Modern Warfare 2 vs. Modern Warfare 1 comparison

NecrumSlavery - 24 days ago

Only major difference is the fluidity of the game, looks like it runs much smoother. The only other major thing is the destructable environments. Not more grenades bouncing of windows. Lot's of small details.

Best comparison is what Smash Bros. BRAWL was to Melee. Graphically improved a small amount, but the content that was added is ungodly huge.

Agree(1) | Disagree(8) | Report

DiffusionE - 23 days 23 hours ago

So the small improvement in lighting is worth an extra $10? Pathetic.

Agree(6) | Disagree(4) | Report

Saaking - 23 days 23 hours ago

Looks the same just like

Gears 1 to Gears 2
Forza 2 to Forza 3
Halo 3 to Halo ODST

etc, etc. Is it really so hard to up the graphics? Just look at what ND did and PD (from GT5p to GT5).

From what I've seen it simply doesn't look like that big of a jump, graphically. Of course, some people would say there's a big difference. To me, they look fairly the same. Running at 60 FPS is an improvement, but it doesn't do much for the graphics. Especially when compared to games like KZ2 and UC2.

Agree(14) | Disagree(7) | Report

Killjoy3000 - 23 days 23 hours ago

The visual fidelity between MW1 to part 2 is simply staggering. To say there is no difference is just stupid. And although it may not be the best looking games, it sits head and shoulders above at least every 360 game including Gears 2 and even Splinter Cell Conviction. The lighting is incredible, as are the particle and smoke effects. The fact that it runs as buttery smooth as it does is a true technical feat, and to say otherwise is simply ignorant.

Are you sure you've played the game? I'm not here to throw around baseless claims, but certainly if you've played it then you would notice all of the huge differences present. It looks good and plays better. What more do you want? I think you're jumping on the hate train just because it's the current fad here on N4G.

I had my doubts too, but once I played it on my 40" 1080p Plasma, all of those doubts were immediately put to rest.

Agree(3) | Disagree(13) | Report

APOFISBORICUA - 23 days 22 hours ago

improvement in the ligthning and color. Thats all, It has the same crap textures and the same characters models. To me COD4 looked better than this just for the time, now we heve been spoiled by other games. Anyway the game looks "above average" as one guy in Gamespot said about K2 one time upon its release.

OHH I like the Ketchup on the screen when I get hit...It make me hungry for fried fries!! LOL!!!

PEACE AND GAMING!!!!

Agree(3) | Disagree(0) | Report

Anorexorcist - 23 days 21 hours ago

I can immediately notice a great improvement in the weapon models, the reload animations, and the motion-capture animations (killing enemies in the SP campaign appears so much more satisfying.)

Only idiot fanboys would degrade MW2 and consider it a failure or not worthy!!!

Agree(1) | Disagree(5) | Report

Teh Cell - 23 days 21 hours ago

Yep, easily worth it. If you've played it, you would have realized that.

Agree(0) | Disagree(5) | Report

thewhoopimen - 23 days 20 hours ago

I would hardly call this a technical upgrade, though I do believe IW added new features.

To me it looks like they mainly used higher quality textures on the gun. The character polygon counts are exactly the same. The lighting system is exactly the same.

What I see different is a smarter use of matching texture design to the lighting they planned to use for the level. I think they chose the level lighting and environment work first and then designed textures to match the lighting used. Why do I say this? The texture resolution is as low as ever, but the color contrasts are much more noticeable and vivid.

Agree(1) | Disagree(0) | Report

Teh Cell - 23 days 21 hours ago

For the love of god, don't base your purchase on still screens. I guarantee you will be amazed when you see the MP in motion.

Agree(0) | Disagree(0) | Report

rdgneoz3 - 23 days 20 hours ago

If you can get on...

Agree(0) | Disagree(0) | Report

Teh Cell - 23 days 21 hours ago

Another clueless person that probably never even played the game!

Agree(1) | Disagree(1) | Report

Cregan4584 - 23 days 23 hours ago

IGN gave MW2 the same score for graphics as UC2. I'm not disappointed by that as much as how pissed I am about it. World at War had better graphics IMO.

Agree(0) | Disagree(0) | Report

King_many_layers - 23 days 17 hours ago

actually, IGN gave UC2 a 10 for graphics and this a 9.

it's really difficult to tell what on earth actually makes good graphics at IGN. KZ2 was clearly head and shoulders above all else on a technical level, yet scored 9.5

honestly don't understand as to why people are claiming these graphics to be "great". They're good, but they're certainly not great.

Agree(0) | Disagree(0) | Report

Teh Cell - 23 days 21 hours ago

Yep, MW1 versus MW2. Your eyes were right.

Agree(0) | Disagree(1) | Report

Sircolby45 - 23 days 23 hours ago

Yes as I hid behind the card and the bullets were bouncing off I was like OMG look at the textures on this car!!! /sarcasm

Personally I will take gameplay over graphics any day of the week.(Although I think MW2 graphics look pretty dang good personally)

Agree(4) | Disagree(3) | Report

Baka-akaB - 23 days 22 hours ago

I would too , and i usually like that expression , but seriously what new great gameplay feats has mw2 traded for better graphics ?

If remaining so close to MW1 so greatly improved the gameplay , i'm not seeing it . Especially when everything points to a less efficient online , at least right now .

Agree(0) | Disagree(0) | Report

DiffusionE - 23 days 23 hours ago

Don't forget, they've given us "better MP experience" by removing dedicated servers.

How is MW1 supposed to compete with MW2 when it has "custom stuff like mouse support, in-game text chat, graphics options"?

/sarcasm

Agree(4) | Disagree(0) | Report