Talk:Call of Duty 4: Modern Warfare

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Featured article Call of Duty 4: Modern Warfare is a featured article; it (or a previous version of it) has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Wikipedia community. Even so, if you can update or improve it, please do so.
Main Page trophy This article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on November 5, 2011.
WikiProject Video games (Rated FA-class, High-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Video games, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of video games on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
Featured article FA  This article has been rated as FA-Class on the project's quality scale.
 High  This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
 

"Resolution"[edit]

Why does it say it's resolution is at 600p? It seems it is supported at full 1080p, so why doesn't say so

The original release for ps3 was up to 1080i only, when the game of the year edition came out in full 1080p. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mynameisjimi (talkcontribs) 22:56, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

The narrative resolution of Call of Duty 4 on consoles is 600p. You can still play it on 720 and 1080 but it is being upconverted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.190.240.1 (talk) 01:58, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

"Console versions of Call of Duty 4: Modern Warfare run at a consistent 60 frames per second."[edit]

I vote we take this out, nothing runs at that FPS, it's better to say it's a 60hz game. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.177.182.57 (talk) 01:26, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Infinity Ward has stated that the game runs at 60 frames per second, so it's basically your word against the developers'. Their word is at least sourced, and unless you can back up your claims and prove the developers were wrong, then no change is warranted. -- Commdor {Talk} 00:51, 23 May 2009 (UTC)
I'm with Commdor. I got Knights of the Old Republic running at 350 FPS. That's larger than 60, last I checked. --ThejadefalconSing your songThe bird's seeds 10:52, 29 August 2009 (UTC)
Is there any independent validation of that claim? UncannyGarlic (talk) 00:18, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

Price's Fate[edit]

Price was in the final final level, "Mile High Club" as one of your squad. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.89.62.231 (talk) 21:26, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

That can't be confirmed given that none of the members of the squad are identified, and when the mission took place relative to the main storyline is ambiguous. -- Commdor {Talk} 21:32, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

If you have the slo-mo cheat unlocked, use it during the cinimatic when Kamarov arrives at the bridge to rescue you. Look at the medic with Price. With slo-mo, you can see carefully that the medic pounds Price in frustration after giving up trying to revive him, and starts to get up, and then you're are lifted into the medevac. Try it. Look carefully and you should see it.69.114.152.45 (talk) 01:46, 16 June 2009 (UTC)'anonymous'

Even if Price died, does it really matter? it wouldn't be the first time, (Call of Duty) or that he didn't seem to age between the early 1940's and the present —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.225.171.193 (talk) 00:18, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

I thought it was Price who got executed by Zakhaev and Gaz that threw the pistol at you (and later died as the Russian tried to perform CPR). --ThejadefalconSing your songThe bird's seeds 10:54, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

You're a dickhead then aren't you? It blatantly says Captain Price over his head —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.42.74.122 (talk) 20:20, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

Wow. "Dickhead." There's a deadly insult there. /sarcasm. Be polite and you'll find people will be more willing to talk to you. "It blatantly says Captain Price over his head" Neither of the two at the end have nametags above them. --ThejadefalconSing your songThe bird's seeds 19:16, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Price survives, he is a NPC in Modern Warfare 2._Dominic_

Sign your posts, please. --ThejadefalconSing your songThe bird's seeds 19:16, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

I think the part with the plot summary should be edited at the very end. It says Price survives and plays a prominent role in MW2 but this doesn't happen until 3/4 into the game and it's a big plot twist. I would consider this last sentence a big spoiler. If I hadn't already beaten MW2 i would be upset to read this. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.134.42.42 (talk) 23:33, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

In the words of Yahtzee, "short answer: no. Long answer: noooooooooooooooooooooooo." Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia. What did you expect in the plot section. Read Wikipedia:Spoiler and the consensus on WPVG and never darken my towels again. To everyone who reads this, I know I sound bitey and I'm sorry for that, but I'm getting really frustrated about constantly having to say this. --ThejadefalconSing your songThe bird's seeds 23:39, 12 November 2009 (UTC)



ok. not sure why you're so upset, we're on the talk page... it's not like i'm vandalizing the main article. I didn't see anything else in this section of the talk page regarding this as a spoiler. I apologize (not sarcastic).

Nah, just never mind me. I've just seen this sort of question more times than I feel is sane recently and it's made me a frustrated. For future reference, Wikipedia doesn't give a damn about spoilers, ever. --ThejadefalconSing your songThe bird's seeds 08:16, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Having played the game, I can tell you that it is not Price who is being revived by the medic, it is Gaz. Captain Price has a very distinctive mustache, whereas Gaz has his trademark cap. The soldier the medic is trying to revive is clearly Gaz, while it is Price who slides the pistol to Soap.--Sem;colon (talk) 04:41, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

(is silent for a few moments) That makes no sense whatsoever. First off, we've all played the game. Secondly, why would the models change? That makes no sense. Thirdly, MW2 just showed us in the opening scene that it was Gaz who got shot in the head. --ThejadefalconSing your songThe bird's seeds 04:46, 15 November 2009 (UTC)
Yeah, Zakheav clearly shoots Gaz in the head and then looks like he's going to kill Soap when the chopper behind him explodes. As he and his men are distracted, Soap looks to the left and sees Price (clearly it's Price with the mustache and hat) toss the pistol to you. After you kill Zakhaev and his men, as you're being airlifted up, you see a medic working on the guy directly to your left...in other words, Price. Anakinjmt (talk) 05:35, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

Price[edit]

Hi, what kind of accent do captain Price and Gaz have? Mallerd (talk) 17:15, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

i believe it's called a fake 'english' accent —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.11.105.228 (talk) 18:56, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

Yeah well, in England you have a lot of accents. Wondered what it was: from Derbyshire, Hertfordshire. I don't know, know it sure isn't fake though. Mallerd (talk) 00:48, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Price was voiced by Billy Murray and Gaz was voiced by Craig Fairbrass, both Londoners. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.196.149.21 (talk) 23:47, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Price and Gaz are both from the Londoner East End. The accent is called Cockney. Cheerio Lads —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.4.20.54 (talk) 19:17, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Defo doing cockney Londoner accents (as most Americans believe London accounts for the entire of the UK). I'm surprised Infinity Ward didn't incorporate rhyming slang. --92.25.194.45 (talk) 02:15, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

I am pretty sure the accents are British  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.12.182.178 (talk) 04:02, 18 August 2012 (UTC) 

.50 BMG sniper rifle[edit]

I'd like to change "while Price fired a sniper rifle" in the Plot section to "while Price fired a .50 BMG sniper rifle" (with the hypertext), just to put it into some context as to why the entire arm of Zakhaev could be blown off by a rifle shot. Any objection? Ken l lee (talk) 04:19, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

No174.112.230.127 (talk) 01:10, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Slight error in plot section[edit]

In the plot section of this artical it says that the american command is warned of Al-Asad having a nucleur warhead by the seals however this is incorrect as it is clearly stated in the game that the intel came from the SAS, most likly from Nikoli the informant rescued by Captain Price's squad although this is not confirmed —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.140.189.98 (talk) 14:49, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

SAS is mentioned in the cutscence BEFORE the level starts, the SEAL reference is mentioned in-game, when Jackson is inside the helicopter. 222.153.225.96 (talk) 18:39, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

There is vandalism on this article, but I can't remove it[edit]

Can somebody with the authority to do so please remove this:

"The online play for PS3 has lately had a lot of players using Hacks ansd the website is in a tutorial on you tube but for any one who thinks this has ruined the game (like me) then according to you tube an asshole called Dark Mamatta found the hacks so blame that douch bag."

It is under the 'Multiplayer' part of the 'Gameplay' section.

Thank you.

The issue had been addressed. -- Commdor {Talk} 18:56, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

Engine's name[edit]

I know that the engine's name IW 4.0 engine was confirmed for Modern Warfare 2 on IGN, but does it make CoD4's engine: IW 3.0 engine? I mean there is no absolute confirmation to affirm that...--PhantomT1412 (talk) 11:30, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

The reference has been removed due to the lack of sourcing. -- Commdor {Talk} 19:34, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
Well I think we can re-add IW engine since that was confirmed, but not the version's number (we don't have any source that states if it was IW 3.0 engine or IW 2.0 engine...). --PhantomT1412 (talk) 10:20, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Xbox World 360 Review[edit]

Here in the article, it says that they disliked the game. Untrue; they gave it a 90%. Last time I brought this up, I was told to source it and edit. The source is the magazine itself, and it is sourced. This is what I gave last time as their verdict: "VERDICT + Utterly spectacular + Genius in parts - Seven hours long It's smoke and mirrors and a host of cheap tricks - but, as always, it's wonderful. 90%" I can't edit due to protection, but until the issue with the blatant lie saying that XW360 disliked the game is removed, I can't really take this article very seriously. ShaneHaughey (talk) 00:01, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

The phrasing was changed to just "Xbox World 360 stated 'It's smoke and mirrors and a host of cheap tricks'". -- Commdor {Talk} 00:15, 20 August 2009 (UTC)
That works well, I believe. You need to have the criticism, I just didn't want people to think they disliked it. Good work!

206.217.9.240 (talk) 03:35, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Game takes place in?[edit]

I believe, that it should be stated that, the game takes place, in the years 1996 and 2011. I can backup this claim, as, before "All Ghillied Up", It was 15 years ago, and Captain Price states that it's been a decade since the Chernobyl explosion. That would claim, that they year in "All Ghillied Up" is 1996, and 15 years after that, is 2011. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.169.215.79 (talk) 01:53, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Which is original research. Dbrodbeck (talk) 12:23, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
YES BUT IT IS CONFIRMED IN http://callofduty.wikia.com/wiki/Call_of_duty_4 —Preceding unsigned comment added by KAPITALIST88 (talkcontribs) 08:49, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
Please find a reliable source, a wikia page is hardly one. Dbrodbeck (talk) 12:22, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
Alright then Do you consider IMDB to be a reliable source http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1125798/trivia —Preceding unsigned comment added by KAPITALIST88 (talkcontribs) 05:45, 25 October 2009 (UTC)
it is actually in 2011 like the person at the top says a decade since chernobyl 15 years later that means 2011 which means Mw2 is 2016 holy crap The Guitar Master (talk) 03:50, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

The piracy part of the article is awful[edit]

"Call of Duty 4 is a target of piracy, which has resulted in multiple copies of the game being illegally distributed online." This sentence is INCREDIBLY bad. EVERY video game is a "target of piracy". Hell, piracy HAS no "target". Here's a paraphrase to showcase how atrociously written it is: "Cake is a target of fat people, which has resulted in multiple recipes of the food being distributed online."

The paragraph on piracy should probably be removed from the article altogether as the quote cites no numbers, makes no comparisons to other games, and is all around weaselly. The sentence in question should certainly be removed as it adds nothing to the article and the information contained in covered in the quotes. UncannyGarlic (talk) 00:26, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

Multiplayer section[edit]

At the intro to the section the article begins listing the type of game modes in multiplayer however leaving out objective based game modes it only list team based and deathmatch I feel that needs to be added in. Also the article says that the different game modes all require unique strategies however that is not true. One team could use a simple strategy of just killing the enemy team and complete every match they play with a win or tie. This is true due to the fact that most game modes killing all enemy players in sudden death or the last round/2 minuet timer results in a win. That brings me to the final point of not game modes give a sudden death timer like the article states. Matches like team deatchmatch will soley result in the two teams tieing and the gaming ending.70.94.249.191 (talk) 00:27, 16 September 2009 (UTC)


Is it noteworthy that there is a teddy bear located somewhere on every multiplayer map? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mynameisjimi (talkcontribs) 23:01, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

There is not a teddy bear on every single map. Ambush, Bloc, Crossfire, 2 at Overgrown, Chinatown — Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.190.240.1 (talk) 01:54, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

Year[edit]

A user continues to add what he thinks the year is, 2011. The references used are a wikia article, a posting on gamefaqs and imdb. These do not meet WP:RS and I have reverted the change Dbrodbeck (talk) 12:57, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

IMDB is used on many Wikipedia articles as a reference and Gamefaqs is a very well known Video Game Website so what would you consider to be a reliable source of Information? --KAPITALIST88 (talk) 05:41, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
The wikia article is not a RS, as for IMDB, check http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_source_examples#Popular_culture_and_fiction and scroll down to the bit on IMDB. Dbrodbeck (talk) 11:50, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
Even so why are you against this because anyone who plays and enjoys the game will know that it is said in the missions and can therefore figure out that the game is set in 2011. --KAPITALIST88 (talk) 05:33, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
What I want or you want is immaterial. We must follow WP:RS Dbrodbeck (talk) 10:57, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
If it's said in the missions (I presume you mean MW2), say which trailer and there's your source right there. --ThejadefalconSing your songThe bird's seeds 20:36, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
Wait, never mind. Thought I was on the MW2 talk page. ... where does it state 2011 in CoD4's movies? --ThejadefalconSing your songThe bird's seeds 20:38, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
I'd like to point out the IMDB article uses logic, not uncited facts to come to the conclusion the game takes place in 2011. As stated in the game, the flashback mission takes place 10 years after the Chernobyl incident (1986), and the rest of the game takes place 15 years after that. 1986 + 10 + 15 = 2011. --75.30.176.16 (talk) 04:55, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

Price's ultimate fate[edit]

I can't really source this (or edit the article for that matter), but Modern Warfare 2 reveals what happened to Captain Price. Somehow he ended up in a Russian gulag. In the mission "The Gulag", your goal is rescure prisoner #627, who turns out to be Price. Price joins your team, and Soap gives him back the pistol that he used to kill Zakhaev at the end of COD4. I won't spoil how Modern Warfare 2 ends, but Price will play a big part. When the game comes out, someone should update Price's fate at the end of the article's story to say that "he survived, but was imprisoned in a Russian gulag up until the events of Modern Warfare 2".164.107.91.60 (talk) 14:42, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

If this really is in the game, then yes I imagine it will be added, but currently, without a legitimate source, that sounds like utter speculation/a hoax, and most likely will to other editors. RWJP (talk) 14:47, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
The only reason I can think of as to why you can't source this is that you're a pirate. --ThejadefalconSing your songThe bird's seeds 14:50, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
How sad. I read all of this spoiler.--AM (talk) 14:07, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

I'm not apirate, it's all on COD wiki. If naything, there the pirates over their. That's why I cant source it, because the stuff on the wiki isn't sourced. I think it's true, though.164.107.91.223 (talk) 18:44, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Then why the hell didn't you simply say "it's on the CoD wiki"? --ThejadefalconSing your songThe bird's seeds 18:45, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
I never thought about it. The up-dating to the sentence cant happen until Modern Warfare 2 is out anyway, so I thoght by then you would have your source, the game. I was just pointing out a change that would have to be made soon. It was more trouble than its worth. Anyway, now you know what I know and what the world will know in five days. 164.107.91.3 (talk) 22:55, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
Well, the information on Price wouldn't even go here anyway now that I think about it. It's not relevant to this game's plot. --ThejadefalconSing your songThe bird's seeds 22:58, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Yes exactly, Price's fate is not relevant to the first game's plot. So all information or speculation about the game's plot beyond what is shown in the first game should be moved to the Modern Warfare 2 page. This should include the fact that Price is alive, which no doubt belongs on the modern warfare 2 page because it is not clear from the first game's plot. You stated before that this is an encyclopedia. I agree, so let's keep the information organized and where it is supposed to be. If I want to read information about a game's plot I would like to read that plot, not another plot.Cpt.MacTavish (talk) 03:39, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

It does mention that Price's fate is left unknown. Clarification that he survived to be in the sequel would be a no-brainer since MacTavish's fate is also clarified. We could just say that Price survived. It's short and doesn't stray into the sequel's plot. I'm getting the game tonight, I may post later to confirm that Price does reappear. =/= Ironoclast (Talk) 22:39, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Unlikely. If Price does appear as a prisoner, it'll be about the middle of the game. So unless you're playing on Recruit (coward!) you may have to wait for a while. :P --ThejadefalconSing your songThe bird's seeds 22:45, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
I mean tomorrow, like the afternoon or so when I get back from work. I can't pay for the Prestige version with dirt and twigs. I'm no coward, I will be playing Hardened difficulty or I will until I die for like the fifteith time on a level. Then Recruit. It shouldn't take too long if the campaign really is the same length as the first game. =/= Ironoclast (Talk) 22:51, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Removed Spoiler[edit]

I removed a small bit at the end of the synopsis where it revealed that Price was revealed to play a major role in the second Modern Warfare game. I felt this was necessary seeing as though many of us thought that Price had indeed died after the first game. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dysenterymatt (talkcontribs) 22:45, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

And I reverted instantly. Wikipedia doesn't care about spoilers. Full stop. Ever. --ThejadefalconSing your songThe bird's seeds 22:48, 15 November 2009 (UTC)
Agree this should be removed, you're needlessly ruining the second game for people who are trying to catch up on the storyline. What does Price being revealed to be alive have to do with CoD4? In CoD4 his death is kept intentionally ambiguous. The fact that he survived belongs in the article about Modern Warfare 2, not here. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Truthforitsownsake (talkcontribs) 02:34, 16 November 2009 (UTC)
It should not be removed in terms of keeping the information consistent.Dibol (talk) 05:42, 16 November 2009 (UTC)
Not in the interest of protecting spoilers or the like, but the reappearance of characters in MW2 does not impact anything about this game. We can use the words "apparently dead" or the like to imply the unconfirmed fate. Or, if its really necessary (and I haven't played enough MW2 to know) if this story is connected to MW2, then that can be made. --MASEM (t) 05:50, 16 November 2009 (UTC)
Modern Warfare 2 is a direct sequel to this game, and they are connected to each other.Dibol (talk) 05:53, 16 November 2009 (UTC)
Read the above thread, guys. Same query, basically. --ThejadefalconSing your songThe bird's seeds 13:30, 16 November 2009 (UTC)
I really, really strongly think that sentence should be removed. Not for spoiler purposes, I know wiki doesn't care about that, and neither do I. But because, as has been mentioned before, it's really not related at *all* to the *plot* of *this* game. All the information about the sequel is fully documented on its page, and any reader would understand to look for it there. The plot summary should only include details truly salient to the overall plot of the game, and I don't think this point qualifies. I think the way the section would end without that sentence is perfectly appropriate in regards both to the ambiguity of the ending of this game and to what follows in the next game. Besides, the orphan one-sentence paragraph just looks sloppy. -132.183.140.236 (talk) 23:28, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
Agreed, this sentence has nothing to do with the plot of this game. --Leivick (talk) 01:43, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
Modern Warfare 2 is a direct sequel to game. Fates of characters should have consistent information.Dibol (talk) 04:06, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
We don't need to describe what happens to characters in future games within this game. It is unimportant to the general reader trying to understand this game. --MASEM (t) 04:24, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
Uh, Saint's Row had a similar detail revealing the fate of the main character. Why bother leaving the fate "ambiguous" if they're already said to be alive in another article?Dibol (talk) 04:36, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

← In my experience, WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS also applies to details in articles, so the Saint's Row argument is invalid. --ThejadefalconSing your songThe bird's seeds 12:33, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

I've fixed the SR bit too - again, it is a detail that its lack does not impair the reader from understanding the rest of the plot much less the rest of the article. --MASEM (t) 15:24, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Incorrect information[edit]

In the article, it mentions that a Russian medic attempts to resuscitate Price. This is incorrect. He was trying to resusitate Gaz, as Price was concious —Preceding unsigned comment added by 125.239.226.41 (talk) 07:38, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Gaz was the one to have his face blown out of the back of his head. That's an injury he won't recover from unless he's a Ghost (pun intended). I originally thought the medic was trying to revive Gaz, but watch the "Previously on Modern Warfare" section in MW2. It's Gaz who gets shot, Price who slides the pistol towards Soap. --ThejadefalconSing your songThe bird's seeds 11:52, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
As Thejadefalcon said, during the scene on the bridge, the player (Soap) watches Zakhaev shoot Gaz in the head with a Desert Eagle, and is then passed a pistol by Price, who is lying off to the players left hand side. When the Russians arive to rescue the surviving members you see Price being resuscitated (or at least, the medic is attemting to). RWJP (talk) 14:29, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
And obviously succeeds. --ThejadefalconSing your songThe bird's seeds 14:34, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Manifest != "Manifest File" (JAR)[edit]

In section 2.2, paragraph 1: manifest should link to the following page http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manifest#Industry Derekawesome (talk) 00:38, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Done. Thank you. --ThejadefalconSing your songThe bird's seeds 00:49, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Best Selling?[edit]

"It was the top-selling game worldwide for 2007, reaching over seven million copies by January 2008, and over 13 million by May 2009.[3]"

According to the 2007 in video gaming it was outsold by both Halo 3 and Wii Play.

WesUGAdawg (talk) 21:49, 16 March 2010 (UTC)
You are looking only at the US figures. --Mika1h (talk) 21:28, 6 September 2010 (UTC)
Somebody needs to sign their post!!!! Uncle Soprano (talk) 23:39, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

Advanced AI[edit]

Anyone think the upgraded AI system should be mentioned? Uncle Soprano (talk) 02:07, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

First person shooter/romance? Wtf?[edit]

Why is this game described as a "first person shooter/romance" game in the beginning of the article? What does romance have to do with it? --JZAONE (sorry don't know how to sign my discussion yet)

Two hundred years of development? What?[edit]

Under "Development" the article says, "Call of Duty 4 was developed by a team of a hundred people, over the course of two hundred years." I don't know much about the game, but I'm pretty sure it wasn't in development since the Napoleonic Wars. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.151.232.73 (talk) 17:12, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

fixed. Dbrodbeck (talk) 17:17, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

Russian Ultranationalists, or Eurasianists / Communists?[edit]

Why is ewerhwhere here written about some Ultranationalists?

Russian Ultranationalists don't wish to restore USSR, and many of them hate this period of our history. Some of them even want to cut off Northern Caucasus as non-Russian home of hated islamic Caucasians. And Chechen Imran Zakhaev (his name is Chechen) cannot be leader of Russian nationalists - this is a nonsense like a Black leader of Aryan Nation.

In-Game Russian insurgents can be Communists of some sort, or Eurasianists (like Alexander Dugin) - but not Ultranationalists. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.81.185.23 (talk) 15:42, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

PS3 Game Of The Year Edition[edit]

In the 'Retail versions' section, it states that "The PlayStation 3 version included the Variety map pack on the disc, and while the Xbox 360 Game of the Year edition initially included an insert in the packaging which could be redeemed on Xbox Live Marketplace to download the Variety map pack, later releases did not contain the inserts, and so were no different from the original release of the game."

However this isn't correct, the PS3 version does not include the variety map pack on the disc. Like the Xbox 360 version, initially an insert was included with a unique keycode to obtain the first Call Of Duty 4: Modern Warfare Map Pack for free. Later releases did not.

The release which includes the insert has a circle on the bottom right hand corner of the cover with the words "FREE *4 New multiplayer maps" (http://au.gamespot.com/ps3/action/callofduty4modernwarfare/index.html?tag=result%3Btitle%3B0).

203.32.16.176 (talk) 04:56, 28 January 2011 (UTC) Milto 28/01/2011

poor gaz[edit]

gaz was a great guy and was shot to death for no reason. i like the g36c's though —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.76.41.58 (talk) 04:04, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

not a forum TehMissingLink Talk 21:36, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Captain Price in Call of Duty 1[edit]

The article should mention somewhere the character Captain Price in Call of Duty the original. He's a main character who appears in the American and British campaign as a British soldier, he's even got the signature Price mustache. I assume he's implied to be the Modern Warfare Price's father. Someone with more experience contributing to Wikipedia pages than I could add this. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.30.176.16 (talk) 04:40, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

That isn't exactly relevant to this specific article. There is no proof that Captain Price is the CoD4's Captain Price's father, and it isn't important enough to put in the article in the first place. Razr95 01:05, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

Plot section[edit]

I think the plot section is too long and should be trimmed down a bit to make it concise-SCB '92 (talk) 16:01, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

Actual dates for COD4 and MW2 confirmed in MW3[edit]

I know the years Call of Duty 4 and Modern Warfare 2 take place in have long been the source of speculation, well now they've finally been confirmed in Modern Warfare 3. The mission "Blood Brothers" shows flashbacks of events that occurred in COD4 and MW2 with actual dates attached to them. The flashback of the Zakhaev assassination attempt in Prypiat (COD4 mission "One shot. One kill") is labelled as "winter 1996". The flashback of the nuclear detonation in the middle east (COD4 mission "Shock and awe") is labelled as "2011". Finally, the flashback of the Zakhaev airport massacre scene (MW2 mission "No Russian") is labelled "2016". These had long been the speculated dates, but now that they're actually confirmed, I was thinking they could be added into the COD4 and MW2 articles. Splew (talk) 20:15, 11 November 2011 (UTC)


Basis for Gaz's Character[edit]

I can't help but wonder if "Gaz" is based off a man of the same name in Andy Mcnab's Immediate action, and can't help but wonder as well whether it would be useful to try to find some information about how they designed the characters.109.156.192.4 (talk) 14:23, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

WHAT ABOUT MW2??????????????[edit]

We need to protect mw2's page too, why is this protected when its 5 years old, when mw2 is up and free? Just wondering. =)140.198.46.138 (talk) 00:19, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

Inconsistent abbreviated title[edit]

Reading through this article I've noticed that when referring back to the title of the game, Call of Duty 4: Modern Warfare, Call of Duty 4 and Modern Warfare are used all over the place. Can we reach consensus on how the article refers back to and edit the article to reflect this? CR4ZE (talk) 08:19, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

Hi. Why should we? Diversity is good. Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 08:22, 10 September 2013 (UTC)
Referring to the game under different titles is confusing to the reader. We are writing an article for the non-gamer, and someone who has no knowledge of the game beforehand. Therefore there needs to be one abbreviation used and the article needs to stick with it. CR4ZE (talk) 09:27, 10 September 2013 (UTC)
No, it isn't confusing. It wasn't for me. Diversity is good. Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 14:46, 10 September 2013 (UTC)
Sorry Lisa, but you're making an argument based on what you think is "good", not based on what WP:NCVG says. "Use the most commonly accepted English name first, if one exists. This is usually the official title in the initial English release, but not always". The article needs one consistent naming convention, not three. CR4ZE (talk) 02:59, 11 September 2013 (UTC)
Yes to the first, I am telling my opinion, and there is absolutely nothing wrong about that. No to the second, because the wikilink is a guideline on article title, which we aren't discussing, as opposed to references to title, which we are discussing. And, for the record, throwing the wrong wikilink into the discussion has offending effect instead of a compelling one. Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 06:58, 11 September 2013 (UTC)
(From WT:WPVG/AG) Since we use italics, it is less of an issue when more than one is used. But it is still just confusing matters and we really ought to use one short version, I would say Modern Warfare since it is more succinct and easier to read. If repetition really becomes a concern, it can be alternated to Call of Duty 4 or something, although I'm not sure why it ever would since we can easily use just "game" or something when referring to the game. Not using different names unless necessary is common practice as far as I've seen on VG articles. It's common to use synonyms for better prose for common words, but this is a proper noun, so we shouldn't assume the reader wants to memorize all the variants of how it can be used, especially given the COD franchise game naming. —  HELLKNOWZ  ▎TALK 11:20, 11 September 2013 (UTC)
Generally when shortening long titles, especially when the franchise title is the beginning, we use the subtitle. So Star Trek VI: The Undiscovered Country becomes The Undiscovered Country. By the same logic Modern Warfare makes the most sense to refer to the game beyond its first full mentions in the lead and article body. As to Lisa's comments, uniformity is a virtue when it comes to encyclopedia writing, as is accuracy. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs(talk) 15:22, 11 September 2013 (UTC)
Hi. That's what I said in the first FA nomination of Microsoft Security Essentials. No, it isn't a virtue unless it has practical uses. "Uniformity" can become "repetition" too. Consider this:

Modern Warfare is a game [...] Modern Warfare features [...] Modern Warfare received [...] Modern Warfare was subjected to [...] Modern Warfare made it so [...] The Modern Warfare update [...]

Replacing it with alternative nouns, pronouns and descriptors helps a lot. If you guys want to use a single noun form, please be my guest, but when you guys say "people find it such and such" and I find I don't find it so, it makes me feel like I am a martian! How do you guys know what people think in the first place?
Best regards,
Codename Lisa (talk) 17:46, 11 September 2013 (UTC)
Sorry, but you are making up hypothetical bad prose to suit your point here. I can equally say

Modern Warfare is a game [...] Among the core features are [...] The game received [...] Gameplay became a subject to [...] The developers made it so [...] The first update [...]

and use that as indicator that there is no repetition. I don't think anyone said we can't use other pronouns or descriptors. —  HELLKNOWZ  ▎TALK 20:17, 11 September 2013 (UTC)
Basically what Hellknowz said. If you've got sentences back to back to back starting with the same words, that's an issue of poor writing, which various names for the same product will not ameliorate. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs(talk) 20:46, 11 September 2013 (UTC)
Hi. That's exactly what I said: alternative descriptors. "The game", "gameplay", "it" and "first" replace "Modern Warfare" in this example. So, thanks Hell Knowz, for establishing that repetition is not a virtue. I was going to ask "so, you point?" but I am not going to. Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 14:32, 12 September 2013 (UTC)
Lisa, ultimately as I said, when we write a Wikipedia article we are writing it for the non-gamer, somebody who has no previous experience with the CoD franchise. As Hellknowz pointed out, keeping one abbreviation consistently throughout the article doesn't constitute repetition, which wouldn't necessarily be a bad thing if written correctly anyway. The problem with using multiple abbreviations is that the non-gamer is likely to be confused, and think that "Call of Duty 4" and "Modern Warfare" could be separate entities, such as in the Reception section where you introduce with "Modern Warfare', then "Call of Duty 4: Modern Warfare", and later, "Call of Duty 4". CR4ZE (talk) 01:48, 12 September 2013 (UTC)
You know what? I agree. If they read the article as carelessly as Hell and David read my message, they actually might. Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 14:32, 12 September 2013 (UTC)
Nobody's here to have a personal attack at you, so you should avoid firing one off at others. They read the point you were trying to make, which didn't have anything to do with the original discussion, and dismissed it. If you're taking that personally that's your own ego getting in the way. It's in our best interest to preserve the quality of Wikipedia's articles wherever possible, and as this is a FA-class article, that's especially important. I'll go through and edit the article for you to keep one consistent abbreviation throughout the article. So would you rather Call of Duty 4: Modern Warfare, Call of Duty 4 or Modern Warfare? CR4ZE (talk) 15:26, 12 September 2013 (UTC)
I have no specific preferences. I just rolled a dice. It came 3. So, your third option. Interpret it however you like. Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 18:54, 12 September 2013 (UTC)
And while we are at it, CR4ZE: I did not take Hell's or David's message as a personal attack; and my message was not meant to be any sort of retort or personal attack. Surely, "careless" is not a personal attack. They misunderstood my agreement as disagreement and I half-jokingly commented on it. By the way, if you don't know, Wikipedians send eachother trouts in these cases. That's not a personal attack either, okay? But using the word "ego" in conjunction with a person who twice expressed his consent ("be my guest" and "I agree")? Now that is sailing close to wind. Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 22:53, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

Extended description for revert #586750114[edit]

Hi.

I just made a mass revert to four edits added hours ago. Here is an extended explanation of why. Basically, the edits:

  1. Added a lot of intricate details, creating wordiness, which is against WP:FACR
  2. Added a lot of wrong piece of info

For example, in the first sentence:

In 2011, a civil war has broken out in Russia between its current government and Ultranationalists

"Current" is superfluous. Certainly, "its government" never means "its past government" because if it is past, it is no longer government. Same goes for additions like:

  • "killing the previous leader" (the word "coup d'état" says exactly that)
  • "to remove him" (certainly, they didn't invade "to cuddle him")
  • "though where, is unknown" (wrong; they perfectly knew where)
  • "arrive on scene" (already said with "join the fray"; besides they can't "tend to the wounded" without arriving first)

Then we get to more grave issues.

As U.S. Marines invade the palace, the Marines engage Al-Asad's ground forces.

Seriously, how can Marines both invade the place and meanwhile engage ground forces elsewhere? They can't; the original text was correct. SEALs and their EOD team invade the palace. Marines stay in the city.

Finally, in violation of WP:IINFO, a lot of character names were added and attempt was made to dramatize the ending. As IINFO explains, these additions only make sense to those who already know about them and only serve to detract from the focus of article on Zakhaev.

Best regards,
Codename Lisa (talk) 06:56, 19 December 2013 (UTC)