Digital Polyphony

film, games, memories & random thoughts


Modern Warfare 2: I like killin stuff

Posted on November 19, 2009 at 2:29 PM

In today's Variety, there's a large two-page advert showcasing the new game, Modern Warfare 2.


"550 Million the first five days"

"The largest international launch of all time"


That's really the only text, other than the title, on the two pages. I couldn't help but wonder why the add in variety? I guess they're hoping some studio head will read it and buy the rights, of course you just made half a billion dollars, what the hell do you need a movie for?

What isn't really noted is the rather mixed reviews the game has been receiving. Now I say "mixed" in that most will say it's a great game, but not something that's utterly spectacular or significant. Simply put, if you've played the first, you've already played this game. I would go one step further and say if you've played the first, you'll get some enjoyment out of the game but wish you were playing the first while doing so.

The game doesn't have "problems" necessarily as much as it feels so underwhelming - if not feels like a slight regression from the original. The levels are not only smaller, and not as wonderfully designed, but they are far shorter than those in the first game and there's no level that even remotely touches the Sniper flashback level from the original Modern Warfare. In fact, there also no game sequence event that touches the major plot events in the original game either. In other words, the game is pretty much forgettable from beginning to end despite the awesomeness of Keith David.

That's not to say Modern Warfare 2 is a bad game and surely not to say you will not get enjoyment out of it. It's anything but "bad." The controls are tight, story paced well, level variety solid and presentation top-notch. There is just a lack of awe-inspiring sequences that made the original so fantastic and surely nothing that really pushes anything forward. Gears of War 2 also had this problem. Again, not a bad game by any stretch but also not something that's going to utterly wow you when its over.

I would recommend the game, there's no doubt there. It's online matches are the best out there and the game, although short, still has the fun-factor to it that the Call of Duty series has always been known for. However, with so many alternatives to this, which is basically more of the same, I would say pick it up only if you really are a fan of the first and really want some new maps to kill people online with.


Signing Off


Categories: None

Post a Comment


Oops, you forgot something.


The words you entered did not match the given text. Please try again.

Already a member? Sign In


Reply Reaper
4:45 PM on November 19, 2009 
Captain Price shall never die!

Honestly, though I haven't played the campaign myself(have played multiplayer and watched a friend do the last few missions of campaign), I agree completely. I didn't feel it really progressed from the original. It wasn't bad, but we saw it all before in it's predecessor.

Though, I must add that there are some humourous lines and scenes in the campaign. Such as one level that you have to rescue a VIP from a panic room in a mansion(or something like that) As soon as they open the door you hear something along the lines of "Doesn't look like there are any signs of forced entry"... The thing is, if you take a second to think about that, that mansion had pretty much been blown in half because of a plane that was crashed into it, how is that not forced entry? Though little things like that just add to the fun of it all, at least I think so.

All in all though, it was fun... Also, I love the riot shield, it's awesome.
Reply J. Conrady
6:03 PM on November 19, 2009 
ha, didn't notice that. I haven't played online, actually, only watched that part (extensively) being played and did some local playing myself. The campaign just left a lot to be desired, but I also think many will be buying for solely the onilne factor, not the kind of shows where Infinity Ward's biggest focus was.
Reply Reaper
9:50 AM on November 20, 2009 
I think a lot of FPS games are the same way really. what with playing online being so popular now, games like Halo and CoD that allow many players at a time(I think it's up to 10 players a match in Halo 3), to play competitively, excel in multiplayer. Which, of course, makes the focus on the multiplayer aspect seem like a good idea. Of course, it's a shame that the campaign took a bit of a backseat, but at least it wasn't a completely half-baked attempt at one(well, that's my opinion based on what I saw anyway. I only saw the last few missions). It could've been much, much worse.

If it wasn't being judged against it's predecessor, then it'd be better, as the only real problem was that it didn't really make any progress from it, at least not in campaign anyway. I felt the option to add attatchments such as sights, grips and extended mags is a nice addition to multiplayer, I like being able to customise my weaponry to suit how I want to play.