http://arstechnica.com/gaming/2009/11/dancing-with-the-devil-ars-reviews-modern-warfare-2-pc.arsIt's a tricky thing to be a PC gamer who wants to play Modern Warfare 2. We weren't sure we'd get an advance copy from Activision, so we went to a local game store and put our money down to make sure there would be a copy waiting for us on launch day. (If we complain about preorders in the future, be sure to point out this hypocrisy.) When I went to pick up the game, the store manager let me know that I was the number four pre-order for the PC version of the game. He then told me he had over 400 orders for the Xbox 360 version.
It's hardly a scientific poll, but when one version of the game outsells the other 100 to 1, it's hard to feel like you're part of a demographic the publisher is going to listen to. When the time came to pick up the game, the clerk couldn't find it. It was tucked away in the back, with no display, and I was the first person who came in to get their copy. No PC gamers attended the midnight launch. I was asked, more than once, if I was sure I wanted this version. Even if you bought on Steam, you have to wait until November 13 to play it, which is weird since the game uses Steamworks copy protection and requires a Steam account to play. It seems retail was cut a break on this one.
The game is $60, which is $10 more than PC games usually cost. Without any licensing fees on the PC, publishers usually price the game slightly lower than its console counterpart. Activision decided to simply take the larger profit margin. There will be no dedicated servers, and you know the rest of our beefs with the PC version of the game. This is a game by a company that doesn't seem to care about PC gaming anymore, and the community has responded with boycotts and threats of piracy and other such nonsense.
Here's the problem with all the righteous indignation: it's about servers and politics and feeling important, not the actual game printed on the disc. That's what we'll be looking at today.
Once you start up the title, it becomes very apparent that you're dealing with what appears to be a direct port of the console versions of the game: there isn't even a menu to adjust your mouse settings on the title screen. You have to enter the game and hit escape before you can tweak the settings.
The game begins by asking if you'd like to be asked to skip a mission "some players may find disturbing or offensive." We're told this won't affect game completion, it will simply give us the option of skipping that content later in the game. I chose yes, just so the game will tell me what I might be offended by. Wouldn't want to miss it! I'll get into it a bit further down in the review, but if you're squeamish, or don't handle this sort of thing well, this may not be the game for you. There is no flinching from graphic violence or complex issues.
Of course, any game with a thrilling snowmobile chase where you fire an automatic handgun gangsta-style probably isn't the most politically aware creature on the market, and the sobering moments are mixed with Rambo-style theatrics. It can be jarring.
It can also be hard. A few bullets is more than enough to take you down, although by simply avoiding fire for a few minutes you'll heal all your wounds. Your screen will often by filled with your own blood, however, which can sometimes make you feel like something of a bullet sponge. Keep moving, look above and below you at all times, and always stay as aware as possible. If you try to rush these missions, you'll be stuck replaying the same segment over and over as you get shot to pieces.
The game is intense, almost numbingly so. You'll try your hand at firing an impressive array of weapons, you'll remember that survival is by no means guaranteed, and you'll be treated to a few vehicle segments that break up the action nicely without overstaying their welcome. The story, involving invasions and double-agents (or are they triple-agents?!?) and all sorts of over-the-top intrigue, can easily be ignored. You've played war games before, but the Modern Warfare world is dominated by quotes by Dick Cheney and Nathan Hale, and every character in the game thinks that problems are just one dead soldier or razed capital away from being fixed.
The graphics are strong, with many striking images throughout that I won't discuss for the obvious reasons. There aren't many innovations in the single-player game; the HUD is self-explanatory, the controls all make sense if you've played other FPS titles, and you'll know what to do with each item from the impressive array of weaponry. There is now a graphical indication on the screen of where to go next and how far away the section is, and the game autosaves often; you'll rarely be sent very far backward when you die. What makes the Modern Warfare series stand out is the heavy scripting, precise action, and unflinching look at this idea of war. If the first game made you squirm, you haven't seen anything yet.
It's a violent, one-dimensional world where might makes right, and the atmosphere is oppressive. All of these design decisions work together to create a compelling, blood-soaked setting. The campaign moves along at a breathless pace, and by the time you've put the seven hours or so into the game that it takes to see the credits your ears will be ringing and your shoulder may feel a little bruised by the idea of all those virtual guns being fired relentlessly.
This isn't a game that glorifies violence—situations and characters such as this aren't attractive—it's a game that overloads you with it. You'll be asked to take part in some repugnant things, and many of the peripheral details will stick with you. You'll want to talk about the single-player campaign long after it's done, and it's clear that people are going to have strong opinions one way or the other.
How do we feel about the controversial segment where you become part of a terrorist act? It's hard to watch. The actual mission that has gained all this controversy is, in all honesty, pretty shocking stuff. The game slows down; you can't run. You have to walk slowly through the scene, watching innocents gunned down. They scream. They try to crawl away. They hold their wounds and moan. You can pull the trigger, or you can just watch. But you're holding a gun—you're a part of this. If you decide not to play this mission, you get a cut-scene. Why is this section of the game playable? What does it add? That's a huge question, with many different answers. I'm not saying the section makes the game better, but it certainly will get people talking. But, yes: it is just as bad as people are saying, and just as hard to take.
Am I glad I played the game? Yes. Can I see myself replaying it? Maybe not. It's satisfying to step into the shoes of people who are so uncompromising, and the game is brilliant at creating the feeling of moral vacuum, but it's not exactly a feeling that's comfortable, or even fun. During many scenes, I found myself simply emptying clips into houses, knowing there could be innocents inside. Why not? I was trying to survive, and in the thick of things it was hard to tell civilians from soldiers. Yes, it's just a game, and these are just pixels on a screen, but pixels and actions are enough to create a powerful emotional reaction.
This is very impressive stuff, not in terms of storytelling exactly, but as a tone poem about warfare. For those buying the game only for the single-player, they will most likely walk away from the game a little sooner than they hoped, but satisfied nonetheless.
MultiplayerThis is what made PC gamers upset, and I have to say, they have reason to be. The game maxes out at 18 players—nine vs. nine—and instead of relying on dedicated servers, the game randomly assigns one of the players as the server during the match-making process.
It's like Xbox Live invaded your PC. This system is fine for consoles, but computer gamers aren't used to this lack of control over their experience. There is no way to decide who hosts the game, and there is no way to keep yourself from hosting if the system decides you're the best choice. You don't even see your ping, just how many bars you have showing the strength of your connection. That's frustrating when you're used to being able to see your specific ping.
If you want to play with your friends without "pubbies," you have to set up a private match, and, again, one of you will be selected to host the game. If that player quits, the game will pause for five seconds while another player is selected to serve as host. There is no way to upload maps, there is no way to modify the game outside of what the menu allows, and of course there is no console to tweak anything. It's odd to hit the tilde button and have nothing happen. Unless they change this system extensively, it doesn't seem like custom maps will be possible.
It's frustrating to feel so controlled and boxed in, but the game itself remains fun. You'll be leveling up and unlocking new weapons and perks, and the expanded Killstreak bonuses add a whole new level to the game. With just three kills in a row you'll be able to check out enemy positions using an unmanned vehicle; with 25 kills in a row you can drop a nuke and kill everyone on the board. In between those two options are 13 other bonuses that can turn the tide of battle rather quickly. There are also bonuses given if you die too often, which is a nice way to keep demoralized players from rage-quitting, but can make you feel... somewhat special.
The game ships with 16 maps, and eight game modes from Free-For-All to Demolition. You'll see Capture the Flag, Sabotage, Domination; these are all modes you've played before, but the sheer variety provides a great deal of replay value. The ability to level up and create a more powerful character through Perks and weapons also gives you more reason to stick with the game; earning points by killing people online can get very addictive very quickly. Thankfully, grenade spam does not to seem to have taken hold in the games I've been playing.
You'll be able to see who killed you and how via the kill cam, and everyone on the server gets to watch the last kill of the match, which can be a funny experience if something spectacular happened. Also, with the proper practice, riot shields used correctly can open some interesting doors. The person holding the shield can't fire, but can provide moving cover for someone else and bash people directly in front of them. In case you were bored with all the stuff you could unlock in the first Modern Warfare, you're in luck: there are more guns, more perks, more modifications to the weapons; you'll be grinding away happily for a long, long time.
There are also online playlists, such as 3rd Person Teams, that are only unlocked as you gain levels. If you were addicted to the online play of the original Modern Warfare, you'll find a lot to love here, and I have to admit I've been having a good time getting my ass kicked by 13-year-olds online. The problem is, quite simply, lag. Every time I get into a multiplayer game on the PC I find a few good servers where my ping is low, and make them my favorites. Here, there is no way to do that, and every game is going to have differing amounts of lag. Since the host changes so often, there is no way to make sure you get a consistent experience. This is what we'll miss with dedicated servers.
Without being able to set up a LAN or run a server with your own settings, the possibility of this game being embraced by competitive gamers is basically zero. Infinity Ward wants to bring the console online experience to the PC, and it certainly did that. The problem is that it comes with a host of problems that PC gamers are, understandably, upset about having to endure.
Are these things deal-breakers? That's up to you. Any complaints will probably fall on deaf ears, however, as the PC sales will be fraction of what the game enjoys on the consoles. The PC version of the game isn't bad. I only ran into one crash that I couldn't reproduce, the graphics look beautiful if you have a high-end system, and the mouse and keyboard are a much better way to control the game... it's simply the multiplayer system which is so unsatisfactory.
Special OpsIf you're looking for a more intimate online experience, the Special Ops missions are your answer. Invite a friend (the game notes that the player with the fastest CPU should host) and you take on a series of different challenges.
You'll be clearing the path for your friend from an elevated position, sniping targets, clearing out open areas and trying not to hit civilians; these are short blasts of gameplay that stress speed, precision, and teamwork. You'll need to communicate to earn the maximum number of stars, and your skills will certainly be put to the test.
These missions may seem like an afterthought between the single-player game and the wider multiplayer offerings, but with a good friend they are a surprising amount of fun. Many people are complaining about the short length of the single-player game, and the Special Ops missions certainly add a number of hours to the game. How many? That depends on how much of a perfectionist you are.
In conclusionThe early reviews of this game were conducted at a hotel under Activision's supervision, using the console version of the game. The launch party in New York featured the 360 version of the game. We were sent the Prestige Edition of the game the day of release for coverage. Very few people at the company seem to care that yes, there is a PC port of the game.
Well, we care, dammit. Call of Duty came from the PC gaming scene, and it was there that it was popularized. Yes, consoles are now the dominant form of gaming from a financial standpoint, but it's sad to see a game that has such a rich history on our favorite platform feel so neglected in its newest incarnation. The port of the single-player campaign is strong; the game looks, plays, and feels incredible on a capable gaming PC. The Special Ops missions are perfect if you're in the mood for a teeny-tiny LAN party (although of course you'll both need Steam accounts to play), but the multiplayer offerings feel like Infinity Ward is trying to cram a round peg into a square hole.
It's not what we're used to, it's not what we want, and the changes made to the online matchmaking set-up and lack of dedicated servers negatively change the online experience. It's just that simple.
There is no easy verdict here, but I'm going to say skip the PC version. Why? The single-player is over quickly. The Special Ops missions are great but there are better co-op games out there. The multiplayer is going to be huge on consoles, but on the PC it's just crippled. There is a lot of fun to be had here, but there are way better ways to spend your money, especially with the $60 price.
The Good
* Strong, disturbing single-player game
* Looks, plays great on the PC
* Killstreaks in multiplayer are a great addition
* Online play is still addictive
* Good selection of maps and game modes
* Special Ops missions extend the life of the game, great with a friend online
The Bad
* Single-player is over quickly
* The actual story is a little bit on the paranoid, gun-porn side of things
* Console-style online play on the PC
* $60 for a PC release? No thanks, guys
* Both the company and retailers barely seems to care about the PC version
The Ugly
* Huge design problems with the multiplayer version
* The game is already in the expected places. PC gamers will feel spurned and pirate, and Activision will claim they don't support the PC better because of piracy
Verdict: Skip
