gamespot Modern Warfare 2 PC Review

Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 2 Review

Modern Warfare 2 boasts an exhilarating campaign, engaging cooperative play, and addictive multiplayer, but the high price and limited multiplayer features may tarnish its appeal.

8.5 score

The Good

• Intense, action-packed campaign
• Engaging cooperative missions
• Richer, deeper, more rewarding competitive multiplayer progression.

The Bad

• Costs more, has fewer multiplayer features than other PC shooters
• Campaign is short
• Plot is muddled and inelegant.

Last but not least, the competitive multiplayer that took the online shooter community by storm two years ago is back. Though the addictive action remains the same at its core, there are a host of new elements that make matches more accessible, more strategic, and more rewarding. Unfortunately, these improvements are marred by limited online flexibility that may leave the PC shooter community out in the cold.

If you compare Modern Warfare 2 on the PC to its console counterparts, the game is every bit as awesome and enjoyable. Yet when compared to other online shooters on the PC, the multiplayer component is decidedly limited. Players cannot set up dedicated servers to host their own custom-tuned matches, and the player count for each match has been capped at 18 as opposed to the possible 64-player matches of Call of Duty 4: Modern Warfare. Furthermore, there is no support for user-created content, so rather than enjoying free mods and community maps, PC users will have to pay for downloadable content. And the money issues don't stop there: Modern Warfare 2 costs $10 more than most full-price PC games. Paying more and getting less is abhorrent to consumers, and this deterrent, along with the online restrictions, make Modern Warfare 2 much less appealing from a multiplayer perspective

Link

Ah finally! Wasn't planning on getting this, but I am glad to know that GameSpot still reviews PC games. My faith has been affirmed.

I hope these reviewers send a message to IW. They should patch in dedicated servers...

I hope these reviewers send a message to IW. They should patch in dedicated servers...

JangoWuzHere

Ya wow an 8.5, im sure there freaking out and doing that as we speak :roll:

Like there gonna lose any money.

Literally, that was a strong message. But the score, 8.5? That doesn't exactly say "that'll teach 'em!" It's only .5 less than their glowing console scores. And since many people unfortunately only look at scores without reading the review, I doubt this is going to make any meaningful impact.

[QUOTE="JangoWuzHere"]

I hope these reviewers send a message to IW. They should patch in dedicated servers...

warmaster670

Ya wow an 8.5, im sure there freaking out and doing that as we speak :roll:

Like there gonna lose any money.

Costs more? I paid exactly the same amount of money for this game as The Sims 3, Fallout 3 etc. It costs no more than any other PC Game from where I got it from - JB Hi Fi.

it should be 8, but it gets the job done

[QUOTE="JangoWuzHere"]

I hope these reviewers send a message to IW. They should patch in dedicated servers...

warmaster670

Ya wow an 8.5, im sure there freaking out and doing that as we speak :roll:

Like there gonna lose any money.

Ah finally! Wasn't planning on getting this, but I am glad to know that GameSpot still reviews PC games. My faith has been affirmed.

The_Capitalist

Has there been a time where people want a game on their system to get a significantly lower score?

Surprised gamespot gave it a lower score, but I am glad they did!musclesforcier

The message this review really gives is: despite the disappointments for pc game purists, it still a "great" game. It must be more than great for such a disappointing game to still to be rated "great".

Kind of impressed actually, it's nice they at least factored in PC-related expectations and concerns. The game should be judged amongst it's peers on the platform (which of course also includes MW and what it offered in comparison).

I'm sure it's not a bad game by any stretch of the imagination, which the score certainly reflects. I'd pick it up for the SP campaign, except the fact that it's $10 more (nice to see GS acknowledge this). The dollar amount is less of issue than perceived value when compared to it's peers which retail for less -- it will be a "bargain" purchase for me some time in the future.

After listening to the video for the PS3/Xbox version, I was a little surprised it only got a 9. The tone of the video suggested a 9.5. I'm guessing it was a 9 because the single player campaign was short.

After reading the PC review, an 8.5 sounded a little high. Multiplayer that, even when working as intended barely keeps up, leaves pretty much just the single player campaign, which has it's pluses (intense and action packed) and minuses ("Michael Bay Film" with murky underpinnings) and in any case is pretty short. For all this it is pricey to boot.

Between the lines, the PC review screams: "rental."

I won't buy it, but only because of some of the things that Activision has said, especially the CEO. I still want it however, so maybe for Christmas...

I just wanted to login and post that I applaud this review. MW2 is a good game, but it's not god's gift to gaming. Especially on the PC. My respect for Gamespot went up a notch.

snooters

I just wanted to login and post that I applaud this review. MW2 is a good game, but it's not god's gift to gaming. Especially on the PC. My respect for Gamespot went up a notch.

snooters

called that one.

good score

from an overall perspective the PC version is missions stuff that other PC FPS games had

but it's up to personal taste if you actualy care about it

I think it should have had at least 9.0... IMO

i download game from steam , mp i so good . For me 9.5

I hope these reviewers send a message to IW. They should patch in dedicated servers...

JangoWuzHere

Atleast GS mentioned tat because of multiplayer the score decreased....

Here are my thoughts on MW2 (if anyone cares)

I am one of the people who signed the petition to get servers reinstated, we need more players in games, and we need options for those players who want longer games and would like to use mods. The majority of game types would benefit no end from having more players in games.

Personally however although I would prefer the return of servers I can live with matchmaking. The thing that annoys me the most about MW2 is Search and Destroy. Ive been playing WAW a lot recently and ive gotten use to games that are first to 10. Ive also gotten used to their being 8 - 12 people on each team. S&D games in MW2 are first to 4 and only support 6 people on a team. This is rubbish, at the very least it should be first to 6, but 10 is more realistic. I realize that without servers the number of players is limited but if they can do 9 vs 9 on ground war games then why not S&D? I dont get it. The final thing that really annoys me is showing the person who got the last kill. This feature is a nice idea but in S&D it happens after EVERY round and ends up slowing the game down, its really tedious. They should make it so that this only happens at the end of the game like in other modes.

Costs more? I paid exactly the same amount of money for this game as The Sims 3, Fallout 3 etc. It costs no more than any other PC Game from where I got it from - JB Hi Fi.biggest_loser

good review. ALthough they say its essentially the same game as consoles yet they give it 8.5 because compared to other pc games it lacks features adamosmaki

[QUOTE="warmaster670"]

[QUOTE="JangoWuzHere"]

I hope these reviewers send a message to IW. They should patch in dedicated servers...

biggest_loser

Ya wow an 8.5, im sure there freaking out and doing that as we speak :roll:

Like there gonna lose any money.

Costs more? I paid exactly the same amount of money for this game as The Sims 3, Fallout 3 etc. It costs no more than any other PC Game from where I got it from - JB Hi Fi.

The video review made no mention of the fact that there are no dedicated servers. Nice job GameSpot. I wonder how much activision paid them to leave that detail out. chandu83

Chris Watters pulls out the big guns in this Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 2 video review for the Xbox 360 and PlayStation 3.

pay attention to the written review..not the video..

Players cannot set up dedicated servers to host their own custom-tuned matches, and the player count for each match has been capped at 18 as opposed to the possible 64-player matches of Call of Duty 4

[QUOTE="chandu83"]The video review made no mention of the fact that there are no dedicated servers. Nice job GameSpot. I wonder how much activision paid them to leave that detail out. devious742

Chris Watters pulls out the big guns in this Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 2 video review for the Xbox 360 and PlayStation 3.

pay attention to the written review..not the video..

Players cannot set up dedicated servers to host their own custom-tuned matches, and the player count for each match has been capped at 18 as opposed to the possible 64-player matches of Call of Duty 4

Do not pay attention to the video? Why put it there in that case...

If you are going to include a video review in a PC review section, I don't think its far fetched to assume that its a PC version.

The Good

• Intense, action-packed campaign
• Engaging cooperative missions
• Richer, deeper, more rewarding competitive multiplayer progression.

The Bad

• Costs more, has fewer multiplayer features than other PC shooters
• Campaign is short
• Plot is muddled and inelegant.

devious742

While the review gave it a lower score, I wouldn't call it a good review or a review I "would respect". All it did was just listed down the stuff lacking in PC version (for which you don't really need to play the console version) and copied the rest from console review --- no mention (at least I couldn't find any) of how much problems were or not or if everything was smooth or not etcnaval

part from the reduction of players though, the main controversy on the PC version lies within its lack of dedicated servers, which was ditched for a Matchmaking system, simialr to consoles. Though this isn't much of a problem for consoles considering the control scheme and somewhat slower pace, Matchmaking proves incredibly inconsistent on the PC version. To elaborate, the PC version is naturally a faster game due to more power pumping into the game and total mouse control, the extra lag that match making gives severely hinders the control and precision that PC players have always enjoyed for well over a decade. Console gamers have this eased up on them due to aim assist, which makes matchmaking much easier to handle as you don't require near pitch perfect aim. On the PC however, the extra pacing and precise requirements of mouse control makes a game with lag become a noticeable and annoying hinderance.

And it happens often at that. Unless the hosting player has a very powerful internet connection (a somewhat uncommon thing in Australia), most players will suffer, though the host will have a clear cut advantage due to 0 ping on his end. If the host leaves, the game scrambles to find another competent enough host which breaks the pacing of the game and kicks you out of the zone often enough. The matchmaking setup is not entirely broken and tends to work sometimes, many a time you'll be pitted in a server where you'll get latency issues that will noticeably impact your performance. Leaving will also result in a penalty to your win/loss ratio, so you're essentially being punished for leaving a game that isn't working well for you in performance. We could go on about the inconsistencies of match making, but to put it bluntly, Infinity Ward made a huge mistake with the removal of dedicated servers. Sure, they've taken a step forward with ease of accessibility in multiplayer, but they've taken several steps back by trying to fix something that was never really broken.

PalGN

[QUOTE="devious742"]

The Good

• Intense, action-packed campaign
• Engaging cooperative missions
• Richer, deeper, more rewarding competitive multiplayer progression.

The Bad

• Costs more, has fewer multiplayer features than other PC shooters
• Campaign is short
• Plot is muddled and inelegant.

Nibroc420

Nice to see some reviewers still have a brain and not bribes in their skulls