- magazines STILL don't work properly. If you reload before using the clip, you should lose the bullets from that near-full clip imo.
Thats just not convenient. I'm one of those people who reloads after almost every kill, and I'd run out of amo after 3 kills.
Oh dear god, you have to learn to not reload after every kill? What do you want next, a railshooter with autoaim?
It's not turning it into some 'hardcore' experience. It just adds a nice bit of realism.
Addressing the complaints about MW2's campaign length: Do you really think it should have been longer? An intense experience like that has no reason to be longer. Especially with the dumbass story I think it would have suffered from being any longer than it was.
So redo the story. You can't defend it being short by saying that the story sucks 
It's inexcusably short no matter how you look at it, especially at the nice £45 price tag.
I disagree -- There's nothing inherently wrong with a short game, especially when it's bolstered by multiplayer and extra missions.
There is something inherently wrong when I don't feel that the length of it justifies the price tag. YES, the multiplayer is great, but that only shows up the singleplayer even more. Last week I picked up Dragon Age, and it has a 90 hour campaign. Yes it has no multiplayer, but it also can be played 6 different ways, amounting to nearly 600 hours. Of course, i'm not asking for this, but I would like something nearer to Half-Life 2's length. And as I said, apart from my price concern, it's not a strong enough single player to get 94%
Diff'rent strokes, I guess. I would lose interest in a wacky military shooter that was more 6 or 7 hours. Of course an RPG is going to be super long, that's the nature of the genre.
Of course you have every right to think the price tag was unjustified, and maybe if there weren't the two extra modes I would agree with you. The fact that the two extra modes not only exist, but are fun and offer potential years of replay value, the length of the single-player is a non-issue for me when talking about "price justification".
Why would you lose interest after 6 or 7 hours? Do you try to play game campaigns in one sitting every time? Very few games have campaigns that short, you play them a bit at a time. Half-Life 2 is a 'wacky' shooter too, and it's far far longer (it has pretty cool multiplayer too, and if you bring the orange box into the equation well...yeah)
And I don't think that spec-ops is that replayable once you have three stars on everything, and we made serious headway into that after several hours. Some of them are just damn limited. The snowmobile ones are fun, but short. The patrol ones get tedious because there is no variation. Yes they should patrol the same each time during one session, but it would be nice if when you try the mission next time they swap around the numbers a bit or something, else starts getting boring and frustrating when one guard manages to alert the horde and then you die horribly and have to the do
exact same thing again just to get back to try that section again.
Okay, so even if I do decide that it's worth £45 on the fun multiplayer, that doesn't stop me from being disappointed in it, because as far as multiplayer goes, well CoD4 and 5 had multiplayer that is almost identical and still has plenty of players on. So why do I fork over £45 for more of the same fun? I don't know, I just find that when the campaign they said they couldn't add co-op in because it would ruin the "cinematic experience" (terrorists attack, so we go and kill them. revolutionary.) which turns out to be... well, lame, a disappointing factor in regards to what I think of the game.
Topic: The official Modern Warfare 2 thread. (Read 106145 times)
