-
Ever wanted an RSS feed of all your favorite gaming news sites? Go check out our new Gaming Headlines feed! Read more about it here.
-
We have made minor adjustments to how the search bar works on ResetEra. You can read about the changes here.
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 2 Campaign Remastered rated for PS4 in Europe
- Thread starter SolidSnakex
- Start date
The original version was 6-7 hours. Remake/remaster will likely be similar. It's interesting how in recent years this length has somehow become a problem. The original Call of Duty was 7 hours long, and nobody questioned why the game was full price. It's no wonder the AAA industry jumped on the open world train to pad game length.
edit: $30 is a likely price.
Are you for real? The new Infinity Ward are an exceptional studio run by top notch talent (they recruited the lead developer of The Last of Us and a selection of other Naughty Dog developers). Did you play Infinite Warfare's campaign?
Last edited:
I'll be honest, if I could get a remastered version of the campaign without multiplayer for a cheap price, I'd prefer that.
I'm sure a remake of one of the most beloved singleplayer FPS games of all time will struggle to move units.
Fuck yes. MWR was amazingly well done and faithful. If it's done with the same quality, I am hyped.
If they get rid of no Russian I'll be upset though.
Also, mutliplayer was amazing, so hopefully they'll eat do that do. But I honestly am just happy we are getting at least the campaign.
If they get rid of no Russian I'll be upset though.
Also, mutliplayer was amazing, so hopefully they'll eat do that do. But I honestly am just happy we are getting at least the campaign.
Most of the players will certainly buy or order the newest CoD for MW2:R Multiplayer for sure. Activision will see that coming. My best guess is when CoD 2019 pre-orders gone live, those who pre-ordered the game will get instantly key for MW2:R. (Let that happen Activision)
A couple of years ago I made that fan cover art.
A couple of years ago I made that fan cover art.
Why would they sell the multiplayer portion at all? They want people playing MW4. There is zero benefit to them splitting the userbase of a game guaranteed to sell 20-30 million copies. If you want MW2 maps, characters, etc, then you buy MW4.
They're almost certainly remaking MW3's campaign as well. Why would they want to remake MW3's MP and further split their userbase when they could simply add MW3 content to MW4? Standalone releases are justified for singleplayer games. They aren't justified for MP games, and that's why the annual release model for MP games has so many problems. The annual releases of CoD games are largely justified by the campaigns. Otherwise they could keep updating a single game for a decade or so.
Yeah, I always suspected it's going to be SP only, it's the most logical move for them to concentrate together all of the player-base into a single game where they'll push microtransactions. I'm guessing they'll remake some of MW2's popular maps like Terminal and Highrise for this year's COD (which is probably going to be MW4) to compensate for this. I'm fine with that tbh, loved the campaign and I'm in for new MW action.
At this point i'd almost guarantee MW4's multiplayer is a copy and paste of MW2's with stuff like OMA dropped and a few maps swapped in for new ones and weapons reskinned besides the classics.
At least they're emphasizing the lack of multiplayer right there in the title.
Can't see that will do too much good for sales however.
Can't see that will do too much good for sales however.
I'm probably in the minority but I thought MW2's campaign was disappointing, coming from MW1. The latter was a revolutionary and shocking way to deliver a war story, whereas the sequel tried to capitalize on the shock value while being thinner on content and not adding a whole lot to a good story, just making it convoluted for the sake of it. You can almost feel the whole No Russian thing was made specifically to cause controversies, especially considering that mission amounts to nothing ultimately considering how it ends. And let's not get started on the fact that the nuke sequence was unique and thrilling in MW1
, so much that they decided to rehash it and have the player live through that kinda shit like 4 times in the game, making it almost a meme where you half expect to
every mission. The setpieces were great, the action explosive, but overall it didn't have the same qualities as MW1 imho.
Having said all that, if they remaster MW2 and MW3 down the line, I'll probably do a remastered run through all of them. Not on a high difficulty though, this time, as there was some infuriating crap in the trilogy (I still have 'Nam flashbacks about the endless wave of enemies where you had to run to the chopper in MW1).
due to the impactful death of the player's character
die
Having said all that, if they remaster MW2 and MW3 down the line, I'll probably do a remastered run through all of them. Not on a high difficulty though, this time, as there was some infuriating crap in the trilogy (I still have 'Nam flashbacks about the endless wave of enemies where you had to run to the chopper in MW1).
This, along with MWR being a PS+ title definitely points to MW4 this year. Can't say that gets me excited, but I know a lot of long-time fans will eat it up.
I'm not surprised at the lack of multiplayer, given that MWR split the playerbase for Infinite Warfare, so both games felt underpopulated from the get-go (and only got worse with time).
I'm not surprised at the lack of multiplayer, given that MWR split the playerbase for Infinite Warfare, so both games felt underpopulated from the get-go (and only got worse with time).
Honestly with MW4 im expecting 50% old maps (Highrise, Sub Base, Favelea, Derail, Estate and either 1 of Skidrow, Rundown, Underpass, Quarry or Invasion)
I'd also bet
MW2's ACR
MW2's FAMAS
MW2's Vector
MW2's Intervention
in addition to mainstays
M16
P90
MP5
AK47(possibly listed as a newer model)
also
Chopper Gunner
AC-130
Releasing a Call of Duty game every year by itself splits the userbase. It also hasn't stopped Activision from using season passes for maps and selling the original COD4 DLC maps as DLC for COD4 remastered.
There is a world of difference between releasing a new Call of Duty every year on a rotating sub-series, and releasing three games in the same subseries in the same year. (Assuming MW3's campaign remaster is also coming this year.)
You are looking at a situation where Activision are potentially releasing Modern Warfare 2, Modern Warfare 3, and Modern Warfare 4 in the same year. It is not in their interests to spread MP users across three games. Imagine trying to manage those three communities. Imagine trying to balance content across the three games. It's a nightmare. Why would you do that when you could add MW2/MW3 content to MW4? Doing that would strengthen MW4. Releasing MP remakes of MW2/3 weakens MW4. Modern Warfare Remastered was also hurt by its MP. The campaign was universally acclaimed. The MP was contentious. Poisoned the well. That is baggage that does not benefit the series. No MP is better than MP that attracts negativity towards the game.
There's another factor. Releasing SP-only campaign remakes is a firm statement towards the importance of singleplayer from Activision. By releasing MW2/3 campaign remakes prior to MW4, or alongside it, they directly increase anticipation and interest in MW4's campaign. They want people to care about the story and characters of Modern Warfare 4 by reintroducing a generation of players who haven't played Modern Warfare 1/2/3 to them via remakes. (It's no accident that Modern Warfare Remastered is free on PS+ in March.) It's the same reason Naughty Dog released the Uncharted Collection a year before Uncharted 4 released.
And they need to use old maps in the new game because that's how to cheat at making maps.
Yeah, the SP was good. The Multiplayer (the main selling point) on the other hand was tier 1 trash.
Not sure why anyone would trust them to make it the same as it was, MWR's MP came out with 10 maps (though they added some more, but not all of them I believe?) ran like shit and while they promised no loot boxes.... they added loot boxes! not only that but loot boxes with loot box only guns and they were pretty powerful! The game didn't even have a giant user base at that point so I can't imagine how much they wasted implementing that shit.
If they did a MW2R, it would came out with not all of the starting maps and loot box guns.
If they did a MW2R, it would came out with not all of the starting maps and loot box guns.
My assumption is it'll be bundled with Modern Warfare 4, much like MWR was. I could be wrong though.
As much as I love that campaign and its score, I wont be buying if theres no MP. Thats what everyone fucking wants. Dont fuck it up on the tenth anniversary, activision.
It's only the main selling point to the multiplayer audience. Sure, multiplayer gamers outnumber singleplayer ones by a huge margin. But you're essentially dealing with two different games in the same package, by different teams. It's more than a little irritating how entwined they become. A developer makes the best game they possibly can, but because people who aren't interested in their game hate the OTHER game made by a different team but sold in the same box, their game gets labeled as "Shit", and so on.
Imagine if Red Dead Redemption 2 as a whole had a reputation as a "shit" game on the grounds that RDR Online is bad.
Last edited:
I guess they could just smoosh MW2 and MW3's MP since they're kinda similar and just make THAT MW4's multiplayer? That would be a strange part in the reveal tho wouldn't it? They'd have to explain that MW4 is more of a MW Remastered collection. Even then the main issue they'd run into is that MW3 had a "package system" where you'd pick what role you wanted to play out of Assault, Support, or Specialist and your scorestreaks would change with whatever role you picked. And on top of that MW2 has KILLSTREAKS while MW3 has SCORESTREAKS. Damn, I just don't know where they're going with this.
Heh. Is that a Switch reference or am I missing something?
Black Ops Remastered should have came with Black Ops 4.
Watch them charge 60 bucks just for the campaign, with the Spec Ops mode being an extra 20...
That said, if you don't even include Spec Ops at all then fuck off Activision.
That said, if you don't even include Spec Ops at all then fuck off Activision.
They ain't going to pick MW3 stuff besides maybe a map or two.
The game wasn't nearly as well liked, and kinda hurt the MW brand.
It was the studios low point and they struggled to get it out.
A lot of important people have come back after leaving during the fallout with MW2's release.
Had MWR not released it would have been a heavy combo of MW1 and MW2's MP,
as is though I expect little from MW1 or MW3
which is a bit sad because they probably don't think people want something like Overgrown and Crash a 4th time(COD4, MW2,MWR) but those maps are far better than getting something like Nuketown every single Black Ops.
Last edited:
My favorite CoD of all time but I don't think the multiplayer portion of this game will ever get remastered because Activision scared of heavy playerbase splitting, they're going all-in with Modern Warfare 4, they re-acquired a lot of guys from Respawn and I don't think they'll want to cripple their newest game with releasing a behemoth like MW2R Multiplayer. Modern Warfare 2 is a game that never received proper post-launch support and even that couldn't stop it becoming the best CoD multiplayer for many. MW4 has to be extremely successful only then they might release MW2R Multiplayer at some point but definitely not at launch.
For singleplayer it will going to be cool to see some of these iconic missions in a modern engine especially my favorite the Second Sun.
From the developer Mohammad Alavi;
For singleplayer it will going to be cool to see some of these iconic missions in a modern engine especially my favorite the Second Sun.
From the developer Mohammad Alavi;
That disregards the nuances of game design and balance. I don't like CoD4's multiplayer, and I wasn't a big fan of MW3's multiplayer, but I love MW2's multiplayer. And yet the three share extremely similar characters, settings, weapons, etc. Different studios have different design philosophies, even in approaching a series as allegedly cookie-cutter as Call of Duty. Those even change between games by the same studios as they listen to feedback and reevaluate what they thought worked or didn't work for their last game. It's these philosophies more than anything that lead me to playing or skipping a Call of Duty multiplayer title in any given year. If they were similar enough that you could just update a single game for a decade and have it result in the same experience, then why do I feel so divisive about each entry?
Imagine if Call of Duty 4 had been published by Valve. Instead of releasing sequels, they would have continued to add content to Modern Warfare and changed it patch by patch. (While stuff like Black Ops would have been a different series.) Team Fortress 2 is a very, very, very different game to the Team Fortress 2 that released back in 2007. Some argue it's a significantly worse game. That's the peril of this model, and it's worth reflecting on. People get upset about relatively minor changes to Call of Duty games. Imagine radical changes taking place over several years.
Call of Duty currently uses a somewhat archaic design model where a studio will release standalone game every year or two, essentially intended to replace the old one. Think Quake 1, Quake 2, Quake 3. Most of the industry left this behind, particularly once Valve paved the way. Look at something like PUGB or Fortnite: Battle Royale. You're not gonna see PUGB 2 anytime soon. They will continue to change PUGB over the next decade. Apex Legends will be updated for years to come. EA/Respawn are not gonna make Apex Legends 2 anytime soon if they can avoid it.
Warframe was released 6 years ago. There's no indication Digital Extremes plan to release a second Warframe. Instead, they keep adding new content to the existing game, porting the existing game to new platforms, and things like that. That totally suits the co-op market.
This leaves Call of Duty in an odd position. For example, look at Black Ops 4. What is the POINT of Black Ops 5 in three years? (Other than an awesome Treyarch singleplayer campaign we've been robbed of for years.) Why create a new Black Ops game when you could modify the existing one, adding a swathe of new content and engine improvements, retaining existing players and gaining a steady stream of new ones? The campaigns have provided the underlying justification to release new games instead of patching old ones. Multiplayer games are fundamentally not suited to annual releases and sequels in general. Multiplayer games are far better suited to live service-type affairs. Slowly patching MP game 1.0 into MP game 2.0 is easy and practical. Patching in a new singleplayer campaign has problems. It's well established that audiences don't play singleplayer story DLC. You have basically no choice but to release singleplayer sequels as "new" standalone releases.
Activision already have Call of Duty Online in China. They've been dabbling with the idea of transitioning Call of Duty to an ongoing live service for a while now. You've also got the Call of Duty Mobile game that mashes a bunch of popular CoD games into a single experience. This presents a giant problem for the campaigns, though. Singleplayer story experiences and live service games aren't exactly conducive. Remember when Valve used to make Half-Life games instead of live service multiplayer games?
Audiences will buy new singleplayer games. They want to buy them. Audiences do not want to buy new MP games that other publishers and developers would treat as free updates for a game they already own. The underlying business model of Call of Duty is eroding. It'll hold strong for a few years more, but it can't be sustained long-term. People want their MP games to come with seasons, not sequels.