Poll: Modern Warfare 1 or 2?
- Thread starter Chrislt
- Start date
Recommended Videos
When I think of the 'Modern Warfare' series, I think of the endlessly playable multiplayer. I played through the campaigns for both games once, and maybe a few specific missions several more times for achievements and such. But where I get most of my gameplay from 'Modern Warfare' is online. I played the heck out of the first game, over a week of total hours played. I have several days logged into the sequel, and I don't plan on quitting soon.
Between the two, there were a lot more maps I liked in the first game, but MW2 has a lot more verticality to the maps. There's more options, more customization, and I believe better balance between weapons. Overall, 'Modern Warfare 2' is the better multiplayer game in my opinion.
Between the two, there were a lot more maps I liked in the first game, but MW2 has a lot more verticality to the maps. There's more options, more customization, and I believe better balance between weapons. Overall, 'Modern Warfare 2' is the better multiplayer game in my opinion.
COD4 I think has much better multiplayer to me. The multiplayer in MW2 is very unbalanced for new players, whilst COD4 gives you decent guns straight up, so its not always the level a billion player winning all the games because he's the only bullshitto-overpowered gun.
Singleplayer wise MW2 has some very fun missions but on the whole I do prefer MW1.
Edit: Also:4 words for COD4. Dedicated servers, and mods.
Singleplayer wise MW2 has some very fun missions but on the whole I do prefer MW1.
Edit: Also:4 words for COD4. Dedicated servers, and mods.
It's easier to make impressive set pieces and fantastical storylines when your game is set on a floating ring in space inhabited by aliens.Pimppeter2 said:
And as for what you said about character development......have you ever met anyone from the army ?
On topic though, MW2 has some balance issues online imo and unless she is already pretty skilled or very dedicated she will probably just get raped to the point of losing interest.
If she just wants to play a single player shooter then honestly i wouldn't buy either of them, something like Prey or Portal is a more worthy solo experience if she doesn't have them already. If she really wants a modern military shooter MW1 has the more coherent storyline, MW2 was a mix between Con Air and Mission Impossible with some Tom Clancy thrown in and too short to be worth the 60 bucks they're asking.
Hmm... To tell you the truth it took me through to my second time to see the story and I am a big fan.Pimppeter2 said:
Honestly, I didn't even notice who was playing the characters till I looked up MW2.
Maybe it is a good(speaking for MW1) story about an escalation getting extremely out of hand. Probably because we could relate to most of it with what is going on today and that it could actually happen in the most extreme circumstances.
MW2 on the other hand had a lot of hype and took the story down its own path while sacrificing realism for the sake of an unrepetitive, cinematic story while bringing new characters in and playing off of what the fanboys wanted to see (AKA Cpt. Price). Now that may seem bad, but isn't playing off of what your fans want to see a good thing?
I really did like the games, but I thought they were so good because the fighting felt real good in both of them.
I get what you mean about no character developement with Soap, but I'm used to being the silent protagonist because every Ace Combat game has 0 character developement of your player. However, I really liked the campaign because America invades countries all the time. It gave you the back story as to why we went in as well. The nuke sequence was astounding to me because I was like, "Fuck yeah, never leave a man behind" and then boom. Wasted effort. It got kind of wacky with Zakhaev's involvement with Al-Asad, but still a million times better than MW2's shite story. It all came together coherently to me.Pimppeter2 said:
I'd like to point out how I don't think 30,000 Marines died in the first one. The helicopter flight made it look like everyone else got out since you see tons of helicopters booking it and the Abrams columns rolling back. Even if the armored columns were trapped in the city, if they weren't too near ground zero they could survive. (I think. Though I might just be an idiot)
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.Mr.Pandah said:Er...thats World at War.ParadoxBG said:Although I liked the dog powerup better in MW1, everything else is totally more badass
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.
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.