meh, i played all three on veteran, granted im only about 50% done with CoD4, but they are all the same really in terms of scripted enemies and respawning. However, CoD4 is much easier on than CoD2 on veteran. I can actually complete some of the veteran CoD4 missions without dying at all if i try a bit, no chance of that in CoD2.
Call of Duty 4: Modern combat trailer up
- Thread starter Rangers
- Start date
This is a bit 'off topic' and late, but I was in somewhat of a debate with a friend, and thought I'd bring it here to the experts.
So, we were discussing Splitscreen multiplayer, and the possibility of it being online. My stance was that the reason such a feature was not included with Call of Duty 4 was technical. I simply do not see Infinity Ward being 'capable' so to speak (rather, the hardware they were developing for) of rendering two to four different 'windows' and maintaining sixty frames per second, while sending that data over the internet.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but a game running at 60fps requires faster / more data sent and recieved than a game running at 30fps, correct? And increasing the player count to 4 on one system would make that rather difficult, especially with 12 other players on a map, rendering 4 windows etc, to maintain the frame rate?
His stance was that it was merely a choice, and had nothing to do with technical shortcomings or limitations.
What do you guy's think?
So, we were discussing Splitscreen multiplayer, and the possibility of it being online. My stance was that the reason such a feature was not included with Call of Duty 4 was technical. I simply do not see Infinity Ward being 'capable' so to speak (rather, the hardware they were developing for) of rendering two to four different 'windows' and maintaining sixty frames per second, while sending that data over the internet.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but a game running at 60fps requires faster / more data sent and recieved than a game running at 30fps, correct? And increasing the player count to 4 on one system would make that rather difficult, especially with 12 other players on a map, rendering 4 windows etc, to maintain the frame rate?
His stance was that it was merely a choice, and had nothing to do with technical shortcomings or limitations.
What do you guy's think?
A dev post on neogaf suggested that they did not have the time to do QA testing for split screen online.
Here's the post:
Here's the post:
Calen said:
Are you a single child?
And well, sometimes one might just have some friends come over and start drinking and playing games 'til 7AM...
Well, I personally don't care about it, it's someone else who was talking about it. We were just discussing it.
Even thought my friends have consoles, i like meeting my friends IRL, rather than over the net. Its more fun playing with your friends when they are right next to me in the living room, even if they are eating up the screen. Hell, 90% of the time on CoD3 i would still be NVP, with 3 others on split screen and playing online.
4 player online split screen would have been awesome. I dunno why they couldn't implement it for say private matches....
But this is the console forum, where you have to be really really good in order to hack a console to do something like that.
Yep, it's a good feature. Warhawk supports it too, which allows us to play 3 player online with only one of us owning a PS3, and also keeps a much better camaraderie with you friends in the same room than speaking over a mic.
Regards multiplayer implementation, technically there's nothing preventing them from dropping the graphical experience. This is common in split-screen games. Geometry, framerate, whatever can be sacrificed to enable up to four players. Indeed if you don't do this, the single player experience would only be using a quarter of your console's potential! It's just a matter of choices from the developer, where to invest their efforts.
So you think it's a technical limitation for them because of both increased data traffic and extra rendering load?
The data traffic for 30fps vs 60fps shouldn't be different.
There is no way game communicates for each frame. That means there are a lot interpolation and projections going on. The download increase because of splitscreen would be minor, and upload should be nothing compared what host is uploading.
The issue of rendering multiple screens is same as every other game.
More proof that most people prefer COD4 over Halo 3; http://www.majornelson.com/archive/2008/01/21/live-activity-for-week-of-1-14.aspx
Despite Halo 3 having sold a lot more copies, COD4 was played more than Halo 3.
Despite Halo 3 having sold a lot more copies, COD4 was played more than Halo 3.
Last edited by a moderator:
Too bad. CoD4 online sucks as much as its campaign.
Seriously, core gameplay is nothing special despite being hyped so much. Level design is non-existent. Lot's of lag (which is made more apparent by the cool Kill Cam). And worse, the net code looks like written by an intern (with first come first served kills, host disconnects, etc.). Better rebalancing after team matches would be nice too.
Plus, community connectivity on PS3 is limited to inviting buddies to a party and voice chat.
I could give them some credit due to weapon upgrade system which provides something to toy with, but I often get CS with persistent inventory feeling from the game.
Perks are nice though.
I suppose now is a little late for me to add my impressions, but I just got the game a few weeks ago.
I played the campaign on Normal since I'm a baby and COD2 veteran nearly cost me a controller and a new television through frustration. I was convinced I would not let that happen again. All up the game provided a good fun challenge at this difficultly, though I'd hate to try it on anything harder. It really does drop you into some tough situations, such as the part where you've just grabbed the rocket-launcher from the barn and blew up two tanks just as the sun was coming up. Trying to fight your way back through the infinite waves of enemies while under a time limit took about a dozen tries. The open-spaces were a great mix-up, reminding me of all the good parts of Halo - do you run straight through the middle, or do you shy around the edge, picking people off, or do you crawl through the pipe after clearing it with grenades? That's something too many games lack thanks to the "corridor shooter" genre that FPS's have largely morphed to.
Graphically the game does look pretty special - being "600p" didn't seem to hurt the game's look as much as Halo's "640p" did, which was a little surprising. My girlfriend commented that the game was one of the nicer looking that I've played, which is always a good sign to me.
I loved the night-vision sequences, especially when you're sneaking into a dark house. Gorgeous! You walk in and silently kill someone that doesn't even know you're there. Absolutely cracking gameplay. I was hugely let down later in the game when you are doing house-to-house walks at night, but you can't shoot out the lights. Terrible, terrible design. I could do that in the first Splinter Cell... surely in 2008 we can add this as a staple to every game, especially when you've teased me with the earlier great night-vision missions.
The sniper mission was pure gold, too. Probably the stand-out of the whole experience for me, with the whole "sneak" mechanic making me feel like a true bad-ass. Give me more of that.
I was personally creeped out by the mission where you're in a plane/chopper taking out people remotely. A little too close to reality personally, and not something I'm entirely comfortable with, though that's probably the point.
I found a lot of people gushing over the cinematic elements, such as the opening sequence with the President, and the nuke scene. They were a little shocking, but overall I honestly didn't relate too much. Maybe it's just me, but any attempt to align me to my character seemed "missing". I actually thought COD2 implemented the idea of "characters" a little better.
Online really is a lot of fun, but I think that's just the role-player in me who loves levelling. I managed to get to level 4 without any effort at all, but like most online games, it's very easy to be swamped by those more skilled than you - especially when you're a lowly noob.
For COD6 (let's pretend the non-IW COD5 set in WW2 doesn't exist):
I played the campaign on Normal since I'm a baby and COD2 veteran nearly cost me a controller and a new television through frustration. I was convinced I would not let that happen again. All up the game provided a good fun challenge at this difficultly, though I'd hate to try it on anything harder. It really does drop you into some tough situations, such as the part where you've just grabbed the rocket-launcher from the barn and blew up two tanks just as the sun was coming up. Trying to fight your way back through the infinite waves of enemies while under a time limit took about a dozen tries. The open-spaces were a great mix-up, reminding me of all the good parts of Halo - do you run straight through the middle, or do you shy around the edge, picking people off, or do you crawl through the pipe after clearing it with grenades? That's something too many games lack thanks to the "corridor shooter" genre that FPS's have largely morphed to.
Graphically the game does look pretty special - being "600p" didn't seem to hurt the game's look as much as Halo's "640p" did, which was a little surprising. My girlfriend commented that the game was one of the nicer looking that I've played, which is always a good sign to me.
I loved the night-vision sequences, especially when you're sneaking into a dark house. Gorgeous! You walk in and silently kill someone that doesn't even know you're there. Absolutely cracking gameplay. I was hugely let down later in the game when you are doing house-to-house walks at night, but you can't shoot out the lights. Terrible, terrible design. I could do that in the first Splinter Cell... surely in 2008 we can add this as a staple to every game, especially when you've teased me with the earlier great night-vision missions.
The sniper mission was pure gold, too. Probably the stand-out of the whole experience for me, with the whole "sneak" mechanic making me feel like a true bad-ass. Give me more of that.
I was personally creeped out by the mission where you're in a plane/chopper taking out people remotely. A little too close to reality personally, and not something I'm entirely comfortable with, though that's probably the point.
I found a lot of people gushing over the cinematic elements, such as the opening sequence with the President, and the nuke scene. They were a little shocking, but overall I honestly didn't relate too much. Maybe it's just me, but any attempt to align me to my character seemed "missing". I actually thought COD2 implemented the idea of "characters" a little better.
Online really is a lot of fun, but I think that's just the role-player in me who loves levelling. I managed to get to level 4 without any effort at all, but like most online games, it's very easy to be swamped by those more skilled than you - especially when you're a lowly noob.
For COD6 (let's pretend the non-IW COD5 set in WW2 doesn't exist):
- Let me knock out the lights, and make the AI respond appropriately
- The themed levels - night time stealth, lone sniper, the rescue your friends - are pure gold, and really help compartmentalise a varied experience
- Great weapon selection, with the auto-shotgun being a personal fave. Try a little more variety for the rifle-type weapons, since the default marine weapon being easily the most comfortable.
- I know it's a COD staple, but infinite respawning AI is a terrible mechanic. Let me clear a path and move on if that's how I like to play.
- Try Halo-style online matchmaking. Dropping a level 1 into a server with four or five people going for their final prestige run is a bad thing. Skill-based matching is an obvious mechanic - make it happen.
TheBlackLodge
Newcomer
Amen to that, tis my one major gripe with CoD4 (and obviously every other CoD game).
Obviously. Halo 3 has sold millions more than COD4. Mostly via the hype machine. Yet more people played COD4. I still you still havent come to grasp the fact that COD4 is preferred by more 360 owners than Halo 3. Oh well, maybe one day. Im not going to go dragging this thread down debating it. /done
You know, I actually think it's one of COD's most clever innovations, and it's actually pretty realistic. If you don't advance you can never hope to prevent your enemy from reinforcing basically forever. I blame previous games for training us to sit back and kill everything before we try and advance. You can't do that in a real war and it won't get you anywhere in COD. I hope they never change that. There's real jeopardy involved in these games. You have to keep moving up and that creates a really thrilling sense of danger and excitement.
I disagree with most of your CoD4 love, but even I don't get the hatred for infinite respawning.
For me the only good level was Price level, from start to finish possible one of the best FPS levels I had ever seen, and it had a lot of such sections.
It's good to have levels where one cannot hide behind the entry corner and try to clean the enemy safely.
Do haters feel the same about the Normandy level in the first CoD (or MoH) where you have to advance under fire?
Variety is not a bad thing, you know.
Err, the enemy would never have infinite troops though, in real life.
Although in reality these would be very small scale battles, on the order of scores of men.
Anyways, on normal difficulty, the respawning isn't bad. It's typically just a couple waves and then you've "killed them all". They dont respawn forever.
TheBlackLodge
Newcomer
Although it sometimes feels like it........
I suppose after 4 titles I'm used to it, but I'd rather it wasn't used in number 6.
I suppose after 4 titles I'm used to it, but I'd rather it wasn't used in number 6.
Similar threads
