COD4

imo this isnt a game, its a real time rendered film. I didnt like it. I found that the gameplay punished me when i strayed from the obvious path. And when i say "strayed from the obvious path" i mean i walk 2m to the left.

I played it on hardest difficulty and the squad mates were completely useless.

In many situations killing enemies was actually a bad idea.

example:

You flank enemy
they dont see you
you kill them
3 seconds later enemies respawn and they are aware of you
they kill you

you couldnt advance threw some situations, by killing, because they would respawn before you kill all the enemies in the way. The only way to advance was with smokes or flashbangs.

Terrible gameplay. Great atmosphere.

The gameplay in crysis was far more evolved yet received massive amounts of stick for being 'only graphics' and 'just another shooter'.

Maybe there was still no thread here, but there is thread praising COD4 on every gaming forums. It got pretty high review.

RivieraKid sorry but I will disagree with you. First the "respawning" you talk about is never infinite, it spawn a pre-defined numebr of enemies and they come from point it's normal they do, so it don't look like respawning, unlinke games like stalker and such. The only real point you have is that it's too linear, but I prefer a lot having linear great in-game scripted action than empty forests like in crysis "open environment" (which get linear anyway). Crysis engine is totally totally better on most points (technology, graphics, etc), but they ain't got the gameplay right, thing that COD4 did, and that's the most important. You might not agree with me, but most reviewers and gamers do.

Funkymunky, sure the single player mission is short, but COD and MOH series always has been. You should really try to fix your punkbuster error tough, cause it's even better online. They put everything for that game to be played online, with challenges and experiences, class creation, good game type, etc.

Quote:

Original post by RivieraKid you couldnt advance threw some situations, by killing, because they would respawn before you kill all the enemies in the way. The only way to advance was with smokes or flashbangs.

It's quite innovative game design, but some players did not like it. Like if in a war one single soldier could get rid of all the ennemies. No way. ever. So you have to move forward and do your job no matter what. It's no longer possible to move forward carefully, sniping enemies from distance to clean up the path to your objectives. Now it's ACTION time. Shoot, run get to cover, cover your allies, move on, and on. I liked this game!

Very pretty, but it did the same thing FarCry did. I spent a lot of time restarting levels and trying the puzzles again because you have to know which of the six identical doors isn't going to have girders fall in front of it.

Spoiler:

I thought it was a great game. Sure the single player was short, but when that nuke went off I was like "Oh Snap! Would they actually do that to me?!" Then you come out of the chopper after the nuke goes off and your sort of still alive and thinking that your going to survive a nuke and are disappointed that the game made you some super human or something. But you end up dieing and its all like... intense like that.

I liked it.

If it's not infinite, then the set amount is at least in the high thousands. I beat the game on Veteran, and on certain levels, such as the TV station, the enemies were in the room for a good 1 hour of non stop shooting, grenades, etc. It was finally when I ran out of bullets that I rushed into the room through fire, and when I reached the spot I was suppose to reach, the enemies just miraculously disappeared. There were other times when I entered a room that was completely clear with the only entrance the way I came in, and I turned my back only to find 3 enemies were right behind me. Where were they hiding? Under the floorboards or a trick door? And don't let me get started on the quality of my teammates. "Soap, take point!" "Soap, go down this corridor and check it out for enemies while we stand back!" The only good your teammates were for was to open up doors. I ended up having to do the killing of most of the enemies, because that's how bad the AI is.

I don't remember where, but there was a good video on YouTube which compared Crysis to CoD4 and all the myths that are attributed to each. It shows the linearity of the games (CoD4 which you can only go one way, and even things that you should normally be able to cross are barriers, vs Crysis where you can walk the entire isle), the AI (CoD4 where the enemies just respawn and throw grenades and shoot at you, even if they should have no idea where you are, vs Crysis where the opponents will call for help and flank you), and interactivity of the game (CoD4 where only a few windows and barrels explode vs Crysis where you can mow down trees with an MG to create a new weapon).

Not to say CoD4 is a bad game. It's just not as good as many people make it out to be imho. There were a few good levels such as The Mile High Club, which provided a change of pace from the normal FPS's out there. And multiplayer is somewhat fun too.

On the harder difficulties the respawning definately does feel infinite in lots of situations. The easier difficulties didn't have the same design. I didn't mind it so much, but it was sort of annoying.

I actually like that the game was short since I don't play games the way I used to when I was in school. I tend to buy a bunch of games and play through them pretty quick. When I was in school I'd buy a handful of games each year and play them all to death.

Quote:

Original post by Nytegard I don't remember where, but there was a good video on YouTube which compared Crysis to CoD4 and all the myths that are attributed to each. It shows the linearity of the games (CoD4 which you can only go one way, and even things that you should normally be able to cross are barriers, vs Crysis where you can walk the entire isle), the AI (CoD4 where the enemies just respawn and throw grenades and shoot at you, even if they should have no idea where you are, vs Crysis where the opponents will call for help and flank you), and interactivity of the game (CoD4 where only a few windows and barrels explode vs Crysis where you can mow down trees with an MG to create a new weapon).

I completely agree. I always get annoyed when some people say that Crysis is no more than a glorified tech demo and has no gameplay. I haven't played CoD4, but I bought Medal of Honor: Airborne a few months ago, and it sounds like they've been using the same system of respawning enemies. It seems to be a recent trend, I can't remember games using respawning (at least to that extent) a few years ago..

Y.

Quote:

Original post by Ysaneya It seems to be a recent trend, I can't remember games using respawning (at least to that extent) a few years ago..

Serious Sam ? :-D

no thread?

Quote:

Original post by janta Quote: Original post by RivieraKid you couldnt advance threw some situations, by killing, because they would respawn before you kill all the enemies in the way. The only way to advance was with smokes or flashbangs. It's quite innovative game design, but some players did not like it. Like if in a war one single soldier could get rid of all the ennemies. No way. ever. So you have to move forward and do your job no matter what. It's no longer possible to move forward carefully, sniping enemies from distance to clean up the path to your objectives. Now it's ACTION time. Shoot, run get to cover, cover your allies, move on, and on. I liked this game!

so what your saying is a good fps design involves too many enemies and (dam fast) health regen? I should go and mod duke3d/quake to incorporate these elements, it wouldnt take long!

i think its just lazy development.

cod4 has non existant AI, low interactivity, and it is the most linear fps ever made. I thought these were the biggest complaints with fps's?

the only thing i wanted to do when i played cod4 was let someone else play it for me, and i would watch.

Quote:

Now it's ACTION time. Shoot, run get to cover, cover your allies, move on, and on. I liked this game!

move, click on enemies, duck, repeat

I guess the sound of bullets wizzing past your head was a very dynamic part of the gameplay.

I think that's a bit harsh. I didn't like the infinite respawn either and the fact that it is pretty linear and the game decisions are forced on you. But apart from that, it's a very well made game, and very involving.

To stop the infinite respawn, you basically have to 'capture' the spawn point or reach a particular spot. Once you're there, they stop respawning and you can progress, which in fairness feels a bit of a cheat (see the TV station bit, where you're better off rushing straight ahead with flashbangs). It lacks subtility, but I suppose it's not the aim of the game :) However, when having to stand your ground (the last stand in the sniper level), that system is fair enough.

I think a better infinite respawn would have been to decrease or weaken the waves as times goes by. That would encourage you to move forward without the feeling of being 'cheated' or having to do something that would break the suspension of disbelief.

But apart from that one gameplay flaw that bothered me, it's quite fun and well polished.

Games such as COD4 where you are pretty much playing an interactive war film have had their day. COD4 was great, and multiplayer is brilliant, but the single player was too short. But then, of course it is, because every square inch of each level is painstakingly coded and scripted. To make it longer they made enemies re-spawn infinitely in many places, which I found to be a serious annoyance. I play multiplayer almost every day, however, especially if I find a server set to hardcore mode - I love single shot kills. I like how you can kill an enemy with one shot, in single player, if you hit them in the heart. In SP, for me, heart shots have replaced head shots.

Also, multiplayer has enabled me to perfect the art of grenade-death-drop (throw a grenade up in the air like a mortar, so it explodes almost right after hitting the ground. No chance to throw it back, or take cover. Aim it using the radar, or the sound of footsteps / gunfire. Not to mention, plenty of ROFL moments. (e.g. a grenade lands in front of me, and me and another player on my team play hot-potato with it until it blows three seconds later and kills us both.)

In multiplayer, I would increase the power of all weapons by around 20%, except the LMG weapon class, as this version has weaker damage than the previous titles in the series. I would also have ensured the models for dropped weapons matched the models for weapons when you are holding them, since there are a couple of discrepancies regarding the scope on the stock G36 (dropped model shows a red dot sight, but stock comes with iron sights, and a similar problem with the M4 carbine). Other than that, the weapon models are excellent, and feel like you are holding a piece of military hardware. Also, I wish the space for a nickname was longer, as I have to shorten my usual "speciesunknown" to just "species".

My rating: 7/10, with 2 points lost due to the short single player campaign, and 1 for the infinitely re-spawning enemies and other frustrations.

As anyone that has every read my journal knows, I'm a huge advocate for this game. While I agree the single-player doesn't hold much replay value, it wasn't bad (except on veteran when I didn't realize enemies keep respawning unless you push forward). Multi-player on this game is amazing though and I totally revamped the way skills were handled in my own game after seeing how 'Perks' worked. Not too powerful, but definitely something to work towards.

I own Call of Duty 4 for the PC and the 360 and love each of them so much.

Well, I loved the single player section - thought it was awesome despite the obvious problems. Incidentally, I never once had the game punish me with withering fire for walking 2m to the left (maybe that player should have tried shooting back?) except for the !@#$ radiation. I really appreciate the game for crafting such good not-cutscenes and letting me see them. In short, I appreciate the game for what it is.

Then, today, I tried the multiplayer. Holy crap, awesome. I can't believe how much fun the multiplayer is for this, and at how it seems to lack the inherent problems in so many other multiplayer games (AA, even though I love it, and BF1942/Vietnam/2/2142). So, the MP gets some huge points in my book.

yes, multiplayer is exellent.