[Munkey Boy]

So, the sequel to CoD4: Modern Warfare, the game currently top of the user reviews listings at AVF, is here. A worthy successor, or did it fall short for you? Please vote in the poll and leave a comment when you've played enough of the game to judge.

[Brogan]

Voted average.

The SP is OK with a poor story and silly set pieces like the bit at the burger restaurant constantly running from building to building to try out different weapons.

MP I've said enough on on other threads but it has a lot of shortcomings IMO.

[markymark34]

Gave it a very good. Multi player is fantastc and spec ops are a challenge on veteran but single player too short for a 9 or 10 out of 10.
Veteran single player is mostly wait and hide.

[GarythePotato]

OKAY, BIG EDIT. I don't like the game's multiplayer, but yesterday I did really well on it and based my review of the multiplayer on that instance. So, I would just like to say that I am changing my decision and giving this game a 'good', not a 'very good' as I did in my review. I can't change my poll answer, so I'm saying it here.

The good:

(+) The sound and visuals are better than ever
(+) A small number of - but effective - "wow" missions
(+) Multiplayer is packed with great new features
(+) Spec-ops is a great addition
(+) CAPTAIN PRICE!!!

The bad:

(-) The campaign is way too short
(-) The story is mediocre and feels loosely cobbled together
(-) Unbalanced, unfair, frustrating multiplayer
(-) Framerate issues in heavily-built set pieces

Overall, it's a good game. It doesn't live up to the mass hype that it received, but it's still good nonetheless. I may be speaking for many others here, but I was expecting a LOT more from the story, not just convoluted jumping between the SAS, Army Rangers and the Marines, but something a little more sentimental and meaningful like the game's predecessor. There are a couple of poor set pieces that really aren't familiar in Call of Duty's nature, particularly in "Wolverines!" when you run back and forth from building to building in search of Stinger missiles. It's great having much-loved characters like Soap and Captain Price back, though. Onto multiplayer... dear old multiplayer. From the game's inception, it was clear that multiplayer would be the maker or breaker in this game. In a word - multiplayer is great. It's enjoyable. It's customizable beyond belief, and it's pretty damn enjoyable... when you're able to stay alive for ten seconds without being shot in the back or killed by a camper. This is the major flaw in what should be an orgasm of a multiplayer experience. HOWEVER, the game has only been out for just under two weeks, so it should be expected that people want to try and get the top killstreaks and keep a steady K/D spread. Hopefully this annoyance will clear up within the next week or so. Multiplayer is also annoyingly unbalanced and will really turn some people off, especially fans of Call of Duty 4. It is also VERY frustrating in terms of guns being too overpowered, campers and general annoyances that need to be filtered out instantly. The newest and arguably most welcome addition is the brilliant Spec-ops mode which will keep players entertained for a long time to come. Make sure you buy a silicone cover for your controller when you reach Echo, though .

[sdb123]

I voted Good.

Single Player - never really felt immersed in the storyline tbh. The campaign is way too short and for me, there is too much 'railroading', i.e. you don't feel in total control of events.

Special Ops - Just getting in to this...has a fair bit of replayability.

Multi Player - I don't like that certain maps are only available for certain game types. Everything is more frantic than CoD:MW, not in a bad way however it is easy to see why some people are put off the experience. I like the introduction of Care Packages and the match-making (on FFA at least) seems to work quite well.

[YO YO]

the best game every yes yes love it

[dalegt4]

i voted excelent.. my reasons on the game are as follows..

good parts of the game in my eyes are:

fantastic multiplayer

Spec Ops is great and a good challenge on the hardest difficulty and makes the game far longer and challenging

Graphics are slightly better, still in my eyes nothing spectacular, gears2 and many other games look far far better, characters and backgrounds

the sound effects and voice acting very good

and as above, glad price is back and not dead!

the Bad

well, campaign is way way way too short, finished it on regular in 4h 46mins, and that was running around looking for intel items.. poor for a game that could of cost upto 50quid! i did get for 26 so wont complain

some aspects of multi are annoying.

graphics not what i had hoped


but the overall game is fantastic and i havent taken it out of the xbox since release day!

[Mr Noble]

I voted very good based on online play, yet to try the campaign , glad i never watched any previews so i do not know what i'm missing , think i'll prestige then make a start on campaign

[MrSmiley]

Voted Excellent - I love the game, but always still room for improvement

[Simon Coates]

I voted very good, although I've only played multiplayer so far.
I'd have given excellent but there's one main thing that ruins it for me - the heart-beat sensor!!!
I know the game's set in the future (5 years or so) but a heart-beat sensor? ***, I thought is was supposed to be Modern Warfare not a Sci-Fi shooter. Might be OK using it in campaign but not multiplayer - it totally spoils the balance.
I keep getting killed by campers just sitting in dark corners with that damn attachment.
Grrrr.

Simon

[Munkey Boy]

I've gone with Excellent too. It does excel in so many areas, and for me is a real improvement on CoD4 MW, which was already a great game. It's polished to within an inch of it's life, the balance is excellent in all three main modes, it never feels like you can't progress.

The Spec Ops is the stand-out mode for me though, a great addition and worth the money alone for me (though it's only got me wishing it was 4 player now!).

If the single player campaign hadn't been so utterly ludicrous (though great to play), this would have hit the top for me.

[Simon3119]

I gave it below average.

The game is so linear you good use it to draw straight lines.

£60 for a game that takes about 5 hours of very repetitive shoot and blast to finish is a rip off.

The final chapter in the boat is laughable.

The cut scenes are only there to make the game even longer.

It doesn't really matter which weapon you choose they all do the same thing.

The multiplayer is full off kids.

This game is complete Hype over substance.

[markymark34]

Originally Posted by Simon3119

I gave it below average.

The game is so linear you good use it to draw straight lines.

£60 for a game that takes about 5 hours of very repetitive shoot and blast to finish is a rip off.

The final chapter in the boat is laughable.

The cut scenes are only there to make the game even longer.

It doesn't really matter which weapon you choose they all do the same thing.

The multiplayer is full off kids.

This game is complete Hype over substance.

If your willing to give it another go i can help you out with a few of those points.

Try spec ops - 12+ hours to complete on veteran so not short.

Multiplayer - add a few of us in! no kids and highly manure conversation sorry mature that should read. Once you get into it online is without rival.

as for £60!! please tell me you didnt spend that! widely available at £32

Ive now played 20 hours online and completed spec ops. I gave it an 8 (i think) but would now give it a 9

[Simon3119]

I didn't pay full price thank God but that still doesn't change my vote.

There is nothing new in this game that hasn't been done before.

Why can't you look round corners? Why is the enemy AI and your squad AI so poor?

I agree that on multiplayer if you get with a group of none kids then it is good but again nothing that hasn't been done before.

I will try Spec-ops and post my result.

[Stealth Rodeo]

Originally Posted by Simon3119

There is nothing new in this game that hasn't been done before.

Why can't you look round corners? Why is the enemy AI and your squad AI so poor?

Which previous game allowed you to launch a Predator Missile? Which corners in particular are you having trouble looking around, maybe you need a new controller? On Veteran, the enemy AI flank me and my AI team do so much of the work. I've not seen better.

[Stealth Rodeo]

Ahem, please excuse me while I slip in to my flame proof suit. Right, that feels very comfy.

When I read a review of a movie or an album I want to see or hear, I trust that the reviewer has actually been to see the movie or listened to the album in full. In general, I think it's safe to say that with that type of media the reviewer is basing his opinion on the complete package. When it comes to reviews of video games, it's a completely different story. I've lost count of the game reviews I've read where it's blindingly obvious that the review is based on the first level only (I'm looking at you Eurogamer), perhaps to stop too many spoilers, but clearly the reviewer has only experienced a fraction of the game, unlike the movie or music critic.

Reading through the "reviews" here, I can see a very similar trend, which is disappointing. Why review something when you've only spent a few hours playing only one or two parts of the game? Do you go to the cinema to see a movie, only to walk out after 30 minutes, and then tell all your mates it was rubbish?

It seems to be that the general complaint here is that the game is too short. Without counting the multiplayer part of the game, this is how the other Call of Duty games compare…

Call of Duty = 26 levels.
Call of Duty 2 = 10 levels.
Call of Duty 3 = 14 levels.
Modern Warfare = 20 levels + Mile High Club.
World at War = 15 levels + Nazi Zombies.
Modern Warfare 2 = 18 levels + Museum + 23 Spec Ops.

The way I see it, MW2 comes out on top when it comes to content. Admittedly, the campaign was a lot easier than the previous games, but at the same time, a lot less frustrating, which possibly has an impact on the time it takes to complete. But after all the moaning about the grenade spamming in WaW, I think IW took the right approach this time. I suppose, if you sprint through on Recruit, or even Regular, you’re going to be able to complete it in a very short time. If you slow down just a little bit, there’s some Intel to collect, there’s some chickens to kill, you can plant some C4 in stealth, there’s a time to beat in “The Pit” (anyone who is not a fan of anything timed, like Formula 1, motorsport in general, athletics, or any kind of sport where PB times and records are set, need not apply), and that leads us into the most amazing part of the game - the part that seems to have been “walked out on” by the negative “reviews” – Special Ops.

Special Ops takes the meaning of Co-Op to a whole new level. Like L4D, it has been designed specifically for Co-Op action. The fact that I was able to collect all 69 stars with only 4 missions being completed with my friend is also testament to the flexibility of these Spec Ops, allowing a solo or single player experience too. Despite the fact that I have completed all of the missions on Veteran, a significant step up from the campaign difficulty, I have revisited them time, and time again, in order to shave of vital seconds (and sometimes minutes) from a previous personal best. Again, I’m sure that anyone with little or no interest in lap times, driving games and the like, will probably not make the same kind of connection with the taunting “IW best time” sitting there, ripe for the taking. My memories of unlocking all of the cheats in Goldeneye 007 on the N64 by completing “speed runs” are extremely fond! I don’t expect everyone to delve that deep into Spec Ops, but I’ve felt it a very addictive experience, although I have to say again that I’m also compelled to play driving games and watch Formula 1, and can’t resist beating lap times. So, Spec Ops appeals to me in more ways than one. I’ve easily spent 40 hours on Spec Ops alone, and I’m in the process of helping my friend get his 69 stars, so I’m not finished yet. They can be attempted on Regular, Hardened, or Veteran, each providing you with a star as a reward. With 23 missions, 69 stars to collect and times to beat you can get lost in a, sometimes overwhelming, but truly satisfying quest to reach that 100% stat on the main menu page. The campaign can also produce a 100% stat when completed on Veteran and all Intel has been found. Hmmm, 100%. There are 50 achievements to unlock, handing out the usual full 1000G, which again gives a 100% complete stat on your profile. I’m not getting into the whole achievement argument here, but if you really want your money’s worth, or think that a game is too short, perhaps you should try digging a bit deeper before you start your moaning.

Moaning, moaning, moaning is all I ever hear about the multiplayer. The negatives about the MP in this game can be leveled at most MP games, not just FPS, but football games and driving games too, and that is always down to the idiots that play them. There’s always going to be high-pitched screaming and singing American kids on Live. There’s always going to be the idiot who drives around just trying to crash into you, or blow you up with a “javelin glitch”. The reason they can do all of those things, is because the developers have kindly given us the freedom to customize the way we play. Unfortunately, some “clever” freaks of nature, exploit certain aspects of, what would normally be, a good game if everyone in the world was honest and above board, and ruin it for the rest of us law abiding citizens. I express my freedom of choice (kindly given to me by Microsoft) by having my communication options set to friends only. I never hear any singing, whining, swearing, Rick Astley, “camping noob” or racism. My friends do the same, and we can then just chat about whatever we want and actually “have fun” playing a ”game”. I never get any trash talking messages either. If I’m the victim of a glitch, I just do what everyone else should do, and that’s file a complaint. Perhaps we need to be reminded sometimes that this is just a “game”. There are far more serious things to moan about in this crazy world, but some people think that it’s clever to continually moan about the “game” – lighten up, and have some fun. Who cares if it looks like the killcam shows you missing the guy at point blank range. Shock – horror, it might be that you’re not as good as you’d like to think you are. Get a grip, it’s just a game. Try having some fun instead – you’ll live longer… well, perhaps not in MW2, but maybe in real life?

The freedom that IW has given us in this game’s MP is massive. The customization is huge. The maps definitely have specific points that give you enough cover to collect your care package, or fire your Predator without fear of being shot, and those same portions of the map can be used to “camp”, but surely it’s good to have that much freedom and the choice to “run and gun”, go “stealthy with cold blood”, “camp in the bushes” or “snipe from the rooftops”. “Javecide” is definitely pushing things too far, and IW is on the case with that particular custom class! I just think that a lot of the negative aspects are mainly caused by the general public and their freedom of rights, and not by the game that’s been painstakingly crafted by a developer. Now, I’m not a member of the SAS or the Marines, but if I was involved in some sort of real life combat, “camping” sounds like the approach I would most like to take if I wanted to last more than 10 seconds alive! If someone wants to sneak around on MP with a heartbeat sensor, let them! If someone wants to unlock some extra XP by getting some sneaky headshots with the .50 cal, let them. If someone wants to run around like a headless chicken, run after them and put them out of their misery. IW gave us all a choice of how we want to play, and they even reward certain tactics by issuing extra XP for completing challenges that encourage the dreaded “c” word. I try to mix it up as much as I can. I try out any new perks, attachments or weapons I unlock, which may change my style of play for a couple of matches, but inevitably I go back to whatever I feel most comfortable with, and I assume plenty of other players will do the same, after all, we have a choice…

I am giving the game a very worthy Excellent. I would give Spec Ops an Outstanding, but as I’m “reviewing” the entire game and not just 33% of it, I can’t. I will say though, that Spec Ops is worth the money for this game alone. It is huge fun, and pretty much flawless in its presentation. The magnificent campaign is “just” a sequel. However, the production values, acting, script, set pieces, soundtrack, plot lines and controversy should still get a special mention and has set the standard for similar games in the future. I felt extremely sentimental when I breached the cell in the Gulag and found my old friend Captain Price was standing there! I’ve spent at least 24 hours playing it and replaying it. It’s definitely the most fun of all the previous campaigns to complete on Veteran, and if you think that Veteran is not your thing, then again, you’re simply missing out on a major part of this game’s heritage. In my opinion, your lack of Veteran levels completed, also negates your ability to truly “review” the single player campaign. It’s your choice though, but I suggest you also “choose” not to “review” a game you’ve only just scratched the surface of. The multiplayer is “just” an evolution of Modern Warfare, but again, it sets the standard for all other games to follow in the future, and we all know that, despite the constant moaning, we’ll all still be playing it religiously this time next year… or not.

The choice is 100% yours.

[dalegt4]

well i love mw2 more each time i play and ive done the campaign 4 times now... yes i am sad. haha

but i hada few friends round last night and we played on the 4 player split screen, and its just so much fun, its a fantastic game and for multiplayer, i dont think there is any game out there that rivals it, phenominal game.

[Simon3119]

The Predator is just the same as calling in an Artillery strike on Flashpoint, its a different view point with the same outcome and you can only call it in when the game allows it.

I don't need a new controller for looking round corners, soldiers don't just blindly walk round corners waiting for the enemy to pop out they actually look around the corner first then shoot, a bit like Rainbow 6.

The enemy don't flank you, they blindly run left and right and don't change direction when fired upon, they are mindless zombies.

But none of this really matters, the main game's faults are that it is to linear, the driving parts of the game are poor and that it is over far too quickly.

I still haven't had chance to try spec-ops.

[1LeeDenton]

Superb review Stealth Rodeo

I voted 9/10, as I am really enjoying this game, and considering the hype and levels of expectation that the majority of us have had to live with over the past 6-12 months, I think IW have done a pretty incredible job.

As others have said, yes, the Single Player campaign is quite short, and clearly the easiest Veteran challenge yet, but surely we should all be pleased that the grenade spamming madness of COD5 is a thing of the past?!?!? There were still some very challenging moments (running down the hill from that log cabin/house thing) took me ages, and the Favela missions were also pretty challenging. And that's the point, they were challenging, but at no stage did I feel like throwing my controller through the screen because of the endless grenades landing at my feet wherever I was standing.

Multiplayer I won't go into detail, as we've all read about all the nuances, but again I am really enjoying it. Over halfway towards my 2nd Prestige now, and think the new perks/killstreak rewards are a great addition. Yes, they will be abused by some people, and yes, there are some code issues that need to be (and will be) ironed out with a title update, but overall I think the MP is exactly what I expected from IW, and more.

Not really played too much Spec Ops, purely because I can't get away from MP at the moment, but what I have played has been really really good. Having played Horde on GOW and Firefight on Halo I was expecting pretty much the same thing from IW - you're thrown into a map and tasked with surviving against wave after wave of enemies. But oh no, IW really pull it out of the bag, with loads of different challenges from stealthy runs through missions, vehicles speed runs, bomb defusing..........my only slight gripe is that this mode does not accomodate 4 player coop, but I suppose that might have taken away the challenge if you had 4 COD Veterans running through.

All in all, I am very pleased with the overall package, and considering I want to get my first COD Prestige 10, all the Intels without using a guide, AND complete all the Spec Ops missions on Veteran, I can see me playing this game for a loooooooong time to come yet. Not bad for £30.

[DrinksInBars]

gave it a 7, it has pros and cons. the campaign was very meh for me. some good set piec es but was marred by inconsistent level design with ridiculous spikes in difficulty due to the near impossibilities of seeing where the enemies where. Special ops are good, but if you want to play them solo the game offers exactly the same number of enemies as it does in coop which seems not only lazy but unfair. The multiplayer seems worse and more unforgiving toward aggresive play favouring camping. also the amount of killstreak bonus's while staggering, mean that players are encourage to hide and build their killstreaks and in any open map it becomes nigh on impossible to move for lack of an enemy aircraft taking you out.

[Stealth Rodeo]

Originally Posted by DrinksInBars

inconsistent level design with ridiculous spikes in difficulty due to the near impossibilities of seeing where the enemies where.

Which specific points are you talking about? I didn't experience anything like that on my playthroughs.

Originally Posted by DrinksInBars

Special ops are good, but if you want to play them solo the game offers exactly the same number of enemies as it does in coop which seems not only lazy but unfair.

I can't speak for all of them as I only completed the majority of them solo, but Wetworks definitely has less enemies on Solo than it does on Co-Op.

[Kinetic Frenzy]

I decided to go with an 8 though it could have easily fallen into the 7 bracket. Activision and IW get a 10 for hype:

Pros
* Good production values
* Good graphics
* Attempt at innovation with MP
* MP is fun and addictive (but equally frustrating at times)

Cons
* SP is weak. Just the same as every other COD SP game. Boring. It's up to the developers to show a bit of imagination here.
* MP suffers the same poor netcode COD has had on the 360 ever since COD2 was released at the consoles launch Dec' '05
* MP has glitches beyond belief
* Matchmaking isn't up to scratch
* Tatical Nuke is one of the worst ideas ever implemented for objective based games
* Some weapons are massively unbalanced and when combined with glitching it destroys the integrity of the MP

[willp2003]

i gave it an 8.

SP was good but far too short and too easy on veteran. I know a lot of people wil have bought the game just for the MP but i love a good campaign and I didn't get enough of it.
Spec-Ops is a good addition, but why didn't they add in a lobby/search function rather than having to get one of your friends to join you.

MP - i wasn't really enjoying this as much as cod4 until recently. I think there's too much emphasis on kill streaks which encourages camping/boosting. However after unlocking the ACR i've found my new favourite gun.
At least IW are fixing the glitches that are becoming all to frequent, but if they iron out the problems my vote would be a 9. doesn't get a 10 due to the single player.

[jason7579]

Voted very good

Single player was ok, I enjoyed playing through it but it was nothing special.

Multiplayer is, as always, good fun but I think the care packages should be taken away as imo it should be all based on skill rather than blind luck.

Spec Ops I thought was absolutely brilliant and hopefully we will get more in DLC

Without spec ops I would have given the game an average rating.

[Br1an_g]

i voted excellent.

i have just completed the campaign on veteran, plowing my way through spec ops on veteran now and really enjoying it.

i dont get why people complain about a game being too short. if it was too short, or too easy then you are playing it on a difficulty that is not matched to your skills...ramp it up.

the campaign was a bit choppy for me, i didnt really get into the story. there were some bits that really made you think. the run from the cottage to the LZ for instance..after many tries going through the field i ended up going a different route along the shore and getting to the LZ.

spec ops is outstanding. get a friend and its even better. very challenging on veteran but worth the extra effort.

MP is the same as a lot of these games online. bit of luck mixed with skill and some decent fun to be had if you get a decent group of people. im just getting into the MP a bit more and trying to unlock some weapons and attachments.

overall, i would suggest to those saying the campaign was too short to put it up a difficulty, i tried a couple of levels on regular difficulty and you could litterally run through the level ignoring a lot of the enemies..i can see why the campaign can seem so short..

send me a FR if you fancy helping out with my spec ops veteran challenge

just to add some of my stats.
campaign total play time 20 hours, completed on veteran with all intel items. also includes a play through on normal.
spec ops total play time 12 hours, 51% complete. mostly veteran but a few play throughs to unlock a few levels with friends.
only played the multi for 2 hours..

[Elite Cobra]

Very Good.

I voted very good because the multiplayer is very good as you can customize you callsign and killstreaks and the guns are very good.

The campagin is good but too short but some of the missions are brilliant.

Also, the special ops is a very good addition to the game.

So, overall very good.

[jamienufc]

Voted outstanding.

I think the single player campaign is fun and full of great action and set pieces. Imo its a real rollercoaster ride from start to finish that is so polished it gleams. Granted its a little short compared to some of the other campaigns out there, but what makes it a little short is the lack of padding. You know the bits - the bland corridors and repition, doing the same things over and over again. IW have kept things pretty tight and varied and to me have been sucessful. Who didn't smile like a cheshire cat when you jumped over that cliff on your snowmobile?!?!

Spec ops is a great addition and fantastic to play through with a friend. I'd have loved it to be 4 player, but this is till a superb example of co-op gaming that is both fun and addictive.

Multiplayer. I'll be honest whilst COD 4s was great it didn't draw me in like mw2s. Yes there were challenges, unlocks and kill streaks, but the multiplayer in mw2 seems to hold a power over me. I cant stop playing it and I'm obsessed with challenges and unlocking guns, perks and the like. I think there are some great maps and great improvememnts over cod 4s mp. It seems IW have taken the great things from it and evolved them so we have things like personalised kill streaks, deathstreaks, titles and emblems. Things are by no means perfect - the lack of dedicated servers causes lag on occasion and there have been many glitch exploits, but despite all this the multiplayer has kept me hooked and resulted in games such as Asassins creed 2, Left 4 Dead 2 and fifa 10 being unplayed.

That to me is the greatest testiment to a game and the reason I gave it outstanding. Not since Soldier of Fortune 2 on the pc have I been so engrossed in a multiplayer game.

Jamie

[Brutos]

I gave it a very good. The single player campaign is good but not as good as MW1. The muliplayer as always with COD is very good, but again it's not as good as MW1.


Overall it's a very good game but do feel it's a slight step backwards from MW1.

[willp2003]

Originally Posted by Br1an_g

i dont get why people complain about a game being too short. if it was too short, or too easy then you are playing it on a difficulty that is not matched to your skills...ramp it up.

i've done it on vet and it was too short and easy (compared to past COD games)
it took my about 6 hours on regular, and about 8/9 on vet. I'd run through on both difficulties in less than 24 hours.
compare that to COD4 - reg took me 1 day, and vet took me about a week.

[Doctor Smirnoff]

Voted Very Good.

There's no argument against the fact that this is a bona fide technical achievement in terms of graphics and environments.

IW clearly made an effort to deliver a varied campaign full of surprise and excitement and they didn't fail... particular kudos for doing so with an FPS.

Having said that, once the credits rolled, it found itself taking long-term residence on my shelf. Where it'll lie for some time methinks.