If COD4 was out for Wii and had the same features, it'd get the same scores...Simple as that.

Call of Duty 3 for the Wii didn't have multiplayer - it got docked alot of points. Why? Taking a major feature out of one version of a game is not a great way to make a quality product. It'd be like taking the multiplayer out of Goldeneye.

Exactly, I fail to see how a short game will mean it's going to be a bad game. Hell, for what Call of Duty 2 lacks in length, it makes up for in the experience. Loading that game up on my PC and cranking up my 5.1 speakers produces quite an intense atmosphere that not a whole lot of other shooter games seem to be able to get close to.

Despite what I've said above about COD4 being COD2 with better graphics, the demo proves that it offers a similar experience that I am excited for. 

Care to show precisely where he actually bashed COD4?

It entirely depends on whether the multiplayer for CoD4 is any good or not.

$60 for a 5 hour game with no multiplayer whatsoever vs. $60 for a 5 hour game with great multiplayer aren't even in the same ballpark.

And if I'm partial to the 360, why did I just blast Katamari in my latest review? I gave it a FAR lower rating than GameRankings or IGN (6/10 vs. 7.8/10 or something like that). I also gave Heavenly Sword an 8/10. I don't see where I'm so partial toward one console over another.

Pokemon Battle Revolution, obviously.

Seriously people, this game has online multiplayer. It is an integral portion of the game. Games get slammed for not having much content, not for having a single player campaign that's too short.

Easiest example -- should Warhawk's score be 0.0? If not, why? Answer: because it has robust online multiplayer. That's always factored in to the equation. CoD4 apparently has Heavenly Sword single player gameplay in addition to an entire online multiplayer universe to explore that many people will spend 100+ hours of gameplay with, much more than any single player game in history. 

I hope you're being deliberately obtuse, here. Heavenly Sword has no multiplayer options. Call of Duty 4 has an extensive selection of multiplayer options, both off and on line. It's that simple. Multiplayer options are factored in to the play value a game has, and thus the overall score.

Simple question that I'm going to ask to everyone who behaves this way: should Warhawk have gotten a 0.0 from critics? If not, why?

Quotes from Leo-J:

"5-6 hour compaign..oh wait its on the 360..."
(attacking it because of certain other short-er SP games on the X360)



"No im not trolling Im just stating facts. A short 360 game= PERFECT REVIEWS
A short ps3 game= NOT PERFECT REVIEWS"

Accusing reviewers of being X360 biased. Which everyone ripped his statement apart.



Those are his only 2 posts from this thread. Both negative to the X360. It's fine if you want to be negative of the X360 every once in awhile, but when 95% of your posts are negative to a system you don't own, I consider that being stupid.

http://previews.teamxbox.com/xbox-360/1799/Call-of-Duty-4-Modern-Warfare/p1/

From TeamXbox forums:
"Unfortunately for us, the Microsoft’s test Xbox Live environment (PartnerNet) was inexplicably down for the day, so we had to play the PlayStation 3 version of the game. While that wasn’t exactly ideal, it was quickly apparent that the two versions are nearly identical. The only real difference between the two is the control scheme (for obvious reasons)."

Isn't that ironic that all video embedded and HD downloads are from the PS3 version on the xbox site. *giggles*

http://www.dailygame.net/news/archives/006696.php

From the article:

"Infinity Ward personally assured us that development occurred simultaneously on all three platforms, and that there wasn't a base system. With that said, the console similarities end when it comes to textures, lighting and resolutions, because those three areas make the PlayStation 3 version definitely excel over the Xbox 360 SKU. Regardless, every console owner will proudly use Call of Duty 4 to showcase their high-definition TV, because COD4 is by far the best-looking console game you will see this year.

The PS3 is finally not getting some crappy port and may be the the better console version to have.
We'll have to wait for the comparison vids.

Uh oh, that ought to cause some trouble in anti-XXX debates. Still, I would take that as good news because Infinity Ward is actually making the two versions as close as possible. I'm getting tired of seeing bad ports on the PS3 especially when there are other developers who can make the different versions of their game similar. 

I just watched the 3 videos on the xbox site of the PS3 version and it looks great, i've seen all the trailers and about 50 beta videos and played the comp demo and the PS3 video looks by far the best out of any of them. About 14 days left, this is going to be great.