I just can't bring myself to finish COD4...

I mean i've been playing it and after 20 mins i was done because it's just all the frigging same and sooo heavily scripted, soo annoying how you have to keep meeting up with the npc's all the time or you can't progress by yourself. I always thought i was bored of WW2 FPS games but it's become clear that it's not the WW2 setting seeing as COH was refreshing and fun. The problem is the gameplay style that the WW2 games have had in the past and COD2 sums that up, and seeing as COD4 is basically the game i just found it soo boring. Why can't they make something more open and innovative and fun? I just get the feeling like i've played this same FPS about a 100 times before.

Finish the game.. all i can say.

I mean i've been playing it and after 20 mins i was done because it's just all the frigging same and sooo heavily scripted, soo annoying how you have to keep meeting up with the npc's all the time or you can't progress by yourself. I always thought i was bored of WW2 FPS games but it's become clear that it's not the WW2 setting seeing as COH was refreshing and fun. The problem is the gameplay style that the WW2 games have had in the past and COD2 sums that up, and seeing as COD4 is basically the game i just found it soo boring. Why can't they make something more open and innovative and fun? I just get the feeling like i've played this same FPS about a 100 times before.

Grantelicious

Wow I am SO glad that I'm not the only one who thought this, seems like CoD's a little too overhyped. I also agree with CoH, they did an amazing job on that game. The demo just made me realize "holy ****, they didn't change a thing except the setting of the game!!!! what the hell?!"

Thing with CoD though, from what I hear (and experienced) is that it's really just the "intensity" of the game that made it fun, I remember I saw this scene in some video review of a cobra chrashing towards your "sniper buddy" while you guys are sneaking about, and as it's sliding to your friend the blades of the chopper are missing him by an inch, but I guess it's that shock effect of the game that makes it more fun than your typical fps, even though CoD's single player is pretty frikin' average.

After what I've heard about the campaign, I'm getting the game 90% because of multiplayer, the 10% is because I hear there's a mission where you man the gun of an AC-130, and a mission with "long range sniping" which is like, a shot 1 mile or longer, so you gotta like take in consideration of all the things a sniper has to deal with, which I think is f***ing awesome because I've always wanted to see something like that in a game! It's not like I've had the chance to try that in real life!

I didn't enjoy the multiplayer too, don't like the fact of a FPS having to unlock all the guns and classes, pretty gay if you ask me. Counter Strike is just perfect and simple but it works and being able to buy w/e weapon you want is sooo much better. Plus CS has proper good hitboxes so requires more skill to aim and kill somewhere, where as COD4 you shoot em anywhere. COD4 guns feel very light too but in CS the guns feel real and really nice to play with.

Have to say that the Orange box has the best collection of FPS of this year, soo mcuh better than anything else out there until maybe Crysis migth outshine it, but i doubt it.

COD 4 seems overrated but I think mp may be quite good. I must say there is no strong urge for me to get back into the sp campaign. I'd probably pay more for the Crysis demo than COD 4 itself :/

Half way through and you are never alone near as I can tell, apart from the tv missile mission which is just you versus white dots lol

I didn't enjoy the multiplayer too, don't like the fact of a FPS having to unlock all the guns and classes, pretty gay if you ask me. Counter Strike is just perfect and simple but it works and being able to buy w/e weapon you want is sooo much better. Plus CS has proper good hitboxes so requires more skill to aim and kill somewhere, where as COD4 you shoot em anywhere. COD4 guns feel very light too but in CS the guns feel real and really nice to play with.

Have to say that the Orange box has the best collection of FPS of this year, soo mcuh better than anything else out there until maybe Crysis migth outshine it, but i doubt it.

Grantelicious

[QUOTE="Grantelicious"]

I didn't enjoy the multiplayer too, don't like the fact of a FPS having to unlock all the guns and classes, pretty gay if you ask me. Counter Strike is just perfect and simple but it works and being able to buy w/e weapon you want is sooo much better. Plus CS has proper good hitboxes so requires more skill to aim and kill somewhere, where as COD4 you shoot em anywhere. COD4 guns feel very light too but in CS the guns feel real and really nice to play with.

Have to say that the Orange box has the best collection of FPS of this year, soo mcuh better than anything else out there until maybe Crysis migth outshine it, but i doubt it.

OoSuperMarioO

They feel heavy and nice where as COD4 feels far too light and like your not shooting anyone, just don't like the feel of the guns. Also Counter Strike is still the most popular multiplayer FPS of all time and it's also the best multiplayer FPS of all time. What makes it so great is how it's stood the test of time whith more players playing it than games of today, makes it a true classic which you can't say for the COd series.

Players Current
Servers Player Minutes/ Month


Counter-Strike 141,407 76,216 7.351 billion

Counter-Strike: Source 63,952 43,400 1.942 billion

I've only played CoD I and the CoD 4 demo but I feel pretty much the same way

Scripting was exciting in HL1. Having stuff happen dynamically is WAY more immersive than tons of scripted evens. Besides, it's like they're overdoing it with the intensity. They make so much stuff happen all the time that it's like *yawn*

The MP does seem exciting though

[QUOTE="Grantelicious"]

I didn't enjoy the multiplayer too, don't like the fact of a FPS having to unlock all the guns and classes, pretty gay if you ask me. Counter Strike is just perfect and simple but it works and being able to buy w/e weapon you want is sooo much better. Plus CS has proper good hitboxes so requires more skill to aim and kill somewhere, where as COD4 you shoot em anywhere. COD4 guns feel very light too but in CS the guns feel real and really nice to play with.

Have to say that the Orange box has the best collection of FPS of this year, soo mcuh better than anything else out there until maybe Crysis migth outshine it, but i doubt it.

OoSuperMarioO

CS is an amzing game, and so is cod4 although ive yet to play it, but the fact you said cs guns feel realistic just made me completely disregard you opinion....

I think I know what you mean. I think the game looks great and the review even got me excited, but I have yet to finish even the demo. Scripting is not necessarily a bad thing imo, but enemies just seem to keep re-spawning until you trigger the next event, which made me feel like I have to be more occupied with trying to find the place that triggers it than actually killing the enemy, to advance in the level.. BLKR4330

yeah you actually loose the will to fight, but there's no real way to make a whole entire army ready to fight without having like, a "decacore" processor or something like that, unless your playing Medieval 2, but it's easier in RTS. I'm surpised at how much detail they are able to put into Medieval though. Not to get off topic though.

I completely disagree. In all seriousness, Call of Duty 4, in my opinion, is the best shooter so far ever released.

Yes, it's that good. I was expecting it to be more of the same ole same ole, but boy was I wrong.

The single player game, although short, is the most epic, satisfying single player FPS experience I have ever had. The Ghillie suit level where you run around Chernobyl was practically better than the entire game of Stalker by itself.

And the Multiplayer? It's godly. It takes the modern tactical gameplay feel of excellent games like Counter-Strike, Rainbow Six, and GRAW, and melds it with a persistent advancement systerm that is better than Battlefield's, and comes out with the most amazing online system I have ever seen or played.

You have every conceivable game mode you could ever want, and can play it in any way you want.

You want Team Deathmatch? Fine, play it standard, or old school (where pickups are on the ground like Quake/Unreal Tournament), or hardcore (where you have no HUD, can use only iron sights to aim, and die VERY easily), or whatever custom combination of anything you like.

Sabotage is an excellent play mode. You can play it either like CS, where one team needs to bomb a site or 2 and the other have to defend, or you can play where the bomb is in the middle of the map, and both struggle to get the bomb and bomb the other side.

You have you classic Free-for-all deathmatch, team deatchmatch, king of the kill, and many other excellent game modes.

Every gun feels exactly right. The sound, the soundtrack, the graphics, the effects, the physics, are all awesome. The game properly calculates how each gun could really fire a bullet through different surfaces. Buddy standing on the other side of some cinderblocks? If you have the right gun you can shoot him, if you have a weak gun, you can't. It's not like CS where you can only shoot through wood.

If you haven't gotten the point buy now, I find this game HIGHLY praiseworthy. I thought it was going to be more of the same, but instead it turned out to be the best FPS I have ever played.

It is my opinion that this is the best game I have ever played EVEN CONSIDERING the Crysis Beta and SP Demo, and all other FPS that I have played (all of them).

If you haven't played this game yet, you are missing out on somethign truly fantastic.

I mean i've been playing it and after 20 mins i was done because it's just all the frigging same and sooo heavily scripted, soo annoying how you have to keep meeting up with the npc's all the time or you can't progress by yourself. I always thought i was bored of WW2 FPS games but it's become clear that it's not the WW2 setting seeing as COH was refreshing and fun. The problem is the gameplay style that the WW2 games have had in the past and COD2 sums that up, and seeing as COD4 is basically the game i just found it soo boring. Why can't they make something more open and innovative and fun? I just get the feeling like i've played this same FPS about a 100 times before.

Grantelicious

I'll take it if you don't want it :D

the pripyat level has nothing on stalker, apart from forming a wonderful set piece at the end it hasn't the atmosphere or the style of stalker. The single player is pretty average imo, I don't know what jeff was talking about with the story in story crap, just seems pretty standard in terms of missions.

The multiplayer however does rock, as there is no more scripted crap, its all action, 10 kill streaks FTW.

Simechak I totally agree, but if I quoted all that, this would be a huge thread.

Some clips I've seen of some levels, made me REALLY want monday to be here already, because I can't wait to play some of the mission's I've seen online, the Demo level wasn't that great IMO.

I guess the single player is like portal, it's short, but it's awesome and that way it doesn't "overstay it's welcome".

nothing actually LIKE portal though.

Sorry, one more thing...CS if a terrible, terrible game...The guns in CS feel too light, but they feel just right in COD4, I have a feeling your living in an alternate universe and have found a breach in the GS forums ;)Myrkan

Oh yeah, the CS guns aren't that great, the only thing I don't like in the guns in CoD (or at least a few of them) is the sound effects for just a few guns, the M4 didn't sound right in the demo. Sounded like an UZI or something (oh, I got the game on Steam, so I have to wait till monday, if it's different in the full version just correct me.)

Besides, unlocking the stuff in multiplayer is just motivation, just like killing people for money in CS, and killing people and completing objectives for "prestige" in Crysis.

I mean i've been playing it and after 20 mins i was done because it's just all the frigging same and sooo heavily scripted, soo annoying how you have to keep meeting up with the npc's all the time or you can't progress by yourself. I always thought i was bored of WW2 FPS games but it's become clear that it's not the WW2 setting seeing as COH was refreshing and fun. The problem is the gameplay style that the WW2 games have had in the past and COD2 sums that up, and seeing as COD4 is basically the game i just found it soo boring. Why can't they make something more open and innovative and fun? I just get the feeling like i've played this same FPS about a 100 times before.

Grantelicious

wow....is that your idea of being part of a real war? open, innovative and fun? is that how you define the call of duty in reality? then you must have misunderstood about a lot of things, mate.

like i said before, alot of the haters really don't know what CoD is really about. they want to "progress by themselves" -- swim whenever they can, play with the vehicles whenever they see one, and if possible, they don't mind taking a detour that takes twice as much time as a direct approach normally would, just for the fun of it. they call these "innovation", i call them naivete.

don't get me wrong, sandbox, innovation, etc...these are A ok in my book. but when people say how a WAR GAME isn't good coz they don't get to do whatever they want, i just couldn't stand it. the reality of war is grim as it is unforgiving. in an all out conflict, there's only so much one can do that even mere survival often depends on luck -- being able to follow from one way point to another is as good an operation as anything can be. expecting more than that is a boy scour attitude that really befouls the gravity of war and military action.

maybe when the next batch of boys fly back from Iraq, you can ask those who aren't coming back in a box to see if they get to be "innovative".

[QUOTE="Grantelicious"]

I mean i've been playing it and after 20 mins i was done because it's just all the frigging same and sooo heavily scripted, soo annoying how you have to keep meeting up with the npc's all the time or you can't progress by yourself. I always thought i was bored of WW2 FPS games but it's become clear that it's not the WW2 setting seeing as COH was refreshing and fun. The problem is the gameplay style that the WW2 games have had in the past and COD2 sums that up, and seeing as COD4 is basically the game i just found it soo boring. Why can't they make something more open and innovative and fun? I just get the feeling like i've played this same FPS about a 100 times before.

Jinroh_basic

wow....is that your idea of being part of a real war? open, innovative and fun? is that how you define the call of duty in reality? then you must have misunderstood about a lot of things, mate.

like i said before, alot of the haters really don't know what CoD is really about. they want to "progress by themselves" -- swim whenever they can, play with the vehicles whenever they see one, and if possible, they don't mind taking a detour that takes twice as much time as a direct approach normally would, just for the fun of it. they call these "innovation", i call them naivete.

don't get me wrong, sandbox, innovation, etc...these are A ok in my book. but when people say how a WAR GAME isn't good coz they don't get to do whatever they want, i just couldn't stand it. the reality of war is grim as it is unforgiving. in an all out conflict, there's only so much one can do that even mere survival often depends on luck -- being able to follow from one way point to another is as good an operation as anything can be. expecting more than that is a boy scour attitude that really befouls the gravity of war and military action.

maybe when the next batch of boys fly back from Iraq, you can ask those who aren't coming back in a box to see if they get to be "innovative".

Peronsally, the only thing that really bugged me in all the Call of Duty games is that enemies respawn constantly. Everytime I mowed down a squad of Germans in previous games, it never felt fufilling cause another batch would just jump over the brick wall...

Other then that, the multiplayer in all of the CoD games is awesome.

wow....is that your idea of being part of a real war? open, innovative and fun? is that how you define the call of duty in reality? then you must have misunderstood about a lot of things, mate.

like i said before, alot of the haters really don't know what CoD is really about. they want to "progress by themselves" -- swim whenever they can, play with the vehicles whenever they see one, and if possible, they don't mind taking a detour that takes twice as much time as a direct approach normally would, just for the fun of it. they call these "innovation", i call them naivete.

don't get me wrong, sandbox, innovation, etc...these are A ok in my book. but when people say how a WAR GAME isn't good coz they don't get to do whatever they want, i just couldn't stand it. the reality of war is grim as it is unforgiving. in an all out conflict, there's only so much one can do that even mere survival often depends on luck -- being able to follow from one way point to another is as good an operation as anything can be. expecting more than that is a boy scour attitude that really befouls the gravity of war and military action.

maybe when the next batch of boys fly back from Iraq, you can ask those who aren't coming back in a box to see if they get to be "innovative".Jinroh_basic

I think you're a little out of line trying to press guilt on someone, as if they should be remorseful to the soldiers in Iraq because they aren't happy with CoD4. You're comparing a videogame to serious real-world events as if they're supposed to coincide.

Honestly dude, I hear what you're saying. But at the same time, I'm pretty sure Infinity Ward was out to entertain gamers when they made CoD4, not to attempt to make the most realistic war simulation out there. If you're going to go on about "war is gritty", "war is unforgiving", "war is hell", then you can't be seriously talking about CoD. Afterall, in a real war, if you get shot, you're either dead or dying. In CoD4, you can get pelted with rifle-fire, sit behind a crate for a few seconds, and be as good as new instantly. That's neither gritty nor unforgiving.

Like I said, I see where you're coming from. But it is a video game. It's not meant to give an accurate portrayal of the trials and tribulations of real life as a soldier. If someone prefers a different playing style then you, big deal. If people are unsatisfied with the fact that CoD gameplay hasn't changed very muchsince the first game, you can't exactly argue with their opinion.

Yeh i gave it another go and go to the level "heat" and just got bored, unistalled it and not because that level was hard, it just had a daft feeling to it. I hate how the enemies kept respawning and it felt pretty stupid, it's like how big is their army? They'll keep constantly coming at you until you progess and feels too scripted again. I just got fed up of how stupid the AI is aswel on your team mostly but the enemy, they just seem to run straight at you and makes easy targets. The whole game just feels like the same old COD games i've played in the past and tbh i think it's time fro something new form IF.

However the best level was probably chernobyl for it's variety and i loved the Helicopter where you have to bomb the targets on the ground using thermal because the voices over the radio sounded kool and gave a nice atmosphere. Apart from them two levels in the game i didn't really have a whole lot of fun.

I actually like the fact that its heavily scripted as well. Crysis is trying to be as dynamic as possible I'm pretty sure, but guess what, I found the demo to be no where near as fun as COD4, I doubt I'll have more fun with Crysis. Think of it this way: If it wasnt heavily scripted, do you think it would be anywhere near as cool? If it was more dynamic, it wouldnt feel epic when you save the hostage, or blow someones arm off.

I won't get this game because if I bought it for the single player experience, it would equate to about $10 an hour. That is way to steep for me. I downloaded the demo and thought it was an absolutely detailed, high energy game. I am just not willing to pay $50 for a 5 hour experience, that isn't even real.jazilla

Sorry zazilla but I can't agree with your point. If I can find an entertaining diversion that only costs me $10 an hour I'm more than happy. Try going to a decent movie, enjoy a few suds with freinds at your local pub, golf, snowboard, go to an amusement park all of which will cost you more than $10 an hour. IMO CoD4 was well worth it's 9 review and my $50. I rather liked the fact that the single player was short because I can get a thrilling fast paced experience and still have time left in my day to go do something "real" like lapping my new Q6660 cuz Intel can't make a processor with a flat surface or a stock fan that actually cools lol.

Wow, I never knew more people played CS than there were that populated the entire world, 7 billion people... huh?Boogalate

Yeah 9 billion people play CS? And I thought there was only 6.5 billion people on earth.

I completely disagree. In all seriousness, Call of Duty 4, in my opinion, is the best shooter so far ever released.

Yes, it's that good. I was expecting it to be more of the same ole same ole, but boy was I wrong.

The single player game, although short, is the most epic, satisfying single player FPS experience I have ever had. The Ghillie suit level where you run around Chernobyl was practically better than the entire game of Stalker by itself.

And the Multiplayer? It's godly. It takes the modern tactical gameplay feel of excellent games like Counter-Strike, Rainbow Six, and GRAW, and melds it with a persistent advancement systerm that is better than Battlefield's, and comes out with the most amazing online system I have ever seen or played.

You have every conceivable game mode you could ever want, and can play it in any way you want.

You want Team Deathmatch? Fine, play it standard, or old school (where pickups are on the ground like Quake/Unreal Tournament), or hardcore (where you have no HUD, can use only iron sights to aim, and die VERY easily), or whatever custom combination of anything you like.

Sabotage is an excellent play mode. You can play it either like CS, where one team needs to bomb a site or 2 and the other have to defend, or you can play where the bomb is in the middle of the map, and both struggle to get the bomb and bomb the other side.

You have you classic Free-for-all deathmatch, team deatchmatch, king of the kill, and many other excellent game modes.

Every gun feels exactly right. The sound, the soundtrack, the graphics, the effects, the physics, are all awesome. The game properly calculates how each gun could really fire a bullet through different surfaces. Buddy standing on the other side of some cinderblocks? If you have the right gun you can shoot him, if you have a weak gun, you can't. It's not like CS where you can only shoot through wood.

If you haven't gotten the point buy now, I find this game HIGHLY praiseworthy. I thought it was going to be more of the same, but instead it turned out to be the best FPS I have ever played.

It is my opinion that this is the best game I have ever played EVEN CONSIDERING the Crysis Beta and SP Demo, and all other FPS that I have played (all of them).

If you haven't played this game yet, you are missing out on somethign truly fantastic.

Simechak

I know everyone has opinions and all but a few people here are calling this the best FPS ever, Im sorry the single player id give like a 65% because of the WAY scripting and how you need to trigger things to progress in the level. The intensity is absolutely retarted, if war was like that wall of bullets some missions have it would all be a stale mate, im playing the demo mission in the release on hard and man I jst cant get through the wall of bullets. I mean COD4 is the worst COD yet easily.

Now the multiplayer id give maybe 80% or better only when Im on less populated maps, say 12-20 people, on most maps 32 people turns into like UT deathmatch where you only live a moment and respawn. there is stratedgy but not FPS strat. Its all twitch movement. where as normal paced lack of 'wall of bullets' FPS games you need to act like a guy with a gun, and use cover.

I give COD4 a 85% only because the multiplayer is great at times, single player is a joke. Everyone should go play Insurgency the free mod for HL2 and thats a REAL COD4 beater, I mean much better, but since everoyn is snowed about the COD name people will buy it.

[QUOTE="Grantelicious"]

I mean i've been playing it and after 20 mins i was done because it's just all the frigging same and sooo heavily scripted, soo annoying how you have to keep meeting up with the npc's all the time or you can't progress by yourself. I always thought i was bored of WW2 FPS games but it's become clear that it's not the WW2 setting seeing as COH was refreshing and fun. The problem is the gameplay style that the WW2 games have had in the past and COD2 sums that up, and seeing as COD4 is basically the game i just found it soo boring. Why can't they make something more open and innovative and fun? I just get the feeling like i've played this same FPS about a 100 times before.

Jinroh_basic

wow....is that your idea of being part of a real war? open, innovative and fun? is that how you define the call of duty in reality? then you must have misunderstood about a lot of things, mate.

like i said before, alot of the haters really don't know what CoD is really about. they want to "progress by themselves" -- swim whenever they can, play with the vehicles whenever they see one, and if possible, they don't mind taking a detour that takes twice as much time as a direct approach normally would, just for the fun of it. they call these "innovation", i call them naivete.

don't get me wrong, sandbox, innovation, etc...these are A ok in my book. but when people say how a WAR GAME isn't good coz they don't get to do whatever they want, i just couldn't stand it. the reality of war is grim as it is unforgiving. in an all out conflict, there's only so much one can do that even mere survival often depends on luck -- being able to follow from one way point to another is as good an operation as anything can be. expecting more than that is a boy scour attitude that really befouls the gravity of war and military action.

maybe when the next batch of boys fly back from Iraq, you can ask those who aren't coming back in a box to see if they get to be "innovative".

WTF, so Im not supposed to like running down a corrider while im shot at, I CANT go another way where, hmm, maybe ill live, and i can get to my goal, because, hmm im outsmarting someone? Oh thats right just make a path for me that say, hmm 100 enemies are staring right down, hmm maybe I also like to think for myself, and hmm, by not taking the direct approach I am niave, hell if you go to war, ill let you go first through the door, while i go around back and finish the enemy while they YOU in a box. hmm. I guess I am an idiot. hmmm.

I tend to agree with jazilla, on both cod4 and gow as well. Paying 50$ for 4-8 hours of gameplay just isnt worth the pricetag, unless your really into the multiplayer aspect. boyd62

Yeah Multiplayer is where its at in COD4.