Call of Duty 4 Re-reviewed writes-"Call of Duty 4: Modern Warfare is one of the biggest hits of 2007. It aggregated a score of 94+ on both renowned and tainted sites, the reviewers might have discussed and dissected the article in great detail, but there were quite a few boundaries that they probably forgot to touch upon which makes the experience of playing Call of Duty 4: Modern Warfare, one of the most satisfying for quite a period of time."

The story is too old to be commented.
Downtown boogey3784d ago

I never liked CoD 4...
I never felt immersed AT ALL!
Never got those shudders in my spine.
There wasn't any motion blurr that helps a great deal with immersing.
And Xbox 360 version has better graphics (better textures) than the PS3 version... And I have a PS3!

lawgone3784d ago

I agree with the immersion thing. I like COD4 and have played it a lot but the story is weak. Bioshock and even Resistand Fall of Man do a much better job.

nanometric3784d ago

then you both are simple minded... the story was made to make you think and wonder about the war.


I think that the game was made supposed to show that the war is not fun, tho it seems to be cool that you can bomb enemies with an AC-130 gunship, but then a commentary by the pilot-"Ha, I see little pieces flying everywhere", or something like that. Or when you blow s**t up with the grenade launcher from a chopper and save shot down pilot in the end of act 2, but then a nuke goes off and everyone dies. And at the end, you still think that it was all cool and rad, but then you see Griggs getting shot in the head and after that Price getting CPR.


Imo, the game is made to make you think that was is not fun and games, and that it doesn't end with a "They lived happily ever after", but that it is brutal and unnecesery.

antoinetm3784d ago

@1.2 bubbles for u.

The nuke part is very well crafted.

its nice to finally see a mainstream fps showing the war from that point of view. (something the tom clancy's lack)

+bubbles @ infinity ward.

Close_Second3784d ago

...versions of COD4. Whilst playing the games you won't notice any differences at all. If you're anal retentive enough to want to get to the same spot and hit pause so you can examine things in detail then good luck to you. Me, when you're in the middle of an intense on-line firefight I couldn't give a rats ass about subtle differences in textures or lighting...I just enjoy the game!

The lack of in-game XMB on the PS3 version is its only weakness.

+ Show (1) more replyLast reply 3784d ago
niall773784d ago (Edited 3784d ago )

thats for ruining the online america :P

the amount of dumb curse words, camping, glitching has gone up but 100x when compared to just playing PAL players

thisguywithhair3784d ago

Kind of off topic here, but does anyone know when the dlc for COD on the PS3 will be available?

Close_Second3784d ago

1. The lobby system for COD4 is by far one of the worst lobby systems for any next-gen title. I want to be able to see what games I could join and what my connection would be like before I join. COD3 provided a more advanced lobby system. Halo 3 provides a prime example as to how a next-gen lobby system should work.

Worst aspect of the lobby system is how you can quit a game and keep ending back in the same game when trying to join a new one. My record is 9 returns to the same game! Shear f**king brilliance!

2. The spawn system. Its annoying how when playing on-line the guy you or your buddy just killed spawns in behind you and has a free shot.

As for the single player campaign. Moments of brilliance however, they are about as immerse as a rail gun shooter, e.g. Time Crises 3.

aggh im on fire3784d ago

I thought COD4 was a case of pretty graphics but not so mucg going on under the hood. The A.I was awful, the infinite spawning enemies ridiculous and on veteran it was a case of enemies having infinite grenades and a run to check points.
It still looked lovely though.

Show all comments (13)