hi all, i'm new here.. looks like a great place, Thanks

i went to Amazon to order it, it had 385 one * ratings, over 300
"Sucks Hard then Blows" but it looked like a couple of 8 year olds did like it.

i always check here now, amazon etc reviews and Youtube before i buy anything.

rented it. good rental - not worth the money to buy.

No kidding. The SP mission set sucked hard compared to the first game; basically just the same objective repeated over different levels. Bleh. And I played through veteran mode and threw the controller a few times.

1) I think he had a dual purpose, make it seem like Russia used nukes and also to black-out the entire war area to give both forces a break and time to think.

The nuke was detonated to give America time to regroup anyway. If you recall a cut scene between Price and Shepherd, Priced asked him if he was prepared to do what was necessary to stop the war, to which the General agreed.

Price knew what was going on and realized at some point Shepherd essentially paved the path for the US to be invaded, thus the raid on the submarine pen was a cover to launch the nuke.

Plus it seemed like Russia was heavily reliant on its vehicles and tech they were using to invade while the US had the vast majority in numbers.

Kind of, but you got it backwards - it was the Russians who had exploited the American military dependence on technology. The Russians had decrypted the ACS module before Soap and Roach got it back and thus it was implied Russia had hidden its invasion force from detection. It was never explained how they gained the technology before Soap and Roach went for it; and the only thing I could come up with was Shepherd was covering his own tracks.

Really, MW2 storyline is a load of crap. I usually hate flag-waving patriotic garbage while playing war shooters, but damn, those stories at least made more sense than MW!

The story itself is insane, almost to the point of Metal Gear Solid not making sense.

Metal Gear at least made some sense if you paid attention. MW2 just...really required some leaps of imagination and insinuation for it to make sense. Really, the game was not made for its SP! Which is a shame, because the previous COD (save MW 1) had some decently written stories, if a person doesn't mind the constant patriotic garbage.

Perhaps all my plot issues were answered flawlessly, but I missed ALL of the important plot details because I was too busy getting a bayonet shoved up my ass.

Trust me, you're not the only one. I had to play through twice before I picked up all the points, then I realized I wasted the time paying attention to the story. There really wasn't one.

I don't bother with console garbage.

Have fun patching your PC games.

Played through SP mission.....it was ok. Some of the fights are ridiculously hard. Credits are weird.....and tons of inside jokes.

8 Hours 20 Minutes for first play through on Hardened. Going to play through on Veteran. I am sure the controller will be thrown against the wall after having to respawn 50 times per level.

just looked on the IW forums for PC MW2 and what do you think is there, its lagging, its freezing, it stuttering, cant see ping, fps is shit!

Official forums are always nothing but complaints after launch. Steam forums are similar. If you actually go to community forums or ask your Steam friends what they think you will get a different story... all mine love it.

my nephew beat it in 6 hours and said it was fun. i asked him if he wanted it for christmas and he said not really.

rented it. good rental - not worth the money to buy.

Thats funny Mr plug, I've heard of people who are most enjoying their time with it.

TOUGH SHIT? what the fuck are you 12? If it's not for you then don't buy it.

I'm happy that it's sold this much and people are playing games; when I grow up all I hoped for was that more people would play games, this is happening, even the Sim are all good in my book for those who enjoy playing them.

Some of the people here seem to have a real sense of hurt; it's sad.

just looked on the IW forums for PC MW2 and what do you think is there, its lagging, its freezing, it stuttering, cant see ping, fps is shit!

All i will say is that you was warned that it was a peace of shit from all angles, p2p is a bag of shite and a console port isnt good enough and shouldnt buy at all cost. So all the people who have bought it... TOUGH SHIT!

This comment was edited on Nov 12, 2009, 18:02.

@Flatline: you will be among the first to pick it up dude. You and everyone else are fooling no one. Me? I don't bother with console garbage.

I mean, WTF? Did I miss something here?

The game was definately a lot more summer blockbuster than normal military aggrandizing, but I still found it enjoyable from a gameplay/spectacle view. I do think it fell behind in tone and feel, yes.

To answer your questions briefly:

1) I think he had a dual purpose, make it seem like Russia used nukes and also to black-out the entire war area to give both forces a break and time to think. Plus it seemed like Russia was heavily reliant on its vehicles and tech they were using to invade while the US had the vast majority in numbers. It was very Summer Movie Plot, I admit, and confused me at first as well.

2-4) Shephard was talking about the nuke from CoD4 when he lost all those men, and he says no one in the world cared. It's a statement about Iraw and Afghanistan now really, we're in a two-front war and living in the US you would barely notice. So he works with a Russian terrorist to start World War 3 basically to make people care about the military and realize we are in a fight for our lives, or so he thinks. It's warped, but he's the bad guy, it's supposed to be. People are calling it a cliffhanger because of Makarov, but I think the whole point is Makarov doesn't matter, he is just a "whore" as they say at the start... the real issue is Shephard and America's strange absence from the war we are fighting.

Anyway, I agree it is more summer blockbuster than military coolness... I wrote that somewhere else, here I tend to write briefly. If you loved CoD4 for the cool Captain Price moments where you felt like an SAS operative you get some of those here, like the oil rig and snow base, but a lot of the time it feels like a Michael Bay movie, and that is a bit of a step back. Gameplay and spectacle wise though, still amazing.

Beat the game on hardened... amazing experience from top to bottom. If you liked CoD4's campaign at all I urge you to grab this game TODAY, not tomorrow.

How do you suggest it?

There is no uber-cool sniping level. The stealth levels are about 1/5th the length of the stealth levels in COD4. The story itself is insane, almost to the point of Metal Gear Solid not making sense. Here. I'll illustrate.

=-=-=-=SPOILER WARNING=-=-=-=-=-





You have been warned.

1. Okay, I get the whole set off a bomb next to an oil fire to snuff it out. Silly, but okay. So ultimately, why *did* Price set off the nuke? What did it accomplish? I guess it EMP'd DC, and gave the US military the break in the combat to do what they needed to do (which is bullshiat, we're so overly-reliant on technology these days that an EMP would be beyond crippling). If that's the case, he had one hell of an accurate sitrep from DC in the field, didn't he? Was it to give Shepherd his "blank check" to go after the russian? If so, why did he "never trust Shepherd" later on? Was it to get the world to side with us instead? Because that didn't work either. I guess you could argue that it was because Price was nuts.

2. Shepherd himself. The plot was stupid. The russian dude caps the American to make it look like it was the US who did the attack (which is idiotic) to justify an invasion. That would indicate collusion between Shepherd and the Russians. But Shepherd wants the data from the safehouse to go after the russains. He then kills the black ops teammates. Why? Who F*cking cares? They were working for the dude. What made the russian decide to give up where Shepherd was? The two started a war after all. For that matter, WHY DOES THE RUSSIAN DUDE EVEN KNOW WHERE SHEPHERD IS? That means they *must* be working together. But that Shepherd double-crossed everyone, the US, his black ops teams, and the Russians, all apparently to achieve idiot plot point #4

3. What the hell was Shepherd doing in what is essentially an Al Qaeda cave in Afghanistan? His country was still under invasion. I guess he was staging an assault on the russian dude, but again, why take out the black ops guys, they were going after the russian dude anyway. Take them out, then drop a bomb on their exact location and you're done with it. I *suppose* that the data included information incriminating Shepherd, but he could have just taken it and done whatever the hell he wanted to sanitize it. Then send in the Black Ops team, caulk the bad guy, and then drop a bomb on the f*cking good guys.

4. Shepherd again. WTF was that speech at the end about? Was he playing both sides simply for a recruitment drive? He talks about losing 40,000 men and how the recruits will flood in. So I take it that this entire thing, working with extremist russians, planting a US soldier in a terrorist cell to intentionally get killed, going after Price, allowing the US to be invaded and DC to be destroyed, killing his own black ops team, and hiding out in Afghanistan in tunnels, is all to recruit more soldiers into the army? Or even worse, it's for his ego?

I mean, WTF? Did I miss something here? COD4 played through single player like a Tom Clancy novel, and the pacing was excellent, and it gave room to develop characters that you enjoyed. This plays more like Metal Gear Solid, if you took out all of the monologues and forced the gameplay to snort pure meth for a week without rest. This game NEEDED 6 hours of monologues to make sense of the goddamn story. Otherwise it's a series of rushed firefights, where if you're lucky you don't get blown away by the cheap hidden respawn AI that pops up behind you and kills you in one melee hit.

Perhaps all my plot issues were answered flawlessly, but I missed ALL of the important plot details because I was too busy getting a bayonet shoved up my ass. Again, a total fault of the pacing of the game.

There will be an MW3, and really, I probably *will* skip out on that one.

This is a perfect image of those who are clueless about this game

And the military's weight requirement.

I logged out of Xbox Live 30 minutes ago and saw 780k people online. Can only imagine what this weekend will look like. I'm sure that guy in the picture below as not stopped playing or done anything else since he bought it either!!

Ugh ughghghgbllahhghgghgh. Goddammit, Internet, every time you cosplay without common sense, God kills a kitten. Please, think of the kittens. This is worse than the quartet of frat boys at Otakon this year cosplaying as the female leads from four different Final Fantasies.

This is a perfect image of those who are clueless about this game. I can only surmise that he probably also buy Madden brand new year after year. That is the guy you are playing against on that lovely p2p system.

(From yahoo)
http://tinyurl.com/yc2sfsu

http://img43.imageshack.us/img43/3953/mw2m.jpg

This comment was edited on Nov 11, 2009, 18:47.

The multiplayer is hit or miss. Even if you've got a three or four bar connection, you're going to notice latency issues, especially when you throw a grenade or fire off the n00b tube.

All in all, the actual gameplay is excellent, and the mechanics are an improvement over the original. But that doesn't change the fact that I-Ward's bizarre notion that listen servers can technically stand up to dedicated server support in terms of reliability is a simple delusion. The experience is very much what you'll find on a console multiplayer title; it's functional, but if you've ever played a game on a dedicated server, you'll see an instant downgrade.

Sad to hear. I've been reading similar experiences from others as well. To think I was actually going to give it a shot, despite the lack of dedicated servers. But the issues seem to stem further than simply not being able to select a favorite server or even a quickie server of your choosing. From what I'm hearing there connection performance issues abound. I'm really disappointed and pissed that I looked forward to this title for so long, only to get this result. Fantastic.

It's a shame Battlefield: Bad Company 2 isn't coming out sooner.

The multiplayer is hit or miss. Even if you've got a three or four bar connection, you're going to notice latency issues, especially when you throw a grenade or fire off the n00b tube.

All in all, the actual gameplay is excellent, and the mechanics are an improvement over the original. But that doesn't change the fact that I-Ward's bizarre notion that listen servers can technically stand up to dedicated server support in terms of reliability is a simple delusion. The experience is very much what you'll find on a console multiplayer title; it's functional, but if you've ever played a game on a dedicated server, you'll see an instant downgrade.

So, has anyone played the multiplayer on the PC and how is it?

I still am completely baffled by this mentality. "It has p2p on the PC so I am getting the p2p console version instead that also lacks mouse aim and high-res graphics! That'll show 'em!"

I don't get it. At all.

It seems you already played the game and enjoyed it, but to explain...I don't have a PC good enough to run the game, multiplayer over Xbox Live has never been a problem for me and I've adapted to the controller setup and play fine. Not as good as M+K, but good enough to be competitive. So, there's really no good reason for me not to enjoy it on the 360.

I loved the original game, well the multiplayer part anyway. And some of the singleplayer missions were cool.

Im not buying this game, I think that IW not implementing dedicated server support (for whatever reason) is a slap in my face and a big FU to all the fans/clans who loved and enjoyed the first CoD4 PC version.