you can call it short after you earn yourself a golden gun (not excluding golden desert eagle)

 I agree with you ... i think none of the next CODs was able to match the joy and fun i had playing the first one

If it wasn't for the multiplayer, it definitely would not have been worth the $50 I paid for it on Steam, but I have put well over 20 hours into the multiplayer. So pretty good deal overall. I do wish people would spend more time on single-player these days though...

your like one of 3 people who doesn't play online.

If you don't play games online, you shouldn't have bought the game. Read reviews, it's that simple.

Right here. CoD 1 all the way. I really like the expansion to the first one because driving all the vehicles was so bad ass. I like COD 4 well enough but I have it for 360 (was a gift) if it was my choice I would of gotten it for PC. Call of Duty games have always been more online based though with good stories to accompany to get you in sort of ready to play online

I actually know quite a few people who aren't that big on online games. I usually just play Counter Strike online myself and avoid most every other online games. So I can understand when someone prefers a good single player game or a good multi player non online game.

I read the reviews, most of them still hyped the single player game as being well worth it. Well when you compare it to the first game in the series (for the PC) it falls flat on it's face.

Edit: Just to stay on topic.  I don't think that CoD games are very well known for having a single player campaign that made it worthwhile to purchase.  It was always the multiplayer that justified the price.

I've played COD2 and COD3 and they sure seemed longer to me in single player campaign mode...

As for the "you knew it was online so don't buy it" comment.... Why do they include a campaign mode, then? That's what I want the game for.

As far as trying it online, I didn't as I don't even have a Gold Account. I have experimented with a few shooters online and it just doesn't appeal to me. I assumed it was an acquired taste but I don't like it -- plain and simple. Campaigns with goals are entirely a different experience. Multiplayer co-op online is certainly something I might consider but even then, I'd rather just do split screen local with friends in the same room. Call me strange, I guess, but I'm not thrilled about the entire shooting genre headed for meager campaigns with primary a primary focus online.

They included a single player campaign to trick you and other people into buying it for that. Every review mentioned it had a great 4-5 hour campaign. You bought the game knowing that so there's nothing to complain about. If you didn't know that, even worse.

It could have been a 2 hour single player if they wanted. It's your job to know what you're buying. It's not like the single player in COD 4 is any better than COD 2 in quality. It's COD 2's SP campaign, cut in half, set in modern times with some improved graphics and a much better multiplayer mode.