if anyone actually took the time to read what jcap posted you would understand exactly what hes saying. hes right too.
this doesnt change the fact that the campaign was fun and interesting, its just that there wasnt much of a point to anything you did.
think chapters 2 and 3 of gears of war one, except you had no original goal in mind.
E: i still love the multiplayer anyway even though there are areas where people can hide (i think the map is called skyline...?) and shoot up your entire team, while being almost completely unexposed. i feel like there are quite a few more places like that in MW2 than there were in MW1. also, the map estate (the nice big house in the woods) just seems too difficult to play on. it might just be me, but i get absolute shit kd ratios there. i can never find anybody, and my team is always getting shot within the first 15 seconds of the game (and usually its me). i feel like the only way to get kills is to snipe other people who are as lost as i am, which is what i do. basically, the thermal scope, an unlockable attachment that takes a good amount of time to get, reins supreme here.
i feel like its almost a shame to rate the entirety of this game in one rating. imo, i would give the campaign a 6 or 7 out of 10, since it WAS fun and i see alot of replayablity, but the story holes are kind of difficult to ignore. i would say the multiplayer is an 8.5/10. very fun, lots of replay value, so much variety that i cannot ever figure out what i want to use, and lots of interesting and visually pleasing environments. my only gripe lies with some places where camping is way too effective and maps like estate that almost require you to use a specific weapon attachment.
i played the target shooting training spec ops mission for 3 stars, and that is the extent of my specops experience. cant give any rating here
Bookmarks