Talk:Call of Duty 4: Modern Warfare

Modern Warfare Remastered Multiplayer Maps Edit Request

Under 6 Modern Warfare Remastered -> Overview, please replace:

The remaster will come with the original campaign mode, as well as 10 maps for multiplayer instead of the default 16 maps that the game originally had.

with

The remaster will come with the original campaign mode, as well as 10 maps for multiplayer at launch. The six remaining original maps will be released as free DLC in December 2016.

Stuartmcdade (talk) 12:01, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

Done Topher385 (talk) 13:23, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

References

Lead Designer Amos Hodge Edit Requested

Lead Designer Amos Hodge should be added to the page as the designer for the remastered version. https://twitter.com/wendellwobble

Split proposed

I think the section on Modern Warfare Remastered is more than large enough, and sourced, to be split out separately now. I may boldly do it if no one objects in the next day or two. -- ferret (talk) 19:56, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

Sorry, I'm new to talk sections. If you want to, you can. I did consider splitting it at one point, but (other than the fact I've never created a whole new article before) avoided doing so due to several reasons, my main one being that the game isn't sold standalone; if it was, I'd have it as a separate article. I've noticed the wiki info for the remaster Gears of Wars: Ultimate Edition (which is standalone) is located in the original Gears of War game article. Similarly, the Modern Warfare remaster is just for one game, rather than several. Naturally, a separate article for a game collection of remasters are often linked to from each article for the original game e.g. several of the Halo games articles would link to the Halo: The Master Chief Collection. -- Wikibenboy94 (talk) 20:48, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

Personally, I'd also like to see the remastered section split. It's gotten enough independent attention to warrant its own article. Regardless, I think the entire Call of Duty 4 article could use a good scrubbing, as it might be in danger of an FAR soon. Famous Hobo (talk) 20:57, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

I'm going forward with it. -- ferret (talk) 22:02, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

Someone please change the Reception part of the page.

COD Modern Warfare received universal acclaim, not critical. 90+ meta score. ShivamLH (talk) 17:30, 14 October 2018 (UTC)

Edit Request ShivamLH (talk) 17:31, 14 October 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 14 April 2019

"The SAS rescue the VIP and escape before the plane is destroyed." The People who rescue the VIP are not part of the SAS they are part of Task Force 141 so it should be "The TF141 (or Task Force 141) rescue the VIP and escape before the plane is destroyed. 2001:984:3AC0:1:427:40E1:844F:D35C (talk) 15:46, 14 April 2019 (UTC)

 Not done for now: Please add a reference here on the talk page for this claim. You may use the game itself as that reference, by using the {{cite video game}} template, taking care to activate the |scene= and |quote= parameters of the template to include the specific information which verifies this claim.  Spintendo  19:56, 14 April 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 22 December 2020

For the "Downloadable content" section it mentions that dlc exclusivity deal with Microsoft started with this game which is incorrect. It begun with Modern Warfare 2. Though the DLC was released three weeks later on PS3 this was not a result of this exclusivity deal as COD WAW maps were released simultaneously the following year ThunderousMenace (talk) 12:07, 22 December 2020 (UTC)

 Not done: The source in the article states that it was with this game, please provide multiple reliable sources which contradict the statement for the change to be made. Terasail^[✉] 17:43, 22 December 2020 (UTC)

Screenshot too small

Under 'Game engine', an image caption reads 'A scene from Modern Warfare displaying the game's graphics quality'. The image [Cod4 game engine.png] does no such thing. Way too small/low-res. Is it not permissible to simply take a new screenshot? Heavenlyblue (talk) 23:27, 18 June 2021 (UTC)

I'm with you. But no, it's not permissible. WP:NFCC screenshots are automatically resized on Wikipedia by a bot to a ridiculously small useless resolution. -- ferret (talk) 23:49, 18 June 2021 (UTC)

The amount of escorts Zakhaev has

I know it's pretty small, but I exclusively remember in the last mission that there was two escorts, and when that specific part is mentioned in the last paragraph in the "Plot" section, it isn't plural. I could be wrong, but wasn't there two escorts?Hpnzii (talk) 18:37, 4 February 2022 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hpnzii (talk • contribs) 19:53, 3 February 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 7 July 2023

Please italicize hatnotes per WP:ITHAT, same as my edit. 45.164.13.242 (talk) 00:11, 7 July 2023 (UTC)

 Done PlanetJuice (talk • contribs) 01:24, 7 July 2023 (UTC)

Concerns regarding this articles quality

I'm not going to start an FAR, since this would be the first time concerns are brought up and it's honestly not that bad, but I've taken a look at this FA from 2008 and I have some concerns regarding quality.

• "The game is considered one of the greatest video games of all time." is not verified in the body. Yes, the list it goes to does list the game, but such a standout claim still needs to be cited here.
• First two paragraphs of Gameplay are unsourced.
• A few sentences going over the basics of what a first-person shooter is wouldn't hurt since this is a very important game to the genre. Something like what is seen over at the fairly recently-promoted Doom
• The Reception section is honestly terrible. There is very little writing and variety of reviews used here, and the Wii reviews section somehow has more than it. I'd understand that if it was something like an indie game, or if the game didn't get many reviews, but that isn't the case here. There's not a lot of variety in opinions, and claims in the lead like "there was criticism of its lack of innovation" is attributed to two sources. Also, the Wii version section just reads weird as a whole. The review scores do not matter,
• Little to no substance in the Legacy section. This is one of the most major games of the seventh generation, and the most influential game in the franchise, there is absolutely material for a couple substantial paragraphs.
• An image showcasing the games graphics could be beneficial, using Template:Non-free no reduce. I know there was an image here in the past that demonstrated that and I was the one who removed it, but it was already reduced and a bad example in the first place.
• Listing what rating the game was given is irrelevant information unless it was a major part of the games commentary per MOS:VG. This games age rating did not receive commentary, unlike a game like Hatred.
• Citing the game itself for some basic facts is fine I guess, but using it to source nearly an entire paragraph doesn't seem like the best way of handling the gameplay section.
• Ref 28 is not a reliable source. Even if this could be considered a primary source, it's still unreliable at WP:RSP.

Again, not enough to where I'd take it to FAR (someone can later on if they want to), but I don't really think this article is of the highest quality. So I'm leaving this list of issues here with the hopes someone will pick it up in the future, or maybe even me months or years from now if I ever feel competent enough to tackle major subjects like this. λ NegativeMP1 05:39, 16 May 2024 (UTC)

Taking a quick skim through the concerns and conducting my own review. I pretty much agree with NegativeMP1's assessment. Some thoughts below:

• The entire beginning of the Gameplay section is uncited, which is a huge problem for me.
• Reception sufferers from an "X said Y" pattern, and should be reformatted.
• NMP1 is quite correct about the Legacy section being sparse: this is one of the most influential games in the franchise and should probably have a larger legacy section.
• I disagree that the rating of the game is irrelevant. I think it should be included in the article, even if it did not receive significant commentary. I think the article has the correct amount of commentary about it, though I'm willing to consider other ways to display the information (a chart with the ratings instead of prose?)
• I agree that just citing the game for gameplay is problematic. Usually reviews have information about this: can any of them be utilised?

Thanks for starting this review NegativeMP1. Z1720 (talk) 14:47, 16 May 2024 (UTC)

@NegativeMP1: I see that there haven't been major edits to this article in several weeks. Would you be interested in fixing up this article, or taking it to FAR? Z1720 (talk) 02:28, 13 July 2024 (UTC)

I was considering taking it to FAR in the near future, but I didn't want to add another one to the pile since I made a FAR for The Legend of Zelda: Majora's Mask that has been ongoing since August 2023. λ NegativeMP1 16:41, 13 July 2024 (UTC)

Update: I have put the article up for FAR. λ NegativeMP1 03:58, 3 September 2024 (UTC)