Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Call of Duty 4 Review

Zonk posted more than 6 years ago | from the reporting-in-sir dept.


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.

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

Cory Doctorow review (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#21354129)

Still has a stupid, stupid haircut.

Review (2, Interesting)

Haelyn (321711) | more than 6 years ago | (#21354171)

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 (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#21354315)

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?

Its like this (1)

egg troll (515396) | more than 6 years ago | (#21354633)

Most Slashdotters are huddled over their fading VT100 terminals, furiously playing Nethack, which is considered the paragon of computer gaming. If ASCII is good enough for Nethack, it should be good enough for ANY game.

Re:Review (3, Insightful)

TheGoodSteven (1178459) | more than 6 years ago | (#21354739)

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 (2, Informative)

The Analog Kid (565327) | more than 6 years ago | (#21356569)

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 (1)

moderatorrater (1095745) | more than 6 years ago | (#21354755)

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 (1)

sortius_nod (1080919) | more than 6 years ago | (#21356459)

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 (1)

fastest fascist (1086001) | more than 6 years ago | (#21355609)

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 (1)

htnprm (176191) | more than 6 years ago | (#21356079)

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 (2)

hairyfeet (841228) | more than 6 years ago | (#21356103)

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 (4, Interesting)

clubby (1144121) | more than 6 years ago | (#21354317)

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.

Not quite (4, Insightful)

TheMeuge (645043) | more than 6 years ago | (#21354375)

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 (0, Troll)

Serge_Tomiko (1178965) | more than 6 years ago | (#21354907)

The OP probably thinks Mario Galaxy is the greatest thing ever

Re:Not quite (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#21355015)

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

Re:Not quite (2, Funny)

xhrit (915936) | more than 6 years ago | (#21355517)

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 (2, Insightful)

mike2R (721965) | more than 6 years ago | (#21355545)

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 (0, Troll)

pinchhazard (728983) | more than 6 years ago | (#21356081)

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 (1)

enderjsv (1128541) | more than 6 years ago | (#21357161)

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:Review (1)

MBCook (132727) | more than 6 years ago | (#21354395)

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 (4, Insightful)

modecx (130548) | more than 6 years ago | (#21355987)

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 (1)

heartless_ (923947) | more than 6 years ago | (#21354403)

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 (2, Interesting)

ad0gg (594412) | more than 6 years ago | (#21354645)

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 (1)

JPriest (547211) | more than 6 years ago | (#21354675)

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 (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#21355147)

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 (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#21355795)

Care to receive?

Re:Review (4, Informative)

JohnnyBigodes (609498) | more than 6 years ago | (#21354785)

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 (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#21356477)

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 (1)

Skillet5151 (972916) | more than 6 years ago | (#21356507)

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:
X2 4000+ 2.1 Ghz

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 (1)

JohnnyBigodes (609498) | more than 6 years ago | (#21356631)

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 (1, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#21356667)

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 (1)

JohnnyBigodes (609498) | more than 6 years ago | (#21356739)

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 :)

Calling All Players (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#21354953)

Ready, Aim, Fire [] .

Re:Review (1)

MattSausage (940218) | more than 6 years ago | (#21355353)

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 (1)

tompaulco (629533) | more than 6 years ago | (#21356341)

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 (1)

king-manic (409855) | more than 6 years ago | (#21355361)

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

Re:Review (1)

NMerriam (15122) | more than 6 years ago | (#21356875)

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 (1)

Tuidjy (321055) | more than 6 years ago | (#21356911)

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?

How About a Super Mario Galaxy Review? (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#21354235)

All I can think about it is how bad I want to get out of work so I can go home and play that game.

Super Mario Galaxy is the best game ever.

Outstanding Game (1)

clubby (1144121) | more than 6 years ago | (#21354263)

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 (0)

JustNiz (692889) | more than 6 years ago | (#21354285)

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 (1)

insanius (1058584) | more than 6 years ago | (#21354411)

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 (1)

JustNiz (692889) | more than 6 years ago | (#21354441)

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

Re:tough time (1)

SCPRedMage (838040) | more than 6 years ago | (#21356469)

PC, 360, and PS3, actually.

Re:tough time (1)

mobby_6kl (668092) | more than 6 years ago | (#21354679)

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 [] .

4? (1)

polar red (215081) | more than 6 years ago | (#21354301)

But when will 5 come out ?

Re:4? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#21356977)

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 (1)

FudRucker (866063) | more than 6 years ago | (#21354337)

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

I'm having fun on multiplayer (2, Informative)

Boomer_Zz (548219) | more than 6 years ago | (#21354371)

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 (1)

someonehasmyname (465543) | more than 6 years ago | (#21355929)

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 (1)

Boomer_Zz (548219) | more than 6 years ago | (#21356209)

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

Infinity Ward Should Thank Bungie (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#21354373)

The interest for CoD4 skyrocketed once it became clear that Halo 3 was going to turn out to be graphical disaster. Once people started posting comparison shots from Halo 2 and Halo 3 and people were having trouble telling which one was the 'next gen' Halo most Xbox fans dropped it and immediately latched on to hyping Cod4. Even Xbox sites like EGM and 1Up joined in and started hyping the game going as far to even give the mediocre graphics in CoD4 awards for 'best graphics'(LOL!) - the game only runs at 600p which is even lower rez than Halo 3's sub HD 640p rez.

It is funny in a sad sort of way that Xbox fans jumped from one overhyped but mediocre fps Halo with sub HD 640p graphics to another overhyped but mediocre shooter with even lower rez sub HD 600p graphics.

Re:Infinity Ward Should Thank Bungie (1)

Pojut (1027544) | more than 6 years ago | (#21354977)

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...

Comparison vs Battlefield 2142: (4, Informative)

mikeasu (1025283) | more than 6 years ago | (#21354469)

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: (1)

ninjagin (631183) | more than 6 years ago | (#21355071)


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: (1)

mikeasu (1025283) | more than 6 years ago | (#21355191)

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

The ZeroPunctuation review (-1, Offtopic)

sammyF70 (1154563) | more than 6 years ago | (#21354491)

The Zero Punctuation Review [] seems to bring up the same critic of the game : not much content.

Re:The ZeroPunctuation review (1)

sammyF70 (1154563) | more than 6 years ago | (#21354519)

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

Re:The ZeroPunctuation review (1)

Dilaudid (574715) | more than 6 years ago | (#21355939)

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.


Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#21354501)

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


Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#21355213)

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


cliffski (65094) | more than 6 years ago | (#21355295)

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

FPS evolution (1)

leadfoot (159248) | more than 6 years ago | (#21354623)

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 (3, Interesting)

popeye44 (929152) | more than 6 years ago | (#21354805)

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.

Am I being overly critical? (1)

arwendt (1073688) | more than 6 years ago | (#21354639)

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 (1, Interesting)

DragonTHC (208439) | more than 6 years ago | (#21354761)

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

It was simply amazing.

Re:the single best single player experience in yea (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#21356805)

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.

3/5? (4, Informative)

Zebra_X (13249) | more than 6 years ago | (#21354861)

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.


Re:3/5? (1)

Boomer_Zz (548219) | more than 6 years ago | (#21355379)

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? (1)

anethema (99553) | more than 6 years ago | (#21355629)

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? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#21355819)

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

Re:3/5? (1)

Zebra_X (13249) | more than 6 years ago | (#21356345)

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

Re:3/5? (1)

kernelphr34k (1179539) | more than 6 years ago | (#21356063)

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? (1)

pete-classic (75983) | more than 6 years ago | (#21356271)

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.


Correction for summary (CoD3: Hot Potato) (1)

u8i9o0 (1057154) | more than 6 years ago | (#21354875)

... 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 (1)

zenderbender (663373) | more than 6 years ago | (#21354937)

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 (1)

AresTheImpaler (570208) | more than 6 years ago | (#21355515)

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. (3, Informative)

lattyware (934246) | more than 6 years ago | (#21354943)

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.

Graphics, and all that noise. (4, Interesting)

Pojut (1027544) | more than 6 years ago | (#21355135)

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?

Intense (3, Interesting)

Malenfant (607119) | more than 6 years ago | (#21355269)

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 (1)

theantipop (803016) | more than 6 years ago | (#21355775)

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.

overloaded (1)

doublefrost (1042496) | more than 6 years ago | (#21355285)

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: (2, Informative)

Simulant (528590) | more than 6 years ago | (#21355417)

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: (1)

Vr6dub (813447) | more than 6 years ago | (#21356227)

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: (1)

Boronx (228853) | more than 6 years ago | (#21356675)

"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.

question about the RPG "element" (1)

Some_Llama (763766) | more than 6 years ago | (#21355441)

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" (1)

Chaymus (697182) | more than 6 years ago | (#21355591)

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" (2, Informative)

another_twilight (585366) | more than 6 years ago | (#21355905)

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" (1)

DMeans (756525) | more than 6 years ago | (#21355907)

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.

Refreshed? Really? (1)

justinlee37 (993373) | more than 6 years ago | (#21355481)

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?

Expansion Pack (1)

ToxicBanjo (905105) | more than 6 years ago | (#21355563)

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!

Anyone looking for depth in multiplayer combat... (2, Informative)

Tibor the Hun (143056) | more than 6 years ago | (#21355949)

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.

Oh yeah, and it runs on Linux (1)

Tibor the Hun (143056) | more than 6 years ago | (#21356311)

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.

Re:Anyone looking for depth in multiplayer combat. (1)

Simulant (528590) | more than 6 years ago | (#21356791)

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.

Multiplayer? (0, Troll)

sheldon (2322) | more than 6 years ago | (#21356017)

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.

Agree on the Rainbow 6 comments at the end (1)

rjschwarz (945384) | more than 6 years ago | (#21356061)

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 (1)

Library Spoff (582122) | more than 6 years ago | (#21356741)

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 (1)

rjschwarz (945384) | more than 6 years ago | (#21356817)

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

Endless respawn madness (2, Insightful)

Anach (819405) | more than 6 years ago | (#21356321)

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.

Thanks, But No Thanks (1)

jackal40 (1119853) | more than 6 years ago | (#21356809)

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.
Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?