Top
220°

Why the Modern Warfare 2 Bashing?

Koku Gamer writes:"November 2007 brought this generation of gaming one of the biggest titles thus far, Call of Duty 4 : Modern Warfare. That title changed FPS titles in so many ways, so much so it was literally copied for the next iteration in the series with the worn out World War 2 face again. But now we have Infinity Ward back in control and again they are bringing changes with them."

Read Full Story >>
kokugamer.com
The story is too old to be commented.
D4RkNIKON4042d ago

Because we have seen the graphics.. and are not impressed. granted millions of people (myself included) will buy this game for the 5 star AAA gameplay. There better be a real clan system!

randomwiz4042d ago

its funny how COD4 graphics were considered photorealistic at the time, and now people think the graphics of MW2 aren't great.

The graphics are fine, the gameplay's going to be awesome... I'd say most of the bashing comes from people who are just getting MAG. I played the beta over at a friends house, and I can confirm it is really good... a little buggy, but really good.

I love COD4, and MW2 is going to be an immediate purchase for me.

TheDarkCynic4042d ago

Watching that E3 video, I was plenty impressed. Particularly your climbing partner in that mountain sequence. That may be the most detailed in-game face I have ever seen.

Elven64042d ago

The only justified bashing is the pricing scheme Activision is applying in Europe. Other than that, the only bashing I have seen are by fanboys claiming their exclusives are the best and will be better than MW2.

Ziriux4042d ago

Yea you all can say what you want about the graphics, but they've always been better than Halo's, better than 3, ODST, Halo Wars and just about any Halo or FPS game really. So how could you talk smack about graphics, and last time I checked gameplay makes a good game.

Go Gaming Giant4042d ago

oh ye, a clan system is a must!

Ziriux4042d ago

I don't think it's a must at all, to some hard core peeps that like being tactical and playing team games sure. I'm a solo player, I'm happy with my FFA and I need no clan. And there is more casuals that play CoD games as far as I know.

Hagaf224042d ago

I dont think the graphics are bad, but they certainly are no leap above cod4, this game has potentional, hopefully its not like the socom failure with confrontation

Ziriux4042d ago

@ Hagaf

It's a Infinity Ward developed game it won't fail, just like they all haven't failed, it'll be a good game while it may not innovate or change the way graphics look.

deadreckoning6664042d ago (Edited 4042d ago )

Whats more important gameplay or graphics? Everyone knows that nothing will touch Killzone 2 on graphics for a while, but its obvious that Modern Warfare 2 has much MUCH more options during gameplay. Knife throwing, duel-wielding, riot shields, new customizable perks..its just so much.

@Morganfell- Ive never owned a COD game, but ive played it many times at friends house and I have ta say that as far MULTIPLAYER. YES..it IS the end all be all of shooters. Notice I said multiplayer, so don't give me the ol' Half Life 2 song and dance. The only thg that concerns me is that Im buying the PS3 version, but im so used to playing the 360 version. Am afraid that IW ill gimp the PS3 version somehow as far as host migration is concerned.

ReservoirDog3164042d ago

I really don't care about graphics much. I'm not one to whine about the resolution or jaggies or anything like that. I do like how smooth the animations are in newer games but that doesn't stop me from playing old PS2 games. So the graphics in MW2 don't really bother me. And I can guarantee the gameplay is gonna be fast and addictive. IW can tell a good story so that's a plus.

No, the game will be great. The only problem is that activision logo on the box and how much that logo will cost the good people across the pond.

If you really must get MW2, buy it used.

TheAntiFanboy4042d ago (Edited 4042d ago )

The graphics look fine! In fact, they look fantastic! You guys just can't be satisfied with above average, can you? Just because they're not the best on the market doesn't mean they're bad.

At least there's a FAR more diverse color palette than Killzone or Gears.

Kleptic4042d ago

yeah I had like 12 days or something in cod4...loved it...but did get annoyed over time with the lack of support the game seemed to get...it would take forever to get a patch...glitches seemed to grow as the game got older...and there were a few balancing issues and hit detection problems that were never resolved (grenade hit detection was always broken)...

if the price is 'normal' i'll get MW2 soon after release...probably not day 1, as i'll still be all over Uncharted 2 at that point...but i'll get it...as a shooter fan, its been perfect...as shooters for me always have the longest replayability...I played that shat out of CoD 4 for like 8 months, then wasted time with GTAIV for a few weeks, then played the shat out of MGS4...then resistance 2 dropped, picked it up, and simply couldn't get into it...killzone 2 though came in and changed the gameplay, pacing, and objective system just enough to have me completely hooked...and still am...but by the time MW2 drops, i'll probably be ready for a faster paced shooter again...even if it does lose a considerable amount of intensity...and especially visual prowess...to killzone 2...

either way...if you like online shooters...this is the best generation of all time...

Kushan4042d ago

COD4's graphics were NEVER considered "Photorealistic". COD4 did not shine as a graphical masterpiece, however what it did have going for it was the 60FPS framerate. I'll take that over some fancy shader effects or AA ANY day of the week.
Honestly, if you'd played MW1, you'd know how rock solid the gameplay was. If someone complains because the graphics aren't good enough, then just GTFO because you're not a real gamer, you're an idiot.
Good grapbics are great to have, but good gameplay will always be more important.

RememberThe3574042d ago

Right now they suck ballz. Anything to do with them is on my bad side from the jump. I loved COD4, ans I still think that it could be the best shooter made. But after Playing Killzone 2 for almost 6 days online, it is apparent that shooters can be done better in certain areas. I'll still rent it for the single player, but I'm not going to buy it unless it's used.

4042d ago
kalebgray924042d ago

its the price they are selling it for in europe and the ceo making stupid @$$ remarks.... the game is fine imo but the reason its not a day 1 purchase for me is operation flashpoint: dragon rising.... its more of a sim with wayyyy better graphics....

@1.1 randomwiz
your an idiot fanboy saying only ppl who are getting mag are going to skip on this one .... its just we actually have choices... i said what i am getting OF:DR then MW2 then MAG in march... i have a job to get all of them

Raptors4042d ago

I personally am a gameplay whore. Would I like a graphics upgrade? of course. But personally the gameplay is more important to me than the way it looks.

+ Show (14) more repliesLast reply 4042d ago
morganfell4042d ago

MW2 isn't getting bashed. It just isn't getting a free ride this time.

That said, it isn't the end all be all of shooters and like the publishing CEO it deserves a swift kick to the curb.

Ziriux4042d ago

Exactly, you see the CEO made the company seem crappy with wanting to raise prices.

morganfell4042d ago (Edited 4042d ago )

^^^That is true but COD4 like all COD games is linear as hell. The MP is rush out kill some people, get taken out by a shot from across the street or a Martyrdom perk, respawn, rinse, repeat. Little to no tactics or teamwork needed. Especially when compared to other online offerings. This fall season has a wide range of options.

Hagaf224042d ago

true, with todays standards no game should get a free ride

rhood0224042d ago (Edited 4042d ago )

Except it will get a free ride.

The "Modern Warfare"series has reached "sacred cow" status. Meaning, it could be the exact same game--save some cosmetic changes and minor tweaks---and it'll still be heralded as the greatest thing ever. And anyone who bad mouths it is derided as not knowing what's good.

For example, every COD game is extremely linear and has, about 99% of the time, the exact same weapons in every game (albeit modern incarnations)--something the fans look forward too ironically. It also holds your hand when aiming and the story is paper thin with few memorable moments--many of which are heavily scripted and have no bearing on the gameplay.
The enemy AI is weak and the multiplayer (the ONLY reason the game will sell--just look at WOW for proof), when you get right down to it, offers 99% of the same mechanics as other FPS.

If this game had any other name attached to it, it would get hammered as "generic," and "offering nothing new to the genre."

But none of that matters. As much as people moan about innovation in games, when it comes down to it we're suckers for the "sure thing." So it'll sell millions and, when the 14th game in the series comes out and we wonder what happened to the quality (as so often happens), we only have ourselves to blame.

Kleptic4042d ago

yeah any negative comments i've ever made towards MW2 has always been because of Activision...'the biggest launch in entertainment history'...no it won't be...like it or not acti...this is not GTAIV, or halo 3...even though I feel it will be better by far than both of those games, the marketing and hype simply isn't there...so stop pissing in the wind about it...

and kotick is a complete douche...

TheAntiFanboy4042d ago (Edited 4042d ago )

Then why is it that I see so many significant differences in the gameplay between 4 and MW2 just by watching the videos? Infinity Ward isn't lazy. It's clear they've listened to the community and made vast improvements to their systems and how the game works.

If things seem "the same", it's because the core gameplay mechanics are the same. Which is fine! If they deviated significantly, it wouldn't be Call of Duty anymore, would it? The whole point of a sequel is to take what they have and improve upon it. And as far as I can tell, there is a huge, very noticeable difference between MW2 and CoD4 and I can spot the differences immediately.

Moreover, whether the story is actually good or not is relative. To broadly refer to it as being "paper thin" is a subjective opinion, one that I most definitely do not share with you concerning Call of Duty 4. I felt that the plot was compelling and that the method of storytelling was extremely effective. That being said, I didn't enjoy the story for any other Call of Duty game, so your statement certainly applies for the most part, but in my opinion, not to Call of Duty 4.

Concerning linearity, do all games suddenly have to be open-world in order to succeed? No! Call of Duty 4 is a strictly linear game, and that is more a style difference than anything else. That's how they choose to show their world, that's how they choose to tell their story. Scripted events have their own unique flair and style to them, and if done well, can be fantastic moments. Don't tell me Force Recon getting nuked wasn't significant. Also consider that it shares its linearity with pretty much every other big blockbuster on the market within the last 3 years, including Halo 3 and Killzone 2.

And above all, I really don't get why everyone either wants the Jesus-equivalent of a game or bust. You CANNOT MAKE A PERFECT GAME. It is IMPOSSIBLE. You can make a STRONG game with STRONG gameplay and have it be justifiably popular and successful, like Call of Duty 4. It doesn't have to be THE BEST, and when you get right down to it, there is absolutely no such thing as THE BEST.

I may hate Activision a lot, I may hate what they've done to fantastic properties like Guitar Hero and their constant exploitation of Call of Duty via Treyarch, but in the end, Infinity Ward does NOT reflect Activision's bullsh*t. We're very lucky that Activision has decided not to meddle in IW's affairs; the only thing they've done to Call of Duty is add another developer to make spinoffs. Because of that, they're not forcing demands upon IW. I think it's a fantastic deal. Sure, we get a somewhat mediocre but otherwise decent game every other iteration, but at least it's punctuated by something fantastic.

And I do respect Treyarch. They do work hard, and they make good games. The games they make may not be better than the ones IW makes, but they most certainly do NOT suck.

My overall consensus on Modern Warfare 2 is that it will be great. Not perfect, because nothing can be perfect, but it will most definitely be worth my money. I do not worship MW2, I am simply a fan, and I am a fan for perfectly justified reasons. And I most certainly do not treat it like the second coming of Jesus Christ, because no game in existence is worth attaching that analogy to.

raztad4042d ago (Edited 4042d ago )

@rhod

Fully agree with your comment.

Game has failed so far to show anything exciting that justifies the overwhelming hype it is getting from COD4 lovers. Graphics are just adequate. AI is stupid and multiplayer seems pretty conventional, but easier cause weapons lack any recoil. I see they just added Capture The Flag and some gimmickry like throwing knives WTF? Not to mention the connectivity issues they are "proudly" showing off.

I'm not saying game is gonna be bad, but please dont hype it as it is the second coming of Jesus.

rhood0224042d ago (Edited 4042d ago )

@Anti

What significant changes? Dual wielding? Riot shields? Knife throwing?
Doesn't take away from all the things I mentioned and have been a staple, in one form or another, in other FPS. Just watching the E3 demo vid shows how much they have to rely on scripted events, helpful aiming and overall poor AI.

But the changes I've seen are in the multiplayer (which seems to be the major focus of the game and, IMO, )--through new modes and an upgraded perks system. So I'll revise my "99% the same multiplayer" to 90%.

I'd probably have more respect for the COD series if it just became multiplayer only. Like Halo, that's the series' bread-and-butter and what the majority of the reviews focus on anyway. Sure, the campaign is entertaining, but you'd be kidding yourself if you believed that is a major selling point.
---

But you seemed to miss my point. My point isn't to point out what's wrong with MW 2. My point was to show that BECAUSE it is a Modern Warfare title, it will get a free pass on things people complain about on other FPS titles.

Personally, I loved a few of the events in COD 4 (the nuke and last scene specifically) and like linear games if it fits within the genre--as is true with FPS. So I have no personal problem with the game IW is putting forth. What I don't like is that it's name automatically makes people overlook valid criticism.

And you mentioned Halo 3 and Killzone 2. Of the two, which one was overly criticized for it's linear nature and "non uniqueness"?

The sacred cow Halo 3 or the new controversial Killzone 2?

Kleptic4042d ago

theantifanboy...totally agree...

I loved CoD 4...but was aware of its flaws...and I loved killzone 2 because it remedied the flaws I disliked about CoD 4 gameplay wise (constant grenade spamming, some broken objective 'tricks', balancing issues possibly, etc.)...but killzone 2 had its own set of flaws in different areas (uh...so the class with double the health can carry a laser straight rocket launcher and has the ability to run twice as fast as anyone else?...nice)...

no game is perfect...some are better than others...and MW 2 will be better than a lot of others...but just because some gamers are realistic about it not being the greatest game on earth...or CoD 4 not being the greatest game on earth...does not mean anyone is bashing it...

and yeah...I hate activision...not IW, although IW can go quiet at the wrong time concerning updates and responding to feedback...but whatever...they are a small company, handling a HUGE ip...so its acceptable...

NoBias4042d ago (Edited 4042d ago )

Morganfell writes:

"The MP is rush out kill some people, get taken out by a shot from across the street or a Martyrdom perk, respawn, rinse, repeat. Little to no tactics or teamwork needed."

Okay but COD4 has more modes than that. Search & Destroy is the only game mode I play on COD4 because it emulates SOCOM style of play (You get one life. You die? You wait til the next round). For anyone to say that mode doesn't take skill is lying through their teeth and would get eaten up if they've never played it.

COD is NOT all about respawn. I hate respawn. Man up and see how many people you can eliminate with your clan with only one life to work with. Therein the difficulty lies because if you suck, you're going to be doing a lot of spectating. A lot.

TheAntiFanboy4042d ago (Edited 4042d ago )

I know I missed your point, but since we kept on about discussing MW2's value, I'm going to rebuttal it. Hope you don't mind.

What's new? What are the significant changes? New perks, new gametypes, new weapons, better graphics, smoother gameplay, better animations, new challenges, customizable killstreaks, grenade sticks, new maps that are FAR more interesting and colorful than CoD4's, a revamped interface, player badges, the new host migration system, new sounds, MUSIC BY HANS ZIMMER I MEAN C'MON, and even the new font. And I bet you there's probably way more stuff outside of that that they haven't even introduced yet. And yet they manage to still maintain the same Call of Duty feel. All of these individual features may seem miniscule individually, but put them together and they all add up to refresh the overall experience.

And I already told you about scripted events. You may not like them, but they're a method of storytelling; it's a style of presentation. Scripted events are like split-second cutscenes, except the player maintains control of the character and the game doesn't leave perspective. If anything, they're even more immersive than a cutscene. Scripted events are, as you say, scripted, but someone scripted them from imagination and placed then in the game. They imagined something, envisioned it, thought it over, choreographed it, and developed it. You know... like a movie. But an interactive movie.

And I do believe that the campaign is a major selling point. I really do. But that's because my primary focus is on the campaign and the storyline. Call of Duty just tells its story differently, but it's still a good story.

But don't get me wrong. I don't think MW2 is perfect, and I certainly don't think CoD4 is either. In fact, I had a lot to say about CoD4; it was overrated to hell and back, just like every other AAA game on the market. But the reason why I don't criticize MW2 yet is because I haven't played it. What I've been shown are improvements so far, improvements compared to CoD4, and you really have to admit, it IS improved compared to its predecessor. But that's typical marketing: show only the good stuff. Once I get my hands on it, I can come to a conclusive decision, and I WILL point out its flaws, and I WILL criticize it.

Now that that's over, I'll get to your point about the "free pass".

I agree with you purely on the terms that people may often completely overlook a game's flaws simply because of a name or a brand. That's my position as an anti-fanboy. But if MW2 is getting a free ride, then so is everything else.

Killzone 2, Halo 3, CoD4, every major IP, every gaming console, has basically gotten a "free ride", because people fail to realize that ALL of these products have a thousand dozen problems that keep them from being perfect, and yet they prance about saying "ooh it's perfect there's nothing wrong with it", thereby hindering the developer's ability to improve. They fail to provide criticism, and thus the developer doesn't know what they're doing wrong. It's retarded, and that's why fanboyism is a fallacious proposition, completely devoid of any form of real intellect. It propagates sameness and that change and evolution is unnecessary.

Fanboys cry for perfection, yet they fail to realize that their choices, their words, their stance, does nothing to promote perfection, and in fact is a DETRIMENT to progress. The more we criticize, the more people strive to improve, and the CLOSER they get to perfection.

So yes. You're right. People are stupid, and anyone who's claiming that Modern Warfare 2 is the second coming of Jesus Christ is an idiot and is doing NOTHING to help promote Modern Warfare 2. If you REALLY love MW2 that much, CRITICIZE IT so that Infinity Ward can make it better.

As for Halo 3 and Killzone 2, I don't know if that's a trick question, but regardless of what the general consensus was or what the press had to say about it (I don't know; I stopped paying attention because both games were swamped with blind fanboys singing their praises like they were the keys to heaven), I felt that both were extremely linear.

morganfell4042d ago

raztad you nailed it. There is nothing even remotely resembling what we saw when COD4 was at it's E3. Of course we knew what to expect as regards linearity, it's COD. But it just seems to be an also ran and not even vying for the top spot. I am sure 13 year old gamers will snap it up though.

+ Show (9) more repliesLast reply 4042d ago
Mr Bean Laden4042d ago

graphics looks less than stellar,but has the same gameplay as the previous, which is a good thing.

anybody know if it has split screen online?

Ziriux4042d ago

I will give you that answer, if you come out of hiding you son of a biatch. :)

XBLGT B1GMACNFR1ES4042d ago

cant people just enjoy a multiplat without a bashing here and there?

borgome4042d ago

Haha, the beaner doesn't understand the joke. haha

Mr Bean Laden4042d ago

me no speak english, I KILL YOU!!! :P

Kleptic4042d ago (Edited 4042d ago )

I wouldn't say they look 'less than stellar'...as cod 4 is still one of the best looking shooters this gen imo...it was arguably the best looking 360 game of 2007(as in cod 4 I mean)...easily topping the somewhat underwhelming look of halo 3..and although bioshock and ME were considered great looking games...the 360 barely ran ME, and bioshock was UE3 that was already getting a bit tired to many people (same reason UT3 was received that way on the PS3 that year)...and the only reason cod 4 wasn't the best looking ps3 game was because Uncharted also released, and took that year entirely on a visual basis...

can you honestly say that there is a game on the 360 that is immensely better than cod 4 in terms of visuals?...realistically, i would say no...its a great looking game...and the PS3 only has 2 or 3 games that are clearly better looking...

but yeah...killzone 2 crushes it...but killzone 2 currently crushes everything visually...so its not really fair to judge it that way...I would say that killzone 2 looks above and beyond everything this generation so far, so its kind of irrelevant...as MW 2 is easily competitive in the 'normal' game sense...

and i'm not being ps3 biased about this...as MW 2 looks WAY better than Resistance 2...and so did CoD 4...the low res of CoD 4 and MW 2 is annoying I guess, but I honestly wouldn't even know if someone hadn't told me about it...

deadreckoning6664042d ago

I agree 100% with The Anti-Fanboy

+ Show (5) more repliesLast reply 4042d ago
NegativeCreepWA4042d ago

Because its turned into the new Halo and people are going hate it just for the sake of hating it.

Ziriux4042d ago

Turned into a new Halo? Biatch, CoD started that stuff before Halo, get it right, expect one is clearly better than the other in the gameplay department.

jmare4042d ago (Edited 4042d ago )

Always with the "Halo Haterade". It's just like the PS3 hate, only it's real, right?

Maybe people don't like Halo (and COD) because the games are overhyped. Instead of being treated like really good games with some minor flaws, they're treated like: OMFG!!!!!! It'z teh GREATEST Gamez EVAR!!!!

Guess what? They're not. That, in combination with Activision vying for the title of World's Biggest Asshat, people are more cynical when it comes to MW2.

EDIT Below 4.4: Are you serious? Do you even know how to read? 1. I never mentioned KZ2, so I don't see why you feel the need to. 2. Overhyped is not the same as being popular. Overhyped is treating something as better than it is. COD4 is a great game, it has some flaws. People seem to be getting butthurt over the fact that MW2 isn't getting a free ride this time.

NegativeCreepWA4042d ago (Edited 4042d ago )

4.1 Are you really so stupid that you think my comment had anything to with the game play of either game.

CoD is the most popular FPS this gen, so people are going hate it regardless of how good it is.

NegativeCreepWA4042d ago (Edited 4042d ago )

4.2 Then what game is? Let me guess KZ2.

"Maybe people don't like Halo (and COD) because the games are overhyped."

That's the same as hating it because its popular. Do you know how things become popular, people like them. I feel sorry for you if judge something by its hype and not its game play. Which is great in CoD.

I think you need to learn to read because I didn't say you mentioned KZ2. I'm just curious what you would consider the best FPS this gen?

Is there some rule that people cant mention KZ2?

Kleptic4042d ago (Edited 4042d ago )

for me personally...I would definitely say killzone 2 is the best fps this gen...but I fully know that is only my opinion, and definitely isn't the 'popular' opinion...

to each their own...I didn't like halo 3 simply because it was so similar...be it looking, sound, gameplay, whatever...to all the past halo games...some say thats a good thing, if it isn't broke...don't fix it...but for me it just felt tired...killzone 2 was the opposite of that...Love or hate the 'feel' of the game (even though GG ended up giving the option to change that slightly)there is no arguing that the game feels nothing like any other shooter ever made...that overall probably hurt the titles popularity, because so many guys whined about how it didn't feel like_____ ...the game plays like a brand new IP, that had a lot of fresh ideas for the fps genre...other than story cues, there is little to attach it to killzone 1...I like that...I usually can take 1 or at most 2 sequels to a certain game...and if not enough is changed, it gets old for me...

and this is EXACTLY why I loved cod 4...it was nothing like the WWII games before it...other than a few similar scripts in single player...CoD 4 was a brand new ip, and activision is now treating it that way...MW2 will probably be great, as it appears they have changed a whole lot gameplay wise, but kept the things that worked where they belonged...but if MW 3 comes along and is pretty similar, i'll probably be tired of it by then...

but there is a fine line between what is the best game, what is the most popular game, and what games sell the most...for whatever reason, the gaming industry is the only entertainment division that has the community spitting at each other about 'my game sold more, so its better'...correlate that with the music industry, and you would have people saying 'the back street boys sold more albums, so they are better than pretty much anyone'...gamers seem to often forget that a lot of people have plenty of money, but that does nothing to illustrate how good or bad their taste is...

raztad4042d ago

Bad movies are popular, you need good taste to show appreciation for good stuff.

NegativeCreepWA4042d ago

For me CoD4 is the most entertaining FPS experience this gen, while KZ2 is the best from a technical standpoint.

+ Show (4) more repliesLast reply 4042d ago
Ziriux4042d ago

Yea, you'll still buy the game bro, like millions of peeps will.

First off the game is not meant to be tactical, and have all that stuff like clan support or heavy stat features. Its fine the way it is and the game has a hard core and casual audience that they'd like to keep. Complicating things more would not appeal as much, that's why the CoD serious has always been make a pic up and play game.

cyborg69714042d ago (Edited 4042d ago )

Clan support is complicated you must be a tard. The more new features the better if you like the bare bones options of cod4 then you should stick with that game. You are of the minority most peeps play with a clan or a group of friends not always solo.

Kleptic4042d ago

5.0...great point...that is somewhere CoD 4 really shined...its a VERY 'easy' shooter...the difference between some one with only a few hours of experience vs. someone with days worth...is not as large as some other shooters...halo 3 or killzone 2 for example...is like playing a guitar...if you don't do it regularly, when you come back you'll suck for a while...

and cod 4 walked that tight rope pretty well...keeping hardcore shooter fans satisfied and challenged...but also didn't alienate the casual crowd either...as newer players could jump in and do perfectly fine and still get a lot of kills...a newer player jumping into halo 3 would get wrecked, and a newer player in killzone 2 simply doesn't understand anything that they are supposed to be doing...that hurt the communities of both the ladder games overall...as newer players would simply give up, and it has somewhat deteriorated into hardcore fanatics screaming at each other...