no way to form distinguishable squads. The action is so chaotic - which sometimes is a good thing but it's like that on ALL maps - that if you're trying to play with friends on teamspeak, it's virtually impossible to keep track of them, where they are, what they're doing, etc. If I could just make them a different color in the minimap, I'd be happy. My final gripe is the balance of the game. The weapon unlocks give the guys that play seven hours a day SO much more of an advantage that it's ridiculous. If you're on a map with an M16 - or even the M4 or MP5, and the rest of the guys on the map have P90's, you might as well leave the server because your killeath ratio is going to end up being around 1:10. I hate to be a stick in the mud since it seems slashdot is having a big ol' CoD4 love-in here, but I feel like I wasted my $50 on a single player game that lasts 6 hours, and a multiplayer game that's unoriginal and unbalanced. If you're looking for a new multiplayer fps, don't throw your money away on CoD4. But hey... it IS pretty, you can't argue with that.

Re:Multiplayer?

[sheldon]

All right then. It's not worth buying. I'll stick with BF2. I've already unlocked all the weapons there, and they hardly make much difference anyway as I'm generally more effective with an AK-47 or M-16 than anything else. Plus the squad play is superior to most everything else out there.

It seems they didn't learn from COD3.

Re:Multiplayer?

[devolutionist]

Yeah, if you are looking for something to finally replace BF2 (like I was to a degree), you'll be really disappointed here. For all of it's warts, BF2 is mechanically (certainly not graphically) a much better multiplayer FPS game. But then again, it was coded from the ground up to be a multiplayer game. CoD4 seems to me to be primarily a singleplayer game with the multiplayer mode being a poorly thought-out last minute add-on.

Furthermore, I will not be surprised if we find out that
a) Valve us suing Infinity Ward for copyright infringement, or
b) Valve licensed the source code to Infinity Ward for the multiplayer implementation of CoD4.

"Terrorists Win!"

Re:Multiplayer?

[Anonymous Coward]

I have only played the multiplayer (PC) for about an hour but I thought it was terrible. It felt like I was spawning 15 yards from the opposing team, immediately and repeatedly being killed by other players or air strikes. Even if you spawn with teammates they quickly run off in what seems random directions getting killed immediately again. The maps were incredibly small. I had 1 grenade. Where do I get ammo? Obviously I have no XP so I couldn't kill anybody. XP in a MP FPS? WHY? So you can shoot someone 15 times in the back and he can turn around and kill-shot you once? This is a game not reality. It's supposed to be fun no? I feel like I've wasted $50. I'll try again but this was incredibly unsatisfying. Team Fortress 2 is a game that knows it's a game. It's fun.

Agree on the Rainbow 6 comments at the end

[rjschwarz]

I love Call of Duty 4 but I really miss being able to peek and shoot around corners without exposing my entire torso.

Re:Agree on the Rainbow 6 comments at the end

[Library Spoff]

can't you use Q and E keys?
i've only played the demo but i'm sure you can in it.

Re:Agree on the Rainbow 6 comments at the end

[rjschwarz]

Xbox 360 has no Q and E keys. )c; Maybe they've solved the problem on the PC version.

Re:Agree on the Rainbow 6 comments at the end

[Library Spoff]

Ah! See that bl00dy microsoft... ;)
(joking. the xbox 360 is a great console. I don't have one as it would suck my life away)

Sorry mate, as the review was of the 360 version perhaps i should of thought of that.
Yeah you can use q & e on the pc version. Though playing cod2 and the demo of cod4 I've never used em really.

Probably why ten year olds keep shooting me in the head...

Oh yeah, and it runs on Linux

[Tibor the Hun]

How could I forget the most important part? It runs on Linux!!! (I guess it was the fanboy frenzy.)

It actually seems that half the playerbase runs it on Linux, as well as half the servers are Linux servers too.

Endless respawn madness

[Anach]

One of the things that killed the replay value for me, is the NPC spawns are endless. No matter how many you kill, they will keep popping until you pass certain areas of the map. This unnatural prompt to move forward, coupled with the lack of being able to fire effectively from behind cover is what turns this into an arcade shooter more than a real world combat shooter.

Re:Endless respawn madness

[HyperJ]

Totally agree, that was one thing that bugged me.

Re:Endless respawn madness

[WuphonsReach]

One of the things that killed the replay value for me, is the NPC spawns are endless. No matter how many you kill, they will keep popping until you pass certain areas of the map. This unnatural prompt to move forward, coupled with the lack of being able to fire effectively from behind cover is what turns this into an arcade shooter more than a real world combat shooter.

Oddly (or sadly) enough... one of the original design tenets of CoD (version 1) was that endless NPC spawns were a bad game decision. So they didn't do that in CoD.

Yet when they came out with CoD:2 - they threw all of their "better then MoH:AA" ideas out the window and went back to MoH:AA style gameplay.

I've been sour on the CoD series ever since CoD:2 came out.

Re:Endless respawn madness

[Xenoliths]

Sounds like Goldeneye.... the archives level maybe. Trip an alarm and endless NPCs spawn in coming for you.... you could kill an entire battalion of soldiers and they'd keep coming. That was 1996? It was silly then and I'm not sure its any different now.

In any case, I've kind of gone off excessively scripted FPS games after playing a lot of BF2 online... people are just more random than the computer.

Re:Endless respawn madness

[llevity]

I actually disagree. It turns certain sections of the game from a "hide behind cover and take out everyone you can see" sort of gameplay to a "take out the biggest threats, pop a flashbang/smoke grenade and run for your objective" sort of gameplay.

It doesn't use the infinite spawn thing everywhere, either. Usually just where there's heavy, heavy fighting. It simulates the fact that you're outnumbered, and standing your ground and killing everyone won't win the war. You have to complete the mission in spite of overwhelming odds, not take a stand and kill the entire opposing army single handedly.

I do wish they would have added some sort of overt clue as to when they spawn infinitely, though. Some sort of radio communication such as "We're getting swarmed and are outnumbered! GET TO THE OBJECTIVE!" type of thing would work.

Re:Anyone looking for depth in multiplayer combat.

[Simulant]

Yes, Quake Wars does look good and I liked the demo. I'm kinda bummed that so many good multi-player FPSes came out all at once. I can only handle one at a time and out of this crop, I think it will be COD4 that I keep on playing.

When I try to play more than one, I never get competitively good at any of them, but if I stick with one I can do pretty well. Had these games been staggered six months to a year apart, I probably would have bought all of them (QW:ET, TF2, Crysis, UT3 (soon), and maybe even SOF (also soon)) but as it is, that's a lot of cash and I'm only going end up playing one for the next year or so anyway.

Re:the single best single player experience in yea

[Anonymous Coward]

10 years? Sorry, but Deus Ex? Thief? Hell, I'll give you Half-Life if you want. And these are just FPS games.

I find that comment hard to believe when put under the hypeometer.

Thanks, But No Thanks

[jackal40]

This is one that isn't on my wish list. I loved vCOD and COD:UO, but the mess they made of COD2 turned me off. It looked great and the multiplayer was crap. I'll just push Unreal Tournament up on my list and be happy with that.

fences and bullets

[tfiedler]

Come on, CoD4 doesn't warrant a high 5 for anything other than graphics. Perfect example is the scripted nature of the gameplay and the forced annoying review of the cut scenes.

A major failing of this game is the fact that you stand next to a typical post and beam fence and get blown to away but you can't climb over the same fence, even though you can enter a window whose sill is actually higher than the fence top rail, and which is in a building right next to the fence. Come on, how can I not crawl under or over this fence? Oh yeah, its because the game designers expect you to play their scenario script and not yours, which sucks.

In my opinion, that failing alone is why CoD4 is nothing short of the same flop as CoD2 or CoD3 with better graphics.

Re:Anyone looking for depth in multiplayer combat.

[Tibor the Hun]

One thing that I like about quake wars is that it's an enemy territory kind of a game. I used to play team fortress, which was just a capture the flag, with maps being pretty much mirror images of an area. Then I tried half-life 2 deathmatch, but it didn't keep me as entertained as wolf: ET, which I've ended up playing for close to 7 years. I expect QW:ET will have the same long life, allowing me to enjoy it for a long long time.
And like you said, all those games cost an arm and a leg, and with a wife and 2 kids, I can only afford what gives me most bang for the buck when it comes to computer games. So far QW has not disappointed.

Re:Anyone looking for depth in multiplayer combat.

[Anonymous Coward]

Considering some of us don't even own a copy of Windows or 360, ET:QW it the only game we can try out.

One thing neat about it is how well it scales from a lower end 7xxx nvidia gpu to a higher end 8xxxx gpu. It uses id's tech 4, so it supports a lot of the new features found in cards through opengl that you otherwise wouldn't see in DX10 games on XP.

Bullshit

[Von Rex]

I won't claim to have played all recent first-person shooters, but I've played quite a few, and there were many things in Call of Duty 4 I've never seen before. Examples:

• The AC-130 mission
  
• The sinking ship mission
  
• The sniping from a mile away mission, particularly since you had to carry around your wounded partner and "place" him before you could fight
  
• The shocker at the end of the "shock and awe" mission. That knocked me on my ass.
  
• The way bullets penetrate surfaces depending on the gun and material the target is hiding behind
  
• The flash-bang grenades
  
• The arcade mode after you finish the mission
  
• The ending -- won't say anything more about that
  

There are many clone FPS games out there with no innovation. This one wasn't one of them.

And the stuff that was tried-and-true ground was done in a pretty spectacular manner, too. All in all, an excellent game, if too short.

Re:Bullshit

[rkanodia]

Not to nitpick, but Counterstrike has had material- and weapon-dependent bullet penetration since forever. I haven't played it long enough to remember if it has flashbang grenades, but Rainbow Six certainly had them. And Metal Gear Solid 3 had a sniper duel in an open environment with lots of paths and cover that had you crawling around the jungle with a scope and a laser mic.

Yeah I didn't like that either

[Von Rex]

In the first Call of Duty, that didn't happen. So you could pick many different strategies to clean out an area. Starting with the first expansion pack, you started to get these endless waves of orc-like enemies that you could shoot until you ran out of ammo. Really damaged the immersion factor a lot. I hope someone figures that out for the next game in the series.

To sum it up-

[FriedDylan]

I played through this already and really like it- I'll get a lot from it but the action was too scripted with little chance to roam around and try solutions from different angles. There is basically a right way and the way that gets you killed. To sum up the action within the game I can use a single word: Mayhem If you can't crank the volume as well as ready subtitles you'll easily lose track of where you're supposed to be- and spend some time getting your can kicked as well as lost. The solution can usually only be achieved if you glue yourself to the other characters- no lone sniper missions here. Even when you are a sniper you're tight alongside a buddy. While this works in a WWII FPS the GHOST style of game should allow you to roam and sneak where you need to- without worrying about your dumb AI buddies that routinely make like statues without your hot on their heels. All in all lots of action, lots of nice effects that show nicely even on my Macbook Pro 2.4Ghz/4GB RAM/ GeForce 8600M GT w256Mb RAM using Leopard's Bootcamp 2.0 and stock Apple display drivers, and with the added arcade modes and even unlockable cheats (not available in multiplayer mode) you/I should be able to replay often. Something I would add- ability to cut through cinematic scenes - a few long ones can't be stopped. Arrggg!

Re:the single best single player experience in yea

[DragonTHC]

Those are all good games that I have played.

They just didn't have the depth of story or immersion of COD4.

None of them brought anything more to gameplay.

With COD4, there's the different roles you have that make the single player so fresh and interesting.

The AC-130 mission is still my favorite. I still want to go back and play the whole game through again.

onGraphics

[garphik]

Although I am a fanatic of eyecandy and cant do without, but the other areas in the entire gaming experience are still lagging behind, for eg: sounds, more intelligence is required, make it non predictive and non repetitive and needs more variation

Re:the single best single player experience in yea

[MMaestro]

In ten years? Seriously, if you think CoD4's single player was the -best- in the past ten years, you've been deprived.

Bioshock and Half-Life 2: Episode 2 destroy CoD4's single player experience and thats just this year. Granted the C-130 mission is absolutely amazing to play (they could probably make a game based entirely on that kind of gameplay), but the bulk of the missions were your bread and butter FPS which became a bore immediately after the first playthrough. Scripted enemy appearances and a lack of possible paths make the AI far too predictable for serious replay value (I once had to restart the first Act I mission because I placed claymore mines where the enemy would attack the TV station from but when they went off they would kill the AI Marines at that corner repeatedly.)

Oh and the game is FAR from perfect. Flashbangs magically don't affect you (or the enemy) if you simply have your back to them.

Hyped cover system

[MMaestro]

Not to nitpick but the cover system is not as good as it seems. Unless you're using a sniper rifle, a (light) machine gun or a mounted weapon, its nearly impossible to shoot through "soft" targets. I've fired entire clips at sheet metal using the M4A1 and watched as an enemy behind it simply react by putting a dozen AK-47 rounds in my face.

Re:Hyped cover system

[Nexcis]

Perks are your friend. The M60 with Deep Penetration, Stopping Power and the red dot will pimp any fool with bad cover. On another note, Bad review, like someone said before this is a GREAT sp campaign, one I havent had in a long time. Quality over quantity. MP will last a long time and is alot of fun.

Re:Hyped cover system

[Anonymous Coward]

The M60 is a light machine gun.

Expectations? Obliterated, along with my shorts.

[John Pfeiffer]

Though the game suffers somewhat from overly-familiar gameplay in the single-player component, you'll probably be too busy gawking at the scenery to care.

Translation: In single-player, you still shoot things.

What were you expecting? An in-depth diplomacy simulation? This is a shooter. And it happens to be the best modern combat shooter ever made. And I'm not just saying that because it's pretty as hell. I'm saying it because, having fired the game up fresh and unprepared, by the end of the cargo ship mission, I was clutching my laser mouse white-knuckled, and had to take a break for several minutes to let it all sink in.

On the Hardened difficulty level that I played through the game on the first time, it managed to deliver the same rush I get doing shit like that for real. I don't think anything more than that needs to be said. (Though I'm going to say more, of course) It also has the best multiplayer experience in a modern shooter to-date.

I have never played an FPS with a single-player experience that I never get bored playing through. I can do it again and again like watching my favorite episodes of a show, or one of my favorite movies.

The character animations and reactions make everything seem so alive. (Until it's not.) Enemy deaths are very dynamic, and while obviously limited to a series of preset animations augmented by ragdoll physics, it always feels unique. Not to mention the fact that an enemy isn't always dead when you drop them, and if you aren't careful, you can end up shot in the back before they bleed out. Headshots with a sniper rifle often yield effects like an enemy's helmet or beret flying off. This is stuff I've never seen in a game. I suppose SoF II came close back in the day with its damage system, but you really can't compare the two.

Enemies and AI allies running to scoop up a grenade and throw it back, making a running slide into cover, or blindfiring over the top of cover... It all adds to the atmosphere. Realistic animations blended together perfectly to create realistic performances. It doesn't feel like any other game. It feels more real than anything that has ever come before.

Material penetration is one of the things that really does it for me. To find yourself in a situation where what you thought was cover is being perforated by enemy fire all around you and tracers are flying past your head, or to step into a doorway to find the next room full of enemies then take a dive to empty your magazine into the room through the wall... Again, like nothing that's ever come before.

Even when the pacing slows down a little, it's tense as hell. The flashback missions in Russia? Wow. Lying in the middle of a field in my ghillie suit hoping not to be discovered by countless enemy troops, or run over by an IFV, was one of the most tense moments I've ever experienced in a game. (And there's several good stealth segments)

The AC-130 mission was incredible. Compare footage of that to any AC-130 TV operator footage you can find out there... It's dead-on. (In fact, there's a particular video on youtube that is so obviously the inspiration for that mission, right down to the things the crew says.)

Even the flexibility of control schemes is like nothing I've ever seen. The ability to assign separate buttons for toggling and/or holding crouch, prone positions, or aiming down the sights... The ability to split up almost any multi-function binding to different keys. Man. When I started, the stance toggle threw me off, I'm used to having to hold the crouch button and stuff. But now, I'm considering also having an additional button for toggling, in situations where I need to maintain a lower profile.

How can a game that so fundamentally shakes the landscape both in terms of combat and storytelling, be considered 'overly-familiar'? This is one game I hope they release a dozen expansion packs for and literally beat it to DEATH. Because I don't think I'll ever get enough.

Performance

[blake1]

The thing that I found most impressive about this game was the speed and quality with which it runs on my system. Most recent games chug and are quite choppy at higher graphics settings, but this performed as well as any game I've ever played. Also you don't find yourself waiting for the game or levels to load, which I found very suprising considering the level of detail in the maps, textures and characters. This in itself makes me like the game a lot.

Re:Its like this

[Holmwood]

Well, first, many versions of Nethack now have sophisticated graphics... tiles! And color! Granted, they doesn't require the latest board from Nvidia or ATI/AMD to run.

Second, I had to wonder at how well-researched the review was when I hit this line:

You'll occasionally do a stealth-style mission aided by nightvision (obviously absent from WWII)

No nightvision in WW2? The Americans -- who were probably behind the Germans -- deployed primitive nightvision sniper scopes to the Pacific Theatre in 1945. http://www.nvl.army.mil/about/index.php

Granted, it's picking at a minor technical error, but, hey this is Slashdot!

Personally, I like the eyecandy, but not if it gets in the way of a good story. I'll see anyone's Nethack, and raise you a Zork I, II, III.

heh...check this out

[Loopy]

Other reviews by world leaders who have reportedly played this game:

Vladimir Putin --> http://youtube.com/watch?v=Ddg7reIOjL0

Kim Jong Ill --> http://youtube.com/watch?v=Nu8fG0aASTM

Qaddafi --> http://youtube.com/watch?v=O7mYJRSilvU

Castro --> http://youtube.com/watch?v=7aFqZ3AenQ0

Some of these were quite good. ;)

Re:Expectations? Obliterated, along with my shorts

[LilBlackDemon]

I second your point on the AC-120. That really is a great sequence, especially since the people you're protecting you were just controlling.

Call of Duty isn't about thinking, it's about an intense experience. And that's all.

Sounds Great, but I can't Play It

[AuntieWillow]

'Cause I said I wouldn't play another FPS until after I finished Duke Nukem Forever. Guess I need to get back to my Barbie Horse Adventures now.

Re:Its like this

[donaldm]

What's wrong with Nethack? Anyway my vt100 has orange pixels so it's in colour. Windows! hah! 80 columns per 24 rows is good enough for everyone, now were did I put my 8" floppy disks, I need to do a backup. ;-)

Infinite Enemies = Bad

[ShakaUVM]

The game can be summarized as a "carnival shooter". Unlike a lot of FPSs, for the most part, enemies appear in windows and you shoot them like in carnival games. Like carnival games, the enemies keep reappearing. After the 5th time I head shot the same guy, I realized that the game will give you terrorists "as needed". Which is fine, except they spawn with grenades and RPGs, which kill you in one shot. About three times so far, I've been killed by a dead enemy respawning six inches behind me and shooting me in the back (which kills you in under a second when you don't have any cover).

As I'm a person that mentally "clears" areas in my head when I play FPSs, it's very irritating. It also doesn't make a lot of sense to see 20 terrorists come out of a broom closet, one after another.

The environment and set pieces are awesome though. A definite 4 star game, and definitely not a 5 star game.

Re:Infinite Enemies = Bad

[Chili-71]

I've been playing the COD series since its inception. Hooked? Yeah, I guess you can say that.

COD4, like all previous versions, was not designed as much for Single Player action as it was for Multi-Player, IMHO. All the SP versions are short. Most veteran COD players finish COD4 SP in under 7 hours, if they even play the SP version. What makes the game awesome is the MP experience. I for one, played a couple of maps to get accoustomed to the game and then switched over to MP where I've been ever since. In just over a week since its release for the PC, over 3,700 servers have been spun up. That's pretty significant. Even on the old versions (I still play United Offensive - a lot) there are thousands of servers running.

I'll have to admit that COD2 wasn't all that great. I tried it but never felt like it was all that exciting and I wasn't to happy with the avatar movements or the game play in general. Infinity Ward fixed most of that with the COD4 release. The addition of ranked servers is a big plus too. It also has its downside.

Being that most of the servers are ranked, someone that has absolutely no life can easily obtain maximum rank in a few short days. Now they have all the "perks" and power that most the other players are missing. This gives them an unfair advantage in the game. If you get three or four players on a map that have really high ranks, they ruin the game play for everyone else. Sort of a bad thing.

I'll rate COD4 4 stars out of 5.

Re:Infinite Enemies = Bad

[ShadowsHawk]

I would have given it a solid 4/5 if it wasn't for the endless spawning. I got killed so many times trying to run away from that stupid farm..

Re:Infinite Enemies = Bad

[Skooma714]

Yeah I hated how they had endless amounts of zombies to throw at me. I was pulling my hair out at the TV station. Oh, and grenade spamming. I HATE grenade spamming from the AI.

Some constructive criticism

[cluke]

Zonk always rags on about "genre" in his reviews, and it sets my teeth on edge. Mention the type of game if you must, but don't use it as a metric for how good the game is. Zonk often writes something like "This is a good example of the genre, and the great game, 4/5" but this is redundant information. Would you ever see "This is an awful example of the genre, but a great game anyway"? Of course not!

The old "you'll like it if you like this kind of thing" is a hoary old gaming review cliche, right up there with along with "worth a rent". Please leave off on them and judge a game on whether YOU think it is good or not, not some imaginary Joe FPS-lover might think.

Re:Some constructive criticism

[pimpimpim]

I don't agree completely. I'm not much of a hardcore gamer, didn't play an FPS since Heretic. But since someone showed me the UT demo on Linux I started to like it a lot. It's not a dumb FPS, the variation in game play is good enough to make it an interesting game for a long time. I can imagine that there are a lot of FPS games out there that are interesting for the 'hardcore' FPS people but not for me.

Death From Above

[Anonymous Coward]

3. Death From Above.

Fairly sure that this video from a spectre Afghanistan was the basis for this level. They are a number of similiarities especially the "you are not cleared to fire on the church" line, mosque in the videos case(about 3 mins in, shooting starts at about 4:20).

I loved that level but it is a bit different when it is real people...

For a less "corporate" review...

[Meorah]

Why do all game reviews seem like they were churned out of some politically correct primeval ooze?

I know I'm probably just tooting my own horn, but I really like my own COD4 review a lot better than this one.

http://sysadminstuff.spaces.live.com/blog/cns!61994A013C42F480!117.entry

Voice acting?

[GreenEnvy22]

First off, the game is quite good. I beat single player yesterday and enjoyed it a lot. 3/5 is way too low a score, 4/5 is better. Anyway, the voice on the radio telling you if air support is coming, and relaying any sort of messages from command to your unit, sounds a lot like the voice from Black Hawk Down (the movie). Anyone know if it is the same guy?

COD2 Mod

[imbroken3a]

The game felt more like a mod for COD2 to me than a new stand alone.

Re:the single best single player experience in yea

[geminidomino]

Those are all good games that I have played.

They just didn't have the depth of story or immersion of COD4.

None of them brought anything more to gameplay. Wow... you must either be a raging fanboy, or a bit too saturated in the chemical compound described by your nick...

Deus Ex brought character customization and an actual branching Storyline to FPSes (Still would have been better if you could go UNATCO all the way through...)

Thief brought stealth as opposed to the normal Run & Gun.

Re:Expectations? Obliterated, along with my shorts

[ShadowsHawk]

1) The material penetration is great, especially when you shoot through a closed door on a whim.

2) I was annoyed by the ghillie suit scene. They were literally 1' away and they can't see you? It took me several tries since I didn't realize that you weren't supposed to move forward. You're fine if you move side to side, but they'll spot you if you start moving forward. Stupid.

3) The AC130 was GREAT. Having said that, I wish they had used a different color to show friendlies. I had a hard time spotting the blinking lights.

4) I REALLY hate the endless supply of enemies. I get it, I'm supposed to feel overwhelmed. That doesn't change the fact that I can snipe everyone in a house and more guys will pour out 10 seconds later.

3/5 seems fair.

Make up your mind

[jeks]

Score: 3/5: This game is par for the course in many ways, but is likely to be a classic for the genre.

Is it a classic or not?

If it is a classic, then naturally it cannot be a score 3 on a 5 degree scale. A classic implies it is a masterpiece. Something that will stand the test of time. Survive any other mediocre imitators and pretenders.

Also, what makes this game get only a 3 on your scale? You elaborate long and hard about how well certain aspects of the game are. Why not explain better how you see this game not receiving a higher mark? Sure, Rainbow Six: Vegas has some better ducking aspects. But, surely, that cannot be the difference between a 3 and a 4, say.

Great to know your thoughts on the game, in any case.

Re:the single best single player experience in yea

[DragonTHC]

now you're just showing your ignorance.

Ever heard of system shock 2? that brought character customization to FPS games.

berzerk for 2600 brought stealth.

You're just going back to those games because you're a raging fanboy.

pirst fost

[rice_burners_suck]

I got first post!! I got first post!!

Finally, I beat all the first posters and I got first post!!! Hurray! Time to get all my friends over here and show him how I have risen to the pinnacle of achievement in my life by getting first post on /.!!!!!

Re:Expectations? Obliterated, along with my shorts

[Legion303]

"I was annoyed by the ghillie suit scene. They were literally 1' away and they can't see you?"

Sounds reasonable. When snipers take their ghillie suit test, the only way to pass is if the instructor can't spot the student within a foot or two (guided by spotters who know where the student is concealed).

Interesting review

[poopysocks]

I find it odd nobody has talked about th social implications of this game. I found only one here: http://www.chicksdiggames.com/section_games/xbox360/call_of_duty_4_modern_warfare.php/