games  anime  |  toys
Destructoid is gaming news, community, videos, and sometimes love. Take the tour or jump in with Facebook:

 


Destructoid Review: Call of Duty 4 photo

The first two Call of Duty games were widely praised as the next step in the first-person shooter genre. They had bombastic action sequences, gripping storylines and enough Nazi-bashing to make George Patton squeal like a young girl. Even today they stand out as the finest examples of the ultra-over-saturated World War II FPS subgenre, but like the Treaty of Versailles the series' string of stunning successes couldn't last forever. Call of Duty 3, while a competent game, certainly didn't live up to the brand, and while above-average, was seen as the low point of the series.

With Call of Duty 4 though, Infinity Ward (developers of the original two titles) have taken the reins back from Treyarch (developers of CoD3) and abandoned the World War II setting. This new game takes place entirely in the modern day, while clinging sharply to the things that made the series a success in the first place. How'd it turn out? Hit the jump to find out.

cod5

Call of Duty 4 (Xbox 360 [Reviewed], PlayStation 3, Windows)
Developed by Infinity Ward
Published by Activision

Release Date: November 6, 2007  

If there's one thing the first two Call of Duty games did extremely well it's that they set up an engaging story as a backdrop for their explosive action. The stories have never been as philosophically deep as something like BioShock, and they never challenged your own perceptions of morality like Portal recently did, but they do manage to tap into that same visceral feeling as Spielberg's Saving Private Ryan that gives a real sensation of meaning to the chaotic violence all around you.

Call of Duty 4 succeeds in exactly this same way. It's story is exactly the sort of thing you've seen in hundreds of summer blockbusters since the 1980s: madman acquires nuclear weapons, madman uses nuclear weapons, the good guys form a team of badasses whose only tools are bravado, bullets and explosions, and through the might of jingoism and hyper-masculine guns-as-phalli fantasies the ragtag team of heroes saves the world. While the title has an illusion of depth, the in-game choices all boil down to where you'd prefer to stand when you blow the heads off of incoming Jihadists entirely secular gentlemen of vaguely Persian ancestry.

That's not to say the game is unengaging, however. This is the sort of title that through the magic of intense pacing and clever audio/visual tricks can easily make a 6 or 7 hour play session seem as if it were only 20 minutes. It's a backhanded compliment to say this makes the game's story blow by in a strikingly short amount of time, but compared to other FPS titles, CoD4's sub-15 hour run-time is (unfortunately) pretty standard -- and often much more enjoyable.

cod4

In fact, if Infinity Ward's main goal was "engaging gameplay" they utterly nailed it. It's easy enough to create a title where you kill people or blow up machinery, but adding a sense of tension to the proceedings is apparently quite difficult, at least based on the number of FPS titles available on PCs and home consoles that are strikingly generic. CoD4 succeeds in this area for two main reasons: first, many subtle tweaks have been added to create almost primal reasons to murder your opponents. From a storyline with an innate psychology that creates a strong illusion of the same us-vs-them philosophy politicians have been using for years to justify the battles CoD4 mirrors, to tiny gameplay nuances such as the ability to return thrown grenades to enemies with a toss of your own, the entire thing feels like you're in the middle of a battle in the dusty streets of some Arabic town. Adding to that enemies that take cover, shout at you in appropriate dialects and wear the same dirty, scavenged military gear their real-world counterparts are known for, and the game immerses you in a way that few other titles ever have.

cod3

Secondly, and most importantly, the game never lingers too long on any particular playstyle. In the middle of the campaign, there's a stretch of three missions where you'll go from dropping heavy explosive rounds on Russian soldiers from the TV-assisted gunner's station of an AC-130 gunship, to slogging through the Russian countryside in the middle of the night, to a 15-years-prior flashback where you and another soldier are tasked with crawling through the ruins of Chernobyl with only a sniper rifle and a pistol in a quest to assassinate a local warlord. That last mission in particular, rachets up the tension present in the entire thing to previously unseen levels -- lying prone in a field while Russian troops patrol literally two feet from you is an experience that anyone with even a passing fetish for military ops absolutely must experience.

One of the most interesting points of the whole thing, whether it was intentional or not, is that this video game demonstrates a breed of warfare that has, in effect, become a video game. This is most striking in the AC-130 mission, which is much easier than either of the ones that come before or after it. It seems that as the layers of obfuscating technology between a soldier and the people he's killing grows, the connection with reality blurs. As I said, the AC-130 mission is strikingly simple, almost a point-and-click affair, and while it does give you an interesting respite from the rest of the game, it also loses a lot of the visceral intensity of being shot at and seeing your bullet split a man's face in two. 

cod2

Call of Duty 2 became a darling of the multiplayer set due to its realism that contrasted sharply with the bouncy, fictional reality of the big FPS of its time, Halo 2. Call of Duty 4 manages to beat out even CoD2's stunning experience by adding an RPG-lite experience system similar to that found in the latter-day Battlefield titles. Simply stated: the more you play, the more you'll unlock useful perks for use in game. Whether they be bigger guns or a more resilient soldier, each perk is useful and desirable in its own way. Sadly this also leads to one of the title's biggest flaws: new players have to contend with gamers who have attained perks that make them almost god-like. While it's never impossible to kill an opponent, the difference in abilities is extremely palpable and will turn off many new gamers immediately. I don't know why they couldn't stratify the multiplayer games based on character level as they have in Halo 3, if only to keep players with similar perk levels competing on even ground. Then again, CoD4 probably can't hope for the kind of online presence a Halo draws, so had they split the playerbase in this way, it might be difficult to find games in which to play. Still, having to make the choice between having no one to play with, or having people to play with who can shoot you through walls from 4 miles away, you can see the kind of issue Infinity Ward had to contend with.

cod6

The graphics in Call of Duty 4 are quite good. While I wouldn't go so far as to say they're the new high water mark for the systems it appears on, they definitely convey the environment convincingly. The developers seemingly spent a lot of time adding tiny flourishes like the vague flickering of the green LED night vision goggles or the imprinting of one's own capillaries on one's vision after staring down a flashbang. There are never any jaw-dropping moments, but the entire thing subtly provides further enhancement to the engaging plot by visually convincing you that you're actually there.

As a special aside, I would like to highlight the "death effects". It's typical for these titles to give enemies ragdoll reactions to being shot or exploded, but there's something truly striking (and depending on your slant, either extremely satisfying or disturbing) about the massive splatter and violent spasm following an opponent catching a round from an AK-47 in the eye. It never approaches cartoonish, but it definitely conveys the damage a high-caliber round can do to a person's soft tissue.

As much as I'd love to be able to say this title is an absolute must-buy there are issues that mar its surface. As stated above, the game is short. While that may be an illusionary side effect of the intense plot, you'll be wishing for more when it finally comes to its thrilling conclusion. Also, the title is incredibly linear. It offers the spectre of choice in some missions, but when compared to the recent BioShock, you realize you will have seen the entire thing in one play through.

cod1

Combine these with the multiplayer system's well-meaning but ultimately poorly implemented experience system, and you have a solid title that would serve better as a rental for anyone who wasn't already excited about it enough to buy it at launch.

Score: 8.0 

208rentit

Continue: More Xbox 360 stories





prev 50 comments
next

87 comments | showing # 51 to 87

Jim Sterling's Avatar - Comment posted on 11/15/2007 20:16
Jim Sterling
The perk system is being incredibly overhyped. I've faced off against people who are twice my level and come out with more kills and points than them. I've dropped people with far better weapons and abilities. The perks are just that -- perks. They give you a few benefits, but never an overwhelming advantage. It's been balanced because you can only equip a small number of perks.

I think people are over-reacting. They see a guy with a high level and instantly think "omg he is so tough," when it's not the case. Occassionally a new player might think "fuck, he's got an RPG!" but that's half the fun. Like the first time someone hit me with a Last Stand. Sure, that perk got them the kill, but I was ready for it next time.
vexed alex's Avatar - Comment posted on 11/15/2007 20:17
vexed alex
Well said, Mr. Sterling.
Usedtabe's Avatar - Comment posted on 11/15/2007 20:26
Usedtabe
I agree. Bought this game for $5 after trading some stuff in. Beat the game on normal, beat most of it on Veteran and finished it on hardcore. Got 820/1000 gamerscore from it. I tried the MP, but after only losing 1 game in 8 when I am a complete Noob to the COD series, I felt I had another Lost Planet on my hands. Basically, not interesting enough to nake me want to immerse myself in the MP, but that's just me. Singleplayer is amazing, but after 2.5 playthroughs, it got old. The never ending spawning of enemies is really frustrating at some points.
Anyway, enough rambling, I agree with Nex. As my 1st full CoD experience, it was great, but not worth owning.
tehArtist's Avatar - Comment posted on 11/15/2007 20:34
tehArtist
'Call of Duty 4 manages to beat out even CoD2's stunning experience by adding an RPG-lite experience system similar to that found in the latter-day Battlefield titles. Simply stated: the more you play, the more you'll unlock useful perks for use in game. Whether they be bigger guns or a more resilient soldier, each perk is useful and desirable in its own way. Sadly this also leads to one of the title's biggest flaws: new players have to contend with gamers who have attained perks that make them almost god-like.'

Your multi-player complaint about levels is really just nit-picking. Or an excuse for getting owned. I haven't had the time to play much, and even reset to lvl 1 today when I created my new gamer tag. I was playing against players lvl 20-50+ and I held my own just fine. The M4 starting on lvl 1 is fully capable of taking out the enemy through a wall. Given, some of the full auto weapons or shotguns do give a slight advantage, but only in the hands of someone who knows how to use them. I saw a guy rape everyone with nothing more than the knife and pistol this morning in a death match. So the argument of levels making that large of a difference, is really irrelevant.

The best way to lvl up against these players that you say are 'god like'...Don't Suck!

In the end, a head shot is a head shot, no player can enter a magical god mode by being a higher lvl that will make him/her invincible from taking a hollow point between the eyes from a well positioned sniper. (or M4 with the red dot sight for that matter)
DGX Goggles's Avatar - Comment posted on 11/15/2007 20:59
DGX Goggles
Sterling and tehArtist said everything I wanted to. I (lvl 19) am regularly number 1 in TD with guys who are 30 and higher, and even when I only had my m6 at lvl 1, I was still regularly making 1st or second. The key really is DON'T SUCK.
JohnnyWadd's Avatar - Comment posted on 11/15/2007 21:26
JohnnyWadd
Just a rental? Get off the pipe son. The multiplayer alone is worth the price, which wildly extends the VALUE of buying it, unlike Bioshock which has long since been traded in.
Sharpless's Avatar - Comment posted on 11/15/2007 21:53
Sharpless
Yeah, incidentally, I'm a little taken aback by the "Rent it!" label. I'm not pooping my drawers over it, but it seems like this should qualify as a solid purchase, based largely on the online play. But meh, whatever.
ajaxender's Avatar - Comment posted on 11/15/2007 22:24
ajaxender
I disagree with the claim that a new player has a distinct disadvantage. The reason being, i played on of my friends, at a low level (2 or 3), while he was about level 15 to 20 at that time. The extra weaponry and perks he had had absolutely nothing to do with who won; he won to start with because he had played more.

The unlock system doesnt unbalance the game at all, it merely changes it up, and gives you more options; different, interesting perks (but ones that are no better and sometimes worse than the ones you start with anyway), and new weapons that have different stats to what you start with (more/less accuracy, damage, etc) to perhaps suit your play-style better.

It still all comes down to who can shoot first, and most accurately. There are DEFINITELY NO perks or weapons that make you godlike. A player who has the higher level stuff is going to be damn good at the game, and a new player probably isnt.
moot button's Avatar - Comment posted on 11/15/2007 23:28
moot button
the frenetic fun, the range of options, and the reward of skill in the online is worth $60 alone. as splitscreen multiplayer goes, i think Goldeneye FINALLY got taken down a peg. the game modes are ridiculously fun to play with 3 friends all talking shit. the campaign was lots of fun, but, yeah, short. i've played the gunship level over and over though. i'd probably give it an 8.5 (which i think is a damn good score) just cause i think 9's and 10's are tossed around too liberally.
Cutie Honey's Avatar - Comment posted on 11/15/2007 23:32
Cutie Honey
I agree with your review!
Plus, the end of Act One is HAUNTINGLY freaky.
cryocide's Avatar - Comment posted on 11/15/2007 23:40
cryocide
@backflip10019: Any 8 is a "rent it" if the gameplay is only about 15 hours long. Multiplayer is obviously going to extend that, but if you're not taking it online, it's really not worth buying. It's awesome IMO, but I'd have been disappointed had I not gotten the game with multiplayer in mind.

@slyvexx: I'm not sure, but I think it might be the photorealism and blood spray. There aren't any gibs, but you still see plenty of people juice come out when you pop 'em in the head.

@eschatos: True, it's pretty one-sided early on. I just got out of a fight that had high-level veterans everywhere and I didn't stand a chance vs. high-powered pistols and silent running. I know it's a chicken#%&* thing to do, but when I get steamrolled too many games in a row, I drop out and reconnect and hope for a more level playing field.
Aequitas's Avatar - Comment posted on 11/16/2007 00:34
Aequitas
Good review. I agree 100% about the single-player, but I think you're exaggerating the benefits of the multiplayer perks. It's been mentioned by others here, so I won't bore you with more specifics. Just wanted to throw in my $.02.
Deus's Avatar - Comment posted on 11/16/2007 01:01
Deus
I really enjoyed the single player but the story was a bit stale (and I've been known to read Tom Clancy). However, the multiplayer made up for it completely in my opinion. The perks system really interests me because of the way it allows players with individual strengths/weaknesses to tailor their class to fit their playing style. I know, this sounds like it's coming off the back of the box, but I love the way it allows me to use perks to compensate for my weaknesses.

For example, I have a tendency to reload far too much in competitive multiplayer and in FPS in general, so I chose the "sleight of hand" perk. Now it takes me less time to reload my mini-Uzi than it does to switch to my pistol. Problem solved. I also tend to rush into areas without checking for possible traps beforehand, so the bomb-squad perk works out for me in that area. All of this adds to the already great multiplayer experience in CoD 4.

As for the class disparity, I don't really think it's a huge issue. It's taken me nine hours to reach rank 24, which is nearly half way to the top, and although they generally score higher, it's not unusual for players around my rank to take the top place in a match. All in all, definitely a must buy.
Emrah's Avatar - Comment posted on 11/16/2007 02:07
Emrah
8 -> Rent it..
7 -> Don't bother??

The software industry probably would collapse if 80% did not merit a purchase. Then again, this game is going to own the sales charts so I am not worried about it, but other games.

Also,6-7 hours of single player gameplay is not bad. That's how I could finish Heavenly Sword. You get to finish a game without getting bored for a change. Making this game a 10 hour challenge would be easy, they'd send 40% more enemies at every level but it would just get repetetive, wouldn't it? Imagine the amount of work that needs to go to every level of this game. It got to the point that it'd take more time to create a scene in a game than a CGI movie. You design the scene *and* you optimize it for realtime rendering and people expect to see near-cgi quality realtime, which this game delivers at 60fps without needing a 499usd graphics card on a PC (see: Crysis)
Necros's Avatar - Comment posted on 11/16/2007 02:55
Necros
I'm more surprised at Linde's new picture.
brad drac's Avatar - Comment posted on 11/16/2007 03:47
brad drac
->Eschatos: I mentioned nothing about a 10. Like I said, I haven't actually played the game, so I'm not going to pull a score out of my ass. My only point was that the faults mentioned, being fairly minor, shouldn't have added up to a 2 point deduction. It's fully possible there are other faults that would attribute to the rating, but they weren't mentioned. My complaint was with the disparity between the review and the score, not between the score and the game.

In my opinion, 10 should not mean neither absolutely perfect(because nothing is), nor best game ever(as that's entirely subjective). It should be an indicator as to how well a game compares to everything else currently on the market. I guess that's the problem with assigning a numerical value without a clear scale to judge it on, everyone's got a different opinion as to what it should mean.
Knives's Avatar - Comment posted on 11/16/2007 04:21
Knives
Jim said it best.

Really, the perks and weapons are given too much importance. Last weekend I was playing with BahamutZero and I went like 32-8, by the end of the match everyone in there was asking "What gun where you using?" my answer? "Oh, it's an MP5", you know, one of your starting weapons.
majormauser's Avatar - Comment posted on 11/16/2007 05:37
majormauser
BlueWolf He was making fun of your Lame attempt at humor. Get overit you opened yerself up to it... I wolf'in approve.... jeezzz.

While the game here gets a 8....

all I can say is it pulled me away from Halo 3.

The Multiplayer is Amazing no mater what this reviewer says. Don't attempt to write a review on a game you do not understand.
Stratus's Avatar - Comment posted on 11/16/2007 07:47
Stratus
All I know is that the P90 is a full-auto sniper rifle and a horrible weapon to face. Also that I agree with the review.

For those of us who like single player and use multi as a quick diversion from it this game is a small let down. Small being the key word, that AC130 part(sure a little easy) was hands down one of my favorite moments from the whole game.
galagabug 's Avatar - Comment posted on 11/16/2007 08:03
galagabug
the MP is crack.
B-Radicate's Avatar - Comment posted on 11/16/2007 08:53
B-Radicate
I didn't play Bioshock because it doesn't interest me, but this is my GOTY thus far.

The multiplayer offerings alone warrant dozens of hours of play even without Prestige mode. Despite the lack of abilities for new players, the multi does a great job of scaling the levels and quickly unlocking options for new players, such as classes and modes of play, that go along way to at least make the early-goings worthwhile, even if you're not doing too hot comparatively. Not to mention that, for the experienced players, there are continually new challenges ad upgrades to unlock for guns and such which make the latter portions just as worthwhile as the beginning, which says a lot.

Lest we forget, it also comes down to player skill. I went up two or three levels in my very first match and thought I was king of the world but have heard of people going up as many as nine in their first game. If you suck at FPS games you're not gonna do well in the beginning of ANY online shooter, period. So that's a little odd to make that such a fault, IMO.

Also, the single player campaign is the single most moving gameplay experience I have ever played simply BECAUSE it forced me through corridors and forced me to experience exactly what it intended to. I feel open games like Bioshock can lose impact if the player chooses not to play a certain way. Because CoD4 forces you through some of the most chilling scenarios in all of gaming (you all know the level I am thinking of) you are inherently forced to FEEL the game, not just play it. I don't think you can argue that it touched youin some way and made you think a little differently about the state of the world as it did to me.

CoD4 is not a game anymore, in my eyes. It is a chilling piece of interactive cinema/art that I believe sets a new benchmark for quality in gaming. I have never been as unnerved and enthralled by a game as I was when I played through this. I don't think many people can argue with how good it is if they actually sit through and experience it end to end.

The single player may be a rent it based solely on length of experience, but a must-play at the very least for its impact. The multiplayer is a must buy. Together, they are the second best game to come out this year behind The Orange Box. Period.
RICHARD BLOCKER's Avatar - Comment posted on 11/16/2007 09:37
RICHARD BLOCKER
I got it night before last. All they had left was the CE. so I had to shell out 70$. If only I had read this review before the purchase....... I would have questioned Nex's sanity and still bought it
Lolthien's Avatar - Comment posted on 11/16/2007 09:42
Lolthien
Wow... that whole review and the multiplayer, easily the most impressive part of the game, gets two sentences, one of which includes 'poorly implemented'.

This plus calling Assassin's Creed's launch a debacle is showing that at least one reviewer here at Destructoid is sadly out of step with the gamers he claims to represent.

Sad day at Destructoid. Don't be fooled, the multiplayer is the best thing about this game... not since the Original Ghost Recon for Xbox have I had so many friends want to join a room we didn't have room for everyone.. and that is a daily experience with this game, you'd be doing yourself a disservice not trying it out.
Lolthien's Avatar - Comment posted on 11/16/2007 09:46
Lolthien
Sorry, just saw I missed a paragraph.. and the part where the game isn't 'stratified' like Halo 3.. actually it is.. you can't unlock the more interesting game types until you reach a certain level. Yes the higher level people can play the lower level games, but there is no god perk. Shooting through walls is available to even the 1st level player. As is stopping power and most of the good guns.

This guy apparently had one or two bad games, and couldn't put down that he was losing because he obviously had less practice, but because the game itself was flawed... that is even worse than ignoring it completely.
Grapefruit Juice's Avatar - Comment posted on 11/16/2007 16:24
Grapefruit Juice
Can you finish COD4 single player with just 70 achievement points? just wondering.
KGETZ3's Avatar - Comment posted on 11/16/2007 19:05
KGETZ3
If you don't have XBL...then yes I would say CoD4 is a rental, a great rental.

But if you do have XBL, then this is a MUST BUY.

The SP is amazing. They do a great job of swithcing up the missions so nothing is ever repetitive or boring. Now yes the game is on the short side 6-7 hours for Normal Difficulty. But would you rather have 6-7 hours of a kick ass game or 10-15 hours of a drawn out mediocre game?

Now to the multiplayer.....perks and your level mean jack shit.

It just means you play the game more...now you may be thinking well if someone plays the game more they should be good then right? UMM NO...Allen Iverson - "PRACTICE?!?!? WE'RE TALKING AOBUT PRACTICE MAN."

Pretty much there are people that suck ass that are high level and low level. Then there are people that are amazing that are high level and low level.....your level/perks mean jack shit.

Ok now after that little rant to the rest of the MP.

The game modes are great. I would say the best are Headquarters(H3 Crazy King), Domination(H3 Territories), Search and Destory(CS Bomb Defusal)

The weapons selection is great and the whole perk/reward system is a great way to get people playing and trying to achieve something.

I would say my only gripe with the MP is that the shooting is very easy. There is not a shooting difference between great and average players morely a maneuvering and smarts difference.
Arugala9's Avatar - Comment posted on 11/16/2007 21:12
Arugala9
Bullshit
vishusdelishus's Avatar - Comment posted on 11/17/2007 00:31
vishusdelishus
Story is played out, graphics are great, very cinematic. Gameplay is tight, but not personally preferred - but here's the thing: videogames are NOT movies. They should create an entirely different experience.

However...

Gimme HL2 any day over this. Tighter controls, tougher AI, better story, more immersive.
vishusdelishus's Avatar - Comment posted on 11/17/2007 00:32
vishusdelishus
...AND they ganked the intro level from MGS2
Kyousuke Nanbu's Avatar - Comment posted on 11/17/2007 02:14
Kyousuke Nanbu
Half Life 2, Tougher A.I.

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!

Good one Vishu, I need a laugh.

Anyway, I bought this the day it came out, mostly because most of my clan got it, I got rid of it today in exchange for Mass Effect and Ace Combat 6.

CoD 4 is good, the single player is quite intense and actually makes you care about the characters you are using, its just getting to those good moments that's the problem, the game can be tough, and not the fun kind of tough but rather the annoying, you want to snap the disk in half tough.

Enemies and any enemy operated vehicle only has eyes for you, their aim is incredible, they throw grenades with incredible grace and they have the power of infinite respawnings on their side.

This is the one thing that I LOATH about the CoD games, rush forward, otherwise enemies will continue to spawn, naturally this makes the higher difficulties incredibly frustrating since peaking your head out even for a moment is enough to kill you, I assure you that Veteran is not a fun difficulty level, you will die, A LOT, and I mean LOT, the enemies are to numerous, to cheap and to frustrating, 3 mile headshots and infinite ammo for your foes doesn't help either, I gave up around the 3rd veteran mission because it simply wasn't fun.

MP has some issues, at least for me, I find myself getting kicked from games far to much, if I enter I can't leave otherwise I might not find another, there's also the fact that CoD 4 has attracted the dregs of the Halo community, except rather than 12 year olds call me a fag, I have 18 year olds calling me a fag, I am so sorry that you are rank 55, clearly you are a god for having to much fucking time on your hands, pardon my lowly rank 15 masta.

The perks can unbalance a bit when its high ranks vs low ranks, in the hands of the right player they are nigh unstoppable. It doesn't help that CoD's worthless matchmaking system(Fuck you Halo 3) has no idea of the concept of balanced teams.

Yea, a team full of rank 55 and 40's is perfectly balanced against a team low ranks, bravo Infinity Ward.

Overall, CoD 4 is the same turd as the other CoD games but with a new coat of paint.
Banj's Avatar - Comment posted on 11/17/2007 06:08
Banj
I suspect Nex might have spent about 10 minutes on the multiplayer before writing this review, and all 10 minutes were spend getting his sh*ts pushed in by some Prestige Mode triple-general.
Gehof's Avatar - Comment posted on 11/17/2007 14:46
Gehof
I strongly disagree. I dont know one game that couldn't benefit from the amount of polish, planning, and variety in COD4's single player game. Yogether they make an awesome experience.

As for the multi-player, it's a bit stale, but it's basically the old CoDMP with levels, which people seemed to love then as much as they love now. I don't think anything's poorly implemented, that's for damn sure.
PetiePal's Avatar - Comment posted on 11/19/2007 11:28
PetiePal
Multi is what will really save it. I'm kind of getting tired of the scripted events, but more the scripted "millions of guys stream from one location and you have to kill them." We can do better at this point with better AI and more tactical fights.

Multi is a trip though.
0chan's Avatar - Comment posted on 12/04/2007 05:22
0chan
this review sucked i felt like i was reading a copied version of all the other reviews,( half of it was just the story of the game witch he probably just copied from some other site) how is an 8 "rent it"?
i want a REAL review from rev anthony cuz this guy dosent even understand what a score 8 means,
cannonfodder's Avatar - Comment posted on 01/22/2008 09:08
cannonfodder
Well I love it I may have worked up quickly to higher ranks but this shows that even being as crap as me you get on with the game......

Sure we alll hate martydom and last stand used against us as much as we love using it but the spectator mode allows you to see others tactics...

As for gettin killed early on heck i still get killed more than i kill but enjoy it immensley... sore loser?

easier to get online with than BF2 ir 2142 too which i also got so gets my vote... 9/10
Zombian's Avatar - Comment posted on 03/14/2008 21:08
Zombian
review= fail. CoD4 wins your face.
that is all
DaedHead8's Avatar - Comment posted on 03/18/2008 13:22
DaedHead8
review=win. CoD4 is good, not great.
that is all
prev 50 comments next

Comment with Facebook





Click connect and comment instantly!

Comment with Dtoid





New? SIGN UP - it takes 5 seconds

Comments policy

Destructoid is an open discussion community. You don't need to "audition" to post a comment - just speak your mind. We respect differing opinions on the site, so have at it. Be smart, funny, insightful, clueless, or cute -- but back it up with substance. Keep your cool, keep it fun. We only ask that you act respectfully and above all: don't be a troll and ruin it for everyone else. Don't bring down gamers or we'll, you know, gently shoot you in the face and stuff you into a flaming mailbox. Each comment is your opportuntity to make this community awesomer. Is that even a word?

Avoiding the banhammer only requires common sense: spamming, trolling, racism, NSFW stuff, and other forms of sucking will not be tolerated. If anyone is griefing please report abuse. Be good. Don't suck!

 
New on Destructoid.TV play all videos

Loading
Loading Destructoid Videos


    Win this!
    Dive in! meetup+play for a chance to win a PC

    Dtoid Twitter    Got news?   tips@destructoid.com

    Reviews & Previews
    Resident Evil: The Darkside Chronicles review
    Left 4 Dead 2 review
    Call of Duty: Modern Warfare Reflex review
    Arkedo Series - 02 SWAP! review
    EyePet review
    more reviews
    Legend of Zelda Spirit Tracks
    Monster Hunter Tri
    Hooking onto, under and above Just Cause 2
    PS3's 256-player MAG
    Rooms The Main Building
    more previews


    - The Dtoid Army is 50725 strong -

    Showing Cblogs with 3+ faps   show all

    Call for entries: do the wrong thing

    New to Dtoid? Read the survival guide




     Originals
    Jim Sterling: Think L4D2 is an expansion? You're a f*cking idiot





















    More Destructoid Originals




     Popular now more






















    Team Destructoid   tips@destructoid.com
    Nick Chester
    Editor-in-Chief
    Niero
    Founder, publisher
    Jim Sterling
    Reviews Editor
    Hamza Aziz
    Community Manager
    Dale North
    News Editor
    Rey Gutierrez
    Video editor & director
    Anthony Burch
    Features Editor
    Colette Bennett
    Tom Fronczak Brad Nicholson
    Ashley Davis Ben Perlee
    Conrad
    Zimmerman
    Chad Concelmo
    Jonathan Holmes Jonathan Ross
    Brad Rice Jordan Devore
    Will Maddock Matthew Razak
    Dyson Joseph Leray
    Topher Cantler Samit Sarkar
         
      Dexter
    Adam Dork
    Daniel Lingen
    Hollie Bennett
    Joe Burling
    Mikey
    Stella Wong

    Josh Tolentino




     

     
      get involved

    register or login
    post a blog
    post a forum
    enter a contest
    contribute a news tip
    suggest a feature
    be a guest editor
    support

    new member's guide
    login assistance
    tech support
    report abuse
    email our editors
    read our dev blog
    nuclear crisis?
    keep in touch

    RSS feed
    Twitter
    Facebook
    Myspace
    Flickr
    Game nights
    Meetup+play online
    seriously

    about Destructoid
    advertising
    terms of use
    privacy policy
    jobs at MM
    buy our crap
    our network

    Tomopop
    Japanator
    Despingation?




    Destructoid is an independently-run publication forged by our love of video games and the gaming community's need of accountable enthusiast press
    living the dream since March 16, 2006