Yankees can get their Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 2 copy since today while EU’s have to wait until tomorrow, 12th November. I think I’ll use this time to learn more about this game.
Ok, where’s shall we start?
Reviews
The ratings look pretty unrealistic, or is this game really that great? The range is 90/100 to 100/100. The average rating is 96/100 in metacritic. Can this really be true? Does this mean this game is nearly perfect or were the reviewers just some fanboys?
MW1.5?
Regarding to opinions of many players, MS2 is nothing but MW1 with few more features and improved graphics.
I personally loved the first one, played it on my PS3, though. Singleplayer was really well done. Multiplayer however was epic! I could really hook in front the screen and pay round after round. Never played in on my computer, though.
Would it be more wise to stick with the first part?
No dedicated server
Infinity Ward has decided to not implement the dedicated server feature for this game. Instead they’re using IWNet, a match-making service that will place you against players close to your rank.
So it’s bad?
Of course it is.
- No massive battles, since the max. players count on a server is 18.
- Possible lag
- Little “playground” for clans, since there are no 24/7 dedicated server.
Special Ops co-op
Co-op is one of the new features in MW2. It only support up to 2 players, though. It’s not a co-op through the single player story, but unique missions.
There are time and objective based missions. Higher ranked players can unlock new, more difficult missions.
In my opinion, this part sounds interesting. It’s fun to do some challenging missions with a friend.
I think I’ll get it anyway
By writing this post, I recalled how much fun I had in MW1. I’ll especially be looking forward to the multiplayer part.
I’ll sleep over this and see tomorrow. :p
/discuss
11. November 2009 at 8:57 pm
I only care about the story, and that what i’m getting it for, to play the story mode, never cared much for the multilayer.
To many hyper active kids playing with godly aim, all hooked up on sugar.. sitting there 24\7 ranking up.
11. November 2009 at 9:31 pm
I have it on pre-order (got a good deal) and it should arrive early next week, but I’m not expecting much.
Most reviews right now are of the overhyped and bought kind. Ratings at impossible heights (94-100 average) with reviews that either read like a 60-70 worthy title, or completely ignore the multiplayer shortcomings (on PC) and rampant singleplayer criticism amongst fans and players.
I’ve followed a few player comments on the game and the gist of multiplayer on PC seems to be this: excessively laggy due to a lack of dedicated servers. No server browser to properly choose your game, nor a console, nor the ability to kick cheaters or lamers from servers. Add to that a player cap of 18 and no competitive community (no dedicated servers, no console, no mods) and it’s easily the worst multiplayer shooter to grace the PC platform… ever. Heck, Unreal Tournament 3 looks feature-complete in comparison.
Singleplayer looks to be about as lengthy as Modern Warfare. Which means you pay $60 (the official price for the PC game) for 5 hours of mediocre-at-best storytelling. Worse, the campaign is told to be even more disjointed than the original and even entirely illogical in execution and preposterous in setting. I hope that’s wrong, I can’t cancel my order now.
Either way, it seems likely that I’ll be spending more time with Serious Sam HD and Left 4 Dead 2 than Modern Warfare 2 this month. If I ever drag myself away from Dragon Age…
12. November 2009 at 3:34 am
Get.
Get.
Get.
A thousand times, get.
All the hype is true. It REALLY is that good. Granted, I have it for 360 and the PC “issues” do suck pretty hard.
Still, GET.
12. November 2009 at 4:41 am
Pretty much agreed with what everyone has said. Definitely not worth $60. Kind of lame actually that they slapped on an extra $10 to the game, just because it’s *Call of Duty*. Sure, COD4 was a fantastic game. But come on, $60? Really? For a little bit of single player, with not much replay value besides playing it on a different rank. In my opinion, they could have possibly had some DLC for COD4 at a small price instead.
22. November 2009 at 10:00 pm
Okay, so I just finished playing through the singleplayer campaign (on Veteran ofcourse). It definitely doesn’t make a whole lot of sense and it’s way out there. Heck, even the (flimsy) scenario in H.A.W.X. is practically hyper-realistic in comparison.
But the missions are loads better than those in MW1. A lot of different and spectacular scenarios and not nearly as many terrible infinite spawns. The levels seem a bit more open and the graphical quality is markedly better than in MW1. This is due to textures that aren’t total suck, but only marginal suck. Essentially, anyone complaining about textures in Dragon Age will still do the same here, but it’s not atrocious like it was in MW1.
Definitely not worth it for $60, but if you’re in it for an actionpacked thrillride then you might want to get it when it’s on sale for $30 or something. Still only took me 6 hours to get through it (on Veteran) with a fair amount of reloads… so not exactly great bang for your buck. Definitely not worth it over a genuine GOTY contestant like Dragon Age, or even a good co-op game like Borderlands or Left 4 Dead 2.