• Lurkero - November 21, 2009 7:06 p.m.

    After how enthralling the Modern Warefare 1 plotline was - generic but immersive - I was highly disappointed by MW2 lack of...anything in the campaign plot.
  • Yar - November 21, 2009 4:30 p.m.

    I always found the 'No Russian' mission a bit weird. Not in the sense that it wasn't dramatic or scene-setting, but why wouldn't the soldier your playing as question why he had to kill all those innocents? He has a gun with enough firepower to quickly shoot all of terrorists, or at least kill half of them before having to run for cover, but instead he just plays along, fully aware that he's in touching distance of the guy who is supposedly behind all the problems... He deserved to get shot for either not thinking things through, or being more stupid than Kratos.
  • TURbo - November 21, 2009 2:42 p.m.

    The Nikolai character is becoming a clustershart as well. A Sargeant in the Ultranationalist forces, yet can fly helicopters, and knows safehouses, manifests, and documents of the Ultranationalist forces. If a sub needs to be piloted, or a tank needs to be hotwired, Nikolai is the dude. On the topic of Makarov's face, usually in all militaries, you get a picture taken in a uniform. Makarov was a Lt, so there would be a picture of him in an officer uniform. It's amazing that none of the shadow company, or the ultranationalists Makarov or Shepard out. Shepard had a poor concept of being a hero. Also how would framing the Brits and Task Force 141 help Shepard? Especially when he picked the unit himself. Also the logistics capabilities of the Russians invading the Atlantic side instead of the Pacific side, and none of the neighborhooring European countries complaining that large battalions are passing through their country.
  • Muchomexicano - November 21, 2009 2:41 p.m.

    @clownsarescary your an idiot your just babling on about extremes of things that if you apply to anything will "prove" your point. A lightsaber being cardboard would be a alteration not a plothole why compare the two, switchin from games to films and with extreme concistency itll be all one liners not without??? im not tryin to be mean but go back to school
  • KillDrone - November 21, 2009 1:47 p.m.

    The nuke one is a little misunderstood. Depending on the explosive power of the warhead it could have easily caused a shock wave that traveled extremely vast distances, which would also be aided by a higher detonation height. Also, for all we know, this was a more advanced version of a nuclear missile. After all, why would Price choose this particular missile as the one to launch if it weren't more technologically sophisticated or easier to launch in the first place? Of course, this is just a minor dent in the massive problem, but still... I'm a nitpicker.
  • Clownsarescary - November 21, 2009 11:20 a.m.

    I hate it when someone defends a game, a movie or a piece of fiction that has massive plot holes by saying 'it's only a game, don't take it so seriously!' What if George Lucas suddenly decided lightsabers should be made of cardboard. Would everyone say 'oh, it's only a film, it's ok'? Fictional worlds, including Call of Duty, are supposed to have internal consistancy. It's why, say, Cpt. Price doesn't suddenly grow wings and bomb Russia. Without consistancy in the narrative, the whole story might as well be a series of one-liners. Not that I think MW2 has a bad story. On the contrary, I think it has the best campaigns of this generation. It just missed a few details here and there...
  • ChristianWitzel - November 21, 2009 10:01 a.m.

    I think Joe is looking WAY too deep into this, personally. What is a video game meant to do? Entertain. Are things in a video game SUPPOSED to be real? The answer is, of course, no. Though I do applaud your enthusiasm of scrutinizing Infinity Ward's flaws in a fantasy storyline, take the game at face value, which is AMAZING! The moment you start thinking too much into something is when it doesn't become fun any more. Doesn't that defeat the point?
  • Ridgley - November 21, 2009 6:26 a.m.

    You're saying a full out war on American soil wouldn't rally everyone into a yay america thing again?
  • jtslugmaster10 - November 21, 2009 4:54 a.m.

    if u havent beat the game there is spoliers at the end of the comment sry i dont think they knew who makarov looked like kinda how he could go under ground or maybe he had enough money to change his face... if its possible for all this crazy stuff to happen then his face must have gone under plastic surgery. But true it didnt make sense but it was for sure entertaining and got ur emotions up especially when u were lit on fire that made killing him even sweeter. nvm the whole getting stabbed then kicked then almost shot part but u know what i mean
  • gmilf71 - November 21, 2009 3:59 a.m.

    Ok. First of all, trenches can be dug quickly, like in WW1. Also the Russsaisn wouldn't support going into another war if the previous war had just been ended. They needed a reason. And I think the dude with the St. Bossles tattoos I think was Makarov, right?
  • nadrewod999 - November 21, 2009 3:43 a.m.

    You're right, I believe that at some point, a writer told the designers "You need some filler if you want a coherent story.", to which IW swiftly replied "We will never put 'filler' into our games" (okay, I admit it, I am a big fan of IW's work. Same as most gamers.) I think that they just wanted to have a reason in the story for why we had a Russian invasion on our hands all of a sudden. P.S. Thanks for clarifying what Price did, I knew that there had to be some kind of explosive warhead detonated in space that formed some kind of EMP by the time it reached the ground, but I wasn't sure how they could both happen at the same time.
  • Montag - November 21, 2009 2:55 a.m.

    Submarines smell bad as well. Which game doesn't have a fault? I actually have a sneaking theory that great gameplay and great narrative/story while not being totally incompatible are actually opposed. What makes a great story would often be fairly shite to play. If you think about great fiction or great films, they are not often exciting. Exciting films are usually pretty limp on story. I think this is because the excitement is based on unreality. How many soldiers have such an unrelenting exciting time? The SAS might have 10 minutes extreme action and 3 months training. So to keep the action going the narrative is a conglomerate of multiple persons stories, which is an extremely hard technique. Just accept that the moments playing the game are just ace and be happy
  • Ridgley - November 21, 2009 2:23 a.m.

    Shepherd says not very clearly that America has lost it's patriotism. He does this with the line, "I lost *** men and America just watched." I think his motive was to rally Americans into a new, more patriotic era. Think of 9/11 times a billion. Being a huge military buff, he knew that America had the firepower to win the war. He thought he was doing it all for the greater good. This is why he needed to be the only one that knew the truth, and that is why there are so many quotes about patriotism in the game.
  • Vagrant - November 21, 2009 2:12 a.m.

    The airport one strikes me as nottaplothole. It's possible I missed something in the briefing, but how well known would Makarov's face have been? (Hell, Zakhaev was standing in the background of the filmed execution of Vagueistan's president in Modern Warfare 1 and no one figured out he was involved till Price got a phone call. I'm guessing that despite their big followings, they aren't exactly paparazzi whores) I also question the MAD thing. I mean, Russia got in a surprise attack. Do you really think America would then fire nukes, even at the point of defeat, knowing they would immediately be killed right back? Surely even Americans would rather live under the rule of Russia than ALL just die. Crazy geekery over, I enjoyed the article. (although I think it was entirely suggested by someone in the comments of the Top 7 this week) The logic of the Army of Two one was great and also hilarious. As was the picture.
  • curly_jefferson - November 21, 2009 2:03 a.m.

    that movie was great, yeah the story did get stupid. And the first one was so clever. I thought.
  • Cwf2008 - November 21, 2009 12:53 a.m.

    "The Navy will: bomb the shit out of a building knowing full well that their allies are inside. They won’t: bomb the shit out of an oil rig because a few hostages are inside" Ya that sounds about right. Hey the Navy needs oil for its warships, so why would it bomb a oil rig. On the other hand: GULAG! BOMB! (er i mean shell). But ya i noticed the story made little sense at all...huh like Halo 2...and that cliffhanger at the end...nah its gotta be a coincidence
  • Spybreak8 - November 21, 2009 12:43 a.m.

    Yes, yes, GR breaks it down and it looks like a crazy Michael Bay movie. Well ok ok maybe that's going to far. ^^ On thing I didn't understand was with the airport scene, other than the no cameras part, was why would the police just let that ambulance speed off?! Cinematics my friend, it doesn't have to make sense, just entertaining.
  • albinomonkey90 - November 20, 2009 11:41 p.m.

    Lol i also spent half the game thinking Ghost was Gaz. So that kinda sucks for the voice actor though... hes died in both of the games
  • H2A2I00 - November 20, 2009 11:32 p.m.

    oh this is so true I agree with this 100 percent, but hey what did u expect the story was obviously going to be filled with so much awesome action that no one would really pay attention to the small details
  • gangjute8 - November 20, 2009 11:18 p.m.

    I love how if you shoot general shephard at the pit (before the no harming allies screen comes up) he goes flying back, and no one seems to really care.

Showing 41-60 of 62 comments

Join the Discussion
Add a comment (HTML tags are not allowed.)
Characters remaining: 5000


Connect with Facebook

Log in using Facebook to share comments, games, status update and other activity easily with your Facebook feed.