We gamers trend to be a conservative bunch. The most popular games tend to be sequels to already established series like Grand Theft Auto, Pro Evolution Soccer, Uncharted 2, the Football Manager series, the Total War series etc... One of the most popular is the Call of Duty series. Call of Duty games were often set in the Second World War, but the series found great critical and commercial success with Call of Duty 4: Modern Warfare set in the near future. A sequel was inevitable and it has become the fastest selling game in history.
Set 5 years after the previous game the Ultra-Nationalists have taken control of Russia and Zakhaev had been made into a national hero. General Shepherd (Lance Henriksen) forms a new counter-terrorism force, including "Soap" MacTavish (Kevin McKidd), the playable character in the previous game. Early on in the game Russian terrorists attack an airport in Russia, and kill a CIA undercover agent to frame America for it. This gives Russia international sympathy and they invade the East Coast of America. Shepherd and his team have to stop the Russian before the war goes nuclear and the action takes the player to Brazil, Russia and Afghanstan. As well you end up fighting on the frontline in the war against Russia as Private Ramirez in the US Rangers.
The plot is entertaining enough. But what makes games great is whether they are playable, and this one is. The controls are simple and the game itself is more playable then it's predecessor. It is highly addictive to and very enjoy. It is sadly a little short but you could always raise the difficulty level. It is simple fun playing soldier.
There was controversy with one of the games missions set in a Russia airport where it you play the CIA operative undercover with a Russian terrorist group. You have to help kill innocent people, which the controversial nature of the mission. I can understand the victim of terrorism concerns, but I don't mind violence in computer games. The same agreements were used against violence films, but I'm of the view that if someone is influence to commit a violence act because of something in the media then they were not right in the head in the first place.
Overall, very enjoyable for die-hard gamers.
Set 5 years after the previous game the Ultra-Nationalists have taken control of Russia and Zakhaev had been made into a national hero. General Shepherd (Lance Henriksen) forms a new counter-terrorism force, including "Soap" MacTavish (Kevin McKidd), the playable character in the previous game. Early on in the game Russian terrorists attack an airport in Russia, and kill a CIA undercover agent to frame America for it. This gives Russia international sympathy and they invade the East Coast of America. Shepherd and his team have to stop the Russian before the war goes nuclear and the action takes the player to Brazil, Russia and Afghanstan. As well you end up fighting on the frontline in the war against Russia as Private Ramirez in the US Rangers.
The plot is entertaining enough. But what makes games great is whether they are playable, and this one is. The controls are simple and the game itself is more playable then it's predecessor. It is highly addictive to and very enjoy. It is sadly a little short but you could always raise the difficulty level. It is simple fun playing soldier.
There was controversy with one of the games missions set in a Russia airport where it you play the CIA operative undercover with a Russian terrorist group. You have to help kill innocent people, which the controversial nature of the mission. I can understand the victim of terrorism concerns, but I don't mind violence in computer games. The same agreements were used against violence films, but I'm of the view that if someone is influence to commit a violence act because of something in the media then they were not right in the head in the first place.
Overall, very enjoyable for die-hard gamers.