Crysis 2 writer: Modern Warfare 2 'an immense disappointment'

[Ares]

Crysis 2 writer: Modern Warfare 2 'an immense disappointment'
Friday 9-Apr-2010 5:24 PM

"Infinity Ward are too impressed with themselves," says Richard Morgan
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."

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."

Check out our first look at Crysis 2 here. We reckon it's the best-looking game on any console ever. Seriously.

Source:CVG

 

[Nemo128]

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.

Is he retarded? It was plenty plausible and it resolved up to the point they wanted it to. Also, how did it make no sense? Maybe he needs to pay more attention to politics and international diplomacy (or lack thereof) for the last couple decades.

 

[j_garcia]

IMO, the story in MW2 wasn't quite as good as Modern Warfare, but this game was more fun to play. A few of my favorite scenarios are in the first one, but this one was a better game overall EXCEPT for the ending. The ending was a bit of a letdown after all that great build up; it wasn't that same kind of intense ending as the first one. You have that "what happens next" feeling in the first one, and though this one was also shocking, it felt a little too predictable.

It doesn't matter if it is plausible, it is a GAME.

 

[Zaluss]

Gameplay aside, MW2 storyline was disappointing. It DID feel very unrealistic and yes I know its a game but look at the game and see what they are trying to accomplish.

Gameplay was meh, WoW and COD4 were better imo.

 

[Shock]

What I think he meant was that futuristic, post apocalypic gameplay, with aliens and lazers is much more plausible.

 

[j_garcia]

It felt a bit extreme at times, but only a few scenarios were that way IMO. The majority of the game was good, however I do agree that it felt more like a bunch of random missions than a single story line, but the first one wasn't too much different in that respect.

What I think he meant was that futuristic, post apocalypic gameplay, with aliens and lazers is much more plausible.

LOL. That's exactly what I was thinking while watching that trailer.

 

[SopRage]

Playing Modern Warfare 2 for the story is like dating a supermodel for the small talk.

It's clear that MW2 was focused on adrenaline and spectacle. If the snowmobile chase didn't make it clear, nuance and "realism" weren't exactly priority one.

 

[j_garcia]

It isn't one of the best games ever made, but I enjoyed playing it and IMO, that is sort of the point of a game.

 

[Ito]

MW2's story line wasn't exactly the disappointing part...

 

[Serj22]

Does anyone even remember the storyline for Crysis? Cause I sure as hell don't. That was an extemely forgettable game. "But it has the best graphics ever!" so what, it sucked.

 

[Nemo128]

I'll agree, MW felt more fluid in the story and the ending was stronger. But I still think MW2 was better than most of the games we've seen lately.

Also, every mission is challenging on veteran. I didn't bother playing on a lower difficulty than that, and man, it's intense and difficult on veteran.

 

[Serj22]

I'll agree, MW felt more fluid in the story and the ending was stronger. But I still think MW2 was better than most of the games we've seen lately.

Also, every mission is challenging on veteran. I didn't bother playing on a lower difficulty than that, and man, it's intense and difficult on veteran.

It truly is difficult, it's even difficult to get the game to recommend you play vetreran, but I played it anyway on my 360 copy. Got all the achievements in that and the CO-op games. It's literally the only 360 game I have where I have a perfect score acheivement wise, I played the hell out of it.

Crysis, if I can remember correctly was about fighting aliens on an island, but no one cared, the end. That was the story I remember, wheras MW2 has betrayal, set-ups, over-achieving jerks who take credit for your stuff and will murder people to get it, multiple character perspectives, cameos of old characters, and a cliff-hanger ending. At least they blatantly set it up for a sequal. I think people who rant about mw2 just do so to follow a crowd. The missions are not random and the story makes sense. You fight on the homefront defending the country, and on the away front as a Brittish operative. Just because it switches back and forth, does not make it random. Every single call of duty swapped sides throughout the game.

 

[TheJuggernaut]

Add another one to the "dislike MW2" club. I was very disappointed by the single player campaign. Multiplayer, for me, got very old very fast. I think Crysis brought much more to the FPS genre, and I think MW1 brought more than both of them.

Just my opinion.

 

[j_garcia]

The storyline in the first one held together better than the second one and they felt more related. MW2 sort of felt like "Lions for Lambs" - the jumps between the two were pretty massive. I don't mind it; it is expected in these games by now, but it sometimes makes the game feel less linear even though the events are going on concurrently.

 

[Nemo128]

It's literally the only 360 game I have where I have a perfect score acheivement wise, I played the hell out of it.

Same, the only achievement that took me a bit was running The Pit in 30 seconds. Took me about half an hour of trying before I got it down. I can repeat it without missing a beat now.

 

[Serj22]

Same, the only achievement that took me a bit was running The Pit in 30 seconds. Took me about half an hour of trying before I got it down. I can repeat it without missing a beat now.

I got a good tactic I developed for it, I put down the machine gun and pick up a second pistol. You don't get yelled at for not aiming down the sights, and you have more than enough rounds in both guns to not reload and pick off all the targets. It also keeps stray bullets from flying into civilians.

The first Modern Warfare was merely an introduction to the war at hand (the one in the game) and it was dramatic. It also jumped a lot. The whole first person thing as Al-Asad was cool, don't get me wrong, but I know one of you made him look down and noticed he was just a floating head with no legs or a body. You jumped from the US Rangers, or maybe it was the marines, I don't remember, and then you'd jump to the SAS, where the story happened. ALl you did as an American was fought to get to an objective, and the SAS contained the real story, so I think it was a good jump in the 2nd one to contain the US as part of the story as well. Also, saving Whiskey Hotel was a really awesome battle.