Crysis 2 Writer Calls Modern Warfare 2 a Disappointment

[Blue Musician]

It was a pretty terrible story, but i liked the WOW moments.

Maybe crysis can impress me.

If you can hold B-movie fell in games with an excellent gameplay and graphics, you are for a treat.
Just make sure to play it twice though. The first time was somewhat boring, since I decided to be TOO much stealthy, however in my second playthough it was more fun since I decided to basically make use of everything.

 

[MR T3D]

This writer sounds like a bro.
total approval from me.

 

[William Dickbringer]

I think he's saying this because he's hyping up crysis 2
because we all know that crysis was the best FPS ever made and had no flaws what so ever
*sarcasm

 

[Zeromaeus]

Surprise, surprise.
A game that no one expected a good story-line in had a bad story-line.

 

[JayDub147]

I'm normally wary of someone in this guy's place making statements like this, except that I happen to think the exact same thing. Sure, there were great set pieces, but that was all it was. Although, they still got me to buy it.

 

[The Wooster]

You know what? I quite enjoyed it. The overall plot arch was absolutely bananas but the characters themselves were generally pretty well written and some well chosne voice actors really helped bring them to life. Crysis (yes I know Morgan didn't write Crysis but when you're the lead writer on the sequel comparisons are going to get made) suffered the exact opposite problem. Crysis had an interesting well paced story (they really ramp up the anticipation when it comes to the aliens) populated by the most boring, unimaginative characters possible.

I wonder if Morgan can make Crysis 2 into interesting.

 

[Starke]

...Crysis... ...Calls... ...Modern Warfare 2... ...disappointment...

Pot, meet Kettle.

Yeah, Richard Morgan had absolutely nothing to do with Crysis. Nice try, though.

I admit, I chuckled at that, But, MatsVS is right. This iteration has a writer, so hopefully it will rise above Far Cry and Crysis' dicey/hilariously bad writing.

When it comes to CoD MW2's campaign, well my 13 year old cousin and all his friends were blown away by it, all of my friends over the age of 18 (like in real life) were not impressed.

I've not played it, so I can't really have a say other than, it doesn't appeal to me.

It's an M rated game, designed to appeal to 13 year old boys... I wish that didn't make so much sense to me right now.

I agree entirely about MW2's story.

However I don't recall Crysis having much resolution or making a great deal of sense.

In the end we should all know by now that while a good story makes a game better, a bad story doesn't really make a game any worse.

However I don't recall Richard Morgan having any influence on making Crysis.

As for the second part? Yeah, kinda, they can make it worse. A bland or non-existent story won't adversely effect game play. A bad one can make you feel like all your time is being wasted. For example, the Shamus Plays column comes to mind.

The other thing that can (and does) happen, is with a bad story, it can make you actively resent the game. STALKER Shadow of Chernobyl inspires this in people who miss the hints and get funneled in to the Wish Granter endings.

 

[cocoadog]

No one really plays that game for the singleplayer... but even the multiplayer is infested with glitches and bugs so yes modern warfare 1 was much much better

 

[Starke]

You know what? I quite enjoyed it. The overall plot arch was absolutely bananas but the characters themselves were generally pretty well written and some well chosne voice actors really helped bring them to life. Crysis (yes I know Morgan didn't write Crysis but when you're the lead writer on the sequel comparisons are going to get made) suffered the exact opposite problem. Crysis had an interesting well paced story (they really ramp up the anticipation when it comes to the aliens) populated by the most boring, unimaginative characters possible.

I wonder if Morgan can make Crysis 2 into interesting.

I hope so... To be honest, at least they made Psycho interesting in the expansion pack, but I'm pretty sure he's the only character in the franchise at this point with any personality.

 

[Rooster Cogburn]

I'm going to be murdered for this, but MW1's multiplayer didn't work. It was like a bunch of great ideas were thrown into a bag, shaken up and dumped out. None of the features seemed to fit in with everything else. 'Martyrdom' anyone? Gren' spam? It was an over-sized, awesome mess. MW2's multiplayer flows much better, and everything seems to make more sense in the context of the game.

The single player experience seems to have undergone the opposite transformation. MW2 is packed with great ideas that add up to a big mess. I won't say MW1 had a brilliant story, but it was delivered in a coherent and engaging way which made the 'big' moments dramatic, instead of just a spectacle.

 

[Mr. Google]

Spec ops was probably the only step up from COD 4 the rest is just pure shit

 

[The Wooster]

You know what? I quite enjoyed it. The overall plot arch was absolutely bananas but the characters themselves were generally pretty well written and some well chosne voice actors really helped bring them to life. Crysis (yes I know Morgan didn't write Crysis but when you're the lead writer on the sequel comparisons are going to get made) suffered the exact opposite problem. Crysis had an interesting well paced story (they really ramp up the anticipation when it comes to the aliens) populated by the most boring, unimaginative characters possible.

I wonder if Morgan can make Crysis 2 into interesting.

I hope so... To be honest, at least they made Psycho interesting in the expansion pack, but I'm pretty sure he's the only character in the franchise at this point with any personality.

See Psycho wasn't actally a particularly interesting character. They just fooled you into thinking that by giving him an interesting accent.

Edit: Sorry I didn't see you'd put expansion pack there. I haven't played warhead.

 

[PedroSteckecilo]

The world doesn't seem to have the same opinion as Morgan, or care as much, considering how people have already played Modern Warfare 2 for 200,000 years [http://www.escapistmagazine.com/news/view/99811-Modern-Warfare-2-Players-Log-200-000-Gameplay-Years] on Xbox Live alone up to this point. It's always nice to see a dissenting opinion of a game that is so popular, but it's a little harder to accept from someone working on a competing product.

Considering most of that is probably Multiplayer Related gaming, I think he might have a point. Call of Duty Modern Warfare 2 doesn't NEED to care about it's story, hence it didn't care about its story.

 

[DoctorObviously]

I know what a fanboy would say now:

"What is this... opinion you speak of?"

 

[Outright Villainy]

The story was just silly. And I quite enjoyed it in the first game. It seems like the second was written by chimps. The action sequences were good, but without that overarcing plot to get sucked into, it wasn't very memorable. They should have gone all spectacle, or focused more on the story. The wishy washy in between is just boring.

 

[DigitalSushi]

...Crysis... ...Calls... ...Modern Warfare 2... ...disappointment...

Pot, meet Kettle.

Yeah, Richard Morgan had absolutely nothing to do with Crysis. Nice try, though.

I admit, I chuckled at that, But, MatsVS is right. This iteration has a writer, so hopefully it will rise above Far Cry and Crysis' dicey/hilariously bad writing.

When it comes to CoD MW2's campaign, well my 13 year old cousin and all his friends were blown away by it, all of my friends over the age of 18 (like in real life) were not impressed.

I've not played it, so I can't really have a say other than, it doesn't appeal to me.

It's an M rated game, designed to appeal to 13 year old boys... I wish that didn't make so much sense to me right now.

I agree entirely about MW2's story.

However I don't recall Crysis having much resolution or making a great deal of sense.

In the end we should all know by now that while a good story makes a game better, a bad story doesn't really make a game any worse.

However I don't recall Richard Morgan having any influence on making Crysis.

As for the second part? Yeah, kinda, they can make it worse. A bland or non-existent story won't adversely effect game play. A bad one can make you feel like all your time is being wasted. For example, the Shamus Plays column comes to mind.

The other thing that can (and does) happen, is with a bad story, it can make you actively resent the game. STALKER Shadow of Chernobyl inspires this in people who miss the hints and get funneled in to the Wish Granter endings.

Your like some sort of hardcore internet commentor that was sent from the future to totally fucking own.

and with your avatar that story is pretty apt.

 

[Starke]

You know what? I quite enjoyed it. The overall plot arch was absolutely bananas but the characters themselves were generally pretty well written and some well chosne voice actors really helped bring them to life. Crysis (yes I know Morgan didn't write Crysis but when you're the lead writer on the sequel comparisons are going to get made) suffered the exact opposite problem. Crysis had an interesting well paced story (they really ramp up the anticipation when it comes to the aliens) populated by the most boring, unimaginative characters possible.

I wonder if Morgan can make Crysis 2 into interesting.

I hope so... To be honest, at least they made Psycho interesting in the expansion pack, but I'm pretty sure he's the only character in the franchise at this point with any personality.

See Psycho wasn't actally a particularly interesting character. They just fooled you into thinking that by giving him an interesting accent.

Edit: Sorry I didn't see you'd put expansion pack there. I haven't played warhead.

Goddamn my stupid brain, fooling me into thinking he was Jason Statham. Okay, so not literally. Though I will stand behind the argument that they fooled me by making him the only character with anything even approaching a personality.

 

[Booze Zombie]

Bet you anything Shepard comes back, albiat missing an eye

Would they really use that cliche, too?