man,cod 4 engine doesn't automatically means it will be better than 4

it's the devolopers who make the story,levels,veraity and the most important factor(that cod3 lacks) is the groundbreaking pacing

Im sure cod5 will never touch cod4 or even cod2.

INFINTY WARD FTW.

<That is all.)

Just for future notice, CoD4 wasn't game of the year for it's incredible 3 hour single player campaign. It was game of the year for its multiplayer features. Therefor, yes the game can be awesome with a lack of single player -- look at halo 3 which everyone claims is #1 of all time. Also, you might want to read before you post with your panties in a bundle next time. I never once said 5 was better than 4 or even going to be better than 4. I was simply stating how can 4 be better than 5 if it's the same engine? Therefor it leaves us with only one thing -- development. It's the same graphics etc. etc. we leave it up to the dev's to give us the incredible multiplayer experience that everyone buys this game for in the first place. Face the facts, no one buys this game for its 3 hour SP campaign.

@Wise rant monkey
--- agreed, however cod2 > cod4 as well. ---

call of duty 4 game of the year?????

super mario galaxy deserves(my opionion) it for it's awesome new,innovitave ideas,awesome gameplay,amazing level veraity and design,absolotely unforgetable soundtrack.

a nearly flawless game.

as will for cod5,maybe you'r right,we'll wait and see what's in store for the multiplayer mode.

but you know with resistance2 coming nearly with cod5,I don't see why anyone gonna even look at cod5

60 players death match
8 player co-op FTW.

CoD4 was game of the year unfortunately I don't see why either. As far as I knew games were rated on single player but I could be wrong.

As for Super Mario Galaxy I never played it but I've heard good things.

With Resistance 2 the problem is it's exclusive and CoD5 is not exclusive. CoD5 will be more popular on the xbox 360 but it's arrogant to say that PS3 owners won't buy it. Some people like the more realistic shooter than the futuristic version.

And as for the disagree's, I don't see what you disagree with, if you play CoD4 SP still...well, I don't know what to tell you it's 3 hours long and not much after you beat it once you're done.

defending the game you like from a game that hasn't even come out yet, and then arguing on and on about it.

xhairs - Do you really have to ask why you are getting disagrees?
Since when is COD4 3 hours long?
I've played through the single campain without a walkthrough guide on Hardened for my first play through. And I can tell you COD4 single player is not over in 3 hours.

Now, I know that Call of Duty 4 isn't a long game. Not by any means, but - while it lasted - the single player story was brilliant and it certainly helped propel the game to game of the year. Packed, as it was, with plenty of stand out moments.

As for CoD5. I hope these are early screens, because the characters look horrible. They look like mannequins covered in badly fitting clothes. It's like a video game adaptation of Thunderbirds or Joe 90.
Maybe Treyarch has Captain Scarlet in the works for when they finish this.

As far as I'm concerned there's only 3 parts of CoD4 that truly stood out to me. As for the 3 hours of game play -- yes it can be beaten in 3 hours. As for not using a walkthrough...who really needs to? There's only one way to go and one way to do it a walkthrough would seem utterly ridiculous.

And it's not about defending a game against a game that hasn't come out. It's the fact that everyone is claiming CoD4 is already BETTER than CoD5 and me trying to explain that how can it be when it's the same engine and all you can see is pictures? Without the story -- we can't even tell.

Not to mention you claimed it was your first play through on the hardest difficulty...well that right there explains how it's not 3 hours. No one would beat that game in 3 hours on their first play through the hardest difficulty, but the fact still remains that it CAN be done therefor it is.

So let me ask you again (I don't know why because disagree's don't really bother me anyways) why am I getting a disagree on my original post of: How can CoD4 > CoD5 if it's the same engine and we know nothing about the story line?

The question isn't even able to be disagreed with because it's a question...you can't disagree with a question.

How can you have decided that COD4 is better than COD5 based on three screenshots? Maybe wait and play the game before you make up your mind.

Although I have disagreed with you xhairs. I haven't clicked the disagrees, mine has only been verbal.

I know it is actually possible to beat CoD4 really quickly (I don't actually know how long it is possible to do it in)
BUT
There is a difference in it being possible to beat the game in 3 hours and the game only being 3 hours long.

To say CoD4 is only 3 hours long is a bit misleading as most average people will take at least double that playing on a normal difficulty.
3 hours assumes you have played the game several times before, you know where enemies spawn, you know what you are doing and are playing it on an easier difficulty level.

It is possible to beat Mario Bros 3 quickly by using Warp whistles.
Or MGS4 quicker by skipping sequences.
But aren't games supposed to be enjoyed rather than reduced to the minimum time possible to race all the way through, by a veteran.

You dismiss the CoD4 single player in one throw-away comment as a 3 hour excursion to the multiplayer, but in actual fact, while it lasts it is a brilliant single player that deserves to be enjoyed and is actually far longer than 3 hours for most people that play it...

...that's all I'm saying.

treyarch cod games were always average,just see

cod:finest hour(ps2,gcn,xbox)
cod2:big rid one(ps2,xbox)
and thier latest game cod3

so, my expectation with cod5 is low,cause treyarch devolopers(with all respect to them)aren't nearly as talented as infinty ward
infinty word cod's are the true cod games

cod1
cod2
and cod4

heck,even before they went from EA(see wikipedia)and created IW with activision
they made the classic
moh:allied assault(pc)

As this is my last bubble I'll try to make it a good one.

@JTucker-
I understand what you mean by the average gamer, but lets look upon reviews of MGS4. Everyone says there is not enough gameplay, however there is upon the average gamer. You catch my drift? They're looking at it form a standpoint that it can be beaten in X amount of time. Unfortunately I feel the same way you do with the fact that it was brilliant, all I'm saying is that how can we tell CoD5 won't be Treyarch's best? Sure CoD3 blew, Big Red One - blew too (which was only an expansion pack I believe) etc. etc. But you have to start somewhere, I'm sure this time around they might actually have something. However if CoD4 does prevail over CoD5, then so be it. My only reasoning is that it can't be proven by a SS of the same engine.

@ape007 -
it's understandable you feel that way as do I, but at least this time around we're still getting newer battles. WW2 has been made time and time again, but now we actually fight the pacific. I believe this has only been done twice, once with Medal of Honor and again with The History Channel. I'm interested to see what happens, the new landscapes etc. etc. But by simply providing an assumption of their past games being crap (I agree) we can't put them down yet. This could be their best ever, we'll just have to wait and see. And again, a Screen Shot of the characters can't prove that.

well said friend

I'll give it a chance, let's wait and see

great comment btw

7k hours over 15 years isn't that crazy. The fact that he's been playing the same game for 15 years is more impressive.