Sorry that I haven't posted anything for the last month or so. I've been pretty busy. Anyway, here's my review of Modern Warfare 2

Call of Duty 4: Modern Warfare was undoubtedly one of, if not, the best multiplayer games of all-time on any console. The campaign, while short, featured great set pieces, interesting and likable characters, and was a lot of fun. The multiplayer was highly addictive, featuring different categories of weapons and perks, which are special abilities to add variety to the game. A year later, Treyarch released Call of Duty: World at War. A lot of people complained about how bad the weapons were, how insanely large the maps were, and how "noobish" some players were as they used an over-powered submachine gun called the MP40 with juggernaut and last stand.

Now we have Modern Warfare 2, probably the most-anticipated game of all-time, except for maybe Halo 3. It's a good sequel to COD4, but, like most other sequels I've played, they change too much of what made the original game so great. I'll start off with the campaign first. The setting is five years after the ending of the first game, and you play as British SAS Gary "Roach" Sanderson and U.S. Marine Private Joseph Allen. Soap is Roach's captain, and it's cool to be able to see what he looks like, though I never imagined him having a small mohawk. The basic plot is that a terrorist named Makarov and a few other men slaughter tons of civilians at an airport in Moscow, and since the Russian people think America is to blame, World War III begins. The story is definitely hard to get a grip on with the added-on plot twist at the end, and add that in with an extremely unrealistic finale and you've got, quite simply, a game that fails to really draw you in to what's happening.

The gameplay is pretty much the same as COD4. They've added more weapons, a lot of which are useless, and an option to duel-wield some guns like pistols and submachine guns (the game calls it akimbo). Throughout most of the campaign you'll be running around parts of the U.S. like wealthy areas of Virginia, the Capitol Building, and even the White House. Unlike the first game, the set pieces while playing as Roach aren't nearly as interesting as when playing as Allen, making the experience seem a bit dull. Unfortunately, teammates still have to open doors for you, though in a few instances you can perform breaches on doors with enemies and hostages inside. Like COD4, it only lasts about 3-4 hours, but there is definitely some replay ability to be found here. I overall thought the campaign was entertaining, but with a mediocre story and some uninteresting set pieces and confusing plot twists, it's probably only worth playing a few times before you get bored of it.

Special Ops is a cool new feature added in. Basically you and another person replay some of the missions from the campaign--well, at least fight in the same areas, not necessarily do the same objectives--in co-op. I really wish they'd made some of the missions 4-player, like horde mode in Gears of War 2, but it's not that big of an issue. Besides that, there really isn't all that much to it. I say it's entertaining for a couple of hours tops and then you'll get bored of it.
Now, on to the primary part of the game, the multiplayer. Let me just tell you that I don't think it's as good as COD4's, but it's a lot better than World at War's, which is nice. The same format of customizable options is obviously here, such as perks, and leveling up with experience points to reach higher levels to gain access to better weapons and such. There are a dozen or so different game modes to play, some of which are actually in third-person. I found these modes quite fun and enjoyable to play once I got the hang of it, though if you want to gain levels quickly I recommend playing Demolition. I liked maybe 60% of all the maps in the game. Estate, which features a large house (Makarov's hideout), was way too big for me, and was too lopsided for Demolition, as whichever team spawned at the house usually won the match. New to multiplayer are call signs, which are basically mottos and pictures of things so people can see them should they view your gamertag in a game lobby. Aside from that, they don't really serve any purpose. Remember the killstreaks in COD4 when you get 3, 5, and 7 kills in a row you unlock stuff? Well, they've greatly expanded the streak rewards to 25, so you unlock what's called the nuke which automatically ends the match upon use. You can only choose 3 killstreaks, which is good because otherwise it would be too lopsided.

I'll now address all the problems I have with multiplayer. As I said before, there are tons of killstreaks, however, some of them are just completely unfair. There's a care package at 4 kills that basically drops down and gives you another reward, and it could be the reward of 16 kills instead of 4, and add that to the glitch with that reward and it's extremely unfair. The predator missile is cool, though I wish they would allow you to fire it when you want to, not automatically. However, the biggest problem I have is the AC-130 gunship. Pretty much when it's active, if you even step outside a building for more than 5 seconds, chances are you're going to die. And even when you're inside a building, there's still a chance for it to hit you. My kill/death ratio dropped from a 1.10 down to a .94 in a few days just because of that, and add in it being heavily armored, making it damn-near impossible to take out, and I would say it's one of--if not--the most overpowered weapon in any multiplayer game I've ever played. I liked how in COD4 that while the helicopter did get kills, it could get shot down just as easily with an RPG, making it pretty fair in my opinion. Also, COD4 wasn't even about killstreaks, it was traditional in that people actually used their guns and ran around shooting each other. Here, someone could camp out, get 5 kills in a row, get a predator missile, get 2-3 more kills, get 2-3 more after that, get the AC-130, get 10-15 kills with that, and get the nuke to end the game, all while the player is camping out somewhere where no one will find him. It just is unfair and makes me wonder what happened to using your own guns.

In addition, in pretty much every Demolition game I've ever played (6v6) 1-2 guys not including me on my team camp out, max, while on the enemy team, at least 4 guys camp out, minimum, and it's usually all of them. To me it doesn't show that you have any skill at the game. My ratio would be about 1.25-1.30 if I didn't get blind-sided all the time. Probably 50%-60% of my total deaths have been from being blindsided from campers or from being killed behind. They might as well have added tents and camp fires with added hershey bars and smores on every level--that would make a ton of people even happier. Another problem I have is that some of the perks are just flat-out annoying. Some people use marathon, increased sprint, and commando, so the essentially infinitely run around the entire map at 70 miles an hour with a .44 Magnum with a tactical knife and knife you from a good 10-15 feet away. "Increased melee distance?" Yeah, how about teleportation? Another issue is tactical insertion, which make you respawn where you place them. So if you kill someone, he might appear behind you and stab you. Yet another issue is people lying down pretending to be a dead body and then just getting up and killing you. Also, a lot of people I've played use the cheap tactic of going prone while in the middle of shooting someone.

The last major issue I have is the weapon called Model 1887. (Yeah, I know, why is an old-fashioned weapon doing in "Modern Warfare" 2, and why would they make it the best gun?) You have the option to duel-wield, or akimbo, it and add in stopping power and you've got a helluva lot of firepower. Plus, it originally had about a range of 35-40 feet away, now after a so-called "patch," it's only 30-35 feet. However, the gun itself is very inconsistent. In a Youtube video, someone practiced with the gun and attempted to shoot someone with it at a certain distance. He missed him, stepped back a few feet, and he killed him. Also, when I was playing, I shot my akimbo Model 1887s 3 feet from someone and it didn't kill him. What's up with that? Overall, the multiplayer itself is good; it's just the way people play that isn't.

The audiovisual presentation is great overall. The graphics are pretty realistic, though some of the textures can look bad if you inspect it closely enough. The frame rate remains smooth and constant throughout, though in multiplayer the connection occasionally times out. The draw distance is impressive but there is some minor clipping on some objects. The in-game audio sounds fine and the voice acting is solid. Modern Warfare 2 is overall a very good game. It's fun to play the campaign, even with its mediocre story and short length, and special ops is a fun mode. The multiplayer is fun if you can find the right people to play with, and while it's better than World at War (not saying much), it's still no Call of Duty 4.