Modern Warfare 2

[kozzy420 21]

Its a fun game, but not the best imo.

Fun singleplayer that is only about 4-5 hours long.

Nice graphics but not the best.

The online is very fun, but nothing to new or amazing.

Its a fun game, but not as good as alot of people say imo.

[PuFu 4600]

Modern Warfare 2 - worth the hype?

NO, SP is mediocre, like watching a block buster Hollywood movie...To short, bad story etc...

MP...guess i am getting to old for all the run and gun mindless shite

[That guy 10]

I have not seen this posted thus far

And we thought the DR nerd rage was intense? look at the user score

damn

http://www.metacritic.com/games/platforms/pc/modernwarfare2

[Barely-injured 0]

I have not seen this posted thus far

And we thought the DR nerd rage was intense? look at the user score

damn

http://www.metacritic.com/games/platforms/pc/modernwarfare2

This is mind boggling just like with DR most of these complaints are about things that were already known before the game was released (no dedicated server, short sp, same as COD4..etc) they still went ahead and bought it creating those record breaking profits and sending the message to most devs that if you create a hype big enough no matter how bad your product is, people will still buy it first and complain later by then you should have collected the cash so it wouldn't matter. :crazy_o::banghead::banghead::banghead:

as for the so called boycotts of the game........ what a farce :o:

Edited November 14, 2009 by Barely-injured

[ICE-Raver 10]

I have not seen this posted thus far

And we thought the DR nerd rage was intense? look at the user score

damn

http://www.metacritic.com/games/platforms/pc/modernwarfare2

I think that score is being generous.

[Potatomasher 0]

Just saw the MW2 teaser on TV. I feel sorry for the dev team even if they don't.

[Pathy 0]

I have not seen this posted thus far

And we thought the DR nerd rage was intense? look at the user score

damn

http://www.metacritic.com/games/platforms/pc/modernwarfare2

Nerd rage? How about this moron....

mQpcO8x6NNY

Talk about overreaction....

Edit: Couldn't help myself....

Edited November 14, 2009 by Pathy

[Zipper5 74]

Wow, talk about a great contributor to society. Getting so worked up over a game. What a goddamn moron.

[bangtail 0]

That is truly pathetic.

There is a surplus of retards on this planet.

[Drew 10]

LOL thats fuckin hilarious

[-Snafu- 78]

Nerd rage? How about this moron....

Talk about overreaction....

What..the...?

Please tell me it's faked.

Edit: Couldn't help myself....

:bigsmile:

[MehMan 0]

OK, finished the SP. What the .... MW1's story made a lot more sense and was somewhat plausible in a funky other dimension. I mean, I can believe you can smuggle nuclear weapons from Siberia to lets say Saudi Arabia, heck, if North Korea and Iran could help Syria in that area(supposedly) then this isn't oh so far fetched. The usage of said weapon however, is debatable, but considering that it fell into the hands of an extremist, it is a somewhat possible conclusion. In that other dimension. Ok, next thing, using the deserted zone around pripyat for meetings and weapon smuggling. I can't recall when that was supposed to happen. In any case, unless directly after the fall of the soviet union, not plausible before that. Ok then the launch of nuclear missiles at the US from a caputred missile base. Maybe I guess it could go. Then it's just an action flick to the end.

MW2 starts off okish, they establish that Afghanistan is a war zone still, ultranationalists have taken control of Russia, righto, mission starts, you have a character with a name, wham bam, you're undercover and shooting civies, ok, maybe, it's a bit strange, you could've not been involved at all, and still framed. Fine, you get killed. Next mission. THE NEXT MISSION FFS, is Red Dawn done badly. Ok, lets go back to MW1. The plot was more believable and the missions and story were connected better. Yes, you can believe that a mad ultra nationalist can take control of a nuke base in the middle of war torn russia. Yes, you can believe that a mad muslim extremists funded by the said nationlists would be ready to nuke a city for his cause. But now they want you to believe that the ultra national Russians would make a sneak attack on the worlds biggest superpower. So they want you to believe, that a still recovering Russia would be able to attack the USA. And due to one connection(yes, I know Afghanistan is in the back of everybody's mind now, but that's a bit different, the ingame US is not a giant shithole of islamist extremists, while the real life Afghanistan is). Now lets compare the poor MW2 Red Dawn and the real Red Dawn flick. Now in Red Dawn NATO was gone, Mexico was communist, basicly the USA were alone. There wasn't anybody helping them and the Russians launched an attack from the west coast, cuba and mexico. That's more plausible than it is that Russia would be able to sneak a huge navy past Finland, Norway, the UK, Iceland, Canada and everything that is on Gibraltar. Even the cause in Red Dawn is more believable, a huge famine. The cause in MW2 is one dead american. BONKERS I SAY. Fine, whatever happens next happens next, I can't stand the defend america missions, it just feels like WiC in FPS, only not so pretty.

Next is how the general switches sides. I don't quite get why. The reasons he specifies in the end are just retarded. Wikipedia says he's covering his tracks. Why? What? GAh!

It just goes downhill after the second mission with it's huge plot holes and badly strung together parts that aren't holes. It's just a medicore game, with pretty decent graphics a good implementation(seriously, some moments beat Hollywood BIG TIME) of a shitty plot. It could've been so much more, had they not hired a 10 year old to write the plot.

[CW001 10]

OK, finished the SP. What the .... MW1's story made a lot more sense and was somewhat plausible in a funky other dimension. I mean, I can believe you can smuggle nuclear weapons from Siberia to lets say Saudi Arabia, heck, if North Korea and Iran could help Syria in that area(supposedly) then this isn't oh so far fetched. The usage of said weapon however, is debatable, but considering that it fell into the hands of an extremist, it is a somewhat possible conclusion. In that other dimension. Ok, next thing, using the deserted zone around pripyat for meetings and weapon smuggling. I can't recall when that was supposed to happen. In any case, unless directly after the fall of the soviet union, not plausible before that. Ok then the launch of nuclear missiles at the US from a caputred missile base. Maybe I guess it could go. Then it's just an action flick to the end.

MW2 starts off okish, they establish that Afghanistan is a war zone still, ultranationalists have taken control of Russia, righto, mission starts, you have a character with a name, wham bam, you're undercover and shooting civies, ok, maybe, it's a bit strange, you could've not been involved at all, and still framed. Fine, you get killed. Next mission. THE NEXT MISSION FFS, is Red Dawn done badly. Ok, lets go back to MW1. The plot was more believable and the missions and story were connected better. Yes, you can believe that a mad ultra nationalist can take control of a nuke base in the middle of war torn russia. Yes, you can believe that a mad muslim extremists funded by the said nationlists would be ready to nuke a city for his cause. But now they want you to believe that the ultra national Russians would make a sneak attack on the worlds biggest superpower. So they want you to believe, that a still recovering Russia would be able to attack the USA. And due to one connection(yes, I know Afghanistan is in the back of everybody's mind now, but that's a bit different, the ingame US is not a giant shithole of islamist extremists, while the real life Afghanistan is). Now lets compare the poor MW2 Red Dawn and the real Red Dawn flick. Now in Red Dawn NATO was gone, Mexico was communist, basicly the USA were alone. There wasn't anybody helping them and the Russians launched an attack from the west coast, cuba and mexico. That's more plausible than it is that Russia would be able to sneak a huge navy past Finland, Norway, the UK, Iceland, Canada and everything that is on Gibraltar. Even the cause in Red Dawn is more believable, a huge famine. The cause in MW2 is one dead american. BONKERS I SAY. Fine, whatever happens next happens next, I can't stand the defend america missions, it just feels like WiC in FPS, only not so pretty.

Next is how the general switches sides. I don't quite get why. The reasons he specifies in the end are just retarded. Wikipedia says he's covering his tracks. Why? What? GAh!

It just goes downhill after the second mission with it's huge plot holes and badly strung together parts that aren't holes. It's just a medicore game, with pretty decent graphics a good implementation(seriously, some moments beat Hollywood BIG TIME) of a shitty plot. It could've been so much more, had they not hired a 10 year old to write the plot.

It's not the ultranationalists that invade, it's the Russian Army. The "one dead American" was set up so that the Russians would think that it was an American that killed thousands of people at the airport. General Shepherd made no sense at all, and he killed the successor to the previous games most loved character.

[GoOB 0]

It's not the ultranationalists that invade, it's the Russian Army. The "one dead American" was set up so that the Russians would think that it was an American that killed thousands of people at the airport. General Shepherd made no sense at all, and he killed the successor to the previous games most loved character.

And the Russian Army is controlled by the ultranationalists that have seized power.

[AndresCL 10]

OK, finished the SP. What the .... MW1's story made a lot more sense and was somewhat plausible in a funky other dimension. I mean, I can believe you can smuggle nuclear weapons from Siberia to lets say Saudi Arabia, heck, if North Korea and Iran could help Syria in that area(supposedly) then this isn't oh so far fetched. The usage of said weapon however, is debatable, but considering that it fell into the hands of an extremist, it is a somewhat possible conclusion. In that other dimension. Ok, next thing, using the deserted zone around pripyat for meetings and weapon smuggling. I can't recall when that was supposed to happen. In any case, unless directly after the fall of the soviet union, not plausible before that. Ok then the launch of nuclear missiles at the US from a caputred missile base. Maybe I guess it could go. Then it's just an action flick to the end.

MW2 starts off okish, they establish that Afghanistan is a war zone still, ultranationalists have taken control of Russia, righto, mission starts, you have a character with a name, wham bam, you're undercover and shooting civies, ok, maybe, it's a bit strange, you could've not been involved at all, and still framed. Fine, you get killed. Next mission. THE NEXT MISSION FFS, is Red Dawn done badly. Ok, lets go back to MW1. The plot was more believable and the missions and story were connected better. Yes, you can believe that a mad ultra nationalist can take control of a nuke base in the middle of war torn russia. Yes, you can believe that a mad muslim extremists funded by the said nationlists would be ready to nuke a city for his cause. But now they want you to believe that the ultra national Russians would make a sneak attack on the worlds biggest superpower. So they want you to believe, that a still recovering Russia would be able to attack the USA. And due to one connection(yes, I know Afghanistan is in the back of everybody's mind now, but that's a bit different, the ingame US is not a giant shithole of islamist extremists, while the real life Afghanistan is). Now lets compare the poor MW2 Red Dawn and the real Red Dawn flick. Now in Red Dawn NATO was gone, Mexico was communist, basicly the USA were alone. There wasn't anybody helping them and the Russians launched an attack from the west coast, cuba and mexico. That's more plausible than it is that Russia would be able to sneak a huge navy past Finland, Norway, the UK, Iceland, Canada and everything that is on Gibraltar. Even the cause in Red Dawn is more believable, a huge famine. The cause in MW2 is one dead american. BONKERS I SAY. Fine, whatever happens next happens next, I can't stand the defend america missions, it just feels like WiC in FPS, only not so pretty.

Next is how the general switches sides. I don't quite get why. The reasons he specifies in the end are just retarded. Wikipedia says he's covering his tracks. Why? What? GAh!

It just goes downhill after the second mission with it's huge plot holes and badly strung together parts that aren't holes. It's just a medicore game, with pretty decent graphics a good implementation(seriously, some moments beat Hollywood BIG TIME) of a shitty plot. It could've been so much more, had they not hired a 10 year old to write the plot.

Althought i "enjoyed" the campaing (MW1 campaing was better anyway), im happy to find out that im not the only one who thinks the whole plot needs some connection.

Seriously, one day you are in rio de janeiro (tracking some arms dealer or something like that) and in the next day you are being attacked by russians in US soil.

Now, im not saying things like that cant be implemented, for example World in Conflict did, but that was still the cold war. Instead, in MW2 this happens because of a dead american? Seriously wtf? Who the f*** goes to war because of a dead american body in a terrorist attack. The only way this could make any kind of sense would be if those russians have the worst intelligence agency in the world.

And then you find out this was all because of a general trying to take revenge because of the death of 30.000 of his men but they NEVER explained what the heck happened with his men, he only says that the "world just stood and watch" and you have to assume that he wants to revenge of the whole world. Well thats some fucked up shit.

But then, its like a blockbuster movie. It doesnt really tries to be realistic

[RaXz 0]

Nerd rage? How about this moron....

mQpcO8x6NNY

Talk about overreaction....

Edit: Couldn't help myself....

This explains it, he's an emo.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e1THLjPVK14

I am still suprised that someone can get so worked up because of a game, even for an emo. Depressing to think that this stream evolved from Punk.

[That guy 10]

Why would some one post vids like that online. seriously, i cant think WHY. WHYY?!

why would you post showing the world that you (yes you, the one and only) have played a game you hate for 17 HOURS and then go an sissy punch a wall a few times. what would possess some poor soul to do such a thing?

I mean it cant be cries for attention... it just cant

Anyway, aside from story and campaign, what is so different about MW2 than MW1? i guess the MP perks are a bit different, but what is so different that it has caused emo nancy boys to sissy punch walls?

[Zipper5 74]

but what is so different that it has caused emo nancy boys to sissy punch walls?

I'd say that's probably just because he sucks at games in general.

Well, many things are different. For starters, only a few of the weapons in COD4 are in MW2. Many, many new ones. You also have many more challenges, attachments and camo schemes for weapons. There are many new perks and some of the old ones are moved around. The more stupid ones, like Martyrdom, now fall under Deathstreaks which you only get access to if you die more than 3 times in a row. There is also now the ability to create a callsign for yourself out of images and emblems which you unlock, which players see when you kill them or they kill you, as well as other events.

The MP scoring is different too. Not only do you get points for killing people, but you get more points for the circumstances of you killing him. You get more for headshots, more for knife kills, more for long distance shots, more for throwing knife kills, the list goes on. There are many different killstreaks now too, which you get the ability to unlock as you progress. Some are from COD4, many are new.

So really, all that changed on the SP side of things was graphics and the SP portion itself. After all, why fix what isn't broken. Of course you also have the Special Ops mode, but I don't need to say any more to prove how awesome that is to play, especially in 2 player co-op. Oh, and the AI is improved and isn't infinitely respawning as it was in COD4.

Most of the improvements are on the MP side of things, and rightly so. They've made their awesome MP even better. It's tons of fun to play, especially with friends. The SP side didn't really need any fixing or improvement as it was pretty much what you needed in COD4.

I'm sure I missed something out, but those are what I can recall right now that's been changed or improved from COD4 to MW2.

[Pauldarrington 9]

u forgot mention about the killstreaks when get to take over the gunner positions in a ac130 and cobra, some maps you can really take advange of them but others are just pointless

[Binkowski 26]

I haven't gotten the chance to pick it up yet, but I don't plan on getting it for PC. Probably for 360. I'll see how it goes. Too much hype for me to be honest.

[jakerod 254]

Spoilers for MW1 & MW2

because of the death of 30.000 of his men

He lost 30,000 men in the first Modern Warfare when the Nuke went off in the city I think. That is my understanding. That seems a bit too many men to have in one city though.

[dm 9]

worth the hype? probably not.

extremely well polished and fun to play? aside from some server issues, definitely.

[Nazul 10]

Im alt-tabbed atm from MW2 while eat something, I was just trying to remember what mission i was just playing and what had happened ingame and i couldnt remember, The game is just a blur of spam, a series of very forgetable scenes. Fun for some.

[RaXz 0]

Activision claims there is a demand from its core fanbase willing to pay monthly for additional services and content....

by Jim Reilly

The online business models for many of Activision's key franchises could start to change in the near future !

During today's BMO Capital Markets Conference, CFO of Activision Blizzard Thomas Tippl was asked if the successful World of Warcraft online business model will ever translate into the publisher's other major franchises, such as Guitar Hero and Call of Duty. While Tippl said WoW's model is difficult to replicate, players should expect new montization models for its other titles soon enough.

"It's definitely an aspiration that we see potential in, particularly as we look at different business models to monetize the online gameplay," said Tippl. "There's good knowledge exchange happening between the Blizzard folks and our online guys."

Activision Hints at Call of Duty Online Plans

"We have great experience also on Call of Duty with the success we had on Xbox Live and PlayStation Network. A lot of that knowledge is getting actually built into the Battle.Net platform and the design of that," he added. "I think it's been mutually beneficial, and you should expect us to test and ultimately launch additional online monetization models of some of some of our biggest franchises like Call of Duty."

Tippl added there is a demand from its core fanbase willing to pay for additional services and content.

"Our gamers are telling us there's lots of services and innovation they would like to see that they're not getting yet. From what we see so far, additional content, as well as all the services Blizzard is offering, is that there is demand from the core gamers to pay up for that," Tipple explained.

A supposed leaked online survey from June possibly hints at what Tippl is driving at. The survey centered around the idea of a monthly service that gives subscribers additional multiplayer and gameplay enhancements for future Call of Duty titles.

Is Activision Creating An Online Call Of Duty Service?

by Jim Reilly

June 12, 2009 - Gaming blog Destructoid received what is believed to be marketing survey hinting at Activision's possible upcoming online plans for the Call of Duty series.

The survey focuses mainly on the online space; specifically a new service where players would pay a monthly fee (much like a MMO game) that will "enhance the multiplayer experience and provide exclusive access to a group of gameplay enhancements."

Other features mentioned are access to early betas and expansions, character skins, enhanced stat-tracking, game modes, and "support for competitive play."

http://www.mapmodnews.com/article.php/MW2-gamers-pay-play-online-PC

I think that the console players are starting to understand why the PC gamers were crying.

Pretty smart that they release this info after the release, first get people addicted, and than make them empty their wallets even more.

Kotick will be very proud with this homage to the fans.

[AndresCL 10]

Spoilers for MW1 & MW2

He lost 30,000 men in the first Modern Warfare when the Nuke went off in the city I think. That is my understanding. That seems a bit too many men to have in one city though.

Ohhh right. But still, i think its a bit too much fantastic to have all the story around a "renegade general", i would prefered a more terrorist/international conflict story, like MW1 did