Review: Modern Warfare 2

[squid5580]

When did instruction manuals become the work of the devil?

you are a PC gamer right??

only PC games are so complex that they do need a manual

Me? No I am a 360 gamer through and through. There is subtle things that can be missed in a console game if you don't read the manual. Like sprinting in Eat Lead. Would have saved myself alot of frustration during the final boss fight if I had known that there was a sprint button (it took a couple hours and alot of luck but I was able to do it).

The manual wasn't exactly worth much for MW2 though was it? It only had 4 game related pages.

I dunno. I haven't played it (just because I prefer unrealistic shooters like Borderlands over games like COD, I can go shoot people anytime but when do you get a chance to mow down some aliens?? ). I just found it a bit odd that having to read the manual to figure out something related to the game would be considered a negative. Although it being 4 whole pages long really doesn't help his case.

 

[josh797]

too bad i cant just buy the single player, for like 30 bucks without mp. oh well, i guess ill wait till the price drops

 

[HentMas]

When did instruction manuals become the work of the devil?

you are a PC gamer right??

only PC games are so complex that they do need a manual

Like console games don't need a manual. Ever play a sports game on your console? Those have more buttons than most RTSs or MMOs, and what the buttons do depends on whether you are on offense or defense, in the middle of a pass or shot, checking or tackling, and a hundred other modes. Console games can be just as complex as PC games.

Both PC and console games have been moving away from manuals and towards in-game tutorials. I don't blame them; everybody knows that most people won't read the manual. Still, it's nice to have a manual, especially since many in-game tutorials only cover half of what you can do in the game, and it can be annoying to trudge through the boring tutorials when you could have skimmed through the manual. Whether the manual is a piece of paper or an in-game menu system, reference material is always necessary. It's not console vs. PC, it's about helping users learn a new system; it's HCI and user-interface design.

i never said anything about PC vs Console nor was i trying to flame, its just that I find PC games more complex, in regard that i have always needed to read the manual to find out wich keys are for what, and what i can and cannot do

and even in sports games you can learn fairly fast to do anything by just playing the game.

thats what i meant to say, i mean i was really weirded out by MW controllers (having played only Halo before) but i got the hang of them fairly quickly.

 

[Stylish_Robot]

I didn't really like the story, seems like IW knew their story but they didn't know how to TELL their story but Spec Ops is surprisingly awesome but multiplayer w/o friends is a camp-fest, people sitting the entire match with a heartbeat sensor hoping some schmuck comes around. At least in CoD4 you can at best get 2-3 kills before somebody was gonna come by and shoot your ass, here there's so much hiding places that most of your killcams are just people lying prone going ADS at the doorway

 

[Furioso]

Damn. Sucks to be that astronaut...

Love this game. Love the plot. Love the settings. Vehicle section was a bit , so-so.

Nothing should have happend to the astronaut, no explosion, let alone an emp, would reach that far into space, especially since space is a vaccuem, also there were many other elements to the story that made no sense at all, I won't go into detail for spoilers sake.

 

[Asehujiko]

It's all praise with little to no downsides. This game is no where near perfect.

I feel the review should have focused more on the game's shortcomings rather than just what it does. There is room for lots of improvement in Mewtwo.

/steps off his high horse.

Does anyone else smell Mewtwo being reviewed in ZP?

I thought it was made abundently clear that it would be Dragon Age: Origins, a significantly better game too in my opinion.

Though, because it's about 10 hours long(4 campaign, 4 spec ops, 2 getting mp to work before realizing it sucks compared to cod4), he could fit it in his schedule anyway.

 

[Gestapo Hunter]

I felt this game was nothing more then a expensive,cheaply made expansion to CoD4

 

[AndresCL]

Jesus, way to be a game critic.

I'm a massive Infinity Ward/Call of Duty fanboy, and even I had a plethora of issues with the game's story, playability, multiplayer, and price.

Sorry, but this makes me question what motives you had to give this a near-perfect review.

Agree

 

[saejox]

6-12 hours? You are misleading people. I am yet to see someone finished campaign in more than 6 hours. Mine took 5,40 in veteran.

 

[JeanLuc761]

6-12 hours? You are misleading people. I am yet to see someone finished campaign in more than 6 hours. Mine took 5,40 in veteran.

I agree. I finished it in 4 1/2 hours on regular.

 

[Vilhelm123]

6-12 hours? You are misleading people. I am yet to see someone finished campaign in more than 6 hours. Mine took 5,40 in veteran.

I agree. I finished it in 4 1/2 hours on regular.

Thirded. I cannot see how on earth it would take anyone 12 hours to finish this game. I can't say I think this review did much in the way of reviewing rather it seemed to just be gushing about the game. It just didn't feel like a balanced review to me.

 

[Chaos Marine]

Except the multiplayer is pure and utter shite that's riddled with lag.

 

[JeanLuc761]

Except the multiplayer is pure and utter shite that's riddled with lag.

I'm on a mediocre wireless connection and I haven't lagged once.

 

[xscoot]

I dont see why people hate the multiplayer. Its exactly the same but with a big bunch of extras!

I played 5 random games in a row where the entire enemy team were snipers, and my team were cannon fodder.

It was horrible.

 

[sln333]

The game itself allows for brilliant multiplayer. If you get into a match full of enemy campers then it's not the game's fault. It's most likely you got matched up with a bunch of 12 year olds. There's a lot of improvements over CoD 4, the spec-ops missions are fun to do with friends, and the story is good. I also understand what happened in the story as opposed to people who think it's horribly told.

 

[paralost]

the story was fun, but it's true compared to MW1 the strings that combine the American rangers and the British SAS are thin to the point of non existent. in fact the only time i really got the picture the two groups were connected were through a few brief moments Soap or *spoiler warning* Price talked to Shepperd. and yes the game was incredibly awesome but how far does that really go for it being ridiculously short. it ended and i was still waiting for the next level...i sat through the whole damn museum credits just to see if there was at least an epilogue level like the first one... there wasn't. am i pissed that i bought it, hell no! the game was really fun plus there is still the special ops and the multilayer.

 

[paralost]

as far as the multiplayer goes, i am a little bit torn. when i saw that 25 kills gets you a nuke i was like dam I'm going to have a nuke every game cause in MW1 25 kills streak was often for me and my friends (like 1-2 every 3 games or so). boy was i wrong. i can hardly break an 11 killstreak with all my deaths. and i don't know how to feel about that.

one reason is that the maps are so huge. in MW1 maps were fairly small so you knew at one point or another someone will come to you. in MW2 that's no longer a guarantee. i remember trying to snipe and was just sitting in dead silence for 2 minutes waiting for someone to come along.

another reason it's hard to get (and i wont even get into how random the deaths are in this game) kills is because to every building there are at least 4 if not more entrances. whie this is an effective way to stop bastard campers it makes it impossible to find a good snipers spot or just simply get around because you never know who is going to pop around the corner.

but i think my biggest complaint with the multiplayer is the lack of effort (i feel) IW put into making effective respawn points. this is my biggest WTF scream-at-the-top-of-my-lungs moment when playing. respawning feels so random in this game. in MW1 if the enemy was on one side of the map you'd respawn on the other. i can't tell you how many times I've respawnd right in front of an enemy player cause they happened to be there. or I'd respawn right as enemy player was turning around a corner and get killed before i could even make a move. i would think that since MW2 has such big maps that placing me on the other side where it was safer wouldn't be such a big deal, but from what i could tell they always respawn you near the action. which is fine if your on the offensive and winning but sucks if your losing and are just trying to find a new area to try and strike. there are times where I've felt bad for the opposite team because my team will be pushing an area (like a hallway or something) and since some of the enemy are still there their teammates will respawn with them. there have been a few times where enemies have respawned right in the middle of the action and I'm going to kill them, don't get me wrong but i still feel bad for their unlucky respawn.

wow i wrote a lot. does anyone else feel this way or am i just imagining this. i just hope that in a month or two I'll have a better grasp on the maps so that I'll know every nook and cranny and will be able to stay alive longer to get a better killstreak.

 

[gxs]

Why do I have the feeling that the multi-player portion of the game has a gazilion users running around with riot shields.