Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 2



+ Add a Comment


 I've played the game to completion twice. First time on Regular and 2nd time on Veteran. Regular took me almost exactly 4 hours to the minute. Veteran took me just over 5 hours. I'm not sure how you managed to waste 2 full hours on this short of a game but I'd love to hear your reasons. Also, I fully agree with other commenters in this thread that the review was lacking in many ways and the game (based upon the review you gave) was not worthy of an 8 out of 10 rating. I personally would rank the game and 8 or 8.5 because of the amazingly addictive and fun Co-Op and the usually fun to play tiered multiplayer. If it weren't for lazy, d-bag campers the game would always be fun no matter how many times i died, but that's a topic for another article entirely.

NOTE TO EDITOR: I'm surprised at the low level of quality I've seen on many articles on, both in content and in basic gramatical/spelling errors. Do you guys need a proof reader for your internet posts? It's getting sad.


Fanboys are annoying. Price/Performance is top priority. Patience=Awesome.



will, realistic feel, somebody hittin the bong. Its combat on crack simple as that its definatly not realistic in the shooter relm, arma 2 (granted its quite buggy) but thats realism ven flashpoint for that matter, modern warfare 2 is not that. All this game is interms of a single player is a jerry burckheimer movie, its the rock. Multi im sure is fun i use to play the olders versions of this game, now with all of the perks and most people treating infinaty wards shooter as if it were a new reancarnation of wow, I stay a away merly cause i dont wanna be frustrated with those devoting their lives to this game. Im a very good fps player but i also recognize that you can only balance a game so well until a manaic gets there hands on it, balance then gets thrown out the window. Stickin to avp2 bfbc2 and gonna pick ups some arma when the time is right.


And by the way will your right this does have a realistic feel to it when its sitting in a tilt arcade side by side to your favorite area 51 shooters!



I am still disappointed that this game is expensive. I was looking forward to buying this game months ago but since have heard alot of negative things. Mainly the lack of dedicated servers has bothered me the most since i am a PC gamer. I had a LAN party with my friends here, and my friend brought his MW2 for 360 so we could see it. First, i am soooo glad i don't use a 360. The game looked terrible compared to us playing COD4 on our PCs. Second, the lack of dedicated servers makes players jump around and the whole game seems to run much slower (game speed). The game speed probably just has to do with the 360 and the use of a controller. I just like how everything is much faster and faster paced with PC games. I will still buy MW2 because if love the COD franchise.....but they gotta lower the price.



I was eager to play this sequel game and due in no small part because of the high expectations from the first. Certainly, a well aimed ad campaign had me and other noble mouth breathers firmly in its sights. I thought perhaps I was alone in the sense that yes, the game was okay... but I carried around a rather dull sense of... okay- neat but... when is this going to lift off? There were a bunch of just random shooting galleries, a couple of "follow the yellow brick road" style "if you do it any other way, start agains," and of course the seldom even talked about airport scene. As much as I thought that would shake everyone up, I think people are still kind of hesitant to say too much about it for fear that it might come off as an endorsement for it. I haven't even really bothered with the multiplayer / spec ops missions yet- but speaking for the single player game... I'd give it a solid 7... give me my 60 bucks back and we'll make it 8.  


"The best of what's left."



If I would have read this review in November, when I bought the game, I could have saved myself $60; the storyline is cliched and makes almost no sense.  You're left totally hanging at the end of the game.  The gameplay is pretty cool though, but I wasn't blown away.  I am still having fun playing the spec ops levels.


I Jedi

Shouldn't this article have been posted online a long time ago, in a previous year not too long ago?



I have to agree with the posters below - just based on what you wrote, this game does not deserve an 8.  Yay for strong multi-player... but without dedi servers, there can be no custom maps, etc. So the life of this game is bound to be short.

I originally said I would never shell out $60 for this game. Well, I lied.  I did shell out $60 for this game and am frankly very disappointed.  The single player was a total snooze, and the multiplayer - while engaging for an hour or two, was not that much different from MW1.  And MW1 still has dedi servers.

I would give it a 6 tops.  But, since I had to pay $10 more, I give it a 5, because if you are going to charge more, you should damn well make a better game for that $10 and this ain't it, brother.

Lesson learned.



They could have totally left out singleplayer and coop for all I care, still would have paid $60.  Yeah ive gotten frustrated many times with the non-dedi servers, but the game is still nuts and I enjoy it online.

 If anything im most pissed about having to be logged into steam to play on a freakin' LAN, cuz not everyone is gonna pay $60 to play a game for one night a month , that and I have to add people to my Steam friends so I can invite them into a LAN game, cuz there isnt a browser... ugh



Hang your head in shame will smith..........



This is probably one of the shittiest reviews I've ever read. First up, the first paragraph states that IW "whiffed" on the multiplayer, and then the second-to-last paragraph goes on to state that the game offers "hundreds of hours of amazing multiplayer." So which one is it?

Then there's the sorry, old dedicated server whining. Yeah, it sucks, but get over it. It's a dead horse that's been beat since before the game's release, and cry as you [all] might, it doesn't seem to have affected the game's performance. At all. In fact, it was one of the best selling games of all time. 

As for the story, yeah, it was pretty absurd. It was still somewhat engaging, if not entirely immersive. The "infamous" airport level was a story setup. It certainly added to the feel of the story, but probably not in as big a way as it would had if the story were more believable. In any case, it's a game; it really shouldn't be offensive to anyone who's okay violent video games. 

And I'm going to disagree with the single player comments. It was a whirlwind of nonstop action. IW's storytelling prowess is far from that of studios like Bio Ware, but th gameplay itself was great. I played through it twice, and still go back and play selected missions from time to time. Level design is some of the best I've seen in a shooter, objectives are fun and entertaining, and mission types are incredibly varied. You're always doing something different, which no doubt contributes to the shortness of the campaign. It also contributes to replayability.  



First you say that IW "whiffed" on all three sections of the classic COD forumla, and then go to say that the entire single player is bad, yet you give it a 8?


And why not mention the horribly buggy and hack-filled multiplayer existance, rather than simply giving that entire HALF of the game a SINGLE paragraph? No mention of the new multiplayer game types? No mention of the new weapon classes? No mention of the Steam and VAC integration?


Sorry, MaxPC, I'm a huge fan, but this was a lazy, innacurate review. 

And yes, if you want, I'll write my own for you if you want a replacement. 



Giving it an 8 is being very generous in my opinion.  I'd give it a 4 and I didn't even waste my money lining IW's pocketbooks.  No dedicated servers lost probably 95% of my COD clan even buying the game and we have 100+ members.  That's a lot of money IW could've had if they didn't screw up what used to be a good series.



Considering how much money they've gotten for the game, you're in the minority and they really don't give a damn what you or the rest of us think about the servers...   They've been rewarded for neutering it, so don't expect to see anything different in the next version of the game.



Yeah that's the worst part. Nothing is ever going to change because they can just put crap in a box and people will buy it up.



So if the game was so bad why the hell would you give it an 8?? Just from the article, one comes away with a game that by your judgment wouldn't score higher than a 5. Is the 8 just to please the companies an not hurt your revenue? If it sucks and you didnt like it let your overall opinion reflect it. Dont coward your way out by stating the game sucks and then giving it an 8



I beat the singleplayer for that game in just under 5 hours on hard. The whole story thing didn't make sense at all. It felt like IW made a list of all the cool looking scenes nad stuff from the past 20 years of action movies nad games and then tried to make a storyline to incorperate them. The multiplayer was good but not better enough to make us switch from COD4 at LAN's due to the lack of dedicated servers. Def not worth my $60. I'd give it a 7.



I agree, the singleplayer campaign was far too short for my hard earned $60 + tax. I beat the game under 4h30m the first time around- second play was 3h50m. It seems that IW took what was good about the first game- plot twists, memorable scenery/level design and gameplay, threw it together in a few days, then spent the rest of the time on multiplayer. As a gamer more interested in story than being headshot by someone in another state/country, I was sorely disappointed by this game. Yes, the story was good; yes, the designers will never be able to please everyone; but too much potential was left wasted for those looking for more than competitive play. Myself, Im going to sink another 30+h into ME2.

P.S.- The airport level was one of the most powerful scenes I've seen in a videogame. Kudos to IW for keeping it within the realms of human decency- nothing over the top or exploitative about it. Just a man sacrificing his humanity for the greater good.



i was disappointed by this one as well. the game feels springy or spongey or somethin', compared to the WW2-era ones, and there was ZERO investment in my characters' fates. In fact, the only thing i can remember a month after playing the single player campaign is that one of 'em had a cool skull ski mask.


oh! i did like the sneakier sniper-ish missions (the snowy air force base and the Chernobyl-revisited sniper mission,... )



I've had the game since it was released and haven't played the single player yet honestly they should just make it multi-player like CS:S.

Log in to MaximumPC directly or log in using Facebook

Forgot your username or password?
Click here for help.

Login with Facebook
Log in using Facebook to share comments and articles easily with your Facebook feed.