[PC] [MAC] [360] [PS3] [WII] Call of Duty 4: Modern Warfare

[icycalm]

I have the 360 version of this sitting in storage somewhere (in France I think), but I have't yet got round to playing it.

Can someone explain to me what is so special about this game? I am taking it as granted that it's special, because of all the fucking hoopla currently going on around its sequel. So what the fuck is it?

[Rion1]

It's a shooting game where you have to run for cover, a lot. Also, your character dies a few missions in, which caused retards everywhere to believe that it was some deep statement on death in videogames.

I'd say that the hardest difficulty (veteran, I believe) is worth a shot, as it's quite unforgiving, and there is an excellent epilogue which requires you to run a small course (in an airplane) within a time limit.

[User was banned for replying again after this post and burdening the thread with idiotic nonsense, while STILL being ignorant of the game's genre. --icy]

[icycalm]

your character dies a few missions in, which caused retards everywhere to believe that it was some deep statement on death in videogames.

I guess that must be the reason then.

It's a shooting game

This is a bannable offense. If you don't even know what genre this game belongs to you shouldn't be posting here.

[nolanfc]

Modern Warfare is a high budget, polished FPS that plays well, with an enjoyable single player campaign, but everyone is going on about it for the multiplayer.

Points are earned for frags, completing objectives and being on the winning team, which in turn unlocks new weapons, accessories and traits (take less damage, do more damage, drop a grenade when you're hit) and increases your rank. When you hit level 55, you have the option of starting over again from scratch, but with insignia displaying the feat. You can do it over and over ten times, getting new insignia along the way.

After World of Warcraft and DotA, it was the most popular game at an internet cafe I worked at; it's a forgiving game and customers seemed to be more fond of rules that are more true to life (Counter-Strike, Rainbow Six) than fantastic (Unreal Tournament(s), Quake, Gears of War).

It's popular because the experience-and-unlocking carrot dangling in the face of Joe Average keeps him engaged until he's played long enough to improve his skills and start enjoying himself.

[icycalm]

That looks more like a correct explanation than what that idiot I banned provided, thanks.

customers seemed to be more fond of rules that are more true to life (Counter-Strike, Rainbow Six) than fantastic (Unreal Tournament(s), Quake, Gears of War).

New posters are too eager to drop the word "rule" everywhere -- and consequently make fools of themselves. Think "theme".

[Bradford]

It's popular because the experience-and-unlocking carrot dangling in the face of Joe Average keeps him engaged until he's played long enough to improve his skills and start enjoying himself.

It's worth noting that while the above is certainly true, it obviously isn't enough merely that this leveling system was present, but rather that it was extremely well executed by not unbalancing matches where there were large level disparities between players. This is because, for the most part, the early level weapons and equipment are the best all-around stuff in the game. The best all-around assault rifle, for example, is the M16A4, which is the very first one you have access to.

The brilliance of the system is that when you level up, you don't unlock better equipment, you unlock more specialized equipment. Later assault rifles do more damage, have longer range, or are more accurate, but never all at the same time. You can specialize more thoroughly in the role you want to play for your team, but at level 55 you can't build a better general purpose rifleman than any low level player can. You can build a better sniper, or a better stealthy smg-user, etc., but even that advantage will only be useful if your teammates are coordinating their roles with yours.

nolanfc didn't meantion the killstreak rewards, either, which grant a player the ability to call in a 30-second UAV (all enemies visible on the minimap), an airstrike (player designates target on the map), and an autonomous attack helicopter that patrols the battlefield for 30 seconds, at 3, 5, and 7 kills without dying, respectively.

The interaction between the killstreaks, the minimap mechanics, and your equipment selection is important, as well. Initially, only friendly players show up on your map, as green (or blue?) dots. Enemies appear for a few seconds as red dots whenever they fire a weapon. Melee attacks don't reveal you, nor does firing a weapon with a suppressor (but a suppressor replaces any kind of aiming enhancement, like a red dot sight or scope, so you can only aim down the iron sights and with less zoom). When a UAV is called, all enemies appear (unless they have selected a perk that makes them invisible to UAVs, at the loss of a perk that might enhance their health or damage). This ties into calling airstrikes via a full sized map that temporarily overlays your screen, and obeys the same rules of revealing enemies as the minimap; if a UAV is active you will obviously have a much easier time choosing a target that maximizes the effect of your airstrike.

At any rate, I'm just trying to make the point that the multiplayer successfully intregrates a number of different mechanics and has a not-insignificant amount of depth, especially for a console game. The fact that the depth is more a consequence of the equipment selection and teamwork possibilities than a player's physical reflexes and precision, which is necessarily limited on a console by the nature of the controls, was an excellent design choice.

[icycalm]

At any rate, I'm just trying to make the point that the multiplayer successfully intregrates a number of different mechanics and has a not-insignificant amount of depth, especially for a console game. The fact that the depth is more a consequence of the equipment selection and teamwork possibilities than a player's physical reflexes and precision, which is necessarily limited on a console by the nature of the controls, was an excellent design choice.

All nonsense. This game is by no means a "console game" any more than Blazblue or Raiden IV are. How can you possibly not know this? Did you even read the thread's title? You think that the prioritization of the formats is done randomly?

You write such a nice analysis, and then you blow it all in the last paragraph, to the point where one begins to be mistrustful of everything you've written. I mean what's the point. Might as well not have written anything.

[Bradford]

I was considering it a console game because I was under the impression that it was designed with consoles as the priority. At the same time, I was clumsily trying indicate that my analysis was only of the console version of the game (the 360 version being the only version I have played) relative to other console FPSes, or at least to the console versions of other multiplatform FPSes.

Obviously, that doesn't excuse the inaccuracy. I would be happy to edit my post accordingly.

On the other hand, the more I read it the more I think that all of the last paragraph is superfluous and should be deleted entirely.

[icycalm]

I was considering it a console game because I was under the impression that it was designed with consoles as the priority.

lol

And Doom was designed with the GBA as the priority.

At the same time, I was clumsily trying indicate that my analysis was only of the console version of the game

You did no such thing, clumsily or otherwise. I would appreciate it if you would refrain from insulting my intelligence.

(the 360 version being the only version I have played) relative to other console FPSes, or at least to the console versions of other multiplatform FPSes.

Bunch of horseshit. The analysis of the mechanics you provided has obviously nothing to do with formats. Most probably all of what you said holds even for the Wii version for christsakes. How hard can this be to understand?

Obviously, that doesn't excuse the inaccuracy.

There is no "inaccuracy", there is only the unfathomable stupidity of inserting some fucking random comment about formats in an analysis which has obviously nothing to do with them.

I would be happy to edit my post accordingly.

Yes, and then perhaps I should edit my initial post with an entirely different question, so that the thread will end up making even less sense.

On the other hand, the more I read it the more I think that all of the last paragraph is superfluous and should be deleted entirely.

Perhaps the entire thread should be deleted entirely.

Or, here's an idea: perhaps we could try focusing on the thread's subject, and leave the pussyfooting and the tiresome excuses for the children at gamefaqs. How about that?

[icycalm]

The fact that the depth is more a consequence of the equipment selection and teamwork possibilities than a player's physical reflexes and precision, which is necessarily limited on a console by the nature of the controls, was an excellent design choice.

Just to clear up why this is retarded. The console versions require JUST AS MUCH physical reflexes and precision as the PC version. The control device does not make THE SLIGHTEST DIFFERENCE. This is because EVERYONE who plays the console versions is using A CONTROLLER. It's not like they are asking you to go against people who are using a mouse, for christsake. All that matters then is the RELATIVE skill -- not the ABSOLUTE skill. And the relative skill can be improved indefinitely regardless of the control method. They could give all players chopsticks with which to press keys on a keyboard, and this would in no way affect the degree of physical skill required to win.

All of this, of course, as well as my previous post, has absolutely nothing to do with Call of Duty 4. It is common sense stuff for anyone who has played FPSes for more than 20 minutes.

Now back to COD4.