The sci-fi novelist hired by Crytek to pen Crysis 2 has slammed Modern Warfare 2 - claiming he was "immensely disappointed" by the title.
Speaking to us in New York at the game's launch earlier this week, we asked acclaimed writer Richard Morgan what he thought of the market leader in FPS games.
His frank reply was pretty, well, frank.
"I thought Modern Warfare 2 was an immense disappointment," he said.
"It was a massive stepdown from CoD4. What I thought when I played it was, 'Jesus guys, what have you been doing? You've not ramped anything up. The story is worse and the game doesn't really hang together, it's just a bunch of mission levels.'"
When we ask what it was about the story that Morgan didn't like, he continued: "It made no sense. It was totally implausible. It doesn't resolve. Basically, all the things that bad storytelling does. I just think they were way too impressed with themselves and that's always a danger. It's just unfortunate."
Crysis 2
Official trailer
2:10Launch trailer
Crysis 2
Official trailer
2:10Launch trailer
Age Restricted Content Please enter your date of birth below in order to verify your age before watching this video
You must be at least 18 years of age.
Play Again? Missed something? Just watch it again..
Watch More Videos Browse related videos and see what's new & popular
Share This Video Email this video, or embed it into your own web page
However, the author of bestsellers Altered Carbon and Broken Angels did have some kind words in Uncharted 2.
"Conversely, with Uncharted 2, those guys went back and look at the first game," he added. "Everything that didn't work very well, they fixed or ramped up or did something with.
"They really took it to a new place and you can honestly say to people if you played the first game, the second one is the same but better. Modern Warfare 2 is the same but... way worse. And it cost more money."
This is exactly what I thought I loved Modern Warfare but MW2 was very disappointing and unlike the mass majority I only really play the COD games for the single player element, I hope Medal of Honour can surpass it, plus like many others I hate Activision.
Story wise, it was completely awful. Turned into sub standard action fps of you against the world. Far too many pretentious speeches about history. And utterly ridiculous. It's so, so, terribly brainless it could've been concocted by a nine year old. Russia invades USA after stealing the uber maguffin... no one in Europe cares to warn America they're about to get screwed. There are so many holes and I didn't give a damn about all but one of the characters by the end of it.
That's just story. The rest of the game was a let down too
I'm amazed I'm not the only person that thought CoD:MW2 was crap. I hated it. The single player wasn't as memorable as the first, storyline was crap, graphically much the same, gameplay wise there wasn't anything new to mix things up... The list goes on.
I couldn't believe it was receiving such HUGE review scores. The game is unbelievably scripted but none of the reviewers seemed to care...
Some of the most common phrases used in MW2 reviews:
Superb, balanced multiplayer. Campaign pacing was spot-on. What more do you want from a sequel Setting a new bar for the FPS Genre, online and offline.
Okay, these aren't accurate word for word, but they are some of the phrases used by a number of reviewers such as OXM, Teamxbox and IGN.
Frankly, there were a number of gleaming issues surrounding the campaign, which should have prevented reviewers from giving it anything above 9.5. However, I have particular problems with the wording of some reviews as opposed to the games received score. A good sequel is one which improves, and provides more content in tandem. Its no good adding more kill-streaks which simply lower the standard of online play, or adding more guns which decrease balancing. Furthermore, to claim its the best online is an utter joke, since when was MW2 better than Halo 3 for online play!
The poorly designed maps, spawning. The Glitches. The imbalanced gameplay. No Forge. No quality customization for private matches. No Four-Player Co-Op. No File-Sharing. No Theater. No regular or frequent support from IW. Poor Matchmaking, with poor map/game type combinations - such as Rust and Ground War.
And seen as half of those problems, namely the ones beginning with 'NO' could be labelled to COD 4 - it again brings into dispute MW2's labeling as a good sequel.
I'll be honest, Modern Warfare 2 was an absolute letdown. I played for a week, never touched for months and then sold it a month ago for borderlands. The story was all over the place, didn't make sense at times and all this hype over the return of Price is just the return of one guy. That's it!
MW2 is the best Multiplayer in the world. Only idiots that can't play don't see that.
As for the story, so what it was made for online. I didn't even play the single player.
No, it bloody well isn't. Horrible weapon balancing, s**tty mechanics, little to no support from the developer, and an immature community.
The game was designed for people who like flashiness and get excited for loud guns and generic Hollywood action films.
The only people who think it's the best are: > those with terribly low standards, or who have played very few online games to compare > Too shallow, gullible or inept see past the initial flashiness of the game and the marketing.
If it was made for multiplayer alone, then this game is s**t. No if's, no but's. Why? Because it's the singleplayer that saves this game, if only marginally.
From the release date up until the start of 2010 where I got totally fed up of the glitches and cheap play, I have clocked just under 400 hours in this game. So I can "play".
From the release date up until the start of 2010 where I got totally fed up of the glitches and cheap play, I have clocked just under 400 hours in this game. So I can "play".
I don't get this, you could've clocked up 1000000 hours and still be awful. How come playing it for 400 hours means you can play?
Guy speaks the truth. I love MW1, and hate MW2, they ballsed it up big time. Just adding more 'stuff' doesn't improve anything, it makes it bloated. The story is incomprehensible, multiplayer is infested with shotgun abusers, campers and knifing tw@ts, and did I mention there's too much stuff? Too many prestige levels, too many titles and emblems, too many guns, too many secondary weapons, too many campers, glitchers etc. 7/10 would be generous for this overrated overpriced piece of garbage.
I had never played a COD game until 4. It rocked. Still not the best game out but great. MW2 was not as good. Multiplayer.... GTFO of here. As a PC player how the hell can I rate it with a 200 ping?
I find it really hard to trust reviewers after what happened with this game. Even CVG were dancing to IW's Tune. Jumping through hoops in the hope of getting a treat. I dont know why mags would hype this game so much in the build up to the release. I find it hard to believe that experienced gamers that are at least intelligent enough to write for a mag, would not say a bad word about this game before it was released, or even in the final review.
But everyday there was at least 2 new stories on CVG about MW2 and how much it will rock. I dont know what the writers gained by doing that, and in fairness... i dont want to know.
I wish the BBC would take games seriously. Have a review show like Film 2010, but for games. At least then we would know that the reviews would be credible and impartial. The reviewers wouldnt be able to take back handers or whatever IW handed out.
MW2 is the best Multiplayer in the world. Only idiots that can't play don't see that.
As for the story, so what it was made for online. I didn't even play the single player.
Haha; best multiplayer in the world? You really are deluded aren't you?
Firstly, the multiplayer is horrifically unbalanced, the matchmaking is crap, the maps are total b******s and don't even get me started on the amount of glitches.
Secondly, if it was made for multiplayer, why even bother with a campaign in the first place?
IMO, the campaign played like a Michael Bay movie: throw loads of action and explosions at the player and hope they don't notice the s**t plot.
It seems anyone will jump on the "MW2 Sucks" bandwagon.
Ok, i'll admit MW2 didnt come close to MW but thats not to say it was a bad game. When MW2 was previewed and shortly after release everyone was praising it, which is why it sold so well. But know everyone wants to express how much the game disappointed them, which is old news. When other game developers come out and bash IW and MW2 they seem just as bad as most of the forum dwelling idiots who think expressing their dislike for MW2 makes them any more important and that their opinion is fact.
...and someone from the crysis 2 development team of all people. I know this guy had nothing to do with crysis, but in my opinion that game was more of a let down than MW2. Sure crysis looked pretty and punching baddies half-way across the island was fun but the story was complete b******s and the game just completely deteriorated into a pile of garbage. Crysis 2 better be as good as the hype for it because even if it is a good game, if it doesnt match to peoples expectations (which will be high as the game builds more hype) then it will just be in for the same treatment as MW2.
I wish the BBC would take games seriously. Have a review show like Film 2010, but for games. At least then we would know that the reviews would be credible and impartial. The reviewers wouldnt be able to take back handers or whatever IW handed out.
...i agree. Get Charlie Brooker to do a full series of gameswipe. Hes brutally honest and we love him for it.
The online is great UNLESS you've played COD2-3-WAW-COD4 then it gets a bit mundane. Same old same old for me. I have not even bothered to get to level 70 ONCE let alone do it again. I actually enjoyed World at War better than this COD.
From the release date up until the start of 2010 where I got totally fed up of the glitches and cheap play, I have clocked just under 400 hours in this game. So I can "play".
I don't get this, you could've clocked up 1000000 hours and still be awful. How come playing it for 400 hours means you can play?
The more you play, the better you get, no? The game adds nothing challenging or special from any other FPS I've played to make me become awful at it. I'm pretty ashamed to say I can play really; the ridiculous perks and recoil-less weapons means ANYONE can play...
I was really looking forward to MW2 after CoD4, which was a fantastic game both single and multiplayer. When MW2 came out me and my friends that played CoD4 to death were gutted, the mulitplayer was so over the top (you could say too american?) with its god awful perks, kill streaks and terrible, terrible maps.
I really do not understand why they felt like they had to make it so people could make a class that can go around stabbing people (commando perk = teleporting 10 feet, doing a neo on all bullets and avoid any claymore to stab someone in the face) and not really use any weapons, why they would think it would be cool to dual wield shotguns and SMGs or end a game with a tactical nuke......I would like to think that the main reason people liked CoD4 was it felt like a semi realistic war where as MW2 just felt way too americanized.
The single player had its moments but all in all a very average and overblown campaign.
I have high hopes for Medal of Honor and despite not being a fan of Halo, I'm kind of tempted to give Reach a try as it looks quite fun.
I sold my copy of MW2 and I won't be as extreme as some nerds and claim I will never buy a cod game again, because thats pathetic, but It will take quite a lot to get me to invest money in another CoD, especially now they want 1200ms points for 5 maps, 2 of which I had already paid for and played 100s of times.
As a gamer looking for hardcore single player campaigns over mp maps and online play, I have to say I'm astonished at how mp has taken over the world.
Getting players into an area to shoot 7 bells of s**t outa each other was never my idea of fun, I play mp in quick blasts but have never become dedicated, it is in fact a waste of time in my opinion. Beat a game but don’t continue to through your life away at besting an online community who are wasting their lives besting yours, what is the point, there're actual important problems in the world? On a separate note, why are so many MW 2 games under the age of 18?
In today's market, there's a heavy focus on the mp aspect and the campaign in games such as MW2, Battlefield BC 2 etc suffer because of it and gamers like me are given a poor quality product (and don't even get me started on what started as my favourite gaming franchise, Halo).
I have to say, such a focus on the mp side of things isn't needed and if developers were influenced by other devs such as Naughty Dog, who create a great campaign and attach a superb mp side to it, then I think games would be readdressing the balance they're losing. However, I predict mp will, more and more, become the main feature in future releases with tacky campaigns added on in the process, in the bid to make money on what has become an expensive market. Shame on you gamers.
This is the reason I stopped buying PC Zone - despite all the flaws and all the weaknesses in MW2 compared to CoD4, all the reviews mentioned these then still awarded incredibly high marks for.
This game more than any other has shown that Activision has the clout to get whatever scores it wants from supposedly impartial games magazines.
This is the reason I stopped buying PC Zone - despite all the flaws and all the weaknesses in MW2 compared to CoD4, all the reviews mentioned these then still awarded incredibly high marks for.
This game more than any other has shown that Activision has the clout to get whatever scores it wants from supposedly impartial games magazines.
very true. somehow reviewers lost their integrity on scoring. EDGE slated it to f**k and gave it a 9!
a 9 from a mag that is infamous for 'harsh' scoring, and seems to only reward innovation... something MW2 has zilch of.
Definatly agree, MW2 is a good game and i still play it but it just does not compete with call of duty 4, i personally believe cod4 and the greatest map in any multiplaer game i played.
As a gamer looking for hardcore single player campaigns over mp maps and online play, I have to say I'm astonished at how mp has taken over the world.
Getting players into an area to shoot 7 bells of s**t outa each other was never my idea of fun, I play mp in quick blasts but have never become dedicated, it is in fact a waste of time in my opinion. Beat a game but don’t continue to through your life away at besting an online community who are wasting their lives besting yours, what is the point, there're actual important problems in the world? On a separate note, why are so many MW 2 games under the age of 18?
In today's market, there's a heavy focus on the mp aspect and the campaign in games such as MW2, Battlefield BC 2 etc suffer because of it and gamers like me are given a poor quality product (and don't even get me started on what started as my favourite gaming franchise, Halo).
I have to say, such a focus on the mp side of things isn't needed and if developers were influenced by other devs such as Naughty Dog, who create a great campaign and attach a superb mp side to it, then I think games would be readdressing the balance they're losing. However, I predict mp will, more and more, become the main feature in future releases with tacky campaigns added on in the process, in the bid to make money on what has become an expensive market. Shame on you gamers.
Not a sports fan then?
Although I agree that the balance needs to be readdressed in favour of single player, I wouldn't actually say the competitive element is the 'waste of time' you suggest. Some games deserve the time and effort to get really good at it and competitive multiplayer facillitates that more than any AI could ever do.
Multiplayer components basically add value to the game, I won't generally buy a game unless it has a worthy component as single player games can be generally done in a week barring the odd exception. A rental is usually sufficient to see out a game.
Yeah he is right, I enjoyed MW2 somewhat. But compared to COD4 I felt let down. Mainly with multiplayer, I thought the single player and spec-ops was decent enough. But overall it was pretty average, not what I expected for such a huge title. I'm going to give all FPS a miss now until Halo Reach, will do my brain good to lay off the shooters.
expecting a game that exceeds or at least is on par with its original, MW2 sucked donkey balls.
it really did.
standalone, it was hardly bad. but in comparison it was truly terrible.
'WTF have they been doing' is something i thought... how can you go BACKWARDS?!!
Completely agree.
I thought the multiplayer was good, and a step up from MW1 but I replayed the MW1 singleplayer more than the multiplayer, so for me game was lacklustre.
Also would love to point out how pretentious Activision and IW were being about the embargo on reviews. Absolutely trash, thinking their game is above decent behaviour. An accurate review (like PCGamer's) would have made the blow a lot softer come the horrific introduction with General Shepard....
it's a shame that after all the complaints about MW2, it won't mean anything. It still sells by the lorry load and people WILL buy their outrageously expensive DLC. MW2 also disappointed me, single player was a mish-mash of missions rather than an actual story. Didn't really get into the characters or anything. Online was frustratingly bad. I was never much of a fan of the CoD4 maps, but it was a great shooter, MW2 maps all pretty much disappointed me it was very inbalanced, and had poor matchmaking. Not to mention the glitches and endless server migrations. I played it lots, thought it was a decent online shooter, but the issues just let it down a lot. Reviews just don't seen that honest anymore because i fail to see how everyone could have though it was a 9-10 rated game.
As for crysis 2 i eagerly await it. I loved the first one as the nanosuit just added spice to the traditional fps forumla. As for the graphics, they're excellent, but it's the physics that interest me most, as they are truly key in an fps, particularly interactive and destructible environments. Just no underwater floating levels please, that just really brought the original down a notch for me, as that level imo, was really really crap.
i totaly agree with the guy, i mean come on, none of the dtory made any sense, it wasn't related to CoD4, the only decent thing about MW2 is the online, mmind you it is full of overpowered killstreakes and spammers.
i totaly agree with the guy, i mean come on, none of the dtory made any sense, it wasn't related to CoD4, the only decent thing about MW2 is the online, mmind you it is full of overpowered killstreakes and spammers.
can you please explain why the story didn't make any sense and why it had no relation to COD4?
This is a rather harsh critique of MW2 that you might give to them if you were talking to them in private. The fact that he is saying this publicly only makes me think he is self-promoting. Lame.
i totaly agree with the guy, i mean come on, none of the dtory made any sense, it wasn't related to CoD4, the only decent thing about MW2 is the online, mmind you it is full of overpowered killstreakes and spammers.
can you please explain why the story didn't make any sense and why it had no relation to COD4?
It was all utterly ridiculous, whereas COD4 at least was somewhat believable. Being a history student I find it moronic when the rules of the Cold War, and why war never did break out, being utterly ignored by IW.
Copyright 2006 - 2009 Future Publishing Limited, Beauford Court, 30 Monmouth Street, Bath, UK BA1 2BW England and Wales company registration number 2008885
