[Official] Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 2


Recommended Posts

CoD1 MP is still my favourite. Definitely between 1 & 2 is the type of MP you are looking for Michael :p

No cheap thrills, just hardcore FPS.

Is that the same as the COD Classic on XBL that was released recently?

Wow. Just wow. The PC MP graphics look awful. No other way to put it. I maxed out everything at 1900 and it looks, I dont know, fuzzy. No high textures, even worse is the cross-hair stays huge like I am running 1024. Just such an example of a console game ported to PC.

Wow. Just wow. The PC MP graphics look awful. No other way to put it. I maxed out everything at 1900 and it looks, I dont know, fuzzy. No high textures, even worse is the cross-hair stays huge like I am running 1024. Just such an example of a console game ported to PC.

Yea it is sad. I was a big anti-MW2 guy, but downloaded the free weekend as a chance to see it first hand. I am def. not happy with it at all. The graphics aren't great, as you pointed out, and the multiplayer is a lag fest. Not to mention it takes me longer to end up in a game from hitting "Start Game" to playing than it does in TF2 with dedicated servers...

Ah well I've seen it for myself and I'm happy I won't be buying this one.

I haven't seen MW2 on a PC. But on the 360, the graphics are pretty much on par with Gears of War and Killzone 2. I pretty much don't know what any games look like on PC these days.

Yup, sadly it's been over looked by gamers though. Struggled to find any games online the day it was released.

I bought it on release day on XBL. I have only played a hand full of matches online though. Hard to get used to the old school multiplayer, but I was catching on. I haven't got very far in the campaign yet. I think I barely touched it to be honest.

In fact, I just checked my acheevos for that game, and I have none.

Wow. Just wow. The PC MP graphics look awful. No other way to put it. I maxed out everything at 1900 and it looks, I dont know, fuzzy. No high textures, even worse is the cross-hair stays huge like I am running 1024. Just such an example of a console game ported to PC.

The game looks pretty crappy on consoles to begin with, but does so to reach higher frame rates, but it's a complete joke it looks that poor on the PC.

Yea it is sad. I was a big anti-MW2 guy, but downloaded the free weekend as a chance to see it first hand. I am def. not happy with it at all. The graphics aren't great, as you pointed out, and the multiplayer is a lag fest. Not to mention it takes me longer to end up in a game from hitting "Start Game" to playing than it does in TF2 with dedicated servers...

Ah well I've seen it for myself and I'm happy I won't be buying this one.

Yeah the lag is just awful as well. I had to hit Tab just to see if perhaps we all had bad pings, and the game in fact said everyone minus one person had all bars full. It was so bad everyone commented on it in the text chat. At one point I literally saw a guy, shot, he skipped about what would be 10 feet in real life, but it said not only did I kill him, but that I had a headshot. :laugh: I definitely came nowhere close to hitting him as he was just skipping and floating around on some new type of ice skates.

The game looks pretty crappy on consoles to begin with, but does so to reach higher frame rates, but it's a complete joke it looks that poor on the PC.

I actually think it looks pretty decent on consoles. With that said it is a pretty low res on the consoles as well. I am pretty sure what that it is 720p? So that means 1280x720. So by PC standards that is pretty darn low.

Just for kicks and giggles I launched FRAPS just to see if perhaps it was indeed not lag and somehow my FPS, and I never got lower than 91 frames per second with everything maxed out as high as it possibly could be.

Overgrown is beautifully split up in sections and it's a tactically great map to play, Bailout is just effin' weird - A lot of open buildings in each teams spawn and the middle is a big ass bottleneck - Terrible map.

And salvage is nowhere near the quality of Vacant, because Vacant was very straight forward and was all happening on 'ground level' - Salvage is just a frustrating, random experience where you can hide high and low,

and you always have to turn around because then there's a lame pipe, a ladder, a house with 15 windows and it's too busy and cluttered. Just Won the price for "Worst map in MW2" in my book.

The last map, can't remember the name, is the only halfway decent of the bunch but I played it twice as it's always being skipped.

Ha ha ha, why could you have posted that initially. That is the kind of comment that has some great substance to it. I guess we will have to agree to disagree about Salvage. I see where you are saying it isn't necessarily low level but in terms of choke points I still connect it to something similar to Vacant. While the entire level isn't on a single plain, it is nowhere near the mild high's and low's like on Skidrow so I consider it close to a more singular plain type stage.

I'll definitely be playing a bunch of MP this weekend so if anybody wants to join up with myself and a buddy, let me know. We always have a pretty fun time so you are guaranteed some laughs!!! :p

I haven't seen MW2 on a PC. But on the 360, the graphics are pretty much on par with Gears of War and Killzone 2. I pretty much don't know what any games look like on PC these days.

[/size][/font][/color]

I bought it on release day on XBL. I have only played a hand full of matches online though. Hard to get used to the old school multiplayer, but I was catching on. I haven't got very far in the campaign yet. I think I barely touched it to be honest.

In fact, I just checked my acheevos for that game, and I have none.

WTF :blink: You being serious?

So... My first impressions of the game after two hours of play in the free weekend is... It's ok, but i'm also not very impressed. First and most noticeably would be the graphics. They're kinda bad. Well, maybe bad would be too harsh and i should say it's very dated instead. For a game released in 2009, it looks no better than something released 3 years before it. The [modified] quake engine they use, and have used pretty much forever in cod, is really showing its age. Oh, and that blood effect on your screen when you get shot(if it doesn't 1 shot you of course) telling you you're hurt... Has to be the worst of its kinda i've ever seen. Just give me a red border that darkens in shade as i get hurt more please. Then comes the gameplay, It's entertaining, yet annoying at the same time. The main annoyance i see is how everything, and i mean everything, is almost guaranteed to one hit kill, likely partly due to how easy a headshot is. I know this is a console game but please at least make it a little more challenging to kill someone. It also feels like there's extremely little deviation in your shots form moving. On the plus side though, It runs well due to being less than pretty, and actually played surprisingly smooth online despite lacking real servers.

anyway, that's my initial critique.

I had the same error. It comes from steam messing up the preload and not downloading the whole game. Restart steam and it should start 'updating'(that's how it did for me). Then go take a nap, go out to lunch, go for a jog around the city, and whatever else you can think of while you wait for 10-12GB to download and you'll be able to play.

Thanks lol, already tried that and more, not having it... never mind, thanks anyway :)

Yup.

Gears of War 2 doesn't even hold it's own against KZ2

When you lock at 30FPS you can actually hit 720p, not 600p, and you can add much more detail. Not to mention KZ2 manages 32 players online, MW2 doesn't.

As he said, you being serious? blink.gif Graphically MW2 doesn't touch either, but since GoW2 isn't even an FPS, against KZ2 which is, no it's not that similar, where MW2 excels is framerate, but graphically, no.

Gears of War 2 doesn't even hold it's own against KZ2

When you lock at 30FPS you can actually hit 720p, not 600p, and you can add much more detail. Not to mention KZ2 manages 32 players online, MW2 doesn't.

As he said, you being serious? blink.gif Graphically MW2 doesn't touch either, but since GoW2 isn't even an FPS, against KZ2 which is, no it's not that similar, where MW2 excels is framerate, but graphically, no.

+1

GoW2 and KZ2 ****es all over MW2!

(Interesting, why is that a swear word, it certainly isn't in the UK, begins with P for those wondering!)

720p > 600p anyday :p

Yes but you need someone on the internet to tell you whether the game is running 600p or 720p, you don't need to do that with the framerate.

For some games, I'd much rather have a lower resolution and 60 FPS because 30 FPS can be unbearable when you are used to higher framerates.

60 FPS > 30 FPS - Any day.

True

720p > 600p anyday :p

True

Yes but you need someone on the internet to tell you whether the game is running 600p or 720p, you don't need to do that with the framerate.

True, usually.

I think most of us have just come to except to have a top tier console game graphically 30FPS is the highest you'll get, sometimes variable. However variable is a mixed bag, in fact MW2 is variable, it's not 60FPS locked.

Still it performs nearer 60 than 30, games it's awful in are those that go from 55 to 25 like a constant spasm.

Anyway original comment was MW2 standing up graphically to KZ2/GoW2, it doesn't, but it does have a better framerate.

Yes and I agree, it has nothing on those games but it does have a valid 'excuse' for itself, so to speak.

60 FPS is a god sent gift for fast paced multi-player games, doesn't matter as much when we're talking tactically slow games

or predominantly single-player games - So let's just agree, the games listed have to right graphical settings for their intended use and purposes.

Yes and I agree, it has nothing on those games but it does have a valid 'excuse' for itself, so to speak.

60 FPS is a god sent gift for fast paced multi-player games, doesn't matter as much when we're talking tactically slow games

or predominantly single-player games - So let's just agree, the games listed have to right graphical settings for their intended use and purposes.

I don't know if you played MW2 on the 360 much bit it had problems with FPS a lot, especially when someone threw a smoke grenade or the stealth bomber happened! Highly annoying, I don't get why they could only do 600p at 60FPS anyway, the PS3/360 could've easily done it at 720p native :pinch:

I don't know if you played MW2 on the 360 much bit it had problems with FPS a lot, especially when someone threw a smoke grenade or the stealth bomber happened! Highly annoying, I don't get why they could only do 600p at 60FPS anyway, the PS3/360 could've easily done it at 720p native :pinch:

Because people bought it anyway. No one else to blame... (I didn't buy or play it)

I don't know if you played MW2 on the 360 much bit it had problems with FPS a lot, especially when someone threw a smoke grenade or the stealth bomber happened! Highly annoying, I don't get why they could only do 600p at 60FPS anyway, the PS3/360 could've easily done it at 720p native :pinch:

I have and am currently playing it and I've never experienced a single FPS problem in the game.

And no, it couldn't have easily done it at 720p native, you know why? Because it's running 600p - Means one of the consoles or both struggled at some point and they had to lower it.

As AB mentioned, the game isn't 60 FPS locked, it's a variable FPS and I can bet you the reason it's running 600p, because at 720p one or both consoles saw some unacceptable dips

and they had to compromise

Gears of War 2 doesn't even hold it's own against KZ2

When you lock at 30FPS you can actually hit 720p, not 600p, and you can add much more detail. Not to mention KZ2 manages 32 players online, MW2 doesn't.

As he said, you being serious? blink.gif Graphically MW2 doesn't touch either, but since GoW2 isn't even an FPS, against KZ2 which is, no it's not that similar, where MW2 excels is framerate, but graphically, no.

100% serious. And GOW2 and KZ2 are easily matched btw. KZ2 surely isn't better. But it's not worse either. I don't need a youtube video of any of these games. I have them all, lol.

BTW, just like Sethos, no FPS issues here with almost 300 hours in MW2 so far.

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

    • No registered users viewing this page.
  • Posts

    • Amazon Prime Day 2026: Best Dolby soundbar deals from Sony, Samsung, JBL, Polk, and more by Sayan Sen Yesterday we covered the JBL BAR 800 which is a 5.1.2 Dolby Atmos/Vision soundbar. The unit is on sale for its lowest ever price of just $800 making it a solid offer. However, there are many more options to choose from and in this article, we have made a compilation of the best deals including from Sony, Polk, Yamaha, Denon, Samsung and more. Sony's BAR models are currently at their lowest prices which makes them solid offerings. The company's BRAVIA Theatre Bar lineup is designed to suit different home cinema needs. The Bar 5 is an entry-level 3.1-channel soundbar with a wireless subwoofer, supporting Dolby Atmos®, DTS:X, S-Force PRO Front Surround, and Vertical Surround Engine for immersive audio with clear dialogue. The Bar 6 upgrades to a 3.1.2-channel configuration by adding dedicated up-firing speakers for more convincing overhead Atmos effects while retaining the wireless subwoofer. At the premium end, the Bar 7, Bar 8, and flagship Bar 9 are single-soundbar solutions featuring Sony’s 360 Spatial Sound Mapping technology, which creates phantom speakers for a wider surround field. Bar 7 includes nine speaker units, Bar 8 increases this to eleven, and Bar 9 offers thirteen speaker driver units promising the most expansive soundstage and acoustic performance. All models should integrate seamlessly with compatible BRAVIA TVs and support the BRAVIA Connect app for setup and control. Get them at the links below: Sony BRAVIA Theater Bar 9 Soundbar (HT-A9000): $998.00 (Amazon US) (Was: $1498) Sony BRAVIA Theater Bar 8 Soundbar (HT-A9000): $798.00 (Amazon US) (Was: $998) Sony BRAVIA Theater Bar 7 Soundbar (HT-A7100): $618.00 (Amazon US) (Was: $768) Sony BRAVIA Theater System 6: $548.00 | Sony BRAVIA Theater Bar 6: $448.00 Sony BRAVIA Theater Bar 5 (HT-B500): $278.00 (Amazon US) (Was: $348) Sony HT-S400 2.1 soundbar: $198.00 (Amazon US) (Was: $248) Aside from those, we also have more discounts including from Samsung, Polk Audio, and more: Samsung Q-Series Soundbar HW-QS90H 7.1.2: $797.99 (Amazon US) (Was: $998) Polk Audio Signa S4: $336.00 (Amazon US) (Was: $449) Hisense AX3120Q: $229.00 (Amazon US) (Was: $259) Check out more soundbar deals that you may like at this link. Good to know This Amazon deal is U.S. specific, and not available in other regions unless specified. We only use first-party seller links (at the time of article publishing); ensure that you purchase from a first-party seller link only. Check out Today's Deals on Amazon | or our recent tech deals. Become a Prime member (for Students or SNAP) via Neowin Get Prime Access - Prime for half price (for qualifying Medicaid, EBT, SNAP) Subscribe to Prime Video, Audible Plus, Music Unlimited or Kindle Unlimited via Neowin As an Amazon Associate, we earn from qualifying purchases.
    • 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.
  • 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!