COD4... Rules!

[XPYRYMYNT]

Yeah, the ranking and leveling systems are both the same as Halo 3. Matchmaking works virtually exactly the same as well.

But COD4 seems like a really good game. One of my Halo teammates has been neglecting to practice/play in the online Halo 3 league 'cause he's busy playing that game.

He says it's really fun, but it's alot easier to kill people than it is in Halo and that he'll probably quit playing once he maxes out his level. I'll probably end up buying it at some point, too.

[evilbutterfly]

1) The commercials make the game look way crazier than it is, from what I've played (which was just the multiplayer-only demo a while back).
2) You can't really compare Halo and CoD. If you had plasma guns and energy shields in CoD4, maybe they'd be up for comparing. Halo is better compared with stuff like Unreal Tourney (which blows Halo out of the water IMO) and CoD is better compared with stuff like Battlefield 2 (and even then, they're both not flag-capturing games).

That said, I like CoD style games more than Halo style games. CoD has always been awesome, this one is no different. Bullet penetration is cool. Being exposed on radar while shooting is awesome. I didn't get a chance to mess with changing the weapon stats (I only played it at my sister's house, and her bf put the same things on all his loadouts, they just had different weapons), but it's interesting.

As for it copying Halo, if it copied the online parts, what's the problem? Isn't the online style of Halo like, the ONE REALLY GOOD thing they did over their competitors? I wish some games *cough*every Battlefield game*cough* would copy other games' online systems. If it works it works, why reinvent the wheel?

[l2awr]

Originally Posted by evilbutterfly

1) The commercials make the game look way crazier than it is, from what I've played (which was just the multiplayer-only demo a while back).
2) You can't really compare Halo and CoD. If you had plasma guns and energy shields in CoD4, maybe they'd be up for comparing. Halo is better compared with stuff like Unreal Tourney (which blows Halo out of the water IMO) and CoD is better compared with stuff like Battlefield 2 (and even then, they're both not flag-capturing games).

That said, I like CoD style games more than Halo style games. CoD has always been awesome, this one is no different. Bullet penetration is cool. Being exposed on radar while shooting is awesome. I didn't get a chance to mess with changing the weapon stats (I only played it at my sister's house, and her bf put the same things on all his loadouts, they just had different weapons), but it's interesting.

As for it copying Halo, if it copied the online parts, what's the problem? Isn't the online style of Halo like, the ONE REALLY GOOD thing they did over their competitors? I wish some games *cough*every Battlefield game*cough* would copy other games' online systems. If it works it works, why reinvent the wheel?

I wasnt complaining. I just stated something. I wouldnt care if they copied every aspect of halo. Then thats 2 amazing games to play =]

[Pyroshock]

Isn't the ranking system in Halo 3 just military ranks?

How could CoD4 using that be considered copying?

[Dugray]

COD 4 sucks the big one on the DS though

[Squeek]

Just started playing it on PC.

It is really intense. Not a straightforward game at all. Sure, for the most part, it's all about clearing out a room, moving through to the next room, clearing that out, etc. But the kicker is that you never play as one person the entire time. No Gordon Freeman / Master Chief here. So far, I've played as a rookie named Soap, a Sergeant named Jackson, and a gunner in a gunship. The stories overlap constantly and you switch back and forth seamlessly. It's really quite awesome.

[banditcom]

It's really unfair to compare CoD 4 to Halo 3. PC shooters have always been far greater than console shooters. Play Halo games on the PC. They blow in comparison. o_O

I hope to get it soon.

[Chief0678]

I'm very impressed with COD4. And I've got to say, it definetly competes with Halo 3!!!
And just playing Live in it is really making me happy!

[evilbutterfly]

Squeek, have you never played CoD before? CoD1 had multiple characters with (I think, if you pay attention, I can't remember) overlapping stories.

And I might get CoD4 if I thought the multiplayer might have more to it. I don't think I'll ever like a FPS's multiplayer as much as I like battlefield-style multiplayer, and I don't stay interested in single-player along to warrant paying 50 bucks for a new game. Plus I'm not sure if my computer is quite able to handle it. It could handle everything before, but with DX10 stuff coming out I may have to finally upgrade. =\

[Squeek]

I never played CoD before because WWII shooters are lame and stupid.

[Telvanni_guard]

Call of Duty 4's ranking system? The same as Halo's? Ha!

I'll point out a few different things that make CoD4's system different from Halo's.

1. Ranking up in Call of Duty 4 gives you more crap than just a shiny new emblem and bragging rights. As you rank up you gain access to more perks, weapons, and challenges.
2. You can't skip rankings by having a "higher skill". You must go through each and every one by gaining the experience to gain the next rank.
3. There are no achievements in the online multiplayer. You may think that would kill the multiplayer experience but the challenges more than make up for it. As you go up in the rankings you get harder and harder challenges. From calling in a single UAV Recon, to killing someone by blowing up a card, to killing someone with a direct hit from a frag grenade. That's right. Not the explosion. You have to hurt them enough so that when they get hit by your thrown frag, they die.
4. There are rewards for getting Kill Steaks that affect the gameplay. Three gives you a UAV which lets you see where your opponents are hiding. Five gives you an Air Strike which you can throw anywhere on the map. And Seven gives you a computer controlled helicopter that will reek havok on everyone it sees until it leaves or it's shot down.
5. The game has these things called perks. There are three sections of perks, and the player can choose one from each section. Giving you the freedom to style your character class how you want to play, but being balanced because you'll have to give up all those other nice perks in order to use the ones you want.
6. The radar system is one of my favorite things in any game. Unless the enemy has a UAV up and you don't have UAV Jammer, you won't be seen on their radar.. unless you shoot a gun without a silencer. Then your little red dot will flash bright, and everyone will know where you are. Silencers make you invisible on radar when shooting. And no... Sniper Rifles don't get silencers. Even if you have a UAV jammer though, you'll still show up on the radar when you shoot.
Basically:
-If you have a silencer, you won't show up when you shoot.
-If you have a UAV Jammer, you won't show up on radar scans.
-If you have neither of these, you'll show up on scans and when you shoot.

The way that people find games is probably alot like Halo 3's. But there's a reason for that. Because it's a damn good system... other than the fact you can't pick the map, and round, and all that other juicy crap, but who cares right? It's ranked. Some things are meant to be random.

For the record, I'm turning in Halo 3 and putting the money down on Rock Band. Halo 3 has the worst lag compensation I've ever seen in a game. I've been stuck in the respawn timer for 10 minutes while talking to teammates. It's annoying as crap and makes me sigh a bit. The reason I got Halo 3 was because my friends had it and I really like playing with them.. but since it lags me the hell out everytime I try and play it with them, that idea was shot and 60 bucks is down the drain.

I'd rather stick with CoD4 and 12-16 player non-laggy matches and compelling campaign then put up with the lagastic multiplayer and not-as-good-in-my-opinion story in Halo 3.



Also: It's not involving World War 2 and involves the British S(pecial) A(ir) S(ervice) and the United States U(nited) S(tates) M(arine) C(orps). Yahtzee might actually like this game.

[Squeek]

I'm still wondering if Yahtzee is going to review Assassin's Creed, CoD4, Mario Galaxy, Crysis, or something else all together.

It probably depends on Australian release dates on these games.

[Telvanni_guard]

Well.. Yahtzee really likes the PC so I think Crysis is a dead on.. CoD4 may be up there though.

[Tokzic]

omg yay a modern day fps of a well-known series this is new and has never been done before



oh wait

seriously i don't understand why everybody laps up every sngle boring recycled fps that these companies churn out

[Squeek]

I only played it because I hadn't played a decent FPS in ages. Actually, since Half-Life 2.

This disappointed me. It's like yay solid gameplay and such. The removal of health and crap is neat. Too bad the campaign is like 6 hours long.

I don't get it. How are game companies getting away with this? Some people paid $60 to play this game that lasts 6 hours? What if you didn't like multi-player, like I don't? Ok, sure, arcade mode and cheats. That's fun for an hour or less.

Every shooter I hear about these days is about 5-10 hours long. It's pathetic and it has to stop. I'm so glad Valve is a great developer, because aside from releasing only top-quality games, they also keep a good length in every game they put out. Half-Life, Half-Life 2, and the three episodes (added together) are all about 20 hours each. That's just right. Gameplay doesn't get monotonous but you still get a wholesome experience.

Here's hoping Unreal 3's single-player campaign outlasts the 10-hour mark. Oh wait, it's from Epic. Here's hoping it outlasts the 5-hour mark.

[l2awr]

Originally Posted by Squeek

I only played it because I hadn't played a decent FPS in ages. Actually, since Half-Life 2.

This disappointed me. It's like yay solid gameplay and such. The removal of health and crap is neat. Too bad the campaign is like 6 hours long.

I don't get it. How are game companies getting away with this? Some people paid $60 to play this game that lasts 6 hours? What if you didn't like multi-player, like I don't? Ok, sure, arcade mode and cheats. That's fun for an hour or less.

Every shooter I hear about these days is about 5-10 hours long. It's pathetic and it has to stop. I'm so glad Valve is a great developer, because aside from releasing only top-quality games, they also keep a good length in every game they put out. Half-Life, Half-Life 2, and the three episodes (added together) are all about 20 hours each. That's just right. Gameplay doesn't get monotonous but you still get a wholesome experience.

Here's hoping Unreal 3's single-player campaign outlasts the 10-hour mark. Oh wait, it's from Epic. Here's hoping it outlasts the 5-hour mark.

They focus mainly on multiplayer if you couldnt figure that out...

[Telvanni_guard]

I find it odd that I liked the story.. Playing a game over on different difficulties gives me the replay I want. I bought Gears before I was even able to play online and I still find myself going through the game again on Insane just for that good old times sake.

And if you made it past the last level of the Veteran Campaign, you deserve something. Something big and shiny.


Call of Duty four isn't exactically like the Graw series. In GRAW, you get about 3 hits on you. If you get three hits (sometimes less) you are dead. Call of Duty 4 integrates that lovely regenerating health system that most shooters are going for nowadays with a 'more realistic' approach to your health. You can only take so many shots like the GRAW series, but your health regenerates overtime.

Let's also not forget that the GRAW series is not modern. It's futuristic. Near future possibly, but at present day, I'm pretty sure some features in that game don't exist.

[Squeek]

Originally Posted by l2awr

They focus mainly on multiplayer if you couldnt figure that out...

Yes, I can figure that out (trailing out ellipsis)

I get that you kids love your multi-player games these days and pretty much ignore the single-player campaign, but that's no excuse to gimp on the mode. If you're going to include it and hock the game based on the story of the campaign, then it better be substantial.

[Tokzic]

Originally Posted by Telvanni_guard

Call of Duty four isn't exactically like the Graw series. In GRAW, you get about 3 hits on you. If you get three hits (sometimes less) you are dead. Call of Duty 4 integrates that lovely regenerating health system that most shooters are going for nowadays with a 'more realistic' approach to your health. You can only take so many shots like the GRAW series, but your health regenerates overtime.

oh right they differ by one entire aspect sorry for making such a blatantly wrong comparison

Let's also not forget that the GRAW series is not modern. It's futuristic. Near future possibly, but at present day, I'm pretty sure some features in that game don't exist.

please enlighten me as to why hud's and rc copters can't be used by elite forces

[Telvanni_guard]

If you've played GRAW2 and CoD4 the 3 shot health system changes the game insanely. GRAW2. Three shots, you're dead. Only slight exceptions. That means if you get jumped, you're gone. However, in CoD4, you can take multiple shots. Giving you more leway in how you want to do things. Want to rush across to that other spot over there? Go for it. One shot won't take you down to yellow. In fact, you'll gain your health back if you can manage to get to that spot.

GRAW2 is slower paced than Call of Duty 4 for that reason. If you can take more shots, you can take more risks.



Also: You're right. I was BSing.. you caught me.