Call of Duty 4: Modern Warfare - Gen. Discussion & Info

I'm nowhere near as experienced as IATBIF, but I gotta agree for the most part although I like the G36C better than the AK47. It does lack a little in the longer range shots but if you pick your cover well it's all good, I just really don't like the AK. Definitely need a full auto gun for close quarters in case you need to spray and pray getting surprised at a corner. Honestly, every opportunity I get I switch out my pistol for another weapon on the ground when the coast looks clear. Usually I just like a backup to switch to when my primary runs out or if I'm in a jam and I need to reload I can just switch guns instead and save a little time which can make a difference when getting rushed. Sometimes I will switch between weapons depending on circumstance like going to a sniper/lmg/ar fro distance shots, etc.
 
So how long do you all think COD4 will be alive for? I want to pick it up but I'm afraid it's too late to start playing.
 
[quote name='GTzerO']So how long do you all think COD4 will be alive for? I want to pick it up but I'm afraid it's too late to start playing.[/QUOTE]

It will likely be active until Fall 2009 when CoD6 comes out.

CoD5 is being made by Treyarch (CoD3) rather than Infinity Ward, and set in WWII again. So I doubt it will kill of the CoD4 player base.

If you're not good at online FPS the competition is pretty tough now since it's been out a while. But I still have fun even though my best games usually put me in the middle of the pack on my team, and most games I'm bringing up the rear.
 
[quote name='GTzerO']So how long do you all think COD4 will be alive for? I want to pick it up but I'm afraid it's too late to start playing.[/quote]


I will play it for as long as it is the standard. Also, like Maul said, there is little faith in Treyarch to produce a solid successor to COD4. So, unless they did things properly, World at War should not dent the love for COD4. However, Gears of War 2 will definitely suck away online multiplayer attention away from COD4 - but that comes out five months from now. Battlefield: Bad Company is a broken, inferior game. So I doubt anyone will find it amusing after the novelty has worn its welcome. The only other upcoming game with any potential to steal online multiplayer time away from COD4 is Brothers in Arms: Hell's Company, and given the intentional inaccuracy of their shooting system in past games, I don't see it as competition. Of course, if more people would play Team Fortress 2 there would be two solid games to switch between. ;)
 
Yea but I'm actually still pretty excited to see the premiere trailer of CoD5 later tonight.
fucking 360 dash keeps on annoying me about it.

The game still has a chance of being good maybe even badass.... nah probably just good.
 
[quote name='Littlefields']I'm gonna ask you guys, because it seems like a lot of you are experienced. Can anyone give me some recommendations of perks or overall class configurations for Search and Destroy? Particularly in shooting distances of Downpour. I'm having some trouble as I play S&D more and more now. When it comes to close range maps I generally use SMG's and it seems pretty effective. But in maps like Downpour where close range change to far range in a few seconds, it's hard to switch tactics.[/quote]


For me, what works is this:

AK 47 Silenced (G36 silenced works as well, but I prefer the AK)
Claymore
Stopping Power
Steady Aim

I tend to get a lot of kills using this combo.
 
For search and destroy whatever your setup is make a duplicate one except have one with claymores and one with bomb squad.
On defend obviously use claymores to guard the bomb sites.
But when your attacking claymores don't help much but with bomb squad you wont run into enemy claymores like bumbling idiot.

Also smoke grenades can help provide cover in moving to the target between the nearest cover.
 
[quote name='dmaul1114']

If you're not good at online FPS the competition is pretty tough now since it's been out a while. But I still have fun even though my best games usually put me in the middle of the pack on my team, and most games I'm bringing up the rear.[/quote]

Alright, thanks guys. Seems like how I am at most FPS.
 
[quote name='chasemurata']I will play it for as long as it is the standard. Also, like Maul said, there is little faith in Treyarch to produce a solid successor to COD4. So, unless they did things properly, World at War should not dent the love for COD4. However, Gears of War 2 will definitely suck away online multiplayer attention away from COD4 - but that comes out five months from now. Battlefield: Bad Company is a broken, inferior game. So I doubt anyone will find it amusing after the novelty has worn its welcome. The only other upcoming game with any potential to steal online multiplayer time away from COD4 is Brothers in Arms: Hell's Company, and given the intentional inaccuracy of their shooting system in past games, I don't see it as competition. Of course, if more people would play Team Fortress 2 there would be two solid games to switch between. ;)[/quote]Chase, you did the beta, right? How about the demo? I've heard the demo was a lot better than the beta. The reviews have been pretty positive so far and the game seems fairly appealing to me by the reviews (ie, the negatives don't seem too bad to me and the positives seem pretty cool). I was just going to ignore it, but I'm coming around to finally playing a Battlefield game. Or I'll just pop in that Battlefield 2 I got for $5 at Kmart the other day. I'll definitely be checking out the demo.

As for the longevity of COD, I'd say it'll be awhile. Gears is still a highly played game according to published numbers. Like Chase, I think COD will hold it's own for awhile. It's really addictive like crack in HD and even if COD5 is good, it'll be a different style of play and not improvements on CoD4 a la Madden 09 replacing 08. Gears 2 will take away a lot of players, but they'll be back. I know I will be.
 
Unlike many of you, I actually have some faith in Treyarch. Just because Infinity War isn't producing this one doesn't mean it's gonna be total crap compared to IF's games. This one seems to have great potential.

In terms of COD games, I think Treyarch handled it pretty well. COD2: BRO and COD3 were both pretty good following the original IF variants. IMO, very underapreciated. I just think people see Treyarch's COD games as worst because of it's similarity to it's predecessor. The sequels and prequels and what not, all where pushed on to Treyarch with limited expandability; causing the games to be very similar to the games before. (The IF ones.) This time it seems like they boosted up some features, I really hope it won't be too similar to COD4. Don't get me wrong, it's good to follow COD4's examples in gameplay and overall experience. But bad to just slap on a new color coding and call it a new game.
 
Yeah, they had two years this time, vs. 11 months to do CoD3 so maybe it will turn out better.

The WWII setting is a bummer though. I was never a gigantic fan of the setting and it's so played out.

I much prefer the modern war setting of CoD4--and generally prefer non-realistic shooters like Halo, Gears, Bioshock, Half Life etc.
 
[quote name='jdawgg76']Chase, you did the beta, right? How about the demo? I've heard the demo was a lot better than the beta. The reviews have been pretty positive so far and the game seems fairly appealing to me by the reviews (ie, the negatives don't seem too bad to me and the positives seem pretty cool). I was just going to ignore it, but I'm coming around to finally playing a Battlefield game. Or I'll just pop in that Battlefield 2 I got for $5 at Kmart the other day. I'll definitely be checking out the demo.

As for the longevity of COD, I'd say it'll be awhile. Gears is still a highly played game according to published numbers. Like Chase, I think COD will hold it's own for awhile. It's really addictive like crack in HD and even if COD5 is good, it'll be a different style of play and not improvements on CoD4 a la Madden 09 replacing 08. Gears 2 will take away a lot of players, but they'll be back. I know I will be.[/quote]

I actually only played the demo, sir. :D And reviewed it in angered depth. :oops:

http://chasingculture.com/1/2008/06/05/battlefield-bad-company-is-bad-company-demo-review-follow-up/

I may give Bad Company a rent if I find out they tweaked things in the final release. Maybe.

And yes, they'll be back. They will be back sooner than they know. Muahaha...

*rubs crystal ball* :hot:

Billy Crystal: "O_O;"

Call of Duty 4 is my steed. I'll ride other horses for play, but when I go to battle, Call of Duty 4 is between my legs. :whistle2:$
 
See, I look at it in terms of both single player and multiplayer. The SP in 2 and 4 both had so many cinematic goosebump causing moments. COD3 had no such moment in the entire single player campaign.

I loved the multiplayer of COD2 at the time, and theres no questioning my love for COD4 multiplayer. The main thing that really bothered me about COD3's multiplayer was the vehicles. They just felt completely tacked on just to put another item in the features list. Their inclusion in the next COD game worries me. Vehicles aside, the multiplayer was actually pretty solid.

Overall I'm pretty bummed about the setting being WWII again, and the inclusion of vehicles, but I'm not immediately writing it off as being a terrible game straight out of the gate, just not as good as if IW had made it.
 
I still have faith (faith, faith, faith).

213qcg0.png
 
[quote name='GTzerO']So how long do you all think COD4 will be alive for? I want to pick it up but I'm afraid it's too late to start playing.[/quote]

A long time, which is unfortunate because it really isn't that great of a game.
 
[quote name='help1']A long time, which is unfortunate because it really isn't that great of a game.[/quote]

Well, I liked the beta.

Also, that's the problem with online games. Whether it's good or not can sometimes take backseat to how many people are playing it. I loved TF2 but it seems like not many others did...at least not on the 360. It was kinda hard to find games at times.
 
[quote name='help1']A long time, which is unfortunate because it really isn't that great of a game.[/quote]


The game is good, it's just that compared to the robust options in Halo 3 it will probably have a shorter shelf life. I think when Infinity Ward does their next game they can include a true ranking system instead of what is in COD4 and online stats and that will really add to the games shelf life. That gives players goals they actually have to achieve through improving ones skill, and not just by playing it for a long time.
 
Guile, Call of Duty 4 is so much better than Halo (which I used to love) that it isn't even a competition. I can't even stand to play daily.

Help1, do you bash everything? Serious question; nothing personal. That's all I ever see from you is bashing posts.

[quote name='GTzerO']Well, I liked the beta.

Also, that's the problem with online games. Whether it's good or not can sometimes take backseat to how many people are playing it. I loved TF2 but it seems like not many others did...at least not on the 360. It was kinda hard to find games at times.[/QUOTE]

That's the problem I have with TF2. I want to like it, but few people are ever playing and the games I join are lag-fests that literally 9 times our of 10 end in host disconnect.
 
[quote name='help1']A long time, which is unfortunate because it really isn't that great of a game.[/quote]

How long can you keep trolling this game? Isn't this your thread too?
 
I do agree that CoD4 needs a true ranking system like Halo 3, where it's based on skill rather than just how much you play (skill affects how quickly you rank up--but there's not cap on how far you can go regardless of your skill level).

Random games are more fun when you get matched up with people of your skill level--the rank throws that off. I'm at level 54, in halo I don't think I ever got my skill above 7 or 8 in any of the modes (though I didn't play that nearly as much as I have CoD4). So I generally suck in CoD4 since I'm getting matched up with people at or WAY above my experience rank--and especially way above my sucky skilly level.

So while I love CoD4 and don't care that much for Halo 3 online, he does make a good point about the ranking system.
 
[quote name='dmaul1114']I do agree that CoD4 needs a true ranking system like Halo 3, where it's based on skill rather than just how much you play (skill affects how quickly you rank up--but there's not cap on how far you can go regardless of your skill level).

Random games are more fun when you get matched up with people of your skill level--the rank throws that off. I'm at level 54, in halo I don't think I ever got my skill above 7 or 8 in any of the modes (though I didn't play that nearly as much as I have CoD4). So I generally suck in CoD4 since I'm getting matched up with people at or WAY above my experience rank--and especially way above my sucky skilly level.

So while I love CoD4 and don't care that much for Halo 3 online, he does make a good point about the ranking system.[/QUOTE]

it sort of has that type of a skill system though. if you play in a mercenary team deathmatch (no parties) than it balances the teams based off of skill level. even if it looks like it is stacking one team over the other, say it gives two 10th prestiges to one team and none to the other, one of those 10th prestiges is usually really bad or their team gets stuck with the worst players in the room while everyone on the other team is about average.

another example was that me and one of the people in my clan were playing a team deathmatch the other night. he is a 10th prestige and the name i am using now is i think a 5th prestige. the other team basically had average players at best, their highest amount of kills from one person was like 15 and two or three others had around 10 on their team. my and my clan member both had 15+ kills in both matches we played in there, he had 16 in the first and i had like 30 or so and we lost. it was the same teams the next game and we barely won even though i had 27 kills and my clan member had 28. between the two of us, we went 55 and 18 (550 to 180). it balanced the teams and gave us the bad players who at most had 5 kills for either match.
 
[quote name='SoulReaver']Ehhh....I don't really like Halo's reward for ranking, as there basically is none...COD 4 actually rewards you with guns, perks, camo, etc.[/QUOTE]

What I mean is it needs a combination of both.

An EXP system to unlock perks, guns etc.

But a skill based level ranking that's used for the matchmaking so you're playing people closer to your skill level regardless of how long you play and earn EXP.

[quote name='IAmTheBiggestInuyashaFan']it sort of has that type of a skill system though. if you play in a mercenary team deathmatch (no parties) than it balances the teams based off of skill level. even if it looks like it is stacking one team over the other, say it gives two 10th prestiges to one team and none to the other, one of those 10th prestiges is usually really bad or their team gets stuck with the worst players in the room while everyone on the other team is about average.
[/QUOTE]

The problem is that it's based on ranks/prestigies which have little to do with skill. Probably 98% of people were better than me when they were at level 54. I mean shit, I'm around 60 hours in and only at level 54.

It's especially a problem when the game is out for a long time, as now there aren't many noobs some I'm always in games with multi-prestiges. So yeah, the teams may be balanced, but I'm still going negative and bringing up the rear.

With halo's system, I throw it in now and I'm getting in games with people fairly close to my skill level even this long after release since the matchmaking is based on skill (if you set it up that way) rather than playtime/EXP.
 
[quote name='GTzerO']Well, I liked the beta.

Also, that's the problem with online games. Whether it's good or not can sometimes take backseat to how many people are playing it. I loved TF2 but it seems like not many others did...at least not on the 360. It was kinda hard to find games at times.[/quote]

i am going to speak for some of the CAG's that play regular with me.... Get CoD4.... i'll be playing it with you until CoD6, along with Khondor.
 
[quote name='Matt Young']

Help1, do you bash everything? Serious question; nothing personal. That's all I ever see from you is bashing posts.


[/quote]

Huh? I was just saying this game isn't nearly as good as everyone says it is. If was fun for about the first month or so, but after that it was quite repetitive.

As for bashing things, I don't think I bash all that much? Just the big titles which receive undue praise, like COD 4, SSBB, GTA 4. That doesn't mean I hate those games, I just wish people would realize that they aren't nearly as good as they make them out to be.

As for your Halo comment, every game on Halo can feel unique and different, and there are just so many more options and abilities. This is where COD 4 fails. Every match on shipment or countdown or any map for that matter really feels the same, as if I already played the match before. Maybe it was just me, but I also felt like everyone was using the same exact setup. Whatever.

I really don't think I bash everything... I just keep it real. Halo is a great game, its just frustrating at times and I hate the AR. Gears of war is a great game, but no matchmaking and the overpowered shotgun made it less epic. etc etc
 
[quote name='BackInBlack']How long can you keep trolling this game? Isn't this your thread too?[/quote]


Posting my opinion in an educated manner is trolling? Sorry.

Next time I will go all out like:

OMFG THIZ GAM3 SUXXXXXXXXXXXXX H4LO4LYFE BITCHES!

It isn't a BAD game, I am just saying it gets stale.
 
In any event, I gave away Halo 3 weeks after buying it because I found it so very boring. Again, it's a matter of preference. The question was pitched and is open to all CAGs. No harm, no foul.
 
[quote name='chasemurata']In any event, I gave away Halo 3 weeks after buying it because I found it so very boring.[/quote]

I gave away Halo 3 weeks after buying it because the disc wouldn't work on my 360.

I kind of regret it. H3 online was awesome at times.
 
H3 just isnt as addicting at H2 was, plus I dont like Halo 3's gameplay. When I aim the reticule at someone I expect it to hit them, I shouldnt have to lead someone when they are 20 ft. in front of me.

I like Call of Duty because when I aim the reticule at someone the bullets actually hit them.
 
Probably because CoD4's auto aim is like a magnet and superglue hybrid. It's the primary reason why everyone whines and complains about the M16. You aim, all 3 shots hit and the enemy is dead.
 
[quote name='Man of Ice']Probably because CoD4's auto aim is like a magnet and superglue hybrid. It's the primary reason why everyone whines and complains about the M16. You aim, all 3 shots hit and the enemy is dead.[/QUOTE]

at the same time, someone with a natural good shot gets affected by this in a bad way, especially snipers. i would love to take the auto aim off myself, it screws me up more than helps me. anyways, people complain about the m16 because of how insanely accurate, powerful, and long ranged it is. it is the overall best weapon in the game hands down with a red dot sight on it. it can easily beat most SMG's in CQC in a decent players hands, it can easily beat a sniper long range, especially since snipers can take 2-3 shots to kill someone without juggernaut if you don't get a headshot, even with stopping power. the only other weapon that even stands a chance is a rpd with a grip and steady aim if you ask me.
 
I still have no idea what anyone means when they refer to "auto aim." Is it the snap-onto-targets thing in the single-player story mode? Because that snap-onto-targets thing has never happened to me in online multiplayer. :shock: If so, how do I turn it on? :drool:
 
[quote name='chasemurata']I still have no idea what anyone means when they refer to "auto aim." Is it the snap-onto-targets thing in the single-player story mode? Because that snap-onto-targets thing has never happened to me in online multiplayer. :shock: If so, how do I turn it on? :drool:[/QUOTE]

it is a sticky aim i guess you could say. grab a sniper rifle and go to a private match with 2 players on the other team. aim at one and have the other person cross in front of him and you will see what we are talking about. it is the same when you aim down the sights on any weapon, it automatically picks them up if you aren't already aiming which is how most players use the m16 (hence the main reason people thing the gun is so overpowered). you will see most people use this to their advantage, if they lose their lock on you, they will let go and aim down again for the auto aim.
 
I know I use auto-aim a lot when it comes to the M16 and M4. You get an idea of where someone is and just sort of move the reticle around. You'll "feel" it move a little more slowly or be hesitant to move further. That's when you know you should open fire. Of course it takes a little time tot get used to it, the whole thing only takes a split second.
 
[quote name='Man of Ice']I know I use auto-aim a lot when it comes to the M16 and M4. You get an idea of where someone is and just sort of move the reticle around. You'll "feel" it move a little more slowly or be hesitant to move further. That's when you know you should open fire. Of course it takes a little time tot get used to it, the whole thing only takes a split second.[/QUOTE]

i stay away from auto-aiming myself. i anticipate where people are coming from (usually we have tons of UAV's), so i am down ahead of time so i don't auto aim. if i run into someone i don't expect, i usually just hip fire anyways. the auto aim is good and bad, for someone with a good shot it really does mess someone up more often than not and it usually saves a bad shot because they just spray when they lock on.
 
For me, the auto-aim backfires big time when your faced with 2+ enemies in a close range. You're trying to move the reticle and get behind something at the same time and your reticle is stuck while the other guy is using you for target practice. I've gotten used to auto-aim simply because I've been using it for years now on consoles. I used to be great with the headshots on PC FPS, but since I stopped shelling out cash for GFX cards I've become a console mongrel (of course I've made my peace with that).
 
[quote name='chasemurata']I still have no idea what anyone means when they refer to "auto aim." Is it the snap-onto-targets thing in the single-player story mode? Because that snap-onto-targets thing has never happened to me in online multiplayer. :shock: If so, how do I turn it on? :drool:[/quote]


It is automatically on. It isn't that noticable, but after playing it on PC and then 360, it is evident the 360 version has some autoaim.
 
[quote name='life.exe']H3 just isnt as addicting at H2 was, plus I dont like Halo 3's gameplay. When I aim the reticule at someone I expect it to hit them, I shouldnt have to lead someone when they are 20 ft. in front of me.

I like Call of Duty because when I aim the reticule at someone the bullets actually hit them.[/quote]

You should check out your connection. I never have that problem.
 
[quote name='help1']You should check out your connection. I never have that problem.[/quote]


Unless you 4-5 shot someone every time with the BR, you have that problem.
 
[quote name='Matt Young']Guile, Call of Duty 4 is so much better than Halo (which I used to love) that it isn't even a competition. I can't even stand to play daily.

[/quote]


I like both games a lot. They both have the best controls of any other console FPS. They both have rabid fanbases.

The modern setting in COD4 is what appeals to me the most. The game's atmosphere really immerses you in the action. Bullet penetration is really cool and the real settings make it for me. I love the fact that there is no friendly fire killing in most modes. Plus, the game is glorious in HD.

Halo's vehicles really make it standout. Plus, Bungie's site, weekly double XP, and other features such as screenshots, movies, forge really enrich the community aspect of the game more than any console game I can think of.

At any rate, both will be in my collection for as long as I have a 360.
 
[quote name='Man of Ice']For me, the auto-aim backfires big time when your faced with 2+ enemies in a close range. You're trying to move the reticle and get behind something at the same time and your reticle is stuck while the other guy is using you for target practice. I've gotten used to auto-aim simply because I've been using it for years now on consoles. I used to be great with the headshots on PC FPS, but since I stopped shelling out cash for GFX cards I've become a console mongrel (of course I've made my peace with that).[/quote]
Fire from the hip. People underestimate the accuracy from not using your sights, way too much. On some maps, I rarely even use my sights.
 
[quote name='Littlefields']Fire from the hip. People underestimate the accuracy from not using your sights, way too much. On some maps, I rarely even use my sights.[/QUOTE]

i agree with this completely, the only thing i would suggest is that if it is a fairly small map (assuming that is the reason for hip firing), use steady aim. i only use 4 of the perks from that division. deep impact (m16 class only, which unless 4 out of 6 players on the other team are using it, i wont touch it), extreme conditioning (SMG and Assault 2 class), steady aim (LMG class), and iron lungs (sniper class).

maps like vacant, shipment, wetwork, and showdown i tend to hip fire the most on when i run and gun. i highly suggest using steady aim on at least one class for these maps since if by some chance you run into a couple guys, you really have no where to run and hip firing will be your best bet.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
bread's done
Back
Top