What are some reasons for COD4 being better than MW2?

[Jacco]

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.

I wouldnt go so far as to say I "loved it", however I did enjoy COD4 and didnt so much MW2. If I can get an idea on why one was better than they other, is that not a useful thing to know in looking for future games to play?

 

[llew]

Everyone is complaining about balancing, but MW2 was perfectly balanced. There wasn't any leaning at all.

i'll give you the joke but disagree, mw2 was unbalanced as shite and i could only play hardcore because then all the guns did the same damage except the f2000 which is shit however its used, and killstreaks and deathstreaks were just worthy of being bent over and fucked in the ass by a massive penis

 

[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.

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.

Yeah, I complained about something you like, so I'm a hater now. But saying that games never make sense? That's BS, in most pure form. But I never said MW2 never made sense. In fact I only said that what was wrong with it was clear. No, MW2's story made sense, it was coherent, and wasn't as over-the-top as people often say. But it was predictable. It was full of stereotypes. And worst of all; it was boring. It only served to string (admittedly well orchestrated) set piece to set piece. But my problem is that there wasn't a whole lot that I hadn't seen before. My favorite parts were the airport mission and the very end. But as much as I enjoyed that sequence, it was really just an extended knife-based version of COD4's. And the airport for the same reason you liked it; which was what's-his-evil-face turning on you at the end, the only part of the game I didn't see coming. I'm not gonna mention juxtaposition, if you want that explained go watch ZP's review.
And just to clarify, I'm not looking through nostalgia goggles; I finished MW2 before I finished COD4, which I only ever picked up because I found out 2 years on people still played multiplayer.

 

[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.

Yeah, I complained about something you like, so I'm a hater now. But saying that games never make sense? That's BS, in most pure form. But I never said MW2 never made sense. In fact I only said that what was wrong with it was clear. No, MW2's story made sense, it was coherent, and wasn't as over-the-top as people often say. But it was predictable. It was full of stereotypes. And worst of all; it was boring. It only served to string (admittedly well orchestrated) set piece to set piece. But my problem is that there wasn't a whole lot that I hadn't seen before. My favorite parts were the airport mission and the very end. But as much as I enjoyed that sequence, it was really just an extended knife-based version of COD4's. And the airport for the same reason you liked it; which was what's-his-evil-face turning on you at the end, the only part of the game I didn't see coming. I'm not gonna mention juxtaposition, if you want that explained go watch ZP's review.
And just to clarify, I'm not looking through nostalgia goggles; I finished MW2 before I finished COD4, which I only ever picked up because I found out 2 years on people still played multiplayer.

>Watch Zero Punctuation as something other than a comedy

>Pay attention to Yahtzee

Why don't I just cut out the middle man and play Silent Hill 2 again?

If you found MW2, a game of constant rush and pressure situations, then we've gotten to the point we can no longer argue facts and are at the subjective stage.

The fact is, the game has a lot of creative set pieces and objectives tied together with good action as well as a cohesive narrative and story. If you're biggest complaint is you found it boring, you can't say it was a bad game. It's a game you didn't enjoy.

 

[funguy2121]

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.

I wouldnt go so far as to say I "loved it", however I did enjoy COD4 and didnt so much MW2. If I can get an idea on why one was better than they other, is that not a useful thing to know in looking for future games to play?

Oh, Christ. You played both games. If you can't deduce that for yourself, then I have to ask when the accident happened

 

[LandoCristo]

Honestly, CoD4 stands on my list of top ten video games. MW2 stands on my list of things less lovable then a brain aneurysm. It's just behind terminal colon cancer, yet just ahead of malaria.

CoD4's story was beautiful to play. The really epic parts were counter balanced by slower, more deliberate sections (like the nuke being followed up by the slow, crawling around dying part, yet prefaced by the epic "Get to the choppa" sequence.) MW2's story, to paraphrase Yahtzee a bit, smashes you in the face with a frying pan, and keeps at it, lest you realize how bored you really are.

CoD4's gameplay (in singleplayer) felt incredibly like something that a real modern war would feel like (minus the regenerating health and all that happyness). MW2's combat felt like a freaking shooting gallery nearly half the time (That section in Brazil, where you're running through the slums, and the door keep popping open with dudes shooting SMGs at you made me want to eviscerate the puppy of whoever came up with that idea. It's not skill based, it's "Play this section 15 times before you remember when the door opens".)

CoD4's multiplayer is as balanced as the game ever got. All weapons were viable on any map, the maps were balanced to allow all sorts of playstyles, and the killstreaks, oh God, the killstreaks, were rewards for doing well, like they should be. MW2's Killstreaks were rewards for camping, so once you've got three kills you find a nice little corner, get a fire going, and pitch your tent. And how much fun is it to be behind an AC130 blasting the living F*** out of everything on the ground? Tons of fun. Is it any fun at all to be the one on the ground getting blasted WHILE INSIDE THE ONLY BUILDING ON THE MAP? No, it makes you sour about life, TBH.

That's why.

 

[Terminate421]

For one thing, I shoot and my bullets not only make contact but register, even if I die after, I still hit him.

Another thing, spawns didn't put you in the exact same spot. Over and over and over again.

Lastly, maps allowed you to make your tactics work, in MW2, you were quite limited (Except some hidden place that you had to jump to get to.