By now everyone and their mother has played Call of Duty 4. There's nothing wrong with that, everyone's already agreed it's a great game. Let me put in my $.02 about 2007's Game of the Year.

You all know what's good about Call of Duty 4. Graphics, story, multiplayer, AI, basically everything is very well done. The graphics are the top in the industry (not compared to Crysis, but still at the top), it offers an engaging story between two countries' forces, and the multiplayer experience people will be raving about for some time.

Story. The story was great, but it has its drawbacks. I guess the biggest one being that this plot isn't very original, the concept of stopping Russian extremists from launching nuclear missiles. It's been done in movies and other games (Frontlines: Fuel of War has a similar plot, but that's a worse game), so that's not a really great thing. Ignoring the status of its originality, it's still a plot that pulls the player in and makes them need to see the conclusion. The flashback sniping mission, switching between American and British Forces, the unclear ending; Activision hit it on the head when they fleshed out the plot and the way to tell the story. By far, changing modes of play to an AC-130 Spectre Gunship and sending the player back in time to Price's previous assassination mission were the greatest elements of the storytelling, leaving competitors hard-pressed to match their ingenuity.

The multiplayer is really where most players go, though. Sure, lots of people have played the campaign, but Call of Duty 4 goes the way of Halo when it comes to campaign vs multiplayer. The addition of special perks that players earn, as more weapons, gun attachments, even calling in support during a mission. Users are given a wide range of implements of destruction, leading to some of the most diverse play found in FPS multiplayer games. Maps are fun, well-made, and the location of strategic spawns away from enemies means a minimization of spawn-campers. I do have a few recommendations for Call of Duty 5, however. First, everyone would enjoy the tactical element from Rainbow Six: the ability to get behind cover and fire from cover. As Tim Buckley from Ctrl+Alt+Del put it, "After Rainbow Six I never thought I'd have to stand in a doorway and toss a grenade in again." Truly there needs to be a cover system in the future. The second recommendation is again taken from Rainbow Six. One could hope that sometime players who have earned the right to own both a scope and a silencer should be able to use both at the same time. Third, the inclusion of vehicles. This isn't really necessary, as Call of Duty 4 proved that vehicular combat isn't necessary in an FPS multiplayer experience to compete. I would also like to see a multiplayer system with parties more akin to Halo, as Call of Duty 4 sometimes doesn't do the parties or matchmaking as well as Halo. Look, I'm not trying to make this like Rainbow Six or Halo, but surely everyone would enjoy these improvements (at least the first two). It should have some tactical element to it, but not as much as Rainbow Six. And not as inane and brainless as Halo 3 can sometimes be in multiplayer.

All in all, much of the score is based off of what Call of Duty 4 could be, and not truly what it is. A badass game with an excellent campaign and multiplayer is what it is. What it could be is an even more badass game. I will continue to love it despite some minor recommended improvements, they aren't to be taken as insults to the game. Constructive criticism is always good in the creative process.

And let us hope that Captain Price is alive.