" @Godites: Agree to disagree, I suppose. I thought I felt the same way you did about the relationship between the two. But after having gone back through them both consecutively, Call of Duty 4 feels two hours longer. That's probably where your Casino Royale analogy is the strongest. Because, dude, that movie feels ten times longer than it really is.
Saying things like "x was overdone" is kind of hollow, and I don't think it was a blatant attempt to attract some nebulous 'naive' audience. But if that's how you felt then that's how you felt. Call of Duty 4 is pretty important for being the first game to really nail the first-person perspective in narrative since Half-Life 2, but first doesn't always translate to finest, and stating the reasons why a narrative is structured the way it is doesn't necessarily make it more effective. Again, the number of characters in Modern Warfare 2 that have significant detail help push that game along some. And by the end, once you've gotten to know both Soap and Post-Gulag Price, who is a different, more vindictive character than the Price of old, there's a palpable tension in that final confrontation.
Regardless, Modern Warfare 2 shows an improvement in the quality of the dialogue, how much of the different characters you're getting out of it, as well as a lot of deftness in storytelling. The reveal of D.C. in ruins, the shock of seeing Shepard's betrayal, the knife-in-the-chest moment. Maybe you and others find these moments overwrought or predictable, but I'm not sure it's any less predictable than Call of Duty 4's "hey-there-is-a-countdown-going-here-are-the-codes-go-stop-the-countdown" level. Personally, the way Modern Warfare 2 blends realism with fantasy is pretty unparalleled in gaming. I mean, of course it's ludicrous that Communist Extremists could ever successfully invade the United States on such an absurd scale, but that's the fun of it. Medal of Honor is a hum-ho experience because it's trying to be so photo-realistic. It's too serious about itself. Modern Warfare 2 still takes itself seriously, but it also knows where to bend the rules of war-sim and where to avoid them completely. The bottom line here: I'm not trying to denigrate Call of Duty 4. It's an important game for a ton of reasons. And, really, it all comes down to the multiplayer at the end of the day. But I tend to prefer Modern Warfare 2's tighter action and rounder characters and thoroughly narrative-driven campaign over its predecessor's heavy-handed atmospherics and its loose narrative. New analogy: Modern Warfare 2 is to Call of Duty 4 what Terminator 2 is to Terminator. Besides. We're talking favorites. Not what we think is best, objectively. So, you know, chill. Bears. Beets. Battlestar Galactica. "
There is "
Log in to comment