Poll: Modern Warfare 1 or 2?

[BonerMacTittyPants]

MW1 had it's climax. The multiplayer was flawless.

With the second, it was more like having a guy shouting at you "LOOK HOW MUCH AWESOME SHIT WE PUT IN IT LOOK WE HAVE SNOWMOBILES TURRETS AND EXPLOSIONS YOU DIE NOW BUT WAIT TANKS TANKS EXPLOSIONS BOATS EXPLOSIONS EXPLOSIONS YOU DIE NOW OSCAR MIKE OSCAR EXPLOSION MIKE TANKS EXPLOSION". Not to mention the multiplayer, which is a joke.

 

[FoAmY99]

Modern Warfare 2. I don't care what you think, I liked the story simply because they went balls out over the top with it. Plus I think that the multiplayer is just as good as the first one just with more content.

 

[XMark]

Single player: MW1
Multiplayer: MW2

Sure, the MW2 singleplayer campaign had more dazzling set pieces and such, but it just seemed like a dumb Michael Bay action movie in comparison to MW1.

 

[Chrislt]

Between those 2, I prefer Call of Duty 4; but Battlefield: Bad Company was a really good game... too bad it wasn't for PC.

 

[Mr.Pandah]

Although I liked the dog powerup better in MW1, everything else is totally more badass

Er...thats World at War.

Anyway, Cod4 is probably better in terms of story, and the multiplayer maps (in my opinion) are far superior.

MW2 is better in action set pieces and the multiplayer has been polished to such a fine sheen that you may just go blind from looking at it. However, dealing with the lack of dedicated servers on the PC may be a little more than puzzling. Yet, I think its something that the general populace on the PC has grown to deal with since the game really is that good online.

So because it is a complete lag fest and some how made even more unrealistic and unbalanced it makes it that good. You do know that IW left the MoH team to make more realistic games so they basically sold their soul with MW2 not just on dedi thing.

OT: Well from what I've heard MW2 has a good single player and multiplayer is a massive lag fest. I'd still say go with CoD4 though since the single isn't going to be that great either way as CoD is about multiplayer and if your goes on to play multi on PC you want CoD 4.

Guess I should put a disclaimer on everything I say in big bold letters saying IN MY OPINION all the time.

I don't get lag, but I bought it on the Xbox, so theres probably something there. Unrealistic? I never knew they were aiming to be realistic. I actually remember reading that the development team was leaving realism behind in favor of, oh, I don't know...fun? And almost every single game is "unbalanced" in some way, shape, or form, so get over yourself. Also, I can't tell if you even have the game, or played it at any point since you said you "heard" it had so and so features. Therefore, I'm throwing whatever you say out the window!

Next time, don't start attacking me because I stated my opinion about a game.

 

[Glademaster_v1legacy]

Although I liked the dog powerup better in MW1, everything else is totally more badass

Er...thats World at War.

Anyway, Cod4 is probably better in terms of story, and the multiplayer maps (in my opinion) are far superior.

MW2 is better in action set pieces and the multiplayer has been polished to such a fine sheen that you may just go blind from looking at it. However, dealing with the lack of dedicated servers on the PC may be a little more than puzzling. Yet, I think its something that the general populace on the PC has grown to deal with since the game really is that good online.

So because it is a complete lag fest and some how made even more unrealistic and unbalanced it makes it that good. You do know that IW left the MoH team to make more realistic games so they basically sold their soul with MW2 not just on dedi thing.

OT: Well from what I've heard MW2 has a good single player and multiplayer is a massive lag fest. I'd still say go with CoD4 though since the single isn't going to be that great either way as CoD is about multiplayer and if your goes on to play multi on PC you want CoD 4.

Guess I should put a disclaimer on everything I say in big bold letters saying IN MY OPINION all the time.

I don't get lag, but I bought it on the Xbox, so theres probably something there. Unrealistic? I never knew they were aiming to be realistic. I actually remember reading that the development team was leaving realism behind in favor of, oh, I don't know...fun? And almost every single game is "unbalanced" in some way, shape, or form, so get over yourself. Also, I can't tell if you even have the game, or played it at any point since you said you "heard" it had so and so features. Therefore, I'm throwing whatever you say out the window!

Next time, don't start attacking me because I stated my opinion about a game.

Yes IW aimed to be realistic to an extent when they formed not Flashpoint style but realistic than MoH. I have played the game on xbox at a friends but not on PC but I have heard nothing but bad things about lag on PC because they are built for dedicated.

How is being tangetly realistic not fun. Dual shotguns or dual anything does take the piss in relation to realism now doesn't it. As someone said to me fefore which I agree it. Opinion leaves being opinion when you want t o try and turn it into fact which you did when you stated the game is that good which it isn't for some people particularly on the PC.

Since you go straight back and attack me kinda defeats the purpose of your point. Also this is a forum where people exchange opinions. If you don't want people to quote you on your opinion because htey don't agree and want a discussion regardless of how badly they start it in your eyes. Do not post what so ever on them.

 

[Mr.Pandah]

Spoiler

Although I liked the dog powerup better in MW1, everything else is totally more badass

Er...thats World at War.

Anyway, Cod4 is probably better in terms of story, and the multiplayer maps (in my opinion) are far superior.

MW2 is better in action set pieces and the multiplayer has been polished to such a fine sheen that you may just go blind from looking at it. However, dealing with the lack of dedicated servers on the PC may be a little more than puzzling. Yet, I think its something that the general populace on the PC has grown to deal with since the game really is that good online.

So because it is a complete lag fest and some how made even more unrealistic and unbalanced it makes it that good. You do know that IW left the MoH team to make more realistic games so they basically sold their soul with MW2 not just on dedi thing.

OT: Well from what I've heard MW2 has a good single player and multiplayer is a massive lag fest. I'd still say go with CoD4 though since the single isn't going to be that great either way as CoD is about multiplayer and if your goes on to play multi on PC you want CoD 4.

Guess I should put a disclaimer on everything I say in big bold letters saying IN MY OPINION all the time.

I don't get lag, but I bought it on the Xbox, so theres probably something there. Unrealistic? I never knew they were aiming to be realistic. I actually remember reading that the development team was leaving realism behind in favor of, oh, I don't know...fun? And almost every single game is "unbalanced" in some way, shape, or form, so get over yourself. Also, I can't tell if you even have the game, or played it at any point since you said you "heard" it had so and so features. Therefore, I'm throwing whatever you say out the window!

Next time, don't start attacking me because I stated my opinion about a game.

Yes IW aimed to be realistic to an extent when they formed not Flashpoint style but realistic than MoH. I have played the game on xbox at a friends but not on PC but I have heard nothing but bad things about lag on PC because they are built for dedicated.

How is being tangetly realistic not fun. Dual shotguns or dual anything does take the piss in relation to realism now doesn't it. As someone said to me fefore which I agree it. Opinion leaves being opinion when you want t o try and turn it into fact which you did when you stated the game is that good which it isn't for some people particularly on the PC.

Since you go straight back and attack me kinda defeats the purpose of your point. Also this is a forum where people exchange opinions. If you don't want people to quote you on your opinion because htey don't agree and want a discussion regardless of how badly they start it in your eyes. Do not post what so ever on them.

No. Just no. You are trying to turn your ideas into fact, whether you want to believe it or not. I've declared my points as opinion. Its the fact that you came around and decided that I was the one who was shoving my agenda down other people's throats. I know this is a forum, you don't have to remind me, trust me. I really can't understand the first part of your post...or the second one, since I've already stated what IW wanted to do with this game. Also, being more "Realistic" in a video game universe filled with elves and orcs and demons and trolls and princesses and plumbers and devils and more WWII games than you can shake a stick at is not basis for an argument. They were trying to be more realistic than MoH, big woop. Every game is more realistic than the last few they were putting out. I mean, they practically had mini bosses for crying out loud.

 

[-IT-]

Get Cod:MW1, Cod:MW2 is a joke on the PC.