Review: Modern Warfare 2

Modern Warfare 2 annoyed me before it had even landed on the shelves. First came Activision’s arbitrary price increase across all platforms, which made all gamers of the world grind their teeth in anger. Then Infinity Ward announced the PC version would not support dedicated servers, sparking an online petition signed by over 200,000 people, including myself.

Despite the cynical corporate bastardry preceding the game’s release, I must admit it is another stunningly designed slice of bombastic entertainment from Infinity Ward. It is not, however, the return of that bearded bloke with holes in his extremities which Activision’s colossal hype machine would have you believe.

Set five years after the events of Modern Warfare, the demise of Über-Terrorist Imran Zakhaev at the hands of “Soap”MacTavish has not made the world a better place. Zakhaev has become a martyr in the eyes of his native Russia, and his right-hand man Vladimir Makarov is causing chaos around the world. Such is the premise for newly created Task Force 141 to cause further chaos as they try to track Makarov down. While the plot is decent in theory, it is shoddily executed. Much of the story is insufficiently explained, resulting in many of the “twists”making little apparent sense without perusing Wikipedia.

This doesn’t stop the game from being some of the best fun you can have without a water-based lubricant. The gunplay is as exhilarating as ever, with an huge array of weaponry on offer alongside some wonderful new toys such as the Predator drone, a remote-controlled aerial missile. Although the pacing is better than the first game, there are still certain “hard points,” where it overwhelms you with endlessly spawning enemies. In particular, battling through the Favela in Rio de Janeiro will have you punching your screen in aggravation. True to form, Modern Warfare 2 stuffs dazzling set-pieces into your eyes like ocular Malteasers, the scaling of a crumbling ice-shelf in the second mission being one of my personal favourites.

Again though, these occurrences are so frequent that you occasionally wonder how much you’re actually playing the game. Also, there’s everyone’s favourite controversy stirrier “No Russian” (see “‘That’ Level”) of which I shall say nothing other than it made me blink, and that’s a lot of emotion coming from someone who happily murdered the Little Sisters in Bioshock.

Although longer than its prequel, the new single-player campaign remains frustratingly short. The multiplayer, however, could potentially provide years of enjoyment, with an absurd amount of achievements and unlockables, perks and killstreaks (including control of a harrier jump-jet). Getting started can be tough, as established players who have an array of perks have a distinct advantage, though random perk drops go some way to solving the problem.

For the less competitive player there’s also the spec-ops mode, 30 short missions that can be undertaken with a friend. Special mention goes to the divine “Overwatch” mission, where one player must protect his grounded companion using an artillery-laden Spectre aircraft. This mode is enormously enjoyable, and hopefully what Modern Warfare 2 will be remembered for.

Modern Warfare 2 effectively feeds us more of the same, albeit with jucier cherries on top, and after two years sitting in the fridge there’s a slight whiff of cheese emanating from it. Bearing in mind that the original was an action packed masterpiece, slightly-off Modern Warfare still tastes pretty darn good.

Review: Call of Duty: World at War

"Ah, just hanging around, I see." "That's sick, Captain, he's dead."

After the brilliance of Call of Duty 4: Modern Warfare, the decision to roll back the series to a World War II setting for World at War was about as welcome as a grenade in an exhaust pipe. Having played through World at War I’m happy to announce that while still a decent entry in the series, my initial scepticism toward it is well founded.

World at War throws you into the heat of conflict in two intertwining campaigns – as Private Miller during the USA’s battle for the Pacific and Private Petrenko on the Russian Army’s march toward Berlin. The action is typical Call of Duty with intense missions, stunning set pieces and the largest, deadliest game of hot potato you’ll ever experience. However, it isn’t all familiar territory. Developers Treyarch have clearly tried to make the game as unique as possible: the grassy islands of the Pacific are new to the series and the Japanese a ferocious adversary, with more banzai charges and underground ambushes than you can shake a Molotov at.
In tandem with this particularly brutal conflict, the game differs in another important sense. The Call of Duty series has always emphasised action while minimising gratuitous violence. World at War changes this with considerably more detached limbs and charred corpses than its predecessors. While it certainly makes the combat more visceral, it’s something of an acquired taste. At times it feels as if the series has grown up, handing you some uncomfortable and disturbing moral choices. Yet in other instances, the game has simply dyed its hair black and had its lip pierced.

The hit-and-miss nature of the violence marks something of a trend in World at War. While the Pacific campaign has some stellar moments such as an assault on a heavily fortified hilltop, it is let down by unimaginative level design. Moreover, the combination of a flamethrower and the bizarre enemy tactic of running directly into it make dispatching enemies all too easy, making the missions repetitive as a result.
Somewhat ironically it’s the more traditional Russian campaign that contains the most exhilarating levels, including the hunt for a German officer in bomb-battered Stalingrad. Despite the blatant Enemy at the Gates rip-off (you start off hiding in a crumbling stone fountain) there are enough fantastic set pieces in this one level to make it feel like a game in itself. Unfortunately, in a recurring theme, this brilliance is counterbalanced by a execrable tank mission which feels more tacked-on than the plot of a porn film.

Treyarch have also included a cooperative mode and a level that involves four players defending themselves against waves of Nazi-zombies, suspiciously similar to a certain other game involving a team of four players defending themselves against waves of non-Nazi-zombies, demanding teamwork to avoid being ‘left for dead’. Both could be derided as gimmicks, but they are enjoyable enough.

World at War is another bombastic ride through the heavily trodden path of the Second World War and a worthy addition to the Call of Duty canon. It is not, however, the stride forward that Modern Warfare was. The setting is simply too well covered to allow enough opportunity for originality and for every pleasure it provides, there are seventeen suicidal Japanese soldiers just desperate to cuddle the business end of your flamethrower.After the brilliance of Call of Duty: Modern Warfare, the decision to roll back the series to a World War II setting for World at War was about as welcome as a grenade in an exhaust pipe. Having played through World at War I’m happy to announce that while still a decent entry in the series, my initial scepticism toward it is well founded.