-
Yeah, that's right.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=429l13dS6kQ
-
I'm probably not the only one who thought MechWarrior 2 when looking at the title.
BTW, if I'm going to play a competitive multiplayer game, I don't want to have to need a system to bankrupt Bill Gates to play it on.
-
Dude, there's such thing as PC. (Though the lack of dedicated servers makes it somewhat gay.)
-
Not to mention that this trailer is HORRIBLE! :shaking: The previous one is cool but this is just ****. And it spoils so many cool things for example the ISS Astronaut scene.
First reviews are up, it seems to has a somewhat absurd story. The rest however looks great as always.
If you can't wait for this game, check this out:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lWSZk2hQ8KI
-
Hmm, this might be the first Call of Duty game I would consider getting...
-
I'm very worried about the story given that they've decided to go completely insane with it, but I still think it'll be a blast as far as killing **** for a few hours goes.
-
I am extraordinarily peeved in many ways at this game, but I'm still going to play it.
I'm probably not the only one who thought MechWarrior 2 when looking at the title.
BTW, if I'm going to play a competitive multiplayer game, I don't want to have to need a system to bankrupt Bill Gates to play it on.
This is one of the dumbest remarks I've ever heard. The 360 is cheaper than the PC and plays this game fine, and if you're going to play it on PC, it's got some of the lowest system requirements out there.
-
Space? Why?
-
It looks like they kinda decided not to even try be authentic with this installment
-
I heard MW2 uses Steam, P2P online connections, and is completely unmoddable. Is any of that false?
-
No. And the player limit was lowered to 9v9 from the previous 16v16.
So much for server communities. *sigh*
-
There's a bit of a stink about the scene in the Airport at the moment:
http://www.gameanyone.com/video/171701
Must admit, I can understand the concerns, even if I'm not certain how I feel about them.
-
Woah...now that's something.
-
That scene I love. It's skippable, and the player has no reason or even character incentive to fire on the crowds (s/he's supposed to be a deep-cover CIA operative.) And it puts players face to face with the horror of what the bad guys are doing.
-
That's kind of how I feel, it certainly demonstrates how powerful a story-telling tool a video game can be, but I can also understand why some people are concerned about it.
Just goes to show that people need to take the rating system seriously, and stop assuming computer games are 'just for kids'.
Edit: As someone who used to mow down pedestrians in Carmageddon 2 whilst laughing like a man possessed, I suppose I'd be hippocritical to feel any other way really ;)
-
I guess at this point we should warn you that there were spoilers on this page.
Oh wait, you already read them. Ooops.
-
Well, strictly speaking, it'd be like going into a BSG thread and not expecting to see spoilers, but I might add a spoiler warning at the start of the thread anyway ;)
-
So MW2 uses Steam, has a lower player limit, and has no dedicated servers? I declare MW2 a "FAIL".
-
Steam is good, but other than that, I agree.
-
So MW2 uses Steam, has a lower player limit, and has no dedicated servers? I declare MW2 a "FAIL".
Yeah, I have no idea how anyone could think those were good ideas. :rolleyes:
Ah well, I have a console and I don't do multi anyway.
-
I've been following the "saga" of MW2 and its lack of dedicated servers for some time now over on Reddit. I can well understand why people are upset about this move as multiplayer support is severely crippled without it. Although the story of the game looks good, what remains to be seen is whether it's strong enough to salvage the game for many people.
As for the airport scene, I think it's great. The game has an adult certificate and we see violence of its sort or worse in literature and movies - so why not games? As much as I think IW have screwed up the multiplayer aspect of the game, I applaud them for choosing to put this scene in. I'm sure the usual tabloids will wheel the game out and point their finger at it the next time there's a high school killing or something similar though.
-
I've been following the "saga" of MW2 and its lack of dedicated servers for some time now over on Reddit. I can well understand why people are upset about this move as multiplayer support is severely crippled without it. Although the story of the game looks good, what remains to be seen is whether it's strong enough to salvage the game for many people.
As for the airport scene, I think it's great. The game has an adult certificate and we see violence of its sort or worse in literature and movies - so why not games? As much as I think IW have screwed up the multiplayer aspect of the game, I applaud them for choosing to put this scene in. I'm sure the usual tabloids will wheel the game out and point their finger at it the next time there's a high school killing or something similar though.
we can only hop this seen reduse the number of parents buying the game for their kids, for the console ones.
the issues its had in the recent run-up have essentially killed all my respect toward IW.
-
9v9 is the max on the console for MW, so I guess I'm not missing much there :P
I do wish they hadn't gone bat**** insane with the story, but if they pull it off in an epic enough way, I will forgive anything.
-
CoD: MW completely lost the cog-in-the-machine feel that I loved so much in the original Call of Duty. That entire special forces thing just makes that mostly impossible... Still, MW1 was a fun game and I expect MW2 to be the same: Fun, but not really a CoD game.
-
Well, kind of still a CoD game, just less of a traditional one. The story still involves people, usually people who could be us with enough determination on our part, doing what they are called to do. The only (only) thing that changed about that is how generic the player was.
-
Mmm, well TBH, I'm a fan of more "Player Involvement" in terms of storyline depth, rather than being the faceless cog-in-the-machine. Fair enough, it's all well and good, but it just doesn't bring out emotions in me until the character is given a face/voice etc etc. AFAIK, Roach or whatever his name was hasn't got a face or a voice, but it's still enough of a COD game for me to buy it.
I do wish they hadn't gone bat**** insane with the story, but if they pull it off in an epic enough way, I will forgive anything.
Hey, there was plenty of other butchering they could have done. At least it's not "Call of Duty: Futuristic Warfare" featuring a purple uber-cube that kills everything. :P
-
Aye. I couldn't stand Call of Duty 2.
-
http://arstechnica.com/gaming/news/2009/11/pc-modern-warfare-2-its-much-worse-than-you-thought.ars
Very interesting article detailing how utterly gimped and ****ed the PC version is. And http://www.modernwarfail2.com/ is just great.
-
http://arstechnica.com/gaming/news/2009/11/pc-modern-warfare-2-its-much-worse-than-you-thought.ars
Very interesting article detailing how utterly gimped and ****ed the PC version is. And http://www.modernwarfail2.com/ is just great.
i know, some of the most fun I've had i CoD franchise is modded high-player-count S&D. so awesome.
the Cretian (likely misspelled) and shooting rang ones are win.
-
I believe this picture sums up IW's views quite well.
(http://static.arstechnica.com/drawing2.png)
-
watched the trailer. Felt a disturbance in the awesome.
-
TBH I never really cared all that much for multi player, so as long as the game is awesome, which it looks set to be, I don't mind one bit.
JUST 6:15 HOURS TILL LAUNCH. :D :D
-
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare was Battlefield 2 with a new engine and a campaign. That's it really. But a good game, nonetheless.
-
Minus the vehicles and the open maps and the squads and the 64-person multiplayer and so on.
They're both about modern warfare, and they both have very snappy ballistics models, but past that, not sure.
-
Well MW made each member of your team feel like a real person, you were sad when they died. In Battlefield 2 everyone is just another faceless soldier.
I mean when Gaz dies and Captain Price is about to die it is just ... :(
Oh and also it makes you feel like an elite soldier, especially during mile high club.
-
Well MW made each member of your team feel like a real person, you were sad when they died. In Battlefield 2 everyone is just another faceless soldier.
I mean when Gaz dies and Captain Price is about to die it is just ... :(
Oh and also it makes you feel like an elite soldier, especially during mile high club.
BF2 multi was a personal game, everyone had a voice and their own quirks, because they were real PEOPLE.
-
Right, but they were real adolescents playing from their rooms, not real badass special forces soldiers. :p
I loved BF2, don't get me wrong, but I think I had more fun with CoD4 multiplayer just because I wasn't constantly getting jet/chopper raeped. (2142 was a great time too.)
-
Right, but they were real adolescents playing from their rooms, not real badass special forces soldiers. :p
I loved BF2, don't get me wrong, but I think I had more fun with CoD4 multiplayer just because I wasn't constantly getting jet/chopper raeped. (2142 was a great time too.)
try Project reality:
THAT BF2 mod makes me feel so real, and at the same time epic fun, like when you apc was about to die, and you, being the driver and not wanting to die...again manage to bail and sprint out of site, the destruction of the APC providing enough cover, leaving you alone, with basically only an m4, behind enemy lines, you try to get to safety, and find yourself flanking an an enemy MG team, set up on a rooftop.
I never experienced anything better in any CoD game.
Capt. Price IS IN the new game, saw him in at least one video, unlikely to be a flashback, IMO
The issue here is that a month ago, i thought the game was going to be amazing, and i wished it well, but everything since then if you have/had been following it has made me...angry... with IW..
however, only 4months until the awesomeness of bad company 2!
-
Don't think Price is in the new game. You probably saw Captain MacTavish.
-
Don't think Price is in the new game. You probably saw Captain MacTavish.
nope. it said his name.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HBQsKvTEBwI
look at the subtitle at 51s, or 1:03. and 1:48
i seriously doubt there could be 2 different flashback missions.
-
Gotcha, good catch.
-
So he's not ... dead. Can it be??
:D
-
I bet he's dead. We had two flashback missions MW, granted the same locale. Also, could be playing flashbacks from different people, since I've seen at least two player characters mentioned already.
Also, random though: Maybe the ISS scene is from the perspective of an unimportant bystander, ala the intro sequence to MW. Would negate a lot of the immersion killer if Roach weren't actually in space for that.
-
I'm not reading spoilers...
Or posting any....but I'M SO EXCITED!
Ummmmmmm, I WIN I WIN!!
Whoop 6 7 minutes in!
(http://img291.imageshack.us/img291/4600/dsc00207rz.jpg)
Quality testing...and hat proof.
(http://img230.imageshack.us/img230/3695/dsc00210dc.jpg)
Tastes like win.
(http://img140.imageshack.us/img140/3204/dsc00209yl.jpg)
Welcome to pull the trigger 101 ^_^
-
Arrrgh, not gonna be able to get it until christmas. :mad: :mad:
Stupid lack on money. :(
-
You only need one kidney mate. You could get a fair whack for it.
-
Nah, that is paying for HLP London, and my Fireworks night bash.
Ack, can't choose, social life ... or games. :D
-
Random question.
Are you going to (or did you) kill the civilians in the airport level? Apparently it was a big deal. It was on the radio and everything.
-
MW2? Not even taken the cellophane off yet :lol:
-
Random question.
Are you going to (or did you) kill the civilians in the airport level? Apparently it was a big deal. It was on the radio and everything.
Personally, I didn't shoot any civvies in the airport level.
I shot in the general direction of the Kazakhstani SWAT and shot at their feet to get them to piss off.
-
I just finished it :)
-
Modern console games go that quickly?
...Thank God I've never had one of those silly things...
Whatever happend to games like "Zelda: A Link to the Past" on the SNES? Not only was it fun, it took a good, long, healthy time to bring it to a close.
-
What he meant was: "I just finished the main story line."
What he hasn't finished:
Special Ops mode (twenty three one-shot missions with special objectives. Award for beating all of them on Veteran 3-star rating) (and co-op too)
Multiplayer gameplay
Multiplayer challenges (holy **** are there a lot of these). They also net you weapon upgrades and perks for multi games.
which goes into: Prestige mode. Max out your rank? Oh well! Click on the prestige button to get a cool new rank insignia and start over at one again! (TEN TIMES!). Max rank is 75 I think for this game. Oh, Prestige Mode resets all multi challenges as well (not achievments, just challenges). I think this time you get something more than a pretty new rank symbol though.
Now let's look at Zelda.
Single player. That's it. A dedicated player could finish the two probably in the same amount of time.
And CoD isn't a puzzle game, even in the slightest, so you could chuck a few hours of Zelda out the window if we're just looking at story and gameplay. And a few more for having to restart that damn three headed turtle boss three dozen times anyway. And a dozen more for finding all the heart pieces.
If anything, modern console games have even more replayability and longevity compared to back in the day games, thanks to the advent of online multiplayer.
-
Whatever happend to games like "Zelda: A Link to the Past" on the SNES? Not only was it fun, it took a good, long, healthy time to bring it to a close.
You see Zelda's multimedia assets? Good. Now, you see Modern Warfare's media assets? Good. Notice how the latter are, like, much more involved? That means their production consumes more resources.
Less length for your buck, but more--literal--bang.
-
I'm gonna throw a giant 'OH THE HELL THEY DO!" in there. Your almighty console games sacrifice almost all of they're storytelling for multiplayer.
Oh yeah, they'll have a decent story, but it'll only be 3 hours from beginning to finish. It's basically a multiplayer game with a token singleplayer component. A TOKEN! We will NEVER see a game the scale of Baldur's Gate or the aforementioned Zelda. Game companies don't do epic any more, it takes too much time. They're all "well, we've got this great concept. But concept games don't sell as well as multiplayer gibfests. So, we'll sacrifice the quality of the storytelling that backs the multiplayer up so we can make more cash." Never mind that the concept games are the ones that people remember and talk about and reminice about years later.
-
Um, what about Dragon Age?
-
It's skippable, and the player has no reason or even character incentive to fire on the crowds (s/he's supposed to be a deep-cover CIA operative.)
That's pretty stupid.
Okay, so let's pretend you're a deep cover agent. You go along on a 'murder tons of civilians' mission. You don't fire. Would you expect your pals to notice this failing?
-
Major spoiler here that answers the question:
Yeah, they kill you at the end either way - they already know you're an agent.
-
Um, what about Dragon Age?
Don't know anything about it as the coverage has been pretty bad. I just assume it has the standard 6 hour main story and 3-4 hours of side quests.
-
Coverage been bad? It's had reviews on every major site! And good reviews too.
Anyway, 40+ hour main quest, god knows how many side quests, decisions that alter the whole game, and a completely different opening 5 hours depending on which origin you pick.
-
Actually, bats, that doesn't address the concernn.
If you, the imaginary CIA agent, weren't aware that they knew you were an agent, you would have character incentive to open fire. If you were aware, well, you'd have incentive to, like, not stroll along with them and watch or participate.
So I vote 'still stupid' :p
-
No, your CIA agent could easily be unable or unwilling to open fire even if it compromised his mission - he is, after all, a human being. You can open fire if you want (though I can't imagine your training would support that.)
-
Yup, I agree with Batutta here. You don't shoot your own civilians (or any civilians for that matter).
As a soldier/agent, your job is to protect them.
Their lives >>> your cover
-
Isn't the mission of the CIA guy to like...stop these sorts of attacks? Or what?
-
Not saying.
Someone said three hours a few posts up. It certainly took me longer.
It's well worth a purchase. Bloody brilliant. Gulag and the Ranger precursors to second sun are buh-rilliant.
This game is blackhawk down meets the rock meets a little red alert two and just a hint of war of the worlds. Oh yeah. MGS too.
The references will all make sense when you finish it.
-
I finished it yesterday and those references still don't make sense :p
Waiting all this time to play this 5-7 hour campaign was definetly worth it. People rate it badly only cause of the dedicated server thing and all.
-
In Australian dollars and prices that equates to an incredible $16.85-23.6 per hour which places it squarely in the pirate without regard for ****ty developers who couldn't be ****ed doing a decent port pile. Pirate MW2, buy Dragon Age.
-
No, your CIA agent could easily be unable or unwilling to open fire even if it compromised his mission - he is, after all, a human being. You can open fire if you want (though I can't imagine your training would support that.)
Yeah,
I'd imagine CIA dudes would probably open fire at least, engage in some aggressive banter, and praise the others for their bloodthirstiness, after realising any attempt to stop it would be futile. Which is not correct. If he had hung back just a little he would've been able to gun the others down with relative ease with that nice M240B. Hitting the civilians would've been another issue entirely, perhaps crouching when firing so the bullet exits would likely go above the crowd?
-
Pirate MW2, buy Dragon Age.
Way ahead of you mac.
-
No, your CIA agent could easily be unable or unwilling to open fire even if it compromised his mission - he is, after all, a human being.
In which case the thing to do would be to, like, shoot the ****ing terrorists in their ****ing backs. Does the game permit the player to do this (rather, does it auto fail if you do)?
-
Yes, it does.
-
No, your CIA agent could easily be unable or unwilling to open fire even if it compromised his mission - he is, after all, a human being.
In which case the thing to do would be to, like, shoot the ****ing terrorists in their ****ing backs. Does the game permit the player to do this (rather, does it auto fail if you do)?
Ah, but then you'd be compromising your mission and potentially dooming many more, no? It's a tricky balancing act. Moreover, the sequence as a whole serves - as I understand it - a powerful narrative function.
-
Ah, but then you'd be compromising your mission and potentially dooming many more, no? It's a tricky balancing act. Moreover, the sequence as a whole serves - as I understand it - a powerful narrative function.
Right, but by not firing you're already compromising your mission. So if you're going to do that, do it while also saving lives instead of, um, watching as random innocents are massacred
-
You assume the player's not going to intentionally miss, which is the most rational course of action and one Dilmah has already suggested.
-
Actually, no, I don't assume that, and it had actually occurred to me. The original post I responded to said...oh, wait. I misread the original post.
Nevermind.
-
Yes, it does.
Actually it doesn't. Makarov is invincible and will shred you to ribbons. Speaking from experience here. :P
-
I didn't say that you can kill him. I answered that the mission auto-fails.
-
Flashbangs are your enemy on that mission. But boy oh boy. What fun!
-
Can you say PLOT HOLE?
-
I kinda guessed this would turn into "CONSOLE GAMES ARE ****" or a "FPS GAMES ARE ****" or a "CALL OF DUTY GAMES ARE ****" or a "NEW GAMES ARE ****" or a "XYZ GAMES ARE ****" debate. :doubt:
-
Can you say PLOT HOLE?
Not exactly. You can say HOLE PLOT :no: :no: :no:
They went TOTALLY NUTS here, the worst plot in a big budget game I've seen for years. And the absolute crazy twist at the end is finally dooming the game's single player. Sure, the scenarios are great and exciting but when you have mostly no idea why you are actually doing what you are doing and in some missions (for example the sneaking mission where you need to get to the sub) you don't even know WHAT you are doing.
The game is incredibly fun however, at least on PC. This was a PC franchise and you still see that, for example the speed. Auto-Aiming or not, this is madness.
-
Can you say PLOT HOLE?
Not exactly. You can say HOLE PLOT :no: :no: :no:
They went TOTALLY NUTS here, the worst plot in a big budget game I've seen for years. And the absolute crazy twist at the end is finally dooming the game's single player. Sure, the scenarios are great and exciting but when you have mostly no idea why you are actually doing what you are doing and in some missions (for example the sneaking mission where you need to get to the sub) you don't even know WHAT you are doing.
The game is incredibly fun however, at least on PC. This was a PC franchise and you still see that, for example the speed. Auto-Aiming or not, this is madness.
Put this in spoiler tags?
That said, you do know what you have to do if you listen to everything said :P
-
...The game is incredibly fun however, at least on PC. This was a PC franchise and you still see that, for example the speed. Auto-Aiming or not, this is madness.
given the dedicated servers debacle, i feel this minor correction is needed
-
Snail, your face is ****. :P
-
Snail, your face is ****. :P
:(
Hey, that hurt.
-
It's only the internet. . .
On-topic.
Wheeeeeee deathstreaks are fun, right?
-
On-topic.
Wheeeeeee deathstreaks are fun, right?
No, you just suck.
-
Snail, your face is ****. :P
^ that. :yes:
-
Snail, your face is ****. :P
^ that. :yes:
:(
Stop saying mean things
-
On-topic.
Wheeeeeee deathstreaks are fun, right?
No, you just suck.
An eye for an eye makes the whole world blind.
But it's still deserved :p
-
because of how everyone is ranting and raving about this game, i refuse to play it.
-
because of how everyone is ranting and raving about this game, i refuse to play it.
That's a stupid thing to do.
-
Not playing Modern Warfare can't be a good thing.
-
because of how everyone is ranting and raving about this game, i refuse to play it.
Eh.
-
What's with all the hate towards Escargot, erm..., I mean Snail?
Seriously though. I've seen several random flamings/unprovoked insults on other threads as well... namely from a certain Colonol Dekker...
In terms of MW2, I also say no. My compy is not that good, especially with Vista, and I don't do shooters all that often. I'm a simulator man... ;7
-
Got it on 360.
I love it.
If you don't love it, then I respect your opinion.
There, that pretty much covers it. Now, I'm going back to play it some more.
-
because of how everyone is ranting and raving about this game, i refuse to play it.
That's a stupid thing to do.
not really. the comercials really didnt intrest me, in fact they insulted my sense of taste. also its a genre game so i expect it to be like every other game like it. put some more intresting bait on the hook, then i might bite.
-
*Puts Snail on the hook as a Bait*
-
because of how everyone is ranting and raving about this game, i refuse to play it.
That's a stupid thing to do.
not really. the comercials really didnt intrest me, in fact they insulted my sense of taste. also its a genre game so i expect it to be like every other game like it. put some more intresting bait on the hook, then i might bite.
However, that isn't the reason you gave to begin with. You said just because how other people ranted and raved about it, which by itself IS a stupid reason.
-
because of how everyone is ranting and raving about this game, i refuse to play it.
That's a stupid thing to do.
not really. the comercials really didnt intrest me, in fact they insulted my sense of taste. also its a genre game so i expect it to be like every other game like it. put some more intresting bait on the hook, then i might bite.
However, that isn't the reason you gave to begin with. You said just because how other people ranted and raved about it, which by itself IS a stupid reason.
you fail at rebellion
-
because of how everyone is ranting and raving about this game, i refuse to play it.
That's a stupid thing to do.
not really. the comercials really didnt intrest me, in fact they insulted my sense of taste. also its a genre game so i expect it to be like every other game like it. put some more intresting bait on the hook, then i might bite.
However, that isn't the reason you gave to begin with. You said just because how other people ranted and raved about it, which by itself IS a stupid reason.
you fail at rebellion
lol
-
Indeed.
-
Just finished MW2 and in spite of a few brilliant moments it was a huge letdown.
Damn. :(
-
Are you serious? I finished it last Friday night on Hardened and loved it. :)
-
The plot was incoherent and disconnected from reality, the gameplay was a tortuous and repetitive game of blood-spattered whack-a-mole, and none of it had the visceral awesome punch of MW1 levels
(although there were a few excellent sequences, including Ghost and Roach's death, the assault on the oil rig/prison, and the very last quick-time event.)
But whole levels were simply plot holes (who was the tattooed man in the safe room? A Russian mobster? Why should we care?), the 'No Russian' sequence I was so excited about was simply gratuitous, the main, er, threat to America was completely preposterous, and they gratuitously killed off the ISS and its crew for no reason whatsoever.
It's as if they came up with a series of cool movie tributes to do and then strung them together.
Also, for ****'s sake, that Favela level was irritating.
-
That's for MW3 to answer. They made certain parts so there could/would be another sequel.
And the only thing I agree with is that the Favela level was irritating.
But why do I get the feeling that you didn't seem to understand why USA is attacked due to that 'No Russian' mission? Same with the ISS destruction?
-
Nope, I understood the plot completely - it was fairly simple. It was just scattered and incoherent.
Makarov frames up the CIA for committing the airport massacre by leaving a body on the scene, so they invade using the cracked ACS module data (har har, not likely - you can't move a force that big without being seen by other methods.) Your Ranger company farts around a bit in Virginia rescuing an unnamed, plot-irrelevant man (Raptor) and picking up a HVI who turns out to be dead/plot irrelevant. The SAS goes to great lengths to get Price, who is the one man Makarov hates, and Price EMPs the US to stop the invasion. The EMP randomly destroys the ISS even though it's far outside of range and there shouldn't be a shockwave. We go after Makarov at his safe houses, retrieve data on him, get betrayed by Shepherd (again, motivations unclear, big plan kind of irrelevant), conduct a one-man attack on his base (farcical), go through a cringe-inducingly bad Zodiac chase, and then have a final cool knife fight deal. Game over, about five hours.
It was a really bad piece of storytelling compared to how good MW1 was. So much contrivance to string together a series of largely mediocre set pieces. I pine for the likes of 'Shock and Awe' and 'The Shot' and the last level of MW1.\
A couple sequences really got my heart going, though, including the beginning of the assault on the big Russian prison in the Little Birds.
-
Nope, I understood the plot completely - it was fairly simple. It was just scattered and incoherent.
Makarov frames up the CIA for committing the airport massacre by leaving a body on the scene, so they invade using the cracked ACS module data (har har, not likely - you can't move a force that big without being seen by other methods.) Your Ranger company farts around a bit in Virginia rescuing an unnamed, plot-irrelevant man (Raptor) and picking up a HVI who turns out to be dead/plot irrelevant. The SAS goes to great lengths to get Price, who is the one man Makarov hates, and Price EMPs the US to stop the invasion. The EMP randomly destroys the ISS even though it's far outside of range and there shouldn't be a shockwave. We go after Makarov at his safe houses, retrieve data on him, get betrayed by Shepherd (again, motivations unclear, big plan kind of irrelevant), conduct a one-man attack on his base (farcical), go through a cringe-inducingly bad Zodiac chase, and then have a final cool knife fight deal. Game over, about five hours.
It was a really bad piece of storytelling compared to how good MW1 was. So much contrivance to string together a series of largely mediocre set pieces. I pine for the likes of 'Shock and Awe' and 'The Shot' and the last level of MW1.\
A couple sequences really got my heart going, though, including the beginning of the assault on the big Russian prison in the Little Birds.
At least MW1's Russia MADE SENSE, unlike this one that falls for the ultranationalists because their leader died and IW wanted a nation to invade teh states for drama.
and then making up some SF group because apparently the SAS is too badass, with some grey morals as seen in first game, which made it a little more realistic, so you need some American to be in charge, aswell as supply some red shirts, i guess?
AND they kill the gordan freeman effect for soap, and generally kill the character, IMO.
-
Urgh, Gordan Freeman was ****. Those of you who found the Favella level irritating just don't know how to play it. :P The Favella was one of my favourites on Vet (although, I did die a few more times than I'd have liked to), but the beauty of it was that you had to have complete situational awareness and change your tactics constantly. I didn't die more than about 5-7 times on Hardened, but I sure as hell ran in circles a lot countering flanking attacks. :P Who knew open-shirted Militia men can take <4 rounds to the chest? ;)
-
I'm sorry, but the Favela was absurd. One lone soldier being told to press on in the face of fierce resistance? It was silly.
-
It's happened before. :blah:
I forget the exact hill number, but a single guy in Korea held a hill against (I think) two divisions of Chinese and North Korean troops for about 18 hours. He was captured, and awarded a Medal of Honor for it, but it still happened.
-
That's fine, but do you think that would make a good video game level that would not break suspension of disbelief?
We have many more instances of lone soldiers being taken captive and used as hostages, or dragged through the streets and killed.
-
But you only need one who held to make it somewhat plausible. If mimicking something that happened in real life is breaking the suspension of disbelief, that's your own problem.
-
I'm sorry, but the Favela was absurd. One lone soldier being told to press on in the face of fierce resistance? It was silly.
Fair enough, it was silly, but so is the rest of the game. :P
-
But you only need one who held to make it somewhat plausible. If mimicking something that happened in real life is breaking the suspension of disbelief, that's your own problem.
No, it's your problem too. There are many things that happen in real life that cannot be plausibly presented in fiction because they're seen as narrative fiat.
-
Remember "History is written by the victor" or something along those lines?
I think it was implying that Shepard was trying to shape the world in his own view.... maybe.
Haven't actually played MW2, just finished MW1 though...
And I'm at a loss. Do they have anything to do with each other, aside from a few reappearing characters?
-
Yeah, that's exactly it. I think it's presumed that Shepherd was Overlord Actual in MW:1, from the line about him losing 30,000 guys.
-
But you only need one who held to make it somewhat plausible. If mimicking something that happened in real life is breaking the suspension of disbelief, that's your own problem.
HELD. Not pressed forward.
EDIT:
Ending was also somewhat unrealistic. Commandos are trained for kill moves. Especially with a knife.
Why didn't Sheppard jsut pull out the knife and cut out your throat? Becase then the palyer would be dead. Really, the guy acts like such a cliche villian, talking and taking his time strolling around when he could just twist that knife sticking from your chest and end you now.
-
Yeah, that's exactly it. I think it's presumed that Shepherd was Overlord Actual in MW:1, from the line about him losing 30,000 guys.
That makes a ton more sense.
Was he going for the war with Russia?
-
EDIT:
Ending was also somewhat unrealistic. Commandos are trained for kill moves. Especially with a knife.
Trashman, how many times have you been in combat while in severe pain and under a helluva lot of pressure? Even learned guys make mistakes in those environments.
Yeah, that's exactly it. I think it's presumed that Shepherd was Overlord Actual in MW:1, from the line about him losing 30,000 guys.
That makes a ton more sense.
Was he going for the war with Russia?
I guess, since he wanted to write history to portray him as the Hero of the Coalition or whatever.
-
But you only need one who held to make it somewhat plausible. If mimicking something that happened in real life is breaking the suspension of disbelief, that's your own problem.
No, it's your problem too. There are many things that happen in real life that cannot be plausibly presented in fiction because they're seen as narrative fiat.
This critiquing a game series that has a history of making the player do the exact same thing as the above over and over again, albeit with completely useless sidekicks?
And if something has happened in real life, and is then mimicked in fiction, I do not see it as narrative fiat because SOMEONE ACTUALLY DID THAT.
EDIT: ALL CAPS used for emphasis, not indication of irritation.
-
It was completely unbelievable. The fact that it has happened in history is immaterial to its narrative success; as any writer knows, truth is often stranger than fiction, and the reader will often not believe a historical account when presented as fiction.
There were dozens of other soldiers available, and once your buddies were all killed, you would have been pulled out immediately. No C/O would give nonchalant orders to advance in conditions like this.
-
Truth also opens the door for fiction. Anyway, this is obviously just an argument of opinion.
There were dozens of other soldiers available, and once your buddies were all killed, you would have been pulled out immediately. No C/O would give nonchalant orders to advance in conditions like this.
You left out this part. This changes circumstances.
EDIT: Although, have you ever read Path of the Fury, by David Weber? The prequel story has something quite similar to this, but a lot more interesting.
-
Well, er, we were discussing the game. If you haven't played it that's your problem. :p
-
I meant our opinion on whether the specific mission broke the suspension of disbelief. We disagreed on that, from what I gathered, which was nothing but our own opinions.
And having not played the game is definately my problem, but I don't have that kind of money lying around (or anywhere else, for that matter).
-
I played a friend's copy. It's not worth $60.
-
There in lies the problem...
None of my friends will buy it.
Ah well.
-
Trashman, how many times have you been in combat while in severe pain and under a helluva lot of pressure? Even learned guys make mistakes in those environments.
Commandos that make mistakes are dead commandos.
Note how our hero made a super-perfect deadly knife throw, even when badly wounded.
That general was simply an idiot - talking and walking around with a gun when he could have just killed you.
-
Classic bond villain error. But spoiler tags for the non owners/players please.
-
Trashman, how many times have you been in combat while in severe pain and under a helluva lot of pressure? Even learned guys make mistakes in those environments.
Commandos that make mistakes are dead commandos.
Note how our hero made a super-perfect deadly knife throw, even when badly wounded.
That general was simply an idiot - talking and walking around with a gun when he could have just killed you.
I guess there's that tremendous urge to drone on in front of your apparently helpless victims. :lol:
-
Trashman, how many times have you been in combat while in severe pain and under a helluva lot of pressure? Even learned guys make mistakes in those environments.
Commandos that make mistakes are dead commandos.
Very Good point.
Note how our hero made a super-perfect deadly knife throw, even when badly wounded.
That general was simply an idiot - talking and walking around with a gun when he could have just killed you.
Also very true. As for the knife throw, do you think he intentionally wanted to strike him in the eye socket? I'm quite sure most people would be about to pass out, if they hadn't already, they would've lobbed the knife free of their wrist in the general direction. Soap got lucky. :)
-
I agree with Battuta 100% here. The storyline made absolutely no sense, but there were a few nice moments.
I think what game developers should do is just deliver what they are expected to deliver. Another Ultranationalist plot with maybe a few interesting twists, but not do something completely different to what the player expects (which is exactly what they did in MW2).
-
Mmm, I for one loved the twists, I just thrive off that spur of the moment stuff that gets the adrenaline pumping. Comprehensible storyline or not.
-
I don't know how many people have seen this yet, but speaking of deadly knife throws (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cudCajMNRM0) in this game...
-
I played that God-forsaken airport level. That's easily the worst thing I've ever seen put into a video game. :mad: Riot shields do not stop 7.62 NATO.
Other than a totally loony and poorly told story, it's a great game. The missions are varied and interesting, it's just that you never have any idea of what your doing or why you're doing it. And I will admit, the story had some great moments, the airport level for example. Granted, those moments were generally diluted due to the player not knowing what's going on.
-
I don't know how many people have seen this yet, but speaking of deadly knife throws (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cudCajMNRM0) in this game...
Does anyone actually use these on a regular basis? Or is it like the "Eavesdrop" perk from MW1?
-
People use them, and frequently, if friends who play are any meter. Works a lot better in the hardcore games because knives don't have a friendly fire area effect.
-
I'm a fan of Marathon.. Continuous sprint :yes: Can't go wrong.
-
I'm looking forward to finally having a damn silencer for my sniper rifle.
Bling, silencer and thermal sight (or FMJ rounds) for a sniper rifle
Cold Blooded
Ninja.
With smoke grenades, and probably a USP .45 w/silencer.
I wanna be a STEALTHY sniper, dammit.
-
Thermal sight is thermal ****e. I prefer normal scope. and C4/semtex.....
-
Okay, FMJ it is then. I always liked Deep impact. Juggernoobs can't hide behind those walls and NEVER DIE anymore.
-
I'm really not liking the multiplayer as much as the first one either. It seems campier.
-
Thermal sight is thermal ****e. I prefer normal scope. and C4/semtex.....
i saw a vid on a grassy map, and the thermal sight was kickass in that is made the enemy glow white and MUCH easier to see.
but also, if they lay on snow, they are invisible.
and then there's EMP, but does anyone use it?
-
Bought MW1 this weekend......FUXING AMAZING!!! If the campaign for MW2 is longer, its worth it, cohesive or not....
-
It's not longer, it's shorter. And while MW1 was indeed ****ing amazing, MW2's campaign doesn't really have the same 'wow' moments. In fact, it's told mostly told through disjointed cutscenes.
I am extraordinarily annoyed at the Halo 2-esque multiplayer right now. People running around with akimbo shotguns and dual Uzis are bad. The camping is worse.
-
Akimbo shotguns and dual Uzis is bad. It could be worse though if everyone is a bunnyhopping n00b.
-
Mah. . . We all use infinite sprint and semtex or claymores now. . It's the new bunnyhop.
-
So MW2's MP has gone the Halo MP route? :ick:
-
With the difference that Halo is actually fun and MW2 is a cluster****.
-
It's not longer, it's shorter. And while MW1 was indeed ****ing amazing, MW2's campaign doesn't really have the same 'wow' moments. In fact, it's told mostly told through disjointed cutscenes.
I am extraordinarily annoyed at the Halo 2-esque multiplayer right now. People running around with akimbo shotguns and dual Uzis are bad. The camping is worse.
It is too longer, by about six missions, IIRC. Total gameplay wise maybe an hour.
As for the multi, people had better get tired of using akimbo shotguns and dual uzis by the time I get it, or I will have to quickly show them how bad an idea that is.
-
So is it still "Call of Grenade: Grenade Warfare" in multiplayer? That was what finally turned me off to CoD4.
-
It's not longer, it's shorter. And while MW1 was indeed ****ing amazing, MW2's campaign doesn't really have the same 'wow' moments. In fact, it's told mostly told through disjointed cutscenes.
I am extraordinarily annoyed at the Halo 2-esque multiplayer right now. People running around with akimbo shotguns and dual Uzis are bad. The camping is worse.
It is too longer, by about six missions, IIRC. Total gameplay wise maybe an hour.
As for the multi, people had better get tired of using akimbo shotguns and dual uzis by the time I get it, or I will have to quickly show them how bad an idea that is.
It's shorter; I blew through it in four on Hardened. The missions are either perfunctory or padded, and they never feel as satisfying as MW1's.
And as for the akimbo shotguns and uzis: that's the problem, my friend. It's not a bad idea. The maps have so many corners they're practically maze-like.
I was a good player in MW1 (about a 2.0 kdr, a bit under, primarily used an AK-74 class so it wasn't all hiding with a rifle) but MW2 is just exponentially more frustrating. Part of it is the subtle but pervasive lag, part of it is the new killstreaks (need moar Stingers), part of it is the god-awful map design.
So is it still "Call of Grenade: Grenade Warfare" in multiplayer? That was what finally turned me off to CoD4.
Nope, actually, frags got nerfed pretty hard, and I don't think the '3x Frag' perk exists any more, though I'm not completely sure.
-
don't they use nade launcher moar in this one, espically with the free refill for most ammo perk..?
-
Yep, there's a lot more tubing.
-
Huh, sounds like I should be glad I canceled my order of MW2.
-
All in all I found the game disappointing.
-
http://www.escapistmagazine.com/videos/view/zero-punctuation/1118-Call-of-Duty-Modern-Warfare-2 (http://www.escapistmagazine.com/videos/view/zero-punctuation/1118-Call-of-Duty-Modern-Warfare-2)
I think I'll opt for buying it used, later.... much later
-
Having just seen that review, is the ONLY thing wonky about MW2 its storyline?
If that's true, it seems to be a lot better than you guys make it look.
-
Having just seen that review, is the ONLY thing wonky about MW2 its storyline?
If that's true, it seems to be a lot better than you guys make it look.
Battuta has also pointed out poor map design, bad netcode, and bad balance for streaks to you directly already as problems with the multiplayer.
-
Having just seen that review, is the ONLY thing wonky about MW2 its storyline?
If that's true, it seems to be a lot better than you guys make it look.
Battuta has also pointed out poor map design, bad netcode, and bad balance for streaks to you directly already as problems with the multiplayer.
and utterly horrid direction for online multiplayer for FPS games (no dedicated servers on the PC, or mods, or anything that can make a PC community a PC community, taking full as much as they can other than h4X control of the online experience; WTF, I WANT 32-PLAYER S&D).
thee mechanics are solid, i have no delusions about that, but i just can't consciously support a company with such backward thiinking... i was hoping that one could eventually see legit modding on console games, UT3 was promising, but... :doubt:
-
Having just seen that review, is the ONLY thing wonky about MW2 its storyline?
If that's true, it seems to be a lot better than you guys make it look.
Battuta has also pointed out poor map design, bad netcode, and bad balance for streaks to you directly already as problems with the multiplayer.
Aye. It is exasperating. The maps are largely awful, characterized by corner hell (or, in two cases, by ridiculously open sightlines that promote corner camping from long distances). The netcode is exasperating - you often get 'pulled' back around a corner after ducking into cover and get killed. The streaks incentivize camping and then reward one successful eleven-kill camp with near guaranteed victory.
And the darn weapons are just so stupid. The Akimbo 1887 shotguns are the most powerful weapons in the game by far - in short to mid range they have the stopping power of a .50 cal sniper rifle in a cone-shaped area.
-
Having just seen that review, is the ONLY thing wonky about MW2 its storyline?
If that's true, it seems to be a lot better than you guys make it look.
Battuta has also pointed out poor map design, bad netcode, and bad balance for streaks to you directly already as problems with the multiplayer.
Aye. It is exasperating. The maps are largely awful, characterized by corner hell (or, in two cases, by ridiculously open sightlines that promote corner camping from long distances). The netcode is exasperating - you often get 'pulled' back around a corner after ducking into cover and get killed. The streaks incentivize camping and then reward one successful eleven-kill camp with near guaranteed victory.
And the darn weapons are just so stupid. The Akimbo 1887 shotguns are the most powerful weapons in the game by far - in short to mid range they have the stopping power of a .50 cal sniper rifle in a cone-shaped area.
I'm not going to lie, but those seem rather minor, since half of that happens in the first one as well. Crappy corner mechanics are nothing new, and I challenge you to call Shipment anything other than corner hell. Pipeline has ridiculous open sightlines, as does Crossfire, and a lot of Countdown. Vacant is pretty bad for corner hell too.
I'll probably agree with the weapons, though. If it had less range, would it be less broken? M1014 had much the same effect, unless you mean mid range as in assault rifle mid range.
-
No, this does not happen on the first one. I played the first one to death, thanks.
You're not going to get it until you've played it and seen these things. You might still not get it if you weren't a good MW1 player (I was pretty decent though hardly pro.)
Now, the game's slightly growing on me, but these complaints are still very real. And the only good strategy is to camp.
-
I like to thing I was pretty good, actually. I managed to keep a 1.4 K/D while sharing an XBL account with someone that was HORRIBLE. Accuracy was something around 22.35% at rank 55 1st prestige, which was inside the top 300,000 (or top 150,000 if you don't count half of those due to impossible numbers). Not trying to argue, just laying the basis of my argument.
That said, camping was still viable in MW1, and I could actually take a good deal of satisfaction from a successfully executed camp (it seems that it's a lot easier in MW2. I will disabuse them of that notion rather quickly.) Although I will still maintain that playing Vacant and Shipment are just asking to be corner camped by shotgun d-bags.
Truthfully, camping should be a major viable strategy, realistically (and by that, I mean real-life wise). Running and gunning is a nice, romanticised way of playing a game, but would get a crap-tonne of people killed if attempted in real life.
-
I obviously know that camping is viable in MW1 because I played the hell out of it. Camping was part of the dynamic balance of MW1, a balance that has now been significantly altered.
You won't be disabusing anyone of any notions in MW2. As the metagame evolves, camping will become more counterable, but due to a slight increase in weapon lethality, bad netcode, awful level design, and truly killer high-level killstreaks, camping is the most viable tactic by far. The best alternative is to run around with akimbo 1887s, but even that should be done defensively, drawing people in to a camp.
The fact that you think that 'run-and-gun' is the only other viable tactic seems to betray a lack of nuance; part of the joy of MW1 was reading the map and the motions of the enemy team and positioning oneself to be ready. That's no longer as possible.
Get back to me when you've put in your first 24 hours of gameplay and we'll talk. I'll either be running around with my UMP or camping with a thermal Intervention and Stopping Power. So far I'm scraping by with a 1.1.
I'm not even going to touch that 'real life' argument.
-
I never said that run-and-gun was the only other viable tactic. I was saying that it was woefully over-represented with MW1's multiplayer style. Easily half the weapons in the first were most effectively used doing such! All of the SMGs, both of the shotguns, and arguably the LMGs were all most effective at running and gunning, which, balance wise (due to the weapons themselves, not the tactic) may not have been a colossal issue, still changed the way the game was fundamentally played in multi.
Whether the change from that was BAD, I can't legitimately evaluate right now.
Believe me, I'm TRYING to get some time in on this, but I can't get a copy due to short finances.
-
Whoa, whoa, wait. MW1 did not over-represent run-and-gun. The most effective tactics involved dynamic camping or 'patrolling' or just 'figure out where they're coming and aim at that point', where you'd move between ambush points in response to your predictions as to the enemy's behavior. You could grab a couple kills from one point, the move to another point to kill people who were going to attack your previous position. You could attack if you had to, but 'run-and-gun' wasn't the way to do it, movement from cover to cover was.
The defender always had a big advantage, since you could drop grenades onto your enemy's axis of attack or just sight in a submachine gun on it. The shotguns in MW1 were awful and the LMGs couldn't be used offensively due to the mobility handicap. It was a very well-balanced game all in all (except for the sucky shotguns.)
-
We must have been playing different pools of players, because every game I played was filled with people who would mindlessly sprint through the level until the found someone, at which point they just fired randomly in the general direction.
Maybe I exaggerate, but those players exist, and there was not an insignificant number of them.
Although I must ask how you would get kills with dynamic camping without those people running at or looking for your position like that.
And really, I'm not arguing effectiveness here, just that the playstyle was easily over-represented.
-
Although I must ask how you would get kills with dynamic camping without those people running at or looking for your position like that.
Those are the easiest kind of people to kill. You just put yourself in their head, figure out where they'll go, and position yourself to kill them.
It's not like you're camping in one spot. You take a couple shots from one position, then move to kill people who are firing at that position.
We must have been playing different pools of players, because every game I played was filled with people who would mindlessly sprint through the level until the found someone, at which point they just fired randomly in the general direction.
Sure, rushers were present, but they were amongst the easiest to kill. There were as many campers (and the dangerous balanced sorts.)
Once the actual technical side of the game (aiming, moving, whatever) becomes second nature, it frees up cognitive resources to play the game from your opponent's perspective. Like a chess game.
-
I am extraordinarily peeved in many ways at this game, but I'm still going to play it.
I'm probably not the only one who thought MechWarrior 2 when looking at the title.
BTW, if I'm going to play a competitive multiplayer game, I don't want to have to need a system to bankrupt Bill Gates to play it on.
This is one of the dumbest remarks I've ever heard. The 360 is cheaper than the PC and plays this game fine, and if you're going to play it on PC, it's got some of the lowest system requirements out there.
Actually, if you include the price of online, a wireless adapter, and several other things drive the price up. Because its system requirements are so low, a pc might be cheaper in many respects.
-
I've never payed a cent for Xbox Live thanks to the magic of one month free trials and I have no need for a wireless adapter.
I also own a custom-built gaming PC which I use for lovely PC titles, but I really think the Xbox holds its own.
I had a great night in MW2 last night. I can't decide if it was just because I was On Host or hit a good lobby or something, or whether I'm actually figuring the game out.
-
Pessimist: You hit a good lobby. Good luck finding another.
Optimist: You're figuring the game out better.
Realist: You were On Host.
:P Not intended to insult or anything.
-
Nope, I'm definitely figuring it out.
I take back everything I said, I ****ing love this game!
(all that said, the maps still suck.)
-
I feel like the only person in the universe that never plays multiplayer.
-
It's only fun if you're good. Unless you have a small circle of friends that you can play with regularly, and you're all evenly matched, **** sucks. There will always be guys out there who play whatever game more than you and are thus better, plus there will always be people exploiting every possible imbalance to get an edge.
This has generally been my experience with multiplayer games. Maybe I just suck.
All that said, TF2 is still tremendously fun. :D
-
I used to play games online a lot more often several years ago than I do today. I like the old arena-style and 6DOF FPSs, and find the modern crop of semi-realistic games too slow paced and dull for my liking. :p
Unless you have a small circle of friends that you can play with regularly
That reminds me, it would be fun to get the HLP Descent games started again at some point. We had a great time with that three years ago.
-
I feel like the only person in the universe that never plays multiplayer.
I don't either. :)
-
The only reason I'm really hooked on the multiplayer compared to MW1 now is the joy of camping until I have an AC-130 or Chopper Gunner and then getting fifteen or twenty kills without risk of death. What a rush.
-
The only reason I'm really hooked on the multiplayer compared to MW2 now is the joy of camping until I have an AC-130 or Chopper Gunner and then getting fifteen or twenty kills without risk of death. What a rush.
So you have become the demons?
-
Eh, kind of. I still camp dynamically and flank a lot, but when I get a good fighting position I'll stick with it for a minute or two. It's all about the psychology.
Opened up my global K/D spread from the horrid +100 to +600 yesterday. I should actually have a KDR that doesn't make me cringe in a week or two.
-
Looks like Modern Warfare 3 will be addressing the over the top story and realism issues
Modern Warfare 3 Preview (http://www.theonion.com/content/video/ultra_realistic_modern_warfare)
-
AC-130 sucks. Chopper gunner doth pwn it, truly.
-
I actually preferred the AC-130 gunner.
Then again, More Dakka (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/MoreDakka) had a lot to do with that.
-
Different strokes for different folks. But my AC-130s consistently get popped after five or six kills, whereas fifteen or twenty is a good run for the chopper gunner.
YMMV, of course. But I must point out that the AC-130 just goes THUD THUD or PWAT PWAT PWAT or BRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRR. Only the chopper gunner goes DAKKADAKKADAKKA.
-
Oh, wait, this wasn't about missions in MW?
I thought you were talking about the chopper segment of "Shock and Awe" versus the AC-130 gunner section in "Death From Above."
Whoops.
-
Ah, gotcha. In that comparison I agree, 'Death from Above' was more fun.
-
EDIT: Whoopsie, forgot about the Gaming forum. :p
Alright, here we go:
What I liked:
Plot had some pretty good moments. The boat chase, the fist fight with Shepherd and Soap pulling the knife out of himself, the gulag, the oil platform, "no russian", and the first mission with Soap and Roach were all fantastic. Actually, the whole Afghanistan sequence at the end was pretty cool. It was awesome seeing Price and Nikolai again, and I love that it's open for a sequel.
The various movie references were interesting too. Like Dekker said, I definitely saw references to The Rock in the gulag mission, Goldeneye reference in the first mission with Roach, and the obvious Red Dawn reference in the first mission in Virginia.
Some of the new weapons were pretty awesome, like the remote control for the Predator and the riot shield.
What I didn't like:
Despite Price, Nikolai, Soap, and a few, few others (I got rather attached to Corporal Dunn in particular), you don't really care about the characters as much as you did in MW1. I actually got extremely upset at the end of the original when Zakhaev kills Gaz and Griggs, which I didn't really feel with Allen, Roach, Ghost, or any of the other 141 members that die along the way (in the festeva level or in the mission where Shepherd betrays you).
I didn't really feel like I was losing anything at the end of the DC evacuation scene either...I mean yeah, I was about to be overwhelmed by Russians, but I didn't feel as upset about dying or any real emotional connection by that point to the other guys in the squad like I did in the nuclear sequence in the original. Afterwards, though, I got a bit more attached to Foley and Dunn, and really hope to see them in the sequel.
I don't play for multi, so I can't accurately criticize it.
My take on the story:
General Shepherd was behind everything in the story.
The Russians never did crack the ACS system. He simply used that as a cover story when he disabled the system and allowed the Russians to invade the eastern seaboard, as a casus belli for invading Russia. Since Makarov works apparently as a mercenary terrorist, my thought is that Shepherd hired him to conduct the massacre at the airport, then planted Allen in there and exposed him to Makarov so both of them could get off scot-free with the slaughter.
The intel Roach and Ghost recover near the end probably had the evidence of Shepherd's cooperation with Makarov, which is why Shepherd killed the both of them there. Also explains why Makarov knew where Shepherd was operating from.
Motive: I thought it was dead obvious at the end. Shepherd was orchestrating a war with Russia via Makarov and the 75th (your unit in Virginia) in order to save his reputation and bring some personal closure to what he perceives as his failure after the nuclear attack in Baghdad in the original. With the Secretary of Defense's "blank check" to run a war with terrorism and Russia, now he has the power to wipe out everyone responsible for the nuclear event--ultranationalists and terrorists alike. 141 thwarted that, though.
-
Threads merged.
-
Looks like Modern Warfare 3 will be addressing the over the top story and realism issues
Modern Warfare 3 Preview (http://www.theonion.com/content/video/ultra_realistic_modern_warfare)
Now THIS, is combat!
-
Surprisingly accurate. :yes:
-
So I just played through the first Modern Warfare. I liked Call of Duty/United Offensive more, mostly due to the ****ing endless ****ing respawns in ****ing MW. I couldn't have firefights, because everyone I killed would be replaced in under ten seconds, often more like five. Instead, I got to charge like a ****ing idiot right up to the enemy positions in order to disable their respawning, and then kill them. And then do it again, until the level ended. That...did not appeal to me. Like, at all.
So what am I missing? Why is this game so beloved?
-
Dunno, maybe it wasn't for you. I really liked the story and presentation.
-
Amen, it probably doesn't suit your playstyle. I find myself shouting orders at my TV when playing both games (Single Player). I really loved the US missions TBH, I really *felt* them, for lack of a better word.
-
I hope you understand the allegorical message presented in them. :p
-
Honestly, if there simply hadn't been infinitely--and rapidly--respawning enemies, I'd've enjoyed the game quite a bit (any mods that do that?). Seems like a small thing, but it pretty much killed my enjoyment. Well, okay, Death From Above, Ghillied Up, and the handful of missions where constant, unceasing advance was natural (cargo ship, for instance) were good fun. I liked the presentation to a point, but felt it was weaker than CoD1. In CoD1, with the exception of Panzershreks popping Tigers from the front, everything behaved as I'd expect it to (allowances for action FPS gameplay, of course). Oh, and everything to do with airplanes. Everything in CoD/UO involving airplanes or boats was stupid. In MW, less so. Notably, they seem to think helicopters are a lot more badass than they actually are. If a Chinook landed in the middle of scores of hostile soldiers, I kinda doubt it'd ever take off. A Blackhawk hovering at maybe 100 feet is just asking to die, especially when it starts parking in front of MG emplacements. And let's not discuss the 'tons of Blackhawks buzz over rooftops as dozens of RPGs fly all over the place!' sequence.
-
The fact price spent so long in Chernobyl and didn't get some form of radiation sickness preventing him from seeing mission 2 (cargo ship) amuses me no end.
-
The fact two MARKSMEN can hold off something equivalent to a BLOODY REGIMENT, and the fact that such a regiment can exist without anyone noticing (and doing something proactive about it, like a functioning government should), is cause for great laughter, IMO. :)
-
I'd consider it a brigade or battallion, there were at least a hundred soldiers, and consider the air support and armoured column that nearly runs you over...
Lol factor ten engage........
-
Well, right, the climactic battle was absurd, but the stuff leading up to it was fairly well done, again making allowances for action FPS stuff.
-
Notably, they seem to think helicopters are a lot more badass than they actually are. If a Chinook landed in the middle of scores of hostile soldiers, I kinda doubt it'd ever take off. A Blackhawk hovering at maybe 100 feet is just asking to die, especially when it starts parking in front of MG emplacements.
I love how you've never seen the footage of Hueys in Vietnam doing this just about everyday (well, minus the hovering in front of an MG nest part, which could happen with anything).
I'd consider it a brigade or battallion, there were at least a hundred soldiers, and consider the air support and armoured column that nearly runs you over...
Lol factor ten engage........
Bigger than a battalion at least, especially if you are playing on an easier difficulty. I run out of ammo for my M21 more often than not before the bird gets there, and that's about 60 bad guys if I'm playing even half-way decently. Claymores get another two dozen, you kill up to 15, I think, on the way in. Another dozen or so right out of the building, call it a dozen from there to the zone if you have any idea who and what to shoot at, and the bad guys are down ~120 guys before I take out my automatic (lol, Willing Suspension of Disbelief (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/WillingSuspensionOfDisbelief) for you, right there).
-
Well keep in mind they lost <4000 Helos in 'Nam. But really, a reasonably skilled force should've given that Chinook something to think about before it took off again, not mentioning the ramp crew (I believe the procedure is to exit the ramp ASAP and move in an arc along both sides of the fuselage anyway), who would've been shot to pieces. But eh, it's COD, they're allowed to this kind of thing. :P
-
I love how you've never seen the footage of Hueys in Vietnam doing this just about everyday (well, minus the hovering in front of an MG nest part, which could happen with anything).
What Dilmah said. Also, I love how you're unaware that an Apache battalion was knocked out (well, rendered combat ineffective) by small arms and MG fire during the invasion of Iraq. I love how you've never seen Blackhawk Down. Mostly, I love you. Marry me?
Incidentally, what does the sentence in parentheses mean, exactly?
-
The sentence in parenthesis is what doesn't actually fit with helicopter use, and I don't really know what all that after the comma means. :shrug: (it made sense when I typed it)
I have seen Blackhawk Down, and I did know that Apaches could be rendered combat ineffective by small arms fire. However, this is not Iraq, it's Unspecified-istan, and their military sucks big hairy donkey balls, by all measure. The Blackhawk Down scenario occurred because a multi-division size force of Somali militia with heavy anti-vehicle capability engaged two (numbers check here) companies of Rangers and Delta Force that had no real supporting armor and only helicopters for effective infil- and exfiltration. If anything, it is a wonderful example of why any kind of cavalry unit should never, EVER get bogged down by anything. Then again, CoD 4 does not use helicopters in a cavalry capacity, but strictly as a deployment option. Notice how you're only in the Chinook to get your whole squad and then some the hell out of there, not deploy just you chalk into combat.
You know, come to think of it, both times you land in that Chinook, all of your flanks are covered by three or four story buildings, except when you try to rescue the pilot, and in that case, the terrain "behind" you is open field with no hostiles. The ramp crew and several marines take up covering fire positions along the fuselage.
-
The way helicopters are used in CoD4 is indeed pure fantasy. The situations we see there are far worse than Black Hawk Down in terms of anti-helicopter threat.
Now, um, did you actually play the game?
Then again, CoD 4 does not use helicopters in a cavalry capacity, but strictly as a deployment option.
The first bloody US level in the game you rappel out of a helicopter after watching an oodle of Black Hawks fly casually through a rain of RPGs!
As for the Chinooks, there's that time one came and set itself down right in front of a bloody merry-go-round.
-
Chinook? :wtf:
Semper Fi you silly gitz those are CH 46s
-
The one in the Chernobyl level was?
-
Yep, I even checked.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=axdQddPo87M&feature=related (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=axdQddPo87M&feature=related)
-
You know, come to think of it, both times you land in that Chinook, all of your flanks are covered by three or four story buildings, except when you try to rescue the pilot, and in that case, the terrain "behind" you is open field with no hostiles. The ramp crew and several marines take up covering fire positions along the fuselage.
Actually, they take positions AROUND THE ****ING RAMP. I know these guys are poorly trained terrorists, BUT WHERE THE **** DO YOU THINK THE PEOPLE ARE GOING TO BE COMING OUT OF? In room clearing, I believe the doorway is known as the "Fatal Funnel", or something or rather, and the same applies to the ramp. Everyone is going to be looking there, and a soldier with half a brain is going to empty his clip into the ramp as it opens, so the objective is to clear the bloody thing rather than STAND NEXT TO IT. And at least when you take positions around the aircraft, you have a thin fuselage as the backstop, rather than the 2IC's chestplate. Really, a controlled pair could take out half the Ramp Crew, it definitely wouldn't survive combat. But as I've said before, this is COD, afterall. :P
EDIT:
Yep, I even checked.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=axdQddPo87M&feature=related (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=axdQddPo87M&feature=related)
They really shouldn't be CH-46s though. What the frak is the US Marine Corps doing in Russia, extracting SAS operatives? What kind of ****storm would go down if they lost a member of the ramp crew, or the helicopter for that matter...
-
MW2 happens early?
-
Yep, I even checked.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=axdQddPo87M&feature=related (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=axdQddPo87M&feature=related)
Neat, good catch.
-
MW2 happens early?
AFAIK, Britain, the SAS more specifically, never acquired CH-46s.
-
It's probably a resource issue, why waste time modelling/texturing/converting a Westland Sea King HC4 or Puma HC1 when you already have a CH46 modeled and in game?
-
clip
:blah:
-
Remember kids. In CoD movie-ism >>>>>> realism
-
It's probably a resource issue, why waste time modelling/texturing/converting a Westland Sea King HC4 or Puma HC1 when you already have a CH46 modeled and in game?
Cinematic thing too. You get rescued by Sea Knights in the Chernobyl mission, and then again in the very next mission. The final shots in both levels are the marines hopping back on and you getting a good look at the area you just left.
The first bloody US level in the game you rappel out of a helicopter after watching an oodle of Black Hawks fly casually through a rain of RPGs!
Yeah, I noticed how insane that was too after a couple of playthroughs. Like Ziame just said, Call of Duty depends on a lot of suspension of disbelief in order to do a lot of cinematic tributes to other war movies--that whole scene was half a reference to Black Hawk Down and half Apocalypse Now.
Shock and Awe was even more incredibly irritating like this--flying an entire battalion of helicopters into an enemy capital and depending on them to mop up enemy air defenses and all that. I quickly forgave it though, because that level is now easily in my top five favorite gaming moments ever.
-
Yeah, I mean, COD is so cinematic, you don't notice these things until you've seen them twice or so, most of them time.
-
You don't :P. Okay, and I didn't when it was CoD/UO, not CoD4. I think partly that was due to the fact that CoD4 was a rather frustrating experience for me, whereas CoD/UO was an 'omgwtfmoazplzkthx' experience. In my experience, I tend to not notice the various flaws of stuff I really like.
-
I love how you've never seen the footage of Hueys in Vietnam doing this just about everyday (well, minus the hovering in front of an MG nest part, which could happen with anything).
We've gotten somewhat smarter since then.
-
Yeah, and so have they. It's amazing what small arms fire does to helicopters when you try.
-
I wonder if Captain Price from Modern Warfare is a descendant of Captain Price from Call of Duty :D
-
Hehe. I'd believe it. :D
-
It's the same guy. He's an immortal vampire soldier thingie!
Or Price is to CoD as chocobos and moogles are to Final Fantasy.
-
The CoD series revolve around one simple idea:
When in doubt, send the equivalent of Alpha 1
-
It's the same guy. He's an immortal vampire soldier thingie!
nahh, i bet he's more like wolverine, but minus the bones protruding out of the hands
Or Price is to CoD as chocobos and moogles are to Final Fantasy.
-
I wonder if Captain Price from Modern Warfare is a descendant of Captain Price from Call of Duty :D
He's certainly got the facial hair to be...
-
Oh, something else about CoD4 that annoyed me: the references to Aliens. I like Aliens. It's a pretty good film. But y'know, I'd rather you come up with your own memorable stuff, rather than simply quoting some memorable stuff other people did a couple decades ago.
"WE ARE LEAVING!"
"Stay frosty"
"Check those corners"
And hell, it's not like they were incapable, as the execution sequence demonstrates.
-
In its defence, stay frosty is more of a general Infantry thing.
-
On that I gotta disagree. Aliens references make everything better.
-
Oh, something else about CoD4 that annoyed me: the references to Aliens. I like Aliens. It's a pretty good film. But y'know, I'd rather you come up with your own memorable stuff, rather than simply quoting some memorable stuff other people did a couple decades ago.
"WE ARE LEAVING!"
"Stay frosty"
"Check those corners"
And hell, it's not like they were incapable, as the execution sequence demonstrates.
CoD4 and MW2 are absolutely full of movie plugs, though.
For another example, fail to jump off the cargo ship at the end of the ship level. You'll get the line "Nobody makes the first jump".
Also, watch Behind Enemy Lines. They took the entire game from there, from the landscapes to the settings to the BMP's... ****, they even stole that sniper dude as Zakhaev's son. :)
-
I knew they were strikingly similar...
-
"WE ARE LEAVING!"
"Stay frosty"
"Check those corners"
I wouldn't exactly call those quotes as only from 'Aliens' as they are pretty general
Now the "Nobody makes the first jump" from Matrix is a little more specific (albeit, I've never heard it as I've never missed, time to play it again)
-
No, those are definitely from Aliens. The delivery is unmistakable.
-
The "We are leaving!" lines predates Aliens I'm fairly sure.
-
Oh, something else about CoD4 that annoyed me: the references to Aliens. I like Aliens. It's a pretty good film. But y'know, I'd rather you come up with your own memorable stuff, rather than simply quoting some memorable stuff other people did a couple decades ago.
"WE ARE LEAVING!"
"Stay frosty"
"Check those corners"
And hell, it's not like they were incapable, as the execution sequence demonstrates.
Honestly, the reason you'd think those lines are from Aliens is because Aliens was the closest popular movie to demonstrating how a real military unit functions in a fictional environment, so it basically set the standard.
WE ARE LEAVING! might've been a reference just because like Battuta said, the delivery was pretty close to the original delivery. If it is, cool, if not, still good--that whole sequence was awesome enough that I'm willing to forgive a cheesy movie reference or two.
-
Honestly, the reason you'd think those lines are from Aliens is because Aliens was the closest popular movie to demonstrating how a real military unit functions in a fictional environment, so it basically set the standard.
I'm not sure I follow. Mind restating?
-
Aliens wrote the book on this stuff. Thus, it makes sense from then on that other pieces sourced from it.
-
To be honest, I watched the movie about a week ago in full and those lines never stood out for me
*sigh*
Time to pull out the VHS and pop it in
-
The "We are leaving!" lines predates Aliens I'm fairly sure.
I checked but couldn't find it...still pretty sure it's a Starship Troopers reference within Aliens.