
There are "no massive renovations in the AI department. ... they're pretty much the clever-clogs Nazis we've shot before." (9) "The enemies aren't the smartest lot, as they are formidable thanks more to their numbers than their IQ." (3) "There are going to be moments when enemies get stuck in dumb routines or stand in the open waiting to be mowed down." (2) "However, some of them have definitely missed their calling as an NFL quarterback -- tossing grenades 100 yards, dropping them right at your feet time and again." (3)
Your squad mates are no better. "It is a little annoying when you figure out that your highly trained and specialized team is totally dependant on you in every situation." (8) "There were several moments when it would've helped for my friends to be a little more proactive. Once, when we were flanked by enemies from both sides, Captain Price just sat there, kneeling, waiting for me to make a miracle happen. If he would have popped a few shots at one of the guys so that I could go after the other, that would have helped a lot--not to mention make the game more realistic." (1)

The difficulty never feels just right. "Like Halo 3, the Normal level is just a bit too easy, and most players will be able to get through it
without too much trouble." (6) But, "thanks to the more powerful enemies and less powerful armor, Hardened is ... frequently a repetitive frustration." (4) "Some of the levels are just downright hard" (7) and "there are certain 'brick wall' areas that overwhelm you with punishing enemy fire and little recourse." (4) "It can also be a bit counter productive when you have to restart several minutes back from the place you died. And in a few missions near the end, this irritated me to point where I wanted to scream." (8)
"Considering you spend almost the entire campaign with the same squadmates, the hope (and even expectation) for online co-op is not unwarranted." (2) "Call of Duty 4 is the perfect game to experience with another player ... but the developers seemed to forget this. ... Something that Rainbow Six: Vegas, Halo 3, and Gears of War did to perfection, COD4 did not attempt at all." (7)
"There have been a lot of people questioning how long Call of Duty 4 is." (6) "As some rumors on the internet have stated the single player campaign is not the longest thing ever created." (7) "On Regular difficulty, you can probably beat COD4 in 5 - 6 hours. ... it's a very brief experience." (2) "The single-player campaign in Call of Duty 4 is a little on the short side." (3) "It is short." (5)
Welcome back to the Joystiq Nega-review... your source for all those middling negatives from a variety of glowing reviews that, when strung together, make a great game seem awful. We do this not because we hate games that are obviously excellent, but to highlight the fact that even the best game has its problems and no game is perfect.
It should be said that a lot of the negatives in this particular Nega-review were points of major disagreement among reviewers. While the reviewers quoted above were upset with the enemy and allied AI, other reviewers singled it out as being excellent. Also, while everyone agreed that the game was short, many saw this a a positive in this busy day and age.
Sources
(1) GameTap
(2) IGN
(3) GameTrailers
(4) 1UP
(5) CheatCC
(6) TeamXbox
(7) PlanetXbox360
(8) ActionTrip
(9) CVG












(Page 1) Reader Comments
Reply
Reply
Reply
Reply
Lex Luthor took forty cakes. And that's terrible. That's as many as four tens. He did it when no one was looking.
(though, technically, he only got away with 39, one fell off the back of the cart)
the fire pit and i said 'Goodbye' and you were like 'NO WAY', and then I
was all 'We pretended we were going to murder you'? That was great.
Reply
Reply
Although they said it in the commercials, "The battles change, but the soldiers don't"
Reply
I'm sorry, but if you're going to ask me to $60 for one game, I kind of expect it to have a bit more entertainment value than $10/hour. Short can be great, sure - heck, look at Portal - but I also wouldn't have paid $60 just for Portal either, no matter how much awesome it happens to contain.
Reply
First person shooters are normally 6-10 hours long.
Most of the attention is directed towards multiplayer which could played for hours andhours and hours and hours and hours.
...get it?
But then I guess you could also just say that I'm the anti-social sort of person who prefers playing a long single-player game over getting his ass handed to him by playing against other people. I'll leave that to you. :)
Although Multiplayer has been a tacked on feature in games of the past, it has become a more weighted feature in modern video games. Some might say that it has become a genera on it's own. COD2 had a great single player campaign, however I didn't play it every night for three months. The online multiplayer is what kept that game running off shelves for months after it's release. (creating the 360's first platinum hit)
If you are looking for a long lasting single player experience I don't think First Person Shooters are your Bag.
...and please don't bring in movies/restaurants/etc. That is an apples/oranges comparison, and has no bearing to your argument on the cost of a game that is short vs. long. On that basis, I would now expect ALL movies to last 3 (LotR) hours or only have to pay 1/2 price for movies that only last 1.5 hours (most other movies).
Although I will note that yes, production costs have gone up and the length of time spent to make a game "pretty" has gone up, thus you have $60 games with shorter lengths. But that also depends upon the developer/publisher budget/time constraints to push the game out the door.
I think the idea in most first person shooters today is to apply incentive for replay in the campaign. This has been a tactic of RPGs for ages. You walk back through the same area just now you have a staff! It's a good way to multiply the single player experience instead of just tacking on some extra levels.
Halo uses the skulls. COD is using this arcade concept. personaly I think it sounds intriguing. I am sure I'll try it out a few times.
I have no doubt that I am getting my 60 bucks worth buying this game.
With so many games coming out this season, and so many more on the horizon for 2008, I appreciate games that don't take too much time. I figure as long as a good story can be told, and fun can be had, the game shouldn't meet any sort of time minimum.
And yes, $60 for a 6 hour game may seem like much, but we don't really have the cheapest hobby here. I'm just glad I can probably finish this game off before Mario Galaxy comes out, and then another game can be started.
Let's just hope I can finish that one in time for the next big release.
Unless, of course, someone here can point me into the direction of a MP demo of COD4 for the PC, looks like i'll be waiting.
You like shooters, but don't like online multiplayer. Okay. You like a single player that lasts longer than 10 hours. Hmm.
Oh, I got it. Buy Mass Effect on Nov. 20th. You'll thank me later.
Isn't there room for different types of First Person Shooters? I agree some great games, excluding Geist, had great first person experiences with out the addition of multiplayer gameplay.
Bioshock seemed to get guff over it's lack of online multiplayer gameplay. Did it need it? NO!
Shadow Run was crusified for the LACK of a single player campaigne. (along with it's lack of MP maps)
Can it not be said that there is a middle path here. Some people, lets say me, enjoy a solid online MP system, but also enjoy a single player experience to introduce art style and game play mechanics.
Vegas had a watered down barely tolerable version of co op..... Especially compared to Halo and GoW...
Reply
I only have the nega-review to thank.
Reply
Although I'm emphatically waiting to buy this game, this slightly eases the drive. It reminded me of some of the annoying and semi-retarded things (like AI behavior) from past games in the series.
I didn't hear anything about multiplayer in the Nega-review besides "Call of Duty 4 is the perfect game to experience with another player ... but the developers seemed to forget this. ... Something that Rainbow Six: Vegas, Halo 3, and Gears of War did to perfection, COD4 did not attempt at all." (7)"
I've heard nothing but rave reviews about online play.
Reply
If you can't buy a game that scores in the 9s, what can you buy?
Reply
At some point you just have to want to be entertained.
Knowing what's good about a game comes easily, but finding out the little faults is a painstaking task. I'm glad someone else does it for me :)
Reply
Qq, qq qqq. Zomg qq. Qqqq, qq qq-qq. QQQ? Q, q, q. Qq.
Thanks for the review,
Greg
Reply
God forbid we clearly define good guys and bad guys. If, for instance, my enemy is somebody that decapitates innocent people, reporters, soldiers, you name it. I don't really want to spend a lot of time trying to understand him.
Reply
Reply
Seriously though, I hear what you're saying, I just found it humorous that a game genre based on weaponry devised for war is getting an upturned nose due to it being set in its natural and intended environment ;-)
This game is easily the greatest multiplayer experience of the year (unless you are into Halo 3 maybe) and it would be a shame if even one person read half of the nega-review and then didn't purchase the game. It's truly a mile ahead of any of the other Call of Duty games to date, and I'd consider it one of the must play games of the year.
Reply
As it stands, Joystiq is hardly mainstream media that the average Joe who's first console was a Wii would read, so your fears are quite unfounded.