By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - Gaming - MW 2. Is It Just Me.........

dbot on 17 November 2009

I have to agree with Reasonable. There is no gun control in Virginia. People wouldn't have fled, they would have sat on their front porch and picked off the defenseless Russians jumping from their planes. The attack may have worked in California, but not Virginia. Also, we still have the sticky matter of mutual assured destruction between Russia and the US. Anyway, the story was crap, but the gameplay was great.



Thanks for the input, Jeff.

 

 

Around the Network
Reasonable on 17 November 2009
dbot said:

I have to agree with Reasonable. There is no gun control in Virginia. People wouldn't have fled, they would have sat on their front porch and picked off the defenseless Russians jumping from their planes. The attack may have worked in California, but not Virginia. Also, we still have the sticky matter of mutual assured destruction between Russia and the US. Anyway, the story was crap, but the gameplay was great.

Man, I was just so amazed at the idea that the invasion even happened and was as successful as portrayed I never even considered the nukes, folks defending themselves, teenage kids defeating the bad guys (Red Dawn syndrome) elements.

Agree on the gameplay - and there was something dementedly bizzare about trying to defend a Burger King (or whatever they called it to avoid having to actually pay anything to another company for licencing - God forbid Kotick had to lose any of his bonus) from it's roof armed with high tech weapons.

 



Try to be reasonable... its easier than you think...

dbot on 17 November 2009
Reasonable said:
dbot said:

I have to agree with Reasonable. There is no gun control in Virginia. People wouldn't have fled, they would have sat on their front porch and picked off the defenseless Russians jumping from their planes. The attack may have worked in California, but not Virginia. Also, we still have the sticky matter of mutual assured destruction between Russia and the US. Anyway, the story was crap, but the gameplay was great.

Man, I was just so amazed at the idea that the invasion even happened and was as successful as portrayed I never even considered the nukes, folks defending themselves, teenage kids defeating the bad guys (Red Dawn syndrome) elements.

Agree on the gameplay - and there was something dementedly bizzare about trying to defend a Burger King (or whatever they called it to avoid having to actually pay anything to another company for licencing - God forbid Kotick had to lose any of his bonus) from it's roof armed with high tech weapons.

 

To be honest I have almost completed my second play through, and I honestly don't remember if I've captured or killed Markohv.  . I just really couldn't care less about the plot.  I guess it really isn't necessary, because I know I will play through the SP at least one more time.

By the way, you are thinking of Burger Town.  Apparently, it is very popular in Virginia.  If you are ever there be sure to check out the Diner across the street.  It has a good variety of weapons.



Thanks for the input, Jeff.

 

 

RVDondaPC on 17 November 2009
SHMUPGurus said:
My question is stupid because your suggestion is stupid. It has nothing to do with the main point of the game!

You're not seeing the bigger picture here. I believe what the developers wanted to show is how ugly war can be when it's driven by the madness of one or two people. The image shown from this mission in the game is that you're a handpicked soldier to do the dirty job, a pawn for someone's "greater good," which is a damn shame because in a way it's the truth. I don't think the MW games really focus on what's going on in the head of soldiers anyways, it's looking for more bang than anything. (Besides, you're given the choice to shoot civilians or not...)

This mission really is the starting point of the "fake" conflict, and this is what CAL4M1TY (a member here) wrote on the subject of Shepperd's betrayal:

Shepperd becomes power hungry and betrays the alliance with the british to further his own goals. He wants to create a world of fear to allow for him to increase his military power. He was given "a blank check" to use what ever means necessary to take out makarov, so that's the first step in his descent into madness (too much power on his hands). He even says at the end that sign ups for the army have dwindled in recent times and by allowing makarov to do what he's done, it'll strike fear and a patriotism amongst the citizens and therefore he can easily influence them. That's why Shepperd took out Ghost and Roach, because they were about to get intel about the location of makarov, who is the symbol that Shepperd planned to use to inspire Americans to fight.

I see what you're saying but I'm saying that they failed in their attempt because the civilians are faceless. You can't show how ugly war is when shooting civilians feels no different than stepping on ants. They had a good idea but their idea just got lost in the execution of their idea and the haze of explosions and relentless gunfire. 



Domicinator on 18 November 2009

I think the single player campaign is good, but I'm mostly playing spec ops with my friends on this game. Every time we get to this part of year and all the games I wanted have been bought, there is always that one game that I like to play with my buddies online while sitting by the Christmas tree on a cold night. Last year, it was Gears of War 2 Horde Mode, this year it will be MW2 Spec Ops.

I am actually underwhelmed by the graphics on this game. I played the first MW on the PC and it looked amazing, but I don't think MW2 looks any better than any other shooter on the consoles. I bought the 360 version, maybe the PS3 version looks better--not sure on that one.

But whatever--this is a quality title. I'm enjoying it every bit as much as the first one. The only thing I don't think is that great are the graphics--especially because I put it on after two hours of Assassin's Creed 2.