Talk:Call of Duty 4: Modern Warfare/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Problems in Cage Matches

There's been alot of problems with people 'boosting' EXP points in cage matches, I've seen it first hand, and it's sort of annoying, it seems to be an epidemic, i've spent one hour listening to people say 'Wanna do Challenges?' and the kicker is, if you say no, they then will leave. I've also learned that it's mostly people under the age of 15 doing this.

Firstly, how is this even remotely relevant to the article at hand? Secondly, you obviously haven't been playing online video games (especially best-selling ones like CoD4 or Halo) for very long, have you? Vicious203 (talk) 14:42, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

It may not be relevant to the article but he's right people do that alot.

Recent updates?

Turned on my 360 today and got told to update CoD4. Any official word on this here patch? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.132.178.20 (talk) 18:30, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

There is already a section of that. Here is what it says:

      On February 29, 2008, a patch was released for the Xbox 360 version, 
      which feature the new quick mute option, improvements in sniper rifle and 
      ACOG scope accuracy, new Kill Cams, updated Spectator Cams, and host migration. 
      The same patch has been announced and is currently in development for the 
      PlayStation 3, but no release date has been given.

I hope that helps you AP Shinobi (talk) 15:14, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Custom Maps (Game mods)

There is now a program download that allows users to make there own maps which can then be played on the xbox 360 (presumably downloaded through xbox live) PS3 (again I assume that it is downloadable though whatever ps3 have, I don't have one) and PC*/MAC. See infinityward website. Is it worth adding this I would my self but I do not know enough about it. *Not VISTA cos as always it doesn't work. Inputdata (talk) 21:00, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

I thought that would only be for the PC version? And the PS3 one would be done via Playstation Network (PSN). AP Shinobi (talk) 15:15, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Well on the website it says

Design your maps around your platform of choice (PC, Xbox 360, or PS3); as you never know where it could end up.

see here. Inputdata (talk) 17:35, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Sales

Most popular videogame articles give information about the game's sales. Seeing as that information is widely available for Call of Duty 4, it should be indicated here as well, particularly as Activision and NPD claim it to be the best selling game of 2007. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.157.91.54 (talk) 05:20, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

GA review

Hello, I am the GA reviewer of the current article. If you have any questions, do not be hesitant to ask them. Just leave a msg here or on my talk page. Regards, Daimanta (talk) 01:06, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

I noticed that a vast majority of the article provides no citations whatsoever for the material. I realize it is difficult to cite plotlines and character biographies, but I feel that at least some of it should be cited as a GA. Other objections would be some uncited statements in "Reception" and lack of cites in "Game engine" and "Pre-release marketing". Also, and this is just my opinion, but I think the "Plot" section is too long. I'm not sure if it is possible to shorten it without leaving out essential information, but someone may want to look at it. Thingg^⊕⊗ 04:37, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply. I always consider sources an essential part of a good article. I will give some slack on the ingame part since it is hard to verify since there is little to no information about it floating on the web or in any books, but if parts are reasonably verifyable and it has not happened I will make the review dependent on that. Regards, Daimanta (talk) 15:02, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Now for the first problem I found: The cnn source link is broken. The source must be fixed or removed and replaced. Daimanta (talk) 15:03, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

"and the first game in the series to be rated Mature."

This is pretty Americo-centric. Either wiki-links need to be added or the sentence needs to be rewritten. Daimanta (talk) 15:11, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Like Thingg already said, there is a huge piece of text missing any citation whatsoever. I demand at least one source for the whole. That should not be impossible. Regards, Daimanta (talk) 15:37, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

"A soundtrack album for the game featuring Barton's music will be released within the coming weeks.[specify] "

Well, uhmmm... , specify. Daimanta (talk) 15:39, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Ill try to work on all that today. Though i do feel that the plot section is a good size as i feel info would be lost if it was shorter. BonesBrigade> 15:46, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Where am I asking for a shorter plot section? I am only demanding some sources, which is entirely reasonable. Regards, Daimanta (talk) 16:03, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

The plot was responing the suggestion made by User:Thinng. Im finding it extremly hard to find sources for the game engine some help with that would be appreciated. BonesBrigade> 17:19, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

I am going to look for the source regarding the game engine. It is probably going to take a while but that doesn't matter though, because the review is only done when it's done. Regards, Daimanta (talk) 19:41, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

For the game-engine source: http://xbox360.ign.com/articles/796/796451p2.html

It's an interview with a developer. I hope that solves your problem. Regards, Daimanta (talk) 00:55, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

The thing about the rating still needs to be changed. And the story section needs to be sourced. Regards, Daimanta (talk) 16:32, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Ill try and get to that today and tommorow. BonesBrigade> 22:46, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm suprised the reviewer hasn't picked up on this, but this article makes a heck of a lot of use of second-person statements. This tone is highly inappropriate to an encyclopedia article, as it implies the reader is a player of the game. These all need to be removed with extreme prejudice for a realistic chance of passing GA (and not having it delisted five minutes later). For instance, for "As the player, you control these characters from a first person perspective" should be redone as "The player assumes the role of a number of different characters through the game, viewing them from a first person perspective." The reader should not be referred to in any context in an encyclopedia article. -- Sabre (talk) 11:38, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

True. I work on an article on a point to point basis. If I see a point I adress it and wait untill it is resolved. If it is resolved I continue with my next point. If you want a reference you can check my other GA reviews. The response in the beginning was a little bit low so I am waiting patiently. Thanks for the hints anyway, 4 eyes spot more than 2. Regards, Daimanta (talk) 12:22, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Ill try to get to that also. Ive been busy latley and its hard to find good campain sources(most say u fight blah blah now to the MP) Also a list of some things to do would be nice becuase we can get more cleaned up faster if we know what to do. BonesBrigade> 23:14, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Im just going to say that, the area in which Chernobyl is situated, is spelt Pripyat, not Prypiat. I was going to edit it, but I could not.Cressweed (talk) 20:06, 31 January 2008 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.109.165.146 (talk)

"The game also became available on Steam on 6 November 2007 for pre-purchase and was available to play as of 12 November 2007."

It not explained what Steam is, this should be reworded. Regards, Daimanta (talk) 14:07, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

"At Level 55, the player cannot gain any more XP from the game until they unlock Prestige Mode, a feature only available in the console versions of the game."

Wikilink the word "console". Daimanta (talk) 14:08, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

"presenting the player with a vast number of different combat scenarios". The word "vast" indicates a bias. This needs to be removed. Daimanta (talk) 14:09, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

As per advice, every reference to "you" needs to be deleted and replaced by a more encyclopedic tone. Regards, Daimanta (talk) 14:25, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

I could of sworn i got rid of all of them but guess not. I thank you for your patience with the review. BonesBrigade> 23:31, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Ok, this article failed the nomination. Reason are abundant. Things like style and references are severely lacking and on that basis alone it should be failed. However, as CM has pointed out, the article has many other problem which all need to be adressed if this article wants to have any chance of becoming GA. Regards, Daimanta (talk) 01:11, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Additional platforms

Call of Duty 4 was also released on mobile phone, I think that this should be added to the infobox, to make the article a little more informative. And than there's the Nintendo DS version. There was a huge discussion on that article's talk page, and I agree that the game deserves it's own article (Because it is slightly unique from the home console version, and because it's awesome). However, it still is Call of Duty 4: Modern Warfare, it still is a very similar game, and again, it'll make the article a little more informative. On a related note, I submit that Call of Duty 4 is the best FPS ever. Responses? 69.121.179.87 (talk) 01:20, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

The Mobile phone version is completely different from the actual game, though it followws the main course of events. BonesBrigade> 01:27, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

True and true. I'd tell you that it's not great and to avoid buying it, but you already seem to have :) Regardless of diffrent gameplay and perspective, however, it is a Call Of Duty 4 title, and, as you said, follows the story, undeniably making it part of the series in my eyes. 69.121.179.87 (talk) 02:01, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Sadly i do :( but i digress. Well then i cant help but think that if the D.S version is getting its own page, shouldnt the mobile? I mean basicly the same argument could be used. BonesBrigade> 02:08, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Poor you. I won't stop you from making a page for the mobile phone version, but I will comment that mobile phone games are't notable enough to recieve their own articles, but I think it would be interesting to see how much info you could squeeze out. But for now, I just wanted you're O-K to add Mobile Phone and Nintendo DS to the "Platforms" section of the infobox. Sooo? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.121.179.87 (talk) 02:13, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Im Personaly Undecided on this issue. I think its best to get some other editors to comment on this though. But i encourage you to be Bold! and add it if you think it is right. BonesBrigade> 02:21, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

I think I'll will wait for the opinoins of others, lest I be chewed out by rabid Wikipedia editors. Thank you for being, unlike most of them, a decent human being. In the meantime-

EDITORS! WHAT DO YOU THINK? 69.121.179.87 (talk) 02:31, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Kinda random if you ask me... if I look up Oceans 11 in wikipedia does that mean both the old movie and the new movie have to come up on the same page? No because they are two different movies with the same title. If I name my dog Call of duty 4 does that mean I can put him on this article. Sorry if this comes across as rude but if you think about it, then you realize it just doesn't make sense to add a cell phone game to this page. (Fighting Zucchini (talk) 17:07, 29 January 2008 (UTC))

True, but we aren't talling about a dog, or having a whole 'nother section about the cell phone version. Feel free to disagree, but I stand by my point that it is a Call of duty 4 video game, and I don't think it will hurt just to slip it in to the infobox. By the way, I hope you did'nt name your dog Call of Duty 4... wow, I'm considering doing that! 69.121.179.87 (talk) 23:02, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Griggs?

Just to have an another annoying "who died" augment, how do we know that Griggs died? We see him getting shot in the shoulder/neck area and going down, but how do we know that he was not saved by the Russians? SirBob42 (talk) 11:25, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Your right its impossible to really confirm anything about the final scene because it ends so abruptly and any following game play doesnt alucidate the situation. But i think until evidence is found otherwise its safe to say he was killed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 139.222.239.141 (talk) 18:45, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Its cool i removed the statement along with most other fates. We do not know but we seem to have some editors who do not wish to comply to the decision the rest of the group has come to. BonesBrigade> 19:14, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Makes you wonder why the developers had anyone shot in the game at all, with such disputes arising over the characters' fates. It probably would have been much easier for us here if that had been so. Hopefully CoD5 will be more conclusive. Comandante42 (talk) 21:49, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Actualy it would most likely be CoD 6 as Treyarch is doing the 5th instalment. And IW hasnt been known for its games having connected storylines. BonesBrigade> 21:54, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

I thiink it would be safest and most accurate to put that Griggs is shot and likely killed, but we don't have a clear conclusion. By the way, if you meant that this particular question will be answered in COD 5/6, it's unlikely, since 5 has been all but confirmed to be set in WWII (Boo!) and they're unlikely to pick up a 2-year old story line in COD 6. Fight the power. 69.121.179.87 (talk) 01:08, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Griggs is Killed in Action, plain and simple. It's just like saying Karl Urban's character didn't die in Bourne Supremacy because the audience didn't see his death on-screen when there were heavy implications that he was heavily wounded and wouldn't live within the next few minutes. The same could be applied for both Griggs and Gaz for that matter.Dibol (talk) 02:23, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

people dont include the timeline for the same reason they pit griggs death in. but there the same thing, you can eather have the timeline+dead griggs or no time line and no metion of griggs —Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.218.180.193 (talk) 04:04, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

At most i would agree to Likely killed. But dibol there you are making your own conclusion. Please participate in disscusion more then just making changes. BonesBrigade> 00:25, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

What else is there? Griggs was COMPLETELY motionless, no signs of breathing whatsoever, not to mention that Kamarov said outright in his statement "You're going to be okay" only to Soap. He never mentioned anything about Griggs, Gaz, nor Price whatsoever. Dibol (talk) 00:28, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

It is quite possible that Griggs is dead. He gets shot and all you can see are his legs until Price slides you his gun. After that you don't see him again. The point is that we don't know for sure. If we don't know then all we can say is that he gets shot. SirBob42 (talk) 09:41, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

To quote Ira Gaines from 24 Season 1. "There's dead, or not dead. There's no 'sort of dead.'" "Possibly dead" doesn't cut it whatsoever.Dibol (talk) 21:34, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Why are so many people arguing over whether or not a character died in a video game? Aren't there better things to be spending your time on? Furthermore, does it really matter? We don't know for certain if any of them are dead, I didn't see any coroners' reports in the game, or any names on any memorials, so unless IW answers these questions you can guess all you want but that's all it's gonna be - guessing, and the last time I checked Wikipedia wasn't a place for speculation. --Joowwww (talk) 12:18, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Recorded video clip of the ending: [[1]]. If this is not a confirmed death, I don't know what else is. Dibol (talk) 23:25, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

"Aren't there better things to be spending your time on?" -Sorry, but that kind of annoyed me. I'm not pissed off or anything, but that just didn't sit right with me. 69.121.179.87 (talk) 23:10, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Dibol that clearly doesnt show that he is dead. It shows that he is crittically wounded but it isnt a definite. BonesBrigade> 23:33, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Are you people kidding me? Of course griggs is dead, he was shot point blank in the head and blood splattered out of him. Then you see his motionless legs. Of course he's dead. How could you people not see that he is dead! Apparently Dibol is the only smart one here to see this. Its so obvious, its like saying Gaz didn't die or the other soldiers there didn't die. This argument is completely ridiculious. --69.124.58.112 (talk) 01:09, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Um no he wasnt shot point blank in the head, what video game you played is beyond me. Motionless legs meen nothing. He could clearly be in a coma or some shit like that. Also it is very possible to survive shots to the head. BonesBrigade> 15:41, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

I think we should consider the song at the end credits right before the Epilogue. When determining Griggs's fate.--Griggsdosentdie (talk) 01:00, 4 February 2008 (UTC)Griggsdosentdie, 8:00 PM, 2/3/08.

We can't post information that isn't confirmed. We would be able to if an official medic pronounced Griggs dead. Please stop reposting his death!GraMicE (talk) 05:35, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Griggs was not shot in the head, nor at point blank. It is possible that he is alive and I would go as far as to say that people denying this are the only unintelligent ones here, not intelligent. If you know anything about medicine, you will know that people can and have survived point blank to the head, and he got medium range to the shoulder / neck. It is even possible that Gaz survived, although it looked like a Desert Eagle so he probably had half his head blown off. However, this is kinda pointless and a waste of my time when I have better things to do, so... 213.78.183.91 (talk) 20:41, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Gaz is definitely dead, considering that A. He was shot at point-blank with a Desert Eagle handgun, a miniature hand-cannon that also killed Al-Yufani (i.e. .357 caliber or .50 AE rounds), and B. Gaz had a large pool of blood surrounding his body before the Russian troops arrived. Being shot in the throat does not put someone in a coma, but kills the person.Dibol (talk) 05:54, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

It doesn't matter even if he died 2 hours after the event. He death wasn't confirmed in the game so we cannot post it. I don't care if the whole side of his face was blown off. We cannot post it.GraMicE (talk) 06:06, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

He's not definitely dead, just probably (Gaz I mean). And BTW a Desert Eagle can also be .45, and .50 are not all that common outside of hunting or somesuch due to the low 7 round capacity. In fact, seeing a Desert Eagle in use with a military man is rare enough, as due to their recoil and magazine capacity they are not favoured. Still, it does not mean he is dead for certain, it is merely probably. People have survived worse things than that. 213.78.183.91 (talk) 14:54, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

I don't like how the plot section of the article states that Soap is a confirmed survivior. In the game, as he is being lifted up to the helicopter, Soap sees a bright flash of light. This flash is iddentical to the flash that Jackson sees before he dies. It doesn't mean that he did die, but because it is up for debate, he shouldn't have been put as a confimerd survivior. Rcross92 (talk) 22:15, 9 February 2008 (UTC) I actually came to mention that. Jackson sees that, and he's a confirmed KIA.

Without some kind of statement from the developers, we don't know for sure that MacTavish lives or dies. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.241.0.117 (talk) 05:39, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Kamarov made the statement to Soap in a positive manner, "You're going to be okay, my friend." No mention of Gaz, Price, nor Griggs has ever been made whatsoever, heavily implying that Soap is the only survivor of Game Over, and that his squadmates are dead.Dibol (talk) 07:50, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Kamarov's statement could have been reassurance, because Soap is not seen, we have no idea what condition he is in. If he was clearly not going to make is Kamarov wouldn't have said, "You are going to die my friend." I'm not saying that Soap is dead, but we can not assume he is alive. Rcross92 (talk) 20:46, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

This is getting ridiculous. To put an end to this once and for all, why don't we just put a disclaimer somewhere saying that "None of the characters in the game (except Jackson and his squadmates (nuclear bomb), and Zhakaev and his allies (Al-Asad executed, V. Zakhaev commits suicide, I. Zakhaev is killed by MacTavish)) can be directly confirmed as being alive or dead at the game's conclusion". Anything to conclude this trivial discussion and finally reach a consensus on how to mention the characters' fates.  Comandante  Talk  21:09, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

I agree. It just does not matter that much. I think it's pretty clear who was intended to live (Soap) and who was intended to die (everyone else)-but it's not worth this sustained edit-war. 72.241.22.122 (talk) 03:16, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Griggs wasn't shot in the neck. The second he was shot, his head flew back.--Kondrayus (talk) 22:43, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

I just think the people who think that griggs or gaz didn't die are the unintelligent ones. Do you actually think Infinity Ward would try to make an unbeleivable ending where all your sqaud mates die and its one of the most cinematic and emotional videogame endings ever, and then people star saying they lived. probaly just because they loved griggs and gaz. Its obvious by the way it happens that they were meant to be dead. It dosen't matter of a paramedic dosen't come over to price, gaz and griggs says "their gone!". How dumb would the ending be if all your men are just seriously injured like that and it would just have no meaning. I seriously have no idea while people think they have confirm like paul jackson's death. i'm pretty dure its confirmed enough. Why don't any of you just write an e-mail to Infinity Ward and ask them if price, gaz and griggs died even though it is completely obvious they did. If I was an infinity ward developer, I would be insulted that the dramatic ending they made with your men dieing in a climatic last stand was argued that none of them died. I'm just telling you guys if griggs, price and gaz survived (which they didn't) it completely ruin the cinematic feeling and emotion of "Game Over". This argument is seriously annoying and ruining how unbelievable the ending of Call of Duty 4: Modern Warfare is. --69.124.57.51 (talk) 01:41, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Archive?

Just a thought, but at this point wouldn't it be helpful to begin archiving older discussions? I think there are over 70 or so topics here, and with the bulk of them long ago resolved, I don't think it would hurt to move them out of the way. Comandante42 (talk) 21:52, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Ill get on that now. :) BonesBrigade> 21:55, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

he may not have died, but from what was seen through "Soap's" foggy eyes, it looked more like he was shot in the area between his ear and jaw. it looked pretty bad, but I think the designer is trying to portray to the average gamer that you are the only one left. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sniper kill dragunov (talk • contribs) 23:51, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Game modes

Oldcore no longer exists on the console versions, is it still on the PC versions? If not, it should be notated as such; if so, it should be clarified. Hrhadam (talk) 11:35, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm not so sure if there is an "Oldcore" mode in the PC version, but there are "Oldschool" and "Hardcore" modes, not sure if thats exactly what you're looking for. I'll look more into this when I get back home later today. Zeroxysm (talk) 17:29, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Old School and Hardcore are both available on the PC Version of the Game.

Oldking666 (talk) 04:08, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Bibliography 11 doesn't contain any information about console-only game modes. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.138.8.150 (talk) 01:05, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Suggestion

If you guys are really serious about making this a GA, may I suggest:

• There shouldn't be any external links anywhere in the article except for external links section
• "In the background you can hear a speech given in Russian". The "you" is frowned upon within an article
• The whole trailer section looks like OR. Is there a ref to back this up or give it a real world perspective?
• Public Beta needs references as well
• References should be in cite web, or use an alternative method that shows the title, author, publisher, publishing date, accessdate, etc.
• Music and soundtrack needs some refs and a re-write
• Reception needs a re-write. If you want to be a GA, you cannot simply paste one comment from a couple sources along with their score. The reader can see the scores in the box. I would recommend to set it up as one paragraph of some general comments, one of positive aspects, one of negative. An alternate method is to go subject by subject (graphics, controls, gameplay, etc.) with comments about each.
• I would recommend refs for each score the review box.
• The whole game engine should needs references and a re-write.
• Game mode section is game guide material and needs to be removed.
• The lead needs to be rewritten. While it does present important information, it should summarize the whole article. Where's mention of plot gameplay, development, engine, reception or soundtrack? (WP:LEAD)
• The entire plot section needs refs
• The character section should probably be in paragraph form, better summarized, and needs references
• Overview and multiplayer should be combined into a gameplay section, and needs some work of introducing the concept of the game to the reader. A reader new to the concept who doesn't know anything about the game may still have difficulty of seeing what's going on. The job of the gameplay is to sufficently summarize all of the important aspects of the game. Perhaps start with something such as "Like its predecessors, Call of Duty 4 is a first person shooter the puts in the player in the role of a soldier; the player must complete objectives and defeat enemy soldiers to progress through the game" blah blah weapons etc. however you want to structure it.
• Development is good size, but needs some spiffing up prose-wise
• WP:VG/FA and WP:VG/GA are good examples.

Good luck.--CM (talk) 01:45, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry, didn't see the review. Watched this page and saw the GAC, and didn't know reviewing was in the process. Feel free to ignore this. I'll call it a peer review out of order. My bad.--CM (talk) 03:19, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Although this is slightly out of line, I thouroughly appreciate your help. Development in this article is rather slow and I am waiting on steps taken by the maintainers of this article. I see we have a lot in common regarding the opinion about this article. I will probably take over your suggestions if I had not done them myself. Regards, Daimanta (talk) 14:23, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

To be perfectly honest, I didn't even see the GA review until I went the GAC page later, saw you were reviewing it, then looked back. I know this is out of line, and feel free to strike/delete/remove anything you want. I loathe when someone steps on my shoes, and I feel awful to be doing it to someone else.--CM (talk) 23:42, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Just a thought

Hello, I think that maybe we should add the character "Mac" to the allies list on the characters list. He contacts you on the battlefield several times in "Heat" and is also seen in "F.N.G.". And he is not one of those basic soldiers whose name always changes, his name stays the same because he is actually a minor character. Personally, I think we should add him. --69.124.58.112 (talk) 00:55, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

I think we should add him. If we do, shouldn't we add Cpl.Griffin and Sgt.Wallcroft from the Crew Expendable Mission, as well as Sgt.Lovejoy from the FNG Mission (he is up on the Platform above the mock up of the Cargo Ship)?Oldking666 (talk) 04:10, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

That would proboly be a good idea but I'm trying to get people whose names don't change, like Pvt. Roycewitz, Pvt. Griffen, Sgt. Arem and yes Sgt. Lovejoy is one of them but also people who have appeared in more than one mission. Personally I think Sgt. Lovejoy is a little too minor, but if you think its a good idea then go right ahead. Additionally, there is a soldier named Sgt. Murray and another named Corpl. Heath whoI seam to see fighting alonside me on alot f the S.A.S. missions as well as the Joint Operation missions. I don't know if I should add them or not. --69.124.58.112 (talk) 14:28, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Add him away but the others seem to be to less notable.BonesBrigade> 15:36, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Ya I'm going to add Sgt.Lovejoy (FNG), Pvt.Roycewicz (The Bog), Pvt.Massey (Charlie Don't Surf), Cpl.Griffin (Crew Expendable), and Sgt.Wallcroft (Also Crew Expendable)

Oldking666 (talk) 15:58, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

I wouldnt add lovejoy and massey. Ive beat most of those missions a bunch of times and dont rember either of those two. The others though i do clearly remember. BonesBrigade> 16:01, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

I added a Minor Charicters section. Lovejoy is on the Platform above the Mock up of the Cargo Ship, and Massey is the one that Fast Ropes with you in Charlie Don't Surf. He follows you around until he is killed.Oldking666 (talk) 16:09, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

At the end of one of the Act 3 Missions you see 2 Marine Snipers that have CW4 and CW2(?) tags. I forget they're names.

Ill play it real quick if you want and find out. though it will take like 20 minitues BonesBrigade> 01:05, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Its Sgt. Scully and CW4 Smith. btw CW4 is a rank. Also Sgt. Scully might just be a random name. BonesBrigade> 02:01, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Played through the game multiple times, and Scully's name is NOT random. Scully only appears literally seconds before the MIRV launch.Dibol (talk) 07:34, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Yea i played the mission last night and it was indeed not a random name. BonesBrigade> 17:45, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Um, guys not to ruin all this but I just wanted to add Mac because he actually appears in more than one mission and he's an actual "minor character", the others are just to brief and unimportant to the storyline for what I was talking about. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.124.57.51 (talk) 01:05, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Full Weapons list?

Shouldn't we add a Full Weapons list? I'd be happy to Provide it, but I think that its kind of Bland the way it is. Oldking666 (talk) 04:20, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Not allowed per WP:NOT#GUIDE. ^TH1RT3EN / _{talk ♦ contribs} 06:15, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

I just read that policy and I'm still not sure how adding a weapons list violates it. Please explain.72.81.226.247 (talk) 20:29, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

A full list of weapons is not required for an understanding of the articles' subject. for more on this, see Wikipedia:WikiProject Video games/Article guidelines#Unsuitable content xenocidic (talk) 20:32, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

I see it, thank you very much.72.81.226.247 (talk) 01:45, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Romanized Russian Text

Under the "Trailers" section, there are two quotes in Russian. There is an English translation, but there is no way of pronouncing the actual Russian short of learning the language. As at least the "you will all soon die anyway" quote is highly prominent in the final trailer (which happens to play whenever the game is started on a PS3), that one should have a romanized version in addition to the Cyrillic text. Special Penguin 03:20, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Actually, never mind. I think I've got it: "Vy vse csё ravno skoro sdokhnete." Still, if someone could double-check it, that'd be dandy. Special Penguin 01:31, 25 February 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Special Penguin (talk • contribs)

Screenshot

Would it be better to have a screenshot that showed the full HUD? The current one in "plot" only shows the compass. SirBob42 (talk) 06:09, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

I'll get one as soon as I'm out of school, full res. Zeroxysm (talk) 14:52, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Undetermined Fates

This fate speculation needs to stop. The people listed below cannot be posted as dead. SSgt. Griggs, Soap,Cpt. Price and Lt. Vasquez. Their fates are not determind and are to be left alone. Any further added information about them dying will be reverted.

That is true, but they also can not be stated as a "confirmed survior" neither. The article says that Soap is confirmed as a survivior, which is highly debatable. Rcross92 (talk) 22:19, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

At a certain point, you can assume a person was probably killed. Being within the blast radius of a thermonuclear bomb, while aboard a helicopter, which crashes, denying you any ride out, is not a survivable event. If you survive the blast, there's the helicopter crash to worry about-you survive the crash, there's the radiation-and there's no way to get out without being exposed to lethal levels of radiation. Vasquez is most definitely dead, simply because he can't have survived. When a character goes through an unsurvivable event and they don't mention their fate, they are probably dead. It's like watching a movie with a character getting decapitated, and then declaring the character a possible survivor because nobody comes out and SAYS they're dead. Griggs isn't quite as screwed-it's not very common to survive a shot to the head or throat, but it does happen.72.241.0.117 (talk) 06:12, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Well lets look at it this way. We know Al-Asad died because he took a Direct blow to the head, and because Gaz and Captain Price we're talking about his Corpse. We know that Zakhaev died, because... well because its kind of obvious. We know Victor (Zakhaev) died because he shot himself through the chin, and because he is notable as dead. So we know they're dead. We know that Vasquez and Captain Pelayo are dead because Vasquez and Pelayo went through a Helicopter crash (Pelayo went through two), a thermonuclear detonation, radiation poisoning, and because the radio said that anyone within a 10 Mile Radius was pretty much dead. You could also see Pelayo's and Vasquez's bodies. We also know that Lt.Volker died, because he went flying out of the Helicopter, while crashing, going through a thermonuclear detonation, and radiation posioning. Al-Fulani obviously died because no one survives an execution. If he had survived, Al-Asad would have obviously shot him again. While it doesn't come out and say "HE DIED!", you have to use your basic common sense. Its like saying Roycewicz survived the shot to the head if you didn't help him in The Bog. There are some implications that others survived however. Soap probably survived, considering Kamarov said, "You are going to be alright Comrad", Griggs had a survivable wound, and Captain Price was being revived. Oldking666 (talk) 1:38, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Hey, King, any way you can get a screenshot or video up and running showing Vasquez and Pelayo's body? The appearances of their body in the Aftermath mission apparently differ between the PC and XBox 360/PS3 version for some stupid reason (most likely graphical constraints and crap like that).64.85.234.166 (talk) 11:08, 18 February 2008 (UTC).

Enough. There are no canonical sources to say that these people died. Do not continue to add speculation as to how people died, it's disruptive and against policy. You do not know that Lt. Volker died, nor do you know that any of the others did. Unless the game explicitly says "dead", they are not necessarily dead. Please review our policy against original research and synthesis. ⇒SWATJester ^{Son of the Defender} 15:51, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

True swat, but the Lt. Volker is kinda silly as he like 200 feet off the ground and was flung out of an airplane to meet a nuke strike. BonesBrigade> 16:24, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

People have fallen from 40,000 feet and lived just fine. The most annoying part is when people talk about radiation poisoning, a process that takes generally several days to kill you at the least. ⇒SWATJester ^{Son of the Defender} 19:02, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

People have fallen from 40,000 feet and lived just fine.

What are the chances of those happening? Very slim to none. Dibol (talk) 06:30, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Several days could have just been accelerated considering Jackson and the Marines that were within the blast radius have been exposed to a HEAVY AMOUNT of radiation. We're talking about a bomb that exploded, not some radiation leak from a nuclear power plant, nor being exposed to someone's second-hand smoke. Dibol (talk) 07:36, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Videos showing Vasquez's body/showing dead Marines in Aftermath:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TGpiVQ2Vo2U. Apparently, the player that recorded it did not show a close-up, but it did show two dead bodies belonging to the USMC.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n2qC2GaNYJo at least shows a dead Marine's corpse. This is from the XBox 360 version. Apparently, only way anyone can see the Marine corpses in Aftermath on the PC version is if someone has an actual top-of-the-line PC hardware-wise.

Dibol (talk) 19:32, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

The chances might be slim but that has happened before.13Tawaazun14 (talk) 19:49, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

ps3 patch 1.1

i went online with my ps3 last night at patch 1.1 was installed i was wondering if anyone could get the details of it and put it up on the page. Thank you —Preceding unsigned comment added by Team-my1 (talk • contribs) 12:47, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

I was wondering why this hadn't been added. I'd do it myself but I don't really have many details about it and what it does. Wissam24 (talk) 16:14, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

As far as I am aware, the patch 1.1 was to reconnect the EU and US servers. Apart from that and perhaps a few connection improvements not a lot was made. As for the other update it was sheduled to be released a few weeks back (from COD4s site) but has been delayed). What about the comfirned map pack for PS3 and XBOX? anyone going to add it? Matt9537 (talk) 16:35, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Locations

I've noticed that they never state what Middle-Eastern country you're fighting in, but playing as Jackson, the view pans down from a larger map which indicates that you are fighting first in Saudi Arabia, and then in South-Eastern Iraq. Would this be relevant to the article?

Bbcrackmonkey (talk) 10:36, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

This has already been discussed a while back. You can find the discussion in the archive, but in short, it was decided that the exact country Jackson fights across (the country could be real or fictional) cannot be confirmed and should not be mentioned in the article except as the Middle East in general.  Comandante  Talk  20:56, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Yeah. I like to call it UAK, or the United Arabic Kingdom. I can give you this much information about the "Country".

1.It was a Kingdom shortly before the events in Call of Duty 4.

2.It was dissolved into a Democracy that allied with the West (US, UK, ect.)

3.Civil War broke out shortly before the events of Call of Duty 4, but after it was dissolved into a Democracy.

4.Al-Asad was (most likely) the Commander of the Military or the Commander of an outside or mercenary force.

Hope this helps.Oldking666 (talk) 00:51, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Random Names

Would it be ok to put up the names that can be Generated for the US, SAS, and Russian Loyalists? I'm not suggest I'd do it (I currently don't have my Copy of Call of Duty with me anyway), but I'm saying in the future would it be alright to post that up?Oldking666 (talk) 01:10, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

No, it's not useful to the article, as in it's not informative in respect to a Wikipedia article and brings this article closer to a game guide --BirdKr (talk) 04:24, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

A mention of how they use random names would be apropriote, but adding a list isnt very informative becuase there just there to give names to random A.I —Preceding unsigned comment added by BonesBrigade (talk • contribs) 13:08, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

It's enough to say that they based the list on the last names of the staff members from Infinity Ward who worked on the game. Ulaire (talk) 01:52, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Who removed the minor charicters?!?!???!?!?!?!?!

Somebody removed the Minor Charicters part and replaced it with some stupid bit about Fisher Price. Whoever did it I am reverting it back to what it was before. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Oldking666 (talk • contribs) 21:02, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

On second thought never mind. You people want to destroy this article with non-sense over facts be my guestOldking666 (talk) 21:06, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

The minor characters were removed a few days ago as arguably it is too specific for an encyclopedia article on Call of Duty 4. Here is the diff xenocidic (talk) 21:30, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Wouldn't it have been more prudent to move the list to Characters in Call of Duty? -Ed! (talk) 00:50, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

The scope of that article seems to be only major characters as well. ("Major characters are listed below."). Arguably, a list of minor characters in COD4 is not required here. perhaps on a gaming wikia. xenocidic (talk) 01:39, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Indeed, that minor character list was unnecessary for this article and resembled more of a game guide than a Wikipedia article. Just because it's information/fact does not mean it MUST be included. If you disagree with this statement, then I suggest that you find a Call of Duty wiki and contribute there. What I did put this article closer to Wikipedia's standards than as you put "destroy" it. Furthermore, I have no idea of this "Fisher Price" and I suspect it's most likely vandalism. --BirdKr (talk) 05:39, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Names

I've never heard "Soap" MacTavish referred to as John, and yet the article lists him as "Seargant John "Soap" MacTavish". I request a citation, please.
Furthermore, I've never heard Price referred to as "Fisher". There's a description that says players on Xbox Live evidently refer to him as "Fisher" Price. Even if they do, is this relevant at all?
-Sana (talk) 21:52, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Whatever it was, one of the editors removed those questionable names (good job).--BirdKr (talk) 05:43, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Maps

Shouldn't there be a section on the multiplayer maps? It doesn't have to list them, just describe the character and settings of the maps (small, designed for intense matches, Middle Eastern and Russian settings), describe that some of them (or was it only 1 of them?) was based off of a section in the single player campaign, etc. I'd be willing to write it, I just want to make sure that it won't get deleted the moment I put it in, so I'm bringing it up here first. bob rulz (talk) 06:17, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

I guess you can do that, the editors at the Battlefield 2 article didn't seem to mind when I wrote the:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battlefield_2#Maps

Considering the fact that many of the reviews call CoD4's multiplayer as being the best part of this game, I think you'll have no trouble citing sources on what the maps are in general (*cough*small*cough*)--BirdKr (talk) 09:06, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Theres a few maps that are based off of single player maps. Zeroxysm (talk) 17:59, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Vandalism

This page Has had numerous parts deleted. It needs to be reverted. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Manchester21 (talk • contribs) 23:27, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

um some examples??BonesBrigade> 23:53, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Everything after Act 1:

Act 1

A Russian Ultranationalist by the name of Imran Zakhaev is set on retu

See? Everything is gone after the quoted section. Your latest edit seemed to trigger it somehow. I would correct, but you may have been updating, so it would probably be better if you did it, BonesBrigade. Nam1123 (talk) 04:03, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Yes lets see if we can get some people to clean it up and after the general masses accept the final rendition and copy protect it for a while so that some stupid kid doesn't come along and kill the entire rest of the page for a hoot. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tattat44 (talk • contribs) 04:55, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Its already semi protected and all of the text is back for me. I havent done any other edits to the page so twinkle either fixed it or some other editor did it. BonesBrigade> 15:16, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

hm thats weird its not back for me. Oh well. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tattat44 (talk • contribs) 15:19, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Try doing a hard-refresh by holding down shift and clicking the refresh button. or CTRL-SHIFT-R in Firefox. also, don't forget to sign your posts with four tildes ( ~~~~ ). xenocidic (talk) 15:21, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Captain Price

If you check in-game, during the flashback levels, Captain Price is actually a 'Leftenant' and not a 'Lieutenant'. I'd alter it now, but i feel it would be instantly changed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.39.219.19 (talk) 16:40, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

It would be, because "leftenant" is just the phoenetic spelling of how "Lieutenant" is pronounced by the British and is never actually spelled out that way in the real world... not sure why IW goofed on that. xenocidic (talk) 16:44, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

German wiki article

How do I manipulate the "language" box to the left of the article, where the links to wikipedias of other languages are listed? While the German wikipedia hasn't a whole article about CoD 4, the game has its own section, http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Call_of_Duty#Call_of_Duty_4:_Modern_Warfare , so I thought the language boy should link to this one. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Thestor (talk • contribs) 06:45, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

It just needed [[de:Call of Duty#Call of Duty 4: Modern_Warfare]] at the bottom of the article. I've added it. --McGeddon (talk) 13:39, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Usage of "You"

This is my first time contributing, so here is the required "sorry if I screwed up" disclaimer. I tried to go throughout the article and eliminate the usage of 'you,' (obviously when not used in a quote). There were only two, once in the multiplayer section and once in the trailer section. I say 'tried' because I'm a new user, and thus cannot do so. Here are my proposed changes (original text first, new text second).

"The players' goal is to capture the laptop for your team" to... "The players' goal is to capture the laptop for his or her team"

"In the background you can hear a speech given in Russian" to... "In the background a speech can be heard in Russian" Fishboy100 (talk) 23:28, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Done, though I'm not sure why you weren't able to make the changes yourself, I don't see any page protection on this article. xenocidic (talk) 23:37, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

The article is semiprotected, note the padlock in the upper right corner. ⇒SWATJester ^{Son of the Defender} 01:29, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Yea Fishboy pointed that out on my talk page, I didn't notice it before. I thought there was always an explicit notice at the top of the page. xenocidic (talk) 01:34, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Semi has just expired and i have removed the templete. 5 bucks says within 4,5 days that it gets semi agained for like the 8th time in a row БοņёŠɓɤĭĠ₳₯є> 05:28, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

And it certainly needs it. xenocidic (talk) 19:25, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

The Last protection was for 40 days and i thought that it was aproprite for this article. lol id love for an infinte protection but we know we cant have that. БοņёŠɓɤĭĠ₳₯є> 20:44, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

I requested 60, we got 30 =) Better than nothing. xenocidic (talk) 21:36, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Zero Punctuation review

This takes up far too much of the Reception paragraph. I like his videos, too, but they're obviously intended to be humorous and as such should not be given such a presence in this article. Besides that, he's hardly a professional game critic.

What? I looked at the article and saw absoutly no mention of that ever. БοņёŠɓɤĭĠ₳₯є> 04:26, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Nvm, just saw u removed it. That was a shit edit and had really no place. Thanks for catching it. БοņёŠɓɤĭĠ₳₯є> 04:27, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

References to films in COD4

I noticed no-one's picked up on the references to famous films in the COD4 script and I was wondering whether it was worth mentioning these. Two I've found are:

'Captain Price: "Surely you can't be serious." Gaz: "I am serious... and don't call me Shirley." which is a line at the start of the Epilogue mission originally from the film 'Aeroplane'. and...

'Gaz: I like to keep this handy for close encounters" which is said as the SAS break into the main body of the ship in 'Crew Expendable' and is from the film 'Aliens'. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.1.28.253 (talk) 20:00, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Its more triva. However if the whole game was based off a movie that would probaly be worth mentioning. БοņёŠɓɤĭĠ₳₯є> 18:44, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Summary of page consensus

This is a summary of the archived talk page discussions that have achieved consensus of the editors of this page.

Fates of soldiers and Marines are undetermined

The fates of the soldiers and Marines who were involved in the nuclear explosion, and the events on the bridge at the end of the game, are not determined. The consensus of editors on this page is that we cannot say for certain that they are dead, or that any of the characters were the "sole survivors", without violating our policies on verifiability and original research. Any such changes will be reverted immediately.

Spelling vs. Pronunciation of Lieutenant

The game pronounces (and in some cases, spells) the rank with the British pronunciation of "Leftenant". However, it is properly spelled "Lieutenant". Therefore, please do not change any ranks to "Leftenant", as that is just a phonetic spelling of the actual rank (the proper rank is Lieutenant).

Speculation on flashbacks

Do not include speculation on the relationships of any characters in the flashback sequence to any of the characters from the main sequence. For the reasons cited above, verifiability and original research, we cannot include such speculation.

Speculation on Epilogue

Do not include speculation on the location of the epilogue level. For the reasons cited above, verifiability and original research, we cannot include such speculation.

Inclusion of game guide content

Do not include any game guide style content, such as weapon lists, multiplayer map lists, lists of challenges, lists of ranks, trivia, etc. The exception to this is the list of multiplayer game modes.

Discussion of the game unrelated to the article

Do not use this talk page as a forum for idle chatter and discussion of the game that is unrelated to the article. Such chatter will be reverted.

Fan Sites

Do not include fan sites in the external links section without consensus on the talk page. Wikipedia is not a repository for linkspam, and adding links to your own site on Wikipedia will not affect your search engine ranking.

Date of events in the game are unknown

The year of the events that take place in the game are not known, and therefore should not be included or speculated in the article.

Please remember that these decisions are the consensus of the editors on this page, and have been established over months of discussion. While consensus can change, please discuss such edits here first before making edits contrary to the above decisions. ⇒SWATJester ^{Son of the Defender} 02:09, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

who put multyplayer before campaign/plot?

please put it back or I'll do it, plot is much important that multiplayer so it should be before. Chegis (talk) 13:58, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

done. xenocidic (talk) 14:00, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

There are numerous WP:FA video game articles that put Gameplay before Synopsis. Here are just a few: BioShock, Castlevania: Aria of Sorrow, Final Fantasy VII, Halo 3, Portal (video game), and StarCraft. This is already the unofficial convention that is used among video game articles - I don't see why we need to break it? I am reverting your change. Gary King (talk) 14:19, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Fair enough. xenocidic (talk) 14:39, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Plot Synopsis should be next after general Gameplay, and only then multiplayer. Chegis (talk) 14:42, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

The order of the sections should not read like a storybook, but more like an encyclopedia where the sections are where you would expect to find them. The top-level sections are more or less based on consistency with the other video game articles, where as for the lower-level sections we have more flexibility. Gary King (talk) 14:48, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Gary King. First comes gameplay then come storyline. In video games it is the gameplay that is more important not the storyline. Who would play a video game if the gameplay sucks and storyline is good?. Before gameplay was first in this article. Someone changed that and put storyline first. I did not bother changing it. --SkyWalker (talk) 15:55, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Gary King as well. We're trying to make this a FA. We should be going along with the general FA conventions. ⇒SWATJester ^{Son of the Defender} 20:44, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

I agree completly about the order, but WTF about not playing if it has a good story. Mass Effect didn't have the best combat, but it had an awesome story and so many people still played it regardless of its issues. Have you ever played any RPGs?75.121.36.237 (talk) 16:15, 28 March 2008 (UTC)Arbiter099

Patches and Update Info

The previous version had an area for game updates and patches to the multiplayer portion. Why has this been removed? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 205.200.189.2 (talk • contribs)

I've commented it out because I do not believe that it is important information that improves the quality of the article. Point me to a video game article that has reached Featured Article status that includes information on patches. That information will continuously change, and there will always be debates about whether or not a new patch is worth mentioning or not (my assumption is that people will choose to include rather than exclude, meaning that we will eventually have a list of patches that could be longer than the rest of the article.) Games such as StarCraft (a Featured Article), which has been around for a very long time, do not include information on patches because it is typically something that would be shown in list and prose form. It will eventually be long and unwieldy. Gary King (talk) 17:27, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Halo 3 is featured and it has info on downloadable content, including map packs and patches-User:Lobark (talk) 9:58, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

The section in Halo 3 is mostly talking about map packs. I think having information about maps being added (not descriptions of the map) would be reasonable. SirBob42 (talk) 18:42, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

So you say you removed everything because you want it to be a featured article... last I checked this wasn't a news website, online magazine, or online newspaper; this was "Wikipedia The Free Encyclopedia"... Hence its not about review or previews its about information and obtainig the truth about the subject, And by removing any truth you limit the readers and offend anything that "Wikipedia The Free Encyclopedia" stands for. Nitsuahh87 (talk) 15:49, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not about truth. It's about encyclopedic knowledge. Please review what Wikipedia stands for, k? ⇒SWATJester ^{Son of the Defender} 15:59, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

You contradict your self "Wikipedia is not about truth. It's about encyclopedic knowledge." Encyclopedic knowledge is the truth thats why people turn to an encyclopedia to get the truth not fiction, if they wanted fiction they would go to a library. By stamping Encyclopedia ("An encyclopedia, or, traditionally, encyclopædia, is a comprehensive written compendium that contains information on all branches of knowledge" Quote taken from the Encyclopedia article on Wikipedia)they infer that they are about the truth of each subject. "k?"Nitsuahh87 (talk) 16:13, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

If you want all information available about the subject to be in the article, then the page would be many times longer than it is now. That's why there is generally consensus built for different aspects already. Gary King (talk) 01:56, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

I believe that all announcements made for DLC should be posted as they are in fact part of the game. By DLC I mean optional DLC as in the maps. Almost every game now is not in its final form when shipped and the downloads are meant to be both a part of the game and an enhancement to the off the shelf product. All of the patches should not necessarily be mentioned, unless there was a significant problem which is worth mentioning in the article that was addressed (i.e. GH2 whammy bar didnt work- but patch fixed it). I say this because most patches are not made to affect content per se but are made to make the gameplay experience as smooth as possible. Also, it seems that a lot of other articles (i.e. Guitar Hero 3 and Rock Band) have mentions of DLC before it is official, from questionable resources, so if Infinity Ward makes an announcement it should be included in the main article. There are currently no strict standards but these seem to me to be the most sensible guidelines.Donuthead36 (talk) 19:16, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Small text?

Why does the list of release dates and consoles supported in size decreasing font? Did someone do that for fun or is this just a mistake? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.18.240.159 (talk) 02:31, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Yea that fucked up, i tried to change it buts theres to much shit there for me to figure it out. БοņёŠɓɤĭĠ₳₯є> 02:37, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Fixed. xenocidic (talk) 20:43, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Cleanup discussions

Remove character section

I propose removing the character section entirely. None of the other CoD articles contain detailed information concerning the characters in those games, and the article Call of Duty (series) already has main character lists for every game, thus making one here unnecessary (not to mention the one here is very specific and borders on being a game guide). The plot alone is sufficient to identify the main characters.  Comandante Talk 20:18, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Just as a general point of order, none of the other CoD games had the massive impact on the gaming industry that this one has. xenocidic (talk) 20:27, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Support It would be simple to just explain all of the characters in the text (which the plot already does for most). БοņёŠɓɤĭĠ₳₯є> 20:31, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Weak oppose The current characters section is very weak and I don't think anyone would really confuse it with a game guide. If anything take it out for weakness, but I don't really see it hurting anything right now. IF the plot section gets beefed up, it might be duplicative. ⇒SWATJester ^{Son of the Defender} 16:03, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

I believe you should leave the character section just as it is. It has a brief description of all the characters nothing to involved. As so does all the other character sections in every other video game thats a FA. Nitsuahh87 (talk) 16:25, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

In argument, it should be noted that FA articles like Bioshock have no character sections, and some like Halo 3 hav a brief section describing the significant characters which links to a separate character article. There doesn't seem to be any clear guideline when it comes to character sections, so I suggest we follow precedent here. If we decide to keep the section in this article, it will have to be scaled back anyway because it mentions every character, significant or not, that was seen in the game. Only significant characters that featured prominently in the game need be mentioned at all. So now we have two options: removal or reduction. Just leaving the section as is won't get the article to FA or even GA status.  Comandante Talk 16:58, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

I vote for a reduction of the section. BioShock only really has one main character, the protagonist, whereas Halo 3 is like a space opera with lots of characters, and Call of Duty 4 is a war with different characters. Gary King (talk) 02:18, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

I vote for reduction. Removing it entirely won't serve any purpose other than to weaken the article. The best way to improve the article all-around is to reduce the size of the section but leave descriptions for the major characters. bob rulz (talk) 07:01, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

The entire middle paragraph in the character section could be taken out, because it only mentions the several non-player characters, some of which are only seen briefly in the game. The first paragraph details the playable characters, which of course are vital to the plot (for the most part), and the last paragraph mentions the villains. The plot section itself gives all we need to know about the NPCs. -- Comandante {Talk} 23:49, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

I went ahead and removed the middle paragraph here since we need to finish cleanup for the GAN. I will continue cleanup of the story and character sections. -- Comandante {Talk} 17:52, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Number of fair use images

On a separate note, there may be an issue with the number of fair use images included in the article; refer to WP:NFCC#3 and WP:NFCC#8. Counting the game box image, which is necessary, the total image number should be cut down to roughly three or four. Since this article has nine in all, we need to decide which four are absolutely needed in the article (three, with the boxart), and which four to take out. This issue was brought to my attention on a different article going for GA status, and I bring it up because it seems to be a factor in the GA and FA nomination processes.  Comandante Talk 20:35, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

The menu screens definately aren't important. I would say keep the images with the captions 1) United States Marine Corps soldiers enter the capital city, 2) Captain Price kills Al-Asad after interrogating him, 3) An example of the lighting, shadows, and weather effects in the game's single-player mode. The rest are pretty uninteresting. xenocidic (talk) 20:39, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

The first menu screen should be kept but the second should be removed its not needed. Nitsuahh87 (talk) 17:05, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

I agree that the menu screens are not necessary. The in-game screenshots are much more valuable because they show how the game looks; the in-game screenshots only show how menus look, and that doesn't convey much about the game itself. Gary King (talk) 02:02, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

If no one opposes, then I'll go ahead and remove the excess images. -- Comandante {Talk} 23:51, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

For reference, here are the removed images:

• Image:Cod4 create a class.jpg
• Image:STFUNoob Commander.jpg
• Image:Call of Duty 4 - War Pig.jpg
• Image:Call of Duty 4 - Al-Asad.jpg

The first two were removed because they were only menu screens. The second two showed only plot events that did not require illustration. The other image in the plot section was kept despite this simply because it seemed to better represent the plot. -- Comandante {Talk} 00:08, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Even though one of my pictures is among those slated to be deleted, I tend to agree with the consensus over which pictures should be retained for the article, though I have some qualms over the retained picture for the game of its demonstration of multiplayer gameplay. I'd personally prefer to add something that shows more of the game, like spectator mode on a compact map with the Domination/Headquarters/Sabotage game setting. It would show more of what multiplayer in CoD 4 looks like and could either serve as a complement or replacement to the current gameplay picture.Ulaire (talk) 18:53, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

No problems here, go ahead. -- Comandante {Talk} 22:44, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

new maps??

any info about the 4 new maps being added, i think this is a pretty major update which people might want to know about.. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.98.210.3 (talk) 11:30, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

I agree. Nitsuahh87 (talk) 16:26, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

If we get around to it, we could add in a Downloadable Content section as in Halo 3.  Comandante Talk 17:22, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

If you are going to add then information (which, I would like to mention, I am NOT opposed to), then feel free to, but DO write it out as PROSE rather than a list. The Halo 3 section serves as a great guideline for this. Gary King (talk) 01:58, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

System Requirements

Should system requirements be separated from the main infobox and be located lower in the article? similar as Bioshock's article, since were following the FA about games template. Chegis (talk) 19:24, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Sure, feel free to do so as long as it's using the same box that BioShock uses. Gary King (talk) 01:59, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Aspyr

The article lists Aspyr as being the developer for the Mac conversion, but there is no Mac conversion for this as of yet, so should it remain as the converter for the other games in the series (or the planned converter of this game) or remove it? 66.245.101.151 (talk) 22:04, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Leave it there because it has been confirmed. I've added references. Gary King (talk) 02:01, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Soap's rank

In reality, a newcomer to the SAS or most special forces have their rank automatically demoted to private (or any equivalents, e.g trooper). It's kinda inaccurate for him to retain his rank of Sergeant. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.107.221.248 (talk) 23:19, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

That should be brought up with Infinity Ward then. This is not the right forum for that. Gary King (talk) 00:23, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Online popularity

Can we have an accurate, cited section on COD's online popularity a month after release and the present day? I'm on a computer with controlled access to pages so I can't cite sources of that sort. Racooon (talk) 09:07, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Game Modes

Shouldnt we include the popular unofficial game mode "Mike Myers". I think it could be useful for some readers because its a fun game to play, and that would maybe spur Treyarch or Infinity Ward to add that as an official game type. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.104.237.41 (talk) 13:27, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

First off WTF is mike myers? Right now we have game modes just as an example. And also i hardly dought that IW or treyarch would be influcenced by wikipedia. Also use only two == of those things insted of 3 next time БοņёŠɓɤĭĠ₳₯є> 14:03, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Sorry im new to Wiki editing and stuff.

Mike Myers (referring to the popular Haloween horror films) is an unofficial game mode, set in Private Match on Sabotage. If nominated "Mike Myers" you must select the "Demolition" class and then either "Opfor" or "Spetsnaz" depending on the map (Everyone else is Marines or SAS). When the game starts, Myers must retrieve the bomb and try to kill the members of the other team, however, he may not plant the bomb as it serves only to inform the other team of Myers' location on the map.

The Marines or SAS, depending on the map, are not allowed to kill Myers until the time limit is up (usually 10mins or 5mins), the best thing to do is hide until time is up.

There are no respawns and Air Support is disabled so Myers doesn't acheive a UAV after a 3 kill streak.

It can also be played on Team Deathmatch where the last person alive can kill Myers. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.104.237.41 (talk) 15:32, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Essentially hide and seek with guns? You're not allowed to shoot back? Also, keep in mind this is getting pretty forumy. For the record, I don't think "Mike Myers" is a notable inclusion. xenocidic (talk) 15:40, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

It's unofficial, so it probably shouldn't be included. This article is about the original game, not whatever mods and modes consumers are able to come up with. -- Comandante {Talk} 16:13, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

I've never heard of this mod and have been playing CoD4 since it came out. Not to say that it doesn't exist, but could someone post references before continuing this discussion? If it's available then at the very least, download links will be available. Gary King (talk) 19:39, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

From what I understand, it's not a mod, but just a game type people made up and play according to the above rules. And as we all know Wikipedia is not something you made up one day... xenocidic (talk) 19:45, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a fan site, nor is it for things made up one day, nor is it a forum. No, this should not be included, and no, it's not actually a popular game mode (maybe between that IP and his friends), but of the thousands of online COD4 players this is nearly nonexistant. ⇒SWATJester ^{Son of the Defender} 20:07, 26 March 2008 (UTC) Apologies, I wont keep going on about it, just a few facts: Its not a game mod It was also played on Rainbow 6: Vegas A similar thing happened on the Halo series. Halo 2 players played a game called Zombie and it was so popular it was an official game type in Halo 3. Just some info, thanks for the recognition. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.177.111.43 (talk) 11:29, 27 March 2008 (UTC) Oh, I have now registered on Wikipedia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Slickwiki (talk • contribs) 11:55, 27 March 2008 (UTC) Somebody forgot to elaborate on what Headquarters and Sabotage Mode is. I'll add that. Ulaire (talk) 18:54, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

We purposely removed them because in reality, there are a lot of different game mode combinations for the game, so the article highlights only three game modes from the game. Gary King (talk) 19:08, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

GAN

Apparently the article's been renominated; I wasn't aware we were prepared for another one. -- Comandante {Talk} 16:20, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Me neither... methinks it's a bit too soon? In my opinion, this article is still in the middle of a major overhaul. But we'll see. Gary King (talk) 19:37, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

I nominated it. It really does look ready to me, and easily of GA status, judging by the look of other VG articles. -- Anonymous Dissident^Talk 19:55, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

It's ready for Good Article, just not Feature Article. In another week or two it will probably be feature article ready IMHO. ⇒SWATJester ^{Son of the Defender} 20:05, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Week or two? More like if people pitch in now then we don't have to wait any more than a day or two! :D Gary King (talk) 20:08, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Heh, I think it's best to wait a week or so between when an article makes GA and when it nominates for FAC. ⇒SWATJester ^{Son of the Defender} 20:25, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Yeah I know, just being positive. But also, I don't think we should focus on the GAN, anyways. Focus on the FA. The GA is just an extra. Gary King (talk) 20:30, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Maps

The Variety Map Pack was revealed in an email by Charlie Oscar Delta today, which I would assume is also on the news section of the site. We should make a note of it (it will cost 800 MS points). IGN review, Gamespot review, Team Xbox review,Gamespy review, full descriptions and screenshots of each map. Also they announced the GOTY edition, which includes a free token for the map pack. As well, a map pack challenge will be held at Gamestops on the 28th. Info. And the PS3 patch is live with the following updates:

New Kill Cams - Everything that can kill you has a Kill Cam now: grenades, airstrikes, claymores, C4, M203 Rounds, RPGs, anything. Jump online, get owned and check them out. They're awesome, especially Grenades and M203 shots that go across the map and through a window.

Improved Sniper Accuracy - The Sniper rifle accuracy has been improved. Your crosshair will be a better representation of where your shot will ultimately land. Try out a sniper class today and up those head shots! Improved ACOG Scope Accuracy - ACOG scopes accuracy on any weapon has been improved. Test it out, throw it on one of your classes and give it a go.

Upgraded Spectator Cam - Now when you're a spectator you have the option to follow in 3rd person or 1st person. As well as rotate 360 degrees around the player you're watching. Next time you're dead in Search and Destroy, watch your teammates do stuff you know you could do better!

. ⇒SWATJester ^{Son of the Defender} 20:40, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

I'd like to note that this isn't for the PC version of the game (or is it?). I'd prefer to try and keep the information in the article for the game across all platforms, otherwise we'd be setting a precedent to include information about any of the platform versions and we'd have to continuously explain that "this is only available for the Xbox 360 version of the game" etc. Gary King (talk) 00:36, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

It said for the PS3 version, but AFAICT they're implementing it in all platforms. ⇒SWATJester ^{Son of the Defender} 01:07, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

I've been playing on the PC and AFAIK they have not patched this console-based patch into the PC version yet. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ulaire (talk • contribs) 19:05, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

GA

This is a fine article, and I especially like the great format. I'm passing this because of its great depth. Nevertheless, I think there are some viable issues, most notably with article balance. Though Call of Duty 4 has a unique multiplayer, I feel it's a little excessive and that some of it would do better to be cut out.

• Gameplay section: "The game is different from previous Call of Duty games in that there are less firefights and more slower-paced drama and more clandestine operations." Too many ands.
• Since perks aren't very common in FPS multiplayers, you will probably want to explain this mechanic for those who don't know.
• Image:Call Of Duty 4 MP Screenshot.jpg has an incomplete Fair use rationale. Please fill out "portion used" and "low resolution."
• In the Marketing section: "which was increased several times level 25 towards the end of the beta." Increased several times up to level 25?
• I think the reception section doesn't give enough weight to the main criticism that it was too linear and too short. I also think more could be said about reception towards its multiplayer.
• What about the new maps in development? [2]

bibliomaniac15 Hey you! Stop lazing around and help fix this article instead! 02:17, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Captain Price

Is it worth mentioning that there is a Captain Price in CoD 2 who looks and speaks almost exactly the same? Could they be related? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.121.36.237 (talk) 16:09, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

I wondered about this, but without some kind of source or even an in-game confirmation, it would be speculation. xenocidic (talk) 16:11, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Not worth mentioning until we've got references for this, preferably directly from the developer or publisher. I would not agree on a reference from a reliable source unless they said that they got it from the publisher or developer since otherwise it'd be speculation per WP:CRYSTAL. Gary King (talk) 16:28, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Multiplayer Formatting

I honestly think that we should pay more attention over the structure of the Multiplayer section of the document. Much of the information there, while important for clarity and making the article better (and FA quality), are structured in such a way that makes it very redundant in format. I also would like to point out that while it is excellent for us to have a comprehensive means of distinguishing game modes between those available for the PC and for the consoles, I as a reader would have some difficulty in understanding what game modes are available for the PC, for the consoles and what their differences are with one another, being a PC-based player myself. Ulaire (talk) 19:31, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Russian Translation errors.

There are several Russian translation errors on this page. First is the Quote saying Сегодня, одной нацией мы воспрянем перед лицом предательства и оккупации (Today, we are one nation vospryanem in the face of betrayal and occupation) This is a spelling error (воспрянем). It should say поднять in place of воспрянем the complete quote being: Сегодня, как один нация, мы должны поднять в условиях предательства и оккупации. (Today, as a nation, we must raise in the face of betrayal and occupation.)

Second the quote from the Art of war. It's suppose to say: Все войны, является обманом. (All war is deception) But instead is says: Всякая война враньё. (Any war heroine)

Third is the quote: Вы все всё равно скоро сдохнете. (You all still die soon) I cannot find the correct translation for this quote so I suggest it should be removed. Spartan3006 (talk) 20:42, 1 April 2008 (UTC)Spartan3006Spartan3006 (talk) 20:42, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Spoiler alerts

Should there not be a spoiler alert in the games articles? Maybe just bolded out with a carriage return?\ Anyway, the new maps need to be added to the article ASAP. I do not have the research capabilities at work to be able to write a concise addendum and cite sources (highly restricted here). These new maps are an integral part of the multiplayer experience and are part of the game. The Off the Shelf product is not really the final version of the game as is the case with most big budget games.

Also in Retail Versions the Game of the Year edition is not even mentioned. If there are inconsistencies for DLC or version releases on different platforms they should be duly noted as they are in many other video game articles (see Rock Bank and Guitar Hero 3).

If you want this to be a featured article the information therein should be significantly pared down and all new info should be added immediately. Really people dont need a synopsis on all plot points (even though this may be common practice). If the purpose is to provide Encyclopedic knowledge then this information should be a provided at a higher- less detailed level, otherwise it should be necessary to list every single MP map and strategies therein- and nobody want to have to sift through that much to read an article about the game. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.209.255.227 (talk) 17:14, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

We don't include spoiler alerts. ⇒SWATJester ^{Son of the Defender} 19:56, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Retail versions

This section should include a little bit about the G.O.T.Y. version and how it includes a token for the new map pack also. Nitsuahh87 (talk) 15:58, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Downloadable Content

Shouldnt we mention the fact that we have four new maps available for download for 800 MS points? Creek, Broadcast, Chinatown and Killhouse? There are plenty of sources if need be.--80.177.111.43 (talk) 10:20, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Awards

The award for Best Shooter from X-Play is spelled incorrectly. It is spelled "Bets". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 131.10.254.61 (talk) 23:40, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Taken care of. -- Comandante {Talk} 23:43, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Game Engine - Bullet Penetration

I believe that this section should be edited to say that Infinity Ward claims that... Also some of that piece seems like speculation i.e. bullets can go through surfaces a, b, and c but not x, y, and z. I know from experience (which is in no way citable) that bullets have traveled through cobblestone walls, concrete barriers, and even 8" thick blast shields- all without the use of the "Deep Impact" perk. For those of you who dont know, that would be physically impossible and even highly improbable for the most powerful of weapons (i.e. Barret .50cal), let alone an smg or an assault rifle. Needless to say the engine does not work the way that the article claims that it does so I think the verbiage should be changed to something that reflects the claims of the developer (or creator of the engine) rather than presented as actual fact. Donuthead36 (talk) 19:03, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Thing is you don't actually know that. You suspect that, but you don't actually know. Also your claims about the real weapons are inaccurate. ⇒SWATJester ^{Son of the Defender} 20:00, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

That constituts OR, please find a source. Though its valid it would need a sourceБοņёŠɓɤĭĠ₳₯є> 19:25, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

This makes no sense... I am citing the same source I am saying that the developer claims that X is true, I am not saying that developer claims X but my experience is Y I understand the need for citation and verifiability of claims which is exactly why the statement should be presented as a statement- not fact- I am NOT saying that it is necessary to have a counterpoint either. You cannot automatically assume that a claim made by the developer is factual. I am not saying that its not factual, but I am saying that the only thing that can be empirically proven to be fact is that he claimed that. The burden of proof shouldnt rely on disproving something, or claims made by someone with a vested interest otherwise I could just go and make product pages for all the stuff that the Oxi Clean guy speaks for and assume that all claims are fact- POINT PROVEN. Oh yeah and I have yet to see a 9mm or .223 or 7.62 zip through 8" thick steel or steel reinforced concrete you should prove that to me SWAT. Donuthead36 (talk) 17:51, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

One, how is my assessment incorrect?? Steel reinforced concrete can stop pretty much all small arms fire let alone a blast shield meant to contain a launch... Even if a .50cal got through it it would be tumbling at a low velocity on a random trajectory. Anyway, I didnt say to add my criticism I said to change the verbiage... It should read perhpas that "The engine was designed to..." not that "the engine calculates..." this implies that the function is completed flawlessly which can not be disproven by me, but also can not be proven by citing an interview. Needless to say it needs to be listed as a claim, because according to the source That's what it isDonuthead36 (talk) 20:54, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Pretty much all small arms fire? Uh. No. Having served 5 years in the infantry I can tell you that's not the case. As for blast shields and steel reinforced concrete, how often are those in COD 4? Not often. The point is, that this is all speculation. You don't know how the engine was designed, but we do know what it calculates. Therefore, I'll have to change it back. ⇒SWATJester ^{Son of the Defender} 21:12, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

How do you know that it takes all of that into context realistically let alone at all? Have you gone through the code? Also you make an argument against the fact that bullets go through what? I dont understand what you thought I meant since I bring up steel reinforced concrete right off the bat... If you are telling me that 7.62s and .223s can go through that then I think that you are sadly mistaken. Anytime a bullet strikes anything no matter how thin it will affect the trajectory and impact of the bullet, some objects will obviously have a much smaller effect, but it is present nonetheless, this is according to the laws of physics on earth where gravity and the viscosity of our atmosphere govern all ballstics.Donuthead36 (talk) 15:08, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Ok first off Call of Duty 4 isn't real so your experience in the military means nothing in this conversation. Second, there is no calculations, the developers went out and took each surface one by one and put into the game whether you should be able to shoot through it. They didn't do the bext job either. If calculation was involved it would be consistant. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Iversonforlife (talk • contribs) 04:58, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

It should not be changed back, because saying that the engine completes task x according to an interview is not sufficient for proof. Secondly there are steel reinforced concrete barriers on a lot of maps (Countdown, Bloc, Pretty much any urban enviroment) and the blast shields are on Countdown. I have gotten shot through both with small caliber weapons (i.e. SMGs or .223s) when the opponent was NOT using Deep Impact. This would imply that the engine does not "realistically" calculate object density/strength/energy dispersion. This is why it should say that the engine is intended to or was engineered to take those things into account. All instances of realistically should be removed from that portion altogether, because they can not be verified by the cited source material NOT because my counterpoint is verifiable.

Also I dont recall any instances of there being any destructible buildings... This should probably be taken out unless someone else knows otherwise.Donuthead36 (talk) 15:08, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

And yet you don't have any evidence to support any of that. Therefore we can't make that change. ⇒SWATJester ^{Son of the Defender} 22:42, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Don't know about the multiplayer but in the AC130 mission you can destroy certain structures. with 1 shot from a 105 or at least 7 from a 40mm.13Tawaazun14 (talk) 21:09, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Duly noted... I didnt remember that.Donuthead36 (talk) 18:35, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure what Donuthead is saying is that since it can't be proven verifiably either way whether or not the engine realistically calculates bullet penetration depending on the surface, that it should be worded as the engine purportedly calculates it realistically instead of saying it definitively does. bob rulz (talk) 15:11, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Exactly.... I put in "According to the developer..." but for some reason that was removed even though it is a FACTUAL statement. This should be changed... You need to get your ego in check SWAT, I am not saying that this should be listed as a "false" claim made by the developer, but I am simply saying that the statement should bemade factual regardless of End User experience either way as it is in fact only a claim. Also, as I said before I have not encountered destructible buildings in the campaign or MP, so this probably needs to be changed unless someone can think of a specific instance. Donuthead36 (talk) 17:47, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Please be civil. That is a requirement for editing on wikipedia. As I've said multiple times before, you don't have any verifiable evidence, to support your change. ⇒SWATJester ^{Son of the Defender} 21:26, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

I am being civil, but my edits are being changed... I am not making any claims whatsoever so I DO NOT have to cite anything. All I am doing is presenting the information in the article in the appropriate manner. Adding a caveat to something does not mean it should have to be cited. That being so I am removing "realistically" from the verbiage. This is not a quantifiable adjective. If it is to remain in the article there should be a caveat explaining that it is "intended to realistically replicate." I have not done any original research and I am citing an already accepted source, because I am in fact presented the same information in a more appropriate manner. Donuthead36 (talk) 13:53, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

(unindent) I'm sorry, no, saying "get your ego in check" is not civil. As for your edits being changed: get used to it. It's part of Wikipedia. In fact, every time you make an edit, at the bottom of the screen it says "If you don't want your writing to be edited mercilessly or redistributed for profit by others, do not submit it. ⇒SWATJester ^{Son of the Defender} 16:15, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

System requirements (2)

Is this something that should be put in? For one no other page has this(?) and it forces the MP section down the page. Oh and why is "imput methods" there? In short its stupid and half-arsed (would change it myself but i'd do more harm than good). (121.217.113.36 (talk) 10:05, 5 April 2008 (UTC))

All very good points – all of which I have addressed. I think most people will be very pleased with the new look. Gary King (talk) 20:11, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Marketing

I think that all of the quotes and in-depth descriptions of the trailers should be taken out in the interest of concision. The information about the release of the trailers should be sufficient as those quotes would not benefit the EU in knowing more about the game. Honestly they make the section quite long (esp. in comparison to other sections) and the information is largely irrelevant. I also believe that the plot could be pared down significantly. Donuthead36 (talk) 15:13, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

The plot is quite complex and has been pared down pretty well already. Cutting more would eliminate large swaths of the game. The trailers, however, could be cut down significantly. ⇒SWATJester ^{Son of the Defender} 21:25, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

I tried to remove all of the quoted info (most of which is also in the plot section), but it was re-inserted. I personally would elect to remove all detailed info from the trailers, and just have info stating release dates. The beta should have some slightly more detailed information being as it was such a large part of the marketing campaign. Donuthead36 (talk) 13:49, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Specific dates

Why doesn't the article say what year it is set in? Or does it even say in the game? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.2.162.92 (talk) 21:54, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

In the game, it does not mention what year it is set in. I can not find that information anywhere. Gary King (talk) 22:17, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

It actually does indirectly mention the date. In All Ghillied Up, the Pripyat sniper mission, Captain Price states Chernobyl happened in 1986, and that a decade (10 years) later, terrorists are still using it to get nuclear fuel. So All Ghillied Up is set in 1996. Add 15 years onto that, and Call of Duty 4 is probably set in 2011. Makes sense. The USMC CH-46 Sea Knight helicopters are due to be phased out in 2014, which is why the MV-22 Osprey isn't their primary transport. Price also says in that flashback that Zakhaev is purchasing nuclear fuel a decade after Chernobyl, which puts it at 1996. I'm almost 100% sure All Ghillied Up takes place in 1996, and the rest of the game in 2011. Proof? The ICBMs Zakhaev launches in Ultimatum, the RTU-22H Topol M MIRV variant entered service in 2007, the CH-46 Sea Knight is still in USMC service, due to be phased out in 2014. The USMC still uses AV-8B Harrier IIs, due to be replaced by the F-35B in 2012. (G.Freeman (talk) 19:00, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Alright, feel free to add that in and reference it. Gary King (talk) 23:23, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Actualy no, it doesnt. It states 15 years ago. It never gives a specfic date for the present section so it could be 1986, 1996, 2006 or some other possibilty. Also 2011, you base your information already on a false pretense that the flashback accoured in 1986. Nothing in game ever says a specific date so all sources will base all of there info on guesses not any real facts in the game. БοņёŠɓɤĭĠ₳₯є> 02:08, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

That should be added to the consensus list at the top here. This is the third or fourth time the issue has been brought up.  Comandante Talk 02:21, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Added. Gary King (talk) 02:34, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Still you still speculate that everything happened in chronological order as it did in real life. Regardless your still speculating. Also due to be phased out and actually phased out are a completely different thing. If i rember correctly Deuce and half was due to be phased out like 20 years ago or some shit. Still i don't care if you have your heart set on 2011, we cant speculate in the article. БοņёŠɓɤĭĠ₳₯є> 22:41, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

you guys don't know anything. those trucks in the game were ZIL 131. Chegis (talk) 16:23, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

I never said that the trucks were deuce and a halfs, i was just making an example. БοņёŠɓɤĭĠ₳₯є> 16:46, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

I just verified what freeman said. Price did say "AGU" (All Ghillied Up) took place 10 years after the Chernobyl Incident. So the Game May or May NOT take place in 2011. it may take place in 2012 or 2010. but as far as I'm concerned, Price mentions dates, and thats fact.It does take place CLOSE to 2011Recent idiot —Preceding comment was added at 15:24, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Perk addition

I added a segment under Multiplayer that describes Perks more accurately and in a more useful manner. I don't know whether I should remove the original brief listing. --Xaerun (talk) 02:18, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Writing it out so that it doesn't sound like fancruft isn't going to be easy. But then again, leaving it out would be un-cyclopedic. That's your call.--KojiDude ^{(Contributions)} 02:37, 18 April 2008 (UTC)