digg

Join DiggAbout

Discover and share the best of the web!
Learn more about Digg by taking the tour.

Call of Duty 4 gets 10/10 from the Official Playstation Magazine

i125.photobucket.com — The single-player campaign or the multiplayer options alone would make this essential. It's a game where stunning set pieces are linked together by other ever more dazzling set pieces, while the depth and customization potential of the online component promise months of play. Too early for game of the year? Trust us, you'll see....

Bury
show profanity settings
expand all
  • navster15, on 11/01/2007, -24/+15And to quote Tycho Brahe:

    "On the Playstation 3, what force could stand against it? I have a high opinion of Haze, but I've never played it - that's based mostly on my gut. Call of Duty 4 will fall hard on that system, like shrieking artillery."
    • charlescheese, on 11/02/2007, -6/+32I just preordered the PS3 version from family video for $49 shipped. Use coupon code NEWMEM5F to get it at that price.

      Given that the PS3 version looks as good or better than the 360 version, I expect it to do very well. Multiplatform releases have done poorly on PS3 because devs have not taken the time to do them properly. COD4 was built side by side with the 360 version and is not a port. It should do quite well.

      Plus, Haze is looking pretty lame and UT3 is probably delayed. That leaves a huge hole for COD4 to fill, and fill it, it will. I also think free online will help this game do well on PS3.
      • Mysticyx, on 10/31/2007, -9/+3I have three ps3's!
      • triplehelix, on 10/31/2007, -1/+4the quote is a little confusing, but i think it was saying good things.
      • knetworx, on 10/31/2007, -1/+2The problem isn't that the devs aren't taking the time to do them properly, the problem is that the PS3 is f***ing hard to makes games for. That's the most probable cause for GTA4's delay.
        On a side note: I was in the beta for COD4, and even with only 3 maps to play on, I hardly even touched Halo 3 because I was playing COD4 so much. This game is amazing.
    • walkingdogs, on 10/31/2007, -22/+5"Multiplatform releases have done poorly on PS3 because devs have not taken the time to do them properly."

      And it would have nothing to do with the ps3 having the smallest install base now would it. I'm sure this game is really good but i would chalk up this review to trying to garner some type of buzz about a PS3 game and maybe just maybe spark some consistent sales of the console.
      • bigbadgoat, on 10/31/2007, -5/+23If thats the reason, I guess no one would bother making games for the PS3, Xbox 360, and wii, with 120-130 million install base of the PS2.
        • walkingdogs, on 10/31/2007, -13/+3I think we are all talking about the current gen now aren't we.
          • jaynemother, on 10/31/2007, -3/+9I think you're a smug jackass, don't I
          • triplehelix, on 10/31/2007, -1/+8you don't get to pick and choose which information you want to use just so your argument looks correct. if your logic can't stand up to the inclusion of more but related information, your logic is faulty.
      • andydumi, on 10/31/2007, -3/+9This is ione of the first games that has been developed independently on each platform a the same time, as opposed to make one then port over. So that is one of the reasons why some reviewers are saying on PS3 it may actually look better.
        • Optimaximal, on 10/31/2007, -1/+2It's a shame the 'independent development' didn't apply to the PC version. Like CoD2, it's just a ***** Xbox 360 port with higher resolution textures.
        • staticneuron, on 10/31/2007, -3/+8Actually no it isn't. Virtua tennis was one of the ports and reviewer didn't find issues with that game either. Am2 worked on the PS3 version while Suda51 worked on 360 version. Other games also have been clamed to look better on PS3 such as dirt and oblivion but in the past positive news about the PS3 was downplayed.
          • gwolf, on 10/31/2007, -1/+1Biased fan boy reviewers claims don't count for much.
        • Christbait, on 10/31/2007, -7/+6Of course a PS3 review is going to say that, ever heard of bias?

          They're identical, and both machines are being pushed to the limits despite both consoles having their deficits in certain graphical departments, the developers themselves have said this repeatedly.
        • gwolf, on 10/31/2007, -0/+1Judging from how well the demo runs on my PC I think it's more a case of really good coding by the developers. It looks great on my medium power PC at 1280 resolutions and runs without a hitch. This game would run well on just about any system I think.
      • samdu, on 10/31/2007, -1/+7As for the "PS3 having the smallest install base" comment, exactly what does that do to contradict the quote you pulled? On the "review trying to garner some type of buzz" comment, did it occur to you that perhaps the game is simply that good?
        • walkingdogs, on 10/31/2007, -6/+2"I'm sure this game is really good" - my quote
          • knetworx, on 10/31/2007, -0/+1"This game almost made me blow my load the first time I played it." - My Quote
    • Sornos, on 10/31/2007, -9/+5I don't know why navster is being dugg down. There are not a lot of good shooters to satisfy that niche on the PS3 this holiday season. Undoubtedly, COD4 will be good, but what is more impressive, a tall tree in a forest of tall trees, or a single tall tree in a field of bushes (and possibly, I reasonably, but shorter, tall tree).
      • ZenMojo, on 10/31/2007, -1/+20I don't know. Mount Everest is surrounded by tall mountains that no one gives a ***** about.
        • jaynemother, on 10/31/2007, -0/+3I know the green thumbs up says it all, but that was genius.
      • staticneuron, on 10/31/2007, -0/+3I really don't understand because after I say the gamersyde diary on Haze I have been intrigued. Not only on the gameplay but more on the story they want to try to present. I always found storys to be very interesting if they can pull of philosophical elements successfully.
  • DragonQuester, on 11/03/2007, -17/+5710 out of 10? With only the 4 to 6 hour single player mode? Wow...
    • noobeffect, on 11/03/2007, -7/+28The Official Playstation Magazine mentioned that SP was 8 hours.
      • tradwolley, on 10/31/2007, -9/+5Must be retards
      • djphatjive, on 10/31/2007, -12/+4Only 4-5 hours for 360, because the controls are better I guess :)
    • chocobomog, on 11/03/2007, -7/+71Didn't Halo 3 get the same score even with similarly short single player mode?
      • xXMetalJesusXx, on 11/03/2007, -19/+12Halo 3's story mode was shorter than most would have liked. But the Meta-Campaign, and skulls, and online co-op gave the Single player aspect a nice boost.
        • knetworx, on 10/31/2007, -0/+3The only reason I got the skulls and played the meta games (or even played the campaign at all) was for achievements and to unlock armor I could use in multiplayer.
          Halo 3 SP = An extension of Halo 3 MP
      • staticneuron, on 11/03/2007, -2/+7online co op is not single player. That falls under multiplayer as I am sure cod4 might have co op After playing the beta I personally prefer the MP of COD4 over Halo 3. Hands down.
        • mitchlourens, on 11/01/2007, -1/+5I much prefer COD4 as well, its a great mix of realism and sheer awesomeness
          • knetworx, on 11/01/2007, -0/+3Sheer awesomeness x10. I think the thing I like the most is the way they do the radar/UAV. You don't show up just from running around (f*** you Halo) -- you only show up when you're shooting, and only if you're not using a silencer.
      • crowbar77, on 11/03/2007, -4/+2Doesn't mean it deserved it. Besides not every site gave it a perfect score.
        • gwolf, on 11/03/2007, -1/+1You haven't played it yet, how do you know what it deserves?
    • rq60, on 11/03/2007, -14/+2That's better than portal's 1-2 hour gameplay.
      • swanny89, on 10/31/2007, -2/+13I'd rather play portal for two hours than a bland shooter for ten. That said, I expect Call of Duty 4's SP to be on par with the rest of the CoD series, meaning excellent. Still a bit too short, but good nonetheless.
        • rq60, on 10/31/2007, -5/+3that's what i'm saying. portal was a great game, despite it's length.
          • BrutusCirrus, on 10/31/2007, -0/+3I don't know why you're being dugg down.. Portal is the finest example that games don't have to be a minimum length just to be good.
          • knetworx, on 10/31/2007, -0/+1@BrutusCirrus (Digg's comment system sucks balls, and it says my session has expired when I reply to Brutus directly.)

            He's being dugg down because, although Portal is an excellent game, it's so much fun that it's sad when it's over. You want to keep playing, but you can't (except for doing new challenges on the same levels that you've already beaten.)
      • logandurand, on 11/03/2007, -0/+1Completely irrelevant - Portal is more of a puzzle game than anything else, and it was practically given away with HL2:EP2
    • CDRaff, on 11/03/2007, -0/+12I am more than willing to love a short game as long as it is good. Just as I am willing to play a game that has less than average graphics, as long as it is good. I think that we place way to much focus on graphic and game time, when really we should look at substance.
      • Blackmane, on 10/30/2007, -0/+1Alternatively you don't want a game that takes ages to complete, I like longish single players that do that a while to complete so I can do them over a couple of weeks, but if they are too long, I just get bored.
        • CDRaff, on 11/01/2007, -0/+1Sometimes, it really matters how varied it is or how much I want to complete it. Older Final Fantasy games, I would play for months to finish them, mostly because I wanted to do it. GTA:SA was varried enough for me to put like 100hrs on that game, I still play every once in a while.
    • MrFisty, on 11/03/2007, -0/+2I have a theory on this. I think because we're now seeing a generation of gaming journalists who actually grew up with games as kids, their inherent enthusiasm for the product is more obvious, which is why we're seeing a new 10/10 game every single week. Believe me, I'm having a real hard time trying to find good objectionable reviews. That's not to say I want to see good games scored lower out of spite, but I just think the point of a review is to review, not market.
      • Greywhind, on 10/30/2007, -0/+1I believe you mean "objective." "Objectionable" means "offensive," not "fair and unbiased."

        Of course, maybe you do like reviews that you can hate...
    • blapierre, on 11/03/2007, -11/+3Hmm...game officially licensed by Sony is endorsed by official Playstation magazine.

      There is no conflict of interest there.
      • ch0p57ickz, on 10/31/2007, -0/+7since when was COD 4 licensed by Sony? It's being released on 360 as well. for the love of god.. stop with the sony bashing. If you don't like it, stick with your wii/360 and leave everyone alone.
    • jtbndy, on 11/05/2007, -1/+2Who cares if it has a short SP game. Nobody buys these games for just the single player. Multiplayer is what makes the game lasting and enjoyalbe.
      • logandurand, on 11/03/2007, -0/+1But I don't want multiplayer, and I'm sick and tired of hearing that having fun multiplayer excuses bad singleplayer.
    • BearinG, on 10/31/2007, -0/+1Same with games getting incredible scores without any multiplayer at all like Bioshock.. where people love to say "Games don't need multiplayer to be great"

      Not taking anything from Bioshock, its an excellent game.. but I think that most replayability in COD4 will be the multiplayer portion.. just like COD3 or COD2..
      • thund3rstruck, on 10/31/2007, -0/+1I could give a ***** less about multiplayer since I don't play multiplayer. The only thing I care about is the quality of the single player game and I prefer games that are over in 6-15 hours. I only have time to play a game for a few hours a week and any game (such as Zelda) that's got 60+ hours of gameplay would take me a year to finish and I loose interest much sooner than that, regardless of how good a game is.

        IMO, Bioshock was the best game I've played since Gears of War and to this point easily game of the year.
        • BearinG, on 10/31/2007, -0/+1Exacly, and other people could care less about single player being short if they get a great multiplayer game that'll keep them playing after doing the single player

          You'd rather play SP.. I'd rather MP. Games for different people. That's why they put alot in MP.
  • ButchersBoy, on 10/31/2007, -30/+7Official Propaganda Magazine. I love CoD but surely you have to dock a point for a 5 hour single player. It's a dangerous precedent, will £40/$60 games become no longer than a Hollywood movie, and rely on the MP element?
    • noobeffect, on 11/03/2007, -3/+22It was mentioned in the review that SP was 8 hours long.
    • PhoenixAvatar2, on 11/03/2007, -3/+7Multi-player only games have been around for years. Battlefield, Counter-Strike, Team Fortress, MMO's, Smash Bros... Single player is still important, but it's not nearly as important as it was before on-line multiplayer.
      • Mewchu11, on 11/03/2007, -1/+4Smash Brothers was never multi-player only... Its just far superior in multi-player.
    • Iwantawii, on 10/31/2007, -0/+6Yes, make a good online element and your game lasts forever. Well, until the next game comes along anyways. CoD's fanbase to me seems largely keeping the game alive through multiplayer, so I'd consider the 5 - 8 hour SP mode "training."
      • Optimaximal, on 10/31/2007, -0/+3How can fighting against what can be considered some of the most scripted examples of AI (and not to mention waves of spawned enemies until you hit scripted triggers) in the last few years be considered 'training' for taking on real random people?

        This isn't like Quake where you could memorise the spawn point timings.
        • knetworx, on 10/31/2007, -0/+1It's a way to practice the controls and get used to hitting the right buttons without thinking about it. Also a good way to learn what weapons you like, which ones are more powerful, etc.
    • CDRaff, on 11/03/2007, -1/+2I understand where you are coming from, before broadband I really had a problem with games focused on MP. I got a Gamefly account, and never bought games. Now that I actually play MP games, I really see the value in them, they are a lot more fun than SP as you have an awesome community aspect.
      • knetworx, on 10/31/2007, -0/+1Funny you should mention that. I just canceled my GameFly account in anticipation of this game. I might just have to get rid of Halo 3 as well.
    • BobsYourUncle, on 11/03/2007, -1/+4Official Xbox Magazine also gave CoD4 a 10/10. Has nothing to do with propaganda. But don't let that interfere with your stupidity.
  • noobeffect, on 11/02/2007, -4/+39Before people start questioning the length of the campaign, OPM has stated that SP is "around 8 hours," in length.
    http://www.cod4gamers.net/resources/images/cod4/op ...
    • bmdubya, on 10/31/2007, -5/+9I guess that is what Halo is like. I'm passing up CoD4 for now and going with Assassin's Creed. Realistic sword fighting, plus a 40-hour campaign. Sounds good to me.
      • samdu, on 10/31/2007, -0/+9"Realistic sword fighting." Not unless they've changed some things dramatically since the last time they showed it.
      • ZenMojo, on 10/31/2007, -0/+12You want realistic sword-fighting, play Bushido Blade for the PS1. Otherwise, you'll be sorely disappointed in every game.
        • modix, on 10/30/2007, -0/+0That game was so fun and frusterating at the same time
      • Jakerius, on 10/31/2007, -0/+6I don't think you understand. When a games studio says "40-hours" it really means "10 hours for anyone who has ever played a video game before".
      • staticneuron, on 11/01/2007, -0/+5Hahahaha. I remember playing Bushido for hours with a friend. We would stand at either end of the stage run towards each other to diliver a killing blow. After I killed him nearly 40 times in a row he took the disc out of the system and threw it across the room. Less than 5 minutes later he ran to get it and challenged me to another duel.
      • hawarkarem, on 10/31/2007, -0/+3Why dont you get both?
    • Deputydon, on 10/31/2007, -4/+2That article does nothing but make it sound like Call of Duty 4 is the first game to allow you to shoot through walls....

      Come on, try Counter Strike...
  • quomen, on 11/03/2007, -2/+30Can you attach a mouse and keyboard to the play game?
    BTW, I'm getting a "Upgrade to Pro Today! Bandwidth Exceeded".
    Why would you link to a photobucket article and not the actual article itself?
    • loganhid, on 10/31/2007, -10/+2you can with the ps3 version
      • charlescheese, on 10/31/2007, -1/+11No you can't. You can use the Frag FX though. This was confirmed today by Infinity Ward.
      • knetworx, on 10/31/2007, -0/+1....or the PC version.....which would make more sense than buying a PS3, then using a mouse and keyboard to play your games.
    • charlescheese, on 10/31/2007, -0/+7No mouse and keyboard support.
    • PhoenixAvatar2, on 10/31/2007, -1/+11Will Photobucket become another imageshack?

      I hate it when people post imageshack pics on popular websites.
    • jtbndy, on 10/31/2007, -0/+1Go buy a computer. Console FPS controls blow anyway.
  • vinblackham, on 11/03/2007, -2/+44no to get off the subject of it being on ps3...but the pc demo was sick!
    • tjordan83, on 10/31/2007, -12/+14So was the Xbox 360s.
      • xXShadowstormXx, on 10/31/2007, -8/+4The 360 Beta was incredible.
        • knetworx, on 10/31/2007, -0/+1Don't understand why he's being dugg down. The 360 version *was* incredible. I've never played any of the other COD's, but I was in the beta, and I immediately got my preorder.
    • BlueSkyfish, on 10/31/2007, -4/+4I heard the Wii version is supposed to have controls that are even better than Metroid Prime 3.
    • xike, on 11/01/2007, -3/+7I agree, it was terrible.
    • 68024, on 11/01/2007, -2/+3Hm. I wasn't particularly impressed by it. I loved COD and COD2, but now COD4 is just another WW2 shooter gone 'modern combat'.
    • Elric1977, on 10/31/2007, -2/+1"sick"? Either this guy is 10 and thought it was a good game, or, it's a very bad game.... Hmmmmm
    • dukeochutney, on 10/31/2007, -0/+1it was a fairly ***** demo. i hate how their gui is still from cod. time to upgrade a sleeker set up and actually use some graphics. i didn't see anything to even compare to other recent games
  • shyner, on 11/03/2007, -5/+20I stopped reading OPM years ago when there got to be more pages of ads than actual content. ***** annoying.
    • samdu, on 10/31/2007, -0/+3Unless this is the UK incarnation, then this isn't the same OPM that you used to read. OPM went away months ago because ZD didn't think it was worth publishing anymore. The "new" OPM is PSM rebadged. I haven't received my first issue with the new masthead, so I don't have any idea how it compares.
  • HairyGrapeNuts, on 11/03/2007, -5/+12The multiplayer is what will make this game. I don't understand why people can grasp this in their heads.
    • wild, on 10/31/2007, -3/+3Because most of the gaming population doesn't play online for 20 hours a day?
      • knetworx, on 11/01/2007, -0/+2I call shenanigans on that one. Most of the gaming population doesn't play SP for 20 hours a day either. :)
        But, I guarantee you most people play online multiplayer more than they play single player.
        • apoc06, on 11/01/2007, -0/+2perhaps, but you forget that there is still a significant number of people who buy games and never connect their consoles to the internet. some may not have a good enough connection, some may just not feel like paying the fees associated, and some just dont want to deal with playing against other people.
    • mrxenon15999, on 11/01/2007, -1/+3I do grasp it - that's why I'm not buying it. Either do better than 8 hours or I'll find a game that does.
  • Bonz2008, on 10/31/2007, -18/+5There is no perfect game, so this review means nothing
    • xXMetalJesusXx, on 10/31/2007, -3/+24Duck hunt was the closest thing to perfection
      • modix, on 10/31/2007, -0/+4It would've been perfect if they had a final round that allowed you to shoot that damn dog.
    • BlackJackJester, on 10/31/2007, -2/+3Exactly why I really don't like closed scales. if 2 games get 10/10, but one is better than the other... /headsplode?
  • MalDON, on 11/01/2007, -6/+10Is this supposed to make me want to buy the ps3 version over the OC or 360? I don't think it will.
    • deaftly, on 11/03/2007, -0/+19im definitely getting the OC version
    • BlackJackJester, on 11/04/2007, -10/+4So this brings the games worth buying on the PS3 up to..what is it now... 1? 360 actually has a decent portfolio of good games. I counted 5-6 that I would pick up as I buy a 360 (i have yet to buy a console from this generation).
      • djSyndrome, on 10/31/2007, -2/+9This goes without saying, but the 360 is a year older than the PS3. At the end of the 360's first year you could count the good games on one hand - and still have a few fingers leftover.
        • Thorlord, on 10/31/2007, -3/+1gotcha, so next year the PS3 will be doing as good as the 360 is today.
          but by then it will be one year ahead of the PS3....

          hrm, why don't we just evaluate the consoles based on what we have now rather than whine how much a head-start one got over the other.
      • Bishop256, on 10/31/2007, -1/+4and your obviously an expert on next gen games considering you own 0 next gen consoles
    • Christbait, on 11/02/2007, -1/+5Probably be best getting on the 360, I will... mainly because I already have the console and play it most, plus there will obviously be a much larger number of players on XBL than on PS3 online, and has been tested more extensively for online on the 360 thanks to the beta, so finding trouble-free games won't be a problem.
      • knetworx, on 11/04/2007, -2/+1I will, mainly because the PS3 is a giant paperweight, and thus I don't own one. I WIN!!!
  • Rabbethan, on 10/31/2007, -0/+11I thought OPM was shut down
  • zebr, on 11/01/2007, -2/+9Sound good. Hopefully the 360 version impacts reviewers just as this one did.
  • jooks, on 11/03/2007, -0/+45This games multiplayer is really fun, but seriously 10/10 etc is really losing its luster.
    • modix, on 11/03/2007, -0/+3Especially since it seems that only FPS are getting it. I'm not sure why its so much easier for games that are primarily Multiplayer to get scores that are near impossible for SP games.
    • knetworx, on 11/03/2007, -0/+2Blame it on Bioshock. You give one game 10/10 and it opens up the floodgates. The problem now is that they can't go back. They gave Halo 3 10/10 (well, some reviewers did), and since COD4 is better than Halo 3, they have no choice but to give it 10/10. The only way this can end now is by either changing the scale, or by making games that aren't as good as the ones that already exist.
    • joegibes, on 11/03/2007, -0/+2I believe that no game should receive 10/10 -- there is always something better that can be done.
      9.9/10? Maybe.
      But not for COD4.
  • aMammoth, on 11/03/2007, -3/+31Meh they they just want to make it look like a cross platform halo killer.
  • Hockey13, on 10/31/2007, -14/+2http://www.maxconsole.net/content_img/opzm.jpg

    Alternate link.
  • xXMetalJesusXx, on 11/03/2007, -16/+13I played the Multiplayer Beta on the 360...
    I played the Single Player Demo on the PC...

    I'd give it a good 8.5/10...it's not even close to a 10. The Multiplayer is a spray and pray for the most part. It doesn't help when the servers are laggy as hell. And the Single player was well done, but nothing orgasmic like the OPosM is making it out to be.
    • Irvulous, on 11/03/2007, -6/+24I'm so glad the guy who played the demo and beta is here to tell me what the full game is really like. Forget those guys who've played the final copy, this guy knows what he's talking about.
      • Optimaximal, on 11/03/2007, -1/+7The reviewer gave the game a ***** 10/10, how can you even believe it?
        Not one game in existence is perfect - Not Deus Ex, not Crysis, not Bioshock, Half-Life 2, Ocarina of Time, Metroid Prime 3, Smash Bros Melee nor Final Fantasy VII... Such a game does not exist & never can... Rating a game as such is bad sensationalist reviewing designed to appease to fan boys and games publishers.
        • knetworx, on 10/31/2007, -0/+1I think it's more a problem of the scale. It's a 10 point scale, and reviewers tend to only give half or whole points. Nothing in between. So, "almost perfect" becomes 10, since the next highest thing is 9.5 (obviously you could go 9.9 or even 9.99, but they never do).
      • staticneuron, on 10/31/2007, -0/+1Where were all these skeptics when halo 3, bioshock and gears of war got perfect scores from some big name review sites? Honestly these comments are very funny because they come out only at a time wen a perfect score was announced on the PS3. Really.... does one review(opinion) bother you guys so much?
        • Gizza, on 10/31/2007, -1/+1ummm, where were you when those scores came out? People bashed those 10/10 just as much, if not more so than they're bashing this.
    • xXMetalJesusXx, on 11/03/2007, -9/+9You can tell a lot about a game from the Demo and Beta. Do you know how much is really changed from Beta - Demo - Released Version?

      Not a hell of a lot...
      • 3toe, on 11/03/2007, -2/+2Do *you* know how much has changed from beta? No, you don't.
    • benspicklepark, on 10/31/2007, -0/+1You must be one of those Halo fans if you thought this beta was spray and pray...... as for laggy servers maybe it was your connection because i had close little to no lag. best fast action multiplayer shooter on a console yet. best overall shooter RB6 Vegas!
    • battletrax, on 11/03/2007, -1/+1Yeah and you also dont get to play the ENTIRE GAME.

      Halo 3 wouldn't get a good score if you could only play high ground.
  • aoki4, on 11/03/2007, -12/+2110/10? I call BS. I played the CoD4 demo on PC and was quite disappointed. The game plays exactly the same as CoD/CoD2 and the graphics are nothing special. The AI is non-existant. Enemies either stand around and shoot until they die, or they do small bits of scripted things, like rushing forward until killed. CoD4 is about as shallow as it can get, single player wise. The multiplayer seems a bit more promising with some customization, but I don't think I'll be playing it in favor of CS or TF2.
    • reed311, on 11/03/2007, -7/+13I think one of the reasons it received a 10/10 is that Sony is desperate for a killer game for their system. Yeah, COD4 is on the 360 and PC as well, but Sony is still in need of some good games for those who actually have purchased the system.
      • Christbait, on 10/31/2007, -0/+2Yep, even when Sony did well with their consoles from the outset... in the mid 90s onwards, they were doing the same thing with their official magazines and then lifting up the reviews into the hype-o-sphere.
    • xXMetalJesusXx, on 11/03/2007, -5/+7People don't buy the PS3 for gaming....it's a Bluray player....duh!

      lol
    • battletrax, on 10/31/2007, -0/+1graphics are decent?? Its your freaking PC

      look at any video or screenshot. Amazing graphics at 60fps.
    • neocitron, on 11/01/2007, -0/+1On the contrary, i think TF2 and CS are extremely simplistic games lacking in any real depth... i love TF2 but in terms of sheer depth, an ubercharge is all you're gonna get.
  • advancedOption, on 11/06/2007, -6/+918/10 = a bad game
    9/10 = average game
    10/10 = a good game, you should at least rent
    I'm so sick of game reviews, they're complete BS. How anyone can take them seriously anymore is a mystery to me.
    • BlackJackJester, on 11/03/2007, -0/+7O.o then what is Lair with its 4.9/10 (ign)???
      • mggs, on 10/31/2007, -0/+9Absolute *****?
      • Pake, on 10/31/2007, -0/+7Someone selling a "25,000 HOURS FREE! America Online" cd for $60.
      • LeifErikson8, on 10/31/2007, -0/+2Thats why I play the demos/play it at a friends house before I buy it.
    • Christbait, on 11/03/2007, -0/+2The games that get *****, unhyped reviews always turn out to be better, has to be bribing involved.
      • knetworx, on 11/03/2007, -0/+2I think it's more hype than bribery. The only reason I'm completely excited about this game is because I was in the beta and it was awesome. I don't give a f*** what the reviews say.
    • Refrag, on 10/30/2007, -0/+1Gametrailers.com is particularly bad about giving a high score to a game that they describe as not being very good.
    • DiggedyDoo, on 11/03/2007, -0/+2three words: metacritic dot com
  • Ouze, on 11/03/2007, -2/+33yet more of the rating systems in video game magazines being completely ***** meaningless. 10 out of 10 should be essentially the GREATEST GAME OF ALL TIME. I don't understand why they are so afraid of giving like "5" reviews. In my mind 5 should be the average review. There should be nothing wrong with being a solid 5, an average game. Instead it's really a scale from 7-10, with anything lower being strictly reserved for small games from smaller publishers who don't advertise heavily in print media.

    By their own system, that would make COD4 better then God of War, which they gave a 9.6. Is it really?
    • ZenMojo, on 10/31/2007, -0/+3Didn't this guy consider this game of the year?
    • BlackJackJester, on 11/03/2007, -1/+2Thats like comparing apples and oranges....clearly oranges are more delicious.
    • pixelatedsoul, on 10/30/2007, -0/+11UP.com and their magazines (EGM, GFW) all use a scale in which 5 is Average. Anything in the 7-10 range is good to great.
      • knowitman, on 10/30/2007, -0/+1Then why are the majority of the games in the 6-8 range? If 5 truly was an average game, then the average scores would be around a 5.
    • hisXenocide, on 11/03/2007, -3/+1everyone is exaggerating the problems with the rating systems problem. So what if all the scores are inflated by a couple points. Just raise your standards. Don't buy games less than a 7. Its not as if bad games are now rated higher than good ones. people 10 out of 10 still means that its better than games with 9 out of 10. If theres anything that you should be complaining about it should be the incredible number of games all getting 7 or 8.
  • zuperxtreme, on 10/30/2007, -1/+3Another Alt. Link? :(
  • FredFredrickson, on 11/04/2007, -11/+17Yeah, because "Official Playstation Magazine" has no reason to try to sell you on games and push system sales or anything. How did this even make it to the front page?
    • LeifErikson8, on 10/31/2007, -3/+3Thats a good question.

      Better question: Why is this game the only one I've been informed of thats any good on PS3?
      • knetworx, on 10/31/2007, -0/+1Because this is the only game that's any good on the PS3, perhaps?
    • FredFredrickson, on 10/31/2007, -3/+2Because aside from having only a handful of games, the PS3 has only 1 or 2 noteworthy games.
    • cyphin6, on 10/31/2007, -0/+1Don't have an opinion it will help the world heal from your stupidity. (fred)
  • joltjake, on 11/03/2007, -2/+28too many games are getting perfect scores without being perfect games.
  • yohnstoppable, on 11/03/2007, -2/+12Game ratings have become so damned inflated recently. I'm not saying COD4 isn't 10/10, because I obviously haven't played it. I would bet my right testicle that it isn't the perfect game that would entail a 10, though. It is just so odd that so many "perfect games" are coming out now. There isn't a single game I've played in my life time I'd give a perfect 10 too. I played enough of my favorite games to find plenty of stuff that pissed me off
    • staticneuron, on 10/30/2007, -0/+1pshh that may be you but I found quite a few games I would give perfect 10's to. Based on the merit of the game itself. Nowadays some reviewers will mark down a single player game for not having multiplayer. I find something incredibly stupid about that. A game should be rated on its merits and standards.
      • Optimaximal, on 10/31/2007, -1/+1But surely for the game to be perfect, it should have both single player and multi player components and they must be the greatest items of code to ever be committed to a disk. In other words, it's never going to happen.

        A 9.9 out of 10 is feasible - 10/10 is not.
        • BobsYourUncle, on 10/31/2007, -0/+2Why does 10/10 have to be perfect? We already accept it can't happen, so why not reserve 10/10 for the "can't miss it"? If a game is truly perfect (and you've said that can't happen) then give it 11/10. That would REALLY stand out. 10/10 is perfectly legitimate, if you accept 'perfection' is impossible. No one expects perfection in almost anything, but games need to be held to a higher standard? Give me a break. I say onward with the 10/10. Reserve 11/10 for the mythical...
  • dogelthorpe11, on 11/03/2007, -13/+4If it doesn't have Bungie style matchmaking, it does not deserve a 7 in my book. I buy for online play, and I am not looking for the same ole join a lobby of idiots and hope.
    • xXMetalJesusXx, on 11/03/2007, -10/+1Matchmaking is a great system. If you don't like it...go play customs...problem solved.
      • dabears1218, on 10/31/2007, -0/+2You completely missed the point of his comment.
    • knetworx, on 11/03/2007, -0/+2In the beta, it seemed to try to match you with people that had similar ranks to you, but I could be wrong about that.
  • noahw, on 11/03/2007, -0/+8Mirror: http://echopic.com/7zy
    Original image link exceeded bandwidth.
  • hotshot33610, on 11/02/2007, -14/+10No surprise with the 10/10 from Playstation Magazine. They have to try and sell the PS3's somehow...
    • Christbait, on 10/31/2007, -1/+4Uhh... don't digg him down, it's true, this magazine has been doing this for over 10 years,

      The ***** trash that I played on the PS1 & PS2 that got a 10/10 from OPM/PSM.... the best games always got the unhyped reviews.
    • BobsYourUncle, on 10/31/2007, -1/+2OXM gave it a 10/10 for the 360 version. So what's their excuse? Try not talking out of your ass. A great game is a great game.
  • Kratisto, on 11/03/2007, -1/+6I played the demo. It felt more or less exactly like any other Call of Duty game, only instead of 'Find the NAZI, shoot the NAZI', it's 'Find the Russian guy, shoot the Russian guy", and, as usual, interrupted on occasion by "Run over to ___ object and press your action button". You don't know why you're doing it, and you don't really care. You have to. Maybe the multiplayer will be a good throw back to the original CoD's brilliance. We'll see.
    • sleeknerve, on 10/30/2007, -0/+1maybe u need to play the multiplayer or look at the game with the high res in it, it should look better
      • knetworx, on 10/31/2007, -0/+1The multiplayer beta made me blow my load...
  • yoda17, on 11/03/2007, -1/+411?
  • yournamehere, on 11/03/2007, -1/+710 games out of 10 ?
  • LoudMusic, on 10/31/2007, -3/+6Just so I know, are most people giving this a Digg because they like review, or because they like the game?
    • AceLy, on 10/31/2007, -4/+4Because they own a PS3.
      • knetworx, on 10/31/2007, -0/+1The PS3 is a giant paperweight. I'm digging it because I was in the beta (on the 360) and it rocked my world.
  • ortucis, on 11/03/2007, -10/+8If HALO can get those ratings then COD games are way ahead of HALO in everything. Either THAT or this is pure ***** created for people who actually make purchases based on these reviews alone. Also, ratings are useless, there is no perfect game.. except for DeusEx.

    Hmm, I feel like re-installing DX..
    • joltjake, on 11/03/2007, -6/+6Dude, just shut up.
    • Thorlord, on 11/03/2007, -0/+2halo was a good game,
      but you are correct on one thing, DeusEx is an amazing game that everyone who thinks they know a good FPS story should play.
  • swordman69, on 11/03/2007, -5/+24Wow, a 10 out of 10 by the official Playstation magazine?? That NEVER happens. Those guys alway provide accurate and non-biased reviews. They would never boost a rating on a game just to try and drive sales.
    • modix, on 11/03/2007, -3/+0It's a cross-platform game... Not exactly something to convince people to buy PS3s.
      • Optimaximal, on 10/31/2007, -2/+2But they are giving biased reviews to try and get the rating on the box, which will drive sales.

        Take this example - Johnny Richpants wants Call of Duty 4 for christmas and his rich parents bought him both a 360 and a PS3 last year because he's a spoilt c*nt. His clueless parents (with too much money in their wallets) go into the local game emporium and see CoD 4 for both formats.

        The 360 game has a less sensationalist review from say, Eurogamer, that awards the game 7 or 8 out of 10. Next gondola over, the PS3 has 10/10 from the *Official* PSM plastered all over the box and display.
        Clueless parents obviously think that must be the best version, because OPSM said so and OPSM must be right because it's OFFICIAL. This is likely not taking into account the added cost of the game, tacky motion controls, lack of decent online play, weaker graphics and poorer framerates that could result from an inaccurate review glossed over then presented by an official/biased source such as OPSM.
  • ZenMojo, on 11/03/2007, -5/+11Let me get this straight. None of the people here have actually played through the game but they're all making snarky comments about how the ratings are overblown?
    • FredFredrickson, on 10/31/2007, -2/+3WELCOME TO TEH INTERNETS
      • cyphin6, on 10/31/2007, -0/+1Oh ya the caps make it so much more convicting dumbass
    • Christbait, on 11/03/2007, -1/+4Some of us played the demos and the beta. And not to mention most games that get high reviews are usually overblown and I end up trading them in after a week or two. People should stop listening to games magazines reviews, they're usually cheap and nasty ways of selling and hyping to unwitting consumers.
      • knetworx, on 10/31/2007, -0/+1I'm addicted to Halo 3, but the 3 maps in the COD4 beta were enough to pull me away from Halo 3 the whole time the beta was going on.
  • kinerry, on 11/03/2007, -6/+15ps3 spam
  • slstudios, on 11/02/2007, -3/+1graphic link doesn't work anymore. anyone got a working mirror/alt link?
  • tobleronian, on 10/31/2007, -3/+4The demo was a load of *****, maybe not that bad, but really nothing special at all... perhaps it was a bad choice of level and there is variation.. the sniper level looks cool, but a 10?? Personally I don't believe any game deserves a 10.. but I'm a perfectionist. I honestly don't think I'll rate it as a 10, but I can only play and find out. Purely from the demo... which i got bored of and didn't even complete, my score would be a 7.5... i thought the change to modern war would be refreshing... no same old WW2 CoD... more of the same scripted sequence after scripted sequence... yawn.
  • TonyTheTerrible, on 10/31/2007, -1/+4buried for photobucket
    think ***** out, please.
  • heatian, on 11/02/2007, -1/+4This game has recieved multiple 10/10 ratings. In fact, I am aware of three reviews of this game so far, and all three are 10/10. I don't think this is the official playstation magazine building up a game that is coming out on multiple platforms.
    • Optimaximal, on 10/31/2007, -1/+2It still doesn't mean any of them are right - CoD games are well known for being all shout/hype and nothing in the trouser department after a few weeks of play - look at how quickly CoD2 slipped from the limelight on both the PC and 360.
  • intilli4, on 11/02/2007, -3/+3THEY CAN BE BOUGHT ! ! !
  • cavie2002, on 11/03/2007, -1/+17to me goldeneye 007 and ocarina of time are the only 10s in my heart
    • skyfire1, on 10/31/2007, -1/+3*yawn*
    • modix, on 10/31/2007, -0/+4Why do so many consider OoT better than LttP? LttP seemed like a much better all around game, and wasn't quite as gimmicky as far as bosses and such. The newer zelda's have followed the OoT template, which was good, but some parts seem dumbed down.
      • goosnargh, on 10/31/2007, -0/+5Same reason many consider FF7 better than FF6. Because they're just kids who never played the latter.
    • sleeknerve, on 10/31/2007, -0/+4metal gear solid 2? god of war? half life?
  • daeyeth, on 11/03/2007, -0/+4I tend to ignore most reviews except Gamespot because they are the lowest common denominator. They are always harsh.
  • digitallysick, on 10/31/2007, -0/+4can you play this with online multiplayer?? i don't own a ps3, but i would if they had xbox live like services
  • statrick, on 11/03/2007, -0/+3everything gets a 10/10 these days haha...COD4 does look really good though
  • soldheart, on 10/30/2007, -2/+0my favorite PC game
  • CrimsonBlur, on 11/03/2007, -3/+5How can a game with an 8-hour campaign mode get a 10/10? That should immediately knock it out of the running for a "perfect" score, I don't care how good the multiplayer is. The previous Call of Duty games have all had excellent campaign modes, it was the reason you bought the game. The only way that would even approach acceptable is if it was specifically designed for multiplayer only, like UT3 (which coincidentally will have a more robust campaign mode anyway).
    • brwnx, on 11/03/2007, -1/+1to me, an 8-hour campaign is perfect...having a job, wife and two kids dont give me much time for gaming...
      An 8-hour campaign will probably take me a week to complete...any longer and I would lose focus and drop the game...
    • ButchersBoy, on 11/03/2007, -0/+3I said the same thing and am currently on -23 diggs and have been labelled 'stupid'. I don't know what is wrong with people, but CoD campaigns have been a joy in the past and I will be a bit dissappointed when this one wraps up so soon. Disclaimer: been playing CoD MP since the day it came out and am still playing.
    • solid12345, on 10/31/2007, -0/+0Considering if you took the wife and the kids out to a 2 hour movie and bought concessions for all you'd pay the same price for 8 hours of gaming entertainment.
  • F9Phoenix, on 10/31/2007, -1/+5How to get your game review noticed on Digg:

    Give it a 10/10 (you need a sensationalized score before anyone else) before you can fully test out any key features like multiplayer with the public and send it to Digg. Mission accomplished!
    • knetworx, on 10/31/2007, -0/+1*knock knock* Multiplayer testing with the public = Online MP Beta last month
      you--;
  • icsbase, on 10/31/2007, -4/+5A rating that comes from a Playstation Magazine which is made for Playstation console cannot be trusted. Same way with Nintendo and Xbox magazines. Only fanboys read them and are sure to get every game that gets good rating.
    • zeejay, on 10/31/2007, -0/+2It's apparent you've never read either one. The only mag not to trust is Game Informer, as it's produced by an actual seller of games, which is a blatant conflict of interest.
    • ch0p57ickz, on 10/31/2007, -0/+1i dugg him up because he at least mentions Nintendo and Xbox magazines as well. Finally someone who doesn't look for any opportunity to bash Sony. It's gotten as ridiculous as Fox news blaming Al Queda for the wildfires in California.
  • dandonia, on 11/03/2007, -4/+44-6 hours single player is spot on for me. Its not too long, so I wont get sick of it. When these say 6 hours they always mean 8 to me, I suck at games.
  • Tyorant, on 11/03/2007, -1/+6To me, 10/10 means perfect, flawless, the best. I can tell you now that I wouldn't rate even my favorite games 10/10. IMO there has never been a perfect game, there's been great games, but never perfect.
  • ubergeek09, on 11/01/2007, -2/+2No one really cares what the "Official Playstation Magazine" says, they don't know how to review games.. They are extremely biased.
    • knetworx, on 11/01/2007, -0/+2Yeah, you can ignore them completely. Pay attention to all the other reviews the game is getting. Oh, those are all 10/10, too? [Insert lame explanation of how all those reviews are biased too.] You can totally ignore every review from every magazine/website/company/person, because they're totally biased. Then again, maybe ubergeek is just a douche.
  • Fetching more discussions...
    Show 51 - 70 of 70 discussions
  •  

    Login or register to add a comment

    Create a new account or login to join in the conversation on Digg. You'll also be able to Digg stories to help promote things you like.


© Digg Inc. 2008 — Content posted by Digg users is dedicated to the public domain.
DIGG, DIGG IT, DUGG, DIGG THIS, Digg graphics, logos, designs, page headers, button icons, scripts, and other service names are the trademarks of Digg Inc.