Uhm.. can't say I agree. At all. Kiddie shooter.. bad controls.. lol?

As for the R6/GRAW comparison.. well I guess if you prefer "tactical" shooters (which, I would argue that Ubi's recent bastardized versions of both franchises aren't really all that tactical anyway) then I guess Call of Duty wouldn't be for you.. but I like action games and I love FPS.. two things that Ubi is hardly capable of capturing at all. GRAW is a pretty average game.. and R6 is a shadow of its former self.

If anything has been dumbed down to a "kiddy" level, it's Rainbow Six and Ghost Recon. As for "noob" aiming -- I'll take "noob aiming" over blindfiring around corners and lines of sight that you shouldn't even have. Third person cameras in first person shooters? You can keep'm.

I honestly don't understand how anyone could bitch about the controls. The default binds? Sure.. but that's something I've got to adjust in just about every shooter. I think the controls are great.. and I also think this is going to be the best COD since the original.. easily.

COD3 was fucking terrible.

Thanks UrukHaiPT. I'll check that out right now.

EDIT: Strange.. some of the weapons feel a little off. Why is the M16A4 fully automatic? I also noticed (this could be mostly in my head, I'm not sure) that the M4 and M16 both seem to have slightly more recoil/diversion than they did in the 360 MP beta. I wonder if that's in my head, or the product of additional tweaking to the weapon balance. They're still FAR more stable than any other assault rifle I've used so far. Even the G3 has an insane amount of kickback compared to the M4 and M16.

That's still a fraction of the total weapons in the game. I think there are like, 40+ weapons in the campaign. Cool find though. I wonder if there's anything else we can unlock via the console.

Yea.. I still don't get it Milhouse. There's nothing wrong with COD's gameplay. COD3 is terrible because of horrible campaign design, it's much worse than COD2. If you think COD2's campaign is mindless, I'm not sure how you can like Call of Duty 1 either. What I don't get most is the complaint that the controls are simple/easy -- especially when you go on to say that you like Halo 3 -- which is much more straight forward when it comes to its most basic gameplay mechanics. Really, that just makes the "noob aiming" comment that much more ridiculous. What exactly is "noob aiming" anyway? Why shouldn't basic gameplay mechanics be.. well basic and intuitive?

COD3 has noob aiming. That's actually another way in which COD3 is much worse than COD2. You can basically use the camera adhesion to cheat your way through the game, thanks to all the console centric aiming aids that are forced on the player. All you need to do is throw smoke everywhere and let the autoaim take over -- which will lock on to HEADSHOTS with the M1 right through the smoke. It elevates the M1 to another level, and takes much of the challenge of Veteran out of the game. Challenge which is quite frankly poorly designed anyway, since all it entails is making it so your allies literally CAN NOT kill the enemy with bullets (only grenades) and makes the enemy fire seek out your head like every nazi has an aimbot. If you can't see where COD3 fails at copying COD2's formula, I'm really not surprised that you don't see the good in the franchise at all.

If you don't like.. well.. good for you I guess. The fact that you think MOH:Airborne is somehow more advanced is.. well.. also ridiculous. It has a less linear campaign design, which is cool, but then it fails to move forward in so many other areas it's not even funny. MOH is a franchise whose mechanics are just now starting to grow up, yet somehow COD is a "kiddie shooter." Please. The most interesting thing about MOH is the lean and peak mechanic.. which while cool would never function in a game as fast paced and action packed as Call of Duty. It would seriously damage Call of Duty's multiplayer too, since movement is so important and MOH is so.. rigid by comparison.

And nothing is challenging? You don't expect Veteran to be challenging? No gameplay at all? Give me a break. I'm quite pleased with the direction that Call of Duty is heading, especially in terms of the much needed redesign to the multiplayer component of the game.

It's no achievement in AI, I'll give you that much.. but that's never been one of Call of Duty's strong points. Enemies do use cover though -- they even blind fire around corners which is a new element to the franchise.. but I'll submit to that one bullet point.

I don't see what's so wrong with a game coming down to fast aim + movement + use of the environment anyway. I certainly wouldn't call UT(99)/Q3A kiddy games either, despite being terribly basic when it comes right down to their gameplay. There's still plenty of skill and gameplay involved.

Headgears.. hah.

I'm not sure about weapons. There will be quite a few weapons in COD4. Like 40+ in single player, at least. Not sure about MP.

I wish Alliance: The Silent War wasn't CANNED.. because that game was going to be the ultimate gun nerd sim. 200 fire arms from nearly 200 years of history in one game.. with simulation balistics. But the guys who were making it fucking shelved it so they could work on a new graphics engine for SECOND LIFE ONLINE of all things. It's always a shame when an FPS team loses a player to an MMORPG.. it's even worse when we lose a great FPS entirely.. especially to what amounts to a 3D chatroom.

Halo 3 weapons... more realistic? One word: deviation.

Yeah.. that's a pointless conversation. Halo 3 requires a lot more skills than COD4 too? Halo 3 has no recoil (literally, none -- okay the SMG has recoil -- that's just about it right there) and no deviation.. yet the weapons feel more realistic. You don't have to consider distance in Call of Duty? WHAT? Pick up an MP5 and try telling me it has the same functional range as the M4 -- try hitting something with the same accuracy zoomed as unzoomed. Whatever.

This is pretty classic too:The reticle turns red to tell you that you've got a target. It doesn't increase your accuracy or autoaim in any way. Also, when the reticle gets bigger -- it means there's more deviation/less accuracy.. so uhh.. okay. Call of Duty certainly requires you to target certain hit boxes, especially since every weapon in the game does dramatically more damage with headshots.. unlike Halo where several of those "realistic weapons" don't even do different damage levels depending on different hit boxes. Oh, and Halo has loads of aim assists that you can't even disable in most cases, outside of custom games.

Note: I'm not bashing Halo's gun play.. I actually think it's very refined and the balance between firefights, melee, and grenade use are expertly tuned.. but it's far from being more realistic.

That's not even considering the fact that you can turn the reticle off in Call of Duty.Where do you get this stuff? COD4 definitely has recoil.

There was very little recoil on the M4 and M16 in the MP beta on 360. The M4 honestly feels a bit different in the single player demo.. like I've said previously I'm not sure if this is because it's been tweaked or a difference in the model for SP/MP.. but regardless the game certainly has recoil. I even complained about the fact that most guns have far more of it than the M4 and how that doesn't seem very.. fair. The AK-47 has ridiculous kickback and far less functional range than the M16.Uhm, because that's not the direction this conversation has taken and far fewer people here have actually played Crysis than either of these games? Hell most of us have barely seen what weapons Crysis has to offer.

Yup, that's just about the only weapon in the demo without recoil, and I'm not even sure what the big deal is.. the AT weapons in BF don't have much if any recoil either, but they're all one single shot and then you've got to reload anyway, so I'm not sure what the big deal is. The RPG-7 isn't exactly that reliable in COD4 anyway.

Even the M4 has a considerable amount of recoil in the demo.. not nearly as drastic as the G3 or AK-47, but it's still very noticeable. But I'm not going to try to convince you to like it.. I'm just pointing out the facts. There is recoil -- there is deviation -- oh, and when your reticle turns red, it doesn't change your accuracy (or the shape/size of the reticle) at all. It's about the most "noob" feature the game offers, but it's not entirely uncommon for the cross hairs in many a game to change color to indicate that you're targeting an enemy and not a friendly.

If it bothers you that much, play with them off, or don't bother playing at all.

Many people have no problem with the way the game controls. You say it's easy and simple, I say it's intuitive.. and no more simple than many of your examples of FPS games that supposedly have vastly superior gameplay.

I did generalize Halo's recoil a bit before.. the SMG isn't the only gun with recoil, the sniper rifle and AR have small amounts of it as well. But that doesn't really change the fact that Halo's gunplay is pretty simple by comparison. Not knocking it, because I love me some Halo and I think it's pretty well adjusted and it all blends together nicely.. but it's anything but more realistic.

It's called discussion. Just going with the flow. This all started when someone asked if this game felt like GRAW.. and it continued down this path when Milhouse called out the games shitty noob gameplay. I don't have a problem with discussing how Call of Duty relates to other games.. if it makes you uncomfortable just ignore us. It's something to talk about while we patiently wait for the games release on November 6th.

We already exhausted the topic of pants.

Halo 3 was just used as a point of comparison.. but it doesn't even matter. We don't need to compare and contrast to point out that some of Milhouse's complaints (specifically the reticle/auto-aim claim -- the recoil -- the apparent lack of headshots) are just.. not true.