User Reviews (21 - 31 of 288)

Show these reviews first:

Highest Rated
Lowest Rated Newest
Oldest Most Helpful
Least Helpful

Decent But Frantic

3 Rating: 3, Useful: 4 / 6
Date: December 25, 2007
Author: Amazon User

From the buzz around this game, I was expecting it to be considerably better than past CoD titles -- but it seems like it has a lot of the same core issues. I've had fun with CoD -- this one also -- but the way people are treating the game like an infallible, beyond-reproach religion seems uncalled for.

The campaign modes on CoD have always been very linear, even by FPS standards. To me, though, this one feels even more that way than past entries. Playing through the campaign, it felt like I was on rails. There are a number of stages in the game where it just up and tells you to "press X to do [special action]". Er, if the game's just going to tell you to do that, what's the challenge? Beyond that, though, as with past CoDs, most levels of this campaign involve the player standing somewhere and shooting wave after wave of bad guys until the game lets you move on. There are no alternative ways to accomplish objectives and, really, no rhyme or reason as to how many bad guys happen to be in a particular spot. You just keep shooting until they tell you it's time to move on. To me, that makes for dull, repetitive gameplay.

I've spent a lot more time with the online play -- I have online friends who are fervent believers in the game (they treat it like religion, yes), which makes it an appealing title for hanging out in. However, online play suffers, to me, for some key reasons. For one, the game has "power ups". I can see having power ups for Mario Modern Warfare, but for a game that tries to pass itself off as a "realistic" modern shooter, that seems a poor design decision. How is it "realistic" that every time a player dies, they're able to pull the pin on a grenade and punish their opponent for having killed them at close range? You get to a particular level and *now* you can choose to have your bullets hit harder?

It's also aggravating that power-ups and additional weapons are only made available to more experienced players. That wouldn't be such a bad thing per se, except that noobs get dumped in the same games as vets, which means that the more experienced players not only have the advantages of knowing the maps and the intricacies of the gameplay, but they ALSO have better weapons and more useful power-ups.

Apart from visual display, realism was never a strength of past CoD titles. Nothing different here. In online play, you can put several rounds into your enemy's chest without much happening. And if you ever actually get hurt -- by having an M16 round pass through your carotid artery let's say -- just find some cover and wait a few seconds: all better! (Unless someone re-spawns right behind you, in which case the miracle never quite gets completed.)

Finally, gameplay is outright frantic -- moreso even than with past CoD games. I'm sure this is mostly a matter of taste, but it always feels like there are too many players on too small of a map. There are many instances where players are getting capped before they realize where they've spawned. As such, the game rewards hyper-aggressive gameplay and punishes players who are more methodical (guess which camp I'm in?). Really, what's the sense in giving a player in Team Deathmatch a higher rating for having 10 kills but 25 deaths than a player who had 8 kills and 0 deaths? (I realize there are other game types that reward persistent survival -- but that doesn't explain why Team Deathmatch runs the way it does.) I don't mean to imply that the game favors brain-dead button-mashing -- it doesn't -- but it does severely favor one style of play, which limits the breadth of its appeal.

All that said, the game's not exactly worthless. You can obviously have fun with it, especially if you got an itchy trigger finger and enjoy racking up spoilsport "martyrdom" kills. The way your character advances through online play makes it interesting and even if I think power-ups are a stupid idea, the progression they go along with can be compelling.

If you *loved* past CoD titles, you'll probably love this one as well. For me, though? My favorite CoD title was #2. Not coincidentally, I bought it used for only $15. That would've been the right thing for me to have done with CoD4 as well. I can only hope that when I reach the next level I'll get the go-back-in-time power-up. Could use it to save myself $45.

Awesome!!! Best First Person Shooter By Far!!!

5 Rating: 5, Useful: 5 / 9
Date: November 06, 2007
Author: Amazon User

I was part of the beta tester and finally this day came on. This is the best multiplayer experience i've ever had. Oh my gad!!! You really think your in a WAR. Play it on HDTV with surround sound and you will see what am i talking about. Buy it please.

Try the demo before you buy - dissapointing when compared to other games in the same genre

2 Rating: 2, Useful: 11 / 31
Date: November 26, 2007
Author: Amazon User

I was dissapointed in two areas, enough to give it a 2 star rating:

1 - in-scene/game experience - when compared to Battlefield 2, Ghost Recon (GRAW 2), and Halo 3, I found the game experience in COD4 very linear and constrained. In this respect, it is closer to Medal of Honor Airborne, which I prefer from the recent batch of games in this genre.

2 - graphics - it did not find it as visual compelling and presenting as rich of an environment as GRAW 2 or Halo 3

On the positive side, it felt consistent in terms of performance (fps) and the cut scenes are very interesting and well made.

Overall, I recommend trying it out before buying, so that you are not disappointed afterwards.

Call of Duty 4

5 Rating: 5, Useful: 3 / 4
Date: November 06, 2007
Author: Amazon User

This game is the best FPS available on the market today. There is non stop action, exceptional graphics and the game play cannot be explained in words. Halo 3 has nothing on Call of Duty 4.........

call of duty 4

3 Rating: 3, Useful: 3 / 4
Date: January 14, 2008
Author: Amazon User

Kinda feel ripped off...the game is great effect wise but it was over too quick...I think $50 is too much too pay for such little entertainment...and I don't happen to be an online player so I get no residual value.

Over-rated: Online gaming is the same old thing

3 Rating: 3, Useful: 3 / 4
Date: March 29, 2008
Author: Amazon User

I bought this game eagerly based on the overwhelmingly positive reviews. The graphics are impressive. The game is very slick and the weapons are fun, except the WWII shooter residual of iron sites.

The problem on the campaign is as pointed out elsewhere: linear play and endlessly spawning enemy until reaching some non-satisfying objective.

The online play has numerous problems, the first of which is that it is the same old twitch-style gaming with no strategy, little or no team play, and the same game modes. The games go very, very fast with most players rushing to the red dots of gunfire, while a few sneak around behind. Additionally, in four days of play, I saw no vehicle warfare other than award helicopters.

The online game selection interface allows no real choices to select map preferences. Most of the games end early due to "server connection" problems. This has happened to me in all game types at all times of the day.

The "new" part of this game is the award system that gives players with more experience playing the game better weapons from the outset. This is a critical problem as it just makes it even easier to kill, giving even more awards (like airstrikes and helicopter) to allow more kills, etc. It also takes all the balance out of the combat roles.

This game is obviously liked by many people- and that is great for them. My advice is to read the positive and negative reviews and see what makes sense to you. I recommend "Fuel of War" as a more strategic and balanced game with integrated vehicle play, very balanced roles and maps, and a slower rate of play that allows the user to decide how much to get involved in the action.

Over rated. See now you can skip my review...

3 Rating: 3, Useful: 5 / 10
Date: April 04, 2008
Author: Amazon User

Well I'd been holding back from buying CoD4:MW for a while. As I'm sure you have read it has a really short SP, but I caved recently and wow am I both impressed and disappointed.

Single Player. Yes it IS a short campaign. Much shorter than say GR:AW 1 and considerably shorter than GoW. Several extra SP cardinal sins are going on here too though - on replay you have to endure the cut scenes/voice overs including very extended scenes where your only input is camera movements and I'm talking many minutes. I found myself mashing the A button, the start the back the X and so on, and that was merely on the second run though. I'd say 15% of the SP campaign is unskippable cut scenes. Factor that in when calculating the total SP play time you get.

There are several other pet hates here too - aside from the exact linear levels, there's many of them which are "Get to position X in five minutes, then get to position Y in two minutes, now on to Z" Each with decreasing time to get to the position. I HATE this form of tension creating in games. But to add to it are the never-ending spawning bad guys. You end up running like an idiot rather than killing anyone. I mean they are unlimited in their number so why bother killing them?

There are MANY levels like this. Get to the roof. Oops it took two seconds too long so start again. Oh no you died because you didn't expect the same enemy in the same place over and over again. In the end you feel like you're playing a graphically amazing version of Dragon's Lair.

Speaking of graphics, they dart from photorealistic to shoddy and crude. This is apparent in daylight levels where the low-rez textures out number the next gen look. Why?

So I guess after completing the SP campaign on the same night I moved onto MULTIPLAYER. And boy what a pile of nonsense that is.

Firstly, CoD:MW employees a unique MP - almost RPG in its nature. You will get owned when you first join a game. Death after death. Why? Because you have to earn your health, your weapons, your extras and your skills.

Your newbieness is instantly announced upon entry to the game merely by your rank. Your more experienced opponents can shoot through walls, call in air-support, place trip mines, use a sniper rifle (yes such weapons are not for peons like newbies like us), and so on. Each MP game rewards you with XP and eventually you get a different class to choose from.

I've never felt more out numbered in a free for all match in my life. As if not knowing the level, the weapons, the flow, the tactics was bad enough, well imagine that then imagine that on top you have the other folks who can totally destroy you instantly the moment you move.

I felt MP in this game was a waste of time.

All in all a short SP game with a horribly elitist MP makes this a rental at best. Consider this before placing your hard-earned $50 on a completely over-rated game that will last a week.

Poor multiplayer capabilities + dizzy machine = bad product

2 Rating: 2, Useful: 8 / 22
Date: November 13, 2007
Author: Amazon User

I was very excited at getting this game...watching all the youtube postings and it was great fun. But that was more fun then playing the game itself. The first thing that bothers me is that there is no single player campaign co-op. Also, if you want to go online to xbox live, you can't go online with multiple people from your console...only one person. Which means if you wanted to play with you friends they all have to get consoles and the game...total bummer.

Lastly, I feel like I've played lots of shooters...Gears of war, rainbow six...but for some reason this game really moves too fast..and just makes you want to puke haha...probably not a problem for most...maybe i'm too used to gears of war

The graphics are pretty good with some great scenes but this is probably a rental not something to add to your library.

tactics warfare

5 Rating: 5, Useful: 6 / 15
Date: November 05, 2007
Author: Amazon User

that is what CO#3 should it be done, by infinite ward. they know what a call of duty is about, call of duty 4 is the game to play .well done exellente controls as the original. the only bit of backward is the new way of the objective location poin , kind of confused. but the game is the real deal I recomended this game to all call of duty fans. look to me that halo 3 is past now .since is been the same game . call of duty 4 is the game of play.

Quite an advancement in FPS games

5 Rating: 5, Useful: 2 / 2
Date: November 07, 2007
Author: Amazon User

Up front, let me say this. I am not a "hardcore" gamer, and for the most part I stick to FPS games. But all the same, this game is truly far beyond anything I've played, including Bioshock and Halo 3 and every WWII FPS I've played. The graphics are far beyond even Bioshock, the story-lines are generally short but much more compelling than Halo 3 could ever pretend to be, and the battle-simulation is far more convincing than any of the other games I've tried. I have to admit, after the first mission I was breathing more quickly and my heart was racing. No other game has ever elicited that sort of response.

Sorry to disappoint all the fan boys out there, but this game smacks down Halo 3 and even Bioshock in about every meaningful way: storyline, graphics, online game play, "fun" factor. If this game does not win GOTY, then then the system must be rigged.

Veterans of the army and marines will appreciate the (sometimes newer) versions of the same weapons we used in our time - although the M249 and M16 variants never feed-jam, which is totally unrealistic! Some of the audio is not quite right, too, but unless you've actually fired the weapon in question you'll not likely care much. It kind of creeped me out looking down the iron sights of an M16/M4 variant - kind of got a flashback, but not the bad kind. Had to retrain my trigger finger to semi/3-round versus the semi/full-auto weapons you get used to in the other fps's. Was pretty cool to plant a claymore in the first mission, too. "Front towards enemy"!

Having witnessed the effects of AC-130 Gunships firsthand, the part of the story where you man the gunner's station is much fun! The graphics during the sniper portion - the Ghillie suits are amazing graphically, and one of the weapons is a .50cal Barrett sniper rifle, not to mention that the storyline is flexible to the point where you can choose to engage or evade targets. Patience, grasshopper. Being able to call in airstrikes in some missions is a huge plus, too, and you can pick anywhere you want.

This game really is a couple steps above anything else I've played. It was well worth the price, unlike most games.

The online experience is first-rate, too, although I really liked the MOH:Airborne online gameplay, too. But COD4 has tremendous maps, graphics, audio, and a much better "instant replay" system. There are no online achievements - I thought that a little odd but after playing the game I realize that this is a game to just play for the sheer fun of it. Forget about achievements, it's better to just have fun!

Review Page: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next 

Actions