CoD4

Boogahz · Post by **Boogahz** » October 13, 2007, 12:01 pm

This game was mentioned in various other threads, but has anyone else checked out the demo yet? whoa

It looked and ran great on my system with settings just below max, and they did a great job of translating their "pinned down and surrounded" feeling from the prior CoD games into the modern setting. I think I will have to grab this one on the PC rather than 360 though.

Funkmasterr · Post by **Funkmasterr** » October 13, 2007, 3:24 pm

I was not impressed with the multiplayer beta in the slightest. The controls were the same (I don't like the layout), the "running into invisible walls" factor because the developers fucking suck (possibly the single most annoying thing in a game to me, that and other unrealistic shit like not being able to shoot windows out because they want you to fight from some specific spot) I want to be able to go anywhere I want in the map and do things my way. And the graphics were still just as bad as the others imo, it seems like the CoD games are always way behind the pack for graphics, which might be ok if it was made up for in gameplay, but I just never got that impression.

I will be skipping this one entirely, I'm going to be skipping shooters entirely from now on unless they have something truly unique to them that is intriguing, the only one coming out soon I can think of is Army of Two.. and maybe timeshift.

Boogahz · Post by **Boogahz** » October 13, 2007, 3:27 pm

Timeshift was just as bad, if not worse, about invisible walls. The Timeshift ability was...meh.

I never played in the multiplayer beta for CoD4, and I also don't think I can take many more shooters on consoles which is why I will probably pick this one up for the PC instead. The graphics on the PC were great, but I have no clue what they were like in the MP beta on the 360.

Sumdaor · Post by **Sumdaor** » October 14, 2007, 12:35 am

I don't know what MP you where playing, but the CoD4 MP was great. I liked it more then then Halo 2.5, errrr I mean Halo 3.0 beta. The fact you could level up your character, guns, call in airstrikes, helicopters(then also shoot them down). The perk system was by far the greatest thing that is going to come out of this game. It will change MP for shooters in the future. You can customize your character's abilities, from being able to avoid radar, to dropping a grenade when you die.

If you enjoyed CoD2 this is a must buy. This is more of the same as far as gameplay in general as CoD2, but then it only sold over 1 million copies for the xbox 360, and was game of the year. Good shit enough said.

Funk, did you play this game more then 5 minutes? I can't believe you would say this game is more of the same as far as MP, when this is a huge change(mentioned above) to the genre esp on the 360, I haven't seen a game like this for the console.

Aslanna · Post by **Aslanna** » October 14, 2007, 1:39 am

I gave the PC demo a go. Anyone who liked the play of Call of Duty 2 on the PC should probably like this. If you hated it I'm not sure I would recommend it at least from what I saw in the one demo mission. It's quite similar in a lot of regards including the 'chatter' with slight variations to compensate for the modern setting ("RPG on the second floor!" "Enemy in the open!" etc). You're still funneled through certain areas and the voice prompting gets a bit annoying if you don't do what it says. Honestly other than the change in setting/weapons it's fairly identical. I did note a few changes like the player character can now pick up grenades and throw them back. In CoD2 only NPC characters seemed to have that ability. Obviously the graphics have got a bit better overall as well. It seemed to run fine at 1600x1200 with max settings. Frame rate was averaging about 50 or so. More or less depending on what was going on at the time.

(edit - replaced CoD3 with CoD2)

Winnow · Post by **Winnow** » October 14, 2007, 1:51 am

Aslanna wrote:It seemed to run fine at 1600x1200 with max settings. Frame rate was averaging about 50 or so. More or less depending on what was going on at the time.

Is there no setting for 1920x1200? (not good if it lacks that resolution)

Aslanna · Post by **Aslanna** » October 14, 2007, 2:16 am

Winnow wrote:
Aslanna wrote:It seemed to run fine at 1600x1200 with max settings. Frame rate was averaging about 50 or so. More or less depending on what was going on at the time.
Is there no setting for 1920x1200? (not good if it lacks that resolution)

There is but I didn't try it. Figured it would bog down too much. I might give it go another day and see how playable it is at that resolution.

noel · Post by **noel** » October 14, 2007, 2:43 am

I just got done with the demo. I had everything enabled at 1680x1050, and it looked gorgeous. I liked it, and hope the single player game is more than just a few hours.

A 20 hour, realistic, modern, FPS that doesn't involve aliens or ghosts would be nice for a change.

Boogahz · Post by **Boogahz** » October 14, 2007, 10:30 am

Aslanna wrote:I did note a few changes like the player character can now pick up grenades and throw them back. In CoD3 only NPC characters seemed to have that ability.

I'm pretty sure that I could do that in CoD3 as well, but it has been a while since I played it.

Funkmasterr · Post by **Funkmasterr** » October 14, 2007, 4:25 pm

Sumdaor wrote:I don't know what MP you where playing, but the CoD4 MP was great. I liked it more then then Halo 2.5, errrr I mean Halo 3.0 beta. The fact you could level up your character, guns, call in airstrikes, helicopters(then also shoot them down). The perk system was by far the greatest thing that is going to come out of this game. It will change MP for shooters in the future. You can customize your character's abilities, from being able to avoid radar, to dropping a grenade when you die.

If you enjoyed CoD2 this is a must buy. This is more of the same as far as gameplay in general as CoD2, but then it only sold over 1 million copies for the xbox 360, and was game of the year. Good shit enough said.

Funk, did you play this game more then 5 minutes? I can't believe you would say this game is more of the same as far as MP, when this is a huge change(mentioned above) to the genre esp on the 360, I haven't seen a game like this for the console.

Now why would you even say something as ignorant as "halo 2.5". This may be your opinion, but you are wrong, and the half a billion dollars (guessing it's gotta be about there by now, and it's probably more money then all 3 CoD's have made combined) it's made by now is extreme verification of the fact that you are wrong.

Back to CoD4. I played the beta for about two weeks. The perks system was nice but is by no means some huge advancement in FPS's (trust me, I play them all and know what I'm talking about here), and by no means does it redeem the game.

Same problems:

-I expect better graphics than they displayed in the beta, I have expected better graphics for every CoD game than they ended up having, because their graphics are considerably behind games like Gears, Bioshock, hell even Halo 2.5.

-So they finally go away from WW2.. Is that why I felt like I was playing on one of the same maps from CoD3, just using different, more modern weapons (that controlled and functioned the same as the WW2 weapons in the other game).

-The painfully linear aspect to CoD games bothers the shit out of me. Yes all games are linear to one degree or another, but in CoD3, once I was in a big firefight and I couldn't shoot out a window in the building I was in to shoot at people below, but instead h ad to go to the one window that was already broke out - that was all the further I needed to play. That takes the strategy element out of the game completely, you can have as many weapons as you want - but when you can only come at the enemy from the same 1 way it doesn't matter. I have a very hard time believing this is going to be any different in CoD4.

-Back to the perks system. I actually don't really like it, and here is why: I think that in the MP for any shooter, everyone should have access to everything the first time they play. The only things that should be unlocked by gaining rank are achievements, and meaningless things like armor/appearance that don't give anyone an advantage over anyone else. I am almost copletely unlikely to play any game with this kind of a system. MP in shooters has gotten bad enough with how good some people are and how pathetically cheap people will play to win, but you add another element into the list of negative things and I have zero interest in playing it.

I think that about sums up why I didn't like CoD4, and why I more than likely will not be buying, or even renting it.

Sumdaor · Post by **Sumdaor** » October 15, 2007, 11:41 pm

Now why would you even say something as ignorant as "halo 2.5". This may be your opinion, but you are wrong, and the half a billion dollars (guessing it's gotta be about there by now, and it's probably more money then all 3 CoD's have made combined) it's made by now is extreme verification of the fact that you are wrong.

Did you play the halo beta? It played it, and it was almost identical to halo 2, thats why I made the comment. How does game sales have anything to do with the almost identically cloning of halo 2's mp to halo 3's?

-I expect better graphics than they displayed in the beta, I have expected better graphics for every CoD game than they ended up having, because their graphics are considerably behind games like Gears, Bioshock, hell even Halo 2.5.

You really think CoD2 had shitty graphics as a launch title for the 360? Okkkkkaaaaaaayyyyyyyyyy.

-So they finally go away from WW2.. Is that why I felt like I was playing on one of the same maps from CoD3, just using different, more modern weapons (that controlled and functioned the same as the WW2 weapons in the other game).

-The painfully linear aspect to CoD games bothers the shit out of me. Yes all games are linear to one degree or another, but in CoD3, once I was in a big firefight and I couldn't shoot out a window in the building I was in to shoot at people below, but instead h ad to go to the one window that was already broke out - that was all the further I needed to play. That takes the strategy element out of the game completely, you can have as many weapons as you want - but when you can only come at the enemy from the same 1 way it doesn't matter. I have a very hard time believing this is going to be any different in CoD4.

I will only address one big fact your not aware of. The company that made Cod, and Cod2(Infinity Ward) didn't make the CoD3(Treyarch), so they have fuck all to do with each other. I have no idea how the games would be different since they are made by different companies, do you?

I also loved the way you can gear up in a way. The weapons you get at the beginning don't really leave you at a disadvantage, you can kill just fine with them. In fact the gun most ppl used in beta you get around level 14? Probably take you one night to get red sites on that weapon, which is what everyone mainly used on it. You also level up very fast, so you won't be behind the curve that long. Are you sured you actually played this beta? I would think you would have known that.

Aslanna · Post by **Aslanna** » October 16, 2007, 1:03 am

Oh, correction to my previous post as I was comparing CoD4 to CoD2 and not 3 as I stated since CoD3 was console only and not PC. But my previous statements still stand when I say they 'feel' like the same game in an almost identical fashion.

Boogahz wrote:
Aslanna wrote:I did note a few changes like the player character can now pick up grenades and throw them back. In CoD3 only NPC characters seemed to have that ability.
I'm pretty sure that I could do that in CoD3 as well, but it has been a while since I played it.

My mistake I meant CoD2 and not 3. I was getting cnfused. In Call of Duty 2, at least on the PC, you didn't have that ability but your NPC teammates did. And I'm also talking single mission mode as I never did any of the online stuff.

noel · Post by **noel** » October 16, 2007, 2:51 am

This thread isn't about fucking Halo. If there's more Halo posturing I'll split it off into another thread and ship it to the console forum where it belongs. This thread is about CoD4.

PS Fuck Halo 1-3. In the PC world it's a shitty console port. In the console world it's the end-all be-all because FPSes suck on consoles. Grats people who can't put together a good enough PC to run a real FPS so they have to play shitty console FPSes.

Funkmasterr · Post by **Funkmasterr** » October 16, 2007, 3:32 am

noel wrote:This thread isn't about fucking Halo. If there's more Halo posturing I'll split it off into another thread and ship it to the console forum where it belongs. This thread is about CoD4.

PS Fuck Halo 1-3. In the PC world it's a shitty console port. In the console world it's the end-all be-all because FPSes suck on consoles. Grats people who can't put together a good enough PC to run a real FPS so they have to play shitty console FPSes.

You have no idea what you are talking about dude. First of all, people can make any comparison (emphasis on comparison, as in comparing the two games) they want, and if you are seriously going to go fucking nazi over that they should really yank your mod priveleges because it's not your job to nitpick and split topics for almost no reason at all.

Secondly, I have played damn near every FPS that has came out on the console/s and on the PC, and I really haven't seen any reason to keep playing them on the PC as opposed to the console lately (unless you are completely inept and can't adjust the controller settings and move using two joysticks as fast as you can with a mouse, which I assure you is possible.)

The only FPS in years im going to miss out on (unless it gets released for the 360.. unlikely) is Crysis.. and I would beef up my system to play it, but it seems ridiculous to spend 1k+ on a new pc for one game..

I seriously want you to tell me of one good PC FPS that has came out since the 360's release that is way better (and site specific reasons to support your point, please) on the PC, or didn't come out on the console's at all.. I'm not trying to even be a douche, I just think you are way off base unless I completely missed something that you found..

And there is nothing wrong with Halo 3.. If you haven't played it (and quick running through the campaign on easy does not count) you really have no room to comment.. The new features like being able to save your videos/screenshots, make map variants and share them with other people are very kick ass features, and are a first for console FPS's, and as far as I know those features have maybe been done on a couple of FPS's, and no where near as well as they are done on Halo 3.. Now by no means am I defending Halo 2, I thought it was total crap.. But it would also be silly to say that the original Halo didn't play a part in molding how FPS games are today (on both the console and the PC).

Aslanna · Post by **Aslanna** » October 16, 2007, 3:36 am

Funkmasterr wrote:I really haven't seen any reason to keep playing them on the PC as opposed to the console lately (unless you are completely inept and can't adjust the controller settings and move using two joysticks as fast as you can with a mouse, which I assure you is possible.)

Honestly don't even try to say that console controls are as good as a keyboard/mouse combo in FPSs because that's totally not true. Are console controls 'good enough'? I guess since a lot of people use them. But they are in a whole other category of control than the good ole standby of mouse and keyboard when it comes to speed and accuracy.

Funkmasterr · Post by **Funkmasterr** » October 16, 2007, 3:43 am

Aslanna wrote:
Funkmasterr wrote:I really haven't seen any reason to keep playing them on the PC as opposed to the console lately (unless you are completely inept and can't adjust the controller settings and move using two joysticks as fast as you can with a mouse, which I assure you is possible.)
Honestly don't even try to say that console controls are as good as a keyboard/mouse combo in FPSs because that's totally not true. Are console controls 'good enough'? I guess since a lot of people use them. But they are in a whole other category of control than the good ole standby of mouse and keyboard when it comes to speed and accuracy.

I think that totally depends on the game.. In faster paced games like Halo, Unreal, etc I really don't think the console will have that edge anymore.. Granted some people are probably a lot better with the console controls than others, but still.

Sartori · Post by **Sartori** » October 16, 2007, 5:11 am

Funkmasterr wrote:In faster paced games like Halo, Unreal, etc I really don't think the console will have that edge anymore..

\

"Don't think the console will have the edge anymore" is insinuating that they had an edge to begin with. Definitely never did for Unreal lol. I think making me play the UT3 demo with a console controller would be a good way to get me to STOP playing it. I have fun with FPS on consoles when I hang out with friends, but if I want serious precision fps gaming...well, fuck consoles right in their overpriced, overhyped controller ports. And just to stay on topic, I haven't tried the CoD4 demo yet but I will!!! It looks fun as hell.

noel · Post by **noel** » October 16, 2007, 9:31 am

I've now played through the demo a few times on various difficulties. I still think it's beautiful with all detail turned on, it's frenetic and fast-paced, but I'm kind of annoyed with the fact that the enemy soldiers seem to be doing more zerging and really no tactical movement or meaningful fighting. It almost seems like they were trying to recreate the zerg rush in Black Hawk Down to compensate for a lack of AI. Maybe it's just the demo.

I still plan on picking it up, but I've also been playing HL2:E2 lately, and in that game at least the enemies kind of feel like they're doing things in a more methodical way and not just standing there.

Funk, you're the only person I've EVER seen say that FPSes are better on a console.

miir · Post by **miir** » October 16, 2007, 9:52 am

I seriously want you to tell me of one good PC FPS that has came out since the 360's release that is way better (and site specific reasons to support your point, please) on the PC, or didn't come out on the console's at all..

S.T.A.L.K.E.R. Shadow of Chernobyl
Enemy Territory: Quake Wars
Half-Life 2
Portal
F.E.A.R.

Even when I played Shadowrun (with it's intentional gimping of Vista players) I consistently outplayed 360 players. In many games my score doubled that of the console player in second place behind me. This is with the wider spray on the chaingun and without the aiming assist given to console players. One of the main reason I stopped playing that game is because it was just too fucking easy.

Animalor · Post by **Animalor** » October 16, 2007, 9:56 am

It may be more presice and a better fell to play them on the PC however I much prefer the simplicity of playing em on a console, the lack of cost assiciated with keeping up with the greatest of PC technology and XBox Live's community features and communications ease.

I play with a very set group of people and never go into ranked or matchmaking games so my online experiences on XBL are always good.

I played FPS's more on XBL in the last year/18 months than I've ever played em on the PC. I just find the overall experience to be more consistantly enjoyable.

miir · Post by **miir** » October 16, 2007, 10:04 am

Have any of the Battlefield games been released on colsole?

miir · Post by **miir** » October 16, 2007, 10:11 am

Bioshock looked a craptop better on PC.

noel · Post by **noel** » October 16, 2007, 10:12 am

I'd argue that on PC or console, playing with a group of friends is an equally beneficial experience. Friends on either platform is better than random people on either platform, so that's a wash.

Clearly, the performance of a console comes at a significantly lower cost, but if cost were no object, the 'gameplay experience' would dictate what platform you'd play a shooter on, and it would always be a PC.

I don't think any of the BF games have been released on a console, but most shooters are being released on both platforms lately. Of course they have to retune the games for the PC. They also generally add content for the PC and allow for modding of existing content which makes a HUGE difference in the replayability of the game... Bear in mind that's content you not only do not pay for, but it will never, ever be available on a console.

miir · Post by **miir** » October 16, 2007, 10:19 am

Of course they have to retune the games for the PC. They also generally add content for the PC and allow for modding of existing content which makes a HUGE difference in the replayability of the game...

Garry's mod > all 360 shooters combined.

Boogahz · Post by **Boogahz** » October 16, 2007, 10:23 am

The only BF games to be on consoles were unique to them. BF: Modern Combat was one, and there is another coming out soon BF: Bad Company.

I have no interest in CoD4 on the 360, and that is why I posted it in this forum rather than consoles btw.

Funkmasterr · Post by **Funkmasterr** » October 16, 2007, 11:36 am

Sartori wrote:
Funkmasterr wrote:In faster paced games like Halo, Unreal, etc I really don't think the console will have that edge anymore..
\

"Don't think the console will have the edge anymore" is insinuating that they had an edge to begin with. Definitely never did for Unreal lol. I think making me play the UT3 demo with a console controller would be a good way to get me to STOP playing it. I have fun with FPS on consoles when I hang out with friends, but if I want serious precision fps gaming...well, fuck consoles right in their overpriced, overhyped controller ports. And just to stay on topic, I haven't tried the CoD4 demo yet but I will!!! It looks fun as hell.

I meant the PC won't have the edge anymore, was a typo. I just don't know how you can argue that you can be anymore accurate or move around any quicker on the PC, of most of the shooters I have played recently on the 360 (something like 12 of my 16 360 games are FPS's) allow you to set the look sensitivity to a level that I can't imagine wouldn't be fast enough for anyone, cause half the time I can't even function with it set higher than a bit above medium.

And anyone that has extensively played a shooter on either platform knows that the most "accurate" people are usually the ones that put a dry erase dot in the middle of their screen (so intensely gay) for no-scoping accuracy.

I can see how you would say that the PC has this huge edge for controls for people that haven't played FPS's much on the console, but I have logged so damn many hours in games like Gears of War and Halo 3 already that I would gladly invite any one of you to show me your superior skills when they come out on the PC (a.k.a. - I will own you so hard your head will spin.

)

And noel, I see the Forge for halo 3 being the first step in the direction of shooters allowing console users to make custom maps, etc too.. So I don't think it's fair to say they will never ever be available on a console

Boogahz · Post by **Boogahz** » October 16, 2007, 11:43 am

miir · Post by **miir** » October 16, 2007, 12:05 pm

I can see how you would say that the PC has this huge edge for controls for people that haven't played FPS's much on the console, but I have logged so damn many hours in games like Gears of War and Halo 3 already that I would gladly invite any one of you to show me your superior skills when they come out on the PC (a.k.a. - I will own you so hard your head will spin

Console shooters have aiming assist.

Funkmasterr · Post by **Funkmasterr** » October 16, 2007, 12:14 pm

Some do.. I can think of a lot (or most) that don't... GoW, Halo, Ghost Recon.. None of them have any kind of auto aim at all (unless it is something you can turn on and off and mine has always been off)... You have to sit there and aim for you want to shoot just the same as on the pc...

noel · Post by **noel** » October 16, 2007, 12:53 pm

http://www.hardforum.com/showthread.php?p=1031534649

If you don't know if it's there, how do you know if you have it turned off?

Funkmasterr · Post by **Funkmasterr** » October 16, 2007, 1:07 pm

Because dude, when I aim with the weapons (aside from the needler, which heat seeks the person if you are aimed anywhere near them) you have to aim them.. Not once in multiplayer (not sure about campaign, but I don't think there either) have I been aiming with a weapon and had it move to the person for me.. And I think I would have noticed it by now considering I've spent a considerable amount of time getting proficient with all of the weapons. And that's just Halo..

noel · Post by **noel** » October 16, 2007, 1:34 pm

You do understand that aiming assist doesn't mean you don't have to aim, right?

miir · Post by **miir** » October 16, 2007, 1:35 pm

We're not talking about auto-aiming...
Aim assist slows down your crosshairs when they pass over an enemy.

It's on by default in every console FPS.
Most don't even let you disable it.

Funkmasterr · Post by **Funkmasterr** » October 16, 2007, 1:45 pm

I thought we had to be talking about something different, but to be honest I haven't even noticed that.. I'll have to test it out tonight... If I've never noticed it, it must be pretty subtle, and I can't imagine what complaint you would have about it.

I don't need to be able to twitch around any faster than I already do in an FPS, and frankly, I don't want to play against anyone that plays at hyper-sensitivity like that regardless of what platform it's on.

Animalor · Post by **Animalor** » October 16, 2007, 1:51 pm

So they put in a function to help with the imprecision of analog sticks and suddenly it's a bad thing?

There's been 1 game with cross-platform play. Shadowrun, and on the PC is absolutely bombed.

Everyone I'm playing with on the 360 has the controller and the same capabilities as me. As long as it's a level playing ground, I couldn't really give a fuck if there's aim assist or anything else.

noel · Post by **noel** » October 16, 2007, 2:02 pm

Funk's the only one who's stuck on the perceived difficulty of a console shooter vs. a PC shooter. I think if a console is what you have to work with, you should do whatever you can to make the experience as enjoyable as possible for the player.

The point I'm making is that the console shooter experience doesn't compare to that of a PC. Console shooters use things like auto-aiming, and specialized console mechanics/AI/etc. to compensate for the shitty controller interface.

miir · Post by **miir** » October 16, 2007, 2:04 pm

So they put in a function to help with the imprecision of analog sticks and suddenly it's a bad thing?

Never said it was a bad thing.... but when console players start getting cocky about their FPS skills it's nice to remind them that their games have aids that help compensate for their controller deficiencies. On a level playing field, a console gamer cannot compete with a PC gamer in a FPS.

Funkmasterr · Post by **Funkmasterr** » October 16, 2007, 2:12 pm

miir wrote:
So they put in a function to help with the imprecision of analog sticks and suddenly it's a bad thing?
Never said it was a bad thing.... but when console players start getting cocky about their FPS skills it's nice to remind them that their games have aids that help compensate for their controller deficiencies. On a level playing field, a console gamer cannot compete with a PC gamer in a FPS.

Again.. when Gears comes out for the pc I challenge you to put together a team of 4 - and I am willing to bet myself and three of my friends can shut you out (you will not even get a single kill, let alone win a round/game/match) game after game. I'm not saying everyone compares (the four of us have all been ranked in the top 500 people of several million players online for gears, so we aren't the norm), I'm just speaking for myself and the people I play with most personally..

You can use whatever excuses you want about a crutch I may or may not have.. but the challenge is out there.

Edit: Keep in mind, what mostly got me irritated is noel's claim that console FPS's are for people who can't afford the top notch PC to play them on their PC.. Fact is I prefer playing FPS's on the console, I have played them on both platforms extensively and I just find the console more enjoyable.

miir · Post by **miir** » October 16, 2007, 2:21 pm

What didn't you understand about *level playing field* ?

Of course you will have a higher skill level on a game that you've been playing for over a year, where you're familiar with all the maps... than a player who is picking up the game for the first time.

cadalano · Post by **cadalano** » October 16, 2007, 2:33 pm

BUT HE WILL SHUT YOU OUT DAWG TOPSHOTTAHOTTA69

skill has nothing to do with it. a continuous state console input is fundamentally inferior to a pointer device, period. the best console FPS gamer in the world is still under physical limitations that wouldnt exist with a pointer device.

and most auto aim that i've seen doesnt actually move your crosshair or any portion of the UI. It just redirects bullets within a threshold of your reticule

Boogahz · Post by **Boogahz** » October 16, 2007, 5:07 pm

cadalano wrote:and most auto aim that i've seen doesnt actually move your crosshair or any portion of the UI. It just redirects bullets within a threshold of your reticule

Correct. This is actually quite visible in GRAW which he mentioned not having aim assist. As long as you get within the outline of a body, you will hit it. Sure, a headshot still counts as a one-shot kills (BOOMHEADSHOT), but the "target box" for the head is bigger than just the pixels that make the head up. You have to aim high with some weapons in games like BF2 to keep the bullets from dropping too much to get the kill/headshot.

*~*stragi*~* · Post by ***~*stragi*~*** » October 31, 2007, 1:49 pm

Funkmasterr wrote:
miir wrote:
So they put in a function to help with the imprecision of analog sticks and suddenly it's a bad thing?
Never said it was a bad thing.... but when console players start getting cocky about their FPS skills it's nice to remind them that their games have aids that help compensate for their controller deficiencies. On a level playing field, a console gamer cannot compete with a PC gamer in a FPS.
Again.. when Gears comes out for the pc I challenge you to put together a team of 4 - and I am willing to bet myself and three of my friends can shut you out (you will not even get a single kill, let alone win a round/game/match) game after game. I'm not saying everyone compares (the four of us have all been ranked in the top 500 people of several million players online for gears, so we aren't the norm), I'm just speaking for myself and the people I play with most personally..

You can use whatever excuses you want about a crutch I may or may not have.. but the challenge is out there.

Edit: Keep in mind, what mostly got me irritated is noel's claim that console FPS's are for people who can't afford the top notch PC to play them on their PC.. Fact is I prefer playing FPS's on the console, I have played them on both platforms extensively and I just find the console more enjoyable.

I would completely and utterly demolish you in GoW on a PC.
Believe that.

Aslanna · Post by **Aslanna** » November 6, 2007, 12:18 am

noel wrote:I just got done with the demo. I had everything enabled at 1680x1050, and it looked gorgeous. I liked it, and hope the single player game is more than just a few hours.

A 20 hour, realistic, modern, FPS that doesn't involve aliens or ghosts would be nice for a change.

Unfortunately from what I've read so far, as least with the consoles, the single player game is closer to 5-6 hours. Which is a bit disappointing especially compared to Call of Duty 2. Not sure how different the PC version will be but I'm guessing probably not very. I guess the big thing that sells these days is multiplayer and the single play side seem to be getting shorter.

noel · Post by **noel** » November 6, 2007, 11:16 am

That's really sad. I actually own Medal of Honor: Airborne, and it's the same way. The single player campaign is maybe 6-8 hours. There's some replayability there with weapon upgrades and achievement types of things, but overall it's very, very short.

cadalano · Post by **cadalano** » November 6, 2007, 11:19 am

the quality of the multiplayer game, from the sounds of it, should justify the short campaign

Boogahz · Post by **Boogahz** » November 6, 2007, 11:34 am

The short single-player campaign is a shame...I have bumped this from my "must buy for the PC" list to my "will rent for the 360" list. The story included in the previous Call of Duty games was what made the game stand apart from other FPS's on the market.

I like multi-played for FPS's, but I don't like when single-player is practically cut out. It makes it feel like the SP campaign is just training for online play. If they want to focus so much development into online play, just do something like the Battlefield series on the PC.

Aslanna · Post by **Aslanna** » November 6, 2007, 11:46 am

cadalano wrote:the quality of the multiplayer game, from the sounds of it, should justify the short campaign

Perhaps if you like multiplayer FPS. Not everyone does. Then again I'm sure some people don't care about single player... Which is fine I guess but considering where Call of Duty came from.. The single player was always top notch. I'm sure v4 is as well but at 5 hours that's a bit short .

Animalor · Post by **Animalor** » November 6, 2007, 5:30 pm

I picked this up today for the 360. I'm hoping the multiplayer component appeals to me more than Halo 3's did.
6-8 hours is really damned short for a SP campaign.

A very solid MP mode will justfy a game for me. 2 of my favorite games in the last year were Chromehounds and Shadowrun because of how great the MP game was.

Boogahz · Post by **Boogahz** » November 6, 2007, 7:05 pm

Animalor wrote:2 of my favorite games in the last year were Chromehounds and Shadowrun because of how great the MP game was.

Not to derail too much, but Chromehounds MP was awesome. I got into the game too late to really compete in most of the MP stuff, but I found several missions that I was capable of winning to advance war efforts.

Animalor · Post by **Animalor** » November 7, 2007, 1:03 am

CoD 4 is a blast!

I played the tutorial and opening level of the SP and just wow. This game is making me wish I had an HDTV.
I also played a game of multiplayer and managed to get myself the first rank and halfway through the second.

[Show]: Man, doing the tutorial level under 20 seconds was a complete bitch. Got it, got that achievement and moving on!