Call of Duty 4: Modern Warfare

[deerokus]

watch the gameplay videos on there, much more impressive i thought. There's a really powerful machine gun which can shoot through walls!

[Karzee]

I'm hoping this game does the same to the GRAW series what COD did to Medal Of Honour....i.e. improve on them in every way and take their crown.

Ubisoft need a bit of competition, and for someone to show them how to actually make an exciting game with half decent AI (I've played both GR:AW's and both have been left unfinished three quarters of the way through from bordem).

[Stroker Ace]

COD is no competition for GRAW and definitely not in danger of stealing any 'crown'. They're so different, to even mention them in the same sentence is silly. MOH, fair enough, but not GRAW.

COD4 plays and handles like Call of Duty, but with the modern setting. COD is a mental, fast-paced shooter. GRAW is a slow-as-fuck tactical shooter. One is third-person, the other is first, one is slow, the other is fast, one is heavily squad-based, the other uses team mates as cannon fodder, one has a cover mechanic, the other has none.

You might as well compare COD to Gears of War while you're here.

GRAW was never trying to be an action game. If you turned them off through 'bordem', it's not because 'Ubisoft need someone to show them how to make an exciting game'. I had a blast with both. It's okay for games to do different things, you know? Did you play Splinter Cell and say "Nope. Needs some boss fights. A big robot piloted by my cloned brother at the end would make it better"?

[Guest]

But isn't GRAW dead easy with it's "Point/shoot/kill" mechanic. I think people dont get bored with GRAW cos it's simple

Which series sells more/is the bigger franchise. I thought it was COD.

[Stroker Ace]

It's gotta be COD.

Ghost Recon was always a game for nerds like me who like playing games where you sit in a bush for ten minutes, until GRAW came in and took it to the streets. COD was always aimed at the mass-market, and COD2 alone shifted more copies than the Bible.

Again, comparing them at all is silly.

[Meers]

"The following trailer consists entirely of actual gameplay"

No it doesn't. It's all cut-scenes! How can they say something like that?

I was more impressed by the 1st trailer (the one with all the laser-pointers moving about).

[Distinct muttering]

"The following trailer consists entirely of actual gameplay"

No it doesn't. It's all cut-scenes! How can they say something like that?

I was more impressed by the 1st trailer (the one with all the laser-pointers moving about).

Highest of fives.

I suspect they are claiming the cutscenes all use the in game engine.

[Pob]

Yeah, bit bizarre claiming it's in-game footage when it clearly isn't. But it's going to be COD2 in a modern setting with some extra bells and whistles - we all know how it's going to play. I'd buy it without even seeing a screenshot.

[Disgraced Toblerone]

Looks like a 24 spin-off.

[Meers]

I suspect they are claiming the cutscenes all use the in game engine.

Well yeah, that's obvious.

we all know how it's going to play. I'd buy it without even seeing a screenshot.

Amen!

[Lothar Hex]

Looking forward to this. Was dreading yet ANOTHER WWII FPS.

At least Fall of Liberty mixes it up a bit, but seriously game developers ENOUGH! I swear to god if I storm another french beach, chateau or german bunker on my 360 again I'll eat my underpants after a full day's wear.

[Lothar Hex]

Ooops.

[Lothar Hex]

Ooops x 2: European Mix Edition.

[b00dles]

Looking forward to this. Was dreading yet ANOTHER WWII FPS.

At least Fall of Liberty mixes it up a bit, but seriously game developers ENOUGH! I swear to god if I storm another french beach, chateau or german bunker on my 360 again I'll eat my underpants after a full day's wear.

So bloody true. WWII was a good setting, no doubt about it but it has been milked so hard the udders of entertaining gaming moments are shrivelled up like an old balloon. I find it amazing that they can't find other settings to use or just make some up that would be fun. I know there is issues with using real world stuff in that it can be used in the 'training the kids to kill argument) but what about a game set in any period since? Or other wars? Like Mogadishu or something?

Also, I'm sick to the back teeth of those bloody crap WWII guns with their inaccuracy and annoying load times.

[El Pibe]

It's the World War II setting and the guns that make it for me. The fact that the guns are slightly clunky and need to be reloaded enhances the experience, I think. You know, for example, with the German gun that if you miss with your first shot, you have an issue!

It's a shame they couldn't have moved to the Korean War, maybe, for a change of setting.

I tend to find 'modern day' stuff and future stuff, like Halo, quite dull.

That said, this remains a day one purchase for me and I really hope it's as good on Live as CoD3 is. I'd hate to know how many hours I've clocked up on that.

[Stroker Ace]

It's a shame they couldn't have moved to the Korean War, maybe, for a change of setting.

I tend to find 'modern day' stuff and future stuff, like Halo, quite dull.

Exact opposite here. WW2 bores the pants off of me. Near-future war is where it's at - funky gadgets, sniper rifles that punch through walls, close-quarter city-based combat, cameras in your helmet, and all that good shit.

War is just so. . . slick these days. I mean sure, it's still terribly messy, but long gone are the days when commanders just threw men at a problem until it went away. It's the incredible refinement of modern weaponry and tactics that I find so compelling.

[El Pibe]

Exact opposite here. WW2 bores the pants off of me. Near-future war is where it's at - funky gadgets, sniper rifles that punch through walls, close-quarter city-based combat, cameras in your helmet, and all that good shit.

War is just so. . . slick these days. I mean sure, it's still terribly messy, but long gone are the days when commanders just threw men at a problem until it went away. It's the incredible refinement of modern weaponry and tactics that I find so compelling.

Aye, I guess that highlights how different tastes are. I'm a bit of a wWorld War II nut and I could never get bored of reading about it and watching documentaries. Whereas, gadgets and the like tend turn me off. Although, I think it has something to do with time, though, especially when playing on-line.

I find that with on-line gaming you kinda need to play the games a lot and get quite good at them to really enjoy it. I like the simplicity of CoD3 and the fact that there isn't much for me to learn and so I was able to become very good at it without having to put in that much time.

Games like Rainbow Six, I just cannot get on with.

[Dude Ranch]

Aye, I guess that highlights how different tastes are. I'm a bit of a wWorld War II nut and I could never get bored of reading about it and watching documentaries. Whereas, gadgets and the like tend turn me off. Although, I think it has something to do with time, though, especially when playing on-line.

I find that with on-line gaming you kinda need to play the games a lot and get quite good at them to really enjoy it. I like the simplicity of CoD3 and the fact that there isn't much for me to learn and so I was able to become very good at it without having to put in that much time.

Games like Rainbow Six, I just cannot get on with.

This is how I see it too. Horses for courses.

Although I'm sure that COD4 will be ace.

[Beitel]

Exact opposite here. WW2 bores the pants off of me. Near-future war is where it's at - funky gadgets, sniper rifles that punch through walls, close-quarter city-based combat, cameras in your helmet, and all that good shit.

War is just so. . . slick these days. I mean sure, it's still terribly messy, but long gone are the days when commanders just threw men at a problem until it went away. It's the incredible refinement of modern weaponry and tactics that I find so compelling.

You know, I'd like to see a game set in the middle ages, or 1600 or something like that. Trying to survive an invasion on your city: chaos, blood and dead people everywhere. Your gun doesn't work anymore, so a pitchfork is all you can use etc.

I've played CoD2 once, but it felt too 'videogame-y' for my taste. Not intense at all.

[Lothar Hex]

Call of Duty 2 is a brilliant FPS, I suppose the setting helps, but I just found the enviroments, mechanics, sound..everything so well polished. I doubt you need to set it in WWII for the same effect. If they took what made Call of Duty 2 and put it in 4, it'll also be brilliant.

Great games are great not because of just their setting, but because they're well made.

[Dude Ranch]

I've played CoD2 once, but it felt too 'videogame-y' for my taste.

But, it's.. like..

[Stroker Ace]

But, it's.. like..

It's a race from waypoint to waypoint down very narrow corridors and scripted paths. Every time those little glowing 'place charge here' blips appear on a column or a wall, it takes me right out of the game. I mean, if I have to fix cables, at least give me a cable fixing animation or something. When COD says "place four charges", it might as well be making me collect gold coins.

Like Beitel, I didn't find it intense in the least. Thoroughly pedestrian, in fact. I never once felt like my best option was anything other than a frontal assault - it always works and always yields the fastest results. I guess that was my beef with COD. Medal of Honour too, in fact - it's just too easy to blast your way through from the front or with a quick dash to the side. I didn't have to think my way out of a problem once. I'm hoping that COD4 slows shit down a bit and gives you more options to strategise.

Now, I admit, I'm a GRAW fan, which also has a lot of narrow corridors and scripted paths, and while a lot of people find them just as boring as I find COD, those games get me right on the edge of my seat. As I said earlier, it's good that the two games offer something so very different even with COD4 going all modern.

I'll also admit that Call of Duty online is a different kettle of fish entirely. That's some good gaming, right there.

[El Pibe]

I had a quick go at CoD3 offline but didn't really enjoy it. Couldn't work out what was going on half the time. On-line, though, it's the best FPS I have played, bar none. Eats Halo for breakfast!

[Stroker Ace]

COD3's campaign is notorious horsehit, though.

[Meers]

I've played CoD2 once, but it felt too 'videogame-y' for my taste. Not intense at all.

I take it you've played it on 'sissy' difficulty?

I had a quick go at CoD3 offline but didn't really enjoy it. Couldn't work out what was going on half the time. On-line, though, it's the best FPS I have played, bar none. Eats Halo for breakfast!

Oh how I disagree. But horses for courses indeed.

[El Pibe]

It's all about the War mode! I don't even bother with deathmatch or capture the flag. War has never been so much fun and Merville is an amazing map.

[Dude Ranch]

Like Beitel, I didn't find it intense in the least. Thoroughly pedestrian, in fact. I never once felt like my best option was anything other than a frontal assault - it always works and always yields the fastest results. I guess that was my beef with COD.

Yeah, fair enough. For me that was what I liked. COD2 was brilliant IMO and the fact that it wasn't trying to be a sim put it right up my street.

[Philly]

Absolutely loved COD2 - it shined.

COD3 still ok. Singleplayer was knackered, but multi wasn't bad.

BUT, but, the one thing they need to take from COD 3 to put into 4 was the multiplayer mode Tug Of War.

One of the best models for a multiplayer mode ever. You could have just as much frantic tactical fun with 1 vs 1 as you could have 4 vs 4.

The way it would focus the action, BUT move it all around the map.

I know it's like territories, but the vital difference for me that it was on a single line, a tug of war, which made me love it.

Just hope they adopt that mode, but with 60fps Coddy 2 type action. If it can do this, it'll probably be my most played game for this Season O' Games '07 ^TM

Edit: Benito! Totally agree. Didn't see your post there.

[PopeSmokesDope]

Actually, a fair bit of that was in game, you had the on the rails c130 Spectre stufff (the night sight tv look a like shooting) etc.

[Meers]

It's all about the War mode! I don't even bother with deathmatch or capture the flag. War has never been so much fun and Merville is an amazing map.

I agree that CoD3's multiplayer has loads of potential - I even enjoyed playing it! But there's also something fundamentally wrong with it, one thing being the lobby timer, for instance.

No other 360 FPS has a lobby timer!

Plus it's missing some touches that CoD2's multiplayer had, such as footsteps and whatnot.

It may be the best FPS you've played, but it's definitely not the best one around.