Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 2

 Xbox 360
User Score
6.6

Mixed or average reviews- based on 3152 Ratings

User score distribution:
  1. Positive: 1,842 out of 3152
  2. Mixed: 448 out of 3152
  3. Negative: 862 out of 3152
Buy Now
Buy on

Review this game

  1. Your Score
    0 out of 10
    Rate this:
    • 10
    • 9
    • 8
    • 7
    • 6
    • 5
    • 4
    • 3
    • 2
    • 1
    • 0
    • 0
  1. Submit
  2. Check Spelling
view
per page
  1. R.MacG
    Dec 8, 2009
    8
    I was quite surprised by Modern Warfare 2. I had done my best to avoid the hype, and it seems to have paid off. Before I start my review, however, I would like to make the point that this review board is for the Xbox 360 version of the game, not the PC. If you have a review for the PC version, and want to have a moan about the lack of dedicated servers, do it on the PC board. Now, back to I was quite surprised by Modern Warfare 2. I had done my best to avoid the hype, and it seems to have paid off. Before I start my review, however, I would like to make the point that this review board is for the Xbox 360 version of the game, not the PC. If you have a review for the PC version, and want to have a moan about the lack of dedicated servers, do it on the PC board. Now, back to the review. I picked this game up for a neat £32, avoiding the £44 price tag of GAME and other major game retailers. I can only wonder why IW thought they would be able to get the RRP to £55, but they must have been having an off day. Had the campaign been significantly longer, I would have agreed with the £55 tag, but for that much money I would expect at least another 4 hours of campaign. As I am talking about the campaign, I'll get on with that first. The story follows on directly from Modern Warfare, with an easy-to-follow plot. After the submarine base mission, I was very impressed with the way the game played. Before this, the game was still great, but those last few missions really grabbed me. Despite the short campaign, it was worthy of being attempted on Veteran. It was sadly far easier than previous CoD games I have played, and even CoD 4 was harder. The music was great, the gameplay was explosive, and the visuals were above average. Next up, Spec Ops. This game mode is a good addition to the game, but sadly it does not make up for the short campaign. This does not mean to say that it is bad. By no means is that true. With 23 Spec Ops missions, and a lot of baddies to shoot, the action never stops. Going for Veteran completion is a nice challenge, especially on the last few missions. I am yet to complete all of them, but I do have 57 stars, so I'm close enough. Juggernaughts are a nice tactical addition to the game, with a demand for you to rethink your assault strategies. I can only wonder what the last three missions are like. Overall, Spec Ops is great. I'm very pleased with it. Finally, we get onto multiplayer. Well, what can I say? Multiplayer has its ups and downs for all players. One day you will be decimating teams with huge K/D ratios, and the next you find yourself being dominated by better-skilled foes. The occasional bursts of lag from poor hosts are hard to notice, even with my terrible connection. I run on a 2 Mb/s connection, and always have a Strict NAT. Most games therefore will not allow me to join other players. This is sadly also the case with Modern Warfare 2. I can rarely connect to a match, and sometimes I am unlucky enough to be in the lobby, only to be "lagged out". That's my fault for having such a shoddy connection though. When in a match, the action never stops. Plenty of explosions, awesome kills, and game-ending kill streak rewards. "AC-130 spotted!" I am only level 24 without prestige, but I am finding it a great game. Some moan about the higher levelled guns being overpowered, but honestly, all guns are the same. Apart from those blasted AK-47s. I can't wait until I hit level 70, if I ever do. So, this game ticks most of the boxes. A great multiplayer, a fantastic, albeit short, campaign, and a fun extra game mode to complete on the side. Great stuff.… Expand
  2. ChrisR
    Dec 8, 2009
    10
    This game is absolutely amazing. If you don't like first person shooters then you shouldn't even be rating this game because it's not your cup of tea. But if you like FPS games then this is incredible! The graphics are the best in the business, the play control is spot-on, the audio is amazing, and the re-play value is there for not only the single player campaign (without This game is absolutely amazing. If you don't like first person shooters then you shouldn't even be rating this game because it's not your cup of tea. But if you like FPS games then this is incredible! The graphics are the best in the business, the play control is spot-on, the audio is amazing, and the re-play value is there for not only the single player campaign (without being almost impossible to find the intel like the first game), but also for the new game mode Special Ops, and the multiplayer. Multiplayer has been expanded with customizable perks, additional equipment and weapon modifications. And the upgrades and goals to achieve in multiplayer come often enough that you always feel like you just succeeded in unlocking something cool, but are still urged on to your next objective without feeling like you're going to be grinding towards it forever. This game was created to make you feel like you're playing through an action movie on the campaign and they mastered it. While some might accuse the developers of a lack of depth in the characters the action takes place around you, the player, and it's your reactions to the graphics, sound, and exciting combat situations you are thrown in where this game shines. If you want a story, go read a book. If you want to be the main character in a playable action movie... This is your must-own game of the year!… Expand
  3. Maxxyw
    Dec 9, 2009
    6
    Meh. While the single player and spec-ops are exceptionally well-crafted, they tried too hard on the multiplayer and just really screwed up. The balance of skill is godawful, and the maps are way too big to create the hectic atmosphere like in CODWOW or even MW1. You don't even have to be good to win. but if the other person doesn't see you, then...boom free kill. And you see Meh. While the single player and spec-ops are exceptionally well-crafted, they tried too hard on the multiplayer and just really screwed up. The balance of skill is godawful, and the maps are way too big to create the hectic atmosphere like in CODWOW or even MW1. You don't even have to be good to win. but if the other person doesn't see you, then...boom free kill. And you see someone about once every 2 minutes on these giant maps...Out of all the live games I have (Halo 3 Gears of War 2 Cod5 Borderlands and this), this is the one I will play the least. Which it shouldn't be, because the live is supposed to be the central part of this game. And the live community on this is more annoying than that of Halo, and I thought that was impossible. At least they fixed that stupid javelin glitch. Not to take away from the single player, which is fun, and the spec-ops, which could be a game in and of itself.… Expand
  4. TomF
    Jan 11, 2010
    10
    First of all I don't understand why the user score is so low, I guess its a love-it or hate-it game but I loved it. If your getting this only for the single player (get xbox live already!) and have nobody to play spec-ops with then wait for the price to go down. For everyone else I completely recommended this 100%, the game looks absolutely amazing in HD, there were a few moments in First of all I don't understand why the user score is so low, I guess its a love-it or hate-it game but I loved it. If your getting this only for the single player (get xbox live already!) and have nobody to play spec-ops with then wait for the price to go down. For everyone else I completely recommended this 100%, the game looks absolutely amazing in HD, there were a few moments in the single player where I felt like a part of the game it was amazing, the final scene is bad-ass too. I liked their take on war torn Washington DC, an eerily real concept that makes you wonder if war will ever be fought on our soil. Also the character models are some of the most realistic I've seen to date and the effects are fantastic. The story may be a little short, I didn't notice this because I spaced it out into a period of a few weeks because of the multiplayer, but it is very well told and interesting. The co-op missions are a very fun and addicting feature that allow you to play with another person. Now for the real gameplay experience, online play. I cannot praise this enough, it retains the core style of the first one and adds massive depth and new weapons. I remember my friend and I discussing things they should add to the new one and they pretty much read my mind. You now get extra points for payback, long shot kills, double kills and many other things; there is nothing like popping someone from 150 yards and having 5 different things pop up on the screen awarding you. The challenges are one of my favorite additions, you can now get up to 1000 kills with a weapon and still earn points and also unlock attachments based on which attachments you get kills with. There are also perc based challenges which encourage the use of different ones. I remember in COD4 I had stopping power for all my classes, but now with things like hardline and cold blooded I'm using different ones all the time. The addition of new weapons also adds another element to the game as there are now many, many ways to overcome your foes. You can be a dual wielding psychopath with two bullet hoses in each hand or a sharpshooter with extremely accurate assault and sniper rifles or anywhere in between. This makes the online element more challenging and harder because you now have threats of all different kinds. like when your sitting behind a sandbag fortification and a javelin missile comes in out of nowhere and ruins your day or when you turn the corner and get blasted by someone with akimbo shotguns. You can also unlock many different titles and emblems to differentiate yourself from other online players. There are many many ways to go about playing this game online and it is one of the best online experiences to date. I highly recommend this game to anyone who was a fan of the last one or fans of first person shooters in general.… Expand
  5. MarkG
    Jan 14, 2010
    1
    The campaign is horrible, it's short, has no story, and is ridiculously easy even on Veteran. The multiplayer is a glitch-fest and boost-fest. Given MW as a 10/10 game, this is just a terrible follow-up, and one priced far too high. What a shame.
  6. TheBestAroundAye
    Jan 15, 2010
    10
    First off i'd like to say that if u didn't rate a 10 you need to tell me a better first person shooter that has good campaign and online multiplayer because nothing can beat this game. I'm sure some of you will say Halo but it just doesn't compare to Call of Duty. I will say the campaign is short but the multiplayer is AMAZING. Sure you may get mad at the campers and First off i'd like to say that if u didn't rate a 10 you need to tell me a better first person shooter that has good campaign and online multiplayer because nothing can beat this game. I'm sure some of you will say Halo but it just doesn't compare to Call of Duty. I will say the campaign is short but the multiplayer is AMAZING. Sure you may get mad at the campers and the kill streaks. But thats just the way it is. There will never be a perfect game.… Expand
  7. JacobW
    Jan 19, 2010
    10
    Although the singleplayer is short it has an amazing story and is also fun. It's a good example of where the graphics and gameplay is today. Multiplayer is amazing just like CoD4 but has added in many new weapons, perks and also deathstreaks. I don't understand why people are giving this game a low score because this generation of gaming is about Multiplayer. Why should games Although the singleplayer is short it has an amazing story and is also fun. It's a good example of where the graphics and gameplay is today. Multiplayer is amazing just like CoD4 but has added in many new weapons, perks and also deathstreaks. I don't understand why people are giving this game a low score because this generation of gaming is about Multiplayer. Why should games that have amazing multiplayer and a decent story deserve a low score when good singleplayer and no multiplayer games deserve a high score. Ask yourself this before voting, which lasts longer multiplayer or singleplayer?… Expand
  8. JustinT
    Jan 21, 2010
    3
    Very, very dissapointing. If it was the first game of the series maybe it'd be better, but with all the expectations there were just so many dissapoints. The to big things are that the multiplayer has not really improved at all and the campaign was absolutely horrible. The individual levels were fun to play, but Russia attacking the U.S.? C'mon man!
  9. JustinKo
    Jan 23, 2010
    9
    Some of you guys are total r-tards. sure the campaign is real suckish and you die a lot online, but that doesn't mean you have to give it a 1. They just patched up most of the glitches anyway
  10. RobertM
    Jan 24, 2010
    8
    The Campaign is great, but short. Multiplayer is awesome, extremely addicting, but it has major flaws. Theres always people on cheating to get the nuke, the 1887 shot gun is rediculous, and people running around like idiots with the commando perk knifiing people. A lot of the maps seem to favor people who like to post up and camp out. You will also be cut out or glitched out of a game The Campaign is great, but short. Multiplayer is awesome, extremely addicting, but it has major flaws. Theres always people on cheating to get the nuke, the 1887 shot gun is rediculous, and people running around like idiots with the commando perk knifiing people. A lot of the maps seem to favor people who like to post up and camp out. You will also be cut out or glitched out of a game about every 1 in 5. Other than that, the game is amazing.… Expand
  11. JohnS
    Jan 25, 2010
    4
    The campaign, at times, was really fun, when you were shooting and blowing stuff up. The story itself was very weak and I didn't feel like there was enough development. It should have been twice as long to allow for more in-depth detail. It seems like it is a multiplayer game with a campaign and co-op tacked on. The multiplayer itself was a let down. There is so much unbalance in the The campaign, at times, was really fun, when you were shooting and blowing stuff up. The story itself was very weak and I didn't feel like there was enough development. It should have been twice as long to allow for more in-depth detail. It seems like it is a multiplayer game with a campaign and co-op tacked on. The multiplayer itself was a let down. There is so much unbalance in the overly-deadly guns and outrageous perks. Of course, such criticism is considered 'biased.' There is nothing they could patch to fix this atrocious mistake. No significant improvements besides quantity were made. It seems quality was not even considered when developing this game. Map design also makes for a less-than-enjoyable experience. I would suggest renting it first to see if you can handle the frustration. Some may enjoy it, but it's not what a game is supposed to be. I cannot believe that nobody stepped in at one moment during development and said, "Hey, that might cause some problems." The real sad part is Infinity Ward and Activision reaped the benefits because they knew people would eat it up.… Expand
  12. JamesD.
    Jan 26, 2010
    9
    It's difficult for me to score this game. On one hand it's the most media centric game I've ever played at is therefore extremely overated especially when up against GTA IV and he new sensation of Mass Effect and Bioshock. However there isn't any denying that this is gaming crack cocaine and an absolutely genre defining FPS. I came to my score based on the true facts It's difficult for me to score this game. On one hand it's the most media centric game I've ever played at is therefore extremely overated especially when up against GTA IV and he new sensation of Mass Effect and Bioshock. However there isn't any denying that this is gaming crack cocaine and an absolutely genre defining FPS. I came to my score based on the true facts of how addictive it really is, this isn't World At War overated, it earns most of its praise but those who are getting tired of this franchise like me should steer clear. It's intended for the fans so don't expect anything radically new that effects the gameplay, just know its better than the original.… Expand
  13. AnonymousAnonymous
    Jan 28, 2010
    10
    I don't see why there are so many people give games 0 score if its just a little bit bad or mediocre. People say MW2's campaign is less than 5 hours long, if you play on easy and do something like a speedrun. The campaign is really good, and not too short. Spec ops is fun with friends. Multiplayer is just awesome.
  14. ChemicalReaper
    Jan 31, 2010
    3
    The single player campaign is absolutely phenomenal -- finally, Infinity Ward seems to have created a decent story. It tries to outdo Call of Duty 4's 2 deaths by killing off most of the major characters in the game. Unfortunately, that's where my praise for the game has to end. Why? Because multiplayer is inherently flawed. In fact, it's Infinity Ward's usual problem The single player campaign is absolutely phenomenal -- finally, Infinity Ward seems to have created a decent story. It tries to outdo Call of Duty 4's 2 deaths by killing off most of the major characters in the game. Unfortunately, that's where my praise for the game has to end. Why? Because multiplayer is inherently flawed. In fact, it's Infinity Ward's usual problem -- spawn points. You know there's something wrong when everyone on your team gets killed by a Javelin shoulder-launched missile within thirty seconds of the game starting... Weapons balancing issues, the usual cheap perks, and the fact that the game promotes and rewards stupidity. These things could easily have been fixed during beta testing--- oh wait, I'm sorry; I'd forgotten that Infinity Ward is so absolutely full of itself that they don't DO any testing... The single player on its own would get a 9/10. Unfortunately, Infinity Ward's over-arrogance and their inherently flawed multiplayer hold the game back. Overall, I give the game 3/10 -- and given the multiplayer mode, I think I'm being generous giving the game that many points.… Expand
  15. TimK
    Feb 15, 2010
    4
    What little single player there is can be forgiven because the game clearly put all of its love in the multiplayer component. Spec-Ops is a diversion, nothing more. Now, after CoD4 we all were excited to see the improvements to the formula from the better studio. Honestly, quantity seemed to reign over quality in this department. Guns, challenges, perks pro, equipment, etc. Generally the What little single player there is can be forgiven because the game clearly put all of its love in the multiplayer component. Spec-Ops is a diversion, nothing more. Now, after CoD4 we all were excited to see the improvements to the formula from the better studio. Honestly, quantity seemed to reign over quality in this department. Guns, challenges, perks pro, equipment, etc. Generally the game had potential if not for the inclusion of two huge problems. 1. Side-arm shotguns. Akimbo models, the atuo-shottie, running classes utilizing the shotgun. Allowing everyone to take a shotgun really takes a lot of the fun out of the game. People can spray and destroy you from unreasonable distances (models). 2. Custom Killstreaks! I play CoD4 every now and then and scratch my head wondering why camping is so prevalent in MW2 and not CoD4. What I have reasoned is that custom killstreaks are to blame. Every....single.......player wants their precious predator missle so they can get their harrier and finally a chopper gunner/ac130. To do this they simply sit in a corner and wait. Hop on to CoD4 and you realise that everyone is running around, having fun. I can only speculate it is because they aren't worried about getting that damn pave low to get uber-mega kills. Whatever the issue, for a game that relies on its multiplayer for 95% of its gameplay I think that it fails completely. That's why I give it a 4 out of 10.… Expand
  16. DeadlyD
    Feb 18, 2010
    9
    this game is one of the best war games i played. graphics are awesome and the gameplay is really fun, even though i dont really care too much about campain mode, the reason i picked up this game was for the muiltiplayer. and for the muiltiplayer i must say it is fantastic. also, for a challenge they gave us special ops mode which is also very fun to play. special ops is basicly like a this game is one of the best war games i played. graphics are awesome and the gameplay is really fun, even though i dont really care too much about campain mode, the reason i picked up this game was for the muiltiplayer. and for the muiltiplayer i must say it is fantastic. also, for a challenge they gave us special ops mode which is also very fun to play. special ops is basicly like a survival mode ex: getting to a safe zone alive, defusing bombs etc. so if your looking for a fun modern war game, then i would get this one.… Expand
  17. RinduriC.
    Feb 18, 2010
    4
    Ugh, what a horrible experience. It was fun for awhile, until you realize how much shit is wrong with it and how many exploits there are. The perk and killstreak system is completely broken, now everyone simply camps, or does cheap shit like run around with a damned care package. It shouldn't even have a 6.0 user rating, it should have a 4.0 at best. Way to go IGN and the rest, you Ugh, what a horrible experience. It was fun for awhile, until you realize how much shit is wrong with it and how many exploits there are. The perk and killstreak system is completely broken, now everyone simply camps, or does cheap shit like run around with a damned care package. It shouldn't even have a 6.0 user rating, it should have a 4.0 at best. Way to go IGN and the rest, you all are blind.… Expand
  18. JustinM
    Feb 26, 2010
    3
    A 6-hour campaign that makes very little sense, a somewhat-fun co-op mode, and the most unbalanced multiplayer I've ever seen, all for the low price of $60? Fail. I know that this game is MP focused, so I'll skip the flaws of single-player. It takes around 24 hours of play-time online to unlock the best weapons ( akimbo model 1887s). Until then, you suffer from: Lag, enemies A 6-hour campaign that makes very little sense, a somewhat-fun co-op mode, and the most unbalanced multiplayer I've ever seen, all for the low price of $60? Fail. I know that this game is MP focused, so I'll skip the flaws of single-player. It takes around 24 hours of play-time online to unlock the best weapons ( akimbo model 1887s). Until then, you suffer from: Lag, enemies spawning behind you, shotguns killing you from 30 feet away, game-breaking glitches, campers, unavoidable kill-streaks, and the game ending from a booster's nuke. However, once you unlock the best weapons, even if you have no skill, you will succeed!… Expand
  19. NOOOOOOOOOOOOO
    Feb 27, 2010
    5
    This used to be one of my favorite games. Not anymore. The graphics, sound, and polish put into the gameplay are unparelleled. My friends complained that the story is a let down, but I loved it and I thought the set pieces were amazing, and spec-ops mode rules although I would have perfered more Nazi Zombies. The biggest complaint I have that RAPES this from a perfect ten is the This used to be one of my favorite games. Not anymore. The graphics, sound, and polish put into the gameplay are unparelleled. My friends complained that the story is a let down, but I loved it and I thought the set pieces were amazing, and spec-ops mode rules although I would have perfered more Nazi Zombies. The biggest complaint I have that RAPES this from a perfect ten is the multiplayer. At its best it can be played for hours straight, but all other times you might as well pop in a different game. It's all good ideas but bad execution. The ballance is not just broken, its mauled, limbed, pissed on, and kicked in front of a train. Not only are some guns a million times better than others, you'll barely ever die by bullets. Instead you will be noob-tubed and knifed untill your eyes fall out. Noob-tubing is when someone launches a grenade at you, and it's either an instant kill or close to one. Combined with perks that boost your power and give you an infanate amount you have no defence against them. It's a disaster. Also, the commando perk increases your distance in meele attacks... a lot. You knife people as a meele attack but with commando your range is so long you might as well replace the knife with a spear. Combined with perks that make people run a million miles an hour forever you've got no defence if they come running at you around a corner. Imagine if you're playing free for all in Halo and someone got to start out with an energy sword every single time. Is that fair? Hint: the answer begins with an 'n'. Now concerning killstreak rewards they mess up anyone's chances of catching up. You get airplains and helecopters to spawn camp the enemy team, homing missles, and a lot of other stuff that would be fun for you but a pain for everyone else. The only way to avoid them is to use the cold blooded perk, but what are the chances that you'll have that on every single moment? If you don't you'll have to wait indoors for like three hours until they go away. It also cripples anyone else's on your team's chances to get one, also because you'll be hogging all the kills! Care package rewards never hit their mark and often land on you even if your standing a mile away, and people team kill you to take them on hardcore team death match. Also, with good killstreaks comes bad frustration. To quote a review I've read for a completely different game "maybe I'm not japanese enough but if one mistake costs me everything I've worked for than I'm really not going to feel any sense of accomplishment". Another thing that sucks are akimbo (dual weilded) shotguns. You may argue that they are ballanced out because they either can't hold much or take a while to ready after shooting, but who cares when it only takes ONE HIT FROM EACH TO KILL SOMEONE!! Even the people who use them can testify that one-hit-kills are cheap. Speaking of people who suck, all the people on their headsets are either twelve year olds with extremely high pitched and distracting voices or loser teenagers picking on them because they're younger. The maps are good depending on what game mode you're playing on. For example Karachi is good on domination but it sucks with team death match. Of course, team deathmatch seems to be the ONLY mode on the game; nobody seems to care about capturing objectives over camping over them just to get killed by an RPG spammer. The map playlist is randomized, and that's a problem. I wanted to play on the Highrise map today. I played for three hours streight and not once got to play on it! THREE. HOURS. One nice thing that works is the addition of titles and embelems. In the last game all you got for completing challenges were points. I care about score more than anything, but I dont want to bust my butt to be higher on a leader board where you have to go down thirty spaces to see someone who got a high score without hacking. These callsigns are basically bragging rights, and I dig that. I could say more, but I'm done with this game for a while. When it works, it's a great success, but that's rare. All other times you'll only be in a bad mood and feel like you were robbed of your time. Infinity Ward has been fixing glitches going on in this game, but what's taking so long to fix the FUNDAMENTALS is beyond me. I'm going to play my PS2.… Expand
  20. jaredh.
    Feb 28, 2010
    2
    This game was way over hyped for what it is. The campaign is alright but nothing you would want to play through more than once. The multiplayer is what most people bought this game for and its a mess. I had my doubts when I found out you could have shotguns and machine pistols as secondaries. With all these secondaries any player can be a one man army. In previous call of duties, when you This game was way over hyped for what it is. The campaign is alright but nothing you would want to play through more than once. The multiplayer is what most people bought this game for and its a mess. I had my doubts when I found out you could have shotguns and machine pistols as secondaries. With all these secondaries any player can be a one man army. In previous call of duties, when you saw a sniper you knew you could out gun him at close range most of the time. Now all they have to do is pull out their secondary and blast away. Camping is my other gripe about the multiplayer. Since there are so many high level killstreaks now, thats what everybody seems to focus on. The killstreaks are what ruined this game. They took the focus off of the gunplay and made the outcome of the match depend on who can get their chopper gunner the quickest. Maybe im just tired of playing the same game for 3 years now. Call of Duty 4 was great when it came out. It seems like they havent changed much in the gameplay since then other than adding more stuff.… Expand
  21. MorganH.
    Mar 12, 2010
    2
    Just like Robert H. said, biggest let down of the decade. (As far as games, at least.) The only reason I even gave it a 2 is because the campaign is the only good thing about it. But the multiplayer? Where to start...the guns are overpowered, WAYYY too many campers(and boosters). And not only are there a lot of annoying kids, there are some people who just run around knifing people. And I Just like Robert H. said, biggest let down of the decade. (As far as games, at least.) The only reason I even gave it a 2 is because the campaign is the only good thing about it. But the multiplayer? Where to start...the guns are overpowered, WAYYY too many campers(and boosters). And not only are there a lot of annoying kids, there are some people who just run around knifing people. And I just finally stopped when I was trying to have a good game of free-for-all, and suddenly a nuke is called in from a freaking booster. Overall, this game is S**T.… Expand
  22. JesseF.
    Mar 28, 2010
    3
    I got this a few days after it came out. I beat the campaign and comepletely enjoyed it. Multi-player was amazing, too. But after three months, the game reveals it's true colors. You start realizing the graphics aren't the best. You start realizing how truly terrible the spawn system is. You start realizing how not fun it is when the other team gets a one kill advantage and I got this a few days after it came out. I beat the campaign and comepletely enjoyed it. Multi-player was amazing, too. But after three months, the game reveals it's true colors. You start realizing the graphics aren't the best. You start realizing how truly terrible the spawn system is. You start realizing how not fun it is when the other team gets a one kill advantage and starts raping you with AC-130's, Harrier's, and Pavelow's all at once. It sad that so many people still play this game. It gets boring, not fun, and very annoying. 50 out of maybe 65 of my friends who bought this game have already returned it. I won't yet because I still want to finish the campaign on Vetern and do all the Spec-Ops missions. The campaign only takes about five to seven hours, so those of you who play the first time through on Vetern, you will finish very quickly. The only very good thing about this game is the Spec-ops. It takes out some missions from Call of Duty 4 and Modern Warfare 2's campaign and allows you to play alone (on some missions) or with a friend (on all missions). There's nothing but campers and hackers online. Even if you have a great connection, you still end up dying. Just now, on my last game of Modern Warfare 2 ever, I shot a guy at least 15 times in the chest and body with a AUG HBAR and he killed me in one shot with a M9. I looked at my connection and it had three green bars. And finally, the spawn system is an absolute fail. At least 100 times, I've gotten killed by an enemy and spawned right in front of him at least twice in a row. Campaign: 8/10 Multiplayer: -5/10 Spec-Ops: 15/10.… Expand
  23. JJC.
    Apr 15, 2010
    4
    I think they evened out the XBOX360 version and a bit more playable. Although they need to get rid of this damn glitch where you hop super fast sideways. Damn glad they got rid of 3rd person cage match. Many cheaters used it to get uber weapons. Akimbos need to go! Getting pissed by my friend who has Model 1987 x2 and gets long range kills. Also many asshats who play the game don't I think they evened out the XBOX360 version and a bit more playable. Although they need to get rid of this damn glitch where you hop super fast sideways. Damn glad they got rid of 3rd person cage match. Many cheaters used it to get uber weapons. Akimbos need to go! Getting pissed by my friend who has Model 1987 x2 and gets long range kills. Also many asshats who play the game don't blame me if this sounds familiar in free-for-all they shoot-crouch-prone-crouch-shoot. Then repeat. Infinity Ward dumbed down the game for people who are n00bs and can't play like adding the perks: Cold-Blooded, Danger-Close, and of course stopping power. Don't forget ridiculous UMP45 kills. The Aim-Assist makes a n00b god and hackers. Don't get me started how hackers made leader boards pointless. That is all.… Expand
  24. JonathanS.
    Nov 11, 2009
    10
    I have no idea what game the people voting against this game were playing, except for half of them never having played it and just hating on it because they're immature gamers who have to have THEIR favorite game be the best. Terrible graphics? Poor controls? Someone even said something about a "stupid first person view"? I'm sorry, I thought this was an FPS I was playing. I I have no idea what game the people voting against this game were playing, except for half of them never having played it and just hating on it because they're immature gamers who have to have THEIR favorite game be the best. Terrible graphics? Poor controls? Someone even said something about a "stupid first person view"? I'm sorry, I thought this was an FPS I was playing. I understand some people who don't have Xbox Live not enjoying the game, but I would think you can read the reviews ahead of time and realize that the campaign is short, thus not always worth $65. Playing on veteran stretched it out for me to about 8 hours of playtime, and definitely upped the intensity. I personally thought the cinematic presentation and set pieces were astounding, and the conclusion was possibly the best in recent gaming history, presentation-wise. Graphics were brilliant, the best I've seen on the 360 yet, with only the likes of Uncharted 2 possibly beating it, and controls couldn't have been any more perfect. Multiplayer is still more addictive than any other next-gen game currently in retail, and Spec Ops is a nice addition, and a lot more fun on Veteran with a friend. Overall, I thought the game was just as good as MW, and though not substantially different, the fact that it came out so quickly and is a DIRECT sequel--I wasn't expecting some major revamp, just a perfecting of something I already loved. And that's what I got. As for Halo fanboys and other childish gamers, don't judge a game without playing it yourself and without an unbiased opinion. (Plus, really? It's not like Halo or GTA changed that fundamentally sequel to sequel, so I don't understand those arguments to begin with.)… Expand
  25. MehrajA
    Nov 11, 2009
    9
    I'll be honest, at first I was doubting if infinity ward had done a good job with the SP campaign, the first mission was just more of the same, with the cliff hangar mission being an exception, then having a few sniper missions clearly stolen from cod4, nothing new there, it's when the plot twists came that I started to realise how deep the game gets. As soon as your given a I'll be honest, at first I was doubting if infinity ward had done a good job with the SP campaign, the first mission was just more of the same, with the cliff hangar mission being an exception, then having a few sniper missions clearly stolen from cod4, nothing new there, it's when the plot twists came that I started to realise how deep the game gets. As soon as your given a proper plot, you start to pay attention to detail, from the call outs from the AI to the detailed guns. The graphics are pretty much the same to cod4 iw's hyped streaming isn't all that. When compared to games such as Killzone 2 and Uncharted 2, (BTW i have an xbox360...only never had a ps3) it's not going to hold it's own. However as you get into the swing of things, you quickly realise that any noob can spray but it does actually take a bit of skill to pull of headshots and the such, the multiplayer is definately better than cod4, with new fixes and such but I reckon there are a few bugs in this one, Overall mw2 is more of the same but with a bigger bang. Worth 54 pounds? maybe not, however it is definately worth your time!… Expand
  26. ZardozD
    Nov 11, 2009
    5
    It's CoD: MW 2 (that's TWO) - yes it's almost identical to version 1. Don't buy it if you want an original game. It faithfully reworks the superb graphics and combat system of MW 1, with no significant innovations. If you liked MW1, you'll like this. If you hated MW1, you'll hate this. Multiplayer is a disappointment - lack of a system to balance newbies vs It's CoD: MW 2 (that's TWO) - yes it's almost identical to version 1. Don't buy it if you want an original game. It faithfully reworks the superb graphics and combat system of MW 1, with no significant innovations. If you liked MW1, you'll like this. If you hated MW1, you'll hate this. Multiplayer is a disappointment - lack of a system to balance newbies vs super button mashers makes it frustrating for newbies, who just get to play walking targets, and boring for experienced players (unless you like killing opponents who are no challenge - which is childish). There are some exceptional moments in the single player missions, but generally they lack the old sense of reality in MW1 with too many opponents crammed into smaller maps. The general feeling behind the whole game design is rushed, lazy and self-complacent. They knew they had a solid gold hit before they started work on it, and they knew they had to release it for Christmas 2010, so they simply slammed together what they could in the time they had - and it shows.… Expand
  27. SamF
    Nov 12, 2009
    8
    After finishing the SP Campaign I can honestly say in terms of set pieces, action and Graphics this game gets a 10. With that said the storline really is a major let down with it jumping from one scenerio to another with no cohesive logic and a very confusing story. Infinity ward seems to have not put alot of effort in the story and more on the shock factor which many will agree is way After finishing the SP Campaign I can honestly say in terms of set pieces, action and Graphics this game gets a 10. With that said the storline really is a major let down with it jumping from one scenerio to another with no cohesive logic and a very confusing story. Infinity ward seems to have not put alot of effort in the story and more on the shock factor which many will agree is way overdone. Aside from that the SP Is also very short and can be completed in 6 hours. One saving grace is Spec ops mode that adds a bit of fun with mini missions thrown in much like the last epilogue airplane mission of the last game. Overall I would recommend this as a rental for anyone that only plays Single player...for those who play MP For hours its pretty much the same game with more weapons , different maps and perks where you can rain down havoc if you get kill streaks regularly.… Expand
  28. FPSMaster
    Nov 13, 2009
    8
    Good, fun game, but like every COD title it's over too quickly forcing you to go into multiplayer within 2 days of purchase to extend the longetivity of the game. There is the Spec Ops mode which can be fun, but could have been so much better if it were designed like the extra mission after the credits in COD4 where you have A.I. squadmates with you. But Spec Ops seems more tacked on Good, fun game, but like every COD title it's over too quickly forcing you to go into multiplayer within 2 days of purchase to extend the longetivity of the game. There is the Spec Ops mode which can be fun, but could have been so much better if it were designed like the extra mission after the credits in COD4 where you have A.I. squadmates with you. But Spec Ops seems more tacked on than anything else and that time could have been put to much better use elsewhere in the game. The graphics are good, but this engine is really showing it's age (again) since it's just reusing technology from COD1 from 2003. The multiplayer is exactly like COD4 but with more upgrades and the single player is good, although feels disconnected, disjointed and makes no sense and the missions don't really feel military-ish enough compared to other COD games. They feel too alone and rogue-ish if that makes sense. Good game, but overhyped. It's just your standard yearly COD treatment with more production values to make it feel even more like a movie which also makes it feel even more scripted, linear and on-rails than ever before. Flashpoint could have destroyed and dethroned this series easily if Codemasters had foused more on making a great game than stealing peoples money.… Expand
  29. JoeF
    Nov 13, 2009
    9
    It really pisses me off that people give MW2 low ratings because either "It's not as good as Halo" or "It got too much hype." First of all, if you like Halo so much, play Halo and stop bringing down the CoD fans. They're two completely different games. Second, the game got a ton of hype because it deserved it. It made $130 million in the first 24 hours, which is the biggest It really pisses me off that people give MW2 low ratings because either "It's not as good as Halo" or "It got too much hype." First of all, if you like Halo so much, play Halo and stop bringing down the CoD fans. They're two completely different games. Second, the game got a ton of hype because it deserved it. It made $130 million in the first 24 hours, which is the biggest success in the history of media entertainment, better than Halo 3 and GTA IV and everything else. I like Halo and GTA too, but I don't compare completely different games to one another. The game is freakin awesome, and the only reason I don't give it a 10 is because CoD 4 had a better campaign in terms of raw emotion that really made me connect with the characters, and I was genuinely upset about their fate in the end. But other than that the multiplayer is fantastic and Spec Ops is a great co-op mode. And honestly, does it really matter if the graphics are pretty much the same from CoD 4? They're still good graphics. If you aren't a fan of the CoD franchise and don't have something meaningful to say other than this game isn't halo, then don't rate it.… Expand
  30. SamR
    Nov 13, 2009
    10
    Wow, the negative ratings given by certain people on this website are slightly suspect, with some spent on criticizing aspects of the game that aren't a part of the Xbox 360 version... But on to the game itself. The single player was fantastic! Short of course, but there was enough quality in it that it kept me entertained the whole time, unlike what some other single player Wow, the negative ratings given by certain people on this website are slightly suspect, with some spent on criticizing aspects of the game that aren't a part of the Xbox 360 version... But on to the game itself. The single player was fantastic! Short of course, but there was enough quality in it that it kept me entertained the whole time, unlike what some other single player campaigns provide. The Multiplayer is top notch, with tons of new gadgets, awards, and other things to unlock. It's very balanced and is much more accessible than the last. The new co-op mode provides an interesting array of challenges for you to complete with a friend, although I would have liked to see more than two people for that mode. Remember that these anger spewing children don't properly represent the amount of quality and polish that went into Call of Duty Modern Warfare 2. I highly recommend this game to everyone. Well, as long as you aren't set to hate it before you try it at least.… Expand
Page:

Awards & Rankings

1
#1 Best Xbox 360 Game of 2009
1
#1 Most Discussed Xbox 360 Game of 2009
3
#3 Most Shared Xbox 360 Game of 2009

Critic Reviews

All reviews »
Metascore
94

Universal acclaim - based on 100 Critic Reviews

Critic score distribution:
  1. Positive: 100 out of 100
  2. Mixed: 0 out of 100
  3. Negative: 0 out of 100
  1. Telegraph
    100
    Modern Warfare 2 crosses into the must-have category of video games effortlessly. It offers an unmatched shooter experience, a compelling story mode, a slick package of mini missions and a multiplayer which is pretty much unparalleled in depth.
    Read full review
  2. Cynamite
    100
    Modern Warfare 2 offers epic gameplay, a stunning Spec-Ops mode and a huge amount of adrenaline.
    Read full review
  3. GamesRadar+
    100
    Anyone who already has issues with the single-player ‘style’ of IW’s games will still find fault with the scripted, linear experience, but in terms of sheer drama and show-stopping set-pieces accompanied by laser sharp FPS controls, Modern Warfare 2 is your daddy. And that’s without Spec Ops and Multiplayer.
    Read full review
See all critic reviews »