Well I was in the beta and let a few freinds join in with the exploit and they loved it. One of the says is the best game he ever played. I wouldn't go that far but it was alot of fun. The level up aspect was very cool and easy to follow. Can only imagine how good the single player will be.

Meh, too many 10/10 reviews lately, they should save them to the likes of Mass Effect, MGS4 etc :)
I am very scepticalof CoD4, always been kind of a fan of CoD games on PC, but I have a feeling it is being over hyped.

I knew once I saw it being demo'ed at E3 that it'd be great. Still not my cup of tea, but maybe with pointer controls for shooting I'd try it out (I hate using analog sticks to aim, I suck at it...)

played the demo and except for using modern weapons, i don't see much of a difference with the previous installments. that's not to say i don't like it, though. but as i say, same thing, just different era. noticed much smarter AI though.

It looks gorgeous, but I have to say, I agree with everyone who says it plays like old CoD with a modern facelift. The weapons honestly do not 'feel' much different than the old rifles and machine guns from WWII.

I'm sure I'll pick this up eventually, but it's not a first-week purchase for me. Not that that means anything -- the game will sell like gangbusters, regardless.

I want this game, Im getting the limited edition 360 version.

FPSs really get higher ratings than they deserve if you ask me. I went for years without playing them and have recently come back and I've been severely disappointed by the highly rated games that everyone else has been raving about (Half-life 2 and Bioshock). Bioshock was especially disappointing. The view of Rapture from the outside was amazing, but inside they just had kitschy crap plastered all over the walls and called it an art deco inspired design.

The big problem is that FPSs lack variety. A typical FPS has you spend 2 or 3 hours in environment A fighting 2 or 3 types of enemies, then 2 or 3 hours in environment B fighting 2 or 3 types of enemies, then 2 or 3 hours in environment C fighting a mix of the enemies from environments A and B, and so on and so forth. It just gets so tedious fighting the same things over and over again without any real variety in the setting.

The only game first person series that I've played that breaks away from this is Metroid Prime which has much more elaborate and varied environment designs along with an immense variety of enemies. But we all know that the critics loved Bioshock more than Metroid Prime 3.

Well at least multiplayer FPSs are still fun. I just wish they'd rerelease Tribes 2 using a modern engine with all of the community features fixed. TF2 is the next best thing though.

Who asked you?  Sorry but seeing you slam a game like Half-Life 2 for example which I suspect you haven't played (otherwise how could you possibly say the environments aren't varied in it?) and bringing up Metroid Prime 3 makes me think you're just a Nintendo fanboy sounding off, which while you have every right to just don't expect to be taken seriously by people that actually play first person shooters and know quality games when they play them.

Also you accuse first person shooters of all being the same which is pretty ridiculous when you compare something like Bioshock to Halo 3 for example.  Sorry but your entire argument pretty much falls apart and while you may like a certain type of game (first person adventure or whatever people want to call MP3) don't use that to slam first person shooters, especially great ones.  I could list for example some of the new things Halo 3 brings to the table but why bother since you have already passed judgment on first person shooters.

Looks like it will be a great change and a welcome break from WWII, but I've got my pre-order for this and it should be brilliant, although it might take vital hours away from playing Warhawk