Nega-review: Call of Duty 4

by Kyle Orland { Nov 6th 2007 at 4:57PM }

While Modern Warfare finally brings the Call of Duty series into the present day, "the story itself ... isn't exactly cutting edge." (2) "The story unfolds from an unapologetic 'us versus them, and they are wrong' perspective, with little time spent on the larger philosophy of war." (4) "The story fails to provide many twists. There's not much of a guessing game taking place here." (3) "The story flies by so fast," (1) but at the same time, "there are a few too many shell-shocked slow-mo moments that seem to drag." (2)

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)

"Friendly fire is an unfortunate part of war, but it doesn't need to be a part of a videogame." (2) "There are moments where it is really difficult to tell whether the person in your sights is a friend or foe." (5) "Enemies in some levels have the same color scheme as your own mates. Frankly, in the fray, it gets tough to tell friend from foe." (2) "Night vision goggles segments can be really conducive to friendly fire." (5) "Real is real, but there is a point where you have to say this is a game and you should more easily know good guys from bad guys." (2)

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 COD4 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)

Even at its abridged length, "the game hits a brick wall of mediocrity and you'll find yourself trudging unenthusiastically through the final hours of the game. A mixture of bad checkpoint placement, bizarre difficulty spikes, lazy design and blatant enemy spawn points suck the fun right out of proceedings. ... If I had a virtual highlighter pen I could mark out a distinct fraction of the game that's simply, inexcusably rubbish."(9)

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

Tags: activision, callofduty, cod, cod4, negareview

Reader Comments (Page 1 of 2)

Vegeta (aka Ska Oreo) @ Nov 6th 2007 4:59PM

God Help us.

Dan @ Nov 6th 2007 7:49PM

didn't ign give this game 9.4/10 !!??

Jerk Face @ Nov 6th 2007 5:04PM

So much work must go into putting these together and they're so dumb.

apoc06 @ Nov 6th 2007 6:03PM

this nega-review is actually more useful than most reviews. i need to know the downsides of a game. if i can live with the bad, then i know its a game i should own.

arrrgh @ Nov 6th 2007 5:04PM

stop. huhhh. nega-time!

Crono (NDF - Knight of the Old School) @ Nov 6th 2007 5:26PM

Can't touch this.

Zertoss @ Nov 6th 2007 5:08PM

They forgot to mention the complete lack of a Weighted Companion Cube.

Rususeruru @ Nov 6th 2007 5:13PM

They also forgot to mention the cake.

robert @ Nov 6th 2007 5:20PM

apparently, the cake was a lie.

StrangeBum @ Nov 6th 2007 6:12PM

I was just kidding about killing you. Lie down on your belly and await the party crew to come get you.

Vegeta (aka Ska Oreo) @ Nov 6th 2007 6:32PM

Lex stole cakes. 40 of them. And that's just terrible.

LaughingTarget @ Nov 6th 2007 6:37PM

Get it right:

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)

Edog Lost @ Nov 6th 2007 6:42PM

Get over it.. please.

Geist @ Nov 6th 2007 9:11PM

Remember when the platform was sliding into
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.

Jake @ Nov 7th 2007 8:17AM

I can't be wasting time with your foolish games when there is science to be done.

Seraphim @ Nov 6th 2007 5:13PM

these Nega reviews are quite good because now when you buy the game you know the faults in the game and you arn't suprised by the faults when they turn up. For example now i know when i buy cod4 that i shouldnt be expecting a great long, drawn out single play mode.

Shockgamer @ Nov 6th 2007 5:16PM

Nega-duck was the shiz..

Mr Khan @ Nov 6th 2007 5:18PM

Yeah, i like these Nega-reviews, it puts the spotlights on the game's flaws, which usually (unless they are glaring) are lost in the hype

Although they said it in the commercials, "The battles change, but the soldiers don't"

Mr Khan @ Nov 6th 2007 5:24PM

Also, i'm tired of these people bitching about the games being too hard, i mean, i know there's a limit (somewhere between Magician Lord hard and NES Ninja Gaiden hard), but this probably doesn't approach that

Joop @ Nov 6th 2007 8:20PM

Seconding the bitching about games being hard. It baffles me how people can call modern games, with nigh-instantaneous health regeneration, limitless do-overs, and auto saves every 30 seconds, too difficult. Almost every single person on my friend list has beaten Halo 3 on Legendary, but I don't know a single person who ever beat TMNT for the NES.

Geist @ Nov 6th 2007 9:15PM

I tried to play the original Super Mario Bros a year ago. Took me a goddamn long time and a ton of save states. Modern games are hard? My ass.

Alahmnat @ Nov 6th 2007 5:20PM

"Also, while everyone agreed that the game was short, many saw this a a positive in this busy day and age."

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.

jaybird1905 @ Nov 6th 2007 5:24PM

Do you not have an internet connection for your console??????????

mikeshea @ Nov 6th 2007 5:27PM

what the hell are you talking about?
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?

Alahmnat @ Nov 6th 2007 6:10PM

You'll excuse me if I say that no, I don't have an internet connection for my console at this point, and that I haven't particularly enjoyed the online multiplayer experiences I've had in the past, mainly because I don't have the time or patience required to really be all that good at it. Ultimately, for me, online multiplayer is an add-on, not the reason I'd buy the game in the first place. If the game doesn't present enough value to me without the multiplayer I'm unlikely to take much advantage of, I see little point in getting it. However, it's at this point that I acknowledge that obviously this game isn't aimed at me in the first place given the brevity of its single-player campaign; I just find fault in what seems to be an increasing shift toward charging the same amount of money for shorter and shorter titles.

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. :)

ScreamingSkull @ Nov 6th 2007 6:28PM

Wow, if you're not even "all that good" at them, why waste your money at all? And since when is 10$ an hour a bad rate to be entertained? Have you even been to a movie/bar/restaurant/theme park in the last decade?

Edog Lost @ Nov 6th 2007 6:57PM

I would have to agree with skull here.
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.

umm....hello??? @ Nov 6th 2007 7:00PM

Sorry. I agree with Alahmnat. I was really hoping for Halo3 to last a lot longer for the Campaign mode. Bioshock is also somewhat short, and that game IS single player only. This nega-review is perfect, because it just told Alahmnat that he only needs to spend $8 to rent this game at Blockbuster, beat it, and return it. The downside could be that maybe it IS a fantastic game that he'd really enjoy replaying (like Halo3/Bioshock single-player campaign mode---have you beaten Halo3 on Legendary mode by yourself with skulls enabled?? didn't think so.)

...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.

Edog Lost @ Nov 6th 2007 7:26PM

Umm.. Hello??

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.

jorojoserojas @ Nov 6th 2007 7:29PM

I have to disagree here. I'm with the camp that thinks that games are just too long now. I look over at my stack of games that I've had for months or years now, and only a precious few have been completed.

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.

DangerMouse @ Nov 6th 2007 7:31PM

Agreed. I want this game bad, but i'll wait for the price to drop. When it comes to multiplayer for me, it's either hit or miss, and 90% of the games i get turns out to be a miss. Games are becoming very short these days, and they're being replaced with multiplayer to cover it.

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.

Geist @ Nov 6th 2007 9:26PM

Damnit you people. You want an example of an FPS with great single player? System Shock 2. Deus Ex. Thief. They're awesome, have no great multiplayer (SS2 has co-op, but anyway), and their single-player experience is excellent. Standards are being lowered in a lot of areas recently, and this is really irritating.

Jake @ Nov 7th 2007 8:24AM

Alahmnat,

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.

Edog Lost @ Nov 7th 2007 12:25PM

@ Geist

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.

Intentless @ Nov 6th 2007 5:20PM

"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)

Vegas had a watered down barely tolerable version of co op..... Especially compared to Halo and GoW...

FoxHoundADAM @ Nov 6th 2007 5:23PM

Whew, and to think I almost bought this. Another $60 saved thanks to the nega-review. To think I almost bought Halo 3, The Orange Box and CoD4, what a waste of $180 that would have been.

I only have the nega-review to thank.

Dopple Boppler @ Nov 6th 2007 5:52PM

I lol'd.

jaybird1905 @ Nov 6th 2007 5:27PM

I love the Nega-reviews.

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.

Shockgamer @ Nov 6th 2007 5:29PM

Whether you're joking or not, that's why I only skimmed through the nega-reviews.

If you can't buy a game that scores in the 9s, what can you buy?

Jeff @ Nov 6th 2007 5:30PM

Games that you tried yourself-- via a demo, at friends house, etc-- and liked.

Shockgamer @ Nov 6th 2007 5:30PM

That was meant as a reply to FoxHoundADAM, but oh well.

At some point you just have to want to be entertained.

Jeff @ Nov 6th 2007 5:29PM

I love these. Probably my favorite feature on Joystiq.

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 :)

Gregory Block @ Nov 6th 2007 5:30PM

Qqqq qq:

Qq, qq qqq. Zomg qq. Qqqq, qq qq-qq. QQQ? Q, q, q. Qq.

Thanks for the review,
Greg

Bonafide247 @ Nov 6th 2007 5:37PM

"The story unfolds from an unapologetic 'us versus them, and they are wrong' perspective, with little time spent on the larger philosophy of war."

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.

deaftly @ Nov 6th 2007 5:40PM

i really can't take any more war fps games, ill pick it up used on gamefly in a few months. the multi beta really didnt do anything for me so a 5 hour single player game just seems like a waste of $60 honestly

Spartacus @ Nov 6th 2007 7:22PM

I just found your statement a bit ironic and chuckled. I mean, a war based first person shooter? Whodathunkit?!

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 ;-)

Inect @ Nov 6th 2007 11:20PM

My next FPS will have bunnies in it!!!

BananaBoat @ Nov 6th 2007 5:40PM

I understand the need for negareviews, but the disclaimer that it's not a real review, and merely a collection of all the negative snippets from other reviews, should be at the top of the review instead of the bottom.

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.

Spartacus @ Nov 6th 2007 7:14PM

I would agree with you if this wasn't a gaming website where 99% of the readers know a thing or two about games and their reviews.

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.