Whats so special about MW2?

Darkedge34

Darkedge34

Newbie
Joined
Sep 13, 2007
Messages
360
Reaction score
1
I got this game and it just seems like COD4/W@W with a facelift.
Am I missing something?

Are developers really getting this lazy like EA and throwing out a new game every year without any major changes? much like NHL 10 or Left 4 Dead 2, or am I missing the point of annual games?
 
Annual games have changes and face lifts. They create something new on top of what they have, new missions, new songs, new characters, new aspects of the game that you didnt see in previous. The fact you don't see the value is entirely on you.
 
It's much more balanced than MW1. The changes aren't huge, but it's at least somewhat of a step up. Looks amazing, too.

However, if MW3 is still the same game, I'll be pissed. Two games of relatively the same stuff is where I draw the line.
 
not alot. to me, they were balancing on a very thin line with the story and gameplay of cod4, MW2 feels like it fell off and then some. i actually haven't gotten around to typing out a list of complaints i have with the game simply because i do not know where to start and it hurts my brain to think.
 
I just enjoyed the continuation of the story mode. I dabbled in multi and enjoyed it, but since I played last the game has been filled with pirates and hackers on PC so I never went back to it.
 
The single player was a lot of fun, some really cool scenarios etc, multiplayer was decent at first but I got bored quickly of it, faster than even World at War. I think I dislike all the overpowered perks, the lack of difference between most weapons, riot shields/dual shotguns and the bland selection of levels.

So if you want to get it in continuation of the storyline then yeh by all means, if you want to get it for a really great multiplayer than you will be playing months down the line? I wouldn't recommend it.
 
I also didn't notice any big improvements from COD4, except for a more 'spectacular' campaign.

Multiplayer is way too problematic to be enjoyable, it often suffers from lots of lag plus you can hardly ever finish a round without having to migrate the host which takes forever. MP is a big step backwards from MW1.

I want my money back!:frown:
 
I got this game and it just seems like COD4/W@W with a facelift.
Am I missing something?

Are developers really getting this lazy like EA and throwing out a new game every year without any major changes? much like NHL 10 or Left 4 Dead 2, or am I missing the point of annual games?
Click to expand...

There really is nothing special about Modern Warfare 2 at all. They are charging $60 for a game that only has six hours of singleplayer gameplay and has no dedicated servers for multiplayer. It's basically a downgrade of what Call of Duty 4: Modern Warfare was, and they are charging an extra ten dollars anyways. Left 4 Dead 2 is nothing like that, and it has completely new things, whereas Modern Warfare 2 is more of the same. Left 4 Dead 2 has new maps, new characters, new weapons, and much, much more.
You're trying to compare apples and oranges, and that just doesn't work.
MecalFatter said:
Wtf, those games are awesome, youre a frigging moron :hmph:
Click to expand...

You remind me of someone named Mingag Dinosaur. You wouldn't be him, right?
 
Darkedge34 said:
I got this game and it just seems like COD4/W@W with a facelift.
Am I missing something?
Click to expand...

What do you count as a 'facelift'? I mean it has:
New game modes, new maps, new weapons, new character models, new weather effects, new kill streaks, new death streaks, new kill rewards (payback, revenge, etc.).

There's only so many ways to create a (basically) deathmatch FPS. I mean gah counter-strike is just a facelift of quake, all they did was change the maps, models, weapons, and use a shiny new engine.
 
i'm not sure what people mean when they found the story to be more 'epic' or 'spectacular'. all i found in the story was ridiculous writing and lots of really dumb battles that made no sense.

it's weird that the game is obviously very influenced by a proper story of modern war like generation kill, it's basically what would happen if michael bay and uwe boll sat down with one sheet of A4 paper and didn't even fill it to the bottom of the page with anything decent, they just gave up after one paragraph, hired hans zimmer and then took the bog-standard COD formular which was ok for a bit of fun, and then turned up the explosions and number of enemies on screen to 11. it was at 10 before and even that got tedious quick in COD4.

my biggest gripe with the game is that there are enjoyable elements to it, and they know how to make a pretty cinematic and streamlined experience. the sniper mission from COD4 and similar, and in MW2, cliffhanger, the oil rig, anything to do with breaching, etc. good elements, and then they go and ruin it by doing a real bad job at the actual warfare. i ****ing died a little inside every time a copy paste suburban US level came up. seriously, get the **** out of here. the level architects did a good job of creating an american neighbourhood but what playtester thought it would be fun to play in or interesting to look at?

game makes me ****ing angry.
 
One of my friends told me Treyarch is making a Cold War COD. Great.
 
xcellerate said:
I mean gah counter-strike is just a facelift of quake, all they did was change the maps, models, weapons, and use a shiny new engine.
Click to expand...
Not sure if troll.

Comparing Q1 to CS: I guess no one told you about the rocket jump. Or the item buying. Or the bomb planting. Or the TERRORISTS WIN

As for Treyarch: Despite what they may have wrought recently, they made Die By the Sword. Goddamn.

diesword_790screen003.jpg


EAT STEEL BEAST
 
BlueWolf72 said:
Annual games have changes and face lifts. They create something new on top of what they have, new missions, new songs, new characters, new aspects of the game that you didnt see in previous. The fact you don't see the value is entirely on you.
Click to expand...

An expansion pack would be more fitting. $30 for one of those opposed to $80 for a whole new game (even though the game isn't new).
 
Yes. Aside from stupid shit like the 1887s and the insanely low recoil on assault rifles, everything is tighter in this game. The perks aren't as lopsided, the gun add-ons are more functional, the maps are better, and there's lots of little things to like about how the game plays.
 
I don't know about xbox but on ps3 the 1887's had their damage and range reduced.

The recoil on AR's is fine, if it was worse it would slow down gameplay more and increase camping.
 
The multiplayer is the reason everyone loves it, the singleplayer is a nice distraction for the first few hours, but it's definately not the draw.
 
Stigmata said:
Yes. Aside from stupid shit like the 1887s and the insanely low recoil on assault rifles, everything is tighter in this game. The perks aren't as lopsided, the gun add-ons are more functional, the maps are better, and there's lots of little things to like about how the game plays.
Click to expand...

Okay, from complaints;

Cold blooded is essentially the best perk, letting you not show up on thermal as well as ignoring the effects of enemy killstreak awards. Scavenger lets you restock on ammo from people you've killed, letting you not worry about precision or how much ammo you have left.

Silencers go on everything, which is just dumb. Heartbeat sensor breaks hardcore mode.

People seem to hate most of the maps except a handful of them.
 
Stigmata said:
Yes. Aside from stupid shit like the 1887s and the insanely low recoil on assault rifles, everything is tighter in this game. The perks aren't as lopsided, the gun add-ons are more functional, the maps are better, and there's lots of little things to like about how the game plays.
Click to expand...

The maps are most definitely not better. Every map is completely convoluted and filled with camping windows and corners around every turn. Most of the time I don't even see who kills me. Don't even get me started on Wasteland and Derailed. This plus the fact that you get dropped in 2-3 shots and the prospect of getting the higher killstreaks leads to some incredibly cheese stuff like One Man Army + Grenade Launchers + Claymore + Window. The game modes also encourage aggressive playing which contradicts with the fact that the game itself rewards passivity.

Meh, my feelings for this is something that I have trouble conveying through words.
 
Call of Duty has become a shallow and generic series and its sequels have shallow and generic developments. Though MW2 manages to actually be dumber than COD4.

Left 4 Dead 2 completely improves and expands on Left 4 Dead. If I recall, you don't like the core gameplay based around Left 4 Dead, and you were upset when the sequel didn't end up being an entirely different type of game:rolleyes:

I randomly saw the end to World at War as my friend completed it the other day. Contains 100% real cheese!
 
The advancement from CoD 2 To MW1 was anything but shallow.
 
The idiots who threaten to kill you and your family in a really annoying squeaky voice is really annoying
 
Acepilotf14 said:
Okay, from complaints;

Cold blooded is essentially the best perk, letting you not show up on thermal as well as ignoring the effects of enemy killstreak awards. Scavenger lets you restock on ammo from people you've killed, letting you not worry about precision or how much ammo you have left.

Silencers go on everything, which is just dumb. Heartbeat sensor breaks hardcore mode.

People seem to hate most of the maps except a handful of them.
Click to expand...
I barely use Cold Blooded and I haven't touched Scavenger. Whether a perk is good or not is all based on your style of play. Silencers reduce power and range, i.e. a sidegrade, though it's hilarious that shotguns get silencers now. Heartbeat sensor is bullshit, I agree.

Corp. Sheepo said:
Left 4 Dead 2 completely improves and expands on Left 4 Dead. If I recall, you don't like the core gameplay based around Left 4 Dead, and you were upset when the sequel didn't end up being an entirely different type of game:rolleyes:
Click to expand...
You talking to me bro? I just felt that Valve were working towards a somewhat different kind of game and had simply mis-shot with L4D1. I was wrong, I guess.

bam23: Forgot to quote you. I like that the maps give you so much freedom with your movement. You're never as safe as you think you are, and it makes it much more difficult to camp. I haven't found that the game modes encourage aggressive playstyles. MW1's gametypes are exactly the same, and it's not as if MW2 has introduced this tendency for aggressiveness. From my experience, it's more the opposite - if you are too aggressive (and aren't using dual 1887s olol) then you will probably not get more than one kill before you die. Because of the complexity of the maps, you can't go on solo missions to wipe out the other team; everyone will (or can, and should) scatter and flank you from several directions at once, or you simply won't be able to get your shots off quickly enough against targets that are spread out behind cover. If anything, that encourages a more patient style of play, which is really only countered by how easy it is to get kills with 1887s and assault rifles.

Basically the fundamentals for an extremely great game are in MW2, but it's slightly ruined by stupid balance decisions, which of course all depends on who it is you're playing with. Me, I never use grenade launchers, heartbeat sensors, Scavenger, 1887s, the ACR, or anything noticeably cheap, and I've only seen a handful of people running around with dual shotguns getting cheap kills.

Someone come help me defend this game :(
 
MecalFatter said:
Wtf, those games are awesome, youre a frigging moron :hmph:
Click to expand...

Bah COD has always been terrible. I disagree with you therefore I must be a moron, well then so be it. I'd rather be a moron than like COD.
 
Stigmata said:
Someone come help me defend this game :(
Click to expand...

I really like COD4 and MW2. I don't have any problems with the game, and I'm upset I'm visiting my family now and am so far away from my ps3 because I'd love to be getting easy points from all the fresh christmas meat.
 
Kyorisu said:
Bah COD has always been terrible. I disagree with you therefore I must be a moron, well then so be it. I'd rather be a moron than like COD.
Click to expand...

How can you say that? Call of Duty 1 & 2 were two of the best games of all time IMO. 4 was pretty good too, but it introduced the game to a whole lot of 12 year old fags, and it just got worse from there.
 
My grudge towards COD isn't because of the games themselves. I only enjoyed the SP too even though it's an enemy spawnfest.
 
The thing the SP lacked was any sort of proper pacing or tension building scenarios. Most levels involved walking 5 metres, then the devs pressing the 'shit hits the fan' button and not letting up until the level ended. The suburban missions were a perfect example of that. They really sucked.
 
I've been bored of these games since Allied Assault (which was good). Call of Duty was just a rip of that whole series, including some of the devs I believe. Boring.

whackmole778634.jpg
 
Darkedge34 said:
How can you say that? Call of Duty 1 & 2 were two of the best games of all time IMO. 4 was pretty good too, but it introduced the game to a whole lot of 12 year old fags, and it just got worse from there.
Click to expand...

I will agree that when CoD first came out, it was unbelievable, no matter what anyone says, it was a completely new gaming experience, FPS intensity never seen before. It wasn't a rip off Allied Assault because it was an entirely new beast, Allied Assualt was just one man against the entire German army, Call of Duty enforced the idea that you are just a small part of a massive machine, and I think it achieved it brilliantly. CoD is one of my favorite games of all time, I played the multiplayer consistently for around 3-4 years in competitive clanning until it just all just fell apart and the hackers outweighed all the clans trying to fight them, by which time CoD 2 was out.

CoD 2 was good, but it was really just more of the same and it never emulated the amount of fun I had with CoD. Then there was the abomination that was CoD 3 and of course MW1 which I felt breathed fresh new life into the franchise.

Great single player, amazingly multiplayer levels that encouraged tactical playing styles and discouraged people from just running into the enemy lines, especially on Search and Destroy (any other game mode is just pointless on CoD). Decent weapon balance, the perks were pretty cool until you got the chopper, but the airstrike never got old when you used it right at the start xD And basically, it was the perfect game for clanning because everyone used a mod that basically turned everything off other than the essential perks like more ammo, and stopping power I think, along with red dot sights and grenade launchers etc, so it just came down to pure skill.

MW2 is basically a CoD 2 to CoD. Took the original MW and extended it. The single player was a lot of fun but the multiplayer has just gone overboard. The single chopper was a pain in MW but now you have about three different varieties to worry about which causes basically everyone to carry stringers and waste the second weapon option that could be used on a close quarters weapon if you are using a sniper rifle. They place the nuke perk right at the end with the decision that it would only be used rarely, but urr, I've nuked about 10 times already. The AC130 and Chopper Gunner are also seen far too often.

Some of the maps are just ****ing terrible, what were they thinking making maps like Quarry, or the map with all the scattered airplane pieces in the middle, or the map set on top of a skyscraper with the cranes on the side. Yawn. The only decent map on it it is the one set in that wintery submarine base. Thats probably my biggest gripe with the game. I've already complained enough about riot shields, the dual shotguns, and the huge array of weapons that are basically exactly the same as each other.

So yeh all in all, it was a disappointment.
 
Stigmata said:
You talking to me bro? I just felt that Valve were working towards a somewhat different kind of game and had simply mis-shot with L4D1. I was wrong, I guess.
Click to expand...

Was talking to OP:)

Shift said:
The advancement from CoD 2 To MW1 was anything but shallow.
Click to expand...

Graphically and technically? You're right. Anything else? Nope. If you think MW1 had great SP, that's that I guess, but I would recommend you go back and try it again, because there's no substance to it.

Oh, I'm only talking SP in this thread. I've never cared for COD MP and it's too subjective a subject for me to trash it.
 
Ah well yes, if you are talking from a single player perspective then you have a point. Multiplayer wise however, it was a completely different game to the original CoDs, not just the better graphics but the introduction to perks, and the fact that every weapon was an automatic changed the entire fluidity of the game and introduced a whole new approach to it. Thought it was brilliant.
 
With all the praises being sung about the multiplayer, at least in the first MW, I'm really starting to think I should try it out at some point. That is to say I have only ever played the singleplayer component of each game, and honestly found them to be an absolute blast. Sure there are gripes that you can have with either game if you analyse them too much, i.e. plot (or lack thereof), gripes with spawning, general blockbuster lowest-common-denominator nature of the game, but finishing the first playthrough of MW2 the sheer momentum of the game made it feel as though I had just completed the best game I had ever played.

I know on reflection that it wasn't, not by a long shot. Maybe the fact that this was being played as a stress reliever mid-way through my final exams for my degree may have had some bearing on my opinion, as I always go a bit insane and braindead during exam period. Never the less the sheer scale and "crazy awesome" factor of some of the set pieces, the quality of the music (it's Hans Zimmer for crying out loud) and the absolute lack of any significant filler material are things the game did have going for it. It was a game that for all its faults was never boring for me, and that was somewhat surprising, as well as exactly what I needed at the time to pick myself up again.
 
Cod's bet MP(and SP for that matter too prolly) was with United Offensive. Introduced all the decent MP modes and had large maps. Foy ftw.
 
My cousin an annoying dumbass. He doesn't like any games, except for one: Call of Duty. Whenever I IM him, he says he's playing CoD2 online.

/thread
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

bbson john
Hi everyone. I am new to this forum!
Replies
11
Views
6K
Tollbooth Willie
Tollbooth Willie
MFL
Fascinating look at the ongoing psychological evolution of flat hieirarchies.
Replies
2
Views
2K
Tollbooth Willie
Tollbooth Willie
B
Gabe Newell's AMA summary (January 17, 2017)
Replies
1
Views
24K
Gerzowktz
Gerzowktz
-smash-
Valve at GDC 2016
Replies
7
Views
5K
Clan Wolf 2
Clan Wolf 2
-smash-
Using Unity at Valve - Vision Summit 2016
Replies
5
Views
6K
Ennui
Ennui
Back
Top