Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 2 Review
Really? The first Modern Warfare was lightning in a bottle, but other than that, EVERY Call of Duty game was quite flawed.
But I thought the first MW was really freaking boring, anyways.
I don't see why people will complain if it scored in the (High) 8's... Unless they are completely blinded and follow the masses like sheep. I mean I rate any game above 8.5 as a great game. I fully understand that that different people have different preferences and like different things within games especially.
And I come to PSX because of the honest and in depth reviews you guys give. And any game that you rated above 8.5 has been awesome in my eyes. You guys made me do a lot of good buys and no impulse buys at all. Therefor giving me a game collection I can be proud of and saving me a heap of cash.
Anyway I think this was a great review and I will at some point definitely give MW2 a go. And i actually applaud you for giving your honest opinion and review and for not following the "Sheep". Keep it up that why I come to PSX.
On a side note...After playing Killzone 2 even thou it wasn't 100% perfect it game damn close in my books. And after my first play through I already knew that they have set the bar really high and from that point on FPS really had to step things up just to compare to Killzone 2 never mind surpass it.
And I'm not a biased fanboy... If Killzone 2 was an Xbox exclusive and it was the same quality than what it is now I would still say the same thing.
Multiplayer and online is not such a big thing for me. For me the story mode/campaign is still the most important element for me and if that is the focus or at the very least 100% on par with the multiplayer I tend to pay less attention to it no matter how big the hype.
In the end it doesn't matter if MW got a 8.9/ 9.9 or a 6.9 it is still one of the biggest and fastest selling games ever so it doesn't matter who scores it what... It already won.
Just nice to get an honest review and not one according to hype.
How do critics give the final score? That is one thing I always want to know. Everyone claims that the final score is not an average of graphics, gameplay etc. Is it something you feel the overall is worth, without having direct relation with the weights of each category scores?
BTW, I respect Ben for giving an honest score. Many critics are hyping games too often, and scores usually are a lot higher than they are worth. If a game is close to 10.0, that means theres no room for improvements.
Last edited by godsman on 11/13/2009 12:58:38 AM
Whatever Arnold! The game deserved an 8.91!!! Ha, just kidding of course. I'm actually quite surprised that you guys still give numerical scores after all the grief you are given by the sheeple. I never look at the score though. I'm more interested in what you have to say about the game's different elements.
Thanks for the honest review. It's always refreshing to read a review on a site that doesn't base it on hype and the history of the title alone.
Graphics-wise i have to agree. When i first booted up, i thought it looked slightly better than the first, but then when I played the "Airport" level, to me, the shift in quality made it seem like this was tacked on as an afterthought. I even think that the graphics for MW were better than this one.
Here in the UK, I got my copy of PSM3 which reviewed the game and gave it 96% to which i rolled my eyes at. Am now waiting for the obligatory 10/10 that the Official Mag is going to give it.
I suppose that when you've seen what PS3 CAN do graphically (imo KZ2 and Uncharted 2), you kinda feel cheated when something like this comes along. Don't get me wrong, i love the multiplayer and will probably be playing it for ages, but if this gets Game of the Year, i'll be very disappointed.
Last edited by hobgoblin on 11/13/2009 1:11:09 AM
Which brings me to why I am disappointed...
...with IGN's review. I mean watch it! He clearly mentions the campaign being a huge flaw [clearly showing dissapointment with this flaw as well], and yet they still gave it a 9.5! WTF? Having a crap campaign is equivalent to losing a limb. No, your internal organs. Actually no, it's infact your brain.
Not only that, but the guy's words just felt inconfident, as if he struggled to actually make fits of joy out of the game's great points.
He mentions the co-op just being an "awesome, AWESOME mode", only mentioning it's basic stats without mentioning any strong detail to what makes it so double-awesome.
His main points about the decency of the multiplayer were balancing and "kill-streaks". Lame. And yet he didn't even mention the third person perspective mode; I so reckon this would be quite an unmissable feature to mention [is it?]. Other than mentioning the few advanced features for multiplayer [which sounds like a really nice improvement from COD4], he mentions that the venues are "extremely impressive" and that the "new-game modes rock", without even explaining why...and then he goes on to say that "Modern Warfare 2 has AGAIN set the bar for online shooters". Wow.
Their review felt pressured, and maybe my head is just up my a** but I could just feel it. Shame, because [other than PSXE] I like IGN's reviews. Better than Gametrailers' anyway.
This review however, which though was unexpected, gave the score around the margin I was hoping for. As soon as I heard that IW wanted to take out authenticity for a "live-action" feel, I knew this game would of buzzkilled.
Even so, despite me saying this, it doesn't stop me assuming that MW2's online is very, very fun. More fun than my days with COD4? I don't know, but it's really what each individual recreates with this game - not the game itself. I'm just glad the mechanics of COD4 kicked so much a** allowing gameplay to be very addictive which opened for those fun days. If MW2 is practically a polish of COD4, then at least I'll know what to expect. Though I fear that expectation can lead to disappointment...