Second Take: Call of Duty 4 Better Than Crysis?

Page 2 - Seeking answers? Join the Tom's Hardware community: where nearly two million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
Toggle sidebar Toggle sidebar
pocketdrummer , some formulas are great and must be kept , especially in sequels , that's what blizzard is doing with sc2...because the fans demand it keeps the feel of the game...and they know it will piss off "some" reviewers but that's the way it is , you can't make everyone happy.

Tho i must disagree with COD4 being like COD2 , i personally played cod2 for like 2-3 hours back in the day and afterwards i deleted the game , but i'm sure i will be playing COD4 till sc2 releases.

And i have to say i haven't touched crysis after i got my COD4 :)
 



Haha, nice.
 
Guess I have to go with Crysis over COD 4

Great graphics and feel but as usual the mult-player is just another quake arena with tiny cluttered maps and where grenade spamming is king.

I might appreciate the new weapons but they are so laughingly un-realistic as to be pathetic.

I have been shooting scoped rifles all my life and even when I was 5 years old I could hold a scope steadier than the game lets you but DUH! who cares if the sniper rifles work right as there really arent any sniping maps anyhow.

After I finished the full SP campaign I will say this; do yourself a favor and skip the veteren level.

It doesnt make it "harder" it just makes it more redundant, verging on the point of pure Smack tard.

Veteran level doesnt actually require more patience or skill, it requires memorizing enemy tactics and rushing hell bent for leather to the hidden advance points that cause the AI to stop respawning unendingly.

I am an old fart yet I have beaten most SP games I've played on the hardest setting, and this is by far the worst game to play on hard imho.

Instead of removing weapon/health pickups or causing you to take more damage, they made the enemies have instant-reflexes and auto-aim.

It's pretty silly when they're running across an open field with an AK47 and head shoot you in full run!

Not to mention how you could jump and aim perfectly dead-on.

Pretty frustrating game really.

In many scenes your involvement means nothing.

While escaping from a hillside map with a bunch of buildings, you dont even need to kill any enemies as long as you survived as a hidden timer triggers the next scene regardless!

It did not matter at all if you killed a 100 respawning terrorists or just ducked under cover, things keep right on moving along and even though the commander is screaming to man the minigun on the helicopter, it didnt much matter as the next scene comes along even if you shoot nobody!

From the way they hyped it I expected more out of the game it was mostly a disappointment.

The AI was terribily, poorly executed and the entire game was one giant script.

Events always happen as you cross preset lines, rather than automatically, forcing you to react.

This is a game where you need to exploit the AI

I had to not exploit the AI in order to enjoy most scenes.

However a few of the missions were pretty kool and I did enjoy them.

The bottom line for me is I should have waited for a few months or so until it is on sale at wally world for $19.99
 
I'll put my two cents in.

CoD4: The campaign is quite amazing even if it is just a straight forward, go this way only type of play. Even though you can't deviate from the path you must take, you can tackle it differently in a lot of ways, including picking up plenty on other weapons and using different tactics. It is short, lasting maybe 6-8 hours, but only if you play through it without stopping, which imo usually doesn't happen because you will need to do or get something while playing. The graphics are quite amazing for DirectX 9.0c, it actually almost pars with the way DirectX 10 looks, but it doesn't have all that DirectX 10 has. However it is by far the greatest looking DirectX 9.0c game you can get. Multiplayer is quite honestly the most compelling and exciting gameplay I have ever bare witness to, even with the occasional crap nades and such. The multiplayer does lack in maps but makes up in the way it is played and the system for unlocking new equipment, and will have a custom map creator, so more maps could be on the way. The sniper and scope problems have been said to be faulty, however many people including myself have found it to be ok, as long as you do it the way it is supposed to be done. Its not only point and click, you must steady your weapon (longer than just pressing the button, maybe 3 seconds), aim ahead of the target if he is running, and unless you have the ACOG scope, you must do it every time you shoot. Now the AI is quite dumb and also direct a lot of attention to you, but it is a game, if no one was shooting at you, it wouldn't be much of a challenge, wouldn't you think? Not every AI attacks you either, they do go for your teammates as well, just not as much as you. They are dumb, much do show some intelligence as well, like throwing grenades at your position and such, and other games don't seem to do that, at least not in the manner this game does.

Crysis (demo and reviews of full): The demo shows a few things about the game right off the bat... the graphical power you must have to play for one. This game, even on the lowest of low settings, will tear apart any graphics card under a 6800 Ultra in PCI-e. I use an AGP X1950 Pro and average FPS = maybe 30 if not lower. Now with a card that will run this puppy well, you will see the most amazing graphics ever known to man. It is just phenomenal. Even with the lowest settings, you can still have a pretty good looking game. The interactivity of the game is beyond any other game, with practically everything at your disposal. This being said, you can have a lot of fun just messing around with everything. However the game doesn't exactly stray from being straight forward. You can choose many different routes and such on some levels, but later on you will be going towards a goal with fewer choices. Not only that, but you do have to go for an objective to continue on, so really no matter what, you have to do something before doing something else. It is also much like Far Cry, with almost parallels in every aspect. The AI is more realistic, with their pray and spray tactics and search parties, however they are not the most surprising AI either. You can run up to someone and just own them without much resistance or showing any fear. If they actually got scared and ran away from you at times, then the AI would probably out rank anything other AI, but because of this and other dumb actions, it is still nothing spectacular. Now regardless of the trilogy they are creating, the developers made the game a great disappointment to players with its great cliff-hanger ending. Many people probably spent a lot of money getting ready to play this game and now have to wait for 1-2 more games at least before getting the full satisfaction they wanted from this game. The multiplayer will probably be where this game prevails over others, if it does do well. The way it sounds the multiplayer has great features that sets it apart from most games and has some interesting ideas thrown into it. It does lack in the choices you can choose from in gametypes, but each seems to be the most popular gametypes on any game so far.

My vote is for CoD4, but Crysis is not a bad game. It is just being owned by the hype everyone had for it. Crysis will get its praise, but from what I can tell, its not going well with the players who play it, and that being said will not trump CoD4 in votes for this year.
 
IMO, the restrictive nature of the CoD series is enough to make me never buy them. Even in the latest demo, the game swapped my gun for another simply because I moved to the next phase...I'm sorry, but things like this makes me feel as if I were a cow being lead to the slaughter house. The levels are the same...there is simply no difference in strategy allowed..if I wanted to go AROUND a building to take a flanking position..I can't...again..I get subtle feelings of a cow.
Crysis is the opposite...If I wanted to pick off my enemies from extreme distance...I can, if I wanted to sneak up behind them in stealth mode and beat them to death, I can.
Granted, I've only played the demo of each game, but Crysis gets my vote by far.
 
I agree with Wicko and Redhand. COD 4 is like MoH:AA in 2002, the same linear levels, scripted events, closed corridors, godlike autoaim A.I. in the hardest levels, infinite respawn -in fact, Infinite Respawn is a more apropiate name to the developer imo-.

Far Cry was better three years ago than some of the shooters of today, except well telling shooters with deeply developed characters like Riddick or with modular, open gameplay like S.T.A.L.K.E.R. or Crysis. In fact, after S.T.A.L.K.E.R COD 4 seems like running Chernobyl in the Quake 2 corridors? It's a joke?

But there is more complaints about COD 4 than the linear levels; other games like HL2 are linear and the core combat gameplay and mechanics are good; in COD 4 the guns are very generic, there is not much difference about using a AK or M4; the fireguns don't provide the variety and modularity of the Crysis attackments, or the selection of alternative rates of fire. Sadly, both games (COD 4 and Crysis lie under the "regenerative cancer" lifebar mechanics, which is very irreal, specially in COD 4.

I'm in my second run on "Delta" in Crysis, and after the first one -combining cloaking, sniping moments with selective shootings an frontal combat in the second part of the game- now I'm playing without cloack, in a much more agressive pattern, and I must add than if you play on Delta without the "cheat" of the Cloak you will able to test the true power of the Crysis A.I.

Overall, I find that the best way to finish the COD 4 campaign isn't shooting, but running to the next script to unlock the next scenary, which isn't exactly the best combat mechanic showed in a shooter. In fact, with the same level of linearity, F.E.A.R. & expansions are by far much more fun -and the A.I. 10 times better-.

But I still prefer open enviroments and freedom roaming with your customized arsenal like in Crysis -or S.T.A.L.K.E.R. or ArmA- over any other shooter mechanics. Things like Gears or COD 4 are simply and barely "too primitive".

About the multiplayer, Crysis has not the best but nor COD 4: Quake Wars and Battleffiel 2 & 2142 had much deeper and sophisticated gameplay, ranked stats and vehicle support, in a huge enviroments and better designed indoor buildings. Without the "modern skin" the gameplay in the small, saturated maps of COD 4 are much closer to Quake 4 than a "arcade with simulator aspirations" as the BF2. In fact, compared to the COD 4 mp chaos, BF2 seems like a war sim.

And for the end, the technical aspects: I will not talk about this one. Simply is not matter about discussions: COD 4 has no A.I., no large landscapes -in what you can move freely-, not remarckable physics or superb modelling or textures, only particles effects and performanced are ok. The COD 4 engine is not at the same level as the new versions of Source, X-Ray Engine (s.t.a.l.k.e.r) or UE3; and all of them are < than CE2.

2007 was a interesting year in the shooters scene: ArmA, S.T.A.L.K.E.R., Quake Wars and Crysis coming all from European countries, as will arrive Alan Wake or Killzone 2 in 2008. This is not exactly chauvinism from my part, but EE.UU. shooters must take apart all the hype surrounding titles as Bioshock (worst shooter core mechanics ever seen), Halo 3 and COD 4 and see that, in the last, are very continuist and stagnant examples to the evolution of the genere.

Please, excuse my basic English.
 
COD4 is better.

1. The MP is amazingly realistic.
2. I can play COD4 at 150 FPS. I am lucky to average 34 FPS in Crysis and I can't even turn on AA.
3. Something about the MP is Crysis is weird - the graphics look worse for some reason (I thought that was an XBox thing).
4. The bad guys in Crysis say that same 5 lines over and over again.
5. COD4 is like being in a movie. Crysis is like being in an animation.

COD4 is game of the year.
 
My vote goes to COD4.
I like the fast pace of COD4 and its simplicity. I couldn't separate myself from my PC when I was playing single player. And I have been playing MP almost every night.
Crysis single player is actually pretty good until you end up inside the cave. But I had to force myself to finish the game, it just got really boring in the end. And the fact that I have an incredibly fast rig and can't play on Ultra High is disappointing. Multiplayer is horrible, you hardly get to kill anybody, huge map that should have 128 players have only 32.
 
I havnt played COD4 but I have been playing Crysis.

I like the game, I like the Ideas, and the Graphics are amazing.

BUT, Crysis falls short in so many ways. No persistant stats, lots of flaws, random crashes, hardly works on x64. This list is actually very long.

The biggest problem though, the developers promised time and again in interviews that they would have a patch out within 7-14 days.

Well heres the news.......no patch for at least another month.

 
It's tough to compare COD4 to Crysis, to me Crysis is a thinking man's FPS, where as COD4 is a arcade FPS, now when I say arcade FPS I mean it in the sense that its very linear and you just shoot everything that moves....

Both games are fun, I had a blast playing COD4, but the game was extremely short... Although the ending on Crysis was a little disappointing I think its more of a setup for the expansion...

As someone said early comparing Crysis to Far Cry is the same as comparing COD4 to COD2, both games feel much like there predecessor...

My vote goes to Crysis but not by much....
 
IF you are looking to play a game that will last, and can be molded into what ever your needs and wants, you have chose crysis. Crysis is about an open environment, letting the player have the choice of what they want to do or direction to go. I have only played the demo of COD4 and was not impressed at all.The AI in COD4 was a joke. The graphics were ok, but nothing i haven't seen before.

You could make recreate the whole COD4 game in crysis. I dare say you wouldn't be able to recreate crysis in COD4.

Crysis The ai is better(still not good). The multiplayer is lacking the promised, but never delivered, game modes. We all know the graphics are better. In my mind crysis is the gamers game. There is nothing easy about it. It takes time and skill to play. You have think about what you are doing. Its not just there is no other way to go here so this must be the right way. People who complain about the multiplayer are the ones who haven't taken the time to learn the game.
In my mind Crysis is 2x the game cod is
 
I dont want to write a full page review of the 2 games...everyone has already done that for me. I will state that I enjoy CoD 4 more than Crysis (this is because I like MP more than SP and the SP on CoD4 feels more like MP than Crysis does to me), but I lOVE both games.

*(POSSIBLE SPOILERS)*

The problem I have with the video and with about 95% of what people say on the internet is that people are upset with the ending of Crysis. I never have understood why people didnt like it and then Rob explained that many people thought that there would be another mission or 2 after what is said at the end(dont want to give anything away). When I heard this I lost alot of respect for other peoples opinions as I do not understand how anyone could have possibly thought that there was going to be more after the last video. Before I had completed the game I had read that people hated the ending and my thought was that well the only way I can see it being a bad ending is if they didnt set it up very well for a second Crysis game...which is not this case...this was done with near perfection. Since neither of these were a problem at all since they set it up for a second one and I knew that it was the end about 15 seconds into the last video...as in I did not at all believe their would be anything after the last fight, which in my mind was obvious was the final "boss" fight.

Is their something else I missed that the ending lacked? Or is what Rob said trully the reason for people disliking the ending? Someone please explain if this is true. IMPO I believe that this game is a victum of alot of hype and alot of people...especially on these forums...like to hate on games which are hyped alot. Most reviews that I read dont give justice to many games that are hyped alot simply because...they dont feel games should be hyped that much and to me this is sad, because that should not be the reason to like or dislike a game. (I hope this is not true, but it is the feeling that I get when I read so many negative reviews of games, which I believe are great in many aspects.)

Flame me if you want, but just because a game doesn't quite deliver to what you expected it to be doesn't mean it isn't a great game. I thought halo 3 would be better than it was, but alas it doesn't stop me from thinking it is a very fun game and my fave of the series. Oh and if anyone is wandering, I thought I would mention my take on some issues discussed on this thread. CoD 4 > CoD 2 and Crysis > FarCry...no question!

Best,

3Ball
 



Well if you saved enough sniper ammo there's a nice big mountain to the left... nice little place for sniper action. 😱 I actually had some KPA's come over to where I was looking for me... too bad they aren't smart/strong enough to climb they might have had a chance. lol.

I happened to come across this game set up on display at a computer store and I must say a better graphics card gives much more immersive / realistic play. I think this is where crysis has most other fps behind the eight ball... and it was something I can't experience on my poor little g-force 7600GS.

There was one point where my goggles got fogged up when I was taking fire on the higher end store display model. They probably had a GTX in there for all I know. This didn't happen on the 7600GS.

So when I finally get around to upgrading I'll certainly play it again Sam..... But I doubt I will replay the ending again... that's really the biggest let down of the game. Getting out of the mountain/cave wasn't too fun either... now that I'm thinking about it. :pfff:
 
3Ball,
********************************************
************ Warning Spoilers *******************
********************************************
************ Spoilers!!! ***********************
********************************************


The reason why I didn't care much for the ending is it's so linear it isn't even funny. This in a game that was proposed as "different" unique play. While it would have taken more work, why not have a 3 way ending??? I really didn't know what to expect, but what I got certainly wasn't it...

Basically a static picture you're firing at all the meanwhile you have someone screaming in your ear repetitively to take out the cannons... take out the bloody cannons or they will sink the friggin ship. Enough so that you're ready to rip the speaker out. :pfff:

Additionally when you finally get the nuke you can only shoot the "boss" and only in a certain area at that???... this isn't what I'd call freedom. Now with that said, There's alot to like about Crysis... it just appears to me to be rushed. And that is the difference from this and FarCry. EA is probably more to blame than Crytek. Hopefully Crytek is listening to the fans and the expansion is back on FarCry level and up.

If you've played as many games as I have you get tired of the same ole same ole so that is my gripe and I think it's a valid one based on what they were hyping the game to be.
 


Yea I can see your point I suppose. I'm not one for multiple ways to end a story so I wouldn't have hoped for that...I think they just meant there were multiple ways of assaulting different parts of the game and different ways to get there. When I show my friends the game I typically find that I have done something completely different then the way I did originally did or even after that. So in that respect there are several different ways to play the game, but if you were hope for their to also be different outcomes then I suppose I can see why you would be disappointed. Since I feel just one ending helps for the distinct possibility of a sequel I am more for that one, but to each his own I suppose. That and I doubt I will replay the SP much since I rarely do that, but I may once I get a system that will max everything out in DX10 @ 60+ FPS...oh that will be the day.

For the people who were upset about no ragdoll...yea it sucks that there wasn't any...which I am not sure why it wouldn't have that...especially a game with such great physics, but alas their is a ragdol mod that is all of ~20kb I believe that you can get from various website such as fileplanet, which I did...lol, and I never even really realized that there was no ragdoll until I saw that their was a patch for it and this was after I had played the beta, beatin the game, and played a few more hours of the mp...lol, I guess its not that important to me.

Best,

3Ball
 
Crysis vs Call of Duty 4

Well this is a difficalt one, Both games are exceptionally good, but for totally different reasons,

I have played Crysis 3 times now, using different stratigies each time, and the wheels always fall off when you leave the alien space ship, Crysis becomes very liniar and does not live up to the previous levels, Call of duty 4 on the onther had is desgined to be linar and keeps this stratagy through the whole game (there is one level that you can do how you like and that when clearing the houses on the hillside"

I also find that the day night cycle in Crysis is a load of hog wash and that it is scripted, The attack on the habour in the dark hours of the morning spisphicly after i was given my orders to take out the AA guns I waited at the to of the hill for about half an hour and the light did not change untill I went down to the beach, the sun rose at the exact same time ever time I played that mission regardless of how I used my time, I also tried to play the game with out killing a single soul in the game but crytek force me to do so anyway, the 2 tanks and the 4 nano suits at the relic, so it is not as open and non liniar as everyone thinks... The graphics are awsome, I would not say that my PC isnt all that old or slow! and the fact that i have to play the game on mediem to get smooth game play! is a problem

Call of duty 4 too has awsome grapghics and effects and at max settings with 4x AA it was perfectly smooth, not once did i have to lower the settings, which I had to do in Crysis, thus removing the immersion from the game!

Call of Duty 4's story is is prosented in an excellent way right up to the final shot of Act 3, The fact that I was wishing for a gun to pop the guy in the head?? It was like I was in a movie?? 10 out of 10 for COD4

Crysis on the other hand was not so great, and the fact that they only mentioned that it would be part of a trilogy a couple of days before the launch a bit strange...

The bigest problems with games these days are that they are very short took me 10 hours to complete Crysis the first time on hard and then about 7 hours to complete on deta the second time! Call of Duty 4 was about 7 hours on difficault and I am going to start Veteran tonight!

I first played Crysis till the end and then Call of Duty 4

The firist thing that I did after finishing Call of Duty 4 was sms a friend and tell him that it was the best game I have played this year... (and i have played all the big games to come out of PC this year and last) That was my first reaction... So I vote COD4 for game of the year
 
Can we stop with the AI analysis. Lets be honest with ourselves the AI in both games is completely retarded and that's generally the way AI goes. I can easily exploit the AI in both games to make them look rediculously retarded. Yipee Crysis coded in some AI tweaks where they respond to a noise or something (it's been done! it doesn't impress me). COD4 is brutally flawed in that you can just rush triggers to advance in the game and magically the battles are over with.

Here in lies the difference, the atmosphere in COD4 is much more intense. Yeah most of the enemys shoot at you instead of yoru teamates but that adds to the intensity. To me if the AI sucks in both, then I'm going to choose the game that has better mp (which I think most will agree COD4 has) and a more intense single player campaign something that distracts you from the flaws in the AI.

Maybe its just a personal issue I have but I find that when I'm given Sand Box type games like crysis I end up taking that freedom and finding any and every flaw with it. In CoD4 there isn't any really any freedom so I don't find myself dwelling on experimentation with it.

In all honesty the best AI skirmishes I've had is with elites in the halo series (havn't played halo3), I recall some rather impressive skirmishes in halo2.

When push comes to shove AI has a loooong way to go ever be comparible to actual human interaction which is why I'm always more partial to multiplayer gameplay when it comes to gaming.
 
personally I don't like scripted games... so I doubt I will play COD4 until it hits the dollar bin if even then.

Instead I decided to go with an old favorite... AOE III + War chiefs. To me this has replayability all over it. Bad thing is it sucks you in for days at a time.... leaving you starving to death at your puter. At least that's what the other previous versions did to me. LOL.

I've played enough scripted games to last a life time... that doesn't impress me any more... so for this reason I would never give COD4 GOTY award even though I haven't played it.... and being I gave Crysis a 7 of 10 rating I couldn't give it GOTY either... Maybe AOE III is a dark horse?

We'll see.......
 
COD4 hands down IMO the best game of the year.

I played it through the first time on veteran and yes, the enemies always shoot at you and often with uncanny accuracy from far away (but come on, you do the same thing to them). I played through most of the game again on Regular difficulty and the enemies don't always shoot at you and they rarely get head shots. I don't really understand the problem people are having with the AI scaling, the enemies are better and shoot at you more on harder difficulties.

There are many flaws in COD4, including linear gameplay and AI, but the story is so well produced and intense that it more than makes up for any flaw.

As for MP, I can't stand games where everybody snipes because there isn't really any point in using other weapons. The only thing I think should be changed about the sniper rifles is to make them do more damage (especially the Barret). I can't wait to see what new maps, weapons, etc that the mod community comes up with. COD2 had so many good additions on top of the original MP. The leveling system is kinda cool, but after only playing a few times a week for a couple of hours, I have nearly reached the top level. It seems kind of pointless to me.
 
Oh and one more thing, has anybody been able to beat the extra level after the credits in COD4 on veteran? I was able to beat it on the easier difficulties, but on veteran you only get 60 seconds and its ridiculously hard.
 
COD4 is just plain fun and the graphics/environment is amazing, don't know how they managed to provide such incredible details/FX and not penalize fps. Crysis is too sneak sneak sneak to kill and find ammo/weapons and Crysis fps is horrible compared to COD4. Also COD4 has true multi-GPU support where as Crysis needs to be patched.

I've only done single player in both, not really into Multiplayer for these types of games. Public online play always evolves into a stupid **** fest or people just being stupid for the sake of being stupid because "it's fun for them" -- aka someone that doesn't have much of a life or beleives they are somehow being unique only to be yet another turd in the toilet bowl of humanity.

 



I have. Flashbangs are pretty optional throughout the game. That level, actually requires good use of every flashbang you have, and an understanding of blind fire.
 



I asked Sarah's opinion on this topic. Her comment: "Ewww"

On a related note, I would like to point out that Sgt. Jackson or Griggs, or whoever it is on the front cover of COD 4 is really fat. And the box art of Crysis seems to heavily emphasize the ass of the Supersoldier.

Tom's stores links to the products, with box art.

http://stores.tomshardware.com/search_getprod.php/masterid=53582316
http://stores.tomshardware.com/search_getprod.php/masterid=55194226
 
Call of Duty 4 was so bad compared to crysis that after i finished crysis i could not play it. I got bored after 5 minutes. If you have a pc that can take crysis then forget CoD4, buy CoD2 instead.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Latest posts

Moderators online

Share this page

COMPANY
RESOURCES
FOLLOW
Top Bottom