Cod 4

[Warder]

Buy this. It is fucking AWESOME. Seriously. Best game I've played in awhile.

[TheBigShow]

Been playing for the past 3 days on the 360.

[DiscoDave]

Is it a good for multiplayer or single player?

[bloodseek]

it's great for single player and friggen EPIC for multi player!

[smor]

it's great for single player and friggen EPIC for multi player!

qfe. i'm already about to pass being an lt. it's pretty sweet. the multiplayer is pretty unbalanced at low levels. but once you get up there, which you will in a hurry, it's friggen sweet.

if you play online watch your challenges, using them can get you ranked up in a hurry.

[bloodseek]

you gotta love the knife in that game. quick, silent, and deadly!

and my suggestion for lower levels is to use the starting class with the SMG for quicker kills.

one of the highlights in online multiplayer is the fact that you can call in an airstrike or a gunship/helicopter depending on your killstreak. 3 kills gives you a radar scanner, 5 kills gets you the airstrike, not sure bout the gunship though

[smor]

you gotta love the knife in that game. quick, silent, and deadly!

and my suggestion for lower levels is to use the starting class with the SMG for quicker kills.

one of the highlights in online multiplayer is the fact that you can call in an airstrike or a gunship/helicopter depending on your killstreak. 3 kills gives you a radar scanner, 5 kills gets you the airstrike, not sure bout the gunship though

7 for the chopper. in some modes that changes though. and if you can play with a group that you know, do it. it's way too team based to be playing with all the damn kids on live. especially when winning means you level faster.

[infinitydxn]

hmmm I might get it. Better than CS? We shall C!

[QuietStorm]

Ugh. "Low levels"? In an FPS? Again? And it's got a console port save functionality -- checkpoints, not save-anywhere. I don't know if this is really worth buying for me.

[snax]

Ugh. "Low levels"? In an FPS? Again? And it's got a console port save functionality -- checkpoints, not save-anywhere. I don't know if this is really worth buying for me.

Ughhh qs bitching about something he might actually have to work at for a bit ughhh

I'll be picking this up tonight.

[QuietStorm]

Work at? I'll work to get good at a game. I refuse to play a multiplayer FPS with an unlock or persistent level system. Crysis, from what I've seen in beta, is not persistent, so I don't mind it. But BF2... terrible. I've expressed this view before, and I feel it's well-founded. I believe that in an FPS, two players of equal skill should be equal in in-game ability. Any game which violates this violates one of my core beliefs of multiplayer gaming. I'd be a hypocrite to play such a game. It's got nothing to do with work. Do you know how many hours I spent just learning proper smoke locations in CS:S when I was playing competitively? Any time not spent doing homework was spent learning to play the game better. I spent two hours just learning one smoke location on de_nuke at one point (and boy was it a beauty -- from T spawn behind the truck, I could throw a smoke through the windows up top, bounce it off the floor, and onto the ledge in front of nest).

Anyway, I may "acquire" the game, but I probably won't buy it. The checkpoint feature also greatly annoys me, as it's a telltale sign of the development first for consoles, then for PCs. Hell, why even relegate consoles to asinine checkpoints now that they have hard drives?!

[Silvercorona]

Are y'all buying CoD4 for xbox or PC?

[infinitydxn]

i agree with QS, unlocking stuff sucks. :\ thats why i keep playing WOW. jk

[Warder]

PC on my end. Beat the single player earlier, haven't gotten into the multiplayer yet. I demand we do this at LAN though since it is the shit and I plan on attending.

[NatterZane]

that game is not like CS:S! I spend too much time on one game! I hate unlocks cuz i can't get them! wa wa wa

fix't

Checkpoints are fine, unless too far back (CoD is a good example of what checkpoints should be). In every game where I can save anytime I want I find myself saving at every corner and door; it takes away from a more or less seamless game.

[QuietStorm]

fix't

Checkpoints are fine, unless too far back (CoD is a good example of what checkpoints should be). In every game where I can save anytime I want I find myself saving at every corner and door; it takes away from a more or less seamless game.
I save when I can feel a big battle coming up. Your shortcoming is not my problem, nor should it affect my gameplay.

That said, it's not an issue of "it's not like CS." Neither is UT, but I think UT is a well-made game. I never got into it because previous Unreal engines made me ill when I played them. As I said, I'm fine with Crysis, too -- turn off the motion blur and I think it's actually a pretty interesting system. It's got a money system, but you don't get money by "winning," just by playing well -- within a round.

I don't think FPS games should be RPGs. I play FPS games to play on an even level with others. It's one of the reasons I don't play MMOs anymore: I don't have that desire to sink hours upon hours into a game just for the sake of getting stronger. That, to me, is not a worthwhile pursuit. Even worse, in a game like BF2 or CoD4 (apparently), it creates an uneven playing field. At least in an MMO there's something to do at a given level -- certain quests, or you can organize level-specific PvP events (if the MMO does not restrict attacks to certain level ranges already), etc. In an FPS, playing on a server with "unlocks" and "levels" available, there is no level-specific content. Someone else will be more powerful than you just due to their dedication to playing the game, not playing well. Sure, you can even things out; in CS (I use it as an example often because I'm familiar with it, not because I expect other games to be like it), a player with 800 dollars can kill a player with 16000 dollars based on skill alone. Now, I'll freely admit that the economy system in CS is broken and unbalanced. But it's tied to individual maps. Go to a new map, and you're all even to start. Yes, you might join mid-map, but you only have to stick around a few minutes to go to a new map. Or you can just die two or three rounds and have as much money as anyone else. Sure, it's a time-sink, in a way. But it's a few minutes, not a few hours, or a few days, and that's the difference.

Think what you may. Like what games you may. I don't really mind, and I'll even be happy for you that you've found a game you enjoy. Really, Natter, it doesn't bother me that you enjoy BF2. But don't suggest that there's something inherently wrong with my stance if you can't come up with any reason for it. Don't brazenly assume that my dislike for that style of game is rooted in my enjoyment of CS. What you don't realize is this: Back in June '05 I got a broadband connection for the first time. Before that, I'd only played CS once. July '05 was the first LAN BF2 was played at. I started playing it then, less than a month after starting CS. I wasn't even familiar enough with CS to know map layouts. So don't go shitting out your mouth when you don't know what you're talking about, buddy.

[DiscoDave]

I actually like checkpoints provided there's enough of them. Ideally checkpoints along with the option of manual saves is the ideal scenario.

[QuietStorm]

I actually like checkpoints provided there's enough of them. Ideally checkpoints along with the option of manual saves is the ideal scenario.
This I agree with, though I don't like "checkpoints" so much as autosaves. TBH, I think the way VALVe does it in the HL2 series (not at loading zones, which suck) is my favorite -- autosaves without telling the player when it's happening. To me, it makes things a lot more immersive if you don't know when you've hit a "checkpoint."

[smor]

considering how many major battles are in cod4... you'd be saving a god damn lot more then there are check points. the check point system in it does work very well.

as for the unlocks. the speed of unlocking is all based on skill. it's really not till you play against generals that it's unbalanced anyway. and even then skill will beat their weapons easily. you can easily max out at least 2 or 3 guns by the time your level 10 if not sooner.

i agree it's not the most fair system. but that's the problem with trying to reward players that play longer then others. anytime you do that you're eventually going to unbalance the game.

there are ways to balance it though, such as with clan play everyone agrees to just use the standard weapon layouts and not any of the custom ones, which are the same whether you're level 60 or level 1.

i don't much care for a straight player save system, because either i do it too much, or not nearly enough. and in a game like cod4 you're basically just running from battle to battle, and it's hard to tell when the battle is over. so when one of your guys yells all clear, and then it says saving game, it's actually a nice feeling.

and it is a console port, so get the fuck over yourself.

anyway, play with a good team. a good team of level 10's can wipe the board.

[QuietStorm]

I know it's a console port. That pisses me off -- we, the PC gamers, made their series, then they abandoned us as soon as they realized they could make more money elsewhere.

[smor]

I know it's a console port. That pisses me off -- we, the PC gamers, made their series, then they abandoned us as soon as they realized they could make more money elsewhere.

shouldn't steal games then asshole.

besides console programming is so much easier. they only have to pick which consoles to support. not which 3 dozen video cards/drivers and cpus to support. can you blame them?

and even when they claim to support your gear, sometimes it's a lie. i still can't play crysis. demo, beta, i doubt the game will ever run on my computer. i have 3 pc games that i bought new that claimed to run on my specs that haven't. fortunately none recently. but it's a fact of the matter that it happens.

[bloodseek]

I personally don't think the multiplayer is unbalanced at all, especially when you compare it to rainbow six.

For starters... in rainbow six, there is no balance system so when you go deathmatch or whatever, you're gonna get pwned and get no experience, so you have to play against NPC's on the hardest difficulty to gain any xp at all in order to actually enjoy multiplayer... not cool.

however, in CoD4 you can jump right into deathmatch and hold your own, or if you want even more xp, then do a team game. sure, there are players with better guns and perks. but the starting guns do just as well and whatever perks they have can easily be overcome. for instance, when you find out someone has last stand, memorize their name and prepare for it. if they have martyrdom, then just avoid knifing them if possible.

i went into the game with my friend's lvl 2 character and picked the SMG premade class and got first place in a match with 4 officers in it.

[smor]

I personally don't think the multiplayer is unbalanced at all, especially when you compare it to rainbow six.

For starters... in rainbow six, there is no balance system so when you go deathmatch or whatever, you're gonna get pwned and get no experience, so you have to play against NPC's on the hardest difficulty to gain any xp at all in order to actually enjoy multiplayer... not cool.

however, in CoD4 you can jump right into deathmatch and hold your own, or if you want even more xp, then do a team game. sure, there are players with better guns and perks. but the starting guns do just as well and whatever perks they have can easily be overcome. for instance, when you find out someone has last stand, memorize their name and prepare for it. if they have martyrdom, then just avoid knifing them if possible.

i went into the game with my friend's lvl 2 character and picked the SMG premade class and got first place in a match with 4 officers in it.

true, i forgot how fubar r6v was. and you can pick up fallen players guns. and you die so much in the game sometimes it's hard to tell if you're getting raped.

[bloodseek]

so far, the only gun i'm really worried about in CoD4 is the barret .50 cal. i just know there is some sniper out there with that gun with claymores and deep impact >_<

[NatterZane]

I don't think FPS games should be RPGs. I play FPS games to play on an even level with others. It's one of the reasons I don't play MMOs anymore: I don't have that desire to sink hours upon hours into a game just for the sake of getting stronger. That, to me, is not a worthwhile pursuit. Even worse, in a game like BF2 or CoD4 (apparently), it creates an uneven playing field. At least in an MMO there's something to do at a given level -- certain quests, or you can organize level-specific PvP events (if the MMO does not restrict attacks to certain level ranges already), etc. In an FPS, playing on a server with "unlocks" and "levels" available, there is no level-specific content. Someone else will be more powerful than you just due to their dedication to playing the game, not playing well. Sure, you can even things out; in CS (I use it as an example often because I'm familiar with it, not because I expect other games to be like it), a player with 800 dollars can kill a player with 16000 dollars based on skill alone. Now, I'll freely admit that the economy system in CS is broken and unbalanced. But it's tied to individual maps. Go to a new map, and you're all even to start. Yes, you might join mid-map, but you only have to stick around a few minutes to go to a new map. Or you can just die two or three rounds and have as much money as anyone else. Sure, it's a time-sink, in a way. But it's a few minutes, not a few hours, or a few days, and that's the difference.

Think what you may. Like what games you may. I don't really mind, and I'll even be happy for you that you've found a game you enjoy. Really, Natter, it doesn't bother me that you enjoy BF2. But don't suggest that there's something inherently wrong with my stance if you can't come up with any reason for it. Don't brazenly assume that my dislike for that style of game is rooted in my enjoyment of CS. What you don't realize is this: Back in June '05 I got a broadband connection for the first time. Before that, I'd only played CS once. July '05 was the first LAN BF2 was played at. I started playing it then, less than a month after starting CS. I wasn't even familiar enough with CS to know map layouts. So don't go shitting out your mouth when you don't know what you're talking about, buddy.

I guess there is nothing wrong with your 'stance' but I never did see why people play bland games.
I still don't know what point you where trying to make about you playing BF2 and then switching over to CS.

Anyway, what is bad about working for unlocks/points/guns/whatever in any game? How can you say that they make a game unbalanced when CS:S has it in disguise.
Take CS for example: you kill people and achieve objectives to get money to get a better gun. In BF2 and CoH4 you again kill people and achieve objectives, except the rewards are long term. This still makes little difference to an experienced player in CS as they will have no problem getting their equipment of choice in a small amount of time.
I would like to add, and this has been said before: CS:S keeps rewarding the winning players and the ‘losers’ keep losing. Now, how is this fair from your point of view when balance is what you want?

[TheBigShow]

There is little problem with higher levels being unbalanced in CoD4. The very first class you have available to you is more than adequate to compete with.

[QuietStorm]

I'll address your points when I get home from school, Natter, as my connection in-class is spotty.

As for your assertion regarding "stealing" games, smor: I don't ever illegally acquire games that I would otherwise buy or are worth buying.