Modern Warfare Deux

B-.

Games only get B+ if they introduce anything new, which this game doesn't.

Had a go over at my friends house last night.
I'm not going to buy this game. It's an updated CoD4. Worth 1200MS points, but not a standalone.
 
madster111 said:
B-.

Games only get B+ if they introduce anything new, which this game doesn't.

Had a go over at my friends house last night.
I'm not going to buy this game. It's an updated CoD4. Worth 1200MS points, but not a standalone.

Exactly.
 
Alright yes, the campaign is short. But it was also a very fun experience with alot of surprises. I'm sure I will get another years worth of online play, and name a game that has better online multiplayer than CoD, I know I can't.
 
I like MW2 online more than Uncharted because of the faster pace and less juggernaut feel. This is where we are at odds, we simply have different tastes in gaming.
 
i like uc2's multiplayer more. it's nice to respawn and not die right away. although i feel melee attacks are pointless and the hammer respawn camping is terrible.
 
MW2 still carries the addictive online play of the first one, but it also carries on the flaws. The problems with respawns, character animations, obvious choice of weapons and little reason to use anything besides the stopping power perk most of the time are very much copy-pasta'd from the first.

But that doesn't mean the game can't be fun. The ease of play and smooth, quick controls set it up as one of the best FPSs available. The new perks and equipment unlocking system surpass anything I've seen before. If only they could combine the options they give you with the sheer customization from Rainbow Six Vegas 2, then this game would definitely have shined a whole lot more.

Also, they could have learned something from U2 about playing in 3rd person, because in the few modes on MW2 where you can play in 3rd person the viewpoint is terrible and, for some reason, they decided that you should become horribly inaccurate.
 
There is no such thing as a game that's too short. Complaining about length is nitpicking. Ever heard of renting? Besides, I found every level ofthe campaign to be awesome, and it sure left me satisfied.

The multiplayer is updated, but not inovative. However, considering how much I've played and am going to play, it's worth the money

I'd give it a B+ on GR standards. Not a lot of significant new stuff, but still a damn good game that's a must have for anyone who is even slightly interested.
 
This is what I think, honestly.

And Zoom, being short IS a problem when you consider the value your getting for the game. At $60.00 a pop, and in some cases more, a good game needs to have weight to it. Modern Warfare 2 has some weight, but it's crushed under the crap it carries.
 
Yeah it got an A-. I personally don't agree with it, but at the same time I also think that, at best at least, it should be a B+ game. Still though, Jesse did a great job with his review.
 
I really wish they would fix the party problems on the PS3...it really kills the point of multiplayer to not be able to play with friends.
 
It was a hype review. It's kind of sad to see GR doing them, but not unexpected.

Ah well. What are you gonna do?
 
BigZell2020 said:
I really wish they would fix the party problems on the PS3...it really kills the point of multiplayer to not be able to play with friends.
What exactly happens when you try to form a party?
 
De-Ting said:
BigZell2020 said:
I really wish they would fix the party problems on the PS3...it really kills the point of multiplayer to not be able to play with friends.
What exactly happens when you try to form a party?

Bill Gates appears dressed as a devil and kills your PS3 with a pitchfork.
 
Longo_2_guns said:
It was a hype review. It's kind of sad to see GR doing them, but not unexpected.

Ah well. What are you gonna do?

Cant blame them though. Remember the hate when they gave Twilight Princess a B? Corrr!
I actually thought that review was spot on.
 
LinksOcarina said:
This is what I think, honestly.

And Zoom, being short IS a problem when you consider the value your getting for the game. At $60.00 a pop, and in some cases more, a good game needs to have weight to it. Modern Warfare 2 has some weight, but it's crushed under the crap it carries.

The multiplayer is where the value is. Just because the single player is short that does not mean that the value is lessened when there are other modes that you can potentially play for years. I if think there's too much crap then don't play it. I can't find much that's technically wrong with the game. Single Player isn't everything, you put too much emphasis on it. The era where single player is the main focus of every game is done, streamlined online has changed everything, accept that.
 
False.

I put emphasis on the whole package, and the fact that two out of the three modes are essentially filler does not make the game a GOOD PACKAGE, especially for $60 bucks.

Fact of the matter is the multi-player is the only reason to play the game, and the multi-player itself was tweaked a bit from the last game, something they could of done on an update or a DLC for the previous game. It's not enough to give it an A- and barely enough to give it a B+, and frankly, I still want to give it a C.
 

Members online

No members online now.

Forum statistics

Threads
16,689
Messages
270,785
Members
97,724
Latest member
Danywigle
Top