modern warfare 2

what are your thoughts on modern warfare 2

i think it is the best frist peson shooter ever. i have played it and geting it this week hopfully. but i love the big maps on multiplayer and the perks a great. my favorite perk is hartbeat sencer it is cool because it cant be scrambeld by the other perk that uav scamberler thing. the campain is good but thay made sope a bit like a acton hero rather than a soilder but the game is still one of the best i have played and i have played a lot of games.

you can post

I don’t understand how they got away with changing the skins on Call of Duty 4 twice and still getting morons to buy it.

I think its an improvement over the last game but i expected more from it. Spec ops is nice but some of the missions are literally ripped from cod 4 and tweaked slightly to give objectives a challenge. One mission just takes the beginning of hunted in cod4 and adds an ac130 gunship controlled by one player giving cover to the other while being timed to reach certain checkpoints. The multiplayer is ok, but i seriously think they took too many perks out. I enjoy having 5 attachments for every weapon but i really prefered having some of the perks from cod4. I havent finished the campaign yet but it so far has been very interesting and i cant really complain much about that. Overall its pretty good and id recommend it to anyone who enjoys FPS games.

So, after trading in some games, I found that I had a lot more money than I thought I would. So, for kicks, I grabbed Modern Warfare 2 to see how it is, knowing that if nothing else, you get $40 back if you trade it in by a certain date. . .

I may actually do that and use the money on New Super Mario Bros. Wii. At least I’d know, then, that I’d be having fun.

I haven’t touched multiplayer, because I’ve played multiplayer on the first Modern Warfare, and let’s be fair — there’s nothing new there. I haven’t tried Spec Ops, but all I hear from people is it being copy-paste, so that doesn’t sound like it’ll end well. Campaign so far is terribly uninteresting, and still has the problem of the first game where the AI does diddly-squat, leaving everything on your shoulders. I’m sorry, but I don’t think a highly trained soldier would yell, “Tangos coming from the north!”, and then rush at them on his own, only to be mowed down. The AI is awful, the story is meh, the multiplayer is stale. . .

Gods, what was I thinking, grabbing this? Part of me wants to keep it, so I can play with my friend at the very least. The other half is ready to go back to the store on Sunday to go get Mario instead.

I’m not even exaggerating that. And yes, the little kid in me is excited at this idea that Mario comes out Sunday.

Mario is more appealing than Modern Warfare so far. Heh. I’m a bit surprised at myself for that one, but it’s looking like a good option.

i think you are wrong. i think modern warfare is one of the best games in the world but i know that you can have a say.

i think you are wrong.

And you’re opinion is worthless unless you can support it!

Get this: He just did this:

“Game X is bad for X, Y, and Z reasons.”

You just did this:

“WELL I LIKE IT”

Guess who looks stupid in this argument?

Originally posted by JamesBond225:

i think you are wrong.

Why?

Because it’s the most recent addition to a collection of games that are exactly the same with the exception of the mask it’s wearing? Try supporting your opinion with facts and details- it’ll take you somewhere.

I don’t buy games by Activision. They are dedicated to destroying the video gaming industry. Not only does Bobby Kotick continuously talk about how much he likes taking the money of consumers, but Activision in general is more interested in whoring a franchise out for money than it is in making good games.

Guitar Hero 3 wasn’t terrible, but then Activision realized it could milk the franchise, and it did so. In 2008 and 2009 alone, we got Guitar Hero: World Tour, Guitar Hero Aerosmith, Guitar Hero Metallica, Guitar Hero 5, Guitar Hero: Smash Hits, Guitar Hero: Van Halen, Band Hero, Guitar Hero: On Tour, Guitar Hero: On Tour: Decades, and Guitar Hero: On Tour: Modern Hits.

By my count, that’s 10 games in two years. I can not trust any company so willing to choke a franchise to death like that. Not to mention dropping Brutal Legends.

So, no Activision games for me.

Ehhh…

I liked the game, but nowhere near as much I was expecting. The campaign, in my opinion, was pretty well done, although the plot was horribly confusing and never gave you enough time to digest the many twists and turns they put into the game. I do believe that the missions are a lot better over CoD4, offering jaw-dropping visuals (That white house scene?) at every turn. Something they did wrong with CoD4 was that once you looked at the box, you had pretty much seen all the colors in the game, as everything was a shade of green, brown, or metallic steel for the guns. With MW2, at least they varied the colors a good bit, offering a lot of bright greens, blues, and other colors not seen in most war games. Overall, the story was meh, the action was pretty good, and the missions were pretty good, offering some amazing moments.

As for the spec-ops, I have to agree with Deriaz, it’s not too good. It just seems that instead of making a survival mode, or a campaign co-op (both of which I would have enjoyed; I can’t count how many Zombie matches I played with friends on WaW, that’s the only reason I played that game, really) A few of the missions are good, such as the mission where you creeping through the blizzard, stealthily picking off enemies at every turn. Most of the others, however, are either missions from the campaign of MW or MW2 tacked back on with ‘stars’, or simple “Get from point X to point Y, while being attacked from all sides.”

The multiplayer is something I have mixed feelings about. I think it’s fun. All the animations are smooth, the numbers pop up like some sort of arcade game, there are loads of things to unlock (I’m a sucker for unlocking things and completing ‘achievements’ or ‘challenges’ in this case), and it’s really satisfying to shoot someone in the face with a shotgun. However, I also find it unbalanced and frustrating to an extent. The customizable killstreaks are nice, but I think it makes the game feel way too crowded, just looking at the minimap and seeing four helicopters, six ‘care packages’ two airstrikes, and and enemies running all around you (of course I exaggerated, but it’s pretty close to that. There can be two and three helicopters at a time in the air, all on the enemy team. Another thing is that some weapons are much more powerful than others, something that CoD4 didn’t suffer from — too much. Now, I’m trying to get all the challenges with the first assault rifle, and I’ll find myself initiating a shootout with someone by shooting them in the back, only for them to turn around and kill me as if they were just swatting an annoying fly. (Also, I checked, the assault rifle I’ve been killed dozens upon dozens of times by is the SECOND one you get. At level four.) A newbie could easily get overwhelmed during their first few multiplayer hours. Other than these complaints, multiplayer has so far been pretty enjoyable, other than the fact that party chat is disabled. I’m having to bring up the scoreboard every death to make sure no one else has joined the game for me to mute.

Guitar Hero 3 wasn’t terrible, but then Activision realized it could milk the franchise, and it did so. In 2008 and 2009 alone, we got Guitar Hero: World Tour, Guitar Hero Aerosmith, Guitar Hero Metallica, Guitar Hero 5, Guitar Hero: Smash Hits, Guitar Hero: Van Halen, Band Hero, Guitar Hero: On Tour, Guitar Hero: On Tour: Decades, and Guitar Hero: On Tour: Modern Hits.

I’ve heard they went to trademark “Drums Hero”. Maybe they will slow down on milking GH and move on to ‘greener’ pastures…Green with cash…>_>

Overall, a good game to me, but a bit disappointing compared to what I was expecting.

(Forgive me and my totally FPS-tard-biased review)

Originally posted by Carados:

i think you are wrong.

And you’re opinion is worthless unless you can support it!

Get this: He just did this:

“Game X is bad for X, Y, and Z reasons.”

You just did this:

“WELL I LIKE IT”

Guess who looks stupid in this argument?

why gives a crap. if it is a reson you want the hear it is. i think it is beter than mario because i loved cod 4 and modern warfare 2 is way beter than cod 4. the campain is well beter then the crap you get in mario. and the muitiplayer is amazing. even if the was no muitiplayer is still would be much beter than mario. have you seen the size of the muitipalyer maps i loved sniping on cod 4 so biger maps more sniping spots and the are clifes so you also get high grond. what do you get in mario you get an Italin guy jumping around.

I'm gonna be talking about the game as a whole. There are campaign spoilers in here. A lot of them. I'm basically voicing my unhappiness with the campaign one thing at a time. I'll let you know once I'm done with the campaign stuff. TL;DR version at end of post.

Don't get me wrong -- I'm not saying it's entirely bad. There are some redeeming qualities to the game. Breaching doors was a little fun, death streaks seemed to be a nice addition, and riot shield were fun to poke around with if not insanely easy-mode for campaign. However, those are the only good things I can think of regarding the game; otherwise, I would be lying through my teeth. I did not enjoy the game at all. Happy to be done with Veteran campaign so I wouldn't have to touch the thing again save for one achievement I may go back for.

If you've played Modern Warfare 1, you know what to expect in Modern Warfare 2's story, and that's probably where my biggest gripe comes in. I'm not saying that they share qualities, or that they share characters. I'm talking that, at the core, the skeleton, Modern Warfare 2's story is Modern Warfare 1's story. I didn't realize it at first, but about halfway through the story, you get a slap in the face in the form of a "I've played this before", and another slap in the face by the game saying, "I'm making the story confusing with a little meaningless twist that isn't explained from here to the end."

Like the first game, they're going to ask you to control multiple characters, which is fine and dandy. We did that in the first game. Soap returns with a silly looking mohawk, and Shepard gets to pretend to play general or some crap. That's nice. Like Modern Warfare 1, you run through a pit, and then do a little mission that doesn't really have any bearing at all on the story other than to ease you in (the boat level from the first game). Airport level is thrown in for two reasons, it seems -- One, it "sets the war off" though later you're similarly told the two armies have been at unease for awhile, so it really lessens the impact of the level, and two, for Infinity Ward to stand up and go, "Look what we did!" The level is nice and all, and introduces you into the concept of the riot shield at one point as well. But beyond being a controversial level, we could have completely done without this, which makes me a bit upset, and only serves to draw out the campaign to an even longer degree (and believe me, it drags ooooooon.).

Makarov is the terrorist in this game that everyone's after, but the funny thing is that in Modern Warfare 2, unlike the first game, we completely forget to see Makarov through the rest of the game, which is complete crap. Some stuff happens in Brazil, and it turns out Captain Price is Makarov's most prized prisoner or something. This is never really explained either, making the story more diluted and confusing than it needs to be. But everyone's happy, so you're expected to smile, nod, and move on with Captain Price and the gang back together. Yay for them. Not for the player. A little bit of an explanation would be nice beyond "lol prisoner!!1", but Infinity Ward decides to blow up the castle thing Price was being held in. So, no explanation for you.

Oil rig gets taken. Serves no purpose. Boring level that just goes, "lol thermal sights!" By this point, the whole game feels like they're saying, "Look at all this cool crap you'll never see reason to use!" Example: Holographic sight, red dot sight, ACOG sight. They all are a version of a scope with a dot that says, "Bullet goes here!" Why do we need them? To dilute the gun drops so ammo becomes a little scarce, I get. It seems at times I couldn't pick up AK47 ammo, though I needed it, because the gun had a different scope. Bullcrap; all I want are the magazines. Not the whole thing.

Nuke goes off. Looks familiar. Flies towards USA. Looks familiar. It goes off in space. Oh noes, spaceman dies. Now you get to walk through DC in its whole destroyed look, to get to the white house. The whole beginning of the level reeks of "Guys look! It's like the nuke level where you crawl for a few minutes and then pass out!" Absolutely un-needed, really. Just put us at the damned White House so we can keep going. Oh, and Ramirez, one of your characters, dies along the way I think. I don't even remember why -- no one really cares, because the character has no emotion, just like everyone else you play as. Yay.

Now we kill off Ghost, who I guess was important to the story since he's the "mascot" when you're in the campaign menu, and Roach, the character you play as. Shepard ends up betraying you for. . . Some reason, I guess. He wants to write history, I suppose. He'll be a "war hero". For completely destroying the East Coast and stuff. I know I totally want to be a war hero in a country I just helped destroy. They cover you two in gasoline, flick a cigarette in the thing. I guess you're suppose to feel sad, but you don't, because at this point the campaign feels like it should be over, but it drags on. Moving on.

And once again, we come full circle to Soap, because Infinity Ward has such a hard-on for the guy. You go through this big chase scene thing, except this time in a boat instead of a car like the first game, you almost get him like in the first game, stuff blows up like in the first game, you go through a scripted scene like in the first game, you watch people fight like in the first game. . . The whole ending is nearly a copy-paste. The only difference here is that one, you don't die, though you and Price get really injured (I wish Soap would have died), and you kill Shepard by throwing a knife at the guy's head. A knife that was in your stomach that Shepard put there. A knife that asks you to mash X for at least a minute, if not more, acting all melodramatic as Soap sloooooowly pulls the thing out, even having to use two hands at one point like it's the heaviest knife in the world. But once again, you play hero, getting to throw a knife. And, unfortunately, the bomb is dropped that Modern Warfare 3 is a possibility.

. . . If. I. Wanted. To. Play. Modern. Warfare. 1's. Story. . . I would load up Modern Warfare 1. It had less holes at least. Where's Makarov? Why are we acting like the war's over? What happened at the White House? Who the hell was Ghost? Does anyone even care why Shepard even betrayed the whole US? What was the motive besides wanting to somehow be famous for betraying your own country, yet being glorified by the people in that country? I could go on. What the hell?

Now for the AI. I really don't have as big a complaint here, because the AI is absolutely shoddy as usual. Soldiers doing grenade dances over grenades instead of throwing them back. Soldiers throwing grenades at walls for them to bounce back at us. Soldiers shooting enemies that are hundreds of feet away instead of the guy right in their face that's turning and shooting me. Which brings me to my complaint of one level in particular. You're asked to run through two warring armies -- Shepard's army and Makarov's army. I don't know why they're fighting, 'cause they're supposed to be working together I guess. But on Veteran, enemies are scripted to go after you. See the problem yet? You get two armies that drop what they're doing to target you instead. What should have been a stealthish level becomes just Soap shooting two armies to death. If the AI was smart and focused on what they're supposed to be doing, or even just acted a little better, the game might be more fun because the whole war isn't thrust on your shoulders. But again, it is.

Oh, and protip for a few levels: If you get a Riot Shield, keep it. Seriously. Just melee everyone as they come to you, which they will. I literally flew through the first half of the final level using it, until they asked me to steer a stupid boat.

I think I'm done with the campaign. Moving on to Spec Ops and Multiplayer now. You can read past this point.

I poked my head into Spec Ops to see what the hubbub was about as well. I was greeted with some different categories, each requiring a certain amount of stars to reach. Understandable, I guess -- you want me to grind out this stuff to be able to access it all. Fine. I went into the first section, only to find missions from the story, asking me to do them in a certain way or in a certain difficulty. This brought me back to something Infinity Ward said about not being able to do co-op in the campaign. Yet the first mission is asking you and a friend to work together through the time trial pit thing. Really? No co-op? 'Cause I see it right here. I guess it "ruined the experience", but whatever. I didn't see any experience ruined if I had done the pit or something else with a friend.

That's really all I have to say about Spec Ops -- Infinity Ward used it to make the game look like it had more content. So, I ditched it after getting a paltry achievement for doing the stupid pit and just completing it. One star. Weeeeeee. Anyways, I poked my head into Multiplayer shortly after.

Right away, you're greeted with the familiar screen, just cleaned up a bit. Everything seems locked until level 3 to 10, so I ignored the menu and hopped into a Team Deathmatch. Apparently, you can get a Riot Shield in Multiplayer -- whether or not it's useful, I don't know, but I'm assuming no, because everyone seemed to be using either a P90 or some MP40-looking thing. Oh yeah, there was customization for sure, which I guess was nice. But, yet again, a lot of the stuff seemed useless. I looked between a red dot sight and a holographic (I think those are what they were. Don't quote me.), wanting to see if there was a difference. Well, one, there is none. Two, don't do that during a match. (Heheh. I should have moved into an alley. Not stand in the open.)

It feels a bit like an arcade game, like PlatinumIce said. I thought it was a nice nod to include things like Payback, Killjoy. . . Little EXP bonuses for just playing and stopping other players or something. Death streaks were also a bit of an appeal, allowing me to steal someone's class. . . Though it made me wondered what the deal was, considering everyone had Stopping Power Pro, an automatic weapon, and some sort of sight. Oh yeah. Totally useful.

Once you get past the little display things that try to make the game feel fresh, you hit the brick wall of having done the grind for the prestige again. We did it in MW1, WaW, and now MW2. It's old, and no matter how much you try to pretty it up, it's still the same thing. It's absolutely boring. Made even worse by the large maps, yet limit to 6 v 6. There was literally a moment or two where you couldn't hear gunfire -- everyone was just running around trying to find an enemy. It wasn't exciting at that point, so I left, because I knew that joining another game would bear the same result. (On a side note, I have 87.50% accuracy. Hah. Friend is gonna be nuts that he can't beat that.)

JamesBond225, if you're even still reading this, I don't doubt that there is "crap" in Mario. We've done this all before: Peach gets taken. Bowser took her. Stomp the koopalings, get her back, be the hero of the Mushroom Kingdom. But you know, at least at the end of the game, I'm not left wondering what the point of it all was. There's no grind to Mario. There's simple level hopping, 1-up collecting, box smashing fun. I don't want to grind Mario to the 10th prestige of koopa stomping -- I just want to have some fun. And that's exactly what I'll be getting tomorrow when I pick up New Super Mario Bros Wii. I value your opinion that you like Modern Warfare 2 a lot, but I also realize that many people are fawning over the game because 1) It's new and 2) It says Call of Duty. I'm being very blunt here and looking past that to see the mediocre game that it is, the holes that are abundant in the story, and the grind that Infinity Ward managed to shove into every aspect of its game.

TL;DR version: I respect that people may like this game. Look past the hype and find a mediocre game, however. There is grind in the multiplayer, copy-paste in the Spec Ops, and a campaign that has more holes than a strainer, yet lasts longer than a spaghetti noodle. I'm aware the game will sell ten times better than Mario; of that, I have no doubt. However, I play games to have fun. And Modern Warfare 2 does not deliver that at any point in its content.

Hindsight EDIT: Wow, I, uh. . . I really typed a lot, didn't I? . . . Oh well. I don't think I rambled, but. . . I'll leave it.

has more holes than a strainer, yet lasts longer than a spaghetti noodle

This is an excellent quote.

I’m kind of tired of “cinematic” games by now, to be honest. Games like Uncharted 2 and MW2 just don’t do it for me. I’d rather be playing something that’s more focused on actually being fun, like Castle Crashers or N.

L13K MW2 are best @4m3 3V4H
NUBS don’t know what your… gags
Couldn’t keep that one up.
I really enjoy the game just because I love playing online, but they really could have done ALOT better with this game. Pretty much everything said against the game is right, I’m not going to argue against the obvious, but I still love the game because I’m a sucker for mindless shooting ;3 Plus, I’m good at it. XD
huggles Barrett .50 wiff thermal
Killstreak: 30 :D
OH – One thing though, Carados, World at War and Modern Warfare were developed by two different companies, so most likely they didn’t just change the skins, though it is possible

One thing though, Carados, World at War and Modern Warfare were developed by two different companies, so most likely they didn’t just change the skins, though it is possible

Are you seriously implying every time any game is made, they program the entire thing from scratch?

I’m doing no such thing =/
so offensive you are ;3
But no, I am NOT implying that it is, give someone the Benefit of the doubt, you may have lost all hope in humanity but there are people out there that still have a few braincells to use :)

You’re implying they completely recoded all of CoD: WaW instead of using the same engine and modified it, which anyone who has played both games would tell you, is plainly false.

sigh I’m not going to argue with people such as you, I am NOT implying anything such as that, though if you want to ignorantly believe that with no actual facts or opinions from me, then go ahead and do that.

Originally posted by Carados:

i think you are wrong.

And you’re opinion is worthless unless you can support it!

Get this: He just did this:

“Game X is bad for X, Y, and Z reasons.”

You just did this:

“WELL I LIKE IT”

Guess who looks stupid in this argument?

Your assumptions of my thoughts leading to implication of previous topic is worthless unless you can support it.

One thing though, Carados, World at War and Modern Warfare were developed by two different companies, so most likely they didn’t just change the skins, though it is possible

Then what do you mean by this?

Carados, there are huge differences in the games. Before you call someone a moron for buying the game, try it out, which I doubt you did. Even if you did, you don’t know crap.

Platypus, while I told Carados I wasn’t going to argue anymore with him it doesn’t mean I can’t speak in a manner that involves him, even if he has played it or not you can’t just assume he hasn’t played it, and the “you don’t know crap” is completely uncalled for, no offense but Carados while very *offensive and brash with people is very intelligent
*Opposite of Defensive, not offending.

True, I should’nt have said that. But it seems quite obvious Carados has not tried the online multiplayer, where it is very much different.

albeit, I honestly don’t think he has either but that’s just an assumption, but it doesn’t matter in our argument, the argument wasn’t based on the multiplayer aspect alone but the game as a whole and how it was built.

Originally posted by MossyStump:

albeit, I honestly don’t think he has either but that’s just an assumption, but it doesn’t matter in our argument, the argument wasn’t based on the multiplayer aspect alone but the game as a whole and how it was built.

You buy the game for 80-90% multiplayer.

Originally posted by PlatypusMan:

You buy the game for 80-90% multiplayer.

Which begs the question of why the campaign is so dreadfully long, boring, and bad, and why there was a Spec Ops that was thrown in like a little side attraction.

If it’s built for multiplayer, institute better multiplayer with each new rendition of the game. Don’t re-hash, which is what Modern Warfare 2 is at the end of the day. Re-hashed for more money.