By the way, the phrase "Call of Duty" is featured rather prominently in the intro speech of the original Medal of Honor. Originality never defined how good a game was
By the way, the phrase "Call of Duty" is featured rather prominently in the intro speech of the original Medal of Honor. Originality never defined how good a game was
You obviously are a console gamer and not a PC gamer as far as this game is concerned, otherwise you would "understand". There are plenty of websites/forums discussing the inadequacies of MW2, including right at Infinity Ward's website/forum. I don't want to derail the thread, but check these sites out:
http://www.modernwarfail2.com/
http://www.modernwarfare2.com/forum/...f0b792a1fc2789
As far as it being revolutionary, I couldn't agree less, unless by revolutionary you mean the manner in which this version sets precedence for the future of the COD series, at least as far as IW is concerned. Expect annual releases like Madden with little support for prior versions thereafter. I don't consider a 5-6 hour SP experience revolutionary, and I don't consider a 9v9 P2P, bug-ridden, hackable, cheater infested MP experience revolutionary either.
As far a Battlefield being a dud, I assume you meant BFBC. You do realize their have been 3 other Battlefields - BF1942/Vietnam, BF2 and BF2142? The franchise is not exactly dead as you would expect, especially among PC gamers after the betrayal IW/Activision did to them with MW2.
I'm not sure how much Battlefield 1943 has in common with the other BF games but it does have the DICE logo in the intro and if the new MOH is anything similar to that online then I'll pass. If it has similarities with Airborne then I'll pass too.
I hate the big maps personally. I don't like having to walk around for 2 minutes just to finally get in sniper range of an enemy. I think the small maps in COD are what make it so great. It speeds up the action.
I think MAG is going to flop too. I've played the beta a bit and it the same feeling as BF: 1943 where you have to manuever for 2 minutes until you get into range of an enemy.
MW2 is definitely not revolutionary but I think COD4:MW definitely was. There's so many things they implemented in just that one that makes it hard to go back to games that aren't up to that standard. The Killstreaks, the experience + upgrade system, the perk system. I tried to ge into Resistance 2, Killzone 2, Halo ODST and even Rainbow Six Vegas 2's online games and I just can't get into it. Oddly enough the only other online shooter I could get a little bit into was Uncharted 2's online game. It was no where near MW's online experience but it did take a few things from MW that made me want to keep playing for a little bit.
My deviantart page:http://emceelokey.deviantart.com/
My Trade List: http://www.digitpress.com/forum/show...ferrerid=21761
So far MW2 seems better than the original in every respect - maybe it's shorter, I wouldn't know yet. Everything I've done so far has been a lot more fun than the original, though.
The multiplayer issues on PC are disappointing, surely, but that's more Activision making a bet on console sales outpacing PC ones. In any case they seem to have been wrong - at least in underestimating the number of PS3 players. The game set records for opening sales for an entertainment property.
On your other points - Battlefield Vietnam nearly killed the reputation of the franchise. I didn't hate it personally, but it certainly wasn't the best of the "core" Battlefield series (and then again I never bothered playing it online).
I believe BF Vietnam was nothing more than a port of the BF1942 game engine, hence the reason why I listed them together. I agree it was not the greatest, but overall the BF name is strong, especially with the recent release of BF1943. If DICE doesn't screw up BFBC2, they will win over a lot of PC gamers formerly dedicated to the COD franchise.