Modern Warfare 2 - Page 23

You get it early. Shit, you might have it already.

You are almost there. I actually think it's level 21. It was my most wanted perk as well. Since I love silencer/red dot combos.

Also, I think I'm going to throw some more XBL friend requests out to folks in this thread tonight or tomorrow. If you don't accept, I won't be offended. But it'd be nice to get some CHUD multi-player games going.

Anybody wants to send me one, I'm ZakChase.

Heart monitor/red dot with Ninja and Cold Blooded = carnage.

Yeah, I'm thinking silencer/red dot or silencer/heartbeat monitor.

Here's a list of perks + level unlocked

Edit: From here.

Thanks, Kid. I'm almost there!

I've been rocking the silencer/red dot sight combo and it's awesome. Can't get used to using the heartbeat sensor though, I end up focusing too much on it and get shot by somebody I didn't notice.

I do better with it than without. You have to move slowly, scan left and right and try to make sure some teammates are close by and behind you, so as to make it more difficult for an enemy to sneak up from the rear. (I know I pay far less attention to what's going on behind me when I'm looking at that damn monitor.)

Finished the campaign. Had fun, though it's too short and i hate the being held by the hand feeling of just following dudes. Work on that shit IW!

But, i kinda love that Glen Morshower played the same role as in Black Hawk Down.

I wish the American missions were less linear. If I have to go with a team from point A to point B, I'd rather be able to go through houses and streets, and be able to decide between taking out a patrol or ducking into a side alley and going around them. Not just follow a single path.

The favela at least gave you a couple of options or at least the semblance of options.

You just need to stick with it. Look at it out of the corner of your eye - much like you do with the UAV.

Yea I can't wait for the bling perk, I really want to play with the heart sensor and red dot, or silencer and red dot. I don't think I can manage with just the silencer, the combo of the obscured vision and smaller range makes me crap using it. What is the best rifle to use?

Anyone up for some PS3 multiplayer? Add me

Finished the SP campaign a few minutes ago.

you're dead NO WAIT YOU'RE NOT

NO WAIT YOU ARE

NO WAIT YOU'RE NOT

NO YOU'VE BEEN BETRAYED YOU ACTUALLY ARE DEAD THIS TIME

I mean I appreciated the wacky twists and turns as much as the next guy but it's pretty hard not to see it coming by now.

Still, I enjoyed the (somewhat) more open levels, and I really really enjoyed that there aren't infinitely respawning enemies in 90% of the game. I almost quit on the favela level, and then I realized that I could just clear out all the enemies methodically instead just sprinting madly through enemy fire until I triggered a checkpoint.

The ridiculous setpieces were nice - particularly the NOVA/DC ones, in my opinion - but they definitely set a tone that precluded any genuinely sobering segments like those you found in MW1, such as the post-nuke bit or the incredibly disturbing air support level. And I think the story crosses the line from being truly and profoundly ridiculous to actually diminishing the game, with those constant maddening loose ends. Who was that in the safe room?!

Also, am I the only person here who finds that the basic SP game mechanics in the CoD series are... well... kind of awful? Absolutely everything works at cross purposes. You spend all your time either hiding in corners or frenetically rushing at enemies, giving you no time to watch the incredible cinemetic happenings all around you. The game requires lightning reflexes and precision, but then goes to great lengths to visually obscure its environments with all manner of special effects, forcing you to spend far too long actually locating the baddies. The enemies flood at you like in an arcade shooter, but it's impossible to get into the flow like you would in an arcade shooter, because if you take one or two hits, your view is totally obscured and you have to go wait for it to wear off. On the other hand, if you try to treat the game like something more slow-paced and realistic, you get completely overwhelmed in seconds. So the pacing is completely erratic. About half the game elements seem geared towards realism, and half of them towards pure arcade action, and the constant tug-of-war between these two poles means that the underlying, fundamental gameplay is actually not fun at all.

I just can't believe that Infinity Ward is so will to dump so much money into what is, at best, a painfully mediocre foundation. I'm convinced that it's only the (admittedly unparalleled) flashy bits that draw people to the single-player, so how difficult would it be to tighten the screws a bit and make the shooty bits something more than a chore?

QFT

Don't enjoy the single player much in MW1 or MW2 (still working through it).
Multiplayer is where it's at.

One of the reasons I liked the Halo series was the limited enemies per section.

I loved the single-player campaign in MW1. Halfway through Act 2, the MW2 campaign doesn't seem to be living up to it, though I'm still enjoying it. Just not nearly as much as I'm enjoying Multiplayer and Special Ops.

That's the thing though. The campaigns are fun, no doubt about it. But take out the setpieces and the gimmicky cinematics and the special effects, and you're left with subpar shooter mechanics. Compare that to something like the Half-Life games, where the fundamentals are very strong even when divorced from the context of the games themselves.

Yeah, your view being obscured when shot is the biggest annoyance in the single player. It seems to take a bit too long to clear up, I usually end up stumbling into more gunfire instead of cover to regenerate. The NPC reminding you of objectives EVERY 10 seconds is also annoying as hell. "Yes Soap, I know exactly where the fuel tanks are because you have told me 15 times already!"

I also have some problems spotting the enemies because the screen is so busy, especially the Russian invasion levels, I guess their camoflauge worked really well?

With this in mind do you think IW could have saved a shed-load of cash and just not developed a SP game and instead released a multiplayer only game with double the maps? Can't see myself going back to the SP game once I complete it but MP will go on and on.

Anyone think developers will soon start to release MP games as stand-alone titles? Possibly as a subscription service - think of the number of MW1 muliplayers there were - a £5 or $5 per month subscription to a multiplayer MW MP game on xbox live would rake in the cash.

It's just bizarre, because either of these mechanics would make sense and work beautifully if the game was encouraging you to hang back behind cover and assess the situation, and pick off enemies one by one. But instead it wants you to charge forward as fast as possible, and then it kicks sand in your eyes (sometimes literally!) when you do. Maybe I'm not very good, but there are a lot of sections where you seem doomed to die more or less at random. That made sense back in CoD1, when you were storming Stalingrad and random death was kind of the point, but it's just stupid when the game is making you sprint through a cloud of dust, surrounded by invisible enemies, hoping that none of them get lucky and tag you because if they do, you'll be completely blinded and will inevitably get turned around and die horribly. Over and over and over. I'm pretty good at shooters! And I had to play that section like ten times, on normal.

That's the funny thing - I think they could have changed the SP into something replayable with a miniscule fraction of the money they churned into production values. Look at Halo - despite the incredibly repetitive environments and enemies and battles, the single-player is still more replayable than in any CoD game, because fighting the Covenant is fun. On a cost-benefit basis, it makes so much sense.

Of course, there's no reason to invest even that little bit of money until the hilariously captured game review industry actually stops overlooking major gameplay defects in triple AAA titles simply because they're triple AAA titles. As long as we're all willing to spend the Christmas season pretending that MW2 is the greatest shooter of all time, why should IW care if they can make it better?

Can't speak to the second game, but it feels kinda revisionist to say the single player in the the first game sucks.

I loathed the single-player mechanics in the first game, at least in any level with respawning enemies. Literally from the TV station in the second level onwards, it made me want to pull my hair out.

MW2 fixed the respawning enemy problem, but its tendency to make you fight in a blind fog with enemies coming from all sides causes similar frustrations.

Okay then.

I don't think it sucks, but there are definitely times where it's excessively frustrating. Like not being able to save a game, then getting stuck at a checkpoint with a LMG that's low on ammo, bracketing mortar fire that prevents most movement and too many enemies around to justify reloading. I swear I played a 30-second portion at least 50 times because of what Llamarama mentions. It was either that or starting from the beginning, and it really ruined the level for me.

I think you're doing it wrong. Even on Veteran, the ONLY stage where I couldn't post up and take a strategic approach to clearing out the area was the top deck of the drilling rig in the ocean - the hostage rescue scenario. And even then, after quite a few restarts I was able to find a good flow to it all. Granted, it was a bit frustrating trying to find that flow because there was no safe place to take cover, but that's about it. Granted, I'm not quite done with it yet*, but maybe you're just being impatient? Hell, even the favela stages, where you're encouraged to constantly be on the move (and, in my opinion, were a goddamned BLAST) still gave you the opportunity (even if it's a small one) to take stock of the situation and calculate your attack.

*When I stopped last night I was storming the submarine with Soap before it dove. How close am I to the end?

The only level I absolutely couldn't stand was the second half of the flashback, with the sniper standoff while waiting for the rescue chopper.

Ahh, that takes me back to my Navy days...

That's why, to me, the infiltration of the base in the snowstorm worked so well. The stealth aspect of that level led to a nice set up, which then led to an escape, which was easier to play than the other attack & defend levels, like Rio and Burger Town.

Yeah, pretty much everything I'm saying is in reference to the larger fights. The stealth levels have been fantastic in both games, and MW2 gets bonus points for taking them off rails.

And I'm not saying it's a horrible game. I beat it in two sittings, so I obviously enjoyed it a lot. I'm just saying that beneath the hood, it's unforgivably broken.

I think the visceral thrill one gets from having to narrowly focus on a limited perception range, while tons of awesome shit are going on around you that you can't look at (or you die), to a lot of people mimicks what they think combat would be like and thus they enjoy it.

That being said, I'm finding the single person campaign to be an utter chore at the moment.

What difficulty setting are you playing on? I haven't found that to be the case at all. Most of times you can stop and look around, it just needs to be during a lull in combat.

If you're talking to me, I've gone from hardcore to normal, and am now thinking about easy, cause I'm having zero fun and just want to see if it improves.

Shouldn't you be playing Special Ops nonstop anyway, Overlord? It's the mode that you keep saying every game should have!

Only if it includes zombies.

Campaigns in combat games should always include co-op. Maybe that's part of the problem.

I beat it on normal but I kind of wish I'd played it on easy. That said, I suspect that the major difference is just that you can take more damage, so lower difficulty levels just mean you spend far more time in viscera-o-vision. There were plenty of times I was getting shot to pieces, and the problem wasn't that I was dying too fast, but that I was so blind that I couldn't figure out a. if there was anywhere to take cover, b. which direction the enemies were coming from, or c. which way to run. So I ended up spinning in circles for ten or fifteen seconds spraying bullets at random until I died or got lucky.

I pretty much agree with LlamaRama comments, but the sheer spectacle and set peices help compensate for the crappy gameplay mechanics. The second half is especially insane and awesome, despite the sp's problems it won me over. But there are large portions of the game where too many respawning enemies with a sixth sense and obscured vision make it a slog to play. Its a shame though, the single player could have been absolutely amazing.

Oh man, I love the Stinger and it's ability to cockblock most of the vehicle killstreaks in one shot. It makes people cry such delicious tears in the lobby.

I can never get the AC-130 down, though.

Ok, I'll say it: You're doing it wrong.

The game is trying to teach you to plan your cover -before- you get shot, preferably before you step out in the open.

Also, they put a big red arc on the screen pointing at the direction you just got shot from.

Basically, if you want to just charge into rooms, mow guys down, and light up a cigarette, play on Easy and have fun. But on the higher levels, the game forces you to take cover, poke your head out for a millisecond to scope out the situation (and then identify who just shot you in the face), take out everyone you can from your position, and plan your next move accordingly. The only time you should ever be exposed in this game is when you're sprinting to your next cover,

Playing on Veteran, the only level that really frustrated me was the one near the end where you have to escape a building with mortars creeping in behind you (a time limit w/o a timer), and enemies charging up a hill in front of you. I ended up doing it by charging through the enemy hurling flashbangs like a pez dispenser - I don't know if I even killed anyone.

Except for that section where I employed the manuever known as the "Spaz Attack", just using strategy and planning ahead made the game pretty easy, and it all felt fair. I don't even mind the bloody screen; I was much more anoyed with my gun lurching to point at the sky every time I got hit, since it usually occurred right as I was about to finish the guy who shot me. Bastard!

I've always thought the difficulty in these games is just about right. I completed both CoD2 and MW1 on the regular setting; each was challenging enough without becoming frustrating. (I do not have the patience for Veteran, however.)

Finally broke down and bought this from Amazon. Got it three days ago and just finished the campaign in about 5 hours. And you know, I actually liked it. It was very ridiculous, but still pretty fun.

Definitely glad I was finally able to get in to multiplayer today. And I'll say it is damn hard to put the controller down. Been a while since I first played COD4, but is it just me, or does leveling up seem to go by much faster than before?

Does anyone else have more connection problems with this entry than MW1? I had the occasional problem with the first game but this game just gives me fits if anything other than the cable box is on while I'm trying to play. It's so frustrating.

That sounds like something is eating up your bandwidth. Perhaps the cable box is pre-downloading OnDemand stuff? Other than bandwidth, there's no reason one box should affect the other... they're not connected.

Finished the story mode today (game's short, but its a blast from start to finish, gotta love how the decrepit showers shootout is a clear reference to "The Rock") now its MP time.
Tried my best not to shoot anyone in the "No Russian" level, but the game just forces your hand when that huge ass police squad in riot gear appear.

Yeah, this reallllly doesn't work during one the five gazillion ambushes where you're getting attacked from all conceivable angles. Plus the level design makes it very evident that the game wants to push you through every level as quickly as possible. Rainbox Six this is not.

Which level is that? On normal, even the Favela, which is one of the most "getting attacked from all conceivable angles" will kill you if you rush it. There's a time and place for both careful advances and running to get to cover.

And yeah Overlord, on normal, I can't see having to rush that much at all. Except for that one chase and shoot the dude in the leg.

Maybe it's cause I just got down with Uncharted 2, which was superlative, but I am. done. with. this. campaign. Multiplayer is as good as ever, with some great new wrinkles, but this is just intolerable.

Well, I've beaten both MW games on Veteran, so I'm pretty sure it does work.

The only exceptions are the timed levels, which MW2 has very few of. Otherwise, ignore the nagging Officers telling you to charge blindly, as this game is entirely about cover. If you're not behind cover, you better be running to cover. Heck, some sequences you can win just by hiding and letting your teammates mop up. Plus, the game has some checkpoints triggered by completely wiping out an area, so you'll actually get more save points if you use cautious aggression.

Well, fair enough, although I'd posit that if you've beat them both on Veteran you're just freakishly good at these games and have no business judging their difficulty for regular folks like me. I'm less quick than you, and so it's incredibly frustrating when I'm basically surveying the scene and straining to find the bad guys, catch a stray bullet, and am almost instantly rendered totally helpless. Those nagging officers are an example of exactly the sort of dissonance in game design I'm talking about - it's never quite clear how you're supposed to be approaching the game.