Over a week ago I started jotting down my thoughts and impressions of Call of Duty: MW 2 after completing the game in one frantic, sleepless night. It got a bit out of control though and so I have separated my initial post in 2 parts.

In the first part I explained what components make up a game`s “soul” and what makes some games stand out for me personally. Still I think it would come as a surprise for most people that I was rather disappointed by newest installment in the legendary Call of Duty franchise.

Maybe I should clarify here that I actually haven`t finished the first game, in fact I didn`t get past the 3rd mission. I thought the game was too simple and shallow in terms of features, you basically could run, jump, crouch, aim and shoot. This combined with the linearity of the levels was enough for me to abandon the game. I cannot explain why I felt Call of Duty 4 was supposed to be different, I`m perfectly OK with linear straight forward shooters normally.

Anyway, lets get back to the sequel

I started right away with the idea of playing through the whole campaign in one sitting. The game provided me with the minimal amount of background needed to start shooting at random people and I did it. The undercover mission with the civilian-massacre at the Zakhaev airport in Moscow didn`t make me hate me Makarov and I didn`t like the “good guys” more.

I even thought the story was too naive, in fact joking with the player in a way. So much for the believability of the game with such a moronic plot.

You take the role of Sergeant Gary “Roach” Sanderson from the elite counter-terrorism unit Task Force 141 and Private James Ramirez from the U.S. Army for most of the game. Around the end you get a chance to slip in the dirty pants of Captain “Soap” MacTavish (the main character from Modern Warfare 1).

In terms of action, I had a blast throughout the whole game. Especially the more open areas like in Rio de Janeiro offered amazingly action-packed combat. Although playing merely on “normal” difficulty, I was completely lost a couple of times among the sheds of the ghetto, running for my life with bullets flying all around. Those sections I enjoyed the most. I really liked the diversity of areas but I still think that the game doesn`t get the chance to bore you simply because of its short length.

So why am I disappointed since I had so much fun?

1. Well, I did not care for any of the characters. All I felt when “Roach” gets killed was positive surprise and respect for the development team for the well executed plot twist. The game didn`t get me at all to empathize with the character whose role I was taking. You cannot get a dramatic experience without complete immersion in the game and you can`t immerse yourself when you don`t feel anything for your character, be it love, disgust or at least some respect. Of couse as I`ve written last time, the whole emotional experience of a game depends on a lot of personal factors. For instance, an American might get more emotionally involved when he sees the burning suburbs of northeastern Virginia.

2. The other thing that kind of ruined my experience was that I didn`t feel in control. All too often I felt as if watching a movie or simply being dragged around by a bunch of people who spontaneously get new ideas to do random things without a major idea or a plan. This was the major deal-breaker for me.

Why do I compare CoD with Crysis?

Initially I wanted to bash Crysis, too, when I was thinking about what to write. The thing is, through the act of laying my thoughts down for the post, I have come to realize that what annoyed me the most about Modern Warfare 2 was the lack of sense of control (both of the character and of the events).

Exactly that element was very well executed in Crysis and its stand-alone expansion Crysis: Warhead. You got the ultimate feeling of being in control, you were the hunter in the woods and the dangerous thing hidden in the darkest shadow. The game was hyped with its state of the art visuals and realism but what made it fun for me was tactically combining the powers of the nano suit to defeat your enemies.

Of course, Crysis failed, too, in the other aspect where I criticized Call of Duty: you don`t get to emotionally live out the events with the characters. I didn`t give a rat`s ass about the characters in Crytek`s creation.

Eye candy or deeper meaning?

I think both titles tried to stake too much on “eye candy” and visually pleasing representation. That`s not a bad point at all!

Kudos to Infinity Ward for the HUMONGOUS amounts of detail in the levels of their game. That`s the thing that visually impressed me the most about CoD: MW2. You run through many tight areas and have barely seconds to gaze upon literally mountains of items and junk from the everyday life of people who really inhabit those places. Textures may not have the highest resolution but every single item is carefully “textured into actual existence”.

I don`t think there is anything to comment about Crysis graphics, 2,5 years after its release it still is the closest thing to “photo-realistic” game we have.