When Infinity Ward released Call of Duty: Modern Warfare even they could not of expected the mass success of the game,it quickly climbed the most played lists and has since remained there,until now.
With the release of Modern Warfare 2 the hype was unbearable and Infinty Ward has alot to live up to with gamers everywhere expecting something approaching demi-god status.
I cant help but feel that the game was to hyped up,making it almost impossible to live up to the image of the game everyone had in thre heads,but if you ignore the hype and just play the game you quickly realise that Infinty Ward has done something amazing again.
While there’s no major change in the formula,run,gun and shoot they have polished it until it gleams.
Once again Infinity Ward have proved themselves the master of set piece’s with some stunning locations,settings and set pieces that will stick in your mind for a long time to come.
Storming the Gulag,fighting outside of the white house and sneaking through snow storms are just some of the things the player will experiance throughout the rather dissapointingly short campaign mode.
All of these amazing battles show of the game’s graphics which are frankly amazing with some brutal animations and mixed with the first person view you get dragged into the game easily,providing you with an intense experiance.
This intensity is constant throughout the game,it never lets up and has a level of intensity that very few other games can even come close to matching,though sometimes it just feels to much and you find yourself wishing for just a second or 2 of breathing space that never comes.
Thankfully the pacing is good,one minute your storming a prison and the next your sneaking through a snow storm using a heartbeat sensor to elude enemy patrols,it keeps you on your toes and you never have time to get bored thanks to the short missions,each one never lasts to long so it keeps your attention and you never get bored of one level.
However this translates into an extremely short campaign mode,lasting around 6 hours even on Veteran mode.
it’s over far to quickly,though due to the games intensity it’s understandable as I doubt Infinity Ward could of kept the games flatout pace for a 10 hour campaign.
Thankfully Spec-op’s mode gives the game some extra lifespan,there a series of 23 short missions that can be played in 2 player co-op mode,giving it extra appeal.
there’s a good range of missions from race’s,defending a place or assaulting estate house’s and sneaking through enemy patrols.
there all levels from the singleplayer,just with there objective’s changed and there only a few minutes long but it does add some welcome lifespan to a short singleplayer mode.
The story could of been very good in this game,however most people are going to find it hard to follow simply due to it being very disjointed as you constantly jump from character to character.
it’s incredibly hard to follow whats going on and why it’s happening as your dragged from country to country and never getting a chance to get any feeling what so ever towards the game characters.
I simply didnt care about the characters around me and the person as i was playing as,there effectively blank slates.
Of course I cant review a Call of Duty game without talking about the multiplayer which made the original Modern Warfare so popular.
keeping the original formula,Infinity Ward chose to give us more customisation and choice’s,creating a diverse system.
You now have access to a vast range of attachments for your guns,ranging from thermal sights to shotgun’s that attach to your assault rifle,along with a perk that now allows you to add 2 attachements to an weapon.
Killstreaks have now become customisable and have a large range to choose from,such as sentry guns and harrier airstrikes.
It’s more over the top and unrealistic than the original and you can certainly argue it’s even more unbalanced.
The ability to gain a tactical nuke if you get a 25 killstreak was not a good choice as it now encourages kill boosting so they can gain that instant win.
is it original? no. does it change much from Modern Warfare? no.
Is it the most intense action shooter of the year? yes.
Whilst it does not change anything in the shooter genre or add any original idea’s of it’s own it still provides a thrilling,if short,campaign and one of the finest multiplayers out there.
It’s not the perfect game that everyone was so hyped about,but it’s still a dam good game.
Highly detailed graphics and amazing scenes eqaul a graphically impressive game
still the smoothest and most polished shooter out there
this can vary,the singleplayer is very short but the muliplayer could keep you hooked for a long time.
A visually stunning shooter with a fine multiplayer but lacks anything original or any real changes from Modern Warfare 1 and an exceptionally short campaign.
You left me a message on my blog about checking out some of your reviews. I couldn’t find your email, so I’ll just leave some comments here.
-Your format is very mainstream and conventional. However, this format is one that I don’t like. It seems to say a lot about the game, but it is not specific enough for an in depth look or general enough for a comprehensive feature review.
-You have to play to your strengths. In the amount of space you’re working with here, you should focus on a feature of the game or a quality of the game as a whole. After all, I devote several thousand words to review some games on my blog and that still doesn’t cover it all.
-So unless you specifically want to write about the history of the game, don’t write about the hype or the game legacy. Focus all of your time and words on the game at hand.
-You don’t seem to be working with any kind of game theory or design philosophy. Without one, I’ve found that you have far too many bold statements and sweeping generalizations that aren’t backed up with evidence, examples, or explanation.
—“is it original? no. does it change much from Modern Warfare? no. Is it the most intense action shooter of the year? yes.”
—“It’s more over the top and unrealistic than the original and you can certainly argue it’s even more unbalanced.” Yes I can argue this point, but what do YOU say about it.
—“The story could of been very good in this game,however most people are going to find it hard to follow simply due to it being very disjointed as you constantly jump from character to character.” Don’t talk about most people. Try to speak objectively about the story.
—“I simply didnt care about the characters around me and the person as i was playing as,there effectively blank slates.” Not caring about something in a review will damage your overall credibility. The reader doesn’t care if you care. They care why you care or not. The explanation is key.
-I wouldn’t bother with summaries or score values at the end of the review. Focus on saying something specific about the game/your experience as clearly as possible.
-Your voice/style will develop the more you figure out what you like most about games and the more you understand games overall.