GAMES: GameSpot GameFAQs MOVIES: Metacritic Movietome Comic-Con
Friday, Nov 6, 2009

Ok people keep asking me what my thoughts actually are on MW2 so here they are

Personally i hated COD 4, i spent £40 on a campaign that lasted 4 hours and i use multipalyer so you can imagine how annoyed i was.

Now modern warfare 2, i honestly cant see the big deal, i just looksthe same but with more guns and a new campaign which is apparnatly around the same length as COD 4's. I think the game itself looks rushed and the fact that pretty much all the reload animations look the same, for example the G36 now has the M4 reload and the AK-47 reload is guess what, the exact same, very lazy.

Admittedly the multiplayer does look interesting but its just essentially killing people, all the new upgrades are a good idea bu i really dislike how just about every game has been pushed back to 2010 becasue of it. For example singularity i personally thought looked really good but that got pushed back to next year which i was pretty hacked off about. No doubt MW2 will get absolutely praised by critics, im not going to buy it, ever i may borrow it from a friend but i will never buy an infinity ward call of duty again. At least Treyarch know how to make a shooter with a decent campaign and a great multiplayer, and hopefully their cold war call of duty will be vietnam because if they keep all the grittyness from WAW then we should have a great shooter.

But back to the subject i personally feel that MW2 will be overrated, im not saying it wotn be good but i definately think it has been over hyped

Comments

Page 1 
« prev  |  next »
At least they're throwing in a co-operative mode which they claim should be of equal length to the campaign...but I feel your pain about COD4, you can beat the single player on normal in one sitting, as it's like it was really meant for MP only. I found the MP in WAW to be sub-par compared to MW, but I guess we all have different experiences in that department.

I for one am looking forward to MW2 and do not fall into the category of criticizing a fantastic game even if it is the same recycled stuff we've seen and done hundreds of times before. However, because of IW's cockiness I have decided to buy the game used (if I can actually find it) so they don't get my hard earned money...i'm just about sick of developers taking content out of a game only to give it away for free in some sponsored sweepstakes to generate income or selling it at a later date as DLC
Posted Nov 6, 2009 6:28 am PT
Multiplayer was always a big thing with Call of Duty, if you don't like the Multiplayer then don't buy it. Simple as.
Posted Nov 6, 2009 7:54 am PT
@SGTiD1NG0
actualyl the multiplayer at first wasnt the main thing, in COD 2 they balanced it out nicely and so did treyarch in COD 3 until COD4 multiplayer was a nice add on to a brilliant single player campaign
Posted Nov 6, 2009 10:06 am PT
@PUREPL7YA
yeah IW dont deserve our money until they try something compeltely fresh and new but yeah good post my friend
Posted Nov 6, 2009 10:07 am PT
I'm sorry I thought your blog was relating to Call of Duty 4 which is why I only said "Call of Duty". In the long run it was the multiplayer that made COD4 what it was, no FPS out there is great without a solid multiplayer component. To put it simply; if you didn't like COD4 and its multiplayer don't buy it.
Posted Nov 6, 2009 10:10 am PT
I agree, mostly
Posted Nov 6, 2009 12:37 pm PT
@SGTiD1NG0
not really, bioshock didnt have a multiplayer but it was a great game, you dont need multiplayer to make a game great, some games are great for the single player alone just like bioshock
Posted Nov 7, 2009 4:53 am PT
Bioshock was an exception, as it wasn't just a shooter, it was an RPG too.
Posted Nov 8, 2009 9:09 am PT
I almost agree with you, but I don't see how you can hate IW so much more than Treyarch. World at War is as recycled as you can get while still being different. Like the multiplayer challenges for example; that is lazy.
Posted Nov 8, 2009 4:18 pm PT
@Aragorn33
yeah i agree the multiplayer was recycled but the campaign was of decent length and it was an extremely well told story
Posted Nov 9, 2009 12:51 am PT
@SGTiD1NG0
well true but still WAW had a great story that was well told but COD 4 was pretty dull and boring
Posted Nov 9, 2009 12:52 am PT
I never said anything about a story, I just said how Bioshock was an RPG at the same time therefore a multiplayer component was never needed.
Posted Nov 9, 2009 8:04 am PT
@SGTiD1NG0
yeah i agree but im just saying if you want to make a great game you dont need an over done multiplayer and underworked single player im just saying why not balance the tow out, like what 2k are doing with bioshock 2 getting 2 studios one for the multiplayer and one for the single player so things are balanced
Posted Nov 9, 2009 8:14 am PT
No FPS out here will survive £40-$60 without a multiplayer component. Take Killzone 2 for example, it's campaign is solid no doubt but it can't stand on its own two feet without the multiplayer. The same applies to Call of Duty in fact just about every FPS. As I keep saying Bioshock is an FPS/RPG and so a multiplayer component isn't as compulsory and expected.
Posted Nov 9, 2009 8:24 am PT
@SGTiD1NG0
i can see where you are coming from but im just saying its a shame how MW 2 has a short campign and a MP that has recieved the most owrk but i agree with you
Posted Nov 10, 2009 3:43 am PT
Page 1 
« prev  |  next »
  • picklesrocks
  • Level: 1 (0%)
  • Rank: Mogwai
  • Forum Posts: 238
  • Messages Read: 0


advertisement
Click Here

Friends

My Friends