MW 2 : Just a bad game ?

[p3t3r]

well if thats what you think but, When it comes to spitscreen multiplayer MW2 is jesus. me and my friends have been playing it non-stop since it came out. so i challenge you to find a better splitscreen fps

Resistance 2. The split screen mutliplayer is far better, but my feeling is that 80% of people who play MW2 have never played Resistance 2, thus they do not fully appreciate how good mutliplayer split screen can be, and for me, to go back to a game that feels last generation is a large disappointment.

ya but the restiance 2 spilt-screen is only 2 player. and only co-op mode works offline and is ni-impossible with only two people. i don't have online so ya 4 person split-screen matches aren't possible in restance 2

What? Co-op 2 player works online, and what do you mean you don't have online? The PS3 is automatically online, so if you can read this post your doing something wrong with your PS3.
Regardless, this is another example of MW2 not being up to date and not pushing any technical
boundaries.

the ps3 isn't automatically online you need to buy a wireless router and stuff. but my internet connection isn't good enough plus i have limited band width so i don't have online.

the 4 person split-screen is some of the best for the system

 

[Devil's Due]

I love it and you can fuck right off. I'm going to go headshot a few insurgents.

Same here, mate. Too all the haters: Don't play it if you don't like it. Hello Kitties' Island Adventure is over that way. --->

 

[Zeldadudes]

This always happens.
Usually because of someone like me.
I salute you mister OP and i wish you the very best of luck in your travels through Unique-City where everything is all completely un-rated, un-helpful and un-satisfactory.
I think you just wanted something to moan about, hell you're pretty much doing a Yahtzee in itself.

 

[Jimbo1212]

5 hours on Hardned? Yeah I call bullshit.
I spent 18 hours playing through it on regular, veteran and then again for intel. Then again because the singleplayer is immensly fun.
Spec Ops is truly awesome with a mate, Sniper Fi is pure awesomeness.
MP is alot better this time around, If I have red ping I still dont lag. Weapons are a bit more balanced this time around. Some of the killstreaks are just awesome to look at Stealth Bomber in action.

You seem like a raging PC fanboy who is surprised he got the botched game he knew he was going to get.

You sir, are an idiot.
I know of people who completed the game first time through on the hardest difficulty in 5 hours. Also count up your hours - 18 hours to complete the campaign 3 times, sounds like 6 hours per run....

Spec Ops is average co-op. Nothing special or new, just mildly entertaining.
And of course you lag when you have a red ping, you just wont see it, but everyone else will. Look at your death replays next time if you don't believe me.
Also as I've said, I have the PS3 version.

 

[Turtleboy1017]

The killstreaks are complete BS in that game.

For the short time I spent playing it, I would always, ALWAYS use hardline, predator missile, harrier strike, and Chopper gunner.

Get 4 kills, blow up 1 or 2, even 3 guys if I'm lucky, call in a harrier strike and let it rack up kills while I camp in a corner and shank dudes. Why did I do it? Because I could. And so do dozens of other gamers out there who couldn't care less if their team is losing in domination, but just want a ridiculously high KDR to show off.

I did this many times just for fun, and often would go to a 10:1 KDR on good matches. I think the game is amazing fun, but it is just so damn unbalanced that I can't help but think the dev's didn't put any time into trying to make it fun for everyone in all cases.

Halo 3 may not have been the golden egg that everyone had hoped it would be, but at least it was balanced. The AR could take down an enemy with just about any gun (cept maybe the rockets), and if you stuck a bunch of guys with equal skill in a game, a fairly fun and balanced experience would roll out.

In MW2, the shitiest of the shit could be thrust into a game full of generals and lvl 10 prestige, and fall victim to a few lucky sprays, kill streaks, and blind sides.

Oh and also, you do all know that the short and unsatisfying campaign is just so that everyone will line up to buy MW3 right? It's so terribly obvious that Bobby Kotick and co. want to milk CoD for all it's worth.

"We need to get him out of here." "Da I know a sequel"

 

[woodsymoments]

what i dont understand is the fact that ppl are saying over and over that they dont like MW 2. WE GET IT stop repeating the fact you dont like it. One persn has posted 3 times essentially saying just to say its shit. I respect your opinions and everything just dont go on and on repeating wht you've said

 

[Grampy_bone]

Interestingly, the user reviews on sites like Metacritic rate MW2 much much lower than the pro review sites. Also keep in mind that the *only* way a site could review the game was if they flew to the special review session hosted by Activision in a swanky hotel with tons of perks.

Activision bought the reviews, plain and simple. They may not have handed the reviewers wads of cash, but nice food and booze in an upscale hotel is almost the same thing.

Even the people I know who were raging MW1 fanboys admit it is a disapointing sequel. The rave reviews seem to be pretty much hype.

The sales numbers will tell Activision that they don't need to do anything more than the lazy, half-assed job they have so far, but I believe the MW series has peaked and subsequent games will be failures... Not that Activision will care by that point, they'll be too busy milking their next franchise to death.

 

[Jens Viking]

Well saying a game is too short is not criticism, since its only too short if you want to play more of it, which means the game accomplished its goal.

Well what if the single player experience is only thirty minutes then? Would it stil not be too short a campaign then? Yes I think it is alright to critisise a game for being too short. After all some ppl. bought the game mainly for the single player experience. At 60 euro, 5 hours worth of gameplay seems like a waste of money.

 

[LornMind]

I like it. Why? I find it fun.

If a game is fun and holds my attention, its done its job in my eyes. That's why I like Halo 3. It's fun. It's not elegant. It's no sophisticated. But it is what it is and it does it well enough in my eyes. I judge all games like this really. Half-Life 2: Thoroughly engaging. Bioshock? Ditto. Left 4 Dead? Ditto. A bad game in my eyes is one that isn't fun and can't hold your attention. MW2 did just that and it put a pretty big smile on my face in-between the times it was slack with awesome or raging at the ridiculously bullshit AI on Veteran.

Fun. It's what games are supposed to be.

Did we all forget that at some point?

 

[Mirroga]

Just a question. If you were to grade Modern Warfare 2 for its campaign alone (adding gameplay, replayability, hardest difficulty, and going back to it) what would your scores be?

I'm thinking of buying MW 2 simply for the campaign, or should I invest on MW 1 for its campaign alone?

 

[Grandia3000]

i'm sorry but predictable bull shit no one could predict the twists in the came and the ending was so amazing that if any one decides to ruin it for anybody well they need to have thier xbox of ps3 set a flame just because its amazing. Story mode is quite short i agree but i would say that its length is the problem...

Let me inform you of the term "bull shit" in video games. Bull shit is where ememies spawn from any where and shoot you so accuratly you have to think that god himself was aiming at you. Bull shit is where your ai team mates are so mentally challenged and dull that you somtimes wonder that A I doesn't stand for Autistic (is that how you spell it?) intelligence.

Look its a game just because there are so many fan boys throwing out 10/10 likes its god himself compact into a disc does not make it true. Take Halo 3 for example. Every one who played the previous Halo's (not me) were quiting their jobs to play it and honestly there was little to no difference to Halo 2.

Look i agree with your oppinions but sometimes you have to wonder is it a rent of buy

 

[Chicago Ted]

It's ok. Biggest problem I find is one the OP made. The vision makes me feel like I have blinders on.

 

[IAmWright777]

The reason MW2 got such high scores from critics can be blamed for 3 reasons.

1.) They were afraid of getting mangled by Call of Duty's large fanbase.
2.) Activison were passing a few dollars under the table.
3.) It's actually a good game...which it is. Although I do agree that it's in no way "the game of the decade" as so many critics are quick to label it as.

Jonny here has some good points:

1.) Well.... everybody has heard of flame wars, right? I am not saying it's right, but I am saying that several people do not want start large hate filled rants from their fans.
2.) Were they? hmmm.... seems like it's very possible, they did make a giant profit.
3.) I love the game also. However, you are right once more Jonny, it's not "game of the decade" (best I have played from this year, but I haven't played DA:O, L4D2, AC2, and several new games out this year. Therefore, I can't call it GOTY.)

I think the, personally, that while the campaign was not perfect (and kind of short), it still had it's moments.

 

[Bilbo536]

Well saying a game is too short is not criticism, since its only too short if you want to play more of it, which means the game accomplished its goal. Secondly saying that its a bad game just means you don't like it, not that it really is a bad game, like i don't like Mass Effect put people worship it and pray to BioWare. Secondly anyone that says the multiplayer has overpowered upgrades is someone that is not very good at multiplayer and complains because he/she cant compete, which is not the developers fault. Overall i think MW 2 is an awesome game. Its what you expect, a great shooter with great graphics and mechanics, a great storyline that keeps you on the edge of your seat. Throughout the game you don't expect whats coming next and everything that does is more spectacular than you expect. The game fully deserves a 9.0+ score. A part of what makes it so great is that its not generic, its not like wolfenstein in the way that it adds nothing, it has a unique and strange story that binds well with the gameplay to make an awesome game. There's no other game in which you fight in a ruined, burning Washington in a huge war in our time. You didn't like it but it doesn't mean the game is not good.

I'd say that length of gameplay is indeed worthy of being a point of criticism. If I bought a game for $70 that lasted me only 30 minutes, I'd say that's a pretty noteworthy flaw, and I'm sure most gamers would agree. The goal of a game surely is not to leave you unsatisfied. It's good if you want more, I agree, but it must first provide adequate satisfaction. Especially if you paid $60-$80 for it. Powerups are good if used in moderation. If you constantly trip over powerups, the likelyhood of winning becomes more a matter of luck than of skill. Overall, decent game, cookie-cutter CoD shooter, regular standard graphics, a somewhat involving story. Deserving of perhaps a 7. Mediocre.
Ruined, burned-out Washington? You mean kinda like in Fallout 3?

 

[ZombieGenesis]

I'm inclined to believe that Activision were paying off (or otherwise compensating) in exchange for the review scores for two very good reasons.
1) Because we all know that's how big budget games get good scores, despite most being hideoulsy sub-par shovelware.
2) Because a German electronics magazine came forward and said that the producers of Assassins Creed II offered them a pre-release copy of the game for review, in exchange for a 'very good' score. They denied.

 

[Lt. Vinciti]

Why did it get 9.0+? same reason Halo 3 did

Because they were decent games with a sturdy multiplayer fanbase on the console? Am I the only one who belives that Halo 3 deserves the score it got?

Yes, you are the only one.

Alright then. Good to know that the entire world sent one person to tell me that.

And another. Halo 3 = dated on it's release. Enough said and for a topic that's been done a billion times over.

Producing a game to be sold for the multiplayer and making a half ass story