Posted by Video_Game_King (36272 posts) -


Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 2

( Because this game makes me think just that.) Oh, I went there. I'm going to blog about Modern Warfare 2, a game I didn't like as much as I thought I would. Before you complain about how I played the game incorrectly or about how I didn't play the multiplayer (I never do), let me say this: I liked the game. Modern Warfare 2 is actually a decent game. It's just that it isn't as good as the previous game in the series.
 
Oh, and look at that: it's where Modern Warfare 2 begins. Convenient for me, right? Also convenient is that it somewhat recaps the events of said game in the intro, just in case you didn't play Modern Warfare 1. As I just said three sentence ago, Modern Warfare 2 begins immediately after Modern Warfare 1: the bad guy of the previous game is now leading Russia, and the USA isn't too happy about that. Rather than ignore the guy or rise above the ordeal, they send one of their soldiers to stage a Russian terrorist attack with some Russian guy. Yea, you know what I'm talking about, the No Russian thing. That one level that Infinity Ward allowed you to skip without knowing just what the hell it is. To be fair, it's actually pulled off pretty well, making you really hate the villain for the next few hours, considering you saw first hand that he doesn't care much for human life. Or the unexpected.
 
You see, at the end of it, he predictably kills you, the only American there, placing the blame on America. The game then divides itself into two (mostly) separate parts: the first part involves some British soldiers trying to un-screw up the situation, while the second part is Joe McCarthy's wet dream. This is where most of my criticisms are focused: the story/the presentation of the game. It's a love/hate sort of thing, mostly because of how political it is. As I said before, a lot of the game feels like it should be set in 1958. Don't believe me? You're fighting Russia, there's an entire level where you defend a fast food place, and the game quotes subjects ranging from patriotism to why atom bombs suck. And Dick Cheney. It's not even in a joking sort of way, Infinity Ward actually quoted Dick Cheney outside "You don't know the power of the Dark Side. * khkhkhkh khkhkhkhkh*" 
 
*gasp* Could it possibly be...?
However, to be fair, the game does have its moments (snowmobile level, viewing the nuke from space, freeing Bushwald Sexyface from jail) and it does have the potential for true greatness. I know I've been repeating this in the last 12 blogs or so, like I've mapped the phrase to the f'ing space bar, but unlike all those other games, some of that greatness actually shines through here, even if a lot of it is wasted on preposterous cliches. Yea, there's No Russian and Bushwald Sexyface, but there's also the "you're just a soldier" atmosphere (sort of), the final boss fight, and several other parts that feel like they should be in a mediocre war movie. Again, I ask you to remember the advertising behind this game, where Wal Mart employees praised the game for feeling like a movie. While that notion still makes me gargle antacid pills just so I can foam at the mouth, the game actually pulls off that feel without sacrificing any gameplay.
 
Oh, shit, I just realized that I haven't once mentioned the gameplay in the previous four paragraphs. Maybe it's because it's, for the most part, exactly the same as it was two years ago. No, seriously, it's still the original Modern Warfare, going so far as to rip certain plot points/levels verbatim. This means it carries over all of the good (the basic gameplay structure) and all the bad (using that grenade launcher (why can't I point directly at what I want dead?)). It also means I'm going to be a bit more critical of the game, which probably explains this entire thing and all the other things I'll write about it. Things like how the weapon system itself isn't as good as I remember. Odd given that there's a wide, numerous variety of weapons with which to kill Russians. After playing games like Gears 2 and GTA4, I'm starting to miss the weapons category thing, which made the limited weapon inventory make sense; without it, I'm left wondering how a pistol and an uzi weigh as much as a riot shield and an RPG.
 
Wait, that's not exactly why I liked the original Modern Warfare; in reality, it was the feeling that you were about as important as this blog is in the grand scheme of this game, right? You can see where I'm going with this: it's somewhat marred here. You're still part of a team and your government still couldn't give two craps about you, but more and more, I found that the situation and my teammates relied solely on me and that my failure would result in America becoming a communist nation where Bushwald Sexyface would be a criminal. But keep in mind that it's somewhat; otherwise, you'd just be reading....no, I'm not going there. I'll just run into the next subject like a man: ducking and covering.
 
 What you'll probably do to me after reading this.
Go ahead, try running headfirst into enemy fire, giving people lead contact lenses. Four seconds into your cunning stratagem, you'll be redirected to Rummy yelling at you about unknown knowns or something else that's deliberately confusing. Instead, you'll have to duck behind some nearby cover and wait for the perfect opportunity. It's OK, but it becomes kinda repetitive when you have to do it all the time. It wouldn't be so repetitive if your teammates would take care of the enemies while you sucked the poison out of your bullet wounds (that's how they work, right?), but I found that they relied on me for almost everything. Taking down lines of enemies, breaching walls into a temporary bullet time dimension, defending the world's slowest Internet connection, EVERYTHING. This could probably be fixed with co-op, but given how a lot of the people I've seen are barely smarter than a lobotomized hamster, I don't exactly have high hopes.
 
In the end, I guess most of my problems come down to the atmosphere the game sets up. On the one hand, it feels like a Hollywood movie, full of action and chase scenes (WHY WEREN'T THESE A LARGER PART OF THE GAME!?) and a climactic ending. On the other hand, all sense of vulnerability and reality ( see leaping landmines) is thrown out the window and onto a surface made of cement and broken glass and fire. But back on the first hand, Bushwald Sexyface is in this game, bringing it closer to true greatness. Back to the second hand, he lives in a world where Russians lock people up for being too sexy. On that same hand, this game quotes Dick Goddamn Cheney. But back to the first hand yet again, the gameplay's pretty much the same as it was long ago. Oh, I'm so conflicted. What to do, what to do...How about I award it the Slightly Better Ending than This Portion of the Blog Award? I'm not calling it bad, just saying that this was a decent ending.
 

Review Synopsis

  • Oh atmosphere, what have they done to you? It's like they nuked all the things I loved about you before.
  • But the gameplay's remained intact, even if what made it good relied slightly on the aforementioned atmosphere.
  • Who would win in a fight between Dick Cheney and Bushwald Sexyface?
 
 
 
 
Well, at least SOMEBODY still likes Sonic...
 
   
 

The Jetsons: Cogswell's Caper

( Moving away from that, here's what the 1950s thought 1999 would be like.) I'm aware that the cartoon was made in the 1960s, but keep in mind that a little bit of the 50s carried over into the 60s, so it still counts. Anyway, that explains the Jetsons; now to explain the game. You play as George Jetson, the future's official expert on 5 o'clock shadows, and your task is to go to a space mine colony and stop it for some reason. That reason is because the businessman running the colony is apparently Robo-Hitler.
 
What I find weird about that is that it''s your boss who sends you on the mission. Logic would dictate that he's more interested in making more money than Robo-Hitler, and his asshole nature would seem to confirm that. But he oddly cares more about alien/robot rights than making money. Does anybody else find this weird? What? You find it weirder that I haven't gotten to the actual game part of this blog yet? Yea, I suppose that is sort of weird. However, that's probably because I can sum it up in three words: blatant rip off. Just what is it ripping off? Three games, but mostly Chip and Dale: Rescue Rangers. The gameplay between them is exactly the same: you run from level to level for no other reason than for the sake of doing so, picking up boxes and tossing at them at future racists/modern day animals.
 
 You know, that's not very far out.
Yet just because a game is a rip off doesn't mean it's bad. After all, Warsong was a decent game, and Cogswell's Caper is exactly the same in that regard. The throwing mechanic still works quite well, and the bosses are still perfectly challenging, if a bit repetitive. Speaking of which, this game needs a bit of refining, for example, remember when I said that the throwing system works quite well? You know, just a few seconds ago? Well, it doesn't work well enough; you can throw boxes up, but not down, meaning you'll lose health time and get hit. "What's wrong with that", you ask me, obviously not caring about this blog long enough to let me finish. Here's what's wrong with that: when you get hit, you bounce back, stunned at the fact that you, a futuristic factory worker with no combat experience whatsoever, got your ass handed to you by Deathokill X. Did I mention that about 80% of the future is made of conveyor belts next to 200 foot deep pits? I think you see the problem.
 
But wait, there's more! From time to time, you'll come across an utterly useless level that has no business in this game other than presenting you with an item. You'll be told the use, but not how to use it. It took me forever to figure out that you had to press up and B to activate whatever item you had out, and more often than not, I could have gotten through the game without them. The only ones that sort of make sense are the magnet boots, but even then, a common anti-gravity switch will often fulfill that duty. The only reason why they included items in the game, I imagine, is because they wanted to rip off Mega Man, as well. However, those items worked in Mega Man because there were scenarios where they were absolutely necessary; here, they're just pretty sprites you see whenever you pause the game. They don't make the game any worse, it's still a good game. Not knowing how to end this blog, I give this game the Only Rip Off of Metal Gear's Final Boss Award. Wait, that's not the third game! Crap!
 

Review Synopsis

  • The third game was actually Kirby, it rips off some of the levels and bosses.
  • It also rips off Chip & Dale: Rescue Rangers, but because that game was good, this one is, too.
  • The throwing mechanics could use a bit of refining, but other than that, still good.
#1 Posted by Video_Game_King (36272 posts) -


Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 2

( Because this game makes me think just that.) Oh, I went there. I'm going to blog about Modern Warfare 2, a game I didn't like as much as I thought I would. Before you complain about how I played the game incorrectly or about how I didn't play the multiplayer (I never do), let me say this: I liked the game. Modern Warfare 2 is actually a decent game. It's just that it isn't as good as the previous game in the series.
 
Oh, and look at that: it's where Modern Warfare 2 begins. Convenient for me, right? Also convenient is that it somewhat recaps the events of said game in the intro, just in case you didn't play Modern Warfare 1. As I just said three sentence ago, Modern Warfare 2 begins immediately after Modern Warfare 1: the bad guy of the previous game is now leading Russia, and the USA isn't too happy about that. Rather than ignore the guy or rise above the ordeal, they send one of their soldiers to stage a Russian terrorist attack with some Russian guy. Yea, you know what I'm talking about, the No Russian thing. That one level that Infinity Ward allowed you to skip without knowing just what the hell it is. To be fair, it's actually pulled off pretty well, making you really hate the villain for the next few hours, considering you saw first hand that he doesn't care much for human life. Or the unexpected.
 
You see, at the end of it, he predictably kills you, the only American there, placing the blame on America. The game then divides itself into two (mostly) separate parts: the first part involves some British soldiers trying to un-screw up the situation, while the second part is Joe McCarthy's wet dream. This is where most of my criticisms are focused: the story/the presentation of the game. It's a love/hate sort of thing, mostly because of how political it is. As I said before, a lot of the game feels like it should be set in 1958. Don't believe me? You're fighting Russia, there's an entire level where you defend a fast food place, and the game quotes subjects ranging from patriotism to why atom bombs suck. And Dick Cheney. It's not even in a joking sort of way, Infinity Ward actually quoted Dick Cheney outside "You don't know the power of the Dark Side. * khkhkhkh khkhkhkhkh*" 
 
*gasp* Could it possibly be...?
However, to be fair, the game does have its moments (snowmobile level, viewing the nuke from space, freeing Bushwald Sexyface from jail) and it does have the potential for true greatness. I know I've been repeating this in the last 12 blogs or so, like I've mapped the phrase to the f'ing space bar, but unlike all those other games, some of that greatness actually shines through here, even if a lot of it is wasted on preposterous cliches. Yea, there's No Russian and Bushwald Sexyface, but there's also the "you're just a soldier" atmosphere (sort of), the final boss fight, and several other parts that feel like they should be in a mediocre war movie. Again, I ask you to remember the advertising behind this game, where Wal Mart employees praised the game for feeling like a movie. While that notion still makes me gargle antacid pills just so I can foam at the mouth, the game actually pulls off that feel without sacrificing any gameplay.
 
Oh, shit, I just realized that I haven't once mentioned the gameplay in the previous four paragraphs. Maybe it's because it's, for the most part, exactly the same as it was two years ago. No, seriously, it's still the original Modern Warfare, going so far as to rip certain plot points/levels verbatim. This means it carries over all of the good (the basic gameplay structure) and all the bad (using that grenade launcher (why can't I point directly at what I want dead?)). It also means I'm going to be a bit more critical of the game, which probably explains this entire thing and all the other things I'll write about it. Things like how the weapon system itself isn't as good as I remember. Odd given that there's a wide, numerous variety of weapons with which to kill Russians. After playing games like Gears 2 and GTA4, I'm starting to miss the weapons category thing, which made the limited weapon inventory make sense; without it, I'm left wondering how a pistol and an uzi weigh as much as a riot shield and an RPG.
 
Wait, that's not exactly why I liked the original Modern Warfare; in reality, it was the feeling that you were about as important as this blog is in the grand scheme of this game, right? You can see where I'm going with this: it's somewhat marred here. You're still part of a team and your government still couldn't give two craps about you, but more and more, I found that the situation and my teammates relied solely on me and that my failure would result in America becoming a communist nation where Bushwald Sexyface would be a criminal. But keep in mind that it's somewhat; otherwise, you'd just be reading....no, I'm not going there. I'll just run into the next subject like a man: ducking and covering.
 
 What you'll probably do to me after reading this.
Go ahead, try running headfirst into enemy fire, giving people lead contact lenses. Four seconds into your cunning stratagem, you'll be redirected to Rummy yelling at you about unknown knowns or something else that's deliberately confusing. Instead, you'll have to duck behind some nearby cover and wait for the perfect opportunity. It's OK, but it becomes kinda repetitive when you have to do it all the time. It wouldn't be so repetitive if your teammates would take care of the enemies while you sucked the poison out of your bullet wounds (that's how they work, right?), but I found that they relied on me for almost everything. Taking down lines of enemies, breaching walls into a temporary bullet time dimension, defending the world's slowest Internet connection, EVERYTHING. This could probably be fixed with co-op, but given how a lot of the people I've seen are barely smarter than a lobotomized hamster, I don't exactly have high hopes.
 
In the end, I guess most of my problems come down to the atmosphere the game sets up. On the one hand, it feels like a Hollywood movie, full of action and chase scenes (WHY WEREN'T THESE A LARGER PART OF THE GAME!?) and a climactic ending. On the other hand, all sense of vulnerability and reality ( see leaping landmines) is thrown out the window and onto a surface made of cement and broken glass and fire. But back on the first hand, Bushwald Sexyface is in this game, bringing it closer to true greatness. Back to the second hand, he lives in a world where Russians lock people up for being too sexy. On that same hand, this game quotes Dick Goddamn Cheney. But back to the first hand yet again, the gameplay's pretty much the same as it was long ago. Oh, I'm so conflicted. What to do, what to do...How about I award it the Slightly Better Ending than This Portion of the Blog Award? I'm not calling it bad, just saying that this was a decent ending.
 

Review Synopsis

  • Oh atmosphere, what have they done to you? It's like they nuked all the things I loved about you before.
  • But the gameplay's remained intact, even if what made it good relied slightly on the aforementioned atmosphere.
  • Who would win in a fight between Dick Cheney and Bushwald Sexyface?
 
 
 
 
Well, at least SOMEBODY still likes Sonic...
 
   
 

The Jetsons: Cogswell's Caper

( Moving away from that, here's what the 1950s thought 1999 would be like.) I'm aware that the cartoon was made in the 1960s, but keep in mind that a little bit of the 50s carried over into the 60s, so it still counts. Anyway, that explains the Jetsons; now to explain the game. You play as George Jetson, the future's official expert on 5 o'clock shadows, and your task is to go to a space mine colony and stop it for some reason. That reason is because the businessman running the colony is apparently Robo-Hitler.
 
What I find weird about that is that it''s your boss who sends you on the mission. Logic would dictate that he's more interested in making more money than Robo-Hitler, and his asshole nature would seem to confirm that. But he oddly cares more about alien/robot rights than making money. Does anybody else find this weird? What? You find it weirder that I haven't gotten to the actual game part of this blog yet? Yea, I suppose that is sort of weird. However, that's probably because I can sum it up in three words: blatant rip off. Just what is it ripping off? Three games, but mostly Chip and Dale: Rescue Rangers. The gameplay between them is exactly the same: you run from level to level for no other reason than for the sake of doing so, picking up boxes and tossing at them at future racists/modern day animals.
 
 You know, that's not very far out.
Yet just because a game is a rip off doesn't mean it's bad. After all, Warsong was a decent game, and Cogswell's Caper is exactly the same in that regard. The throwing mechanic still works quite well, and the bosses are still perfectly challenging, if a bit repetitive. Speaking of which, this game needs a bit of refining, for example, remember when I said that the throwing system works quite well? You know, just a few seconds ago? Well, it doesn't work well enough; you can throw boxes up, but not down, meaning you'll lose health time and get hit. "What's wrong with that", you ask me, obviously not caring about this blog long enough to let me finish. Here's what's wrong with that: when you get hit, you bounce back, stunned at the fact that you, a futuristic factory worker with no combat experience whatsoever, got your ass handed to you by Deathokill X. Did I mention that about 80% of the future is made of conveyor belts next to 200 foot deep pits? I think you see the problem.
 
But wait, there's more! From time to time, you'll come across an utterly useless level that has no business in this game other than presenting you with an item. You'll be told the use, but not how to use it. It took me forever to figure out that you had to press up and B to activate whatever item you had out, and more often than not, I could have gotten through the game without them. The only ones that sort of make sense are the magnet boots, but even then, a common anti-gravity switch will often fulfill that duty. The only reason why they included items in the game, I imagine, is because they wanted to rip off Mega Man, as well. However, those items worked in Mega Man because there were scenarios where they were absolutely necessary; here, they're just pretty sprites you see whenever you pause the game. They don't make the game any worse, it's still a good game. Not knowing how to end this blog, I give this game the Only Rip Off of Metal Gear's Final Boss Award. Wait, that's not the third game! Crap!
 

Review Synopsis

  • The third game was actually Kirby, it rips off some of the levels and bosses.
  • It also rips off Chip & Dale: Rescue Rangers, but because that game was good, this one is, too.
  • The throwing mechanics could use a bit of refining, but other than that, still good.
#2 Posted by FluxWaveZ (19325 posts) -

Well, the story in Modern Warfare 2 doesn't start immediately after the events in CoD4 (there's even a "5 years later" phrase when you begin the game).  And I don't get your argument about the weapons at all.  You do walk/run slower equipped with an RPG or Riot Shield than you do with a uzi or a pistol.  You also switch weapons slower when you have those weapons equipped.  The difference in weapons may not be as dramatic as fictitious realities such as Gears of War's or Halo's, but each type of weapon (SMG, LMG, Pistol, Rifle...) operate differently and they don't all feel the same.
 
I also don't understand why people are so stuck on the story in MW2.  Is that really why you played the game?  For the plot?  What it gives are awesome set pieces (Mirror's Edge running scene, snowmobile scene, awesome climactic ending scene...) that are just fun to play.  I don't see why a coherent plot is necessary to keep those parts together.  It is a video game after all.  I agree with the feeling that there's nothing special about the characters you control in relation to your teammates and you feel less important in everything that is going on, which is a good thing in this case.

#3 Posted by Video_Game_King (36272 posts) -

But that's my argument: why do you walk slower when one weapon is equipped? Why don't we walk slower when you're carrying both? For comparison, please see Fallout 3.
 
Atmosphere can change a lot about a game; it can make the lack of weapon space bearable or annoying, depending on what feel the game is going for. And a coherent plot is necessary because without it, all those awesome set pieces have no context whatsoever. They'd feel like they just don't belong in a war story or whatever. Finally, that was one of my main complaints: the "you don't matter, I'm surprised you're still alive, you unimportant speck" mood from the original game is marred in favor of a 1950s patriotic war thing. Hence the title.

#4 Posted by FluxWaveZ (19325 posts) -

Ah, when you equip both...  Well, it's not as if Fallout 3 does it.  It does have the encumbrance system, but you can still have a load of weapons and armor on you without walking slower.  Only when the limit is broken (182/181) does your character walk slowly.  It's only the specific weapon or armor that is equipped that affects your movement, much like Modern Warfare 2 (the current weapon that is equipped).
 
Of course, the context is important to link everything that happens together, but Infinity Ward has never claimed to make a realistic war game.  MW2 is insane, and it's fun because of it.  It's an early teen's fantasy war story, and it doesn't have to be more than that to be fun.  I'm not sure I understand your last topic, though.  Are they not both the same thing?  In MW2 you're still not a significant character in the game, especially given the fact that your character dies 3 times (I think) in the game.

#5 Posted by Video_Game_King (36272 posts) -
@FluxWaveZ: 
 
I know, that's what I'm complaining about: shouldn't it be more like Fallout 3 and less like what it is now? It could still use some improvement, but damn it, that's a step in the right direction!
 
But wasn't MW1 a bit more realistic? Or at least less like something you'd expect from the Cold War era? And I'm saying that you're much more significant in this game than you were in the original. Hell, compare the tutorial levels of both: first one, you're just a regular soldier, slashing watermelons and being yelled at for not going through the course properly. Fair enough. A bit of that survives into MW2, but not enough; you're now a bit better than those around you, demonstrating to them how to shoot metal targets properly. In that context, it just feels weird that I'm learning all this stuff that my character knows by heart; weirder still that he has to go through a damn obstacle course, despite being the model soldier who can do this in his sleep.
#6 Posted by FluxWaveZ (19325 posts) -
@Video_Game_King: Hm, maybe following Fallout 3's system for equipment would work in the campaign, but I definitely would not want something like that in the multiplayer.  I think it would just add a lot to the frustration if you were slowed down dramatically depending on what equipment you had.
 
I didn't play a lot of CoD4, but by my understanding what happened in that game was a lot more feasible than what happens in MW2.  I'm not sure why people want it to follow that realism, though.  There are so many things about that game that are not realistic (recovering from getting shot quickly is one of them) that I don't see why people get so irritated by the plot.  If someone wants a realistic war experience in a game, that person should go play Arma II or some crap because MW2 is obviously not the game for him/her.
 
Perhaps the characters you control in this game are a little more centric to the plot than the previous game (your character being singled out to participate in No Russian, going on the stealth mission in the beginning as Roach...), but there's still this feeling that you're contributing to a whole.  What I'm saying is you're no Master Chief, having the weight of the universe placed on your shoulders.  But for the training course specifically, even though your character in MW2 was good and didn't need to go through the course to train, he was demonstrating his skill to Shepherd so he could be picked for the Task Force 141 later on.
#7 Posted by Video_Game_King (36272 posts) -
@FluxWaveZ: 
 
Here's why I liked the realism: it made several of the gameplay features make sense. Only holding two weapons and ducking and covering make sense when a nuke blows up in your face and shows you how little you matter, but not when you've just lifted a knife out of your dying chest to throw it straight into somebody's eye. So I guess it wasn't the realism, but the sense of vulnerability and lack of importance that I loved about it. But at least we agree on one thing: boo Master Chief! *puts up flame shield, with +9 defense against troll magic* I love RPG jokes.
#8 Edited by cstrang (2381 posts) -

When I read the opening lines to this blog, I thought "Hallelujah!", because I agree with you that Modern Warfare 2 isn't as good as Call of Duty 4, and I don't tend to venture into the multiplayer world.  But then I read more and more into your post, and now I'm just kind of at the "Meh" level of agreement.  You mention the death quotations.  It's pretty clear they were used strictly to be ironical or sarcastic.  The entire fucking game is a Public Service Announcement against jingoism.  How would you stop a jingoist better than showing how goddamn stupid the person said jingoist is following is. 
 
I agree, the levels don't hit as hard as they did, the atmosphere is kinda messed up with

, and the weapons don't feel as satisfying for some reason.
 
But that's all I can agree with you on if you truly think that IW quoted George W. Bush and Dick Cheney because IW thinks they were great fucking leaders.
#9 Posted by FluxWaveZ (19325 posts) -

Hm, fair enough...  Removing the sense of vulnerability adds "badassness" to the character, though, so I think it can be good either way.  Also, I don't have too big of a problem with Master Chief, although that's another discussion.  And yes, oldschool RPG jokes are awesome (always).

#10 Posted by Video_Game_King (36272 posts) -

Wait, "ironical?" That's not right! Are you....*gasp* Bush has gotten to you! *turns on battle music, transforms into Link* You shall die here, minion of darkness' minion!
 
But the quotes were schizophrenic, saying that war is awesome with one breath and then saying patriotism sucks with the other. I'm leaning towards the "IW thinks Cheney rocks" part, mainly because they also quote Rumsfeld, and again, the whole "defending Burger King from invading Russians amidst nuclear disaster" thing.

#11 Posted by ApertureSilence (1156 posts) -
@FluxWaveZ said:
I also don't understand why people are so stuck on the story in MW2.  Is that really why you played the game?  For the plot?
 
Yes, it is. That is precisely the reason why I played MW2. The original MW had a thrilling and sensical story, with some amazing twists. MW2, however, drifted into bat-shit crazy Kojima territory. It is one of my biggest disappointments of the year for that reason.
 
And no, I haven't even touched the multiplayer. Competitive multiplayer is not something I give a damn about.
#12 Posted by Nasar7 (2612 posts) -

I agree that the whole US vs Russia thing was very cold war-ish, i.e. dated and kind of dumb. Couldn't they have come up with anything else?

#13 Posted by FluxWaveZ (19325 posts) -
@MurderByDeath: Wow, really?  Well, I think you're in the vast minority of people who played the game (unless my view on the matter is frighteningly skewed).  But I think that's also because many people play MW2 because they love the multiplayer aspects of it, and I can understand why you would want the plot to be good in your case.
#14 Posted by ApertureSilence (1156 posts) -
@FluxWaveZ: I guess if I hadn't been so blown away by the storytelling in Modern Warfare, I wouldn't have been as crushingly disappointed by its sequel.
#15 Posted by Video_Game_King (36272 posts) -
@MurderByDeath said:
" @FluxWaveZ: I guess if I hadn't been so blown away by the storytelling in Modern Warfare, I wouldn't have been as crushingly disappointed by its sequel. "
Hooray for summing up the general opinion of the situation! Bonus for my opinion, as well!
#16 Posted by JJOR64 (18955 posts) -

The Jetsons game on the SNES was pretty sweet.

#17 Posted by Video_Game_King (36272 posts) -

Wait, you commented on the other game? Not on the huge one that hasn't won any GOTY awards, for some reason? (I honestly expected this game to get quite a few of them. (Before I played it, of course.)) Where is this alternate reality, and what's the password, King of the Hobo Burger?

#18 Posted by natetodamax (19191 posts) -

It seems you expected Modern Warfare 2 to be realistic.

#19 Posted by ArbitraryWater (11613 posts) -

I found the story of MW2 to suffer from what can be called "Tom Clancy's Syndrome" where a sequel, in order to up the ante, goes batshit crazy and transcends any hint of plausibility in exchange for big explosions and geopolitical strife (not that COD4 had a realistic story, but it had some stake in reality). I enjoyed it for sure, but not as much as COD4's single player.
 
The thing is, the main reason to care about MW2 is the Multiplayer, and maybe Spec Ops if you are into that. I probably wouldn't enjoy the game as much as I do if it was Single Player only, so I agree with you. In a sense.

#20 Posted by Video_Game_King (36272 posts) -
@ArbitraryWater: 
 
I'd probably play a few rounds of Modern Warfare 2 if I had a Gold account, but because I'm lazy and don't like people, I've no such account.
#21 Edited by vidiot (2737 posts) -

Love you VGK, but I sourly disagree giving any praise to the plot of this game.
 
It's finest moments are it's phenomenally scripted sequences of full blown action, the snowmobile chase near the beginning really sets the mood and tempo throughout the game. A game that I get to shoot and do rad stuff with the orchestral music of Hans Zimmer? COUNT ME IN!
 
But every moment where the game stopped to explain something, or worst, every moment you stopped to think what was happening, results in either full blown confusion or sever eye-rolling. No Russian was huge disappointment, not only was it completely gratuitous and borderline tasteless, but it was also a completely missed opportunity attempt to invoke anything substantial to the overall plot and design of the game. 
You hate Makarov. Great. Do we get back at Makarov? No? Who's the real bad guy? Shepard?! Why did he do this? Because of what?! 
Whatever, just stop talking give me a gun, and let's defend this Burger King.
 
Dr. Strange Love made more logical sense as something more plausible that would happen in the real world than this dribble.
 
As a sci-fi disaster movie: Modern Warfare 2's plot does wonders.
As a sequel to the previous game, that had an equally fictitious but at least semi-grounded plot: NO. 
 
Let's appreciate this game as the fun mindless roller-coaster it is.

#22 Posted by SeriouslyNow (8534 posts) -

Agreed.  The plot is literally vacuous.

#23 Posted by Claude (16255 posts) -

I would say, I might play... maybe some of your games. Very not the very in the many, I love them anyways... much.

#24 Posted by Video_Game_King (36272 posts) -
@Claude: 
 
Wait, what did you say? I don't really know what you were saying.
#25 Edited by Slippy (735 posts) -

Would Russia really attack the USA over something like that? I mean really? The US could have easily said he was a rogue agent. There was even a massive plothole since one of your Russian buddies is also killed and left at the scene. Not to mention he had the same military tattoo that Makarov has, proving that he's one of the terrorists. But no, instead let's all travel to Brazil, following a lead on some bullet fragments which have been re-compiled using a surveillance camera. This ain't The fucking Dark Knight we're talking about here, this is a low-res shitty camera at an airport. It can't do that at all IRL. And hypothetically, If they can do that, then why can't they identify Makarov? The excuse for a Russian invasion is one of the most paper thin ones in the history of gaming.

#26 Posted by Video_Game_King (36272 posts) -
@Slippy: 
 
I don't know, this game was pretty thin in that regard, too :P.