HK-42 Posted August 14, 2009 Posted August 14, 2009 I am surprised there is not thread on this Personally COD4 is my favorite 360 game thanks to its story, along with a shootem-up. And it is away from WW2. How do yall feel about the first game, looking forward to the second? Opinions? Anyone? Anyway its coming on the PC, PlayStation 3, Xbox 360 on November 10, 2009. Comes in Regular, Hardened, and Prestige Edition Vids: http://media.xbox360.ign.com/media/142/14281102/vids_1.html
Mav Posted August 14, 2009 Posted August 14, 2009 I hate Activision for raising the PC price, but I'll still be getting the PC version as it will be superior to the other version by default. Also I don't have any idea why anyone in their right mind would buy that "Prestige edition".
SW01 Posted August 14, 2009 Posted August 14, 2009 I'm certainly looking forward to it - CoD: Modern Warfare was the best entry in the series, I thought. They should focus more on this modern setting for a while... Anyway, so long as it has SAS or British Army to some extent, I'm sold!
Jeff Posted August 14, 2009 Posted August 14, 2009 Yeah, Prestige Edition is dumb. I'd consider the hardened edition because the standard box art is terrible but I'll probably still go with it. I'm definitely getting this at or shortly after release (probably for 360), think it looks even better than CoD4. Also, I wish they hadn't added the Call of Duty back to the title, I think it's better if Modern Warfare were it's own thing and CoD stuck to WW2, but whatever.
Litofsky Posted August 15, 2009 Posted August 15, 2009 Yeah, I'll probably get the game: the history that the previous game explored was rather interesting and fairly feasible plot. Overall, I thought it was a good time.
Sabretooth Posted August 15, 2009 Posted August 15, 2009 I still have to play the first Modern Warfare. >_<
Mav Posted August 15, 2009 Posted August 15, 2009 do it Sabre, it's a good time, I would still play it every now and then had I not lost my copy somewhere along the line...
JediAthos Posted August 15, 2009 Posted August 15, 2009 I still play the online component of the first one having passed the single player campaign long ago. I enjoy it a great deal, and will definitely be acquiring the sequel at some point.
cire992 Posted August 15, 2009 Posted August 15, 2009 Love CoD, loved Modern Warfare. The story was great, the gameplay is fantastic, all around it's one of the few games I go back to consistently on the 360. I'll free up some play time for Modern 2 at the end of the year for sure, though I might go for the pc version this time. What's with Activision's marketing goons, though? I know this game is probably a big to-do for the bean counters, but driving up the price? Talk about setting a low bar, because I can't see how they hope to bring in new gamers to the series when they're behaving like that.
stingerhs Posted August 15, 2009 Posted August 15, 2009 Modern Warfare was excellent, and i'll be looking for more of the same in this one. aside from Nazi Zombies, World at War was a bit of a let down.
Sabretooth Posted August 15, 2009 Posted August 15, 2009 I don't have high-end graphics at the moment, would it be okay to play Modern Warfare at Low/Medium? I mean, will it hugely affect game experience like it would for say, BioShock or Crysis? I'm doing fairly well with Mirror's Edge and Dead Space at Medium graphics...
Mav Posted August 15, 2009 Posted August 15, 2009 Sabre IIRC the graphics at medium aren't a huge step back from the settings at high, also MW is old enough to where it doesn't really use things like Physx so it really shouldn't affect gameplay at all. Also if you can run Mirror's Edge and Dead Space at medium, you might even be able to run MW on high, Infinity Ward is really good at getting their games to work well with most set-ups. Treyarch on the other hand, the devs that made World at War... not so much, the flamethrower in that game made it chug along on my system.
Rabish Bini Posted August 15, 2009 Posted August 15, 2009 I'll be wrapped so long as it comes with an awesome Nazi Zombies mode.
Litofsky Posted August 15, 2009 Posted August 15, 2009 aside from Nazi Zombies, World at War was a bit of a let down. A bit of a let down? I remember in the first one I played, the Big Red One, you had a rather huge squad, with each member having a unique personality and backstory that you could read on. In World at War, you had three members that constituted a squad, with minimal dialogue and no backstory.
CommanderQ Posted August 15, 2009 Posted August 15, 2009 I've got a pretty strong feeling I'l buy this one, but this multiple 'editions' are sort've a waste of time in my opinion. I mean, the stuff that come with it are very cool, but the only thing you'll probably really use would just be the game...the other things just look nice:D Buying the game is enough for me:) I'll be wrapped so long as it comes with an awesome Nazi Zombies mode. It should be Terrorist Zombies this time!
Revan 411 Posted August 16, 2009 Posted August 16, 2009 I will not be playing this game because I have never played the original. If its 20 or 30 bucks nowadays, I may give it a try.
stingerhs Posted August 16, 2009 Posted August 16, 2009 I don't have high-end graphics at the moment, would it be okay to play Modern Warfare at Low/Medium? I mean, will it hugely affect game experience like it would for say, BioShock or Crysis? I'm doing fairly well with Mirror's Edge and Dead Space at Medium graphics...you don't really need too high end of a system to run MW at High settings. to make the game look good, all they really did was to increase the texture resolutions which makes things look much better. needless to say, the game engine was mostly untouched which means more compatibility for older systems. if i'm not mistaken, all you really need is a duel-core CPU and a graphics card with 512MB or better VRAM for high settings.
Sabretooth Posted August 17, 2009 Posted August 17, 2009 you don't really need too high end of a system to run MW at High settings. to make the game look good, all they really did was to increase the texture resolutions which makes things look much better. needless to say, the game engine was mostly untouched which means more compatibility for older systems. Wait, you're telling me that they used that old Quake 3 engine to develop Modern Warfare all the way to those graphics? Minds have been blown, sir, minds have been blown.
Mav Posted August 17, 2009 Posted August 17, 2009 Wait, you're telling me that they used that old Quake 3 engine to develop Modern Warfare all the way to those graphics? Minds have been blown, sir, minds have been blown. No IIRC, CoD4:MW had it's own engine built for it, and games like World at War and Quantum of Solace used the CoD4 engine, and I'd expect that MW2 uses the same engine as well.
HK-42 Posted August 17, 2009 Author Posted August 17, 2009 No IIRC, CoD4:MW had it's own engine built for it, and games like World at War and Quantum of Solace used the CoD4 engine, and I'd expect that MW2 uses the same engine as well. Yea MW2 engine is IW 4.0 which is just updated MW1 engine.
cire992 Posted October 19, 2009 Posted October 19, 2009 Well, y'all knew someone would bring it up eventually... Wonder why they raised the price of MW2 if they're removing features? PC shooters have had Dedicated Servers since 1996 (Quake's the oldest one that comes to mind). I'm still interested in the SP, but I'm not sure I could pay that much just for a campaign.
mur'phon Posted October 19, 2009 Posted October 19, 2009 Conserning the price, look at the christmas lineup, the fear of CoD means they are likely to get away with it no problem.
Commander Obi-Wan Posted October 19, 2009 Posted October 19, 2009 I'm definitely getting this. I thought the first one was great. Although, I still need to get live back up and running before it's released. It should be a gooder.
GeneralPloKoon Posted October 29, 2009 Posted October 29, 2009 Meh. Call of Duty is overrated now IMO. Call of Duty 2 was my fav...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.