COD 4 single player - redefines the genre

[Dist]

Hopefully CoD5 will have the same depth and 'OMG this rocks!' as CoD4. Its a different company developing it so it may end up sucking, but some of the things being added should take it beyond CoD4.

While playing CoD4 i didnt like how small the maps were, how little destructable terrain there was, lack of controllable vehicles and no co-op. All of these things and more are being implemented in CoD5, as well as being more open in how you play the game, instead of just a single linear path you have to follow.

 

[Freeman]

It doesn't redefine the genre at all. It does a good job at being a FPS though. It's pretty much near the top. If someone was to ask you to show them one of the best FPS ever made you'd show them COD 4 or HL2 or one of the other decent FPS. It definitely doesn't redefine the genre at all.

 

[hornett]

I think the story was great albeit short

 

[cosmogenesis]

I ususally play bF2 and hence the AI is human therefore awesome and difficult. However tha AI and difficulty in COD 4 was very good if flawed of course as all single player FPS games are.

I have played lots of em over the years and enjoyed them all but when I played COD 4 I was hooked more so than the original COD or COD 2 which although good (awesome in fact in stalingrad etc) just missed out on graphics relative to the new one.

I got killed a lot in COD 4 which made me laugh and even more determined to win through in the end. I loved some of the levels especially the in air gun with its 3 guns and shells. Pretty damm awesome.

 

[MotherMayI]

The MP is ok but with no squads BF2 is better but the single player was just awesome, the whole thing just goes the major distance graphically and game play wise too.

I just played it all and it just blew me away.

It is really well done, but doesn't redefine anything.

Thanks for an utterly useless thread btw.

 

[chowks]

useless to who(m)?

 

[Margaret]

Most overrated game ever, seriously.

It's Call of Duty 2 with new skins.

 

[Squink]

When everyone refers to the single-player as short, approximately how short is it? 6-8 hours or something?

 

[Ice Globe]

It took me 5-6 hours, not rushing on Hardened difficulty, so had to retry some of the levels. Anyone who says less than 4 hours, can't have had a very difficult setting.

 

[Shamikebab]

Yeah about 5-6 really. I remember the days when Max Payne was criticised for being short, this takes it to a new level though.

 

[Squink]

Erk, 5-6 hours is pretty bad :S

 

[Adsta]

Well it was ok. wouldnt say it redefined the genre though tbh. It was just more of the same but executed well.

 

[izzy eckerslike]

I really don't get why players say they were 'blown away' by cod4, I found the SP so limited in what you could or could not do, you couldn't do anything other than more or less follow the exact script, no way for alternative routes or attack. & what is so special about the graphics,lol It's a completely dead & lifeless world where nothing moves, not even a single blade of grass. No replay value whatsoever as you can only repeat exactly what you did before.
I guess playing Crysis has changed my view of what good graphics should look like

 

[Shamikebab]

Well graphics are above average, the story is very linear but a very good linear story. Not all games have to be open world/multiple path. Sometimes a well made linear game is better.

 

[rsatd]

Oh come on, I know its similar but for an FPS it rocks beyonf belief. What other FPS has the gun ship exercise, the silos etc and the realism and the AI is quite good too.

OK it aint perfect but the best so far for war based FPS.

TA, back in the day it was better then anything else. Have not played CoD, but will take a look in a demo sometime. Will probably hate it as usual.
Oh, gripes with TA was the ai, but after trying out few modern RTS, ai has not got much better in the slightest.

 

[Durzel]

Redefines the genre? Pull the other one, it's got bells on!

It took the rule book, ripped it up, rewrote it and then incinerated the new one.

 

[Juniper]

I quite liked how intense the SP was, but I would be miffed if I didn't do any online multiplayer as it really would have had too short of a lifespan.

 

[FrenchTart]

Redefines the genre of tired rehashed world war inspired FPS games? Yeah, I can believe that. Not very hard to do.

Though COD2 on my friends old PC did a better job of redefining the genre in my opinion - there was a graphical glitch that meant whilst you and your squad were hiding from the enemy in camo gear, your squad leader was running around in what appeared to be a Hawaiian shirt whilst he shouted at you to "take cover" and not to "draw attention to yourself". The irony provided far more amusement than the game itself...

 

[rancid-a]

I tired of the world war 2 setting years ago, and thought nothing of the first 2 CoDs. However CoD4 was a fine shooter, Redefines the genre though? No, not at all.

Favorite parts: Night time bombing from above, & 'that' ending.

Also, quite a tense level where you crawl past all those soldiers/tanks too. I'm wondering if anyone did what I did when I got to the ladder on that buiding? Turn around to the retreating soldiers and shoot...Oh the chaos. lol

 

[Weebull]

Oh god it's a damn good game but it doesn't "redefine the genre" in the slightest.

• Heavily scripted. Like, no-replay-value-because-it'll-all-be-exactly-the-same scripted.
• A modern counter-terrorist scenario that's probably the only setting as overdone as WW2 in shooters.
• An almost complete lack of AI. Run at you, shoot, run some more, shoot at you, die. But it's ok, because...
• Respawning enemies. Respawning enemies. I mean jesus, I was going to make a "Hey, 1993 called, it wants its game back", but even Doom didn't sink to respawning enemies.

It's a great game, tons of fun, and some of the levels are fantastic, but seriously.