Gamasutra: The Art & Business of Making Gamesspacer
View All     RSS
September 16, 2014
arrowPress Releases
September 16, 2014
PR Newswire
View All

If you enjoy reading this site, you might also want to check out these UBM Tech sites:

Opinion:  Modern Warfare 2 's Singleplayer, Multiplayer Conundrum
Opinion: Modern Warfare 2's Singleplayer, Multiplayer Conundrum
January 27, 2010 | By Tom Cross

January 27, 2010 | By Tom Cross
More: Console/PC

[If most people just play Modern Warfare 2 for the multiplayer, why does Infinity Ward seem so stuck on storytelling? In this opinion piece, writer Tom Cross makes the case against single-player in the war-focused franchise.]

Infinity Ward's Call Of Duty: Modern Warfare 2 has come and gone, although it isn't really gone: it lives on, unstoppable, powered by XBL and the PSN. The game's release may have been highly lucrative (750 million dollars, the last time I checked), but it was also fraught with controversy. Most notable among them were the “F.A.G.S.” scandal (and Infinity Ward's response to such criticisms), the lack of dedicated servers, and, of course, the “No Russian” level.

As Michael Abbott points out, while a small slice of the hardcore demographic and gaming press took offense, a large portion of the game's potential customers were either unaware of or unmoved by any of those issues. For them, the game lives and dies by its multiplayer.

We may natter on about FPS narrative conceits, forced participation, and issues of player agency, but this game doesn't care. It doesn't need to. It's built as a multiplayer juggernaut, and its single player is like some kind of vestigial malformed appendage: it sticks around almost out of habit.

It's an old joke by now that IW moves Modern Warfare 2's multiplayer closer and closer to MMO status with each release. Playing Modern Warfare 2, you can see the changes and signs. Aside from the genre (FPS), this is more and more a pure RPG leveling experience. One wonders when IW will drop all the pretense and just release a multiplayer-only game.

Infinity Ward themselves seem to be doggedly resisting this change. To play this game (and to listen to its developers discuss the single and multiplayer) is to witness the work of people who honestly believe the characters and story they've created are deserving of further installments. It shouldn't be surprising that people think this kind of storytelling is important, but it’s surprising that the unfortunate disconnect between gameplay, setting and writing is explained away, excused, and sometimes lauded.

The plot, writing, and characters of Modern Warfare 2 are all wretched. There are other ways to put this, but none of them communicate my full disgust with the separate parts of this product, and its heft and intention as a whole entity. Infinity Ward has mastered the art of pretentious (not because it is in any way intelligent, but because it thinks it is saying anything of worth or import) military drama, just as it has mastered the art of the contemporary linear military shooter.

As an “entertaining” piece of military schlock, Modern Warfare 2 hits a few good notes here and there. The idea of a massive invasion blasting apart and disfiguring everyday America is a potent one, although as I'll explain later, IW's execution of this interesting situation leaves much to be desired. Likewise, its depiction of a long firefight through a capital in ruins is tense, desperate, and perfectly paced. Even a problematic trip to Brazil (opening with a hugely annoying mission) salvages itself somewhat, delivering a tense, alarming firefight through a crowded market where sight lines are crap and the enemies are plentiful.

modern_warfare_2_review.jpgOscar Mike!

Even these deft touches, though, are undermined by the company's unsteady, encroaching sense of dramatic timing and exposition.

The dialogue is obtuse in the extreme, moving from topic to topic with alacrity, refusing to acknowledge that its language and execution obscure all but the simplest epithets and declarations. Everyone talks using the caricature of a caricature of a caricature of military slang and shop talk. Everyone everywhere is always "oscar mike," or every single enemy is “danger close.” This isn't to say that military jargon, shop talk, and slang don't have a place in dramatic fiction. They surely do.

The problem is that in Infinity Ward’s almost erotic fixation with military procedure and lingo (taken from military sources, probably, but also from pop culture like “Generation Kill”), Infinity Ward forgot to put more than a word or two of human dialogue into anybody's mouth. It's utterly incomprehensible, and every single person in the game speaks like this. When people do speak as the average person does, its only in the most hackneyed, tired of action movie cliches, with “those hostages won't rescue themselves” being my favorite by far.

I was surprised and delighted to find that while most of the game was populated by comically-accented murderers from the British Isles, Keith David (as your commanding officer, when you play as an American Army Ranger) and Lance Henriksen (as the main general in charge) play large parts in the game. Say what you will about the two, but their instantly recognizable voices and professional delivery do a lot to allay my hatred for the words they speak in this game (although Keith David is apparently "oscar mike" everywhere, from the toilet to his death bed. A dedicated man, to be sure).

modernwarfare2.jpgBeard Guy and Mohawk Guy!

I'm not sure who at Infinity Ward thought that we, as players, were in love with Mustache Guy (Captain Price, who is, wouldn't you guess it, alive) and Mohawk Guy (Soap, slightly less annoying than his old commander). Apparently, fans loved these two so much, we have to listen to them growl about tangos, hostiles, ACS's, and how amazingly badass they are for much of the game. Their dialogue ranges from the aforementioned movie cliches to the aforementioned meaningless jargon. It’s constant, forgettable, and often intrusive.

You might think that the sections of the game that feature good voice actors would be bright spots. Instead, we are forced to endure Keith David's game performance as Sergeant Foley, the American soldier who must Oscar Mike everything he sees or hears. The two plots' heroes are forced to defend America when we are invaded by Russians. One thread revolves around “Roach,” a Special Forces agent who is part of a secret task force ordered to halt the rise of a dangerous power, the other revolves around Foley's squad and its missions in the USA.

The task force hangs out in exciting foreign locales and kills foreigners (something the Modern Warfare series, and Call of Duty, delight in), while Foley and his crew protect America from a ludicrous, Boris and Natasha invasion comprised of husky Russians. Shepard spends his time mumbling about war, destiny, absolute power, and how that power never changes. He sounds like a college kid who just read Hobbes for the first time and took the wrong message away from it. All he needs to complete his look are a Bob Marley and some PBR, and maybe a few pretentious comments about human frailty.

Anything not having to do with Foley and DC is shrouded in bad writing, conservative military alarmism, and bad gameplay-story integration. I'm not saying that I didn't expect this kind of foolishness. Modern Warfare may have tried to sell itself as authentic, but it was still a kind of science fiction, it was still operating in some weird version of our universe. This new game is like James Bond mixed with Jack Bauer. Every new mission includes super-x-ray, night vision, invisible, frog men assault squads (actually, those are basically in the game, but they’re tame compared to some of the “modern” stuff). It’s all just as incomprehensible as the dialogue.

modern-warfare-2.jpg War, Um, Never Changes ?

The two main pontificates are Captain Price and General Shepherd, and their speeches are long and offensive, for their smirking avowal of brutal, inhumane tactics, their mindless regurgitation of action movie tropes that were boring in the 80s, and for their continuous camp and stupidity (although that shouldn't fool you into thinking that the "good" guys in his story are anything other than war criminals and morons). I'm surprised the actors could read these lines out loud.

Again, it's not as if I was expecting something even mildly introspective, self-aware, or intelligent. This isn't Indigenes, the The Hurt Locker, hell, this isn't even Three Kings. It's everything bad and wrong about the glorification of American military power, and it's sloppy, lazy storytelling, from start to finish. You’d think that an action game would at least master the art of economical storytelling and exhibition, but the game’s incoherent writing and level continuity make even that low hanging branch inaccessible. It reflects well on no one but the people who designed the gameplay and world upon which these terrible trappings were hung: they know what they're doing, there's no doubt about it.

Still, the level designers and levels aren’t without fault. The missions set around Washington DC are lessons in how not to represent the familiar. This was an opportunity to take various things that the viewer took for granted and upend them. Even the misguided airport level does better, in this area. The point of these DC missions should have been to introduce the alarming abnormal into the presumably normal. I can only imagine that an invaded, ruined suburb that actually resembled those found on the East Coast might have struck a chord with people who lived there, and with people who only knew of such places because of a shared cultural experience.

Taking that kind of safe, welcoming environment and turning it dark and threatening is a time-tested method of unsettling the audience. Not so here. Instead, the locations feel wooden and fake (I’ve never seen suburbs, let alone malls, like these). Each burger joint is separated from the next by inexplicable swaths of parking lot, and the houses and white picket fences feel tiny and squat, especially when overflowing with Russians. It’s as if, in the night, someone came and made all of DC 7/8 size.

The missions are also badly held together, and badly paced. The siege on Capitol Hill is well-made (especially after the awfully, incomprehensible nuclear detonation over DC), but every other Foley mission (and all but one of the covert ops missions lead by “Roach,” your other inexplicably named avatar) is a long, long exploration of botched decisions. Even when the developers are truly flexing their FPS skills and creating something unique (the on-foot escape in Brazil is the best thing the game has to offer), you can sense something bad coming. It comes in the form of laughably serious scripted first person “non” cutscenes, which are, as ever, awkward, transparent, and equally as game-breaking as the cinematics they replace. You’ll watch as your character is murdered several times, since apparently the writers at Infinity Ward love this trick as much as they love the phrase “oscar mike.”

modern-warfare-2-no-russian1.jpgPlease, Please, No Russian!

The disconnect between gameplay and narrative is almost perfectly reproduced in the “No Russian” level.

This level, like the rest of the game, disappointed me. As a quick, effective play upon the fears swimming around the consciousnesses and sub-consciousnesses of many people around the world, this scene is no doubt effective and timely. Even if it is badly implemented and badly framed, it still is more relevant to the vast majority of gamers and non-gamers than any meditation on Ayn Rand (underwater!) ever could be. It's use of the "oh look, you are playing a game, we know it, you know it, we know that it creeps you out that we know, and we know that it surprises you that we force you to face your own game playing as a constructed, not natural, occurrence" tactic is capable enough.

Playing “No Russian,” I felt like someone had crystallized everything substandard in Modern Warfare 2 into one level. the writing within "No Russian" itself is bad. It isn’t up to the task of presenting and handling - well - an event with this kind of widespread public emotional impact. From Makarov’s nonsense monologue at the end, to the level’s stupid jokes (all of the flights suddenly switch to “delayed”), to the complete inability on the part of the game as a whole to deliver upon or contextualize this event, the writing and plotting fails “No Russian.” It's the instigator of the Russian invasion of America, the game's single most stupid plot development (even worse than Price's inexplicable missile launching act). Likewise, the game doesn't know what to do with this level from a continuity standpoint; it's shoehorned in between an intense Die Hard 2-esque snowmobile chase, and an assault on America that's straight out of bad Tom Clancy.

It's tonally out of place, and plot-wise, its villain (Makarov) disappears after this mission. It's like they forgot about him, and then gave him five lines of dialog in the second-to-last mission to make up for their forgetfulness. Likewise, the game lets you break the simulation by allowing you to fire on Makarov, who is invincible, and then instantly forces you to restart. If you're going to make me face the artificiality of the game I’m playing, and my own “complicity” in the act of play and the ruse enacted by the developers, actually do that: don't half-ass it, and in so doing, allow me to accidentally (I was trying to shoot a guard) punish me for it. Let me kill Makarov, or run away and make him come find me, or something. If the seams in your game show before I've even tried to find them, you've failed.

In short, regardless of the scene's supposed realism, emotional potency, or immersiveness, it's an especially disappointing part of a bad (single player) product. It only served to reinforce my distaste for the game in general, and the kind of decision-making that lead to this kind of overblown, egotistic junk, even if it was only for one mission.

The game’s science fiction storyline, bad writing, and spotty pacing are enough to tarnish it in my memory, but it commits many more errors within the mechanics of the game itself. Still, the multiplayer is incredible: Infinity Ward is so close to creating an incredibly addictive MMOFPS; another development cycle or two should do it. What’s alarming about Modern Warfare 2 is that Infinity Ward seems dead set on inflicting their bad brand of single player FPS upon us for years to come. If they moved on to a different franchise and genre (as they may be doing), they’ll take their overblown sense of drama, amazing design experience, and broken sense of gameplay narrative and pacing, and slip it into another game. They make single player (portions of) games that “push the envelope” of design in only the most superficial of ways, and they set the standard for the rest of the industry.

[Tom Cross writes for Gamers' Temple and Popmatters, is the Associate Editor at Sleeper Hit, and blogs about games at Delayed Responsibility. You can contact him at romain47 at gmail dot com.]

Related Jobs

Vicarious Visions / Activision
Vicarious Visions / Activision — Albany, New York, United States

Animator-Temporary-Vicarious Visions
Raven Software / Activision
Raven Software / Activision — Madison, Wisconsin, United States

Sr. Gameplay Engineer - Raven
Cloud Imperium Games
Cloud Imperium Games — Santa Monica, California, United States

Technical Animator
CCP — Reykjavik, Iceland

Director, Performance Marketing


[User Banned]
profile image
This user violated Gamasutra’s Comment Guidelines and has been banned.

Bob Stevens
profile image
Modern Warfare's single player is about an experience, not a story. I think IW lost sight of this a little and got carried away. The result is a pretentious game, but one that's still an amazing experience (or so I am made to believe, I have not finished it myself).

If you appreciate it for what it is, there's no problem with MW2's single player. I guess any man who takes an article to say what could be said in a paragraph must have a love for writing, but you won't find good writing in MW2. That's no secret, and it's also not really a problem.

Brandon Layton
profile image
I'm not going to dismiss what you say because I think story is very important to these types of games and MW2 has an awesome premise, though it doesn't always have the best story (imaging a fullscale war on American soil was very powerful to me). That said I'm just guessing you weren't ever in the military and I think you'd be surprised how often cliche things like danger close and abbreviations get thrown around all the time even when it doesn't necessarily make since, its just a military thing. Also if they were to make the dialog true to military lingo the average player wouldn't have a clue what they were saying (in general) because it would be so cryptic. The special forces type of people I knew were generally coherent people compared to the average soldier, but I wouldn't put them in the category of wordsmiths either, I think it would detach the player a little from the focus of the game if after every situation you got yourself in the player would have some deep sighted retort; eventually it would be even more unrealistic and you'd be writing about how over dramatic the writing in MW2 was. That stuff said, for a game like MW2 where do you think the dialog balance should lean, towards overly dramatic to get the most out of the story, or towards more realistic at the cost of possibly detaching the player from the characters?

Tom Newman
profile image
I don't plat online multiplayer FPS. I still love the CoD series. As short as the single player campaign was, it was still one of the best single player experiences of the year. Multi player fans sometimes don't even play the single player campaign - I know some personally, but there are many of us where the opposite is true as well.

Fiore Iantosca
profile image
@Tom, yes I agree on everything you said.

Quite clearly, if MW2 did not have a SP campaign I would not have bought it and I play both SP and MP

Daniel Cleaton
profile image
I agree with Tom and Bob. For me, the COD series is about single-player and the spectacle, and overall I thoroughly enjoyed it (twice). Yes, they went a bit silly at times in this version and yes they kept reusing character almost-death and death at the end of the level and other moments we'd seen in MW1, but I bought the game for single-player and haven't as yet even entered the multiplayer screen. Which is why it annoyed me that the game forced me to install Steam, but that's a whole other issue...

I do wish they would split the multiplayer and single-player modes into seperate SKUs and then work on them as seperate releases and updates, especially with Steam and IWNet now being used for PC, but I'm not sure how well it would work in practice as I can't agree that "most" people ONLY play the multiplayer. Every single person I know who has the game played through the single-player campaign (usually before starting the multiplayer). Guess if IW felt that was the case they might well do something about it though.

Joe Elliott
profile image
@Tom @Fiorentino yes the SP was so awesome! I started playing after I got my copy at midnight and couldn't stop until the end! I'm glad it was short too, no fat, just an intense experience that you see the end in a night or two. I would buy a new experience like that every week.

Chris Jones
profile image
I think one of the main reasons why they invest their time developing a SP mode in FPS games is simply to give context or sense of narrative towards MP levels and place within universe. That's one aspect I liked about Halo's MP, how they kept all maps linked to SP within the same universe creating feeling that you're playing location within unverse rather just playing a map. Also "Uncharted 2" uses this method of thinking too as the rumours regarding new DLC that was maps going to use themes of "Uncharted 1" keeps it both fresh and cohernce.

Juan Del Rio
profile image
I'm with Tom and Fiorentino on this one.

Nathan Pearce
profile image
I couldn't disagree with this article more. MW1 & 2 both have spectacular single player stories. In both cases, I played through the story, played a few days of multi, and then dropped the game. I'll buy MW3, as long as it has another great story attached. I'd love to hear the real BI behind this, and see how many people who bought the game fall into the single player or multiplayer camps. I don't think the premise in the intro line of this article is necessarily true. Show me the numbers.

Joshua Sterns
profile image
Good article Tom! Plot/story wise MW2 was the biggest disappointment this year. The invasion of the US was pathetic. No local police or resistance. No damaged national landmarks until you finally get to DC. Stupid local defense by the US military "ah are we getting invaded or is that jelly from my donuts." And no allies for either the USA or Russia? So Canada and Mexico is ok having a war on North America? Europe and Asia don't care that the world economy is going into the toilet because the American people aren't doing business during a war. Oh and the Cold War policy of mutual destruction is or isn't in effect? Not to sure about that one. Guess I'll have to ask Cap. Price.

My final nit pick is the lack of private military companies. You want drama and controversy, or something that has an impact? Show a Black Water like organization breaking the rules of war, and give the player the choice to either stop the offender or participate.

I had more fun in the Spec Ops then in SP. In Spec Ops there is no stupid plot to ruin all the awesome action.

Bart Stewart
profile image
You know, I started out reading this opinion piece predisposed to agree with what seemed to be the author's objective point: having a vestigial first-person story in a game that seems to want to be a multiplayer shooter is probably not worth doing, and certainly isn't worth doing in a clichéd way.

But the more I read, the more the author's case for this viewpoint strayed from observations that might be useful to thoughtful players of MW2 to the writer's personal disgust for the cohesive jargon of any professional military force and for his highly personal perceptions of warfighters-as-"murderers," "conservative military alarmism," and "the glorification of American military power."

I don't mind the author holding or expressing those views. I think they're mistaken, but it's a free country. What I do object to is their unnecessarily distracting readers from an otherwise insightful (if grumpy) piece of game analysis.

If I wanted to be subjected to leftist hatred or right-wing boosterism of the U.S. military and certain foreign policy positions for which it is a surrogate, I can easily find that stuff in print, on TV or online. I don't need or want personal political invective in my game criticism. It doesn't add any value -- just the opposite, actually.

Politically-charged game criticism should have places where it can be expressed. But maybe Gamasutra does not need to be one of those places. A little judicious editing to help the author stay on point would have helped here.

Jonathan Gilmore
profile image
I totally agree with the article. There was a lot of the spectacle I enjoyed from MW1 in MW2, but the plot was so ludicrous it would frequently take me out of the game. I had a similar experience accidently shooting one of Makarov's men in the No Russian level and I was similarly disgusted by that whole experience.

The jargon of the soldiers didn't bother me, but I thought Sheppard's dialogue was awful and the "message" of the game was heavy handed, stupid and even a little bit fascist-and this is coming from someone who somewhat enjoyed the storyline in the first game. I didn't hate the singleplayer though, I was just very underwhelmed. I love the multiplayer though, and I'm far from some sort of online fps pro.

Eric Carr
profile image
Good call Bart. This article, and any points it was trying to make, seems to have gotten mixed up in it's own vehemence. Also, I like jargon, It establishes a tone. I wonder if the writer hates Assassin's Creed 2 because of all those italian words.

In any event, the story of MW2 serves a singular purpose, which is to drive the player through the action set pieces. That's all that it has to do. The question, is does it do that?

Ganjookie Gray
profile image

David Rodriguez
profile image
I took the game for what it was and liked it. I definitely agree with a lot of points in the article but I think you went overboard on being nit-picky.Yah, The story sucked but the charm of the game was it went out of it's way to be stupidly exaggerated. Kinda like any other corny action film in which it pays homage to.

Jerome Russ
profile image
@Christian. I didn't see an R- or a D- on my game's cover...

Seriously though, do you think everything about a war game should make sense, or that you agree with everything? Or are you just going to play the game and try to enjoy it? If I didn't have an on/off switch for my polical views, I couldn't have any connection outside of my house!

Also, if you thought the single player game wasn't good, how can you comment on the later levels?

Csaba Toth
profile image
I agree with the post on stating that the SP has ugly weak points. The game tries to show us a serious, multi-layered, action-pumped story. The result is an action-pumped nonsense with some misplaced levels, and B category dialogues. The player doesn’t even know what’s going on, the game just pushes him forward. But this is OK in an action game, so let’s move on.

//spoiler (kindof)

Killing, stabbing, and knocking the player unconscious as a part of the plot can be a good and exciting element. And it also can be a source of frustration if its handled wrong. Getting stabbed by the third time at the end of a ridiciously hard and punishing part of the game IS frustrating. So the SP part of the game was a disappointment for me, but fortunately the MP compensated the loss.

Bart Stewart
profile image
Christian, in addition to what Jerome said I would just add that we live outside the game world. Some distance from the source material is appropriate and necessary to be able to form and express good critical judgments about that material.

I wouldn't have had any problem with a straight-forward statement at the beginning of the piece that said, "I have a strong personal disagreement with what I see as the mindlessly pro-military attitude of the single-player story in this game." In fact, that's actually helpful -- that's a writer being honest about and true to his principles without letting them swamp the objective critical analysis that his readers can use.

To put it another way, one's government may be highly political, and reporters may have strong political beliefs, but the best reporting on political subjects doesn't pick sides.

Colin Dunnet
profile image
Great article! MW2's SP had many up & down's as wrote in this article. Personally, the music composed by Hans Zimmer created a dramatic effect to the SP story. I Believe without it the SP campaign would not have been as entertaining. There are some memorable moment's. The Hornet's nest (as noted in article) & The Gulag are the most fantastic FPS Level's ive played. No russian was unnecassary. It was a crucial part of the story but it seemed as if IW created it for controversial publicity for the release of the game. And again, the music for the No russian mission made a impact. These are my opinion's. MP is fun. The PSN drop's game more often that of the Xbox live. Either one there isn't any other difference. The MW2 package is worth a $60.00 profit. You'll get your money's worth in multiplayer. The SP campaign is short at time's dissapointing. But it's still exciting the first time through

Erick Green
profile image
Thank you for writing this. I was afraid I was the only person who wondered: Did they write this by drawing slips from a hat, or did they use a dartboard? Was I playing Modern Warfare or Metal Gear Solid?

As far as a political agenda, the SP seems to make the US military out to be as inept as their cartoon adversaries. They tattooed a private straight out of Afghanistan and used him as a plant in a Russian extremist organization? I could only assume that he had his Wisconsin driver's license, US Passport and library card on him when the FSB collected the body. The list goes on.

Keep the Zimmer music, but leave the Bruckheimer plot.

(And bring party chat over XBL back, sheesh)

Chane Hollander
profile image
Excellent comments Bert, they were spot on. I appreciate what the author started out doing, but found it quickly became unfocused ranting based on perception of facts and looks like a less than an in-depth experience of the game. I would expect at least a strong deconstruction of narrative events backed up by more than saying “it’s stupid”. This struck me as a “it’s cool to go against the grain” piece at best rather than anything else.

One thing I'll give the Infinity Ward guys in the their last two installments is that they manage to create incredibly immersive experiences in-game and during their cutscenes that have managed to strike an emotional connection that culminated in two of the best ending sequences that I’ve seen in over 20 years of gaming. These created tangible memories for me long after other aspects of the games story have faded, and that is far more than I can say for many games at all.

Von-Carter Jones
profile image

I agree that the story was difficult to follow and that the narrative elements were poorly constructed. But I did enjoy the SP and story (it all came together after playing through the SP the second time). If you believe the story was about "warfighters-as-murderers", "conservative military alarmism" or "the glorification of American military power"; you've missed the story. And thay by itself is probably the result of a good story w/ horrible narrative elements. The story actually takes a radical conspiracy theory trajectory (911 as an example). And I think that MW3 will flesh it out. Shepard was working directly w/ Makarov to incite hostilities between the US and Russia. You spend the entire game cleaning up evidence of this. And when everything's been cleaned up Shepard does away w/ you. Even in Makarov's safe house, while the AI characters photograph evidence, you can find a newspaper clipping mounted on the wall. I took the a minute to glance at it. But it talks about conspiracies lurking on American involvment in the airport terrorist attack. They even go so far as to include a picture of the burning Pentagon from 911 in the newspaper clip. A nice touch, I thought. If anything I think the story is asking us all to question the "why's" of military conflict and not believe everything we see on TV. If I find the time I'd like to coast through the game and document all of the conspiracy theory easter eggs. Personally, I rather enjoy the subservise (anti-establishment, anti-gov't) slant many game narratives have take today. Look back at the "bad PMC's" in MGS4 or Hawx. Their are many examples. Would like to see a nice write up on the subversive narrative in games. In my opinion it only proves that games are art, as art has often been an outlet for ideas like this.

JS Dreyer
profile image
I have yet to play MW2, but I thoroughly enjoyed the MW1 single player campaign. I thought it was a great popcorn action story, well paced and told. The action and graphics were varied and great.

I agree about the grating dialog, though. The C130 dialog is lifted wholly from the online video of a real C130 taking out a terrorist camp in Afghanistan. And I recognized other snippets of dialog lifted from movies like "Aliens" among others. Weren't the writers creative enough to come up with their own stuff? Given that the average age of game players is over 30, shouldn't their be a bit more maturity and less plagarism in the dialog? It takes me out of the suspension of disbelief when I hear crap like that.

I'll be borrowing MW2 and playing the single player soon (I don't do competitive multiplayer games). I hope it's not as bad as you say...