Call of Duty 4: Modern combat trailer up

Yup. And it works pretty good IMO.

Try a couple of Halo games and after the 4th you'll see what I mean...

 

Good point. Playing Halo3, it's always one nail biting close game after another. You don't even notice it until you stop playing and think about it.

 

If that were the case than the dvd version would be loading faster in some areas, so while it may be slightly slower at the worst, its also a bit faster at the best.

It would be if the constant speed of the BR drive were significantly faster than the minimum speed of the 12x dvd. Yes the space could be an advantage as I suggested in my post.

 

How does Truskill help you improve as a player? If your never playing people better than you your not going to improve much IMO. Playing superior players is how you learn the most about how to play the maps and how to use the weapons. Every game has a learing curve but if you suck at first person shooters your going to suck at most of them regardless unless the game is totally unbalanced and gimped. Your not supposed to be able to just pick up a game and be one of the better players. That would be silly.

 

um there's a range you will get matched up against (some will be better), if you're constantly beating all of the people you play you will continue to move up the rankings.

 

Seems like a normal ranking system to me. Good player kills bad player gets less points for the kill if the bad player kills the good player they get more points ect. All they are really doing is filtering the servers by rank or point level. They just call it skill level.

 

Wrong. You should read the white paper.

 

Gamespot review is now up : http://www.gamespot.com/ps3/action/...k=multimodule&tag=multimodule;reviews;title;1

Regarding the differences:

 

To me this game is Counter Strike in a BF2 setting, which is a very good thing. IW truly are an elite developer. This is my first IW game and it's a blast.

It's nice that a few friends picked it up also. Makes it more fun and the 360 controller is a joy for FPS games.

 

Equal content on both disks should yield an advantage on Blu-Ray, not only in loading times, but especially in seek timing as the data would cover a smaller part of the physical disk where it would use the entire disk on dvd. There's not much in it with loading times, especially when you *could* use the remaining space on Blu-Ray to save redundant chunks of data to speed up the loading process. This has been discussed numerous times in more fitting threads, so I'll just leave it at that...

 

I would recommend picking up CoD2 in a bargain bin if you are ever bored, best WW2 game made.

 

I always thought about picking up the fullgame and I think I will do it. A question though, are the missions like the ones in CoD1, night/day/sneaking?

 

Now that is interesting. Could this be the first game this gen confirmed to have disc space troubles? Wonder why they didn't span discs, or put multiplayer on a separate disc?

 

I dont remember all that much from CoD1, (i do remember some sneaking to get to a submarine or something). Anyways, CoD2 doesn't offer much sneaking. It doesn't offer any sneaking at all if i remember correctly, the whole game can be summerized into 5 or so scenarios:
Urban street warfare, house cleaning, attacking fortified bases, defending (houses or forts) and some tank driving\running away from enemy tanks while trying to sticky bomb them.

Its mostly just tons and tons of intense scripted (very well scripted) encounters on the various fronts of the world war. You don't notice that everything that happends is scripted (all CoD games are, you have to kill X and move to Y, until enemy Z makes his move, for example) and its a lot of fun.

IMO the best game in 2005, best launch game, and still a very very good game. Singleplayer will last about 10-15hours on medium difficulty (all of the singleplayer is good, no dull moments) or about 20-30 hours if you play on "Veteran"

 

The first?! Blue Dragon shipped on 3 DVDs, and that's not the only title to date either! There have been plenty of comments about games having to work around disc limits, even comments from devs saying they were pushing single-layer BRD's 25 GB limit. Disc space troubles aren't new!

 

Disc spanning in RPGs != disc troubles. Unless Every FF since the SNES has had disc troubles - which they haven't, they've simply and elegantly spanned discs.

Regarding "work arounds", I don't think there's been a lot of firm evidence that this has been anything other than requiring run-of-the-mill optimisation for most of the complaints. In fact, the only games I think you could possibly be referring to are Assassin's Creed and PGR4.

Regarding dev comments... we've covered this off many times, but pushing capacity in my mind is only relevant when you're not using silly stuff like uncompressed audio (useless for 99.99% of users) or a tonne of languages (sure, it's convenient for the publisher, but I don't really feel the need to play most games in other languages - hell, I prefer all my games to be in the "native" language, eg JRPG's in Japanese, COD2 enemies talking in their native tongue, etc)

I definitely think there's some interesting discussion to be had around this - to me, if this is a genuine quote, appears to be an 'invisible line' crossed this gen - an impartial dev is saying "we intentionally made a game shorter because stuff wouldn't fit!" That - to me - is surprising, and something I didn't expect to see until another 12 months or so.

 

If anything, it's another example of an disc space problems which caused a very small impact on the final game.

 

Yes... but it's rated "5 hours" of SP though.

 

I wouldn't call shortening a game a "small impact". But I wonder how much of this is fluff or excuses for having limited dev time, budget, resources, etc.

Like I said, putting multiplayer on a second disc for 360 only surely wouldn't have impacted the game at all.

 

The truth is probably somewhere in between. They mentioned that they had to pull back some content.