What are some reasons for COD4 being better than MW2?

[Titan Buttons]

because it is a GOOD game not like the last 3 cods by the way i say 3 because mw3 is going to be bad

How do you know. Have you played it?

it will just more of the same they have not had any new stuff in the games since cod4 and each game has been worse then the last

Bullshit.

They have added just as much to the game as a game like Halo Reach, and no one bitched about that.

Actually a lot of people, including myself did, because Reach was Halo 3 with jetpacks and an interesting backstab move nothing more.

MW2 wasn't terrible but it did not live up to the level CoD4 had set for it as a resault of being so good.

 

[Jimmy T. Malice]

To put it simply, it wasn't another churned-out sequel to cash in on COD's popularity. It was actually a new direction for the franchise, with a genuinely interesting story that made you feel like part of the military machine rather than a series of set-pieces loosely connected together. In Modern Warfare 2, despite being an ordinary soldier you are treated as the 'hero'. For example, "RAMIREZ! Do everything!" Also, the first nuke is infinitely more powerful thanks to the level where you die of radiation sickness.

 

[Dr. Feelgood]

In terms of gameplay, I'd have to say that they were both about the same for me, until the modding ruined MW2. With campaign and graphics, I'd favor MW2.

 

[Nomanslander]

I thought they were both overly hyped garbage, although MW1 was more paper garbage, and MW2 was the type of garbage that accumulates after last night when you decided to clean out the fridge.

 

[Jakub324]

MW2 was better in every way. Yes, MW1 had a coherent story, but so did MW2 and that one had more and better set pieces and white stuff came out of me because of them.

 

[zuro64]

First i think its beacause COD4 was the game that made some aspects of a game awesome and MW2 is just riding along on the same train. So like subconsciously you think MW2 just did what COD4 already done. No new WOW effect there exactly.
Secondly i think that MW2 was a bit to rushed and intense. You run for 5 seconds and then you kill a small army that alerts the next small army that your coming and then u sneak for 5 seconds so you can stealth kill some guys and then it start all over again. Its like that for 7 hours then the game is done. In COD4 you had those moments but they were further apart and felt more... well realistic. I mean in COD4 half a mission was just crawling around try not to be seen, were in MW2 did we have that?
Not that MW2 was a bad game it was good in my eyes but COD4 was a MUCH, MUCH BETTER game unlike Black Ops that were like MW2's loser brother on meth.
On another note i cant exactly say that im "EXCITED" about MW3. Im very, very, VERY sceptical about it i must say.

 

[The-Epicly-Named-Man]

It's not. Plain and simple.

MW2 did everything better.

CoD4 was just new.

Unless you mean multiplayer, where CoD4 was more balanced and had some skill involved and not just UMP's.

Are you serious? The worst part of MW2 was the single player. They either copy-pasted mechanics from the first one or came up with sh*t ones (like that EMP bit). I'm not even gonna get started on the plot. I think anyone who payed attention to it knew what was wrong with it.

 

[warfan987]

[quote/]Look, about the overpowered weapons - you need to stop looking at it like that. All ARs apart from the F2000 are OP? How about the ARs are just fine, but the F2000 is underpowered? Anyhow, the M4A1 is overpowered? Or the ACR (yeah, no recoil, cry more, a terrible player with the ACR is still a terrible player and he wont be any better, its not OP)? Or the Famas? Are you saying a burst fire weapon shouldnt kill in one burst? Dude, I dont mean to get up in your face about it or anything, but youre in the wrong here. This is COD. Guns have always killed in very little hits, from the first COD right to BO (when the hit detection is good, which it never is). If you dont like it, you need to move along and find a different game. Fast kills and deaths is the very core of COD. If its not your thing, thats great, but in that case you need to find a different online shooters because theres millions out there that disagree.

By the way - the AA12 and the Spas are not OP. The AA12 has an extremely short range to make up for its fast rate of fire and if your running headlong into buildings without the skill to take someone out quickly, when you know he could be sitting there with a claymore and an AA12 - your playing the game wrong. If you do, indeed, have 15 days clocked into MW2, I shouldnt have to tell you this. But im by far no MW2 expert and I can count the times I got killed by an AA12 today (5 hours played) on one hand. Fact of the matter is, if you found yourself in a situation where you got killed by an AA12, 9 times outta 10 you would have been dead in Black Ops or any other COD too. Same thing goes for the Spas. Im a bit of a wannabe Sandy Ravage so my favorite thing to do is to bust out that shotgun and go postal. But let me tell you something; when I end up with a score of 30-5 with the Spas only, I could have done it with the F2000, no problems (well, you might need Scavenger due to the high fire rate instead of the Marathon I run on my SPAS classes but you get what im saying). Guns in MW2 arent overpowered - they are just extremely powerful. All of them. And thats the way it should be.

Apart from the UMP, that is, scrub gun number 1, give that thing to a 0.25 KD player and he can beast no problem.

Bad spawns? Kidding right? Yes, it has bad spawns. I wont deny it. If I got a penny for the number of times I died, spawned, ran 2 meters and got shot by the same guy because the game wants to encourage revenge killing I would be considerably richer. But the point I was making is, they arent bad compared to COD4. They are heavenly. COD4 has the worst spawns I have ever seen in any FPS, EVER. Strike anyone(I think it was strike? Or maybe crash? the one with the plane in the middle)? Just sit in one spot with an LMG, aiming at the enemy spawn, and tape down the right mouse button. Watch the kills roll in. Watch guys spawn right in your fire. COD4 is better than MW2, its more balanced and has better spawns? Yeah fucking right.

As for the Famas in Black Ops.... Jesus. Like I said, I mean no offense to you here, and I say this without wanting to insult you or make rash assumptions - but maybe the problem is that you just arent good at the game? The Famas is not overpowered. What do you want, 10 assault rifles that handle in the exact same way, the same hip spread, the same firing rate, the same reload speed, the same magazine size? Why? Of course there is going to be one gun thats generally the most used, but its ALWAYS like that in online shooters. What do you want them to do? Nerf every gun until one day you log on and every rifle has been turned into a pump action water gun? The Famas does not turn a bad player into a good one. If you are getting beaten by a player who uses the Famas you would have got beaten by him if he had any other AR. So, its not OP. Period.

People need to stop blaming there own bad performances on shit like this. Like I said, maybe you arent like that and your just a beast, im not going to judge, this is more of a general statement. You cant seriously want them to patch the game until every gun is an exact replica of the other. And you cant expect them to change the core gameplay, exchange quick killing and low health for something more akin to TF2 just because you dont like it but for some reason still stick to COD.[/quote]

Come to think of it, i was wrong about the assault rifles. They are not OP, the other guns are just underpowered. The only SMG worth using is the ump45 and even that is underpowered. Seriously, why does it shoot slower than the Tar? http://denkirson.xanga.com/715966769/modern-warfare-2/ The only LMG worth using is the RPD and maybe the AUG. The aa12 and the spaz are only OP because they are secondaries. As primary weapons, they would be fine. Since you like to go sandy ravage, I'm guessing you use the spaz as a primary.

10 identical assault rifles? Thats black ops for you. http://denkirson.xanga.com/735016527/black-ops/
Just look at the AR stats. Also, the famas is OP. It takes the same number of bullets to kill as the commando but shoots 33% faster. How is that not OP? Don't forget that the recoil is very predictably(always to the right) and easy to compensate for.

As for me being bad at the game, I'm not. I'm the best between all my friends and hold a 2.2 k/d on blops. Yes, a high k/d doesn't mean that you're a good player, but it gives you a general idea of the player's skill level. I don't want cod to be like tf2, i already have tf2 for that. I just want them to fix their game. I'm not going to buy MW3 until I have proof that the game is close to perfect. I don't play COD anymore. I'd rather spend my time with BC2, Tf2, CS:S, killing floor and such.

Alos, don't use slippery slope arguments. They are very easy to spot. Would you rather have them turn every gun a 1 shot kill at any range and give everyone wallhacks and aimbot? See how easy that is to do?

I'm not defending Cod4 in my post. I've considered buying it before and decided against it simply because its not balanced enough. MW2 is just worse. I should not be able to get a nuke by shooting noobtubes in the sky from spawn.

 

[remnant_phoenix]

Your logic presumes CoD4 > MW2. In my opinion, MW2 > CoD4 if only for the fact that the story wasn't so fucking boring, despite having virtually identical gameplay

CoD4's story...boring?

Hmm, yeah, I guess you're right. All the cohesiveness, pacing, and characterization really gets in the way of the unrealistic, unrelenting, flashy set pieces.

Good thing MW2 threw out all the silly cohesiveness, pacing, and characterization. I mean, who needs those to make a good story? Amirite?

Let's settle down, we don't want to start an internet fight. Let's respect his opinion.

I do respect his opinion. I just vehemently disagree with it. And I'm expressing that vehement disagreement in a sarcastic manner.

I see nothing wrong with this.

 

[Westaway]

1. More balenced multiplayer
2. Less spawn killing
3. Normal powered Kill Streaks
4. It was marinated in awsome sauce for 2 years.

 

[Woodsey]

Modern Warfare was bland, whilst I hear MW2 was made for retards much in the same way Transformers is. They sound about even to me.

 

[Westaway]

[quote="snipquote]
Actually, the ump is the best weapon in the game due to the fact that it is a 2 shot kill with very little recoil, good iron sights, and due to a glitch the silencer does not lower it's damage.

 

[Valkyrie101]

Because it had a better story, and the campaign was far better paced. It had quiet parts, tension and plenty of fast-paced action. MW2 was just hectic firefight --> hectic firefight --> ludicrous Hollywood setpiece --> hectic firefight, with next to no breaks in the action. I'm told that the multiplayer was more balanced, with better maps, as well.

 

[ruben6f]

I liked MW2 more, the campaign was better, the amount of guns is bigger, Spec Ops, has a better feeling of immersion, no useless perks and people say that MW1 is more balanced but the spawn system is even worse (I spawned and I was able to hug my enemies).

And I really really really hate CoD 4.

 

[DigitalAtlas]

It's not. Plain and simple.

MW2 did everything better.

CoD4 was just new.

Unless you mean multiplayer, where CoD4 was more balanced and had some skill involved and not just UMP's.

Are you serious? The worst part of MW2 was the single player. They either copy-pasted mechanics from the first one or came up with sh*t ones (like that EMP bit). I'm not even gonna get started on the plot. I think anyone who payed attention to it knew what was wrong with it.

This is the world of video games. Where two toads can team up with sticks and get to space via jet-bike. Clearly if you're looking for sense making, you're in the wrong genre. Over the top and ridiculous is always welcomed.

MW2's single player was better because it upgraded everything. The action in CoD4? Better in MW2 creating varying objectives in more creative settings and none of them had infinite respawning enemies. Remember all those cool scripted events? All one? Well now we get quite a few more that each only add to the powerful feeling of the narrative (like the first person death as Roach. Jesus Christ that still gives me shivers). Remember that characterization we thought was so great in CoD4? Yeah well they only had a few lines that even mattered. Now in MW2? The characters were put front and center and were always trying to impress.

As Cliffy B would say, it's bigger, better, and more badass.

I personally don't care if it's nonsensical. No Metal Gear Solid game has even used logic. It's all about creating the feeling of believability within the narrative. MW2 succeeded there.

Quit hating.

 

[mrc390]

In games, as in life, it's always important to cum first

 

[Dalek Caan]

The Gilly suit level was a big factor for me. Sneaking around was so awesome. Actually most levels were awesome.

 

[funguy2121]

I recently played through both of them and COD4 is undeniably better than MW2 in almost every aspect. However, aside from the obvious lack of effort they put into the campaign for MW2, I can't really figure out why.

Any insights?

I hope you don't feel picked on for this. Why would you express your love for something that you clearly enjoy, then ask a bunch of strangers on the internet to tell you why you loved it? Is there something I'm not grasping here? Even some of the most brilliant, well-educated critics sometimes describe somewhat intangible reasons why they loved a film or game overall, saying that no particular element seems to stand out but that everything just comes together in a unique way somehow.

If you feel the need to defend your love of, we'll say X, don't. If you think you honestly don't know why you love something, you're probably wrong. Perhaps you're afraid to express those opinions, in which case I'd recommend reading some random Escapist threads as a remedy.