Call of Duty 4's campaign outshines its multiplayer.

After all my hateful comments in the past about Call of Duty 4, I still, for some odd reason, decided to give it a rent. Aside from the fact that the game was, like, five freaking hours long, the quality of it was top notch. It was always thrilling and there were no dull moments. This hurts coming for me after hating on it for two years.

The only games my friends would ever play were Halo, Call of Duty 4, Gears of War, and Guitar Hero. This may explain some things, because whenever I went anywhere, I was always surrounded with people playing it. Eventually, I would sit out of matches. I just didn't want to play, sat there, and talked instead.

Well, the game is fun for a few hours. I can't really see investing 20 hours in to a game like this, but the 5 hours I spent with it were good. I played online only for 36 minutes, though. That was six matches total, and I'll probably be done with it then. I can't see myself really playing the online. Playing split-screen with my little brother was fun, but that just brought me back to late 2007 and early 2008 again. The multiplayer is a nice distraction, but I say the core of the game is the campaign mode. It pains me to say this, but I assure you that I will still bash Call of Duty 4 only because it is praised for its multiplayer. ;)

I'm returning it tomorrow and picking up a new game, but their selection is ****.

Anyway, does anyone here agree? I've never really heard anyone say anything about it, except that Soap is a ****ing stupid name. I might give Modern Warfare 2 a rent now, actually. If I ever have the urge for multiplayer, I'll go to my friends' houses.

Anyway, what say you?

Edit: By the way, I'm doing the "Get any game or movie you want for an entire month for 22 dollars." I can return any game or movie I want at any time and pick up a new one at any time. It's highly convenient. First time I've rented games in awhile, and I also get to see the ****ty horror movies without actually worrying about spending money of them (Friday the 13th was so ****ing awful).

cant diasgree more. So if COD4 had no MP do you think it would get the ratings it did?

cant diasgree more. So if COD4 had no MP do you think it would get the ratings it did?

imaps3fanboy

Oh I agree. The multiplayer is an unbalanced mess. Anyone who's played it knows it has issues with the leveling, perks, and weapons.

However, the singleplayer isn't exactly fantastic either. It's certainly passable though. It reminds me of the older CoDs condensed into one short 5-hour package, with really annoying respawning enemies and a poor save/checkpoint system.

Incredibly scripted single-player, plus infinite respawnable enemies, plus ridiculously short length makes me lean to saying multiplayer > singleplayer by far.Stevo_the_gamer

Why is this in the System Wars section? :|

This would be more fitting in the General Games Discussion

I enjoyed the singleplayer, but its very low on my "good singleplayer FPS" list.

Respawning enemies is one of the lowest kinda of tricks a game can use.

I agree, the campaign is solid, but the multiplayer isn't that great and it's overrated too.

After all my hateful comments in the past about Call of Duty 4, I still, for some odd reason, decided to give it a rent. Aside from the fact that the game was, like, five freaking hours long, the quality of it was top notch. It was always thrilling and there were no dull moments. This hurts coming for me after hating on it for two years.

The only games my friends would ever play were Halo, Call of Duty 4, Gears of War, and Guitar Hero. This may explain some things, because whenever I went anywhere, I was always surrounded with people playing it. Eventually, I would sit out of matches. I just didn't want to play, sat there, and talked instead.

Well, the game is fun for a few hours. I can't really see investing 20 hours in to a game like this, but the 5 hours I spent with it were good. I played online only for 36 minutes, though. That was six matches total, and I'll probably be done with it then. I can't see myself really playing the online. Playing split-screen with my little brother was fun, but that just brought me back to late 2007 and early 2008 again. The multiplayer is a nice distraction, but I say the core of the game is the campaign mode. It pains me to say this, but I assure you that I will still bash Call of Duty 4 only because it is praised for its multiplayer. ;)

I'm returning it tomorrow and picking up a new game, but their selection is ****.

Anyway, does anyone here agree? I've never really heard anyone say anything about it, except that Soap is a ****ing stupid name. I might give Modern Warfare 2 a rent now, actually. If I ever have the urge for multiplayer, I'll go to my friends' houses.

Anyway, what say you?

Edit: By the way, I'm doing the "Get any game or movie you want for an entire month for 22 dollars." I can return any game or movie I want at any time and pick up a new one at any time. It's highly convenient. First time I've rented games in awhile, and I also get to see the ****ty horror movies without actually worrying about spending money of them (Friday the 13th was so ****ing awful).

DeathScape666

[QUOTE="Stevo_the_gamer"]Incredibly scripted single-player, plus infinite respawnable enemies, plus ridiculously short length makes me lean to saying multiplayer > singleplayer by far.DeathScape666

[QUOTE="Stevo_the_gamer"]Incredibly scripted single-player, plus infinite respawnable enemies, plus ridiculously short length makes me lean to saying multiplayer > singleplayer by far.DeathScape666

Play on veteran

After all my hateful comments in the past about Call of Duty 4, I still, for some odd reason, decided to give it a rent. Aside from the fact that the game was, like, five freaking hours long, the quality of it was top notch. It was always thrilling and there were no dull moments. This hurts coming for me after hating on it for two years.

The only games my friends would ever play were Halo, Call of Duty 4, Gears of War, and Guitar Hero. This may explain some things, because whenever I went anywhere, I was always surrounded with people playing it. Eventually, I would sit out of matches. I just didn't want to play, sat there, and talked instead.

Well, the game is fun for a few hours. I can't really see investing 20 hours in to a game like this, but the 5 hours I spent with it were good. I played online only for 36 minutes, though. That was six matches total, and I'll probably be done with it then. I can't see myself really playing the online. Playing split-screen with my little brother was fun, but that just brought me back to late 2007 and early 2008 again. The multiplayer is a nice distraction, but I say the core of the game is the campaign mode. It pains me to say this, but I assure you that I will still bash Call of Duty 4 only because it is praised for its multiplayer. ;)

I'm returning it tomorrow and picking up a new game, but their selection is ****.

Anyway, does anyone here agree? I've never really heard anyone say anything about it, except that Soap is a ****ing stupid name. I might give Modern Warfare 2 a rent now, actually. If I ever have the urge for multiplayer, I'll go to my friends' houses.

Anyway, what say you?

Edit: By the way, I'm doing the "Get any game or movie you want for an entire month for 22 dollars." I can return any game or movie I want at any time and pick up a new one at any time. It's highly convenient. First time I've rented games in awhile, and I also get to see the ****ty horror movies without actually worrying about spending money of them (Friday the 13th was so ****ing awful).

SP I thought was awesome. Only complaint: too short. MP was good when I first started playing it. However once I started playing WAW, I realized how unbalanced COD4's MP was. Yes, I am one of those few who likes WAW more than MW. Grenade spamming, lack of support from IW (only one map pack), poor balancing of weapons make me prefer WAW a lot more. I hope IW fixes these issues .

[QUOTE="DeathScape666"][QUOTE="Stevo_the_gamer"]Incredibly scripted single-player, plus infinite respawnable enemies, plus ridiculously short length makes me lean to saying multiplayer > singleplayer by far.MrSlippery39

Play on veteran

Incredibly scripted single-player, plus infinite respawnable enemies, plus ridiculously short length makes me lean to saying multiplayer > singleplayer by far.Stevo_the_gamer

[QUOTE="kidcool189"][QUOTE="DeathScape666"]

After all my hateful comments in the past about Call of Duty 4, I still, for some odd reason, decided to give it a rent. Aside from the fact that the game was, like, five freaking hours long, the quality of it was top notch. It was always thrilling and there were no dull moments. This hurts coming for me after hating on it for two years.

The only games my friends would ever play were Halo, Call of Duty 4, Gears of War, and Guitar Hero. This may explain some things, because whenever I went anywhere, I was always surrounded with people playing it. Eventually, I would sit out of matches. I just didn't want to play, sat there, and talked instead.

Well, the game is fun for a few hours. I can't really see investing 20 hours in to a game like this, but the 5 hours I spent with it were good. I played online only for 36 minutes, though. That was six matches total, and I'll probably be done with it then. I can't see myself really playing the online. Playing split-screen with my little brother was fun, but that just brought me back to late 2007 and early 2008 again. The multiplayer is a nice distraction, but I say the core of the game is the campaign mode. It pains me to say this, but I assure you that I will still bash Call of Duty 4 only because it is praised for its multiplayer. ;)

I'm returning it tomorrow and picking up a new game, but their selection is ****.

Anyway, does anyone here agree? I've never really heard anyone say anything about it, except that Soap is a ****ing stupid name. I might give Modern Warfare 2 a rent now, actually. If I ever have the urge for multiplayer, I'll go to my friends' houses.

Anyway, what say you?

Edit: By the way, I'm doing the "Get any game or movie you want for an entire month for 22 dollars." I can return any game or movie I want at any time and pick up a new one at any time. It's highly convenient. First time I've rented games in awhile, and I also get to see the ****ty horror movies without actually worrying about spending money of them (Friday the 13th was so ****ing awful).

DeathScape666

Incredibly scripted single-player, plus infinite respawnable enemies, plus ridiculously short length makes me lean to saying multiplayer > singleplayer by far.Stevo_the_gamer

Way too linear and filled with archaic design choices like respawning enemies who can throw throw a grenade farther than an NFL player can throw a football.

[QUOTE="DeathScape666"][QUOTE="kidcool189"]what is the rental store you speak of with this kind of deal??kidcool189

Incredibly scripted single-player, plus infinite respawnable enemies, plus ridiculously short length makes me lean to saying multiplayer > singleplayer by far.Stevo_the_gamer

It's true, but the single player is remarkably uninspired. Those same gameplay elements had been handled several times before in better games, including even CoD 1 and2. The game is too linear, it's too short and it's not good enough to keep my intrest when I can play so many other better FPS games, and pay so much less. Games like CoD 4 have nothing on the likes of Half Life 1/2 or Dues Ex.

[QUOTE="DeathScape666"][QUOTE="Stevo_the_gamer"]Incredibly scripted single-player, plus infinite respawnable enemies, plus ridiculously short length makes me lean to saying multiplayer > singleplayer by far.Saturos3091

It's not about veteran or what difficulty level. Once you pass a certain point then they stop respawning and most of them disappear. It's the worst respawning I've ever seen put into a game. They just make them respawn like crazy with the exception of certain levels were you have to snipe and stuff like that. Other then that they respawn like crazy on any difficulty.

Am I the only one here who wasn't really bothered by the infinite respawn of enemies in COD4?

I played it through on Veteran difficulty and never once was it a problem, in fact, I actually enjoy the feeling of having to 'push forwards' to gain ground, rather than having the option of simply staying put. Anyway, if you kill them fast enough they shouldn't have time to respawn before you move forwards.

People may piss and moan all they like about how scripted and linear the campaign is, but it's still a damn good scripted, linear campaign. Cherokee_Jack

I totally agree with u, i am afraid that games in the future would focus more on multiplayer than on the single player experience which is the core of the game. I am also disappointed to hear that modern warfare 2 would not be any longer than cod4 and i hate the fact that infinity ward said they would rather give a short non stop action campaign rather than a long boring campaign. Instead of saying this, why can't they make a long but rather non stop action campaign like what they did in cod2?

I don't care what your think but full $60 price for a 5hr-6hr campaign is just unreasonable. Sure, the multiplayer adds replay value but multiplayer should be counted as a bonus. If they want to make a multiplayer game, the price should be cheaper. Anyway, I rate the pc version a 8.0 and xbox 360 a 7.5 because the pc version is cheaper and to me, fps is best played with a mouse and keyboard.

Why is this in the System Wars section? :|

This would be more fitting in the General Games Discussion

MadVybz

CoD4 SP is fun, but it's also horribly outdated, like something straight from 1998

i like the campaign better too, i'm more of a battlefield guy for mp

[QUOTE="MrSlippery39"]

[QUOTE="DeathScape666"] I looked for the infinite repsawnable enemies, and I did not at all notice it, unless you are talking about the "All Ghillied Up" level.mitu123

Play on veteran

The single player sucked; mediocre and riddled with previous gen problems.

The multiplayer was much better.

You bashed CoD4 even though you didn't play it? :lol:

Incredibly scripted single-player, plus infinite respawnable enemies, plus ridiculously short length makes me lean to saying multiplayer > singleplayer by far.Stevo_the_gamer

Yep, if it wasn't for the multiplayer I wouldn't have bought the game...and TC I'm sure since you rented the game you didn't give the multiplayer a real shot.

I disagree. The MP is very well fleshed out, with the customization and all.

[QUOTE="Stevo_the_gamer"]Incredibly scripted single-player, plus infinite respawnable enemies, plus ridiculously short length makes me lean to saying multiplayer > singleplayer by far.W1NGMAN-

Yep, if it wasn't for the multiplayer I wouldn't have bought the game...and TC I'm sure since you rented the game you didn't give the multiplayer a real shot.

I agree, the campaign is solid, but the multiplayer isn't that great and it's overrated too.

mitu123

I liked the campaign more than the multiplayer, as well.

The minority- I'm in it.

i agree campaigin> multiplayerdakan45

[QUOTE="mitu123"]

I agree, the campaign is solid, but the multiplayer isn't that great and it's overrated too.

abuabed

I enjoyed it. I still think a 5 hour SP is a ripoff though.

It does have an awesome campaign, whether or not it's better than multiplayer I don't know. I can say I for sure spent more time on multiplayer in COD4, but sinngleplayer was certainly impressive.

Also, why would you hate on a game that I'm assuming you didn't play at the time?

Incredibly scripted single-player, plus infinite respawnable enemies, plus ridiculously short length makes me lean to saying multiplayer > singleplayer by far.Stevo_the_gamer

It does have an awesome campaign, whether or not it's better than multiplayer I don't know. I can say I for sure spent more time on multiplayer in COD4, but sinngleplayer was certainly impressive.

Also, why would you hate on a game that I'm assuming you didn't play at the time?