Agree with you on a lot of points, except, I think that the game is equal to the original in multiplayer.

I didn't mind the length of the campaign. Granted, it only took me about 8 to 10 hours, but it wasn't the length that got me.

The "anti war" tone of the game had me screaming at my television. Especially during plot twists and shock moments. The choice of final villain was irritating at best and insulting at worst.

On a side note to that, I couldn't even tell that they were falling helicopters.

However, the multiplayer was AWESOME. Admittedly, killstreak bonuses do tilt the field to the winning team's side, but I've seen plenty of close matches that relied as much on skill as luck.

The new perks, pro perks, kill streaks, death streaks, (Painkiller = too short) and options all put the multiplayer of Modern Warfare 2 well above Call of Duty 4's online mode.

Hardline (one less kill to achieve a streak bonus) alone makes MW2 better than it's predecessor.

I don't have the game but I did go to the midnight release and it was fun as hell.

When will you people learn...Natural Selection is the greatest FPS ever

Guess I'll stick with Cod:WaW. Sixty bucks is a lot, and I want my money's worth out of every game.
I thought it might dissapoint, since 4 set such a high bar. Oh well.

I think the game is better than WaW as it wasn't as good as 4 imo.

most of what sage says is actually not true most of the time he was playing the game on easy during the campaign and spec ops and multiplayer are alot better than its first. Actually look on other reviews of the game sage is smart no doubt but he uses his opinion rather than pleasing to everyone. In my opinion the review in this link (http://screwattack.com/videos/CoD-Modern-Warfare-2) is better than sage's so actually buy it trust its worth everypenny.

sage your reviews are so dry

I agree with you there, Sage.

It's a rule for me that if you have a game that was revolutionary and near perfect in its field in the first place, then you make a sequel and release it with only a years worth of production on it, it will either be as good or worse than the original.

I am completely disagree with this video. This game is 100 times much better than the first one.

i agree.. bought it only to play online, but with all the problems of the matchmaking sistem, i will continue playing MW.(dedicatd servers please,, actvision xO

The FPS genre in general has been stale for a while now.. but IW pretty much took away what have been staples for a PC FPS for over a decade now. No console, no dedicated servers, no mod support, they even took away votekick/ban..

Whatever.. I never liked IW anyway after buying CoD1 back in '03. Screw 'em.

Oh dear, another successful 5-hour gameplay $60 title? Why do I feel that this and Halo ODST will not be the final titles we see lacking in content while still being wildly successful due to nostalgia and hype?

I said this in Angry Joe's piece and I'll say it again: I am not spending $60 bucks for five hours of only better-than-average, all-too-short games when I could simply rent the title for one day and five bucks.

i belive that not all sequels are about toping the original but refining it. and i bielive they have done so with the single player and online.

Wow, all the butthurt Call of duty fans downvoting the review just for saying "it's not THAT good"

I'm a Call of Duty fan, but I gave Sage 5 stars. I suppose there are two types of fans, those who follow the herd and challenge anyone who goes against the object of their affection.
Then there are those, like myself, who look on in disgust at how a good game series is turned into an assembly line product and its gullible fans turned into a line of credit.
Sigh.

People buying a game because its predessor was succesful and fun doesnt make them gullible. While the game is basically MW1 in terms of multiplayer and playing,its still a fun game that deserves the credit people give it. Games dont have to be revolutionary to be great.They just have to get it right.While a spin will make a game more fun,if it works fine,you dont need to fix it.So you can say MW2 isnt that good,that's fine.But dont say people are gullible just because you dont share their opion

even though i disagree with the review, it is commendable that you state your opinion as opposed to the one people want to hear. youre right that the single player in the first game was better, but its still a good ride and the multiplayer will be in my system for months.

You made some good points Sage, but I have to disagree. It's a polished version of MW1, and that's what most expected and wanted.

I understand most of the criticisms and some I agree with. The spec ops mode is great and the single player is short.

Though I would disagree that the presentation is lacking due to there being no FMV between missions, the original MW didnt have FMV's either and used the same splashscreen briefings. The only difference would be the opening mission for MW1 was an onrails introduction that was quite dynamic. MW2 opted out of this and instead went with the more controversial airport mission as its third level.

But aside from that MW2 is very similar (too similar?) to MW1 level wise with many of its levels being expanded versions of ideas from the first (the more dynamic escort mission, the more diverse chase mission.) it makes the same mistake as most action movie sequels in that it tried to be bigger then its original in everyway in the process lost alot of the originals pace and charm.

But where MW2 doesnt fail is in its multiplayer. I think you downplayed the death perks too much, 2 of the most controversial perks of MW1 were moved to deathperks and in their new role they prove very effective (especially painkiller which is the new juggernaught.) in contrast despite its massive boost in killstreaks, they are now much more exposed then they were in MW1. Helicopters are no longer then game changing monster they were in MW1 with the ease of counters provided to all players from level 1 onwards. Combined with a perk that literally makes you invisible to most of them (cold blooded) just downplays their strength even more so.

What MW2 does more then 1 is award diversity in gamestyles. Now using perks alot rewards players with upgrade versions, and gun upgrades branch out rewarding players who use them the way the attachment intended to be used (noobtube mastery leads to shotgun attachment, red dot mastery leads to holographic etc)

Overall I much perfer MW2's online experiance over MW1.

I can't agree with people on this one. The campaign was a lot of fun. I do enjoy the Multiplayer in MW2 more than MW1 and the extras make it a better experience all around. Back to the Campaign though, yes it's short (just like MW1) and yes, maybe it's a little more over-the-top, but it's one helluva ride while it lasts! It's a total blast in all of it's high-octane glory. The Campaign isn't very long but I've already gone back and finished it twice with a 3rd play thru imminent. I thought it was fan service to connect the story to the original and found that it was an entertaining and bold move to make -- ((SPOILER ALERT!!!)) -- an American the real Terrorist. The ride was fun all pretty much all the way thru for me with the most frustrating area being the first Favela stage, but aside from that I have no gripes. For those that would complain about this games length, there are plenty of other modes to enjoy once you are done the campaign but, if a major complaint for you is the fact that the campaign isn't long enough then you should have expected it considering the length of the first CoD:MW game and if all you can complain about is the games length when referring to a package that contains many modes of play, then you're really only looking for something to complain about.

Yeah, you're right.

i hope somebody reviews the pc version of MW2 over here(yet nobody will, i'm sure...), i think it's fair that everyone knows that we(as in pc gamers)'ve been screwed... BAD

5 hours single player gameplay?WOW just stupid for a 60 bucks game,no thx ill stick with my psp

What wouldn't suprise me if it was Activison that enforced all the crap PC gamers are dealt with in this game.

I'm really getting tired of less then 10 hour full freaking price games!

Plus the massive downgraded PC port, they said they did that to stop cheaters.

2 days after it came out, the PC version has hacks and cheaters, and there's no way to ban them.

nuf said, it did feel more like an expansion pack than a full game. heck i think call of duty uo was longer than this game.

I think this is the one few times I completely disagree with your review.

To expect Modern Warfare 2 to be something completely new and entirely fresh as the first was compared to Call of Duty 3 is pretty outlandish. It's a sequel...it brings a new story, new game mode, and tons of new stuff to use and play with in multiplayer. That's not a fault of the game, but a fault of someone expecting something they shouldn't.

To me, though the singleplayer was short, it told it's story fine with very little unnecessary fluff that games tend to have to prolong the playthrough. Look at Halo: ODST. It would be at least an hour or two shorter if they removed the totally pointless "open world" aspect and just had it be a normal game that moved through the story like with the previous game.

Though Modern Warfare 2 isn't the greatest game ever, neither was Grand Theft Auto 4 that held the previous record, but it just happened to have the right things to appeal to both hardcore players and mainstream folks.

It's a great game that has kept me playing everyday on multiplayer since it's release, which is more than alot of other games can say.

Sorry sage, I disagree with you on this. Also think people like deathshead says something stupid that people are buying the game because they are guilible.

Heaven forbid someone has a differ opinion on a game they like and all of a sudden labelled as a fanboy and that is the reason they are wrong. You dont like the game fine, calling people stupid waiting to get the next in the series is uncalled for, so they like the game who gives a f.

I'm anticipating ARMY OF TWO the 40th Day and the possible crossover with AngryJoe and his AS-KR 1. Hope you give that a good rating lest their be hell to pay...HELL TO PAY!!!

i pretty much disagreed with every thing you said lol
to each his own though.

Very good review although I disagree with it in just about every point you've made. I thought this iteration in the series took everything COD4 did and made it better, the missions were interesting and the set pieces were interesting and varied. I thought the main campaign was great too (took me about 9 hours on veteran but maybe I suck?) and I thought it cut out at just the right time without overstaying its welcome. Just some of my thoughts anyway, I basically disagree with you completely but it was still a good review as always.

Wait, so you're giving it marks down for not being a revolution yet again?

GeOW2 and Halo 3 weren't revolutions either, but I didn't hear such negative reviews for those games either....

Also, how can you say the CoD4 MP is better? The MW2 perks are WAY more balanced, and unless you're team sucks, going from losing to winning team is not as impossible as you make it out to be. The killstreaks are very easy to counter or avoid alltogether.

I'd love to say this is a good review, because basically I always thought you were one of the most accurate reviewers out there, but this review, it just feels like you can't stand this game be so popular when it isn't the BEST GAME EVUR, so you nitpick and overcriticize.