Pros:

1) Stupendously fun multiplayer, climbing up in rank unlocks more and better weapons and gear and lends a sense of accomplishment.

2) Same amazing graphics quality of Modern Warfare 1.

3) Special Ops missions add a needed bit of variety, even though many of them are based off the single-player campaign.

4) Thrilling missions- snowmobiling (a bit unbelievable but still a rush), infiltration and stealth-exfiltration, home(land) invasion, etc.

Cons:

1) Stupendously SHORT single-player campaign. It breezed by way to fast, and the whole time felt a little lacking in originality, this despite the clever mission designs in several cases.

2)Multiplayer match-making system is buggy at random intervals- most days you can find a game at the moment you click "Find Game" and other days you sit and wait while it tries and fails repeatedly to join a server. Don't even try to join a game with friends in your party- the bugginess goes up exponentially as one friend is joined to a server while the other is kicked out of the party, etc.

3) Several Special Ops missions are exclusively multiplayer. This may not bug people with friends lists as long as the credits list, but it annoys me that they couldn't fit in an AI to take the other side of the battle when co-op is needed.

4) Cost. I know about inflation and that's fine. But this game is priced to high for what it contains. For one thing, at $60 I DEMAND more content to be available offline. I beat the single-player campaign in less than 8 hours. Some of the best Special Ops missions are multiplayer only. And if I must look online for game time, then the match-making system better be FLAWLESS.

Overall:

Despite the list of cons, I still love this game. I've put dozens of hours into the multiplayer side already and am eager for more. Still, it disappoints me to see a PC game series as famous as the Call of Duty line losing its luster with the above mentioned flaws.

• from

I was very impressed with the game, it kept me on the edge of my seat, there was constant action and lots to experience. I got so wrapped up in it, I finished the whole game in 2 sittings. Took me around 6 hours. So... the single player story is short but definitely enjoyable. You might consider renting it on a console and play it for the weekend. Not sure how the multi player is.

• from

No dedicated servers is really hurting the game. I get tons of lag because of this, you can only have 18 players in a match and the single player campaign is only a few hours not. NOT RECOMMENDED UNTIL INFINITY WARD FIXES IT TO ALLOW DEDICATED SERVERS

• from

Honestly, I am an avid Call of Duty fan. I've played almost every single one of them. I had high expectation for this game, but I was hugely disappointed. I seriously do not want to sound like a ranting fanboy who is nagging because they removed dedicated servers. I gave this game a chance. I went in with an open mind and came out disappointed. Let's start with what you're getting here with this purchase...

Single player was AMAZING. It will keep you on your toes from beginning to finish. It had a great and compelling story which was fictional, but at the same thing, it was realistic. The voice acting and characters were amazing. You are practically playing a movie. Graphics, lighting, gameplay, everything was superb. Even though it was very short... ~6 hours depending on how fast you speed through the game.

Multiplayer was something else. First of all you are smacked in the face with this matchmaking they implemented. Why bother? It's impossible to "balance" a game because a person's skill in a game can't be measured with some stupid little rank or what prestige they are on. You often find yourself in a game where one side is being pummeled into the ground. Or better yet, you just get placed in a game that's almost done, and your team is losing. That's fine and all, but it's annoying that they record it in your records as a loss or win... Maybe that's just me, I'm a competitive person and I hate losing. Maybe you're not, you be the judge of this. Then there's the issue of lag. It doesn't lag a lot, but every now and then you get a series of games where the game chooses the crappiest connection as a host. Then everyone is teleporting around or you just get stuck on the "host migration" screen then get smacked with a server disconnection message. This happens WAY too often for my taste... Then there's the issue of steam. Oh yes, there ARE hackers. They don't even try to cover it up, they make it extremely obvious. But in the end, what can you do? NOTHING. You just either sit there and take it or leave and accept another lost on your record. You can't even vote to kick the hackers out because there's no option to do so. Their updates to prevent hacking evidently isn't working too well because there's still plenty roaming around. In conclusion, multiplayer is a bust...

Initially this game was $60, but you're getting it for $45 or so. Regardless, it's still overpriced. You are not getting any special features that's different from their console counterparts. The only real reason you would want to own this game is to have it as part of your collection. Or if you can put up with the random laggy host or encounters with hacker. The ~6 hour of single player doesn't make this game worth the buy.

• from

With all the hype that was with this game before it came out, it sure was a bit of a let down. I thought this game was just gonna be off the hook, but it ended up being more like a dead fish.

The game play for MW2 is average at best. The only thing that saves it are the customizable killstreaks and the number of weapon attachments you can equip on your primary and secondary weapons. That stuff was pretty cool and added a little spice to the killstreaks and attachments that the first MW was lacking.

The maps for the game are alright at best. It just seems like there aren't the enough ways and spots to advance up the field of battle. There are a few maps "Rust and Skidrow especially" that are total wastes of space. They completely lack any creativity whatsoever.

By far the most aggravating and idiotic change to MW2 is the absence of dedicated servers. Now you can't just click on a server and go immediately into a game, you have to fire up steam, then wait for several minutes for it to find you a game that you can join. And if you want to play with some friends of yours you have to party up, just like X Box does. THIS IS UNBELIEVABLY AGGRAVATING! Half of the time your party gets split up, or the game lobby closes for some reason still unknown to me. It's a hassle and a pain at best. Bring back dedicated servers Infinity Ward!

This game is good enough to play for a while, at least until you get bored and go back to the first MW and enjoy it more than ever! Call of Duty Modern Warfare 2 is good enough to play for a while, but then go give it to your neighbor or some little kid who doesn't have it yet. Trust me, you won't miss it.

• from

The game is pricey, but I enjoyed Modern Warfare 1 enough I thought I would shell out the money for the second installment. In short, it's ok but not that much different from the first one. I have not tried the multiplayer yet so I cannot comment on that, but I have played the single player and I was not too impressed. The graphics are better than the first game but the single player campaign is pretty short. The story is a continuation of the first game, but it is not very compelling and the missions were not all that interesting. I didn't like the fact that you have to install steam in order to play the game, if you want to sell the game after you have played it it will be difficult because the game you purchase is linked to your steam account by your email address. I figure if you pay $60 for a game you should be able to do what you want with it. The game is also more violent than the first modern warfare, they warn you of this before you start to play the game, but any parent thinking about buying this game for their kids should be forewarned. I am not too sqeamish when it comes to graphic content, but a couple of the missions in the game I thought were a little too much. At one point in the game, you are a Russian terrorist and you have to walk through a mall shooting up innocent civilians. There wasn't really much of an objective and not much challenge since you are shooting your way through unarmed civilians in a mall, I understand they are trying come up with something new and interesting but I didn't think it was appropriate. Another mission has you defending Washington D.C. from attack. I am not ultra patriotic, but I didn't like seeing the White House grounds being bombed and destroyed, even in a video game. Overall, the game is all right, but it is not as fun as the first modern warefare or even COD 1 or 2. In the end, for $60 the single player campaign should have been longer, and it would have been nice to see a little more variety and creativity in the missions.

• from

There is a lot of hype and anti-hype surrounding MW2, so without being too wordy (and hoping you know a thing or two already about the game and its features):

1. The 1-player game is phenomenal albeit very very short.

2. Spec Ops is one of the most fun experiences I've had in awhile with a game

3. Multiplayer is indeed a step down from the standard PC experience. That being said, if you don't mind waiting a couple minutes or more between matches, having no choice over map selection, occasional nights spent backing in and out of games trying to find one with a decent connection, and small team sizes... then it can still be a lot of fun.

4. All the upgrades, achievements, and weapons you can earn by playing multiplayer is really the heart and soul of the experience... and there are A LOT.

5. The only actual gameplay complaint I have about multiplayer is that the killstreak awards are far too powerful and actually rewards players for camping (I think this goes back to IW's focus on making a game that is simple and easy to use).

In conclusion, this is a great cinematic experience with some very fun elements. If you are a hardcore gamer though, I would recommend waiting for the price to go way down or find some way to play a friend's copy, figure out what the fuss is about and return it.

• from

The reason console games cost a little more is because of the expensive, proprietary manufacturing process (Sony, Nintendo) and license fees (Sony, Microsoft, Nintendo).

There are no proprietary technologies associated with manufacturing a PC game. There are no license fees to the platform.

This was an attempt by a greedy company to capitalize on the success of COD4 and the hype of MW2's release by charging above-market costs. The problem with hype is that you have to live up to it, which this game clearly does not.

Additionally, it looks like they made a lot of people mad with the lack of dedicated servers. People play this game on home networks with asymmetric internet access: your upload is much slower than your download. This means that to host a game without a dedicated server, someone has to use their slow upload bandwidth. Again, this looks to me like an attempt to control cost by not having to pay for and maintain dedicated servers and bandwidth without regard for performance.

Such a greedy move should be met with no less than abject failure.

So, I'll wait until I see this on the 5 dollar rack, which should be by about next week sometime based on everyone's feedback.

Activision: If you read this, please learn from your mistake, and understand that you can't charge extra money for hype nor lame.

• from

Given all the intense pre-release hype this game was given it has been a monumental disappointment, at least for me. First there are the problems many PC users have experienced simply getting the game to run. Then, there's the fact that it's an obvious console port. Next, there are the issues with multi-player. Finally, there's the very weak single-person story line.

I'll admit that I was momentarily impressed during the mountain climbing and Winter war scene at the very beginning of the game. However, the experience went pretty much downhill (no pun intended) from that point. Perhaps I'm just a petty moralist but the whole kill-fest in the Moscow airport was deeply disturbing and frankly pointless. Free speech issues aside, I perhaps understand why the Russian government banned the game. I sort of wish the U.S. Government had taken the same attitude if only on purely consumer protection grounds.

In summary, Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 2 is nothing more than just a big exercise in eye candy with a lot of running around and shooting. It's a cynical cash grab for which Infinity Ward should be ashamed ... after they divvy-up the loot, of course.

• from

Okay, I'm going to go ahead and say that I dont agree with the direction IW took with the multiplayer. That stinks and I love the multiplayer in all of the previous Call of Duty games. That being said, I dont think that just because of that the game deserves only 1 star. The single player is very entertaining. It's quite a bit more dramatic than the first modern warfare game but still fun. The Spec Ops mode is a complete BLAST! I think that the spec ops mode is what saved this game for me. Get a friend and take off into the numerous challenges.

Now before you start berating me because I don't see eye to eye with your opinion, I do think the multiplayer is a crappy deal. Yes, it would be much better if they offered the dedicated servers and all that other stuff that was in the first modern warfare. I logged tons of hours in the previous call of duty multiplayer games. Change sucks but how many different call of duty multiplayers do you need? On my count you can still play dedicated servers for:

Call of Duty

Call of Duty: United Offensive

Call of Duty 2

Call of Duty: Modern Warfare

Call of Duty: World at War

I love all of those games for both the single player AND the multiplayer. But, for me, when it comes to the Call of Duty games I put a bigger emphasis on single player than I do multiplayer.

I'm not looking to say that anyone is right or wrong in their OPINIONS but rather giving my honest and hopefully helpful opinion.

Pros:

Very entertaining single player

Extremely entertaining Spec Ops mode

Tons of steam achievements to try and obtain

Pretty good graphics (not the best I have ever seen)

Great way to hold me over until Left 4 Dead 2 is released!

Cons:

No Dedicated Multiplayer

Relatively short single player

Friendly AI could be a little more "intelligent"

High price for small replay value (multiplayer issues)

It is what it is people. They had the goal to make this game geared more towards the console crowd. That is hard to take being a PC gamer but how is this any different than any other game that is made specifically for consoles? Grand Theft Auto can be purchased for the pc but do you think they aimed it towards the PC crowd?

• from

** This is only a brief preliminary review on the multiplayer aspect of the game. If I have more time on the game, I may extend it a little. One thing for sure, the graphics are noticeably better than MW1.

** Maybe I should clarify my specs since your computer spces and Internet connection are directly related to your gaming experience.

My review is based on: Core i7 OC-ed to 3.6Ghz...6GB DDR3 1600...GTX 260 Core 216...ASUS p6T...playing on 1680x1050

Internet Connection: Download: 12Mbps up to 16Mbps; Upload: 1.5Mbps

I got the game this morning via Fedex. After installing the game, the FIRST thing I did is to jump into multi-player.

If you have been following the critics the last few weeks, you will no doubt knowing that the biggest uproars amongst PC players is the complete omission of the dedicated server functionality. As a long time PC gamers whose sole interest is on the fun and ever-changing multiplayer aspect of online gaming, I too was concerned about the decision and frustrated by the IW's seemingly selfish decision (for the sake of making more money rather than open up the game). I, too, has signed the petition and have once decided to boycott the game. However, forgive me, with the $20 credit towards future purchase I decided to go ahead and pre-order it (the only reason I get hooked is because I can use the credit towards L4D2 which will release next week). I just want to try it out and the worst thing I figure is to throw $40 into trash.

To be honest, I am genuinely surprised by how quick it is to find a game room and the gameplay is smooth as butter! I haven't checked the ping myself...but why do I need to? Regardless whether it is 1ms or 100ms, they are just numbers and as long as it runs smoothly I am a happy camper. Don't get too hooked by just the numbers; as long as it stays below 100ms, you shouldn't have notice any significant shutter. I mean to be honest, how many of you can really say you benefit from the difference between a 3200dpi or a 6000dpi mouse sensitivity? Only the pros can tell.

Please make no mistake, while I am happy with the online performance - I STILL THINK IW SHOULD ADD BACK THE DEDICATED SERVER OPTION!! It is just the right thing to do. Open up the game to the world and there are tons of talents minds who will develop mods and things that will only refine the game - and as such, generate even better reputation and extend the longevity of the gameplay - which in your company term, MORE MONEY!!!

• from

Greed ...somehow drove them to take the PERFECT FPS ( Call of Duty 4: Modern Warfare) and actually take great aspects AWAY from it .... then soup it up with new maps and weapons and sell it as a new product... totally inferior to COD4 and with the lack of freedom of being able to control servers, # of players, CHEATERS ( A REAL PROBLEM with this game ... unprecedented cheating and with NO WAY to deal with it )

I give it a 3 .. because all the challenges and perks do keep you busy for a while I guess....interface totally sucks... the least we could have is a server browser... HOW could they REGRESS ...

• from

Graphics are better than modern warfare 1. Everything else is worse. The really fun parts like the AC-130 gunship or the helicoptors with the mini guns can only be played in multiplayer online via steam. I also hate the DRM. You have to get a steam subscription in order to play the game at all. The game is also much shorter than the first one.

• from

I'm not much of a review writer but here goes. I bought this game 2-3 weeks ago for PC after already owning this on the PS3. The game is more exciting on PC since reflex is more important and I get more thrill from it.

I can't really list the pros but I can sure list the cons for this game.

Cons:

1) The multi-player community for PC seems really small (I see the same people a lot.)

2) I don't understand why there isn't any dedicated server support. Many, maybe most, people playing this game on PC has such horrible internet connections. Also, there is the problem of host migration as most of the time I can't seem to migrate to a new host. What seems to have happen here is that Infinity Ward was too damn lazy to put in Dedicated Server support so they just decided to port the whole damn game (and did a horrible job at it........network problems for everybody). Played the PS3 version, as I said earlier, average time to connect to a game would be up to 5 seconds. PC can go up to 9-16. Of course, this could be my slow internet, but even friends with faster internet has this problem too.

3) Hackers. A whole bunch of a lot of wall hackers in PC version. I don't really mind playing against them that much but still. A hacker is a hacker. Valve Anti-Cheat system doesn't even seem to be doing anything about this too. I just see wallhackers and couple days later, I see the same hacker playing. yeah, punkbuster insta-bans FAIL compared to VAC's speed.

4) Honestly, I was giving this game a 4/5 in this review but after typing all this crap down, I decided to give it a 3.5 but since there isn't a 3.5, I'll give it a 3/5.

This game has really gone downhill from COD4, but there are plenty of good reasons why I like it enough to buy it again.

1) More guns

2) Titles/Callsigns/Accolades(not that important)/killstreaks.

3) friends (wouldn't even care about this version w/o these guys.)

4) Fun

This game really depends on what your style of gaming is. I know many people prefer Bad Company 2 over this but hey, it's my own preference. I have the game and played it on PC so I guess I can be authorized to say what I'm about to say. I do NOT like the fact that I sometimes have to shoot more than half a clip of my Machine Gun at close range to kill a person. The only things that I actually LIKE about BC2 is the huge maps and sniping. But since this is a review on MW2 I'll just list why I like MW2 over BC2.

1) Sniping in BC2 may be more tactical (which I love), but while I'm trying to snipe someone down. Some other people can easily go and snipe me because of the really huge maps. MW2, most of the time, only takes one shot to kill a person.

2) Ok, I don't have the energy to go on listing stuff so I'll just say this. Modern Warfare 2 is more....is a lot more fast paced that Bad Company 2.

It is a really great multiplayer game but Infinity Ward didn't, but should have put in dedicated server support since not everybody has a powerful enough computer or fast enough internet to support hosting a match. Good game, I reccommend it for the MP

• from

While this is a game I would still recommend, I usually need to add a disclaimer. This is the most disappointing version of Call of Duty yet, mostly due to the multiplayer experience.

Let's talk about the single player game first. It is shorter than the first Modern Warfare, yet costs more. That has irked folks. However,it is still a very entertaining action game that at times has made me shout "Whoa!" during gameplay. Some scenes are very great and in the style we've seen in past versions. The bad part about the single player game, is parts of the storyline. There were two scenes that were very hard to play through from a moral perspective. One at least comes with a disclaimer....you can choose to skip it and not impede your gameplay. The other you have no choice. I'm unhappy that such content was included, and one you can't skip seeing.

As for the multiplayer, this is where they really fail. The lack of private servers makes it harder to find the game and type of people you want, under the various rules you like to see enforced. Playing on their server, I've already run across hackers with Aimbot, and I haven't found any means to kick or ban them. Grouping is very random unless your friends sign up on Steam, and even then its pretty random. Without private servers, you also can't permanently handle the hacker problem.

At first glance multiplayer woos you with numerous perks and callsigns, which is nice. Then they offer very intriguing killstreak rewards, flying gunner for a chopper, gunner on an AC130, or dropping a nuke. Unfortunately, the servers seem to sort folks on different sides based on how long they've been on the server, or some other logic, rather than their experience level in the game. This leads to some very unbalanced games. Usually the advantaged side has a guy that will unlock a high killstreak, using perks that far outbalance the game compared to Modern Warfare 1s dreaded chopper and airstrikes. So before you can get too excited over the killstreak perks, you have to face the fact that most gamers will be on the receiving end of this onslaught.

Overall, I find myself missing the first Modern Warfare's gameplay and multiplayer. The single player is still a good game if the money is worth it to you, but the multiplayer...which is supposed to carry most of the appeal...falls flat.

• from