Ghee Tsar's review of MW2 for the PC

[GheeTsar]

As promised, this is my initial thoughts on the PC version of MW2, trying to remain objective as possible. However please note this is all my personal opinion and of course your mileage may vary.

Getting it running

Install took about 10 minutes from sticking disc 1 of 2 in to running the game. Others have found this to be somewhat slower as there is a small patch on steam already waiting for you and the servers were getting hammered yesterday.

When you run SP, the first thing that hits you is that there are only four options: Co-op, Main campaign, Switch to MP and Quit. No options menu.

Once you’ve got passed the initial cinematic you can press Esc and set the usual options and once you’ve saved a game you will then be greeted with an intermediate SP launch screen with the usual options you’d expect (eg: start new campaign, select a level, graphics/audio options etc.).

MP runs a separate programme (like COD4 and W@W), but it does feed back progress to the SP mode in terms of stats / playtime / game completion.


Single Player game

Slight caveat – so far I’ve only played the first two Acts (of three). Worryingly this took just under two hours to get to this point on normal difficulty. I think I would advocate going on Hardened to newcomers if you want to prolong the SP time and you’ve played a fair few FPS games in your time.

Graphics are very good – certainly a step up from past COD games and my modest system (E8500 @ stock, 8800GTS 512 OC, 4Gb RAM @ 1066, Win 7) handled maxed out graphics settings @ 1280x1024.

Music is much like COD4 in terms of style, but is probably playing too frequently for my liking, rather than just the really big moments. Voice acting is good, but possibly not as well scripted as COD4 and the characters are not as good either.

Story is far fetched, as you’d expect, but it does tee up some interesting and varied locations. Taking on hundreds of enemies single handed still seems ludicrous in terms of how easy it is to kill them and how you can take quite a lot of hits and not die (maybe this is just the difficulty setting I was on). But then this is true for most FPS games.

Pacing is a bit compressed – ie; it feels like it quickly jumps from set piece to set piece and there isn’t any real consideration of strategy or slow bits. This makes it feel a bit like a good but mindless action blockbuster. This isn’t necessarily a bad thing – it doesn’t get dull at all and some of the set pieces are really very good. The only problem is that it doesn’t really give you enough time to build up any empathy with any of the characters or get a feel for place you are fighting in.

As for the controversial scenes getting MPs in a lather, well it is slightly stronger than your typical FPS material, but it doesn’t warrant the 18 certificate and most people will not be offended by it as it is purely a game with a fictional story.

In short, if you accept that it will be a short, intense roller coaster of an experience with no need to engage your brain (like an action blockbuster film) then you will probably enjoy it.


Co-op

I have yet to try this much as most people last night were tied up with the SP or MP games, but it looks like there are quite a lot of maps to play, each with three “stars” up for grabs for meeting specific completion goals (eg: completing the map in under certain time limits). I’ll update this once I’ve had a chance to play it.


Multiplayer

First of all, I’ll cover the issue of lag – one of the reasons people were getting upset at the lack of dedicated servers. I played for a good few hours last night (promoted to level 20) and about 9 of every 10 games I played ran lag-free for me (I get about 2 meg up and 0.5 meg down on my internet) and those that did suffer only suffered for a few minutes. Ping is not shown, but instead you get a signal strength type indicator. When you get to two or less bars you start to notice the lag. If it gets bad for more than one or two players the game reconsiders who is best to host the game (takes about 8 seconds, and for me, only happened about once every ten games). In one case it concluded that no-one was suitable and we all were sent back to the lobby. That was annoying.

There was also a worry that pros would “buddy up” into clans and move from server to server owning everyone else. I did notice that in a few games where the majority of the players were all from one clan (judging by their gamertags) and yes, they were much better than most of the players. However there is an option to join a Team Deathmatch where only random individuals could join and these games did not display this trait.

If you are in a clan, it does seem possible to play as such based on the gamertag evidence, but the manual is terrible and it was not clear to me how to add friends last night (presumably via Steam).

I’m not sure if it was just because yesterday was the first day it could be played and there are bound to be lots of people on yesterday, but there were no shortage of players on the PC, despite the alleged boycott, and matches filled up in a matter of a few seconds, so that wasn’t an issue either.

As for the matchmaking – well it’s hard to tell yet as people are just getting to grips with the game, but I found that most games were not wildly unbalanced (one was though) and my kill:death ratio was comparable to COD:World at War.

In short, the lack of dedicated server support was not nearly as bad as I fearer. That said, I am not a regular clan member and typically pick between 15 "favourite" dedicated servers normally in most FPS online games. It may not be as positive an experience for those in clans who regularly play the same server with the same people as I did not get a feel for how effective the buddy system is.

In terms of maps – well they are a mixed bag as usual. Some are good and some are mediocre. Certainly a mix of urban and open environments. I felt the 9vs9 cap was ok and just about suitable for the maps, but at times I wished there were more players. This makes for a less frantic/fast paced experience that COD4 which is either going to be better or worse for you depending on your point of view. The respawning mechanic still has issues – about three times I respawned into instant death.

Weapons are good, and there are a LOT of them to unlock and lots of attachments to unlock too, but of the four assault rifles I used last night there wasn’t a huge amount to differentiate them and they were all pretty effective. The riot shield certainly adds a new element to the game and it is pretty effective at blocking fire from one direction, but then the trade off is the lack of firepower you can wield. ‘Nade spamming wasn’t present last night. That may be because people haven’t figured the maps out yet, but it is probably related to the lower blast radius the nades have too.

There are also a lot of kill-streak rewards to unlock, but you can only have three available at any one time and you can select which ones you wish to have available. This means you could set yourself up to have three low level, easy to achieve rewards or three powerful rewards that take a large streak to get to for instance. The ones I tried were pretty good and the UAV jammer really does impact the other team. I also tried the AC130 reward which is ludicrously powerful for a short period of time (expect at least 6 kills)

Perks have also been expanded and there are many more to pick from and pro versions which can be later unlocked. This doesn’t feel like much of a step forward from previous games. However there is a new “death streak” unlock option, which can help relieve the frustration from a series of quick deaths although they are not that powerful (well, the ones I’ve unlocked aren’t so far).

If you have unlock OCD, there is much to keep you busy.

XP can be gained for pretty much anything. A standard kill is worth 100. Add 50 if it was a headshot. Add 100 if the player you killed was about to get a kill streak reward or it was the first kill of the match. Add 50 if it was from long range. Add 50 if it was a revenge kill. You get the idea – you earn a lot of XP points. For me it did feel better to get XP proportional to the skill of the kill.

Overall - I personally really enjoyed it and if it stays like how it was last night for me then I won't be heading back to COD4 or W@W for quite a long while.


Final thoughts


Is this a port of a console game? – yes, but of a very good console game, with better controls.

Does the lack of dedicated support matter? – yes, but not as much as I thought it would

Does IW.net work? - largely

Is it better than COD4? - SP probably not (although close), MP probably yes (just)

Is the game worth the RRP for the PC? – no if you just want to play SP, possibly if you make use of all the features.

Is it worth £30 or less? – yes

Will I be playing this hard over the next few months - yes


I'll be interested to hear other people's experiences with the PC version.

[Grey M@a]

I would agree massively with your review of the PC version although the controls are better only from the front of accuracy, I am finding however that it works just as well on the console version but I do admit that I play both version differently. PC version I can pin point the shot, with the console as I can't get the accuracy quickly I tend to zoom in and get close and strafe slightly to shoot people.

As for the graphics I tried running it at mostly full details but with AA off running on 1680x1050 and it struggled at times and I have a very similar machine to yourself. I can't quite remember if there was mouse smoothing in the options as I did notice the mouse jumping every now and then, which resulted in frustration here and there when I was trying to snipe, nothing major though.

The story is short and I am near the end of the story so taking my time with it then I will move onto Spec Ops co-op mode. MP I have played a quick 30 minute burst on the PC, I was hosting the match with 9v9 on my 20MB line and I think there was only instance where someone mentioned a slight bit of lag.

I do like the few new additions to the game like the thermal scopes and the air drops with the sentry guns etc, the breach mode I enjoyed but I think that's due to the slow mo killing you are greeted with. In the long run I think I will end up on the 360 version myself for the multiplayer side of things as 99% of those playing it online that I know or who are friends are all on the 360.

As for it being a better game than CoD 4, I would say half and half on the SP front, the MP is an improvement but thats due to new ways of playing the game and new weapons and items, loving the riot shield at present. The one thing that does let this down a little is the lack of AI assistance, if you sit back and watch the AI shoot at the enemy, you will noticed the scripted bullet tracers all hitting walls nowhere near and generally the AI not killing a lot when you are in need of a hand or over run but this is just a little niggle personally.

I have had any number of PC Gamers tell me why the game is crap and when I ask if they have played it they come back with the "I don't have to play it to know its crap" line. It is however being played by a lot of people who haven't bought the game. Was shown a link to mininova for the PC version and it was running at around 52k leechers so those that have boycotted the game have done so only in not buying it and ripping it.

It's good, but I think the hype has caused a number of sites to dish out 9.5's and 9's for the game I would say it was an 8 over all as CoD 4 to me was more enjoyable as it was longer but the story in MW2 does get you at times and I won't spoil it, the back stabbing, the dodgy dealings etc actually does make you get miffed and want to kill whoever it is at points. Overall its decent, missed the mark a little on the SP side of things but I would say buy it regardless of what the trolls are saying about the game.

[Phage]

Thanks a lot for taking the time to type all of that out.
Conclusion: Recommended with a score of 80% ?

[Knoxville]

Cracking review dude, it's nice to read a review of the PC version that's free from bias

[GheeTsar]

Conclusion: Recommended with a score of 80% ?

Sounds about right, maybe 85% if I'm feeling generous.

Thanks for the all the feedback too.

Slight update: I played MP for another few hours last night and didn't suffer lag once I am pleased to say. However I found the number of players permitted for free-for-all (ie: standard deathmatch) to be too few and I spent most of the time hunting the other players. Hardcore mode does exist, but is an unlockable (doesn't take that long to unlock).

[Mblaster]

Thanks for the review, didn't want to jump on straight away because of my reservations about the multiplayer, but I think I'm gonna end up getting this in the end.

[matty-hodgson]

enjoying this game a lot so far.

Single player was quite fun but i felt myself wanting more at the end, just the way that you got betrayed like that and then you don't get to do anything about it.. (MW3, perhaps? ).

Multiplayer is where it's at though IMO, much more fun online and a lot of detail been paid to details of the map

Co-Op mode seems a bit useless to me tbh cos so far i've not been able to get it to work. does anyone know how you start a co-op with someone on the Spec Ops?
do you need to be friends with someone who has the game on Steam? - if so, i'd REALLY appreciate it if you would add me of Steam for a few co-op missions.
can you do it with 'randoms'?

overall i'd give it about 85%. not the best game out there, but it's definitely fun