Linearity isn't something that can just be overlooked anymore because there are so many games, some not so young anymore, which have allowed the player greater freedom of choice. CoD doesn't even manage to be creative with the linear style like Half-Life 1 or 2, it just puts you in a corridor, throws a few things in your way, and unleashes an infinite horde onto you.
The campaign is interesting, the settings are well done, the missions are fun and the gameplay is good. I have no problem admitting these things, CoD is a great Call of Duty game, it is even a good FPS, however, true to CoD style it falls short of anything resembling independent innovation and only half-asses blatant theft from it's competitors.
What is the point of judging a game if you aren't going to hold it up to whatever you consider to be the pinnacle of it's genre? Call of Duty is the king of the Call of Duty games, it's better than the Medal of Honor games, it's (in my opinion) better than Halo and I might even be talked into saying it is better than CS: Source but you would have to be extremely persuasive because I'm still playing Source and I haven't picked up CoD4 in a month... But these are all mediocre games that I'm comparing CoD4 to, they are either series which have shown no drive to innovate or, in the case of CS:S, a blatant copy. I wouldn't put it above any of the Battlefield games, I wouldn't say it's near Half-Life, I probably wouldn't even put it near Crysis because even though I have plenty of problems with Crysis I respect the fact that it tried very hard to be something different.
Just because I'm in the mood to nitpick:
[quote"Whisperkill47"]Another thing is the fact that you die and kill others too fast. While this is fine in the Campaign, this can get a little frustrating in multiplayer, you get shot in the back and have no time to react. Also, personally i feel when you kill someone it isn't as satisfying as lets say, TF2.[/quote]
I feel that is one of the most compelling features of the online play. Playing CoD4 online really forces you to pay an extra bit of attention to your surroundings because you can be killed at any time from any direction without being given a chance to fight back. The biggest thing I had to adjust to was keeping myself under cover because in CS:S you can strafe all over the place with no cover and still not die. It's a pain, sure, but it also forces you to pay more attention and rewards people who use the map to their advantage instead of relying on reaction time (which is good for me because I have piss poor reaction time).
As a footnote I have to say the most disappointing part of CoD4 for me were the abilities (radar, airstrike and helicopter). They aren't as annoying on the console but I play on a PC and when you get more than a 16 or 18 person server going and the airstrike and helicopter are going constantly from the first minute or two it really screws with the whole experience.
The campaign is interesting, the settings are well done, the missions are fun and the gameplay is good. I have no problem admitting these things, CoD is a great Call of Duty game, it is even a good FPS, however, true to CoD style it falls short of anything resembling independent innovation and only half-asses blatant theft from it's competitors.
What is the point of judging a game if you aren't going to hold it up to whatever you consider to be the pinnacle of it's genre? Call of Duty is the king of the Call of Duty games, it's better than the Medal of Honor games, it's (in my opinion) better than Halo and I might even be talked into saying it is better than CS: Source but you would have to be extremely persuasive because I'm still playing Source and I haven't picked up CoD4 in a month... But these are all mediocre games that I'm comparing CoD4 to, they are either series which have shown no drive to innovate or, in the case of CS:S, a blatant copy. I wouldn't put it above any of the Battlefield games, I wouldn't say it's near Half-Life, I probably wouldn't even put it near Crysis because even though I have plenty of problems with Crysis I respect the fact that it tried very hard to be something different.
Just because I'm in the mood to nitpick:
The online mode is less than inspired. Even the developers freely admit that every single map was designed around Team Deathmatch and it is quite easy to tell when playing any other game mode. The class system is a blatant tool for stringing players along whose only job is to give you some sense of satisfaction in doing the same crap over and over again so you don't stop playing. I guarantee that without prestige mode the game would die out in half as much time.ghost568 said:
[quote"Whisperkill47"]Another thing is the fact that you die and kill others too fast. While this is fine in the Campaign, this can get a little frustrating in multiplayer, you get shot in the back and have no time to react. Also, personally i feel when you kill someone it isn't as satisfying as lets say, TF2.[/quote]
I feel that is one of the most compelling features of the online play. Playing CoD4 online really forces you to pay an extra bit of attention to your surroundings because you can be killed at any time from any direction without being given a chance to fight back. The biggest thing I had to adjust to was keeping myself under cover because in CS:S you can strafe all over the place with no cover and still not die. It's a pain, sure, but it also forces you to pay more attention and rewards people who use the map to their advantage instead of relying on reaction time (which is good for me because I have piss poor reaction time).
As a footnote I have to say the most disappointing part of CoD4 for me were the abilities (radar, airstrike and helicopter). They aren't as annoying on the console but I play on a PC and when you get more than a 16 or 18 person server going and the airstrike and helicopter are going constantly from the first minute or two it really screws with the whole experience.
