MW 2 : Just a bad game ?

[Agrael]

I have no idea, what you people are bitching on about ?

1)Dedicated servers - trust me, I miss them, and this is the main point why I dislike MW2.
2)OP Boosts/Perks - que ? What do you mean ? You can shoot down the choppers/airplanes/ac-130 etc. and everything is counterable.
3)Single player short - true.. unfortunately true, but still, it was the best single player experience of my life. So much action.

I would definitely give it 9.0 / 10 but no more. It is a great game, and people who hate it, really need to chill out.

 

[Neurowaste]

It's a never ending cycle of trends, it's trendy and edgy to say "this sucks because it was hyped" and it's trendy to say "This is awesome because it lived up to the hype, and you only think it's bad to be a rebel." Keep in mind, game reviews are OPINIONS, pure OPINIONS based very little on concrete facts, i mean, look at Dragon Age, might not have the best graphics, combat management or most imaginative world, but for the most part people love it, and no matter what amount of criticism you have to understand that the people that like it won't change their minds because you don't, simple as that. So it could give unborn babies cancer and you can say that it does and prove it, people who like it will simply not give a fuck, understand that please.

 

[Jimbo1212]

Ok, the whole shortness argument was very well answered by Russ Pitts in his review, that being, yes, the campaign is short time wise, but definetly not short on "oh sh!t" moments and fun game play.

As for the multipayer, the lobby system is the same as it was in MW1. Lag only happens for two reasons, 1) you have a bad internet connection, or 2) a bad host. Reason 2 isn't as big a deal as everyone makes it out to be, (at least on the PS3 its not). Yes, its annoying when you have to connect to a new host, but, I've clocked in over a days worth of online play and only been reconnected to a new host 3-5 times. So, in the over 200 games I've played, thats not a bad fail rate by any stretch of the imagination.

As for the Perks/Killstreaks being overpowered, idk what you're talking about. The online play is very well balanced, so I think you're just complaining because you died too much.

Now, for the rest of your complaints, I', positive you're just making stuff up, either that, or the PS3 version is radically different from anything else. That limited view is just stupid, its the same view as any other FPS. Very few people run around with the sole purpose of knifing, and camping in corners has become standard fare since regenerating health was introduced.

So, stop whining and making up stupid complaints about a perfectly good game.

Short is bad. Yes, the game play is fun, but that is what a game is meant to be. When the fun ends after 5 hours, the only reason for this is that the developers did not know where to go with the story, or were being cheap ( or dare I say it, the fact that a next gen. graphics game is on a dvd ).

You say you have only been disconnected a few times? Then you have to be extremely lucky as most people including myself play games where the host drops numerous times a day.

So the online play is balanced? You unlock better weapons and power ups. By definition that means it is not balanced, but rewards people who play it for longer.

Also look into the details of the game before you say im making things up. Its widely known now that the peripheral vision is 45 degree's for consoles version, which is far less then normal. And for you to have played SO many games and not see people running around just knifing people - now I think your the one ' making stuff up'.

 

[TK421]

While your gripes are perfectly legitament, I think it deserves a 9.0+ just because of the fun factor.

It's really unique and enjoyable when you get a good match going. I haven't really had any lag problems since I got it, so I'm pleased. A longer campagin would have been nice, the story so far is really good, and it has a bunch of memorable characters.

I agree 100%.

 

[Lancer723]

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?

OT: I understand that a lot of people are upset with the PC version of the game, but the console version is said to be better. The best thing you can do with it right now is return it and wait for Bad Company 2 or another Military FPS.

No, but you and I are decidedly in the minority on the escapist.

OT: The campaign is average, but spec ops makes up for it with some really fun and challenging co-op levels to play, and the multiplayer is quite literally one of the best multiplayer games I've ever played. I'm not gonna comment on the PC and its lack of dedicated servers, but I have yet to encounter an extremely laggy game, and I have a day and a half worth of online play time.

 

[Jasper Jeffs]

I personally loved the whole thing, and to be honest I don't understand why everyone is so peeved about the short campaign. IW probably realised that nearly everyone who loved the first Modern Warfare loved it for the multi-player, so that's what they focused on this time round. I can see why people with no online capabilities would be upset about the game, but nowadays not many people don't have access.

I agree, kinda. I bought this game purely for the multiplayer, and I was surprised to find the single player fun, even on veteran. I like the explosions, environments, and action sequences where you're pretty much playing what would be a cutscene in another game. However, there are people who aren't so keen on the multiplayer aspect, and I imagine paying £40 for a 5-6 hour campaign would make them feel a bit ripped off. If I was going to buy COD for its single player though I would've at least waited for it to come down in price or rented it. Not many shooters are worth full price for their single player now, unless it's a non-linear shooter (Mass Effect, Fallout etc (though they are RPG's)) that has replay value.

I think Infinity Ward played MW2 on the safe side, they don't wanna change the formula too much because they'll loose support from the people that have been playing MW1 since that was released, so they just expanded on what they've already made. They added more killstreaks, updated the graphics, added more/different guns, added more attachments, added more challenges, fucked up sniper rifles and SM... oh wai - COD4 was awesome when it was released, MW2 is good, but it isn't Raptor Jesus epic. Maybe I can appreciate it more when all the scrubby campers leave and go play some other game.

As for overpowered killstreak rewards, I've gotta say I disagree. Maybe people will begin to realize that Stopping Power is a pretty shit perk and start using other perks instead, like Cold Blooded, where (if you have some form of launcher equipped) you get the satisfaction of shooting down everything in the sky, as well as being near enough invisible to it.

 

[skywalkerlion]

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, u are the only one.

Nope, I liked Halo too.

 

[Jimbo1212]

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.

 

[Blatherscythe]

You also forgot the part of you turning a corner in that game and getting killed, because 3 bullets your pretty much dead, the amount of realism is what pissed me off about multiplayer.

 

[SovietSecrets]

I think it deserves the score it got, why? Because it is fun for me and I enjoyed playing through it immensely. The pros outweigh the cons in this game.

 

[C0nn0r666]

i like it cause it's funn

 

[JeanLuc761]

Short is bad. Yes, the game play is fun, but that is what a game is meant to be. When the fun ends after 5 hours, the only reason for this is that the developers did not know where to go with the story, or were being cheap ( or dare I say it, the fact that a next gen. graphics game is on a dvd ).

I respectfully disagree.
*runs off to play Portal*

That said, I don't think Modern Warfare 2 deserves the title of "Best Game Evar," but I don't think it should be dismissed as utter shit either. But then, it's worth remembering that every "review" or "opinion" is a purely subjective matter. As Yahtzee said "If you personally enjoyed the game then they shouldn't get to you."

 

[Jimbo1212]

NB Vague posts = Worthless posts.

Don't both clicking the Post button next time.

 

[J-Alfred]

While your gripes are perfectly legitament, I think it deserves a 9.0+ just because of the fun factor.

I'm with this guy. I don't go online, so for me the single player campaign is all that there is to draw me in, and while I do agree that it's far too short, the game is still fun as can be.

Except the Favela stage. That stage can suck the big one.

 

[Scary_Bob]

Just to chip in regarding the overpowered killstreak rewards. Pretty much all of them are now counterable with the cold blooded perk. Or, provided you have 1 or 2 people with stingers/javelins on the team, you can shoot them down pretty easily. The only ones that are a bit harder are the Pave low and the AC130. I reckon they should've got rid of the hardline perk though, makes it a bit easy to get care packages.
Anyway, I liked the campaign but it definitely isn't worth a 9.0 due to its brevity, spec ops didn't manage to hold my attention for long either, multiplayer on the other hand is fun as hell. I can understand why PC gamers are pissed though.
Overall I'd give it an 8.5 (Ps3 version)

Oh, and plus I'm one of the lucky ones who got it for £26 from Sainsbury's so I'm happy either way

 

[Syphonz]

I've played through MW2, sampled the multiplayer enough to know its pretty much just a nicer looking counter-strike. I'm in the BETA for Bad Company 2 which only features 1 level online, yet, its still much better than MW2.

Now if only EA and DICE would get 1943 working again....

 

[Shynobee]

Short is bad. Yes, the game play is fun, but that is what a game is meant to be. When the fun ends after 5 hours, the only reason for this is that the developers did not know where to go with the story, or were being cheap ( or dare I say it, the fact that a next gen. graphics game is on a dvd ).

The fun doesn't have to end after 5 hours. There is still spec ops, which is hours more of single player gameplay, plus, veteran mode to add more longevity to the game.

You say you have only been disconnected a few times? Then you have to be extremely lucky as most people including myself play games where the host drops numerous times a day.

What system are you playing on? For the PS3 version, hosts rarely drop.

So the online play is balanced? You unlock better weapons and power ups. By definition that means it is not balanced, but rewards people who play it for longer.

Its not unbalanced just because new guns are unlocked. The original guns that everyone starts off with are still very powerful. I use the RPD and M4 regularly, and the PP200 is the best machine pistol in my oppinion. And, both starting snipers have the most damage of any gun in the game.

So, yes, the unlocks are nice, but the originals are still very good, you just need to be able to play the game.

Also look into the details of the game before you say im making things up. Its widely known now that the peripheral vision is 45 degree's for consoles version, which is far less then normal. And for you to have played SO many games and not see people running around just knifing people - now I think your the one ' making stuff up'.

Its the same peripheral vision as cod 4, and even if it is different, its not different enough for Me, or anyone else I know to actually see a differance.

As for the knife issue, yes, everyone uses knifes in a match, its the fastest attack, and an instant kill, but I've never seen anyone go an entire match only using the knife. Its just not practical. They'd be killed way more often then they get kills.

 

[MetaKnight19]

I think its a pretty good game, like most people have said though its not the killer game everyone was hoping for. It took me about 8 hours to get through the campaign on Hardened. This might seem like a long time to some of the hardcore FPS crowd, but its a personal best as far as FPS games go for me.

Also has anyone else found the online multiplayer to be considerably easier than in CoD4? Its probably down to the overpowered killstreak rewards as people have said, but at least the game is FUN, both online and off. At least I think it is anyway.