Roach's death was such crap, they did all that crap, then one thing leads to another and he gets burned alive, thats just messed up.
Poll: Modern Warfare 2 ending and Modern Warfare 3 discussion (SPOILERS)
- Thread starter Shurikens and Lightning
- Start date
Recommended Videos
I just finished the game a half hour ago and it was amazing.
That aside isn't it ironic that Shepard kills your character (roach) in MW2 because your character (sgt paul jackson) got killed in MW? well, your character and another 29,999 marines.
Also what does price have against astronauts. And could a nuke even create a shock wave in space?
That aside isn't it ironic that Shepard kills your character (roach) in MW2 because your character (sgt paul jackson) got killed in MW? well, your character and another 29,999 marines.
Also what does price have against astronauts. And could a nuke even create a shock wave in space?
He was making a point - 30,000 of his soldiers got killed in a nuclear blast and noone cares. 1,000 civilians die at the hands of five men with guns creates enough outrage to start a war.imahobbit4062 said:
I also get the feeling that due to the fact it was proven that a Russian group had supplied the nuclear bomb, he felt like that was enough justification to go to war with Russia. When that didn't happen, he made the Russians come to America.
The entire last hour and a half of the campaign was like some sort of action movie on crack. The boat chase level was the best, just a well-designed level all around. Easily some of the most intense and fun gameplay I've had in a single player in a long time. With that being said, I was really shocked at how short it was. I finished the campaign on Hardened in just under 4 hours. That's pretty sad I think.
I really wonder what people mean when they say "intense".
I played the game and found the single player rather boring. It a normal shooter which lacks many features I am used to from other games by now. The guns are a joke as they all behave rather similar with 100% accuracy (even the dual wielded guns while running or the MP used from a snowmobile which pretty much kills anything in front of you) and the story/immersion was lame.
The gameplay itself varies between running forward to the next checkpoint (which makes everything behind you apparantly drop dead instantly) and standing somewhere and kill baddies till a timer runs out (visible or invisible). Thats all.
Just because a game has many scripted events it isn't automatically good. Its the game that counts, not its cutscenes.
And I could care less if
when the only personality this character has is running around and shooting things.
I played the game and found the single player rather boring. It a normal shooter which lacks many features I am used to from other games by now. The guns are a joke as they all behave rather similar with 100% accuracy (even the dual wielded guns while running or the MP used from a snowmobile which pretty much kills anything in front of you) and the story/immersion was lame.
Since when does the Russian army use an mishmash of Russian, French and Austrian guns? Why does the Navy shell a strategically unimportant prison during a rescue mission? How does a nuke detonated over DC destroy the ISS?
The gameplay itself varies between running forward to the next checkpoint (which makes everything behind you apparantly drop dead instantly) and standing somewhere and kill baddies till a timer runs out (visible or invisible). Thats all.
Just because a game has many scripted events it isn't automatically good. Its the game that counts, not its cutscenes.
And I could care less if
someone pours gas on my character and ignites them
Ka-boom. Exellent points. Plus,Ixal said:
the Russians also use Israeli guns. In reality, the Russians have a rifle that isn't even included in the game.
On the matter of guns, MW2 is possibly the most overblown anti-recoil fest in the world. Sure it's fun to go full auto(or get hit by full auto) at 300 yards, but I think it's a bit lame.
As for the ending... Well. After a predictable "twist", and some shooting, the short campagin ends. Blech, say I. The only good thing is that
Price didn't die. The fact of the matter is, if he dies, Call of Duty dies.
And there are some reviews who praise the realism and authenticy of the game (Game Trailers)...Spitfire175 said:
And lets not even start with the riot shields. If that material would really be that good soldiers would by now wear medieval style armour made out of that stuff.
I tested in on the museum level and those things apparently even stop RPGs.
In MW1 Shephard lost 30,000 troops to one nuke by one terrorist pissant, the nuke being supplied by the Russians. Despite the murder of Zahkaev at the end of MW1, Russia saw him as a martyr and let him take over, Price was taken to a gulag.
Shephard is pissed and wants revenge, he knows Makarov will set you up. Makarov is just a nihilistic terrorist for money, because the ultranationalists have already won in Russia. He kills you because he wants America to be blamed, and wants Russia to attack. Shephard is pissed at Russia, especially now that the ultranationalists have won, so he wants to fight them head on too.
Shephard is pissed and wants revenge, he knows Makarov will set you up. Makarov is just a nihilistic terrorist for money, because the ultranationalists have already won in Russia. He kills you because he wants America to be blamed, and wants Russia to attack. Shephard is pissed at Russia, especially now that the ultranationalists have won, so he wants to fight them head on too.
I think the simplicity of the play mechanics is where the beauty in the game lies.Ixal said:
It knows it is not doing anything particularly new or original, it is simply fine tuning an existing formula until it works near-flawlessly.
Personally I felt it was the best FPS campaign I have ever played, and can't count the amount of times it made me gasp out loud or want to cry or cheer.
Re: Your questions:
The Navy shelled the prison because it was full of enemy forces.
The nuke created an EMP blast, hence knocking out the electronics and communications.
I was pretty annoyed you don't get to kill Makarov, in fact I thought he was severely underdeveloped as a villain. I mean, he's hardly in the freakin game. After the airport scene he pretty much vanishes, and after the General betrays you he's never mentioned again.
All the trailers made him out as the games main villain, but he's in 1 level, thats it.
All the trailers made him out as the games main villain, but he's in 1 level, thats it.
Full of enemy forces.miracleofsound said:
And prisoners.
And your own special forces team.
There was no reason to attack this gulag except for freeing prisoners. And when that is your plan, then you don't shell it. It doesn't have any military importance.
ANd its funny that in the mission before they boast that the "US doesn't kill innocents" and are rescuing the captives but then they have no problem with shelling a prison.
And what got the ISS was not the EMP. Just rewatch the scene, that was a shockwave. Don't ask me how they managed to create a shockwave in space though....
They should have glued some riot shields onto the hull of the ISS. Then this wouldn't have happened.
...because why have a bunch of individual, coherent discussions when you can cram them all into one confused mess?imahobbit4062 said: