What are some reasons for COD4 being better than MW2?
- Thread starter Jacco
- Start date
Recommended Videos
A. The campaign of Modern Warfare 2 was just fine, thank you.
B. The multiplayer is better because (to my memory) there are no huge balancing/spawning issues, which I can't say about MW2's multiplayer. There were dual wielding shotguns with ridiculous reload times and accuracy, there were ridiculously overpowered killstreaks, a ton of exploitable glitches and bugs, terrible spawning(though not as bad as Black Ops can be. Seriously, I have started multiple games spawning with the ENEMY TEAM.) and....Actually, that's all I need. Basically, the muliplayer was a fucking mess.
B. The multiplayer is better because (to my memory) there are no huge balancing/spawning issues, which I can't say about MW2's multiplayer. There were dual wielding shotguns with ridiculous reload times and accuracy, there were ridiculously overpowered killstreaks, a ton of exploitable glitches and bugs, terrible spawning(though not as bad as Black Ops can be. Seriously, I have started multiple games spawning with the ENEMY TEAM.) and....Actually, that's all I need. Basically, the muliplayer was a fucking mess.
I'm one of those. I hate competitive multiplayer. That was why i liked COD4 more. The story was actually worthy of something Clancy would write and it was great. MW2 started off on the right foot and then they screwed the pacing by making more of a "look through this window" type of story instead of a straight, chronological narrative.DarkRyter said:
There is one part in the MW2 campaign where you skip like 2 days and go right from Virginia to Washington DC. Well what happened in between? COD4 took place over the course of like 26 hours which was perfect because you got to witness just about every minute of it.
Me and my brother actually note that as the downfall of CoD. That one glitch ruined everything for us. We really like MW2 but once that 1 glitch came in more and more were found. Ever since then the entire franchise has been pure shit. To be fair though WaW was shit before that...Get_A_Grip_ said:
because it is a GOOD game not like the last 3 cods by the way i say 3 because mw3 is going to be bad
Hardcore:
In MW2 the hardcore is almost non existent whereas in COD4 I played it. All the time. Pretty much exclusively. In MeeWee2 it's almost brushed under the rug and you're told "no, you don't want that, here look at other modes of play *hint hint*".
Spawnkills:
You think Doug got pissed too much when someone headshotted him? That's what a spawnkill feels like. When they're all around, no system is implemented to stop them and someone can exploit bugs to do just that it becomes a gamebreaking flaw.
Balancing weps/perks.
Ok, noobtube, grenade rain, and then [insert your favourite SMG here (P90/Scorpion+silence/mp5)], not to mention bunny hopping and dolphin diving pissed people off, but hey - you could ban people from servers and all was good. Besides, they're in small quantitiy now anyway.
And that's another thing - a community and support that MeeWee2 just doesn't seem to have. "Dedicated Servers? What dedicated servers?", yeah, remember when people tried to play Left for Dead (or 2 for that matter) from a local server? THAT's the reason you have them dedicated. You don't want to? Oh sorry, I thought this was supposed to be a leading game, not a parody of one. With Black Ops I swear they're just trolling - kinda like ubisoft with the DRM.
Campaign in CoD4 wasn't an idiot fest. Had an actual story line rather than two gay blokes out to kill an overzealous danger loving bad guy leader... oh and at the end your "friends" actually died after being shot at the end of the campaign in MW1. In MeeWee Twoo, people just get up and brush themselves off after being shot about fifty times, and tanking some explosives to boot.
It's like GrizzleBorno said...
I'm not much for WW2 shooters, so I apologise for not playing more COD games. 4 was good, W@W was meh, MeeWee2 was a catastrophy (at least in my opinion), and as far as I can see it, Black Ops has just taken Wee2 and taken it a step further.
A lot of other people added good points or described the ones I did in a different or even better way, but I'll close with this:
I liked playing MW1 competitively. I still play MW1. I regret ever getting MW2.
The end
TLDR? Never mind, just go play MW2. YOU'll like it.
In MW2 the hardcore is almost non existent whereas in COD4 I played it. All the time. Pretty much exclusively. In MeeWee2 it's almost brushed under the rug and you're told "no, you don't want that, here look at other modes of play *hint hint*".
Spawnkills:
You think Doug got pissed too much when someone headshotted him? That's what a spawnkill feels like. When they're all around, no system is implemented to stop them and someone can exploit bugs to do just that it becomes a gamebreaking flaw.
Balancing weps/perks.
bad - yeah pretty much. It's like they took all the faults and "made the game more accessible to other gamers so they wouldn't feel as bad about getting in to it"... ie: punished people for playing 'well' (and don't give me anything about killstreaks, they only promote camping).Dirty Hipsters said:
Ok, noobtube, grenade rain, and then [insert your favourite SMG here (P90/Scorpion+silence/mp5)], not to mention bunny hopping and dolphin diving pissed people off, but hey - you could ban people from servers and all was good. Besides, they're in small quantitiy now anyway.
And that's another thing - a community and support that MeeWee2 just doesn't seem to have. "Dedicated Servers? What dedicated servers?", yeah, remember when people tried to play Left for Dead (or 2 for that matter) from a local server? THAT's the reason you have them dedicated. You don't want to? Oh sorry, I thought this was supposed to be a leading game, not a parody of one. With Black Ops I swear they're just trolling - kinda like ubisoft with the DRM.
Campaign in CoD4 wasn't an idiot fest. Had an actual story line rather than two gay blokes out to kill an overzealous danger loving bad guy leader... oh and at the end your "friends" actually died after being shot at the end of the campaign in MW1. In MeeWee Twoo, people just get up and brush themselves off after being shot about fifty times, and tanking some explosives to boot.
- pretty much.Locko96 said:
It's like GrizzleBorno said...
Now I liked the co-op idea, but that in no way justifies the rest of the game.GrizzlerBorno said:
I'm not much for WW2 shooters, so I apologise for not playing more COD games. 4 was good, W@W was meh, MeeWee2 was a catastrophy (at least in my opinion), and as far as I can see it, Black Ops has just taken Wee2 and taken it a step further.
A lot of other people added good points or described the ones I did in a different or even better way, but I'll close with this:
I liked playing MW1 competitively. I still play MW1. I regret ever getting MW2.
The end
TLDR? Never mind, just go play MW2. YOU'll like it.
Yeah it did.Worgen said:
The final mission is you stopping about 20 nukes from reaching America.
OT: It wasn't.
CoD 4 was initially more balanced, but that was because there was less things in the game.
MW2 was bigger and badder, but was almost too hectic to have a game that you could sit back and take seriously.
What with over half the game modes being made so you couldn't remain in a party with your friends, it really got to the point where you only restricted yourself to free for all, domination, and Mercenary game modes.
Single player? CoD4 will actually take that one. The gunplay felt better, and a hidden gem was the slow motion mode that everyone seemed to pass up.
Which game was more fun? Modern Warfare 2 by a long shot. A game where you could seriously sit back and tear the shit out of anyone with any gun.
COD4's plot was self contained and was well paced. It also worked well with the three act structure. Act 1: The Invasion, the Rescue and the Nuke. Act 2: The Hunt for Al Asad(and Zakeav) Act 3: Retake the missle silo and prevent WW3.
MW2 has "three acts" but don't really work as three acts. There's no real dividing line and it feels like they might as well just made it a series of missions. Also, the 6 days from MW kind of works. In MW2, the same "6 days" tends to stretch the suspension of disbelief a bit more.
That and while MW had a few plot holes, and unanswered questions, they were minor and most people didn't notice much, because the plot progression felt logical and natural. MW2 had plot holes and dangling threads which weren't helped by the fact the game tended to jump around like crazy. Who was the dead guy in the panic room? Why are you chasing arms dealer in Brazil? Why are the Russians taking their own oil rig workers hostage? What is Makarov's motivation, attacking a government that he supposedly agrees with? And why is Shepherd so intent on finding him when WW3 should probably be taking far more of his attention at that point?
Don't get me wrong, I really liked MW2 and it packs quite a punch, but MW is a better product overall.
MW2 has "three acts" but don't really work as three acts. There's no real dividing line and it feels like they might as well just made it a series of missions. Also, the 6 days from MW kind of works. In MW2, the same "6 days" tends to stretch the suspension of disbelief a bit more.
That and while MW had a few plot holes, and unanswered questions, they were minor and most people didn't notice much, because the plot progression felt logical and natural. MW2 had plot holes and dangling threads which weren't helped by the fact the game tended to jump around like crazy. Who was the dead guy in the panic room? Why are you chasing arms dealer in Brazil? Why are the Russians taking their own oil rig workers hostage? What is Makarov's motivation, attacking a government that he supposedly agrees with? And why is Shepherd so intent on finding him when WW3 should probably be taking far more of his attention at that point?
Don't get me wrong, I really liked MW2 and it packs quite a punch, but MW is a better product overall.
it will just more of the same they have not had any new stuff in the games since cod4 and each game has been worse then the lastTdc2182 said:
1. COD 4 was a revolutionary new idea: bringing the COD narrative to the modern age. It was a gamble that paid off.
2. The variety: you played as a Force Recon Marine and as an SAS operative. There was the great sniper mission in Pripyat, the invasion scene in "Charlie Don't Surf", the coup scene, and my personal favorite, the AC-130 Spectre gunship mission.
3. The atmosphere: I'll never forget the crumbling and broken down site that is Pripyat. Anyone else who played the game won't either.
4. The nuke. I believe it was Hitchcock who said there is more suspense and shock when a bomb that you know is around goes off rather than a random explosion. Imagine going through that hectic mission in the capital, rescuing the downed chopper pilot and then boarding the Sea Knight, knowing that al-Asad has a Russian nuke. Two things we took for granted before were thus: a main playable character never dies and the nuke doesn't go off. Suddenly, there's a flash and a mushroom cloud. Our pulses quicken and we watch with wide eyed shock as the choppers crash and then we have to crawl around the waste land before dying. It was one of those signature moments in gaming that will be remembered for years to come.
5. The multiplayer. The addition of perks changed the dynamic and made deathmatch exciting again.
MW2 was a pretty shallow experience and got pretty ridiculous. Black Ops brought some welcome changes and, hopefully, MW3 will bring back the magic that was lost.
2. The variety: you played as a Force Recon Marine and as an SAS operative. There was the great sniper mission in Pripyat, the invasion scene in "Charlie Don't Surf", the coup scene, and my personal favorite, the AC-130 Spectre gunship mission.
3. The atmosphere: I'll never forget the crumbling and broken down site that is Pripyat. Anyone else who played the game won't either.
4. The nuke. I believe it was Hitchcock who said there is more suspense and shock when a bomb that you know is around goes off rather than a random explosion. Imagine going through that hectic mission in the capital, rescuing the downed chopper pilot and then boarding the Sea Knight, knowing that al-Asad has a Russian nuke. Two things we took for granted before were thus: a main playable character never dies and the nuke doesn't go off. Suddenly, there's a flash and a mushroom cloud. Our pulses quicken and we watch with wide eyed shock as the choppers crash and then we have to crawl around the waste land before dying. It was one of those signature moments in gaming that will be remembered for years to come.
5. The multiplayer. The addition of perks changed the dynamic and made deathmatch exciting again.
MW2 was a pretty shallow experience and got pretty ridiculous. Black Ops brought some welcome changes and, hopefully, MW3 will bring back the magic that was lost.
- Apr 1, 2009
- 15,526
- 4,295
- 118
- Gender
- Whatever, just wash your hands.
true but it wasnt the retarded scenario of someone invading america, it was a much more plausible missile attack, although the result of anything like that would be pretty much mutually assured destruction since if one nuke hit us then chances are 50 nukes would hit them since we have lots of those things laying around and really want a reason to use them, so its still not that plausibleTdc2182 said:
The campaign is a good length and expertly-paced, whereas MW2 has no juxtaposition and is trying chain one flashy, first-person set piece right after another.
The campaign story not loaded with over-the-top, G.I. Joe cartoony bullcrap. (Find me a snowmobile and a pair of riders that could make a jump like that unscathed and I'll eat my own shoes.)
It was a new, interesting, and compelling direction for the CoD series and FPSs in general, whereas MW2 and just about every "modern military FPS" since has just been riding CoD4's coattails of success.
Multiplayer was playtested before release.
CoD4 was an excellent game. MW2 was like a Michael Bay movie, lots of flash and makes lots of money, but ultimately a hallow experience, especially when compared to its predecessor. It actually baffles me that the same guys made both games.
The campaign story not loaded with over-the-top, G.I. Joe cartoony bullcrap. (Find me a snowmobile and a pair of riders that could make a jump like that unscathed and I'll eat my own shoes.)
It was a new, interesting, and compelling direction for the CoD series and FPSs in general, whereas MW2 and just about every "modern military FPS" since has just been riding CoD4's coattails of success.
Multiplayer was playtested before release.
CoD4 was an excellent game. MW2 was like a Michael Bay movie, lots of flash and makes lots of money, but ultimately a hallow experience, especially when compared to its predecessor. It actually baffles me that the same guys made both games.
Well, I always thought CoD4's story was a little less Tom Clancy-ish (until the bomb went off, that is.) It seemed realistic enough to make it seem like it could be actually happening in real life. But even when the shit hit the crazy fan, scenes like the Atomic Bomb and the finale were presented with such superb tone and pacing that it seemed appropriate and well-placed.
MW2's story was loosened the grip on that realism a little bit, and that caused it's downfall in my experience with it. I think if you want to make a game in a series that has always stressed realism, you keep to that path. You can't really switch gears. It felt more along the lines of that game Homefront than the other games in the series. I liked World at War's story because it was still a little crazy, but still realistic enough that its serious moments could be taken with a straight face, not as a out of place moment of drama between explosions.
Everything else was pretty much the same. Good controls and graphics are superb. Wish there were more stealth missions, though. "Ghillies in the Mist" has to be one of my favorite video game levels of all time. Didn't try online multiplayer, though Spec-Ops with a friend was fantastic.
MW2's story was loosened the grip on that realism a little bit, and that caused it's downfall in my experience with it. I think if you want to make a game in a series that has always stressed realism, you keep to that path. You can't really switch gears. It felt more along the lines of that game Homefront than the other games in the series. I liked World at War's story because it was still a little crazy, but still realistic enough that its serious moments could be taken with a straight face, not as a out of place moment of drama between explosions.
Everything else was pretty much the same. Good controls and graphics are superb. Wish there were more stealth missions, though. "Ghillies in the Mist" has to be one of my favorite video game levels of all time. Didn't try online multiplayer, though Spec-Ops with a friend was fantastic.