MW2 - Ridiculous story? (spoiler alert)

now THAT is bad. I left ARMA II mainly over the AI. Do yall play CTI alot?

CTI?

If you got ARMA2 for the singleplayer part, you really bought the game without a clue.

I'll admit it was an impulse buy on Steam for $25 bucks and I didn't know much about it (besides VBS being based off it), but I know I was screwing around with one of the single missions and my squad is constantly getting wiped out when you have take over the town then airfield when the BRDM comes down the road...:mad: I haven't really touched it much since I got MW2 on the Xbox360. It sure does look pretty at 1920x1600 though :D
 
You might wanna look over my posting history.

I am a avid ARMA2 gamer.

But what does this have to do with Crysis or MW2?
You are still posting nothing but fallacies...try again.

BTW, should I call it "Epic fail" or "Own goal" on your part? :)

Sorry if I don't know what you do when it comes to playing games...sorry I'm not a mind reader...

Anyways getting back to the topic....

What was the deal with the mission where you had to get to the Panic Room and it was broken into already?

I can already see DLC for that and how Price winded up in Gulag
 
Sorry if I don't know what you do when it comes to playing games...sorry I'm not a mind reader...

Anyways getting back to the topic....

What was the deal with the mission where you had to get to the Panic Room and it was broken into already?

I can already see DLC for that and how Price winded up in Gulag
Yeah, they have to make some sense out of that. But this all falls right in line with the strategy IW took with development of the game. Create levels and add story later. Looks like they didn't execute too well on that last part.
 
The scene that bugged me the most:

The ISS being destroyed. WTF? I know the russians built oversized warheads because they couldn't target very well, but seriously? The ISS orbits 200+miles above the surface, the explosion didn't happen directly below(not even close), and there's not enough atmosphere at that height to create a strong enough shockwave to physically damage it anyway!

Bah! lol
 
The scene that bugged me the most:

The ISS being destroyed. WTF? I know the russians built oversized warheads because they couldn't target very well, but seriously? The ISS orbits 200+miles above the surface, the explosion didn't happen directly below(not even close), and there's not enough atmosphere at that height to create a strong enough shockwave to physically damage it anyway!

Bah! lol

I hear ya. The only way I could justify it was, the EMP shorted out equipment on the station, causing sparks in the high-oxygen environment which caused it to explode.

A weak explanation to be sure, but they didn't give me much to work with;)
 
I still don't understand why Capt Price detonated a nuke above the eastern seaboard. Are we really supposed to believe that because the first wave of invading Russians lost all their electronics, the war is going to just end?
 
I still don't understand why Capt Price detonated a nuke above the eastern seaboard. Are we really supposed to believe that because the first wave of invading Russians lost all their electronics, the war is going to just end?

I don't think thats the point, the point is to make both sides go whoa before things totally got out of control...
 
I don't think thats the point, the point is to make both sides go whoa before things totally got out of control...

I was thinking that, or to give the US a reason to nuke Russia? MW3: Nuclear Winter!
 
I still don't understand why Capt Price detonated a nuke above the eastern seaboard. Are we really supposed to believe that because the first wave of invading Russians lost all their electronics, the war is going to just end?
Before Price did that, they were talking about how the Russians had a serious intelligence advantage (not just from the satellite thing) that was making the continued invasion possible. Knocking out all the electronics put the advantage back in the hands of the Americans who were on their home turf and did not rely on communications as much as the Russians.

Up until that happened I wasn't very committed to the story, since it was so out there. But then when you go back to playing Vasquez and no one's electronics work after the EMP, I was locked right in. I thought that was an awesome idea, with all the red dots not working and what-not. I found myself looking all over for a gun with iron sites. They also did a really good job of changing the mood from desperate to "let's kick some ass." Fun, fun. I feel like the chatter in the Ranger squad is really believable and cements the mood perfectly.

To enjoy COD games you can't think about how you got there. You just put yourself in the moment and enjoy it. "Holy crap, DC is on fire, someone knocked out all electronics, and we need to retake the White House from the Russians!" It's an impossible situation but that's what makes it so fun. COD games are series of fantastic, exciting action sequences, not Tom Clancy novels.

COD games have always drawn heavily from recognizable movie scenes. Saving Private Ryan, Enemy at the Gates, The Rock, Band of Brothers, Blackhawk Down, Thunderball, Apocalypse Now, Red Dawn, Dr. Strangelove, and on and on. It's one of the things I like about them. Did anyone notice the USS Dallas from The Hunt for Red October? There are probably dozens of little references like that that most people won't even notice.
 
Christ dude, you haven't even played it, I don't even know why you feel like your opinion is valid.

I'm pretty much a PC gamer first and foremost and often criticize console graphics (MGS4 looks like shit, no idea why people think it doesn't), but Uncharted 2 has some of the most incredible graphics I've ever seen. Even non-gamers chime in that it's practically like watching a movie.

Atech is a full-on PC fanboy. My rig is faster than his, I own better displays than he does (although props to sticking with CRTs, old and degraded as they may be, instead of going with a shitty TN or MVA based LCD), I can run all the same games he can with settings cranked, etc etc. The difference is that I own other platforms and can make objective judgements based on actual experience instead of pulling half-baked opinions out of my ass.

Being a "fanboy" is for closed-minded individuals or poor people that feel a need born out of insecurity to defend the one single platform that they decided to spend money on. The PC is my main platform by far, but I would be lying if I said that Uncharted 2 on the whole wasn't the most visually impressive game I've played in years.
 
Atech is a full-on PC fanboy. My rig is faster than his, I own better displays than he does (although props to sticking with CRTs, old and degraded as they may be, instead of going with a shitty TN or MVA based LCD), I can run all the same games he can with settings cranked, etc etc. The difference is that I own other platforms and can make objective judgements based on actual experience instead of pulling half-baked opinions out of my ass.

Being a "fanboy" is for closed-minded individuals or poor people that feel a need born out of insecurity to defend the one single platform that they decided to spend money on. The PC is my main platform by far, but I would be lying if I said that Uncharted 2 on the whole wasn't the most visually impressive game I've played in years.

While i totally agree (except for Crysis, TBH)...your just another person to solely comment on the graphics. Uncharted and Uncharted 2 are the only games that kept me hooked on a game because of the gameplay and story since Half-life 2.
 
I still don't understand why Capt Price detonated a nuke above the eastern seaboard. Are we really supposed to believe that because the first wave of invading Russians lost all their electronics, the war is going to just end?

I think it was to help foil Shepherd. Note that he never trusted him in the first place and had his doubts.
 
While i totally agree (except for Crysis, TBH)...your just another person to solely comment on the graphics. Uncharted and Uncharted 2 are the only games that kept me hooked on a game because of the gameplay and story since Half-life 2.

Actually, I initially brought Uncharted 2 into this conversation because unlike MW2, it managed to have both great action setpieces and an engaging story with cool characters. I was using it as an example of a game that managed to do both things extremely well, something that MW2 failed at because its story was a complete afterthought that was shoehorned on top of action that was devised first.

See? http://www.hardforum.com/showpost.php?p=1034895688&postcount=21

Graphics got dragged in later for lord knows what reason.

I also said that U2 is the best single player action game since Half Life 2 and the Episodes. Seems that we are in complete agreement here. :)

As for Crysis, there is no question that for rendering large areas with accurate physics and great lighting, it is still pretty untouchable. Uncharted 2 is limited by the fact that it has to hack its look into a more limited, linear path instead of Crysis' open structure, but then again I don't hold that against Source games or the CoD series. I do lean towards Uncharted 2 on the whole because it has a much wider variety of looks which are all excellent (it has to since the story is around the world while Crysis is limited to three main looks), and it actually does certain things better than Crysis, things like building interiors, props, human faces, lots of smaller details.
 
To enjoy COD games you can't think about how you got there. You just put yourself in the moment and enjoy it. "Holy crap, DC is on fire, someone knocked out all electronics, and we need to retake the White House from the Russians!" It's an impossible situation but that's what makes it so fun. COD games are series of fantastic, exciting action sequences, not Tom Clancy novels.

Let me guess, you like Michael Bay movies too.

No matter how you cut it, the COD:MW2 storyline sucked. Hard.
 
Let me guess, you like Michael Bay movies too.

No matter how you cut it, the COD:MW2 storyline sucked. Hard.
I don't usually enjoy Michael Bay movies. And I agree that MW2 doesn't have a very plausible or even good story line. I'm saying it doesn't matter because that's not the point of the game. If you're that worried about a plausible story line to get you into the next fantastical run and gun situation you're thinking about it way too hard.
 
MW2s story only sucked because World in Conflict did it so much better. IW was obligated to tack on some kind of SP experience in order to justify the $60 price. Multiplayer has been a blast.
 
MW2s story only sucked because World in Conflict did it so much better. IW was obligated to tack on some kind of SP experience in order to justify the $60 price. Multiplayer has been a blast.

I loved WiC's storyline, but I would not play it again for the storyline.
 
IW is not know for their brilliant story telling. But, the story I see being described here is worse than the usual for them. If you are not going to have a decent story don't bother with one. Just give us the guns and someone/something to shoot.

another off topic Uncharted 2 plug:
Uncharted 2 is graphically stunning despite being a console title. It is one of the best games that has shipped in the last 4 years regardless of platform imho. If you can get access to a PS3, I highly recommend it. Uncharted 2 does not, however, look better than Crysis, but it is a far, far, far, better game imho. This is from someone that, as a general rule, hates modern consoles, and normally keeps his PS3 in a closet, so take it how you like.
 
Terrible story, same gameplay. Entertaining but short. Having heard rumors about the brevity of this title I decided to play it through on the hardest difficulty the first time. Unfortunately that couldn't even keep me for over ten hours. I'm a bit disappointed in length, and the story was bad but it's a video game; few people buy playboy for the articles. Overall very fun while it lasted, a proverbial one night stand. On to L4D2!!!
 
Back
Top