We're not at photorealism yet though, so some images are a little bit off in terms of shading (especially in the intro movie) and characters' faces are a bit cartoonish, but this is not really an issue - after all it's only a game and the characters' faces aren't really that much of an issue when you're hopefully going to kill most characters while they're a hundred yards or more away. The game experience is very fast-paced and the difficulty is about the same as CoD3, but in this game the save points seem to be much closer together so we don't have the same frustrations of nearly getting through a level and then having to go waaay back if we get killed. The developers have done an excellent job here - I wish the people who made Rainbow Six Vegas had instituted a save point system as good as the one in this game - that would have stopped me from throwing that game's disc across the room in frustration and vowing never to buy another Rainbow Six game.

I am stuck on the second level of this game (Marine Sgt Paul Jackson) where the game freezes 100% of the time within one area of the game. I have restarted the game for days and dozens of times and the game freezes at about the same physical point in the game all the time. I can approach the block from the left, center, or flanking right and it freezes an approximately the same boundary point.

well i purchased the game and was not impressed with the graphics or controls. i refuse to pay for xbox live when pc is free so i purchased the pc version and maxed out the graphics and resolution and it like a different game. this version ruins the experience get it for pc the 360 version is a joke

One complaint I have, and it's not really a complaint, but rather a preference, is that I think it would be much better if bodily injury caused the same consequences as in real life. If I get shot by a sniper, or lit up by an AK, I should be dead. Yes, that would make the game that much more difficult, but then I think it would make it that much more interesting too because you would really have to think through your strategy.

Really, what's the sense in giving a player in Team Deathmatch a higher rating for having 10 kills but 25 deaths than a player who had 8 kills and 0 deaths? (I realize there are other game types that reward persistent survival -- but that doesn't explain why Team Deathmatch runs the way it does.) I don't mean to imply that the game favors brain-dead button-mashing -- it doesn't -- but it does severely favor one style of play, which limits the breadth of its appeal. All that said, the game's not exactly worthless.

You have the "throw the grenade back" mechanic in this game (was it in other COD games?) which can be really fun, but also sometimes a bit frustrating, because you can be killed by grenades that do not show up on your "grenade indicator" from time to time. It happens, but it's not so frustrating you want to chuck the controller. You just groan or yell, deal with it, and respawn again.

I tend to hate voice chat, but it can be useful when it's not being used by 12-year-olds to insult your intelligence or parentage. Split-screen is present, but, as usual in the age of online gaming, suffers from overlarge maps. There's a nice variation in weapons (though, it would seem, not the full selection that's in the SP game, which is kind of annoying), but differentiation between weapons is mostly limited to the sniper kits.

The one problem I have with the matchmaking is that it seems to not really care about rank. It just finds open games and throws you in regardless of the fact that you're level 1 fighting level 42's; the system balances the teams out but it doesn't make a terrible amount of sense to me. However, this is not enough to detract a star or even to mar the shine of the game.

If you enjoy getting picked off by an unseen enemy, never even having a chance to fire back, if your game is to find some hidden perch, lie in the prone position and wait for some poor soul to walk in front of your crosshairs, if you loved COD2 because it rewarded your camp/sniping by making the sniper rifle far and away the most effective gun, if you were disappointed when COD3 made the sniper rifle's scope, smaller, cloudier and more difficult to aim, then you will love COD4 because Infinity Ward has put you back on top. In an apparent fit of spitefulness for being snubbed on COD3, Infinity Ward has reversed all of the major improvements made by Treyarch in COD3, taking the franchise back two big steps.

I really mean that, and I've played the majority of FPS games on consoles especially, since around Wolfenstein 3d. CoD3 was a bit of a disappointment and was just lacking in areas, Trearch tried to make the Multiplayer experience a huge deal, but it lacked structure, and Ranked games were a bitch to get into. CoD2 thrived in more close range environments in my opinion.

I picked up the latest installment on the day of its release, but I failed to notice that it is rated "M" for mature, as opposed to "T" as were the previous installments. The rating is appropriate, so much so that I found the game totally inappropriate for a 13 year old. Islamic extremists, abduction, rendition, nuclear terror attacks and the like may be, unfortunately, a reality of today's world; however, I have no intention of simulating them in my family room.

The story of course stretches reality just a bit, but no more than your average action film, and the locations and situations you get into are all pretty cool. There weren't any parts I didn't like until the last level where I felt like I was just playing some average shooter instead of a Call of Duty game, mostly because the fighting was reduced to running through corridors shooting from the hip pretty much at all times and throwing grenades when enemies got too blocked up. I guess I could have slowed down and played it more precisely, but the run and gun was what was working and anyway in the first half of this there was a time limit to get to a certain location.

-One example is from "Sins of The Father" level. When trying to chase down Imran Zakhaev's son (when you reach the street, after the junk yard) Activision stops you from running at full speed to catch Zakhaev's son. This is unbelievably frustrating.

I'm currently on military deployment overseas, and after I bought this game a couple of months ago, it has been running non-stop in the break room, and Halo2 2/ 3 no longer gets any playtime. In fact, after playing thru CoD4 and then taking a shot at Halo 3, couldn't believe how poor the graphics were on Halo 3 comparatively. The troops can't get enough of CoD4 now, both single player and multi-player.

Tried to return or exchange with Hubbagames. No response from that company at all. Got the game from another company.

My only complaint is that it seems buggy. The game has locked up on me 10 or so times in the past week. I think the freezes are related to Xbox live being overwhelmed with traffic, because on other nights the game plays just fine.

After seeing all the 5-star reviews I've decided perhaps a little level-headedness is in order to offset the rave reviews from folks who seem to be unable to see anything wrong with this game. No doubt that very statement (and this review's title) will garner a few 'unhelpful' votes, but what the heck, I'm doing this to help folks, not to be popular. Now don't get me wrong - I like the game very much, BUT I feel that a review has to point out potential drawbacks with a game if it's to be any use to readers.

I'm sorry, but even with the modernizing that's been done - its the same game as Call of Duty 2 (and 3 for that matter - which they seem to be intent on mocking). The moment it really hit was when I heard the oft shouted "Enemies behind those crates over there" line that was repeated over and over again in CoD2. It is essentially the same game.

The missions are well scripted (much to the same degree that the missions in Halo 3 or other Call of Duty games are well scripted), the story is well told and missions range from easy to fun to challenging without getting to terribly annoying. I ran through the game on Hardened difficulty and really got stuck in only a couple of places where I spent ungodly amounts of reloads attempting to accomplish the mission.

I'm sure this is a fun game but seeing as I bought it for the wrong gaming console I had to return it. However, Hubbagames was very prompt in letting me return the game and were very helpfull!

We're not at photorealism yet though, so some images are a little bit off in terms of shading (especially in the intro movie) and characters' faces are a bit cartoonish, but this is not really an issue - after all it's only a game and the characters' faces aren't really that much of an issue when you're hopefully going to kill most characters while they're a hundred yards or more away. The game experience is very fast-paced and the difficulty is about the same as CoD3, but in this game the save points seem to be much closer together so we don't have the same frustrations of nearly getting through a level and then having to go waaay back if we get killed. The developers have done an excellent job here - I wish the people who made Rainbow Six Vegas had instituted a save point system as good as the one in this game - that would have stopped me from throwing that game's disc across the room in frustration and vowing never to buy another Rainbow Six game.

I am stuck on the second level of this game (Marine Sgt Paul Jackson) where the game freezes 100% of the time within one area of the game. I have restarted the game for days and dozens of times and the game freezes at about the same physical point in the game all the time. I can approach the block from the left, center, or flanking right and it freezes an approximately the same boundary point.

well i purchased the game and was not impressed with the graphics or controls. i refuse to pay for xbox live when pc is free so i purchased the pc version and maxed out the graphics and resolution and it like a different game. this version ruins the experience get it for pc the 360 version is a joke

One complaint I have, and it's not really a complaint, but rather a preference, is that I think it would be much better if bodily injury caused the same consequences as in real life. If I get shot by a sniper, or lit up by an AK, I should be dead. Yes, that would make the game that much more difficult, but then I think it would make it that much more interesting too because you would really have to think through your strategy.

Really, what's the sense in giving a player in Team Deathmatch a higher rating for having 10 kills but 25 deaths than a player who had 8 kills and 0 deaths? (I realize there are other game types that reward persistent survival -- but that doesn't explain why Team Deathmatch runs the way it does.) I don't mean to imply that the game favors brain-dead button-mashing -- it doesn't -- but it does severely favor one style of play, which limits the breadth of its appeal. All that said, the game's not exactly worthless.

You have the "throw the grenade back" mechanic in this game (was it in other COD games?) which can be really fun, but also sometimes a bit frustrating, because you can be killed by grenades that do not show up on your "grenade indicator" from time to time. It happens, but it's not so frustrating you want to chuck the controller. You just groan or yell, deal with it, and respawn again.

I tend to hate voice chat, but it can be useful when it's not being used by 12-year-olds to insult your intelligence or parentage. Split-screen is present, but, as usual in the age of online gaming, suffers from overlarge maps. There's a nice variation in weapons (though, it would seem, not the full selection that's in the SP game, which is kind of annoying), but differentiation between weapons is mostly limited to the sniper kits.

The one problem I have with the matchmaking is that it seems to not really care about rank. It just finds open games and throws you in regardless of the fact that you're level 1 fighting level 42's; the system balances the teams out but it doesn't make a terrible amount of sense to me. However, this is not enough to detract a star or even to mar the shine of the game.

If you enjoy getting picked off by an unseen enemy, never even having a chance to fire back, if your game is to find some hidden perch, lie in the prone position and wait for some poor soul to walk in front of your crosshairs, if you loved COD2 because it rewarded your camp/sniping by making the sniper rifle far and away the most effective gun, if you were disappointed when COD3 made the sniper rifle's scope, smaller, cloudier and more difficult to aim, then you will love COD4 because Infinity Ward has put you back on top. In an apparent fit of spitefulness for being snubbed on COD3, Infinity Ward has reversed all of the major improvements made by Treyarch in COD3, taking the franchise back two big steps.

I picked up the latest installment on the day of its release, but I failed to notice that it is rated "M" for mature, as opposed to "T" as were the previous installments. The rating is appropriate, so much so that I found the game totally inappropriate for a 13 year old. Islamic extremists, abduction, rendition, nuclear terror attacks and the like may be, unfortunately, a reality of today's world; however, I have no intention of simulating them in my family room.

I'm currently on military deployment overseas, and after I bought this game a couple of months ago, it has been running non-stop in the break room, and Halo2 2/ 3 no longer gets any playtime. In fact, after playing thru CoD4 and then taking a shot at halo 3, couldn't believe how poor the graphics were on halo 3 comparatively. The troops can't get enough of CoD4 now, both single player and multi-player.

The missions are well scripted (much to the same degree that the missions in halo 3 or other Call of Duty games are well scripted), the story is well told and missions range from easy to fun to challenging without getting to terribly annoying. I ran through the game on Hardened difficulty and really got stuck in only a couple of places where I spent ungodly amounts of reloads attempting to accomplish the mission.

2 - graphics - it did not find it as visual compelling and presenting as rich of an environment as GRAW 2 or halo 3 On the positive side, it felt consistent in terms of performance (fps) and the cut scenes are very interesting and well made. Overall, I recommend trying it out before buying, so that you are not disappointed afterwards.

The hype for this game was saying that its comparible to GOW or halo 3 online play. NOT EVEN CLOSE, the multiplayer aspect of this game is poorly done. The game itself was ok...very repetitive.

I'm not huge on this feature myself but honestly with the way next gen games are going it's a little disappointing to not see it here. The AI for the most part is pretty decent especially on some of the higher difficulties so you will have to use and find cover. If your looking for "Run and Gun action" play halo 3.

There are so many different ways to play this game online that only halo 3 tops it, and that's for the matchmaking and forge system only. Newbies to experienced gamers can enjoy the multiplayer and rank up as it suits them, or just play with friends. The only lacking element is a co-op campaign mode, but the objective-based multiplater modes make up for that.

My only griefs are that the multi-player can be buggy when in a party where one player will be kicked out when the game starts and sometimes it wont let you join joinable games. Also you can't go back and view the last game's stats. If I could combine this games gameplay with halo 3's statistics compilation, screen shots, and website I would throw all my other games away.

Not that I think halo 3 sucks, It is just a matter of what style of game play I prefer. The fact that you have to earn weapons and weapon upgrades is appealing to me, it keeps me coming back. The waiting time for a match is short unlike the 5-10 minute waits in Call of Duty 3.

When CoD2 was released with the 360, it was one of the main reasons to get a 360. CoD2 rivaled halo with its gameplay and graphics yet it still lacked a few things(simple multiplayer) but was tremendously outweighed by the atmosphere, presentation and gameplay. Then CoD3 was released and was critisized for its lackluster single player campaign but was praised for its robust multiplayer modes.

Ever. I was VERY dissapointed with halo 3, after all the hype it got, it was just another fps with shiney grahpics and boring gameplay.

I really mean that, and I've played the majority of FPS games on consoles especially, since around Wolfenstein 3d. CoD3 was a bit of a disappointment and was just lacking in areas, Trearch tried to make the multiplayer experience a huge deal, but it lacked structure, and Ranked games were a bitch to get into. CoD2 thrived in more close range environments in my opinion.

Ok, time for the bad: I have been disappointed in the past with games being released with buggy code that are not ready for prime time, and this game is a huge offender. The multiplayer only works if you are playing the game alone, and not trying to stick with a particular party.

The hype for this game was saying that its comparible to GOW or HALO 3 online play. NOT EVEN CLOSE, the multiplayer aspect of this game is poorly done. The game itself was ok...very repetitive.

There are so many different ways to play this game online that only Halo 3 tops it, and that's for the matchmaking and forge system only. Newbies to experienced gamers can enjoy the multiplayer and rank up as it suits them, or just play with friends. The only lacking element is a co-op campaign mode, but the objective-based multiplater modes make up for that.

When CoD2 was released with the 360, it was one of the main reasons to get a 360. CoD2 rivaled Halo with its gameplay and graphics yet it still lacked a few things(simple multiplayer) but was tremendously outweighed by the atmosphere, presentation and gameplay. Then CoD3 was released and was critisized for its lackluster single player campaign but was praised for its robust multiplayer modes.

Other times you might spawn just on the outskirts of the action. Even though you will spawn and die immediately sometimes, I do not think it happens enough to ruin the experience. One issue I did come across while playing the multiplayer was that when me and my friends were in a party we would sometimes get separated when going into a game, so we would have to back out and then rejoin into a party.

While bonuses are given when you do well, nothing is taken away when you do poorly - you simply receive less xp. This was a big deal for me, as part of the draw for the multiplayer component is the slew of unlockable content that is level dependent. While damage regeneration is a factor, it isn't overpowering.

The fact that there are no multiplayer achievements may bother some, but think of it as a chance to enjoy the game for the games sake, not so you force trying to get 10 kills in a row at the expense of enjoying the game.

It's got a very "Triple-A" game feel to it right from the outset. Overall, I'd give it a 7/10 in Single Player. I should be reviewing multiplayer Online play soon, but since I got my 360 back from repair, I haven't been able to get online.

-It's hard to imagine that the same people that made the horrible mess that was CoD2's multiplayer would succeed in CoD4.

I tend to hate voice chat, but it can be useful when it's not being used by 12-year-olds to insult your intelligence or parentage. Split-screen is present, but, as usual in the age of online gaming, suffers from overlarge maps. There's a nice variation in weapons (though, it would seem, not the full selection that's in the SP game, which is kind of annoying), but differentiation between weapons is mostly limited to the sniper kits.

The hype for this game was saying that its comparible to GOW or HALO 3 online play. NOT EVEN CLOSE, the multiplayer aspect of this game is poorly done. The game itself was ok...very repetitive.

There are so many different ways to play this game online that only Halo 3 tops it, and that's for the matchmaking and forge system only. Newbies to experienced gamers can enjoy the multiplayer and rank up as it suits them, or just play with friends. The only lacking element is a co-op campaign mode, but the objective-based multiplater modes make up for that.

The average shooter fan can go into most games and be pretty decent, not with this game. Even really good players will be bested by other players, not because the other players are better but because they have been online longer and have more power perks. Most of the other games may give you rankings but doesn't give you the power perks.

It's got a very "Triple-A" game feel to it right from the outset. Overall, I'd give it a 7/10 in Single Player. I should be reviewing Multiplayer online play soon, but since I got my 360 back from repair, I haven't been able to get online.

Don't make the mistake I did, which set up a very disappointing Christmas. Buy from reputable local merchants or online companies that still have integrity.

Forget playing when more than 200000 people are online, as the network slows to a crawl. In their efforts to fix the problems, I have also been the victim of losing experience and data that had been previously saved. Not to mention the times that the game has frozen the system altogether.

It can be frustrating at times, not an insurmountable challenge if you have the time. -You're unable to choose the exact game you want to join. online, unless you have a specific party and you're using an "Invite" to get the people you want.

I was disappointed with Call of Duty 3. The single player campaign was ok, but I didn't like the online multiplayer as much. It seemed to be focused solely on team based multiplayer games.

The single player mode on this game is decent. The multiplayer online mode is confusing, and difficult. The viewpoint is too distant, making opponents look like tiny dots on the screen if you are at a higher vantage point.

The story of course stretches reality just a bit, but no more than your average action film, and the locations and situations you get into are all pretty cool. There weren't any parts I didn't like until the last level where I felt like I was just playing some average shooter instead of a Call of Duty game, mostly because the fighting was reduced to running through corridors shooting from the hip pretty much at all times and throwing grenades when enemies got too blocked up. I guess I could have slowed down and played it more precisely, but the run and gun was what was working and anyway in the first half of this there was a time limit to get to a certain location.

The missions are well scripted (much to the same degree that the missions in Halo 3 or other Call of Duty games are well scripted), the story is well told and missions range from easy to fun to challenging without getting to terribly annoying. I ran through the game on Hardened difficulty and really got stuck in only a couple of places where I spent ungodly amounts of reloads attempting to accomplish the mission.

In fact, the worst thing in the game story, which is detrimental to the Arabs directly and indirectly. The city of Jeddah in the game is not as presented has been presented as a backward city and the old way.

Although the story itself is pretty much along the lines of your run of the mill Tom Clancy game scenario, it is presented and told in a manner that makes you really feel like you are a part of what's going on, and really makes you care about the characters involved. There are a few levels that add variety to the gameplay, such as a level where you covertly sneak behind enemy lines as a sniper to assassinate one particular bad guy. Another one puts you in the role of a gunner on an AC-130 Spectre, providing air support to your normal character's team on the ground.

The story is engrossing and real and the combat situations are not completely linear. Several times I was locked in combat in an alley, expecting all enemies to come from in front of me, only to get ambushed from behind, the side, or on top of a near-by building. This puts you in a constant state of tension, expecting death to come from anywhere.

A technical issue I have with the story is that the portrayal of USMC Force Recon is not accurate. Force Recon is a covert spec ops type unit along the same lines as Navy Seals and the British SAS. However, the game's Force Recon levels have the Force Recon Marines kitted up like regular infanry, and participating in large unit full scale mechanized assaults that would really be tasked to regular infantry.

Call of Duty 4: Modern Warfare takes the time tested series out of the now tired WWII era and moves it into near future warfare, with a plot that could be ripped from tomorrow's headlines. In COD4, you play as either an SAS commando or a member of the Marine Corp's Force Recon, fighting in two different theaters of operation, against the same nuclear threat. The story is well told and the voice acting superior for a video game.

The story is probably the worst part of the game.

The story, though pieced together from every season of 24, is enjoyable however (even if the end was kind of weak). This is not a bad game.

I've been playing it for 5 days straight. Excellent graphics, good story line. It's only draw back is that it is relatively short.

There are so many different ways to play this game online that only Halo 3 tops it, and that's for the matchmaking and forge system only. Newbies to experienced gamers can enjoy the multiplayer and rank up as it suits them, or just play with friends. The only lacking element is a co-op campaign mode, but the objective-based multiplater modes make up for that.

When CoD2 was released with the 360, it was one of the main reasons to get a 360. CoD2 rivaled Halo with its gameplay and graphics yet it still lacked a few things(simple multiplayer) but was tremendously outweighed by the atmosphere, presentation and gameplay. Then CoD3 was released and was critisized for its lackluster single player campaign but was praised for its robust multiplayer modes.

On the harder difficulties the enemies are much more unpredictable and their bullets do much more damage. Cons: The campaign is really short; something that seems to be a re-occurring thing with shooters these days. However, if you play the game on the harder difficulties you will experience the "true" campaign.

Graphics are very good, controls are tight and spot on. Just not anything that was missed or done poorly in this game. Only gripe could possibly be that the campaign is pretty short.

From the buzz around this game, I was expecting it to be considerably better than past CoD titles -- but it seems like it has a lot of the same core issues. I've had fun with CoD -- this one also -- but the way people are treating the game like an infallible, beyond-reproach religion seems uncalled for. The campaign modes on CoD have always been very linear, even by FPS standards.

The campaign is no doubt stunning and fun, but sometimes you will find yourself lost and looking for direction. Yes, there is a given compass to "guide" you to your objective, but a black strip with a yellow dot only goes so far. This is a minor problem but it will sometimes cause frustration.

Disregard the reviews that say the on-line aspect is as good as the Halo 3 experience, it is not. The single-player campaign is awesome, but short. I suggest you play it on a higher difficulty than "normal", otherwise you'll be done with the game 2 days after you start.

Halo 3's single player campaign was...rushed and dirty(one driving level i'm thinking of towards the end was straight crap), it felt more like a multiplayer game with a single player add-on. -Great graphics and sound, being in a massive gun fight and seeing dogs run towards you or rockets fly by is pretty intense.

I was disappointed with Call of Duty 3. The single player campaign was ok, but I didn't like the online multiplayer as much. It seemed to be focused solely on team based multiplayer games.

Playing through the campaign, it felt like I was on rails. There are a number of stages in the game where it just up and tells you to "press X to do [special action]". Er, if the game's just going to tell you to do that, what's the challenge?

I'm currently on military deployment overseas, and after I bought this game a couple of months ago, it has been running non-stop in the break room, and Halo2 2/ 3 no longer gets any playtime. In fact, after playing thru CoD4 and then taking a shot at Halo 3, couldn't believe how poor the graphics were on Halo 3 comparatively. The troops can't get enough of CoD4 now, both single player and multi-player.

When CoD2 was released with the 360, it was one of the main reasons to get a 360. CoD2 rivaled Halo with its gameplay and graphics yet it still lacked a few things(simple multiplayer) but was tremendously outweighed by the atmosphere, presentation and gameplay. Then CoD3 was released and was critisized for its lackluster single player campaign but was praised for its robust multiplayer modes.

It's got a very "Triple-A" game feel to it right from the outset. Overall, I'd give it a 7/10 in single player. I should be reviewing Multiplayer Online play soon, but since I got my 360 back from repair, I haven't been able to get online.

Halo 3's single player campaign was...rushed and dirty(one driving level i'm thinking of towards the end was straight crap), it felt more like a multiplayer game with a single player add-on. -Great graphics and sound, being in a massive gun fight and seeing dogs run towards you or rockets fly by is pretty intense.

I was disappointed with Call of Duty 3. The single player campaign was ok, but I didn't like the online multiplayer as much. It seemed to be focused solely on team based multiplayer games.

Graphics- 3.5 The greatest word to describe the graphics is "Inconsistent". You will go through most of the single player game marveling at how wonderful the trees and walls look, then realize that the explosions are absolutely terrible.

The single player mode on this game is decent. The multiplayer online mode is confusing, and difficult. The viewpoint is too distant, making opponents look like tiny dots on the screen if you are at a higher vantage point.

The actual single player game is quite short so if you're not going to play this online, you may be disappointed. Once you do finish the game, however, you can go back to any of the individual missions.

The single player game is fairly short, but you will get a good mix of missions at least, from sneaking to all out attack. Like all CoDs before it though you will spend quite a bit of time fending off wave after wave of bad guys. The save system in this one is at least pretty good.

I know that some people will argue that the game focus is on multiplayer, but a)This is a single player campaign review, and b)Look at the Orange Box and all that fits in. A Half Life "Episode" took me the same time to complete as Call of Duty 4, which is quite disappointing.

We're not at photorealism yet though, so some images are a little bit off in terms of shading (especially in the intro movie) and characters' faces are a bit cartoonish, but this is not really an issue - after all it's only a game and the characters' faces aren't really that much of an issue when you're hopefully going to kill most characters while they're a hundred yards or more away. The game experience is very fast-paced and the difficulty is about the same as CoD3, but in this game the save points seem to be much closer together so we don't have the same frustrations of nearly getting through a level and then having to go waaay back if we get killed. The developers have done an excellent job here - I wish the people who made Rainbow Six Vegas had instituted a save point system as good as the one in this game - that would have stopped me from throwing that game's disc across the room in frustration and vowing never to buy another Rainbow Six game.

well i purchased the game and was not impressed with the graphics or controls. i refuse to pay for xbox live when pc is free so i purchased the pc version and maxed out the graphics and resolution and it like a different game. this version ruins the experience get it for pc the 360 version is a joke

I really mean that, and I've played the majority of FPS games on consoles especially, since around Wolfenstein 3d. CoD3 was a bit of a disappointment and was just lacking in areas, Trearch tried to make the Multiplayer experience a huge deal, but it lacked structure, and Ranked games were a bitch to get into. CoD2 thrived in more close range environments in my opinion.

Other times you might spawn just on the outskirts of the action. Even though you will spawn and die immediately sometimes, I do not think it happens enough to ruin the experience. One issue I did come across while playing the multiplayer was that when me and my friends were in a party we would sometimes get separated when going into a game, so we would have to back out and then rejoin into a party.

On the harder difficulties the enemies are much more unpredictable and their bullets do much more damage. Cons: The campaign is really short; something that seems to be a re-occurring thing with shooters these days. However, if you play the game on the harder difficulties you will experience the "true" campaign.

One challenge would be to kill 5 enemies while in the crouched position or perhaps to call in 5 UAVs. Then there are also specific challenges associated with each weapon in the game. By completing these challenges, you not only get experience but you can acquire new camouflage for the guns or new scopes and capabilities.

Disregard the reviews that say the on-line aspect is as good as the Halo 3 experience, it is not. The single-player campaign is awesome, but short. I suggest you play it on a higher difficulty than "normal", otherwise you'll be done with the game 2 days after you start.

Forget playing when more than 200000 people are online, as the network slows to a crawl. In their efforts to fix the problems, I have also been the victim of losing experience and data that had been previously saved. Not to mention the times that the game has frozen the system altogether.

There's only one mission when you get to do that and I feel that should've been more. Online multiplayer is very addicting and Infinity Ward did a good job in setting up how to create different class soldiers and that you have to gain experience points to unlock weapons, weapon attachments, challenges, perks, and getting promoted to the next higher rank. Ranking is based on the United States Marine system although COD4 has a lot more added to it.

This is one of those games where right from the very beginning, you're treated to a cinematic experience that few other games have managed to emulate. Things happen in this game that you won't be prepared for storywise and just that in itself is reason to give this game a five star rating.