Ok, so are there any MP comparisons out? I'm wondering whether to get the PS3 or 360 version.
PS3 runs quieter and has free online (even though the network isn't as good as Live) but I prefer the 360 controller for shooters. So which has better graphics will swing it for me
And does the game still support 4 player split screen? Are all the maps playable in 4 player?
lens of truth has a comparison, 360 gets the slight win as expected. Better framerate, a bloom effect PS3 lacks, AA'd shadows PS3 lacks, and faster loading times.
IGN complained about the storytelling and Eurogamer said the storytelling was improved. Guess it depends what you like. Does sound a bit short though, but most single player games are pretty short nowadays. 4.5-5.5 hours is pushing it, but 8 hours is about normal unfortunately.
8-15 hours is fine. 4.5 hours...not worth it.
I wonder how they are measuring those numbers. I might be a bit over critical, as in CoD:WaW for instance, the (online) numbers seemed either very much off or to lag quite a bit behind. Maybe they're showing # active since the last n hours.
8-15 hours is fine. 4.5 hours...not worth it.
Btw, since Coop / Spec Ops is against AI, why are people not including that in the SP/Campaign "value"? I though Spec Op could be played Single Player?
People at GAF are saying there's 2m+ people online on the 360 version and 1m+ on the PS3 version. Remember, that's just online... in just 1 day! This game is gonna sell a shit load.
I had more friends on Live last night than I can remember in a long time--and on a weeknight. Something like 9 of 13 people were playing MW2. Pretty impressive considering it wasn't an organized event (like our B3D parties), it wasn't a weekend, it was Day 1 release (e.g. a number of us are waiting on mail delivery), and in regards to my friend's list I never played CoD4 MW1 on the Xbox 360 so I have no "CoD friends."
While I agree 4.5 is too short, I also think 8-15 hours is too short. $60 + tax is a lot for 8-15 hours when games like CoD4, Halo 3, Forza 3, BFBC, and even a fair number of arcade games best that easily. It is hard to get value out of SP games in terms of time played (my very point when a handful of people were aimlessly argueing 6 hour games were a good deal 3 years ago). It may be a good value to them (who am I to decide?) but I don't think an 8 hour game is "more value" than a 5 hour game -- they both suck. And I would take a really great 5 hour SP experience over a 15 hour slug fest anyday.
MP and Coop really are where the value are. And that seems where the replay/value in MW2 is. It seems like Coop may be longer and have more replay value than SP.
Btw, since Coop / Spec Ops is against AI, why are people not including that in the SP/Campaign "value"? I though Spec Op could be played Single Player?
I see MP etc as EXTRA value, not part of the value. I buy games for their single-player experience. And 8-15 hours is fine for me - because the experience is balanced, paced and works well as a convincing and enjoyable experience. A 5 hour game is none of those things.
Obv. I'd be buying a game for £30 including tax.
And I see MP as core value and SP tacked on for the ride :smile:
To each their own, I still stand by my own opinion that $60 is outrageous for 15 (or worse--8!) hours of gameplay. Different strokes, different folks. That is one reason why different reviewers with different tastes is good. Although I would protest that an amazing 5 hour game--every minute is of the best gaming available--is better than 15 hours of typical "85%" gaming. Not that any game has attained that (CoD4 was close imo for my tastes) but I will take short and sweet and move onto MP any day. But then again I have a low tolerance for SP--so dimiss my SP reviews unless you want something uber critical of SP designs.