325 replies to this topic

[Lizzie]

Hmm ... does look good actually. Lol at the goggles. The goggles definitely do something!

[Camille]

holy shit just played it today and... shit. awesome doesn't even come close.

[Wizard]

Note to anyone playing this game for the first time, don't do it on hardcore. As a general rule the game is much tougher than MW. D:

[Jok3r]

*Spoiler*

In response to Nem's question:
I'm a little confused by it, too. But I think he was acting out of some sort of mis-guided patriotic duty. Remember, he didn't kill any Americans (except by blowing up the base). Roach and Ghost were Brits, Ozone had an accent that could've been english but I can't say for sure, and Archer was definitely not American. He wanted to increase patriotism, I think. The one thing I'm really not sure about, personally, is who launched the nukes. Price was talking about it and all, but... it leaves me confused.

Oh, and as for impressions? I just finished the campaign, and absolutely love it. Later tonight, I'll try out spec ops and play some MP. Good stuff.

[General]

The Joker, on 13 Nov 2009, 1:32, said:

*Spoiler*

In response to Nem's question:
I'm a little confused by it, too. But I think he was acting out of some sort of mis-guided patriotic duty. Remember, he didn't kill any Americans (except by blowing up the base). Roach and Ghost were Brits, Ozone had an accent that could've been english but I can't say for sure, and Archer was definitely not American. He wanted to increase patriotism, I think. The one thing I'm really not sure about, personally, is who launched the nukes. Price was talking about it and all, but... it leaves me confused.

Oh, and as for impressions? I just finished the campaign, and absolutely love it. Later tonight, I'll try out spec ops and play some MP. Good stuff.

*Spoiler*

You can understand his intention when he says '' 30.000 soldiers died in my command and world just watched it '' , he was involved and probably helped in all of this to first make his country pay then the whole world, and nukes launched by Price and succeeded by doing EMP effect over Washington

Wizard, on 13 Nov 2009, 0:53, said:

Note to anyone playing this game for the first time, don't do it on hardcore. As a general rule the game is much tougher than MW. D:

Yes, its certainly not best to rush even in lower difficulties.

Edited by Gabriel Angelos, 12 November 2009 - 23:41.

[ΓΛPTΘΓ]

Finished singleplayer in hardcore first time through in 4hours...

I thought they could do better, not tactical at all, running to the objective seems to be the only thing you do, due to you can't really clear an area because of unlimited re spawned foes... Story wise I am not impressed, many stuff unanswered and doesn't flow all that well.

I rate MW1 at 8.5/10, this (singleplayer only) at 7.5/10

Not all bad, but outdated graphics, horrible FOV and console like texture is a huge letdown.

[General]

ΓΛPΤΘΓ, on 13 Nov 2009, 1:39, said:

Finished singleplayer in hardcore first time through in 4hours...

I thought they could do better, not tactical at all, running to the objective seems to be the only thing you do, due to you can't really clear an area because of unlimited re spawned foes... Story wise I am not impressed, many stuff unanswered and doesn't flow all that well.

I rate MW1 at 8.5/10, this (singleplayer only) at 7.5/10

Not all bad, but outdated graphics, horrible FOV and console like texture is a huge letdown.

Because running through the objective is the duty of the soldier lol, this is not a fantasy game. And I don't want to believe you did it on ' Hardcore ' in 4 hours ....

[ΓΛPTΘΓ]

Gabriel Angelos, on 12 Nov 2009, 23:43, said:

ΓΛPΤΘΓ, on 13 Nov 2009, 1:39, said:

Finished singleplayer in hardcore first time through in 4hours...

I thought they could do better, not tactical at all, running to the objective seems to be the only thing you do, due to you can't really clear an area because of unlimited re spawned foes... Story wise I am not impressed, many stuff unanswered and doesn't flow all that well.

I rate MW1 at 8.5/10, this (singleplayer only) at 7.5/10

Not all bad, but outdated graphics, horrible FOV and console like texture is a huge letdown.

Because running through the objective is the duty of the soldier lol, this is not a fantasy game. And I don't want to believe you did it on ' Hardcore ' in 4 hours ....

Being a ex-CAL player, CODMW2 on singleplayer is easy compare to CAL-CSS. Compare to games like Insurgency, Red Orchestra you certainly is built like a tank. In my experience of this game Hardcore is the most balance option to play in, without AI stare blanking at you that is what I meant. But as a huge fan of tactical shooters, this one really sucks when you try to hold up and advance with caution (except mission requested) as enemy will constantly re-spawn, so moving fast is the easiest way to play.

[Camille]

Quote

outdated graphics

say wut. you can say all you want but those are NOT outdated graphics. i'm curious as to what game you'd call good-looking then.

also, it should be universally known by now that gameplay >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> graphics.

and about general shepherd

Spoiler

betraying you and some other folks, an extreme act of desperate patriotism seems to be the case.

[Pav:3d]

Outdated graphics? Are you nuts?

[ΓΛPTΘΓ]

Crysis? DX10? HQ textures?

[Kaido]

ΓΛPΤΘΓ, on 13 Nov 2009, 13:29, said:

Crysis? DX11? HQ textures?

Fix'd
But, i kind of like the MW2 singleplayer..
Dont know if i could say the same for mp...

[RaiDK]

ΓΛPΤΘΓ, on 13 Nov 2009, 21:29, said:

Crysis? DX10? HQ textures?

Crysis looked good 2 years ago, but it also brought anything short of a godlike system to its knees. Plenty of games look that good now.

[General]

Pav3d, on 13 Nov 2009, 13:21, said:

Outdated graphics? Are you nuts?

ΓΛPΤΘΓ, on 13 Nov 2009, 13:29, said:

Crysis? DX10? HQ textures?

Unfortunately very few person have a supercomputer to run the buggy Crisis at full specs And though I know Crisis and liked it, I still like the graphics of MW2 more than Crysis's, saying graphics of MW2 is outdated would be a bit ' too harsh ', perhaps you played MW2 in lower specs

I'll keep protecting the rights of the MW2 * cough *

[Camille]

i knew crysis would be mentioned but it`s really impossible to compare the two looks-wise since they are both meant to depict different scenarios and scenes.

i´ll agree though that engine-wise (purely technically speaking) cryengine 2 is more capable than mw2`s IDtech engine version.

but please, let`s get back to mw2. we`re drifting off.

[General]

Camille, on 13 Nov 2009, 17:47, said:

i knew crysis would be mentioned but it`s really impossible to compare the two looks-wise since they are both meant to depict different scenarios and scenes.

i´ll agree though that engine-wise (purely technically speaking) cryengine 2 is more capable than mw2`s IDtech engine version.

but please, let`s get back to mw2. we`re drifting off.

Yes.
It would be true to say MW2 will be better experienced by the ones who played and loved the story of MW , certain moments in the MW2 make me smile for I liked MW and glad to see some things back from the first game and in some spectacular means

Edited by Gabriel Angelos, 13 November 2009 - 20:36.

[amazin]

i have to say, my favorite level was probably second sun,

Spoiler

very atmospheric when the EMP goes off and shit starts falling down all over the place, then the rest of the level is barely finding your way through the pitch-black streets bumping head on into russian patrols.

[Ekalb]

The Joker, on 13 Nov 2009, 10:32, said:

*Spoiler*

In response to Nem's question:
I'm a little confused by it, too. But I think he was acting out of some sort of mis-guided patriotic duty. Remember, he didn't kill any Americans (except by blowing up the base). Roach and Ghost were Brits, Ozone had an accent that could've been english but I can't say for sure, and Archer was definitely not American. He wanted to increase patriotism, I think. The one thing I'm really not sure about, personally, is who launched the nukes. Price was talking about it and all, but... it leaves me confused.

Oh, and as for impressions? I just finished the campaign, and absolutely love it. Later tonight, I'll try out spec ops and play some MP. Good stuff.

*SPOILERS*
Price launched the nuke when he was in that russian sub and purposely detonated it while in space (or high in the atmosphere). This resulted in an EMP wave hitting America and screwing up the whole war - and that was Price's intention, to try to do something desperate to really hinder or stop the war on America.

Shepard had a few justifications (personal) for his actions including taking 'revenge' on the world for what it let happen in COD4 (with the nuke) as well as how he wanted to be the victor and write history and if price and soap were still alive he couldn't have the only story to tell. It is explained kind of vaguely in the loading screen bios but it takes a bit of though to connect things together and in that sense the story wasn't told as effectively as it could. Shepard also seems very tormented by events happening in both games including his CIA Op not only failing, but leading to a war on American soil.

Also Raptor you're being a noob, the graphics are fine and the reason you probably went through the campaign so quickly and didn't notice any tactical moments sounds like you just ran through every mission without really following and being smart about how you do things. If you want added tactics some of the SpecOps missions do deliver but you need a headset to communicate with your buddy for them to be the most effective.

Very enjoyable game and I'm glad I purchased it.

[Stalker]

My two cents after playing the game for 3 days.

SP:

+ epic music
+ epic levels
+ epic gameplay
- poor story
- too short

MP:

+ epic levels
+ epic gameplay
- matchmaking really sucks
- game crashes very often when loading a map
_____________________________________________________________
= Epic game
= story could have been better
= we need dedicated servers asap

[ΓΛPTΘΓ]

Ekalb, on 14 Nov 2009, 9:55, said:

The Joker, on 13 Nov 2009, 10:32, said:

*Spoiler*

In response to Nem's question:
I'm a little confused by it, too. But I think he was acting out of some sort of mis-guided patriotic duty. Remember, he didn't kill any Americans (except by blowing up the base). Roach and Ghost were Brits, Ozone had an accent that could've been english but I can't say for sure, and Archer was definitely not American. He wanted to increase patriotism, I think. The one thing I'm really not sure about, personally, is who launched the nukes. Price was talking about it and all, but... it leaves me confused.

Oh, and as for impressions? I just finished the campaign, and absolutely love it. Later tonight, I'll try out spec ops and play some MP. Good stuff.

*SPOILERS*
Price launched the nuke when he was in that russian sub and purposely detonated it while in space (or high in the atmosphere). This resulted in an EMP wave hitting America and screwing up the whole war - and that was Price's intention, to try to do something desperate to really hinder or stop the war on America.

Shepard had a few justifications (personal) for his actions including taking 'revenge' on the world for what it let happen in COD4 (with the nuke) as well as how he wanted to be the victor and write history and if price and soap were still alive he couldn't have the only story to tell. It is explained kind of vaguely in the loading screen bios but it takes a bit of though to connect things together and in that sense the story wasn't told as effectively as it could. Shepard also seems very tormented by events happening in both games including his CIA Op not only failing, but leading to a war on American soil.

Also Raptor you're being a noob, the graphics are fine and the reason you probably went through the campaign so quickly and didn't notice any tactical moments sounds like you just ran through every mission without really following and being smart about how you do things. If you want added tactics some of the SpecOps missions do deliver but you need a headset to communicate with your buddy for them to be the most effective.

Very enjoyable game and I'm glad I purchased it.

Thanks for calling me a noob, I take it as a compliment. The reason I went through campaign quickly is first there is nothing left to do, second the enemy have unlimited respawns, point moving slowly? None and can't (You will run of of ammo). Graphics are fine for two years ago and for console, but that like of low res texture on a modern PC game is just poor (I already set everything on Max or Extra). Also the in your face FOV and non-removable crosshair is bugging me too.

Edited by ΓΛPΤΘΓ, 14 November 2009 - 17:07.

[BeefJeRKy]

*skips spoilers on story*

Ok so far I've been playing this game for a solid 5 hours. It isn't particularly difficult, but the action is deliciously involving. The airport scene is FAR more disturbing than I expected. I found myself doubting my actions. The story is annoying in that it is built like a season of 24 where nothing makes sense until the end. The game runs without a hitch on my rig and the graphics are decent but as Raptor said, the textures feel severely lacking. It really could have used some DX10 love (since DX11 is kinda hard to ask for). The textures feel stretched at 1920*1080. The effects are all lovely though. Haven't had a chance to try multiplayer though I will be limited to LAN for now. Overall, the game doesn't live up to the hype IMO, but it is still an excellent game.

[amazin]

Quote

second the enemy have unlimited respawns

nope, they took that out.

and as for the 360 version, it has some of the best graphics to date.

[Nem]

umm not dachamp, on 14 Nov 2009, 15:04, said:

Quote

second the enemy have unlimited respawns

nope, they took that out.

and as for the 360 version, it has some of the best graphics to date.

Agreed, completely. Not quite as good looking as some of the tech demos they decided to make games out of however.

JRK, on 14 Nov 2009, 12:32, said:

The airport scene is FAR more disturbing than I expected.

I went into it thinking it wouldn't bother me to much. Looking down at all the bodies was really disturbing.

Edited by Nem, 14 November 2009 - 21:10.

[Enthusiasm]

I don't get how a community of modders could like a game that has no modding abilities and was developt by a company that stole one of the most famous modders out theres work and claimed it as their own.

[Wizard]

Because all modders are, first and foremost, gamers. No point modding a game if you don't want to play it. It is a shame that there will be no mods for it. Doesn't mean we can't enjoy the thing though