Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Okay to my understanding, here's how it goes;
You're some dude that gets shot in the face in Russia or the Middle East (I cant quite remember which)
Now you're an American Marine that invades the middle east and gets nuked.
Nikolai and night vision sequence! Wheeeew!
There flashback of you trying to shoot the one armed guy in the face.
Ummm, you capture some dude at the safe house, get lead around, and around and around and around, and you capture another young dude in a jogging suit (well not quite because he shoots himself in the face)
Sooo, you're in Russia, and some rebels have some nukes, BMPs, guns guns guns, and a ton of bad guys (wouldn't the Russian military completely just swat them away like flies?)
Then you go down the river in a romantic little inflatable boat, avoiding rockets, helicopters, and well, more rockets and helicopters than you can shake a stick at, and then you see the one armed bad guy.
He tries to shoot you in the face. and misses, But you're bleeding out
Your buddy, some super badass English(?) Chuck Norris, who kills legions of soldiers with just a flick of the finger, ends in in a ruthless hand to hand combat with a guy that has one hand.
So you shoot him in the face, with a knife.

MW2 comes out annd:
You're an American soldier, in Afghanistan, who totally butchers a band of bad guys(though in not quite sure exactly who it is, as the other soldiers only call them militia)
Somehow, your general (who likes fighting on the streets with a pistol and no body armor) sends you to join the CIA.
The CIA makes you a double agent for some super bad man.
You go into an airport and butcher a ton of civilians
and then you get shot in the face( just so the Russians think it was the Americans (even two of your henchmen pals are left for dead too)
Umm, you bust that Chuck Norris fellow out of some super spooky castle place, go here, go there.
The aforementioned general guy shoots you in the face,
Then another boss-ish battle occurs and you kill him.


Am I missing something?
Am I trying to take the story mode too seriously?
Is it just a reoccurring tale of people getting shot in the face?
Or does this game lack any sort of flow or structure to it's story line?

Generally FPSs like MW focus on the mulitplayer leaving the story rather bland.

"Story" mode is just there because it is expected, not because they are actually selling the game on the merit of the campaign (which is unfortunate as too many games now give you a weak single player).

Actually the flow of the storyline was well made, they simply broke it down into two different paths where you can play as the gung ho americans, or the elite SAS. Its simply made that way to be more... flavourful in terms of gameplay. If you can't keep up with it then just stick to multiplayer if you just want to shoot people in the face.

It's not as bad as MW2. So a famous Russian war criminal marches through a high-security airport, without a mask, with dosens of witnesses and CCTV cameras, and with several of his Russian terrorist friends dying in the process, but because the police find one American corpse in the airport (and what was he doing there in the first place? Why not shoot the lot of them in the back while they were in the elevator? And why didn't the CIA explain what had happened?) the Russians launch a massive attack on the US knowing that they have no hope of winning and that, if they do, MAD will activate and the world will end anyway. Riiiiiiiiiight.

Its story is no worse than the average video game's story.










No, this isn't saying much.

I believe you mixed up the end of MW1 and MW2 in your write up.

Okay to my understanding, here's how it goes;
You're some dude that gets shot in the face in Russia or the Middle East (I cant quite remember which)
Now you're an American Marine that invades the middle east and gets nuked.
Nikolai and night vision sequence! Wheeeew!
There flashback of you trying to shoot the one armed guy in the face.
Ummm, you capture some dude at the safe house, get lead around, and around and around and around, and you capture another young dude in a jogging suit (well not quite because he shoots himself in the face)
Sooo, you're in Russia, and some rebels have some nukes, BMPs, guns guns guns, and a ton of bad guys (wouldn't the Russian military completely just swat them away like flies?)
Then you go down the river in a romantic little inflatable boat, avoiding rockets, helicopters, and well, more rockets and helicopters than you can shake a stick at, and then you see the one armed bad guy.
He tries to shoot you in the face. and misses, But you're bleeding out
Your buddy, some super badass English(?) Chuck Norris, who kills legions of soldiers with just a flick of the finger, ends in in a ruthless hand to hand combat with a guy
So you throw a knife in his face

is how MW2 ends.

in MW1, Price flicks his gun over to you and you shoot the one armed guy

Melissia wrote:Its story is no worse than the average video game's story.










No, this isn't saying much.

This. Like many video game story lines today, MW focuses on some contrived plot that moves along so fast that it will excite people who are just playing the game and not really paying attention to the fact the story makes little sense. Usually these story lines break on their basic premise, which is absurd in some way, or because the ending results in numerous plot holes because the writers tried to be 'clever' and failed.

You seem to have mixed together MW2 and MW1 when you get to the end...
As it is MW2 was really predicatble whilst MW1 wasn't so much...

Battle Brother Lucifer wrote:I believe you mixed up the end of MW1 and MW2 in your write up

in MW1, Price flicks his gun over to you and you shoot the one armed guy

Oh ya. My bad. I forgot, you shoot that guy in the face.

Replay the MW2 campaign on veteran again. Its pretty short, so you should be able to get through it fast.
When you replay the campaign, youll notice alot of things you didnt before, and get reinvloved in the actual stpryline rather than the gameplay behind it.
I did this and it really made me look into how much work they put into the mw storyline, which, although may lack a bit in some places, is actually very well done and enacted. For instance, upon first glance, the emp(or nuke?)ing of Washington seemed like just another mission in the entire campaign. Upon a second play through, it became one of my favorite and in my opinion the best representation a game could offer at a serious invasion of the us, and one of the most memorable video game scenes i can think of.

MW1 = good
MW2 = bad

nuff said

Ah yes, the "it was older so it was better" attitude...

That's not really true bombboy. MW1 introduced almost everything that was wrong with MW2.

bombboy1252 wrote:MW1 = good
MW2 = bad

nuff said

Agreed...especially at the point where you find out its the American general behind the whole war....so americans will be patriotic again.....

The story is very much an after thought. Multiplayer is where it's at. Very much like BF3 in that regard. I find that the single player gets you used to the way the games play, before jumping into the cutthroat world that is online multiplayer....


So, no the story sucks......

Most shooters nowadays have throw-away stories that are really just training for multiplayer - you know, this button for grenades, this button to reload, hey check out what this weapon can do! Heck, most Battlefield games until Bad Company have tossed a story mode out the window.

If you want in-depth, original stories nowadays, find a group and play a pen-and-paper RPG.

Melissia wrote:Ah yes, the "it was older so it was better" attitude...

No....it's not better because it's older, it's better because it's just an all a round better game.

Please don't assume things

If you ask me, the story isn't that bad...all of the "plot holes" are actually just gaps in the action where details are left out...because the player's perspective bounces around so much its easy to miss or simply not get some of the details of things that might be going on behind the scenes...

Also there are things like web comics and whatnot to fill you guys in on some of the stuff that's missing...

The other explanation is that its an ongoing franchise so of course not all of the questions will be answered...

The supposed plot hole about Makarov isn't really that bad...Yeah Makarov is a bad terrorist but the game never specifically says he's Russian anyway...the point is they found an American aiding terrorists...they already had a spy satellite that gave them the keys to America's early warning system...Russia itself is decently unstable...perfect storm...

An the one about Shepherd being the bad guy, I enjoyed that, it was sort of like a Tom Clancy twist...turns out the guy you've been fighting for the entire time set you up...

In my view...MW is like L4D in that bits of the story are scattered in the action and its up to the player to grab them...

It is what it is; a fairly light and throwaway piece designed to keep the player's interests and provide a background and connecting link between missions. It isn't designed to be high-end fiction; if it were, it would probably take away from the game. Let's be honest, any story you choose to name will have holes in it and you can pick apart most things if scrutinised closely enough. The USA will probably never be invaded in the manner that MW hypothesises but that doesn't mean that it isn't fun to throw out 'what if' scenarios. The whole point of the game is in involving a certain degree of suspension of disbelief - if you spend your time picking apart every single inconsistency then you are bound to be disappointed. Just enjoy it for what it is; a decent enough story that provides a background, context and motivation for why you are wandering around shooting things.

lordrevege wrote:Okay to my understanding, here's how it goes;
You're some dude that gets shot in the face in Russia or the Middle East (I cant quite remember which)
Now you're an American Marine that invades the middle east and gets nuked.
Nikolai and night vision sequence! Wheeeew!
There flashback of you trying to shoot the one armed guy in the face.
Ummm, you capture some dude at the safe house, get lead around, and around and around and around, and you capture another young dude in a jogging suit (well not quite because he shoots himself in the face)
Sooo, you're in Russia, and some rebels have some nukes, BMPs, guns guns guns, and a ton of bad guys (wouldn't the Russian military completely just swat them away like flies?)
Then you go down the river in a romantic little inflatable boat, avoiding rockets, helicopters, and well, more rockets and helicopters than you can shake a stick at, and then you see the one armed bad guy.
He tries to shoot you in the face. and misses, But you're bleeding out
Your buddy, some super badass English(?) Chuck Norris, who kills legions of soldiers with just a flick of the finger, ends in in a ruthless hand to hand combat with a guy that has one hand.
So you shoot him in the face, with a knife.

MW2 comes out annd:
You're an American soldier, in Afghanistan, who totally butchers a band of bad guys(though in not quite sure exactly who it is, as the other soldiers only call them militia)
Somehow, your general (who likes fighting on the streets with a pistol and no body armor) sends you to join the CIA.
The CIA makes you a double agent for some super bad man.
You go into an airport and butcher a ton of civilians
and then you get shot in the face( just so the Russians think it was the Americans (even two of your henchmen pals are left for dead too)
Umm, you bust that Chuck Norris fellow out of some super spooky castle place, go here, go there.
The aforementioned general guy shoots you in the face,
Then another boss-ish battle occurs and you kill him.


Am I missing something?
Am I trying to take the story mode too seriously?
Is it just a reoccurring tale of people getting shot in the face?
Or does this game lack any sort of flow or structure to it's story line?

But the comment: "wouldn't the Russian military completely just swat them away like flies?" touch me in my heat.
Russians to be the Good Guys? Why that would be stupid, everybody knows how evil they are and how good the America is. Besides, if Russians were the good guys then America couldn't show how awesome fire power it have or how special their solders are, killing thousands of enemy solders with his loyal M-16.
And of course the "golden rule" is that good guys always win and America can't loose to Russia because that would be bad for Army propaganda. That is why in almost every video game/ story out there Russians are always the bad guys ( who drink, fight, torture you and swear you to hell and back ) and they always lose in the most possible stupid way.
But seriously they need to start showing Russians and others in a little better light, people will think that their whole people is nothing more then world domination greedy bastards.

And of course the story is bad, it is all US propaganda with I am more than sick.
In WW 2 movies 1 US solder die and that is so tragic that half world is in regret while on the other hand they kill thousands of Germans in any way possible. And the only thing you can hear on that subject is: "Time to kill some Krauts."
In Vietnam movies it's the same story, 1 US marine die the whole world is sad. Millions of Vietnamese die and the only thing you can hear about the subject is: "Yeah!!!!! Rock and Roll Babu!!!!!!"
In cowboy movies 1 cowboy die whole solar system is sad, thousands Indians die, their land got stolen and the only thing you can hear on the subject is :"You boy, let us finish shooting this Indians and then we will go for some whiskey."
and so on....
I mean, people who live in US don't be offended by this is getting really old and really boring. Like in this "Battle: L.A." movie:
-MEN! You will today, more than ever, FIGHT FOR YOUR COUNTRY!!!
-But sir, the whole world is under atta...
-FOR OUR COUNTRY!!!

Wow, this are some emotions that needs releasing... AS for OP, story is bad but it could get worse. Like people here say: game was made for multiplayer and because of that the story is not great. But every latest CoD is becoming boring, to me CoD:UO is still the best one for both single and multiplayer.

bombboy1252 wrote:

Melissia wrote:Ah yes, the "it was older so it was better" attitude...

No....it's not better because it's older, it's better because it's just an all a round better game.

Please don't assume things

Thats what they all say.

If I am to understand the story correctly the Russian military was actually busy with some sort of mini-Civil War between loyalists and ultranationalists. The ultranationalists won in between MW1 and MW2 I believe and the Ultranationalists aren't too excited with the US to begin with. So the Russians change between MW1 and MW2.

Now as far as the story goes it was alright, I've seen it before and it didn't really make me feel anything when playing it. I think BF3 had more drama in it, but then again they've done most of that before and so have some movies.

I quite Enjoyed both campaigns CoD4 was probably my Favourite FPS game ive played. The new gameplay mechanics and enhanced multiplayer really sold me on the game. The Campaign i felt was original and carried nicely. Making you like the characters you played with and want to Further complete the story. MW2 was a a good sequel to the first it could of been better i would of liked to play some of the characters longer and get more in depth with what was happening i loved all the missions. Sure there were the missions thatd pissed you off to a point of breaking things but it didnt make the level bad. I have no discrepancies with Battlefield im sure the reasons for it being better the MW are there i just perfer the fictional story being told in Call of Duty = D

bombboy1252 wrote:Please don't assume things

Oh, I think you misunderstand my assumption-- I'm just assuming that it's older so you don't remember the plot holes it had as opposed to the second one

Modern Warfare was never that spectacular story-wise.

Or even the entire CoD franchise for that matter.

Melissia wrote:Or even the entire CoD franchise for that matter.

In CoD 1-3's defense, they literally had no story Just a sequence of missions with a loading screen where Random Soldier #5 told the player what was going on. Sequences of mission mostly ripped from WWII films too

Exactly.

MW2 isn't any worse than MW1...

Huffy wrote:

bombboy1252 wrote:MW1 = good
MW2 = bad

nuff said

Agreed...especially at the point where you find out its the American general behind the whole war....so americans will be patriotic again.....

Double agree. The story in MW2 is just so stupid. MW1 was fine.

Melissia wrote:

bombboy1252 wrote:Please don't assume things

Oh, I think you misunderstand my assumption-- I'm just assuming that it's older so you don't remember the plot holes it had as opposed to the second one

Modern Warfare was never that spectacular story-wise.

Or even the entire CoD franchise for that matter.

Actually I replayed MW1 about a week or two ago, I liked it a bit, but that might just be my nostalgia from when I was a younger...I still think at least multiplayer wise, MW1 was far...FAR better than the second, because it relied on actually shooting and getting kills, instead of who can get the most kills with their kill streaks, so they could get a better kill streak.

It's the gaming equivalent of an Arnie movie. Brainless but fun.