It’s amazing! Again, I think they outdid themselves. The first few levels have more tension, sense of epic scale, and suck me in to the story and the experience quicker than ever. In particular the moments that I enjoyed the most were the snow level climbing the ice then infiltrating the base and clearing buildings in the first level. The scripted events are second to none in the CoD franchise and they’re getting better every game. CoD4’s were really well done but they’ve got nothin’ on MW2.
I’m playing through on “Hardened” and Graev is playing on “Veteran” which is the hardest of modes. I enjoy being challenged but not to the point of frustration and he enjoys it as hard as possible and struggling to beat it. He does tell me though that Veteran feels easier than Veteran in CoD4. So far the levels have not been overly difficult, but the first level where you have to man the machine gun on top of the humvee and then clear buildings had its moments of insanity for me. One moment in particular was hard when one of the enemy kept shooting a rocket at me — that’s a 1 shot 1 kill weapon on Hardened and I couldn’t seem to escape it. A lucky spray and pray let me advance.
The hardest part of all though is the lack of leaning. The enemy can lean — heck, the enemy can hold their gun around the corner hiding most of their body and spray blindly but we can’t lean at all. We have to expose ourselves completely to get a shot off. Graev isn’t complaining since in most all console shooters you can’t lean and he’s used to it. I feel like it’s 1998 again though… the innovation of the lean was something I had hoped to keep.
The story is interesting right now. I have really only unlocked the tip of the iceberg, but I’m already excited to see what they do with the PFC you play in the first level… not going to spoil it!
Unlocking titles and things for use in multiplayer is a fun addition. It’s not much it’s a little something extra.
I’ll fill you in on more when I progress further or beat the campaign. For now, it’s back to multiplayer!
November 11th, 2009 at 9:02 pm
This is the only reason I will play the game. I’m a little past my online FPS days and twitch reflexes, but I love myself some CoD4 and MW single-player. Cant wait, but unfortunately Ive just got too much on my plate right now. 3 Betas, 1 Free Trial, 2 Single-Player games and my normal monthly MMO. Too many games, not enough time!
November 11th, 2009 at 10:34 pm
Just beat it, I agree, the most intense, impressive story in a video game I have ever played.
November 12th, 2009 at 7:23 am
I agree with no leaning being so 1998. Leaning arround corners and hiding behind things made things more realistic from my perspective and also more dynamic because you could have intense moments of runing from cover to cover. Noting was more dissapointing for me in Killzone 2 is when I figured out that MP has no leaning/cover system and you are running arround with a broomstick up your arse like you did back in wolfenstein 3D.
If for some reason in todays times they don’t put it into the game because of the MP balancing, it shoud most definitely be present in SP
November 12th, 2009 at 8:27 am
The single player experience so far is awesome. I can’t wait to play the coop part with my son.
The multiplayer so far has been mostly fun. But I feel so disconnected, I enjoyed playing with people in my region. The lack of dedicated servers really is a hinderence. It also promotes more asshatism. Every game I played last night had someone waiving their epeens in chat and smack talking like crazy with name calling, etc… I hate that. If it had been a dedicated server…. they’d of been booted in a second.
November 12th, 2009 at 8:47 am
VAC is totally useless…hackers have taken the predator radar and added it to ground gameplay. Bring back punkbuster and dedicated server bannings.
November 12th, 2009 at 10:11 am
There were hacks literally on day 1 for the PC, and without dedicated servers and admins to police them, IW has given the hackers free reign.
http://www.1up.com/do/newsStory?cId=3176882
Just remember they said the reason for this whole new piece of shit multiplayer was…
“”We’re just prioritizing the player experience above the modders and the tuners,” says West. He points toward the mounting feedback IW has received from PC fans of Modern Warfare who couldn’t find a decent server to play on between all of the cheaters, the insular communities, and huge skill level disparities that the original game’s community fractured into. “We thought maybe it would be cool if the fans could play the game,” he laughs.”
Good to know they kept the cheating under control…
November 12th, 2009 at 2:01 pm
Cheating was rampant on dedicated servers too. It’s rampant in all FPS’ers. Nothing new to see here.
November 12th, 2009 at 2:43 pm
Some true, but not all. But servers with regulars/clans typically had rights to ban/kick you. I’ve seen numerous ppl banned in my time making my mp experience much more satisfying.
November 12th, 2009 at 3:13 pm
Sounds awesome. Seriously considering getting it now.
November 12th, 2009 at 4:25 pm
Matchmaking with no dedicated servers makes it impossible to catch cheaters, that’s considerably different to Steambans and Official Bans, you can cheat as much as you want in MW2 with impunity.
gg.
November 12th, 2009 at 5:53 pm
I bought it on 360 (for the much larger community) and I wish they would have added a lean on console as well, on veteran during certain missions it’s nearly impossible without grenades to kill 4-5 guys who are blind firing with deadly accuracy, with no limbs exposed.
November 12th, 2009 at 11:20 pm
Interesting, the game has come under heavy criticism especially for it’s short and lackluster single player mode; IGN: “For the strictly single player crowd, however, Modern Warfare 2 is surprisingly short, and doesn’t live up to the standard set by previous Call of Duty games.”
The readers have given it an average rating of 1.4, which is among the worst game ratings of all time (I have to think that even AoC got better ratings a few months out of release).
November 12th, 2009 at 11:43 pm
Complete and total crap for anyone to say that about this single player campaign. It’s plenty long and it’s achieved a level where I can consider it a work of art. There’s real talent in creating a campaign that evokes emotion and true feeling like this one.
November 12th, 2009 at 11:52 pm
Well I believe most of the poor reader ratings are due to the rampant hacking and griefing due to lack of dedicated servers.
I guess you and IGN will have to agree to disagree on the single player experience…
November 13th, 2009 at 12:04 am
The main reason I gave up on PC FPS is due to all the rampant cheating that goes on. MW had it, WaW has it and to no suprise…. MW2 has it! Console FPS FTW!
As for the single player mode: I found it entertaining and highly enjoyable even though the story is complete nonsense and no where near as good as MW. The multiplayer is where this game shines and boy does it ever!
November 13th, 2009 at 1:06 am
the story IS nonsense, it’s supposed to be an action movie, hell, they even reference movies in some of the mission names.
November 13th, 2009 at 3:38 am
The single player is what amounts to a Michael Bay movie, and is about as long as one (Ok, I am exaggerating here, but it’s still ridiculously short). I’m kind of surprised you are heaping praise on it. I mean, don’t get me wrong, it’s fun after a fashion, but isn’t as good as CoD4’s.
November 13th, 2009 at 9:21 am
I think it’s just as good and a little bit better. The story is definitely all over the place, but I’ve felt that way about all the Call of Duty franchise because they throw you back and forth into roles and only briefly mention a name or a placed or a reason that, if missed, makes you not understand a thing.
However, if you do in fact get what’s going on and you think about what you’re doing in a particular reason and the whys behind it, then attach a feeling of “what if this were happening” then it’s really something awe-inspiring.
**Spoilers**
For example, when the Russians are invading the United States and they’re flying planes over and you see the Russian paratroopers and the suburbia under assault — I have actually thought about “can this happen? if it did, what would it be like?” and this particular mission gave me a glimpse at that. Seeing our Flag flying on the houses made me push on and snipe the snot out of those Russians. I’m extremely patriotic though.
On the level where you have to run on the roof tops, my heart was racing. I thought I was going to get left behind in that South American hell for another mission so I ran as hard as I could.
The game engages me in a very unique way that I can say with confidence only happens in the CoD franchise.
November 13th, 2009 at 9:45 am
I’ve read/heard some pretty negative things about the single player aspect as well. General consensus from what i’ve seen seems to be definitely not as good as COD4, plus shorter. combine with the lacking multi-player aspects already much discussed and…..how do they get away with charing so much more for this game again??
November 13th, 2009 at 9:54 am
It’s as short (or shorter) than the first game, it tries so retardedly hard to SHOCK YOU CONSTANTLY RARHGHRHHTHGH that it gets taxing and boring to endure it every half an hour.
And it’s rediculously unbelievable compared to the first one, Tom Clancy much?
A sequel should ideally be longer and cleverer, this was the same length, if not shorter, and just put more “shock moments” in it to make up for that fact.
It might work for the masses, but for those of us who wanted a story as or more engaging as the original, we were severely let down.
It doesn’t help that a 4hr campaign for a game that is MORE than full price is a harder and harder sell as the years go by.
November 13th, 2009 at 1:06 pm
I find this time line rather fascinating. When at first they don’t succeed, boy do they keep trying.
“We love CoD! Can’t wait for MW2!”
“We hate CoD! Boycott! Boycott! IW/Activision are the devil and this game will fail! Doomed, Doomed, doomed! They’ve destroyed the game and it’s going to suck!”
4.7 million copies sell, people love it.
“The campaign is too short!”
“Ridiculously bad story!”
“It lags!”
I found the story to be very engaging and not hard to follow. But as a few of us were discussing earlier, it doesn’t spoon feed it to you — admittedly it does require a bit of intelligence to follow.
Graev beat it in about 6 hours on veteran mode. I’m on my 3rd hour and I’m just over half done.
Keep hating though.
November 13th, 2009 at 1:22 pm
It’s a good game, a decent iteration, the minor advances it makes in terms of gameplay & multiplayer gameplay make up for the downfall of a weaker storyline and the short campaign.
It’s simply a “could have been much more” situation, I’m not unhappy I bought it, I just think it signifies the sadness of the fact that they’re going to milk the shit out of this game until people stop buying it, by producing the same game with more perks and more explosions than it’s predecessor.
They have cart blanche to sell the same game every 2 years for as much as they want, because people will buy it.
November 13th, 2009 at 1:26 pm
@Keen- that was really kind of an odd post. Are people not alound to dislike the game, or even parts of the game, without the veiled intelligence rips from you? Or not so veiled i guess…
i haven’t even played the game yet. Just stating what i’ve heard on a few podcast and read in a few blogs. Hopefully when i do play i’ll be smart enough to keep up with the highly intellectual story.
November 13th, 2009 at 2:13 pm
I beat the single player in bout 5 hours. I enjoyed every moment of it, even dying over and over while trying to storm some of the points.
To whine about this game not being long enough is to insult a movie for not being as detailed as the original novel.
If you want a game that never ends, go play Myst.
As far as the folks that comment about the story being unbelievable, I realize when I buy any video game that its not real. I guess Super Mario Brothers could have been a biography, but it seems kinda suspect that a couple of fat italian plumbers could jump 8 times their height.
All in all, I loved this game. There’s just something about seeing the blood drip off an enemy that you dropped with a bullet to the face in high definition.
November 13th, 2009 at 2:54 pm
@Jordan: Why proliferate second hand information? Seriously, that’s like saying you hear chocolate is nasty but you’ve never tasted it.
I don’t want to come across too harsh, and don’t take this the wrong way, but see it from my point of view. Why would anyone, even if they’ve tasted chocolate and like it or dislike it, think that you’re able to contribute anything to a discussion about chocolate?
As for the story, if you’re unable to “get” the story or in some cases think it makes no sense then that raises the question if you listed/read what they gave you. It’s the same as ALL Call of Duty single players. They’ve changed nothing in how they tell a story here. Try it before you take offense to me saying those who don’t get it are lacking something.
@Knqui: For a FPS single player, one in a game where the multiplayer is essentially 90% of the game for me (if not more), I feel that it’s just right. However, that’s a matter of personal opinion and we can’t really argue or tell someone they’re wrong. I too wish they were slightly more original with the perks, but we bought a “2″ — it’s an extension of the original and in doing so I can accept that there will be some bleed over.
November 14th, 2009 at 4:34 am
I think you’d be surprised how high the percentage of people who buy games like this that don’t play online.
But even were that not true, it still doesn’t excuse the fact that they are asking you to pay more money for less content.
A lot of people are happy with that, as the sales show, but we’ll see if you feel the same when MW6 is coming out for $100 with a 4hr campaign and a few extra perks.
I don’t really want to get into the argument about dedicated versus matchmaking, it’s a moot point for you but anybody who played CoD4 seriously or competitively is suffering for the sake of pure, unadulterated greed. Greed that is facilitated by ignorance or arrogance on the matter.
November 14th, 2009 at 9:05 am
I bought the game, but not for multiplayer. I’ve not played it on multi yet, maybe I will, but it wont be much.
)
Its not because of the lack of dedicated servers, which is bad, but we all agree on that. I just dont like FPS multi that much.
I mainly play it for the story and the fun fights, but I think the story in the first was better. Maybe its a matter of taste, but I did find it a bit hard to get at times (I must be stupid huh Keen?
It is short, saying anything else is wrong. But so was the first one, so ppl cant be surprised. I bought the game, but kinda regret it. Since multiplayer means nothing to me, I payed 10$ more for a game thats not longer than the first. Or better for me.
November 14th, 2009 at 9:21 am
Short compared to Oblivion, sure. However, look at it compared to other First Person Shooter single player games. They all average 5-10 hours.
November 14th, 2009 at 10:22 am
Well if normal FPS games are from 5-10 hours, then we both agree that 5 is in the low end of your scale
November 14th, 2009 at 10:51 am
It’s an average, so there are games below and games above in length, and 5-10 is a very wide margin; in fact it’s too wide, but I’ll stick with it. We’re talking about FPS games. Tell me you’ve played others. We can’t compare apples to oranges. We can’t compare Borderlands to MW2 or Oblivion to MW2 or Mass Effect to MW2. When looked at fairly, MW2’s campaign is what it is — it’s a FPS single player and it’s going to be ~5-10 hours in length.
Halo ODST is 2.5 hours long.
Killzone 2 is 5-7 Hours (More for 100% “collection”)
Halo 3 is 6 hours
CoD 4 is 4 hours
CoD WaW is 5 hours
I could go on. My point being, this is an average game length since I’m now 4.5 hours in and not finished. People are bitching too much. This is how FPS games have been for many, many years.
November 14th, 2009 at 11:17 am
Far cry 2 30 hours
Crysis 12-15 hours
Bioshock 18-20 hours
F.E.A.R 8-10 Hours
And come on. You make a list where two out of five is the game we are talking about, and the game before that. How does that prove that games in general are short?!
So you there’s only one other game, that Halo thing, thats shorter than COD. So it is short.
But regardless you still pay 10$ more for a short game.
November 14th, 2009 at 12:04 pm
You’ve just crossed over into oranges Lost. We’re talking about Apples.
Far Cry is an open world where you can ally with factions and do all sorts of side stuff.
Bioshock is a FPS RPG.
FEAR is acceptable.
Crysis is open more open-ended.
Go play more open-ended worlds and RPG’s if these are your cup of tea, but then don’t complain about the model Call of Duty uses when it’s too short.
November 14th, 2009 at 12:13 pm
Bioshock is s FPS RPG? The RPG elements in that game is very small compared to the FPS elements.
Crysis is a FPS game? Whats wrong?
November 14th, 2009 at 12:14 pm
And you have not replied why I have to by 10 bucks more?
November 14th, 2009 at 12:28 pm
Yes, Bioshock adds RPG elements which extend the gameplay a significant amount. We have to classify the games that are similar if we’re going to compare them.
I’ve been paying $60 for games for the past 5 years. Anyone following the industry close enough will know that it was only a matter of time before PC games started charging what Consoles have been able to charge (And grossly outsell) for years.
And let me clarify, I do not tag that $10 on to the single player. I tag it on to the entire game. Trying to say “$10 more for a short game” is skewing the facts to strengthen your argument. This game will give me hundreds of hours of play.
November 14th, 2009 at 12:41 pm
Have you played Bioshock? The RPG elements did not extend by more than 1 hour at the most.
November 14th, 2009 at 12:49 pm
They altered how the game was played enough to say that it is not the same type of game, regardless of how long they extended the game.
November 14th, 2009 at 3:54 pm
You have to pay $10 more because they know they have a tremendously successful game on their hands that will sell regardless.
Why do I have to pay almost $3.00 for gas here in NC? I remember when it was closer to $1.00?
Oh yeah. That inflation thing.
Confusing right Lost?
November 14th, 2009 at 4:28 pm
Bartlebe oh exept all other games dont cost 10$ more
Confusing aye Bart?
November 14th, 2009 at 5:44 pm
3/4 of the ones you listed have a $60 price point, Lost.
November 14th, 2009 at 5:58 pm
Inflation? You’re out of your mind.
November 14th, 2009 at 6:08 pm
Ok. Are you guys seriously confused as to why they raised the price? Companies raising the prices of goods and services they provide in order to make money, is new to all of you?
They raised the price because they know people will pay it. There are always people that complain when the prices are raised on their favorite product. It was a economic move driven by the desire to make money. It has proved to be a wildly successful move and one that is sure to be duplicated by other companies in the future.
Lost, actually a LOT of other games cost $60. Just because your wallet is hurt be the price tag doesn’t mean everyone’s is. I recognized the price was raised just like everyone else and lamented. The difference between us is that I ponied up the money for it and accepted it.
This is the way the free market works.
Sometimes you really just have to lay it out for people.
November 14th, 2009 at 7:37 pm
Mental note, in the future don’t mention viewpoints that contadict Keen…
November 14th, 2009 at 8:06 pm
@ Bartlebe
“Lost, actually a LOT of other games cost $60. Just because your wallet is hurt be the price tag doesn’t mean everyone’s is.”
This may be true for consoled but not for pc games where the average price of a new game is still around $50. In the end if you buy the PC version of MW 2 you get significantly less in the MP part of the game and a smaller campaign than in CoD4 yet it costs $10 more dollars.
Go look at gamestop’s website and see how many of their pc games are 60 dollars or more, there are only 3 and all the others are collectors editions.
November 14th, 2009 at 9:35 pm
Good point Abaddon.
I do think that this is the first game of many that will show an increase in price. Now that they know it can be done.
November 14th, 2009 at 10:19 pm
*shrug*
I watched my roommate blow through the single-player campaign in under five hours. It took him less time than ODST, Gears of War 2, World at War, or Modern Warfare 1. And five hours is =way= shorter than, say, CoD, CoD: United Offensive, or CoD 2 (none of which switched you between characters anywhere near as often, either).
Furthermore, the single player campaign was incoherent nonsense. No deep plant American agent would have gone along with the airport mission. The chase through the favela of Rio de Janeiro did nothing to further the plot. I could go on and on, but why?
I’m glad people enjoy the game for what it is, which is a multiplayer FPS with a short, adrenaline-filled, essentially plot-free “action movie” single player experience tacked on. As for me, I’m glad I saved my money: I’ll be using it to buy Dragon Age: Origins ;^)
November 14th, 2009 at 11:27 pm
DAO is a great multithreaded story based game as can be expected from BioWare; nothing like selling out NPC’s to demons for personal gain, and sleeping with your party members, of both sexes, to increase their favor, ha!
November 15th, 2009 at 1:29 am
Jerry I did just buy Dragon Age, and its lots of fun!
If you liked Neverwinters Night you’ll like this as well. It feel pretty similar
November 15th, 2009 at 8:18 am
@Jerry- you’re just not smart enough to get the story man. Also, since you haven’t played the game you shouldn’t be talking about it. (Keen’s internet rule #1)
November 15th, 2009 at 10:41 am
@Jordan
Oh, I understood the story. That’s why I think it was incoherent nonsense. It’s basically the sort of ridiculous conspiracy theory that liberals think conservatives believe ;^)
And, frankly, I think watching someone else play it for five hours is no different from playing it yourself, especially when talking about the plot. If I were commenting on the gameplay, you would be correct. But I’m not commenting on the gameplay, am I?
I’m sure the gameplay is fine. My roommate is certainly enjoying it, spending at six hours every evening glued to his sofa in front of the TV. So, for him, it’s money well-spent. Me, I don’t really enjoy multiplayer FPS; I buy games for the single-player campaigns. And, from that perspective, if I’d spent $60 on this game, I’d have been very, very unhappy. Fortunately, I’m aware of the current industry trend toward shorter single-player campaigns, so I didn’t waste my money ;^)