The Call of Duty series has been breaking new ground ever since the series hit gamers in 2003. Published by Activision and developed by Infinity Ward, Call of Duty blew the lid off the first person shooter (FPS) genre in ways few games in the genre have ever accomplished. The story behind Infinity Ward and how they came to be is an enlightening one, a story you’d all enjoy reading if you care enough about drama in the gaming industry. I won’t go into too much detail about it here, but the gist is that Infinity Ward was formed in 2002 by 22 employees of 2015, Inc., the developer behind the Medal of Honor: Allied Assault game. But since the emergence of Infinity Ward, the Call of Duty series fast overtook the top spot among war-based FPS and has set the bar continually ever since…wait, there’s a bit more. Activision decided to farm out the series to another developer, Treyarch, a game developer acquired in 2001 and merged with Gray Matter Interactive. Treyarch developed Call of Duty 3 at the behest of Activision, which caused upheavel at Infinity Ward, who were upset that a numbered sequel was given to another developer.
And the difference showed. Call of Duty 3 wasn’t as deep and satisfying a game as the previous two entries in the series. But Infinity Ward would strike a huge blow to any notion of challenge to their throne with the release of Call of Duty4: Modern Warfare. Treyarch responded with Call of Duty: World at War, but even though most people called it “Call of Duty 5,” it’s certainly not a numbered sequel at all, a fact worth mentioning. It’s not Call of Duty 5. 
Not only that, World at War couldn’t hold a candle to Modern Warfare in terms of depth, story, and online prowess.
Two years after Call of Duty 4: Modern Warfare was released, there are still numerous players online. CoD4MW revolutionized the online multiplayer aspect of FPS by introducing a dynamic and rich Perk system, rewards galore, tons of modern weaponry, and custom classes. A shocking and dramatic single player campaign rounded out the offering, earning the game the coveted and revered Game of the Year 2007 award.
November 10, 2009 will long live in the annals of gaming history as the day that Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 2 (CoDMW2) hit consoles and PCs everywhere to much fanfare and controversy. For Yours Truly, the game is both a triumph and a disappointment, bittersweet in every way. I don’t know whether to love it or hate it, truth be told, because the moment I feel any sort of feeling one way or another, the game throws me another curveball. Sometimes I can read it and knock it out of the park, other times I stand there as it floats by scratching my head in bewilderment. I’ll explain.
First off, it must be noted that CoDMW2 is not a true Call of Duty numbered sequel. In other words, this is not Call of Duty 5 or 6, as some have speculated, based on the aforementioned drama between developers and publisher. It is, however, a direct sequel to Call of Duy 4: Modern Warfare. If the naming scheme is confusing to you, you’re not alone. It’s silly. Naming aside, what CoDMW2 delivers is a combination of better and worse, if you can believe it. Leave any fanboy stuff at the door when you read this first impressions review because, in my humble opinion, there hasn’t been an honest critique of this game outside of the PC-related reviews.
CoDMW2 has, currently, a 9.4 overall review on Metacritic, which is a website that collects all official critic reviews and averages them together for a final score. Metacritic scores are the boon of the gaming industry, and if a game doesn’t receive a 90 or better, the game can suffer quite a bit. Sounds shallow, I know, but this is a simple truth. Humans love to group and summarize, and in our salvation-by-survey culture, it’s no wonder that a summary site affects sales and marketing so greatly, especially with games. Personally, for a game to deserve a lofty score like that means that it’s ground-breaking, or at least does everything better than what has come before it. Sadly, I don’t feel MW2 deserves that score whatsoever, let alone Game of the Year 2009 status. There are much better candidates for that title.
MW2 boasts three distinct modes of play this time around, not just two. Single Player campaign and Multiplayer return, but the third mode, SpecOps, is brand new to the series. Honestly, SpecOps is the only reason Modern Warfare 2 has any relevant score, because the single player campaign is the worst of the entire franchise, regardless of developer, and Multiplayer – while a supremely fun and engaging experience – isn’t flawless. The dichotomy between these two modes is nothing short of bewildering, so it’s the addition of SpecOps that provides a bit more balance.
The single player campaign, after playing through it on normal difficulty the first time through, is a mish-mash of nonsensical story elements blended with horrible characters and idiotic A.I. (artificial intelligence). In short, it’s nothing like past Call of Duty stories (except for idiotic A.I.). CoD4MW’s story was criticized for being so short, but because it was awe-inspiring, semi-coherent, and ultimately shocking and rewarding, people didn’t mind. But instead of building upon that for MW2, Infinity Ward decided to go along the “less is more” path, only to find that it’s really not more, it’s less. Less is less if you put minimal effort into telling a tale, a fact I know all too well. Basically, you have a 3-hour jaunt through various landscapes to blow stuff up and kill people. If that’s your bag, then you’ll love this mode. If you demand something more logical, exciting, and comprehensible, then this single player story will leave you scratching your head in so many spots. I couldn’t get into it, no matter how much I tried. It’s worse than I read about, trust me. On a scale of 1-10 that I use for scoring game components, the SP mode in CoDMW2 would receive an abyssmal 3.0 out of 10, at best. Sorry guys, but I call them as I see them, and this mode is horrendous, uninspiring, and at times downright silly. And the airport scene, the controversial mission in this game, is plain dumb, 100% dumb and unnecessary, not to mention incoherent. I won’t spoil things in this preliminary review, but it will come in the final.
Fortunately, Multiplayer lives up to its end of the bargain in a 180-degree shift from single player. In short, it’s amazing. The system doesn’t do anything revolutionary, a fact I will get to in a moment, but it does everything CoD4MW did, but better. Rewards are constant, granting the gamer an insatiable lust to keep playing, keep fighting for the next level, striving for the next reward. The better you are, the more rewards you stack. I’ve literally earned several thousand XP (experience points) in a row by layering challenge successes, kill streaks, and perk bonuses together. The list of weapons, attachments, and perks grew and provides more balance than ever before. Even without Xbox Live, the PSN handles the matching perfectly, and in-game migrations between hosts actually work very well. I’ve only been kicked out of a game two or three times during peak hours (Sundays), but the rest of the time online has been a fantastic experience. Callsigns, emblems, and challenge booty exist in plenty, so there’s always something to do.
Multiplayer isn’t without its flaws, however. Balance is still a problem, despite what Infinity Ward says. Death streak perks are cool, and all of us have used them enough, I’m certain. But does a 10 second boost to health – called “Pain killer” – really provide balance if the map is so huge that you really can’t get anywhere in the time you have the boost? Answer: no. And stealing your killer’s class with “Copycat” is cool, too, but if you’ve never used the weapon, perks, and equipment said killer had that you stole, again, is it worth it? Sniping is pretty difficult in MW2, too, so if you Copycat a sniper, you’re stuck running around with a huge sniper rifle that is worthless in close quarter situations. So in that instance, Copycat is useless, for the most part. In short, some of the Death streak perks I have unlocked so far are not balancing factors at all. They’re all but useless and only provide a false sense of uberness. And when you die, yep, the Death streak perk goes away and your Death counter starts all over again. If you’re level 5 playing in a room with level 30+ folks, be prepared to be dominated, plain and simple. They have perks that render them invisible to radar, their footsteps silent, and thermal vision that will piss you off to no end because you have no counter. For low level players, it’s frustrating and can easily beat you into quitting the mode altogether. I’ve seen it happen. I’m at level 22 or 23 right now, so hope springs eternal, but my kill-to-death ratio is laughable…something like 560 kills to 820 deaths, but it’s improving. Low level multiplayer is a struggle, but stick with it, get better, and it’s very rewarding.
SpecOps mode pits the player against 23 unqiue missions that are pretty much taken directly from the single player campaign, but there are some unique ones solely for this mode. I found some of them to be boring and frustrating, like the snow mobile racing ones. Seriously? Racing through flags? Silly, unnecessary, and nothing but filler. With two players in co-op mode, this mode rocks. In single player mode, it’s daunting, frustrating, and plagued with the same crap A.I. as in the single player campaign. Why they allowed single player freedom is beyond me when the missions were obviously designed for two, but again, it’s these types of decisions that lend honest critique to an otherwise blindly reviewed title. Following my 10-point scale, this mode – at first impression – would receive only a 7.5 out of 10 at most. It’s nothing new and excitement is hit or miss. Being challenged to run The Pit in under 30 seconds isn’t cool, innovative, or even fun, it’s dull. I accomplished it, mind you, so it’s not because I can’t do it…I can, it’s just pointless.
My first impression of this game will have many of you calling me sacrilegious or a hater. Please don’t flame me for having a purely honest critique of this game. Single player sucks, SpecOps is so-so and better played with two people, and Multiplayer is freaking awesome, save for a few balance issues that, with practice, can be overcome. As such, I will give it a score of a B- paper you’d get in school, because while it’s above average, it’s nothing ground-breaking by any stretch of the fanboy imagination.
First Impression Score: 8.0/10
I hope I get MW2 for Christmas.
your kill to death ratio is really bad and man you must be really bad at this game, as soon as i got into the game i got put into a game with lvl 40+ people and i had no problem getting a 16 killstreak, AUSSIE GAMERS RULE
Well, I’ve only been online like 9 hours, but yes, I can admit that I’m not the best at this game…but I never said I was. I always start out playing FPS games like this, but I’ll get better. I’m 32 years old man, cut me some slack! LOL
Finally an honest review!
The multiplayer is fantastic. Spec Ops is decent. Campaign is laughably bad. Totally agree with your overall rating. If you look a the whole package it’s a B game.
nice looking online game, but tired of FPS. Now Uncharted 2 is a fun game.
haha you noob, you say the A.I. in the campaign is “idiotic” well you played it on normal, you don’t review a games A.I. based on the normal difficulty. Play it on Veteran see how you do against them, I doubt you’d get very far. The deathstreaks are just suppose to give a SMALL boost. Use a different one on a large map, or don’t die 4-5 times in a row. Judging by your review your just terrible at this game and therefor don’t enjoy/like it, not because you gave it a bad review but because of these comments, “playing through it on normal difficulty” “Sniping is pretty difficult” compared to what? and, “560 kills to 820 deaths” that 0.40, why the fuck are you reviewing games your a noob noob noob noob noob noob nooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooob
I love 12 year olds. Thanks for taking everything in the review out of context. So, the A.I. can’t be idiotic unless you play it on Veteran? Is that your logic? Umm, the A.I. is worse on Veteran, and amounts to nothing but cheap parlor tricks like the opponents being able to hit you no matter where you are, if they’re running full speed, or if they’re 300 yards away. That’s the definition of idiotic A.I., certainly not an indication that I suck whatsoever at this game.
Go back to the cookie jar before I tell your mother you’re cursing online. I enjoy this game very much, and my review gave it an “above average” rating, something your fanboy mind obviously can’t wrap its head around. You must not be able to realize it’s a good score, but MW2 isn’t the ground-breaking game everyone is making it out to be. Trust me dude, I will Platinum Trophy this game, regardless of my kill-to-death ratio, which was simply an estimate…I didn’t actually look. Thanks for proving my points.
I also wanted to take the time to post this quote DIRECT from Game Informer magazine, issue 200 (the most recent). This is from page 8, the Feedback section. What I’m quoting is the submitter’s comment followed by the staff person’s response about enemy A.I. in games at higher difficulty settings. This should clear up the retarded insults I’m getting from children.
“Why is that when you increase the difficulty in a game, it never means ‘let’s make the AI smarter’? Instead, it’s always ‘let’s have this guy take three head shots, ten shots in the torso, and two grenades before he dies. Oh, and if he gets shot in the head, he doesn’t stumble – he walks through it and pistol whips the player in the neck.’ Losing like this makes a game frustrating, not fun, and it makes players less likely to try completing a game on higher difficulty settings. A defeat would be more acceptable if it happened by being outsmarted, as opposed to facing an HP-pumped, guard-breaking, demogod AI. I’d prefer a challenge of the mind and less of a challenge of chance and endurance.” – Tyrell Zimmerman, Richmond, VA
Reponse:
“The sad, short answer is that good AI is difficult to create, but it’s easy to give enemies more hit points. When developers are making games, they need to prioritize their efforts. It doesn’t make sense to painstakingly craft a realistic AI that only a fraction of players will see on extreme difficulties; that time and those resources should probably be spent tuning the aspects that more gamers will experience. Even in light of that reasoning, however, we totally agree with you. The thrill of outsmarting an intelligent opponent is far more gratifying than just filling a meat shield full of lead, and we’d love to see more games (not just shooters) implement more cunning AI at all difficulty levels.”
So, for those who insult me that I can’t play difficult games and therefore shouldn’t review games, I’m a level 12 PS3 gamer, with 6 Platinums to my credit, and over 700 total Trophies. I’ve beaten VERY difficult and challenging games on crushing difficulty levels, but there are games – like MW2, fanboys – whose AI doesn’t compare to other games whatsoever. Cheap parlor tricks…that’s what I call them and that’s exactly what it is. I will beat it, so I don’t suck. I’m simply making a true and honest critique of a poor system in this game, which I know makes me such an evil person. LOL
B.T., you aren’t trying to sway him with a rational and cogent argument are you? His ilk cannot process information presented in such a manner. Vituperations, especially those consisting of four alphanumeric characters or fewer, are their preferred means of intercourse.
@Greyweather: Fantastic post and points, GW.
That has me chuckling still. Yes, I admit that I’m a product of a logical upbringing, education, and thought processing, which I try to inflict upon mankind at every point I encounter the opposite state.
I suppose I shouldn’t expect so much from one so young, but if said individual isn’t part of the pre-pubescent stage of human growth, then the situation is far worse than any of us suspect. LOL Thanks GW. You and others who’ve commented give me hope that perhaps I am doing a good job of being an honest reviewer.
I have to disagree with you. I think that the single player is more about quality, rather than quantity. I guess it just depends on the modd you are in when you decide to sit down and play it through.
Spec ops is an ingenious idea, and as always, multiplayer is second to none.
I’m going to go get another nuke. Peace
Understood, but the problem I see is that it’s neither about quantity NOR quality, especially quality. The quantity part is fine if the quality is OK, but as Nintendo discovered with the Nintendo64 – quantity over quality is a neat concept, but difficult to achieve when you chop yourself off at the knees with your own virtue.
Simply put, the single player campaign is a disappointment, if not a full disgrace. SpecOps is broken and is basically the same experience if you play it as a single player. Multiplayer is great. I like the game, enjoy it, and do rather well at it. It’s not a question of fun, it’s a question of critiquing it with an open mind, rather than a closed one.
I appreciate your comments, and thank you for respectfully disagreeing rather than flaming.
I needed to report back here and say that the single player campaign on Veteran difficulty is utter lunacy. Anyone who enjoys this level of cheating and bullcrap A.I. is simply blind to the poor attempt at “difficulty”. I’m getting through it, but it’s less than crap in the enjoyment department, and even worse if you’re prone to frustration. I’m literally ready to break the controller and I have, regarding gaming, a great deal of patience. I’m just amazed that this game’s single player gets any credibility whatsoever on this level of cheesy difficulty. It’s nothing but ambush, die, try to remember where said enemy was, get a bit further while praying for a checkpoint, ambush, die, try to remember where said enemy was…repeat over and over again until you manage to get through.
And don’t get me started on the “help” of your squad. They are freakin’ idiots. An enemy will waltz right into the room and aim straight for me, and my guys keep their backs turned!!!! Game of the Year??? I can’t wait to rip this game’s single player mode apart in the final review, which has been delayed because of the fact that I simply don’t care about this game anymore…and I don’t suck at it.
BT, feel free to make a new post anytime you have updates like this (if you want)
The single player is not trial and error. It’s about quick reflexes and aiming. The ai does behave like amphetamine pumped morons on a fieldtrip, however.