f13.net

Sent in by Strazos:

Having played all of the previous Call of Duty games to some degree (on the PC, mind you), I finally caved into the hype and gave CoD4 a look. Now, the weird thing about this game is that the singleplayer campaign and the online multiplayer are vastly different from one another. Thankfully, neither portion of the game is horrendous, so instead of having a Dr Jekyll and Mr Hyde experience, it's more like Dr Jekyll and...Professor Harold? I don't know, hopefully this terrible analogy will make sense later.

Singleplayer - the introductory tutorial was nice (and quick!), and it even included an achievement. Anyway, the biggest "draw" of the singleplayer is how heavily scripted it is...which, while making the game look very cool, can also be very frustrating. Like previous games in the series, you're more-or-less forced to go through the maps in one specific fashion. This really sucks when you're trying to be creative in flanking the AI, but you can't because none of the doors can be opened, or there just so happens to be rubble everywhere. The insane ability of the AI to shoot you through cover and walls (new to the series) does not help matters. I'm playing on hardened, and I cannot possibly imagine how you can even get out from cover without getting capped on a higher difficulty.

Multiplayer - I absolutely HATE the Xbox Live lobby system. This is probably due to my background in PC gaming, but still, fuck it right in its ass. First, whenever I go to pick a game type, a dialog pops up to tell me that I need to have a network connection to Live to play online (no shit). So I keep backing out, checking my network, etc. After a few minutes, I realize it's only reminding me that I need a working connection, not that my connection is not working. Then, you can't even select the kind of group you want to play with (unless you form a party). Basically, this means you're at the mercy of the automagical lobby selector to put you in a game with people of similar skill levels. So you could be in a balanced game, or stuck with a pre-made group of hardcore players from beta who just rape you.

BUT, once you get into the multiplayer itself, it's not bad. Actually, it's quite good; certainly better than Halo in any case. Also, the game tracks stats in a way similar to the Battlefield series, so things you do in the game unlock additional guns and such. Having never owned a Battlefield game, I'm not sure how I feel about this yet; I'd like to just choose whichever guns and mods I like from the start, but that didn't stop me from getting a 16-kill streak with the base assault rifle and calling in air strikes on people.

-

For people that favor Battlefield on a console, Buy it. Otherwise, rent it.

I booted this yesterday and might have too many hours into it to fit the BIIF format.  I like it.  A lot, appparently, since I played almost all day yesterday.

I'm usually pretty MEH about military shooters.  Not being a military guy, I don't know all the weapon names, and everyone usually looks alike.  I don't even glance at WWII shooters anymore, and modern variants were getting close to that same level of MEH for me.  Still, CoD4 impresses me and most importantly, it's fun.  For some reason, I like how the game funnels me into wherever I'm supposed to go, probably because I have historically spent way too much time in other games like this going the absolute wrong way due to a particularly clever flanking/sniping maneuver I thought up.  I also like how it manages to persuade you into moving forward rather than holing up in a building, even though I almost always dislike infinite spawns.  Somehow they work here; I still think it's unrealistic and annoying, but it does work.  Playing different characters is also interesting and reminds me or Eternal Darkness; anytime a game can use a bit of Eternal Darkness, an angel gets its wings.

Shooting through cover.  This is pretty awesome.  No one should be able to hide behind drywall to escape machine gun fire.  Same for a sofa.  It makes a room-to-room easier as long as you play smart.

Have not tried MP yet.  When I do, it will be with my R6V buddies, who are mostly military, so it should be fun rather than annoying since they use actual tactics and whatnot.

I'm hoping that the shooting-through-cover mechanic gets picked up by more and more FPS games in the future following on from CoD4.

Uh.  That was BIIF format? Post it up!

Also, is this still ilke 50 bucks?

Can I ask why? Granted I haven't played CoD4 yet, but I don't see the appeal of being able to shoot, and be shot, through cover.

It adds a little more realism to your realism-based shooters. You don't have to be able to shoot through everything, but as Yego says, a piece of sheetmetal, dry wall, or hedge should not stop machinegun bullets.

It makes you think and differentiate between soft and hard cover, something I always enjoyed, even back when I played more tabletop games - in Warhammer 40k 2nd ed and Necromunda.

And you can choose a perk that makes your rounds go through cover better. You can setup your guy to be good in a ton of different situations.

This perk shit must be a MP feature.

I don't see a downside to having to decide if I should hide behind plywood or a car.  Nevermind that a real car doesn't stop bullets so well, at least it's progress.  If I'm playing something fantastical or crappy like Halo or Half-Life 2, that's one thing, but when I play something like CoD I do expect a certain level of realism.

I'm pretty sure in Single Player you have most of the perks already enabled.  Things like Extreme Conditioning, Deep Impact, etc. 

M60 + Slight of Hand + Deep Impact = Squad killing and pinning love.  Stone walls can't stop it. 

Are most playing on the 360 or PC?

360 here, due to the friends.

Shooting through material has been around since the Rainbow 6 and Counter-Strike days. CoD 4, though, takes it to extremes as there are very few pieces of cover you are actually safe behind. Unfortunately the shoot through cover mechanic is broken, especially in hardcore mode, since your reticle changes shape when you hit somebody even if they are behind cover, totally hidden from view.

Among other things it means that you are never totally safe which adds to the tension of the game. It also enhances the feeling of being pinned down by suppressive fire since you have shots coming from who knows where.

I was going to say... I think even BF2 has this.

EDIT:Yep, Does. (http://www.ea.com/official/battlefield/battlefield2/us/features.jsp)

I haven't played BF2 or CS, but this may be why I suck at R6V.

Firing through cover in CS though was balls.  Doors, windows and what else?  Plus, the actual usefulness of it was limited.  In CS you could attempt to lay down some sort of cover fire to force a group away from an entry point, but the damage was such dick that they could run through your hail of bullets anyway. 

I haven't played much of BF2 so I can't comment much there.

Trippy is right though.  The reticle changing when you damage someone is broken. 

Edit:  PC version here

Crates.

Ah, the memories of raping noobs crouch-hiding behind the door in Aztec, the trick is you just have to stand really close to the door itself, your gun has to be less than 5 feet away and your target near the other side.

I'm on the 360, since my PC is a bit dated.

Also, this is the 360 review.  :grin:

I don't really count shooting through windows as shooting through cover.  Windows aren't cover, but maybe that's not what you meant.  Through the wooden wall around the window, yeah.  Point is that I killed three terrists who were hiding inside a doorway because they were dumbasses by shooting through the drywall, and I was about twenty game-feet away.

I was being a pain in the ass about the windows, I should have colored that green.  Like what Ookii posted earlier, I felt like firing through cover in CS required you to be extremely close to the target.  You could damage people through it, which was useful if you happend to drive them behind a wall during a firefight and they were severely wounded already, but most players ignored it.  I always did.  I haven't played CS:S though, so it could have changed there.  And while we are at it... fuck the AWP. 

Update: Unlocked Hardcore modes. They are awesome. They're much different than the "normal" modes; much more rewarding for a more methodical player who takes their time to sneak around.

Also, more enjoyable than CS:S IMHO.

Tried the demo.  Played like a FPS.  I guess I'm broken, but I just didn't find it very interesting. Definitely not going to shell out cash for this one.  I wasn't able to get into Crysis either.  I guess at an atomic level I don't find FPS combat interesting unless it's packaged with something else sufficiently different.

Game was really taxing the hell out of my vid card too.  Temps 10 degrees C higher than I'm used to. Looked great though.

As far as the SP mode goes, The Pretty is really the main selling point. The actual campaign is decently written and fun, but it is just a linear, heavily-scripted FPS at heart. It's not especially innovative, it's just got that extra layer of polish.

Can anyone pass comment on the offline split-screen multiplayer?

Thanks.

The story is what puts CoD4 near and dear to my heart.  There's also a few really 'damn, that's cool...' moments in it, most notably the AC130 and chopper gunner mission.  Not technologically a breakthrough, but fun nonetheless.

Innovative gameplay?  Not really, no.  Actually, a step backwards in many ways.

CoD4 is the first game in a while I felt emotionally attached to the characters they were so well written.

It's worth a buy.

Just played this yesterday with a friend. The first problem is that it turns on the radar by default, meaning you can see the position of the other player on your map at all times. This makes it more of a waiting-around-the-corner game than anything else, and often led to both of us waiting around the same corner for the other to pop out. The radar can be turned off, but there's still the ability to see what the other player is doing on his screen, which often made for the same aforementioned standoff situations. We simply couldn't find a combination of settings that made it interesting.

Overall, multiplayer just isn't that fun with only 2 people. I find the real fun is found in team situations where cooperation and coordination can give you an advantage over less organized teams.

I've had this for years though with 4-player Halo and Timesplitters (CoD4 does do 4 player split-screen right?); I think it's something we can deal with. Do you think short skirmishes with 4 players are viable fun, or are all the multiplayer maps and scenarios scaled and built around 16-player fights? Thanks for the other comments too :)

I haven't done same-console MP, but some of the maps are small enough for 4v4.

The single player is also notorious for spawning troopers till you hit a certain checkpoint. Kinda easy to realize when you are holding on to a semi-auto sniper and take your time to pick off the rooftops RPG goons, till you're down to the last clip yet Amir and Abdul are still there.

Yes, it does support 4 player splitscreen and I'd guess that would be quite a bit better for local play. Most of the maps were scaled down nicely and we never had a problem with not running into each other after very long. I would even go as far as to say one or two of them were too small, but that may have been for 2 player only.

Thanks

Just got the PC version.  Wow.

The sniper mission and the AC-130 mission made it worth playing alone.
The "Kaboom" comments were worth it alone.

The story wasn't half bad either. Was just the right length. The ending was pretty intense.

Just finished this on PC and yeah, it's definitely fun.  However, it loses copious points for the console playstyle (save points suck).  The infinite respawns and being railroaded into a single way to get through the level were also a little annoying (and the immersion was totally destroyed on the Pripyat level when the troops and armour are coming towards you and you're hiding in the grass - I looked at them through the scope and they were all moving in unison, same movements, same turn of the head, like it was some sort of synchronized patrol event). Strategy didn't seem to be a huge part of it though which was a bit of a shame.

But the huge plus was that it was very intense and very compelling. Plus the story was pretty good too. Nice to play a Brit as well.  Graphics were stunning and the dialogue was brilliant.  A moment that impressed me: at the beginning of the first Pripyat flashback level, Capt Macmillan tells you to take out the sniper in the church tower. I focused up on the other tower and he says "Not that one, the other one!"  Very nice little touch.

Trivia time: Billy Murray (Captain Price) and Craig Fairbrass (Gaz), aside from both being in Eastenders at different times, are also in a film called "Rise of the Footsoldier" (which is not, unfortunately, about the SAS but about football hooliganism). This probably interests no-one but me but tough.

Question: having played this, is there any game which plays in a similar style but has more strategy and variation in it? Any of the squad shooters worth having a go at?

Seeing this thread bumped tonight (and my current War-movie-watching kick) just made me decide to play through the PC version again.

Ghost Recon.