[Official] Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 2


Recommended Posts

I can easily imagine this turning into a new-age Counter-strike, every kid on the block plays it. At least most of the kids are on the console versions as they are more popular, I haven't run into many kids or 'childish situations' on the PC. I hear people discuss tactics, talk about kids and wives, I see people help each other in In-game chat etc. Yes there are bad elements, as you would call it but they are far and few in between - So I'm really glad I chose the PC version over the console version.

Plus, the game does look rather good with full AA, ramped up textures and 1920x1200 resolution.

Plus, the game does look rather good with full AA, ramped up textures and 1920x1200 resolution.

Aye, the game isn't much of a looker, but, in comparison to the consoles the difference is shocking.

Talking of extremes:

OhlawdMW2.png

:| :rofl:

Edited by Spookie
I can easily imagine this turning into a new-age Counter-strike, every kid on the block plays it. At least most of the kids are on the console versions as they are more popular, I haven't run into many kids or 'childish situations' on the PC. I hear people discuss tactics, talk about kids and wives, I see people help each other in In-game chat etc. Yes there are bad elements, as you would call it but they are far and few in between - So I'm really glad I chose the PC version over the console version.

Plus, the game does look rather good with full AA, ramped up textures and 1920x1200 resolution.

I've yet to come across any problem players on the PS3 version.

but I've seen lots of youtube of cheating on the PC version......

I've yet to come across any problem players on the PS3 version.

but I've seen lots of youtube of cheating on the PC version......

Well, that's good for you :)

EDIT: Haha Spookie, they are really going too far ... But it's still sort of funny :laugh:

So I rented this game to give it a go online...

No wonder why so many people like it that much, its the easiest online multiplayer there is. Just aim through the reticle and the game gives you an aimbot so damn nasty that you'll get headshots even if you were not aiming.

At least the single player experience is top notch.

The aim-assist on the console version is a joke, really one of those mainstream tools to help the crap players feel like they're actually good and annoy the players who know how to use the controller.

It's an easy way to know where people are too. You can aim your crosshairs somewhere you think an enemy may be, and if it feels like it's magnetising towards a certain point, then open fire! I hate it personally.

I'm pretty sure it'll be hard for me... I've done it a few times and only got 35 seconds. I'm just not good at things like that.

Just get real quick at the auto aim and never stop sprinting until the guys pop to kill and make sure u got a set path to run always.

haven't played for a couple days now. im starting to see the same pattern i had with the previous.

played for a bit and now its just starting to feel old. im not even lvl 40 yet.

im sure ill pick it up and play a could more mp rounds but im nowhere in awe of it.

ive been reacquiring my trophies for inFamous for the past 2-3 days instead. /shrug

I thought he was spot on with the comment. It was very tedious.

There's no point making a fuss about the scene, it's not like other games haven't encouraged you to kill people before.

Oh, the level itself was tedious (and annoying when your fellow mass murderers stepped into your line of fire) and pointless. I agree with that. But I don't agree that there should've been no fuss over it. the level WAS a bit beyond COD's usual remit - killing unarmed people was a huge step. Sure, other games have collateral damage but not quite on the level of detail as MW2. GTA has loads of cold-blooded murder but that franchise has set expectations for that.

MW2's airport level just seemed like blatant controversy mongering, imo.

Hmmm, yeah I understand that personally, I just think most people are reacting how the IW developers wanted them to. It generates even more publicity away from the fact it is like the most anticipated game ever, and the chances are Infinity Ward won't have to shell out a penny anyways if its found to be 'too' violent. And if they are charged, they've generated enough money from sales that it won't matter anyways.

Edit: lol you beat me to the controversy comment Joker :p

Just completed the SP on Veteran Difficulty :D

Loving the game, its wide open for MW3! The whole ending sequence was unreal :D

Don't go too far...

I think the campaign itself is too linear. Maybe it's like this in all other COD's too, but I don't know as this is the first I've played. It would be a lot better if it wasn't so archaic...and short.

You're a cold cold man.

Like it hasn't been done in the movies a million times before already. Honestly I don't see the big deal. It wasn't original in anyway and having to walk so slowly/not hit the other murderers was just tedious.

Oh, the level itself was tedious (and annoying when your fellow mass murderers stepped into your line of fire) and pointless. I agree with that. But I don't agree that there should've been no fuss over it. the level WAS a bit beyond COD's usual remit - killing unarmed people was a huge step. Sure, other games have collateral damage but not quite on the level of detail as MW2. GTA has loads of cold-blooded murder but that franchise has set expectations for that.

MW2's airport level just seemed like blatant controversy mongering, imo.

Should video games be restricted in there depiction of violence or "sensitive" issues? Obviously this was always going to be an issue. There is no way IW put this in the game without realising it was going to be controversial.

Prior to release it was built up to be this big thing, then I played it, and it's pretty tense, but then it's like, "ok next"... It was part of the story and, controversy-mongering or not, it worked well, granted I found the story quite silly, weak and often confusing.

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

    • No registered users viewing this page.
  • Posts

    • Blast from the past.
    • Hello, Were you using a product or service from one of the companies affected by the Klue data breach?  See https://klue.com/blog/an-update-on-recent-klue-security-incident for the company's public statement.  That blog post does not list affected customer. From looking around at reports, I created this list: Gong HackerOne Huntress Insurity Jamf LastPass OneTrust Recorded Future ReliaQuest Salesforce Snyk Sprout Social Tanium It is likely there are other companies affected as well. Regards, Aryeh Goretsky  
    • SpaceX reportedly plans a Starlink mobile service for U.S. consumers by Karthik Mudaliar SpaceX reportedly wants to sell mobile phone plans directly to consumers in the United States as part of a wider expansion of Starlink. According to a report from the Financial Times, SpaceX president Gwynne Shotwell discussed the plan with investors during the company’s recent IPO roadshow. The company is also said to be considering building a terrestrial mobile network to complement Starlink’s satellite coverage. The plan is quite different from how Starlink currently operates in the U.S. mobile market. SpaceX already provides satellite connectivity for T-Mobile’s T-Satellite service, but T-Mobile remains responsible for the subscription, billing, and customer support. A Starlink-branded mobile service would give SpaceX control of the customer relationship instead. It could also turn the company from a partner of traditional mobile operators into a direct competitor. T-Mobile also began testing its Starlink-powered satellite service in early 2025. The beta was initially limited to text messaging and was also available to some AT&T and Verizon customers. The service has since expanded to support limited data access through selected apps, including WhatsApp, Google Maps, AccuWeather, and AllTrails. It is designed to provide a connection in areas where normal cell towers are unavailable, rather than replace a conventional mobile network. However, if SpaceX actually has a plan to serve nationwide, it needs to do more than just satellite networks and actually support on-ground operations. It can also partner up with existing carriers and become a mobile virtual network operator (MVNO). With that said, SpaceX has already spent heavily to support its mobile ambitions. Just last year, the company agreed to acquire wireless spectrum licences from EchoStar in deals worth a combined $19.6 billion. EchoStar's spectrum includes AWS-4, H-Block, and AWS-3 frequencies that could be used for both satellite and terrestrial communications. According to a SpaceX securities filing, the Federal Communications Commission approved the transaction in May 2026, although it is not expected to close until late 2027. There's no official statement by SpaceX for now. Pricing, availability, and other details remain unknown. Source: Financial Times
  • Recent Achievements

    • Week One Done
      xvvxcvv earned a badge
      Week One Done
    • One Month Later
      xvvxcvv earned a badge
      One Month Later
    • Enthusiast
      Xonos went up a rank
      Enthusiast
    • Conversation Starter
      Admir earned a badge
      Conversation Starter
    • First Post
      The_Focal_Point earned a badge
      First Post
  • Popular Contributors

    1. 1
      +primortal
      400
    2. 2
      +Edouard
      170
    3. 3
      PsYcHoKiLLa
      127
    4. 4
      neufuse
      69
    5. 5
      Xenon
      66
  • Tell a friend

    Love Neowin? Tell a friend!