HK-42 Posted November 10, 2009 Author Posted November 10, 2009 I'll have it tomorrow, let you know how it is.
jawathehutt Posted November 10, 2009 Posted November 10, 2009 Haven't bought a CoD game since CoD 2, I've played them all but I still think United Offensive was the most fun for multiplayer, I have plenty of awesome memories of the tank battles in a 64 player foy server that nothing in any other CoD game has beaten. Dont get me wrong, I think they're fun for consoles when you're playing split screen and the champagne are great, but I feel like CoD 2 just changed too many small things like the Thompson. Its had a 30 round clip in like every other world war 2 game up to CoD 2. Was it really necessary to nerf the hell out of it yet keep the STG 44 ungodly powerful?
swphreak Posted November 10, 2009 Posted November 10, 2009 I was going to grab this, but I got Dragon Age Origins instead. I think I'll be busy for awhile.
Sabretooth Posted November 11, 2009 Posted November 11, 2009 Aha, ha, so let me get this straight. Reveal hidden contents A Russian terrorist massacres an airport, kills the CIA mole in his gang leaving his body at the airport and gets away. The Russians take this for an American act, and commit a full-scale attack on both coasts of the United States, which ends up successful thanks to sabotaged intel, and now there's a full-scale Russia/US war on American territory, in what must be year 2010 or so. I know Infinity Ward likes their stories magnanimous, but this is ridiculous.
jrrtoken Posted November 11, 2009 Posted November 11, 2009 The PC version is supposedly ultra-pasteurized, to the point where a dedicated developer console and modding tools have been omitted entirely, not including the 18-player cap and the lack of dedicated sever support. Again, there's also the $60 price tag. Ergo, the PC version is inherently a straight port of the console editions, all restrictions included. Need more proof? \ said: Moriarte: Ignoring IW.net, is the PC version a direct port of the console version? Mackey-IW: No, PC has custom stuff like mouse control, text chat in game, and graphics settings. http://arstechnica.com/gaming/news/2009/11/pc-modern-warfare-2-its-much-worse-than-you-thought.ars
Sabretooth Posted November 11, 2009 Posted November 11, 2009 That Developer Chat is definitely down in the halls of video game fame, a testament to one of the most hilarious moments of video gaming.
Jeff Posted November 11, 2009 Posted November 11, 2009 Modern Warfare 3 on PC will require you to use an Xbox 360 controller and only display at 720 or 1080p
Visas Posted November 11, 2009 Posted November 11, 2009 Personally, I'm looking more forward to Battlefield: Bad Company 2.
Lynk Former Posted November 12, 2009 Posted November 12, 2009 So I've played through "that scene"... here's my take: http://www.twilightlynk.com/2009/11/12/one-gamers-take-on-the-controversial-scene-from-modern-warfare-2/
Rogue15 Posted November 13, 2009 Posted November 13, 2009 it's a pretty good game, and i agree with lynk's article on it. i beat the game in less than 24 hours on veteran. it's a very intense game and i couldn't put the controller down. now i wait patiently for Splinter Cell Conviction...
swphreak Posted November 16, 2009 Posted November 16, 2009 I picked it up earlier today, and I think I'm one or two missions from the end of the game. It's really friggin short. As for the "terrorist level," I didn't have a problem with it. The first time I played it, I just shot around people and damaged windows and stuff. Kinda trying Reveal hidden contents to stay in character - the whole undercover CIA agent thing. The second time I played it, I just went nuts. Other than being really short, it's a pretty cool game. Not $60 cool though. As short as it is, it should be 40 or 50 dollars. I miss the AC130 gunship level from the first game...
Litofsky Posted November 17, 2009 Posted November 17, 2009 StarWarsPhreak said: I miss the AC130 gunship level from the first game... Fret not! Check out the SpecOps area of the campaign; I believe in the Bravo level you and a buddy can co-op a level wherein one of you operates an AC-130.
swphreak Posted November 17, 2009 Posted November 17, 2009 Yeah I saw that. Gotta unlock it first though. From what I read, it's essentially a rehash from MW1? Two more stars and I'll find out. Just finished the game. In MW1, we use a pistol at the end of the game. In 2, we throw a knife. Are we going to throw a shoe in the next game?
Litofsky Posted November 17, 2009 Posted November 17, 2009 StarWarsPhreak said: Yeah I saw that. Gotta unlock it first though. From what I read, it's essentially a rehash from MW1? Two more stars and I'll find out. Just finished the game. In MW1, we use a pistol at the end of the game. In 2, we throw a knife. Are we going to throw a shoe in the next game? No, next time we chuck a mortar. Eh, I'm not sure if the mission is a rehash. It's definitely the same map, with a few variations, but having a partner's eye above makes it so much more fun. "Hey, group of hostiles one hundred meter-- never mind."
Rev7 Posted November 17, 2009 Posted November 17, 2009 I have to say that MW2 is great. I think that the multiplayer is a big improvement to that of MW1 and W@W. The spawning system seems to be a whole heck of a lot better. Campaign is great, and veteran is a lot easier than I thought it would be. After beating W@W on veteran, everything seems a lot easier! All in all, I think it is a great game.
Totenkopf Posted November 17, 2009 Posted November 17, 2009 http://www.walletpop.com/blog/2009/11/13/call-of-duty-retails-silver-bullet-to-boost-sales-figures/
Sabretooth Posted November 17, 2009 Posted November 17, 2009 StarWarsPhreak said: Are we going to throw a shoe in the next game? As you are aiming your throw, the shoe shoots you with a hidden pistol and you learn that that it was a Mossad agent.
Rabish Bini Posted November 19, 2009 Posted November 19, 2009 I love the game, but you can't truly enjoy it if you just play the campaign. The multiplayer is where the fun really is.
lockhead Posted November 25, 2009 Posted November 25, 2009 I spoiled myself and looked up this airport level, and I can say that is too rich for me. Double Agent had a similar scene, Bring Down the Sky had a legitimate moral dilemma that you can justify either way. But given the content in Modern Warfare, it's a little disappointing that some games choose to go this route. I thought games were meant to be fun...we can have scenes of mindless slaughter in Saints Row or the deaths of civillians as a plot point in Rainbow Six but the No Russians level, do people actually consider that fun?
Commander Obi-Wan Posted November 25, 2009 Posted November 25, 2009 Heh, I don't really have a problem with any part of the game. Campaign was short, but it doesn't really bug me. I'll be playing online mostly anyway. I haven't really played much though. Focusing on Assassin's Creed II, which is almost done.
The Betrayer Posted November 25, 2009 Posted November 25, 2009 lockhead said: I spoiled myself and looked up this airport level, and I can say that is too rich for me. Double Agent had a similar scene, Bring Down the Sky had a legitimate moral dilemma that you can justify either way. But given the content in Modern Warfare, it's a little disappointing that some games choose to go this route. I thought games were meant to be fun...we can have scenes of mindless slaughter in Saints Row or the deaths of civillians as a plot point in Rainbow Six but the No Russians level, do people actually consider that fun? It's not meant to be a fun level, but one that provides another layer of depth into the different characters in-game, particularly Makarov. Show spoiler (hidden content - requires Javascript to show) It is shown that Makarov is one step ahead of the 141 and the USMC the whole time, with the knowledge of the American's existence and underground mission (you'll remember that an American disguised as a Russian is the main player of that particular mission). There is also the fact that Makarov will manipulate ANYONE for his own ideals, as shown by his willingness to deal wanton slaughter and blame it on an American (who he shoots at the end of the level, and will be the only body recovered, and thus blame will be cast on USA)
Lynk Former Posted November 25, 2009 Posted November 25, 2009 Yeah, one of the things about all of this is that there were too many spoilers plastered all over the net. I wish I had gone through that level completely fresh with absolutely no information to colour my perception.
lockhead Posted November 25, 2009 Posted November 25, 2009 I'm actually glad that this was spoilt for me, as if I had gone and purchased the game and came across this, I think I would have wanted my money back. Granted it doesn't actually force the player to go through the mission, but, yeah, it has to be asked if this maybe hits a little too close to the bone. In my opinion it is a shining example that the game has become too dark, too far off the slippery slope. It was as though Infinity Ward were not content with the 'war is hell' message they seemed to portray in their first game and wanted to disgust people out of becoming a soldier. If that was their objective then I do think they are going to have some success.
mur'phon Posted November 26, 2009 Posted November 26, 2009 Newsflash: darker books and films have existed for a long time, yet you don't hear too much about how they have gone off the slippery slope, because there are plenty of books/films that aren't as "dark". In the same way, games like MW2 should be able to happily coexist with scribblenauts, without falling off the slippery slope.
Rogue15 Posted November 26, 2009 Posted November 26, 2009 they should've thrown in child-soldiers too, maybe modern warfare 3 will have em.
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.