Review: Modern Warfare 2

Note that this review is for the console versions of the game. The PC version of Modern Warfare 2 may differ from the console versions in both graphics and gameplay.

Perhaps the biggest game of the decade, certainly the biggest game of this year, has arrived, and it brings with it action, violence, controversy, and a bar to reach set by its predecessor. So does it match or even better Call of Duty 4: Modern Warfare?

Honestly? No, it doesn’t.

The Call of Duty franchise is a long running series of first person shooters developed by both Infinity Ward and Treyarch primarily. The original Call of Duty (which has since been remade and released as downloadable content on both the PS3 & 360), was released on the PC a shade over 6 years ago. Since then, the series has dropped and elevated in quality. Call of Duty 2 was not as good as its prequel. Call of Duty 3 was in my opinion even more of a disappointment. But Infinity Ward pulled their finger out and created one of the best FPSs in a long time, with Modern Warfare. I would chalk the success of the game up to two main reasons: it was innovative and different, as in it strayed away from the norm of the Call of Duty series, diverting from world wars to modern combat with a vastly better single player and multiplayer system, along with up-to-date weaponry and characterization. Also, it was a vast gameplay and graphical improvement on the games before it.

There was no denying that it was successful: its popularity soared, with hundreds of thousands of players on the game’s multiplayer every day. It was an accessible shooter, the kind that even those unfamiliar with shooters, even gaming, could pick up and play, and more importantly, enjoy. It made most other shooters obsolete in comparison, and while the likes of Ubisoft’s Rainbow Six were good shooters, they couldn’t match COD4”s popularity.

Even though it was released in 2007, Modern Warfare still has an incredibly strong user base two years on. And despite Treyarch’s best efforts to reinvent the World War Two aspect of Call of Duty franchise with World At War, their attempt somewhat fell flat, as the game just wasn’t as appealing or entertaining as Modern Warfare was.

So after Modern Warfare was released, and Treyarch took their turn, Infinity Ward buckled down and got to work on a sequel. There were going to be some changes, and I’d put that on the amount of criticism Infinity Ward would receive if they released a game that was too similar to the last. These changes weren’t exactly what I was expecting though.

Modern Warfare 2′s single player picks up five years after the events of the prequel, which makes MW2 the first Call of Duty game that is linked via characters as well as plot to another title in the series. You play as Private Allen, a soldier in the US Army who goes undercover as a Russian operative to gain information on the main antagonist, Makarov, James Ramirez, a US Army Ranger who helps defend the east coast of the US from Russian invasion, and Gary “Roach” Sanderson, who is a member of Task Force 141, a special army unit in charge of trying to capture Makarov and stop him from conspiring to trigger global warfare.

With these characters, they are some new characters that feature prominently in the story, as well as a few familiar faces, which help with the story continuation.

From the off, you feel right at home, the familiar pre-gameplay cut scenes using non-diagetic conversations between the characters talking about the missions you need to do featuring again. The core gameplay is back in full swing, the control system pretty much exactly the same. Everything feels as it should. It’s almost like, God forbid, Infinity Ward copied and pasted the gameplay mechanics because of how successful they were.

There are noticeable differences though. The graphical quality has been fine-tuned, colors more bright and visuals more tweaked, and movement around the game feels smoother. Personally though, I prefered the more gritty feel from Modern Warfare as opposed to the brighter feel in this game, and that slightly rugged feel from Modern Warfare felt more authentic, more realistic.

It’s clear that Infinity Ward have tried to make MW2 more accessible to more people, but the game feels a little too easy. It wasn’t as challenging as I’d like it to be, the missions feeling too short and too simple at times. There are 16 missions in total, and the entire campaign is completable in less than 6 hours. Yes, there are also two game modes that have more playability than the campaign, but if the campaign is less than 6 hours, even for an FPS that isn’t long enough.

One of the complaints that rose from MW1 was that the single player wasn’t long enough. Unfortunately, the length hasn’t increased.

Along with this, a bigger problem I have with the single player comes with the story. It’s over the top, ridiculous and not believable. The missions are too rudimentary, and the feel of the campaign is generally that of one big playable film. Yes, the game plays great, the voice work is great, the script writing is great and the graphical quality and enemy intelligence is great. But the Hollywood storyline and frankly stupid moments such as the No Russian level are frustrating to see, because they damn near ruin what should otherwise be an almost perfect shooter.

No Russian is the controversial level in the game which puts you in the position of an undercover soldier who tags along on a terrorist attack on a Russian airport. But while the level helps with character and story development, its unnecessary and it feels like it was included purely to raise the profile of the game and stir up media interest. When Rockstar make controversial moments in the Grand Theft Auto games, they feel warranted. It doesn’t feel like a publicity stunt, or a tactical move chosen to make the press inadvertently promote the game more. This scene does, and there are moments in the game along with No Russian that feel like they weren’t necessary.

I’ve played the single player twice now, once to see whether Infinity Ward had improved on the last attempt, and another time to collect intel . I’m tempted to play through a third time on Veteran difficulty, but I don’t know if I want to. The single player feels rushed, one big blur of action sequences, plot twists, explosions and gunfire all hastily rolled into a short campaign mode. At the end of it, I didn’t feel satisfied that I’d played it. It was the same feeling I get from watching films which try too hard to be flashy. It’s nice to look at, and it’s entertaining in the moment, but in general it has no lasting appeal.

And on some level that’s the same with the multiplayer. The multiplayer component is what made Modern Warfare so successful, so it needed to be as good as, if not better than it. I’ve played a fair chunk of it so far, and I’m impressed with what Infinity Ward has done with it, taking the core components of the multiplayer, and making it more immersive. The rewards are more in-depth, accolades, call-signs, emblems and kill streak rewards offered to you dependent on how well you play. You can get accolades for pretty much anything, so you always feel like you’ve accomplished something when you’ve finished a game. Whilst this feels like it makes the game too easy, an  “everyone’s a winner” ethos being a strong part of the game’s unlock system, it still is enjoyable and an improvement on that front.

The perks feel more intuitive, and the host migration system along with the in game perks upgrades for struggling players gives a good balance to the game. The multiplayer flows more, a generally smoother experience felt whilst playing.

But there’s that niggling feeling. That “everyone’s a winner” feel is perhaps too strong. The game feels easier, and the challenge isn’t there as much it used to be. In my first game, I got 20 kills, all against people who had played the game more. When you die a certain number of times, you’re rewarded with a fourth perk which helps you get that kill you need. Replacing airstrikes is a Harrier strike, which sends in both airstrikes and a plane which acts as a chopper. The chopper is back, but you can now control it, making it easier for you to kill people. If you are lucky enough to get 25 kills in a row, which isn’t as much of a challenge, you can use a nuke, which kills everyone, including yourself, on the map.

The issue with the multiplayer, despite the clear improvements, is that it feels like Infinity Ward has sacrificed some of the components from the prequel to make room for the new ones. The better upgrading system, the bigger array of weapons and perks and improved visuals replace the harder challenge, the more enjoyable and memorable maps, and the prequel’s party system. I want the improvements in Modern Warfare 2 in Call of Duty 4: Modern Warfare, because I feel like the prequel was more enjoyable, and the sequel has removed some of the aspects that made the game enjoyable in place of others.

What I think is the best addition to the game though, the Spec Ops mode, is very much welcome, and should be standard in any future titles. It’s a great addition, with some very rewarding factors, such as the option to play split screen, new missions outside of the single player to play, another way to play the game with your friends and a boost to the game’s longevity. You get 23 missions, of wide variance, ranging from time trials on your snowmobile, to simple destroy all enemies missions, to reach objectives missions. Some missions take quite a while, and they don’t feel as rushed as the single player missions do. You can play the missions much more to your style of play, linear patterns not as much a necessity here as they normally are.

If I ask myself what mode I will put the most time into, it will probably be the multiplayer mode, because of the vast user base and some of the core elements that made the prequel so enjoyable still featuring, but I will probably find the Spec Ops mode the most rewarding.

Overall Impressions:

Modern Warfare 2 is great. No question about it. But what makes it great is that it comes from a working formula. Call of Duty 4: Modern Warfare in my eyes is the better of the two, a more enjoyable, grittier, more rewarding experience. Modern Warfare 2 has worked on the faults of its predecessor, bringing new things to the table, and there’s no question that I will spend a lot of time with it, but all of my favourite games have faults, some more than others.

Even the best games have faults, and while Modern Warfare 2 is a fun ride, it runs out of fuel after a while, and there’s that feeling of ‘been there, done that’. It’s the sport edition of Call of Duty 4: Modern Warfare: Modern Warfare 2 is a more streamlined shiny version that looks nicer and feels a bit smoother. But it’s a bit too flashy, it’s too expensive, and despite the improvements, it feels like bits of the original version are missing, and after you spend some time with the newer model, you miss the little things that made the original so rewarding.

Modern Warfare 2 has sold ridiculously well, and it’s without question a great game. But its successes come from what was already there, and Modern Warfare 2 feels like a retail-sized expansion pack. It’s a purchase, but for me, it’s a begrudging purchase.

Rating: