[Official] Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 2


Recommended Posts

ok; my question; do you have cpu controller teammates? and if you do, do you have to think about them while killing your way trough the game (guide them, heal them and so on)?

I'm asking because I have HATED every single game where this is a part of the gameplay:p of course, if i can kill them, and then be on my way, then there's even more fun ;)

but if get a game over because "your teammate got killed", then the game goes straight into the junk:p

nice, so i can really go on playing it my own way? and never think about protecting them or anything? theeen maaaybee this game is beginning to sound interesting ;)

nice, so i can really go on playing it my own way? and never think about protecting them or anything? theeen maaaybee this game is beginning to sound interesting ;)

You're restricted in your freedom to move about the levels mostly but the game does often give you a few differing methods to achieve an objective (such as flanking and use of weapons).

Talking about aim assist, would you recommend me turning it off completely? I am a PC FPSer coming to the console, with MP not having assist switching it off would help me?

Yes. Turning off aim assist will help your MP progress but it'll be a steep learning curve :)

You know what, I think I was completely wrong, as I turned off my console and turned it on again and launched MW2 and now my 5.1 sound light is on.

Weird though, as like I said it happened to my brother in law as well. So never-mind, seems to be working.

I had just read some earlier comments in the thread that led me to believe it was disabled as well, so I was already fired up. LOL

And I believe I am on the very last mission of the SP campaign, but I really need to get to bed here, already stayed up past my normal time. Will complete it tomorrow for sure.

Thanks for the explanation. I am still not sure if the game definitely does 5.1, but now it appears it may.

my onkyo had the dd light/logo all the time (well not for the first 5 minutes as it wasnt selected in the ps3's audio options) still sounds like crap, gunfire and explosions are ok but surround placement is rubbish and voices not using the centre channel is a disgrace. borderlands on ps3 is equally rubbish, last shooter i played on the 360 was operation flashpoint dragon rising and that sounds great

Very dissapointed. The way it was hyped i expected more.

Levels while big felt really small as there was only a narrow corridor you run up to the next kill box where waves of enemies come at you then you move on to the next kill box. The sheer amount of enemies thrown at you is ridiculous. I enjoyed the stealth missions more where you had to be conservative of ammo and who you kill so you dont alert the enemy.

The set pieces were brilliant, they are the things i loved most about MW1. The ice climing, skidoos, running along the rooftops without a gun, etc.. Im not even going to comment on the airport mission as i dont really have much to say on the matter that hasnt already been said, i did have to close the game after that section was a little too disturbing.

I did enjoy the varied amount of things you do like the predator missile bits and the variation in locations is brilliant. Dissapointed that Glenn Morshower (Agent Aaron Pierce from 24) only had a supporting voice role, would have enjoyed fighting alongside him, and the ending was very satisfying after what happens in the last half of the game.

Bit short for a ?35 RRP game and its definately a rent not a buy, havent touched on multiplayer as i only borrowed the game to play single player and i played it in one sitting.

Clearly left open for a sequel or a spinoff with Soap and Captain Price, bit dissappointed as i wanted a bit of closure on the story

Edited by Richard Hammond

Part of me wants to buy the PC version, but the other part wants to not buy it at all. Seriously, how could the PC version be so crippled?

  • Lack of dedicated servers
  • Lack of 'console' for commands
  • Max player count of 18 (9v9)
  • Small but annoying pauses due to host migration (if a host rage-quits)

You can't even kick people in ranked matches. Honestly, that's just pathetic. I loved Call of Duty 4: Modern Warfare so much that I basically told every gamer I knew to get it back in '07. Why? Well, it was an amazing game. Unfortunately, I can't say the same for its sequel. It's just full of cut-features that, for the most part, were present in a game that was released in '07. That's not all though. We're left with the icing on the cake: the game's price. Normally, new PC games are priced at $49.99 which is usually cheaper than their console counterparts. However, that simply isn't the case with Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 2. The PC version is priced at $59.99, just like the X360/PS3 versions.

Since when do you pay $59.99 for a PC game that isn't a Collector's or Limited Edition?

Part of me wants to buy the PC version, but the other part wants to not buy it at all. Seriously, how could the PC version be so crippled?

  • Lack of dedicated servers
  • Lack of 'console' for commands
  • Max player count of 18 (9v9)
  • Small but annoying pauses due to host migration (if a host rage-quits)

You can't even kick people in ranked matches. Honestly, that's just pathetic. I loved Call of Duty 4: Modern Warfare so much that I basically told every gamer I knew to get it back in '07. Why? Well, it was an amazing game. Unfortunately, I can't say the same for its sequel. It's just full of cut-features that, for the most part, were present in a game that was released in '07. That's not all though. We're left with the icing on the cake: the game's price. Normally, new PC games are priced at $49.99 which is usually cheaper than their console counterparts. However, that simply isn't the case with Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 2. The PC version is priced at $59.99, just like the X360/PS3 versions.

Since when do you pay $59.99 for a PC game that isn't a Collector's or Limited Edition?

I dunno aye, it's just not worth paying for. I perhaps will just download it from you know where and play the single player campaign especially since the first (Cod4) was quite good. I'm not a big fan of throwing money away for crap or ported games (I'm looking at you EA). To be honest, I'm quite bored of multiplayer games at the moment and games in general, they just don't have that long livability anymore. I'm still waiting eagerly for and Assassins Creed 2 :D and Half Life 2, Episode 3 :D :D :D

Okay, finally finished campaign. And well, whoa, once again. Zimmers score was just perfect. Also very satisfying ending. Id have to say that as far as single player goes this must be game of the year for me. Short but very tight and impressive.

Just finished SP and hmmm... took me about 6 hours but the action was great, much faster and better than in MW1 :) And after you finish it you can play spec ops. I'll wait for my friend so we can play it coop :) But the game guys, it's really that good :)

I dunno aye, it's just not worth paying for. I perhaps will just download it from you know where and play the single player campaign especially since the first (Cod4) was quite good.

So, that's how you do things? You decide it's not worthy to pay for and just steal it?

If it's worthy to play then it's worthy to pay.

I got the game today, and just had time to jump into a MP game, my first game, and got the Accolade "Kill Entire Team without dying" I never had such a great match before, not even in COD4.

Deffinetly going to invest alot of time in MP.

my onkyo had the dd light/logo all the time (well not for the first 5 minutes as it wasnt selected in the ps3's audio options) still sounds like crap, gunfire and explosions are ok but surround placement is rubbish and voices not using the centre channel is a disgrace. borderlands on ps3 is equally rubbish, last shooter i played on the 360 was operation flashpoint dragon rising and that sounds great

Thanks for the reply, was hoping other people would confirm or deny. So okay it is not just me with the sound. Good to know. (Y)

This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
  • Posts

    • Stellarium 26.2 by Razvan Serea Stellarium is a free open source planetarium for your computer. It shows a realistic sky in 3D, just like what you see with the naked eye, binoculars or a telescope. It is being used in planetarium projectors. Just set your coordinates and go. Stellarium key features: Realistic simulation of the sky, sunrise and sunset Default catalogue of over 600,000 stars Downloadable additional catalogues for up to 210 million stars Catalog data for all New General Catalogue (NGC) objects Images of almost all Messier objects and the Milky Way Artistic illustrations for all 88 modern constellations More than a dozen different cultures with their constellations Solar and lunar eclipse simulation Photorealistic landscapes (more are available on the website) Scripting support with ECMAScript (a few demo scripts are included) Extendable with plug-ins: 8 plug-ins installed by default, including: artificial satellites plug-in (updated from an on-line TLE database) ocular simulation plug-in (shows how objects look like in a given ocular) Solar System editor plug-in (imports comet and asteroid data from the MPC) telescope control plug-in (Meade LX200 and Celestron NexStar compatible) The major changes of this version: Added new sky culture Added new plugin: Planes Many improvements in plugins Many improvements in Core and GUI Many updates in sky cultures. [full release notes] Download: Stellarium 26.2 (64-bit) | 456.0 MB (Open Source) View: Stellarium Home Page | Other Operating Systems | Screenshot Get alerted to all of our Software updates on Twitter at @NeowinSoftware
    • NASA: This asteroid may not kill us but it probably won't be far off either by Sayan Sen Image by Zelch Csaba via Pexels New observations by NASA's James Webb Space Telescope have eliminated the last remaining impact threat posed by asteroid 2024 YR4, ruling out the possibility that the near-Earth object could strike the Moon in December 2032. NASA said observations collected by Webb on February 18 and 26, 2026, enabled scientists to refine the asteroid's orbit enough to "rule out a chance of lunar impact on Dec. 22, 2032." Instead, asteroid 2024 YR4 is now expected to pass the Moon at a distance of about 13,200 miles (21,200 km). The agency stressed that the update "reflects improved precision in our understanding of where the asteroid is expected to be in 2032 rather than a shift in its orbital path." The announcement closes a remarkable chapter in planetary defence that began in late 2024, when the approximately 60-metre-wide asteroid briefly became the most closely watched near-Earth object in the world. Discovered on December 27, 2024, by the ATLAS telescope in Chile, 2024 YR4 initially appeared to have a small chance of colliding with Earth on December 22, 2032. As astronomers gathered more observations, the impact probability briefly climbed to around 3%—the highest ever recorded for an asteroid of its size—before steadily falling as its orbit became better understood. By early 2025, international observations had ruled out any significant risk to Earth. However, astronomers were left with another possibility: a roughly 4% chance that the asteroid could instead strike the Moon. "The probability that asteroid 2024 YR4 will strike the Moon on 22 December 2032 is now approximately 4%," the European Space Agency (ESA) had said last year, noting that "there is a 96% chance that the asteroid will not impact the Moon." ESA said such an impact, while unlikely, would have presented an extraordinary scientific opportunity. "It is a very rare event for an asteroid this large to impact the Moon – and it is rarer still that we know about it in advance. The impact would likely be visible from Earth, and so scientists will be very excited by the prospect of observing and analysing it," said Richard Moissl, Head of ESA's Planetary Defence Office. "It would certainly leave a new crater on the surface. However, we wouldn't be able to accurately predict in advance how much material would be thrown into space, or whether any would reach Earth," he added. The asteroid also exposed an important blind spot in planetary defence. Because 2024 YR4 approached Earth from the direction of the Sun, it remained hidden from ground-based telescopes until after its closest approach. "We looked into how Neomir would have performed in this situation, and the simulations surprised even us," Moissl said. "Neomir would have detected asteroid 2024 YR4 about a month earlier than ground-based telescopes did. This would have given astronomers more time to study the asteroid's trajectory and allowed them to much sooner rule out any chance of Earth impact in 2032." He added, "As an infrared telescope, like Webb, Neomir would have also immediately given us a much better estimate for the asteroid's size, which is very important for assessing the significance of the hazard." The latest NASA observations underscore the value of space-based infrared telescopes in tracking faint asteroids. According to NASA, Webb made "among the faintest ever observations of an asteroid," extending the object's observational record by nearly eight months at a time when it had become too faint for other telescopes. That additional data allowed scientists to eliminate the remaining uncertainty surrounding its 2032 flyby. Although asteroid 2024 YR4 is now confirmed to pose no threat to either Earth or the Moon, scientists say its discovery remains one of the most significant real-world tests of the international planetary defence system, demonstrating how continued observations can rapidly transform an object once considered hazardous into one whose future path is known with high confidence. Source: NASA, ESA This article was generated with some help from AI and reviewed by an editor. Under Section 107 of the Copyright Act 1976, this material is used for the purpose of news reporting. Fair use is a use permitted by copyright statute that might otherwise be infringing.
    • Yup. Google is just scraping the entire internet for their own ad profits without sharing revenue with the sources. It's obviously stealing, but since these sites depend upon Google's search scraps to survive... As for me, I just stopped using Google for anything except Reddit searches. If Reddit's own search wasn't complete crapola, I'd never use Google search again.
  • Recent Achievements

    • Conversation Starter
      Admir earned a badge
      Conversation Starter
    • First Post
      The_Focal_Point earned a badge
      First Post
    • Apprentice
      daryld went up a rank
      Apprentice
    • Contributor
      Carltonbar went up a rank
      Contributor
    • One Month Later
      The_Focal_Point earned a badge
      One Month Later
  • Popular Contributors

    1. 1
      +primortal
      418
    2. 2
      +Edouard
      170
    3. 3
      PsYcHoKiLLa
      130
    4. 4
      Xenon
      69
    5. 5
      neufuse
      69
  • Tell a friend

    Love Neowin? Tell a friend!