Infinity Ward doesn't think Modern Warfare 2 can be beat

[JourneyThroughHell]

Let me put it this way - Modern Warfare 2 in singleplayer is a thrill

Really? 'cause from start to finish I was bored out of my fucking skull.

a blockbuster

This sounds familiar...

a triumph of storytelling (not story in itself, but rather the set-pieces)

Spoiler: OH WAIT!

Now I realized why your comment felt so familiar. Every single person claiming Transformers 2 was "amazing" based their entire argument around these things. "It's a thrill to watch" or "amazing set pieces d00d!".

Here's a list of what's wrong with Revenge of the Fallen:

- incoherent and predictable plot;
- boring plot;
- bad acting;
- stupid shit happening;
- unlikeable and boring characters;

Here's a list of what's wrong with Modern Warfare 2's Single Player campaign:

- Incoherent, predictable and boring plot filled with holes (http://www.gamesradar.com/f/modern-warfare-2s-glaring-plot-holes-exposed/a-20091120123332495077)
- Stupid shit happening(Like for e.g. Russian jets getting into the USA undetected or Price in a gulag)
- unlikeable and boring characters. Not once did I find myself carrying for my teammates;


And to top all of the above up the campaign lasts 4 hours.

Modern Warfare 2 delivers in multiplayer

There are A LOT of problems with the multiplayer at the moment ranging from overpowered weapons and air support to glitches and lag. I can hardly see any redeeming factors about the multiplayer.

Well, it's not my problem that you were bored out of your fucking skull, now, is it?
If you think I was trying to defend Modern Warfare 2, you are a bit wrong. As you have seen, I responded to the comment that called me and other Modern Warfare 2 supportes "idiots". I feel I have every right to retort that.
If you found the campaign and multiplayer underwhelming, good for you. We can debate it at large.
However, by quote-mining, you give me the impression that you don'w want a simple light-hearted debate.

Thanks a lot for your well-rounded argument. As a fan of MW2 and someone who doesn't like being called an "idiot", I would love to refute your argument.
First of all, I believe that both Battlefield 2 and Bad Company 2 are superior in terms of multiplayer simply because I like team-based games more.
With that said, what makes a good game? Well, I'm going to assume that good gameplay does. And here's our first problem - Modern Warfare 2 delivers both in singleplayer and in multiplayer, and also in coop, Bad Company 2 is only good online.
And that would be fine, if they didn't set up a group of very likeable characters and a decent story in the first one.
Let me put it this way - Modern Warfare 2 in singleplayer is a thrill, a blockbuster, a triumph of storytelling (not story in itself, but rather the set-pieces).
Bad Company 2 in single is a frustrating, incoherent mess.

MW2 doesn't deliver gameplay online or offline. CoD4 delivered a quality singleplayer experience, and a boring online one (though I can see why some people enjoyed it).

MW2 didn't build on any of the good aspects, and instead threw in tonnes of gimmicks and an absolutely awful campaign. There was no suspense, thrill or even interest in MW2's campaign-What they didn't rehash from the first Modern Warfare, they took straight out of a cheesy B-Movie. Top that off with a linear, tiresome plot (that doesn't even try to make sense), and you have MW2's campaign in a nutshell.

The multiplayer was drastically worse than CoD4s, throwing in so many glitches, badly designed maps and clearly untested perk combinations, it just becomes rock-paper-scissors, except that the scissors run around the map like a cheetah on crack with an invincible riot shield, and the rock sits across the map shooting through walls before dropping a care package. Everything MW2 did, CoD4 did better, and I didn't really like the first one to begin with. CoD4 had tension, dramatic set pieces, and some good action, whereas MW2 simply (poorly) rehashed the scenes and threw in an arbitrary plot.

As for BC2's campaign, while it was almost as linear, it was bearable due to the humour. It didn't take itself too seriously. It wasn't as funny or open as the first, but it did improve on quality of content. Still, I find it hard to believe anyone buys a Battlefield game for the single-player, since DICE isn't exactly known for including them.

I am sorry but I would like to ask for examples. What are the "gimmicks" you are referring too? Why was the campaign awful? Was the gameplay bad? Is it bad that the plot is linear? If that is so, I can refer you to multiple but linear as hell good games.
And what's so bad about taking plots from B-movies? You might not know that, but there are people that like that sort of stuff.
I really can't debate the multiplayer since I've heard it has gotten worse in a while and due to computer problems, can't find out if this is true.
About the BC2's campaign. Here's the problem - the characters are very likeable and all, the story is quite nice... but the gameplay is terrible. Fast-paced, tactical and rare checkpoints do not fucking go together. The Veteran difficulty level in MW2 didn't kick my ass nearly as much as all the bullshit snipers, rocket-launcher guys and just poor gameplay design in Bad Company 2.
If I wanted humour, I would go and watch all the cutscenes on YouTube, thank you very much.
Still, the multiplayer is BC2 is awesome and sort of reminds me of the great days of Battlefield 2.
But, for me, that is not enough to make BC2 a better game.

 

[AndyFromMonday]

If you found the campaign and multiplayer underwhelming, good for you. We can debate it at large.

Sure. Let's debate the quality of MW2's campaign and multiplayer.

I am sorry but I would like to ask for examples. What are the "gimmicks" you are referring too? Why was the campaign awful? Was the gameplay bad? Is it bad that the plot is linear? If that is so, I can refer you to multiple but linear as hell good games.

I presented you with those examples:

- Incoherent, predictable and boring plot filled with holes (http://www.gamesradar.com/f/modern-warfare-2s-glaring-plot-holes-exposed/a-20091120123332495077)
- Stupid shit happening(Like for e.g. Russian jets getting into the USA undetected or Price in a gulag)
- unlikeable and boring characters. Not once did I find myself carrying for my teammates;

And what's so bad about taking plots from B-movies? You might not know that, but there are people that like that sort of stuff.

Most B action movies:

- incoherent and predictable plot;
- boring plot;
- bad acting;
- stupid shit happening;
- unlikeable and boring characters;

Certain people do enjoy that. We call them the "14 year olds".

About the BC2's campaign. Here's the problem - the characters are very likeable and all, the story is quite nice... but the gameplay is terrible. Fast-paced, tactical and rare checkpoints do not fucking go together. The Veteran difficulty level in MW2 didn't kick my ass nearly as much as all the bullshit snipers, rocket-launcher guys and just poor gameplay design in Bad Company 2.
If I wanted humour, I would go and watch all the cutscenes on YouTube, thank you very much. But, for me, that is not enough to make BC2 a better game.

Because MW2's invisible flying bullets coming at you from nowhere are way better than Bad Company 2's snipers. Not to mention the fact that BC2's multiplayer is miles ahead that of MW2.

 

[Joshimodo]

-snip-

Gimmicks? How about snowmobile racing, throwing magic one-hit kill knives, a guy named "Ghost", infinitely respawning enemies, every single perk on the multiplayer, prestige mode, Juggernauts, thermal scopes, kill streaks, death streaks, etc. If done correctly, some gimmicks can improve a game, but all of MW2's gimmicks are just messy and senseless.

Taking plots and sequences from B-Movies would be fine, assuming you're either parodying them or using them to humorous effect. MW2 just keeps a straight face throughout, which is just ridiculous. CoD4 kept a serious vibe but it had a reasonable plot and characters to back it up.

If you got your ass kicked on BFBC2's campaign, then something is wrong with your eyesight. Rocket launcher guys are so easy to spot (probably due to the fact they stand up all the time and have a huge rocket launcher), and snipers don't one-hit-kill you, so just keep a keen eye out, or take cover. Just because it doesn't do MW2's "ooh look, a flash in the grass, there's the sniper!" crap, doesn't mean they're poorly designed-It means that you're used to the hand-holding campaigns of CoD. Not to mention CoD (especially MW2) has the worst damage representation I've ever seen in a shooter - Smearing bubbly jam all over your screen and making it blurry? That's great.

Linear plot was bad wording, to be fair - I meant that you're constantly doing the same thing, run up corridors until you get a cutscene or debriefing thing, wherein you go into the next corridor to do the same thing. No Russian and whatever the mission was called where you sat in a cabin waiting for some modem to download the whole internet, which is one of the most poorly designed missions in FPS history, in my opinion.

 

[TZer0]

Yeah right! Eventually something more fun or better than MW2 is gonna come along and knock it right off of its throne. It's just how things go.

Nothing needs to come, because the game you're referring to is every single game ever made.

Including Atari 2600's E.T. and Superman 64?

Sorry, couldn't resist.

Are those considered games? On the other hand, can MW2 be considered a game?

 

[TheScarecrow]

In all honesty I hope it stays the "best FPS around" so it will divert all the 12 year olds away from games like Bad Company that require some amount of thinking other then hacking>Sniper rifle>knifing>shotguns>rocket launchers> guns mentality that people who play MW2 have developed.

So what makes Bad Company 2 more complicated?

To me the two games seem almost interchangeable except that Bad Company lets you drive vehicles and lets more things explode.

Also "hacking>Sniper rifle>knifing>shotguns>rocket launchers> guns"? Really?
Isn't Bad Company 2 also a shooter? Surely it also has guns.

Of course Bad Company has guns. I am just saying in MW2 there are people that win because they care package glitch ect. Or those that make running classes with just knifes ( I mean it is called Modern Warfare). I mean yeah all those things have are pretty bamf irl but there are not people running around with just rocket launchers and and sniper rifles winning battles.

I dunno, I just feel like Bad Company takes away some of the over poweredness of some weapons. I mean vehicles really do not change the battlefield that much to me.

Well I can only speak from my experience with CoD4 but I never saw anyone using sniper-rifles and rocket launchers, sure you'd have the odd sniper but rarely were there rocket launchers running about. Most people ran around with mid-range weapons. Although those knife wielders were annoying they only worked well in placed where the ghillie suit wouldn't stand out.

Fair enough.

 

[Brian Hendershot]

In all honesty I hope it stays the "best FPS around" so it will divert all the 12 year olds away from games like Bad Company that require some amount of thinking other then hacking>Sniper rifle>knifing>shotguns>rocket launchers> guns mentality that people who play MW2 have developed.

So what makes Bad Company 2 more complicated?

To me the two games seem almost interchangeable except that Bad Company lets you drive vehicles and lets more things explode.

Also "hacking>Sniper rifle>knifing>shotguns>rocket launchers> guns"? Really?
Isn't Bad Company 2 also a shooter? Surely it also has guns.

Of course Bad Company has guns. I am just saying in MW2 there are people that win because they care package glitch ect. Or those that make running classes with just knifes ( I mean it is called Modern Warfare). I mean yeah all those things have are pretty bamf irl but there are not people running around with just rocket launchers and and sniper rifles winning battles.

I dunno, I just feel like Bad Company takes away some of the over poweredness of some weapons. I mean vehicles really do not change the battlefield that much to me.

Well I can only speak from my experience with CoD4 but I never saw anyone using sniper-rifles and rocket launchers, sure you'd have the odd sniper but rarely were there rocket launchers running about. Most people ran around with mid-range weapons. Although those knife wielders were annoying they only worked well in placed where the ghillie suit wouldn't stand out.

Fair enough.

Well it wasn't so bad in that COD4, I loved that game. But the dawn of MW2 brought about unneeded perks like this.

Run Faster, Run Forever, Knife from farther (Like a mile away)+commando knife.

or

Refill Ammo, Bigger Explosions+ Noob Tube and RPG

 

[JourneyThroughHell]

I presented you with those examples:

- Incoherent, predictable and boring plot filled with holes (http://www.gamesradar.com/f/modern-warfare-2s-glaring-plot-holes-exposed/a-20091120123332495077)
- Stupid shit happening(Like for e.g. Russian jets getting into the USA undetected or Price in a gulag)
- unlikeable and boring characters. Not once did I find myself carrying for my teammates;

First of all, this is clearly subjectiv
and, second of all, this is related to nothing but the story. No complaints about the gameplay, then, eh?
Also, I found the plot of MW2 quite understandable and pretty well-narrated, but maybe that's just me. "Price in a Gulag" was actually just a way to bring a popular character back, he wasn't planned there originally.

Because MW2's invisible flying bullets coming at you from nowhere are way better than Bad Company 2's snipers. Not to mention the fact that BC2's multiplayer is miles ahead that of MW2.

No, they're not. As someone who has completed the campaigns in both games, on Veteran and whatever-the-hell-the-middle-difficulty setting-is-called-in-BC2 respectively.
In my personal opinion, the Modern Warfare 2 Estate and Favela (the most unfair mission) faint when compared to the ammount of bullshit in BC2.
At no point in Modern Warfare 2 was I consequently tortured with insane ammounts of snipers and rocket launcher specialists, doubled by the fact that, after the snow missions, I honestly could fucking see nothing.
I thought Yahtzee was over-exxagerating about the dust. Turns out he wasn't.
Also, it's fine when it's realistic and all, so the dust would be okay, if the fucking rocket launcher guys wouldn't see you coming from a mile.
DICE succeed at storytelling, sure (although that is doubtful - most of the memorable moments, excluding the mission where you are in danger of freezing or the final confrontation, are directly lifted from the Call Of Duty series). They succeed at creating likeable characters and interesting situations but they fail and lose when it comes to gameplay.
If it wasn't the characters and the story, I think I wouldn't have even completed the campaign.

 

[AndyFromMonday]

First of all, this is clearly subjectiv

No it's not.

and, second of all, this is related to nothing but the story. No complaints about the gameplay, then, eh?

The magic bullets have it and certain moronic levels in that game make me want to throw it out the window but eh...

aso, I found the plot of MW2 quite understandable and pretty well-narrated, but maybe that's just me. "Price in a Gulag" was actually just a way to bring a popular character back, he wasn't planned there originally.

It is just you. Also, that's still a plot hole.

At no point in Modern Warfare 2 was I consequently tortured with insane ammounts of snipers and rocket launcher specialists, doubled by the fact that, after the snow missions, I honestly could fucking see nothing.
I thought Yahtzee was over-exxagerating about the dust. Turns out he wasn't.
Also, it's fine when it's realistic and all, so the dust would be okay, if the fucking rocket launcher guys wouldn't see you coming from a mile.
DICE succeed at storytelling, sure (although that is doubtful - most of the memorable moments, excluding the mission where you are in danger of freezing or the final confrontation, are directly lifted from the Call Of Duty series). They succeed at creating likeable characters and interesting situations but they fail and lose when it comes to gameplay.
If it wasn't the characters and the story, I think I wouldn't have even completed the campaign.

So basically, both campaigns are shit. MW2's story is moronic but somewhat makes up for it with fewer shitty levels whilst Bad Company 2 has shitty level design but a *decent* story.

 

[JourneyThroughHell]

Gimmicks? How about snowmobile racing, throwing magic one-hit kill knives, a guy named "Ghost", infinitely respawning enemies, every single perk on the multiplayer, prestige mode, Juggernauts, thermal scopes, kill streaks, death streaks, etc. If done correctly, some gimmicks can improve a game, but all of MW2's gimmicks are just messy and senseless.

Apart from the multiplayer stuff, which I can consider "gimmicks", everything else you've pointed out has no place in your list.
Snowmobile racing - once in the game, well-implemented with good controls.
Magic one-hit kill knives - once in the game, the ending (if excluding the multiplayer).
Ghost - just a character name and a fun mask, how is that a fucking gimmick? Is Soap's mohawk also a gimmick?
Infinitely respawning enemies - that's new?
Prestige mode - made for people who want to get some more replayability from the game? If that's a gimmick to you, I rest my case.
Juggernauts - so special enemy types are gimmicks?

Taking plots and sequences from B-Movies would be fine, assuming you're either parodying them or using them to humorous effect.

I disagree. In fact, the whole "fun" aspect of all the B-movie style action flicks is that they take themselves seriously.

If you got your ass kicked on BFBC2's campaign, then something is wrong with your eyesight. Rocket launcher guys are so easy to spot (probably due to the fact they stand up all the time and have a huge rocket launcher), and snipers don't one-hit-kill you, so just keep a keen eye out, or take cover. Just because it doesn't do MW2's "ooh look, a flash in the grass, there's the sniper!" crap, doesn't mean they're poorly designed-It means that you're used to the hand-holding campaigns of CoD. Not to mention CoD (especially MW2) has the worst damage representation I've ever seen in a shooter - Smearing bubbly jam all over your screen and making it blurry? That's great.

Of course, if I don't see those guys, that must mean I am blind.
Well, let me disagree because they are usually paired with normal soldiers and if I get out and start looking around for them, they kick my ass.
Also, the dust. I can't see through the dust.
The absolute downpoint of the game is the last mission before the finale. In my honest opinion, it was torturous.
About the "flash in the grass". I don't mind realism and I don't need a gigantic "HEY! SNIPER!" sign. How-fucking-ever, Bad Company 2 doesn't set out to be a realistic shooter. Instead DICE shouted "Hey! We can do Modern Warfare, too" and made the game too fast-paced for the Battlefield mechanics. So, yeah, "hand-holding"? Well, it's not my fault if DICE decided that they wanted to show off their destructo-scenery by having a ton of RPG guys and then randomly inserted a bunch of sniper levels in the mix.
Also, that reminds me, if the snowmobile racing in MW2 is a gimmick, what about the quad racing in BC2?
ALSO, about that bubbly jam thing. It's quite similar, if a bit less annoying, in BC2.

Linear plot was bad wording, to be fair - I meant that you're constantly doing the same thing, run up corridors until you get a cutscene or debriefing thing, wherein you go into the next corridor to do the same thing. No Russian and whatever the mission was called where you sat in a cabin waiting for some modem to download the whole internet, which is one of the most poorly designed missions in FPS history, in my opinion.

Sorry, but, by your logic, every shooter has you doing the same. You run and shoot things. How boring.
Also, the Estate mission you're referring to was just a simple defend the place - get out mission, although the ending was quite bullshit.
However, I beat in on Veteran, without breaking a sweat like a did with that damn BC2 level. Now that was a poorly-designed one, in my opinion.

 

[JourneyThroughHell]

No it's not.

Yes, it is. I'm not saying I'm being objective either.

The magic bullets have it and certain moronic levels in that game make me want to throw it out the window but eh...

What mysterious magic bullets are you talking about?

It is just you. Also, that's still a plot hole.

I agree, it didn't really make much sense and was predictable as hell.

So basically, both campaigns are shit. MW2's story is moronic but somewhat makes up for it with fewer shitty levels whilst Bad Company 2 has shitty level design but a *decent* story.

That's just you. To me, neither campaigns are shit. Modern Warfare's makes up for it's bland story with ingenious set-piece making and really good core gameplay.
Bad Company 2, having a pretty good core gameplay in its single, does screw it up when it comes to enemies, but still has a couple of really interesting ideas and is overall a fairly entertaining, but needlessly flawed, experience.

 

[AndyFromMonday]

Yes, it is.

...

What mysterious magic bullets are you talking about?

Maybe the term "magic death" better defined what I'm trying to say. What I AM trying to say is that getting shot at from halfway across the map and dying isn't what I'd call "fun".

That's just you. To me, neither campaigns are shit. Modern Warfare's makes up for it's bland story with ingenious set-piece making and really good core gameplay.
Bad Company 2, having a pretty good core gameplay in its single, does screw it up when it comes to enemies, but still has a couple of really interesting ideas and is overall a fairly entertaining, but needlessly flawed, experience.

So it all comes down to the multiplayer then.

 

[JourneyThroughHell]

Maybe the term "magic death" better defined what I'm trying to say. What I AM trying to say is that getting shot at from halfway across the map and dying isn't what I'd call "fun".

Never had that problem. Weird.

So it all comes down to the multiplayer then.

I did not argue for a second that BC2's multiplayer is mind-blowingly awesome and a huge return to my favorite online game of all-time, Battlefield 2.
However, for me, MW2's "Coop-Campaign-Online" combination was overall more enjoyable.

 

[AndyFromMonday]

I did not argue for a second that BC2's multiplayer is mind-blowingly awesome and a huge return to my favorite online game of all-time, Battlefield 2.

I did... or will in the future.

However, for me, MW2's "Coop-Campaign-Online" combination was overall more enjoyable.

And BC2's multiplayer provided me with days of enjoyment so let's just agree to disagree.