Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 2

[LoweGear]

Announcement

A couple of days late in sharing, and not much info asides from a holiday 2009 release, but more Modern Warfare as opposed to WWII is always good

[TrueKnight]

*looks at title*

*Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 2*

*clicks link*

*Infinity Ward*

*mind is blown out of awesomeness*

[Chase]

Originally Posted by TrueKnight

*looks at title*

*Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 2*

*clicks link*

*Infinity Ward*

*mind is blown out of awesomeness*

Same way

[Papaya]

srsly

Although I wish they would make a "future warfare" title sometime. That would be awesome.

[Nosauz]

hey I'm excited, but i hope this time the multiplayer has more rewards, I got all but 2 achievements and in the end there was very little reward to obtaining all the achievements. IMo its sooo much better than waw, also the last mission is awesome, best epilogue ever, I remember spending hours on that level trying to max my score, perfecting my path through the air plane.

[Kaioshin Sama]

But is it going to be deep and hard?

[Bonta Kun]

I was sure I was told about this a while back, that IW were making the next CoD: MW. Was very welcome news indeed

one thing I want to know is will we be able to roll around in Abrams or Challenger 2s?

I'm actually still enjoying my pyro fun on W@W, its the saving grace of the game and just too much fun!

[Socko]

God, I hate this series now. How many times are they gonna milk this shit? It's like the new Madden of shooters.

[LoweGear]

What's so bad about having more of the CoD that most of us like? It's not like the developers are making a rush job out of the franchise (with the alternation between developers ensuring at least two years of development), and the CoD games have been spectacular so far.

[plmko]

Originally Posted by LoweGear

What's so bad about having more of the CoD that most of us like? It's not like the developers are making a rush job out of the franchise (with the alternation between developers ensuring at least two years of development), and the CoD games have been spectacular so far.

Because CoD games are actually sub-standard, they have just bearable graphics, story, innovation in gameplay etc.
They also hurt alot of developers who try to make new ideas in games because whilst CoD continues with its uninspiring games whilst selling 6million, more innovative developers get stuck with only 500,000 to 1mil sales.

[TrueKnight]

Originally Posted by plmko

Because CoD games are actually sub-standard, they have just bearable graphics, story, innovation in gameplay etc.
They also hurt alot of developers who try to make new ideas in games because whilst CoD continues with its uninspiring games whilst selling 6million, more innovative developers get stuck with only 500,000 to 1mil sales.

I'm sorry but are you saying that CoD 4 isn't revolutionary in its own? Granted CoD WaW is basically an expansion pack of CoD 4, but CoD 4 received acclaimed awards and prestiges from reviews and rival developers. It's not really a surprise when CoD 4 won numerous awards for it's cinematic story, gameplay superb stunning graphic even on today's standard, almost by 95% in the FPS genre and overall.

Tell me which are these innovative developers who got stuck only 500,000 to 1 million sales? in the FPS category that is. Much of these innovative developers already received a large amount of media exposure but the sales just seems stalled because the consumers already seen that in CoD 4.

[Bonta Kun]

Originally Posted by plmko

Because CoD games are actually sub-standard, they have just bearable graphics, story, innovation in gameplay etc.
They also hurt alot of developers who try to make new ideas in games because whilst CoD continues with its uninspiring games whilst selling 6million, more innovative developers get stuck with only 500,000 to 1mil sales.

hmm we must have been playing differnet CoD 4 games cause mine just totally rocked!

I still place CoD 4 better than games coming out today, and even some of the big hitters today still lack that spark CoD 4 has.
CoD 4 is the only FPS I've loved since CSS, which I even still play today.

IW did an absolutely brilliant job on CoD 4 and I expect they will do so with this one too.

new Innovative gameplay I think isn't always a great thing, if it all doesn't fit together then its just pointless.

Stalker anyone?

[Claies]

Originally Posted by plmko

Because CoD games are actually sub-standard, they have just bearable graphics, story, innovation in gameplay etc.
They also hurt alot of developers who try to make new ideas in games because whilst CoD continues with its uninspiring games whilst selling 6million, more innovative developers get stuck with only 500,000 to 1mil sales.

I know what you're talking about. You were playing CoD3, CoD5, and some of the crappy offshoots of CoD2 (like Big Red One), created by Treyarch. In case you don't know, the series is developed by two companies, Infinity Ward and Treyarch, in a sort of leapfrog schedule, and everything is published by Activision.

It's been very, very clear that Treyarch is inferior, because they made the three games I listed above, and I truly hate Big Red One and wish I didn't buy it. Infinity Ward made CoD1, CoD2 and CoD4, which introduced really nice gameplay and pretty good graphics. Treyarch's pretty much reduced to building upon what Infinity Ward made in CoD5, even using the same engine.

Do try playing CoD2 and CoD4 (and later, 6) instead and make your impressions with those. People are indeed wrong in saying that the CoD series is uniformly good, because it's not. I pretty much ignored CoD5, and I really shook my head when I saw the interviews for CoD3.

[Avisch]

I actually understand what plmko is saying (not that anyone else doesn't).

I'll admit the CoD series has been fun (haven't played 3 or 5 though). But honestly there is nothing very special about the game. You can't play it differently, don't get confused, other games allow to use different vehicles (you can mention Halo here, but I am not a Halo fanboy) or you can use different attack strategies (Rainbow Six Vegas). CoD only allows one route and one option to move through the level, sometimes to an annoying extent.

This part is just what I don't like personally. What bugs me the most is the lack of physics, after you completely demolish areas with storms of bullets and 2-3 grenades......you don't find a scratch on the room other than broken windows.

So maybe what I'm hoping is that I hope they will change the game engine just a bit.

Ok fine. Kudos for allowing bullet penetration.

It's been very, very clear that Treyarch is inferior, because they made the three games I listed above, and I truly hate Big Red One and wish I didn't buy it. Infinity Ward made CoD1, CoD2 and CoD4, which introduced really nice gameplay and pretty good graphics. Treyarch's pretty much reduced to building upon what Infinity Ward made in CoD5, even using the same engine.

Do try playing CoD2 and CoD4 (and later, 6) instead and make your impressions with those. People are indeed wrong in saying that the CoD series is uniformly good, because it's not. I pretty much ignored CoD5, and I really shook my head when I saw the interviews for CoD3.

Yeah they really need to stop making those spin-offs. It's irritating

[Claies]

Originally Posted by Avisch

I actually understand what plmko is saying (not that anyone else doesn't).

I'll admit the CoD series has been fun (haven't played 3 or 5 though). But honestly there is nothing very special about the game. You can't play it differently, don't get confused, other games allow to use different vehicles (you can mention Halo here, but I am not a Halo fanboy) or you can use different attack strategies (Rainbow Six Vegas). CoD only allows one route and one option to move through the level, sometimes to an annoying extent.

This part is just what I don't like personally. What bugs me the most is the lack of physics, after you completely demolish areas with storms of bullets and 2-3 grenades......you don't find a scratch on the room other than broken windows.

So maybe what I'm hoping is that I hope they will change the game engine just a bit.

Ok fine. Kudos for allowing bullet penetration.

I think they built CoD for cinematic quality in mind, so think of it like you're watching a movie (or at least the parts where the Army flexes their muscles). They are not totally realistic (only Hollywood-realistic), nor will they ever give you a sandbox, because that doesn't happen in cinema.

As for vehicles... players are supposed to play as soldiers fighting with a squad or even an army. I'm not sure if they should be allowed to perform individual heroics like getting in a vehicle and running people over. Personally, I really don't want vehicles because they often get so powerful that anyone not fortunate enough to be in a vehicle is slated to die within seconds, unless they're (good) snipers. CoD has been good in leveling the field with only infantry around in tight spaces. Besides, there aren't nearly as many vehicles in a real battle as those games would make one believe.

[Avisch]

Hmm. That is true. It is very apparent that the game is designed for a cinematic approach.

The bit on vehicles though doesn't detract from my point, I wish the game had a way to make itself more replayable. Vehicles or not. Though I do not doubt that some people love replaying the games no matter.

However if this new game manages to take the awesome nature of the Chernobyl mission and put it throughout an entire....perhaps I will enjoy it, that mission was nice and atmospheric.

[Claies]

Originally Posted by Avisch

Hmm. That is true. It is very apparent that the game is designed for a cinematic approach.

The bit on vehicles though doesn't detract from my point, I wish the game had a way to make itself more replayable. Vehicles or not. Though I do not doubt that some people love replaying the games no matter.

However if this new game manages to take the awesome nature of the Chernobyl mission and put it throughout an entire....perhaps I will enjoy it, that mission was nice and atmospheric.

I've thought about that too. It'd make it like a Stalker multiplayer game, where you spend literally an hour walking around looking for your enemy.

The trouble is that the Chernobyl mission was lots of fun because it's you and your teammate versus many (who are apparently all idiots who don't even as much glance at the ground they walk over). It's rather hard to make players agree to be part of the many for several rounds before they get a turn to be the two (or four, but they have to be badly outnumbered). And only a couple players will get credit for shooting the two to boot. Co-op's no go either, because only one person gets to handle the M82.

I wished the cargo ship MP map was better-detailed. Fighting back and forth across the top deck gets boring quick, and I found the below-deck part in the campaign a lot more fun.

[plmko]

Originally Posted by TrueKnight

I'm sorry but are you saying that CoD 4 isn't revolutionary in its own? Granted CoD WaW is basically an expansion pack of CoD 4, but CoD 4 received acclaimed awards and prestiges from reviews and rival developers. It's not really a surprise when CoD 4 won numerous awards for it's cinematic story, gameplay superb stunning graphic even on today's standard, almost by 95% in the FPS genre and overall.
.

Ok, so does it take the media to give an award to a game to validate its brilliance? When was the last time we took the golden globes or the grammys seriously?

Also I'm pretty sure CoD just won those awards cause it was the only FPS to tackly (quite weakly actually) the current controversial events unfolding in our world (Iraq war etc) so probably the media just felt moved by the the games subject.

[TrueKnight]

Originally Posted by plmko

Ok, so does it take the media to give an award to a game to validate its brilliance? When was the last time we took the golden globes or the grammys seriously?

It offers global exposure to the audience accross the world. The more people who's going to play the game, the better, it would generate profit to the developers and publishers alike. But in order for people across the world to play the game they will need some information regarding the game itself. So yes, the judgment and exposure capability from the media matters because they're the ones who offer worlwide information about regarding CoD 4, people (casual gamers) wouldn't want to invest on some crappy product don't they?

Originally Posted by plmko

Also I'm pretty sure CoD just won those awards cause it was the only FPS to tackly (quite weakly actually) the current controversial events unfolding in our world (Iraq war etc) so probably the media just felt moved by the the games subject.

No it's not. as I said before, CoD 4 won because it offers fluid gameplay, epic cinematic and stunning graphic even on today's standard. Infinity Ward did their homework properly by involving all elements in developing the game. They have extensive communication with the real weapon developers, and war veterans alike. Combined with a solid team who's success derived from previous CoD games, good musical scores, and good marketing strategy from Activision, it basically won all the awards mentioned.

[Keroko]

Originally Posted by plmko

They also hurt alot of developers who try to make new ideas in games because whilst CoD continues with its uninspiring games whilst selling 6million, more innovative developers get stuck with only 500,000 to 1mil sales.

I'm quite curious as to this part. Which are those games that were more innovative, yet sold less then CoD that you're talking about? It would help if we can compare the games.