Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 2 - PS3

There's a lot of bias going on with this game right now, in both directions. I think Tim did a great job giving it an honest review.

I don't know if I would have put controversial scenes or whatever as a con, but hey. Looked fine other than that.

I'd say its a fine review for the console version. I think its really personal taste as far as the single player goes. I thought the single player campaign was really just dumb, and I had to actually force myself to keep going for the last 3 missions or so. I played on veteran, died seventeen trillion times and it still only took me 7 hours.

He's right though, the game shines in multiplayer, but I ultimately don't think its worth 60 bucks considering how much its like the first one. Certainly not revolutionary, it's a very evolutionary game. I'd give it a solid 9/10 on the console @ a $40 price point. 60 bucks makes me want to rate it down to a 7.5 or 8. And I refuse to pay for the PC version, ever. I own Cod4 and that's all I need to support, the good one.

I'm not saying I disagree with it being overpriced, or really any console game being overpriced. But you can't penalize MW2 for charging the MSRP of ALL console games. They ALL may be overpriced, but that's not MW2's fault. If they charged an additional $10 for it, then yeah, its overpriced. But actual value is an opinion, just as you wouldn't want to pay anything over $40 for it, I know people who would've paid $100 for it. You've got to compare it to the industry standard.

Well that's my point. I'm not faulting MW2 for charging 60$ because that's the common accepted value for console games in this market. I'm faulting MW2 for giving me a $40 value at a $60 price. In otherwords, I'm rating the relative value of the product and enjoyment I get out of said product, at a ratio the money I spent on the product. You're right, value is strictly an opinion, and always will be. Its part of the definition of the word 'value', and my opinion is the game isn't worth a retail price. Therefore I fault the game not delivering an enjoyable enough experience for the price tag it holds.

Just to give an example to what I'm saying here is... a game like Peggle gets a 8/10 when it costs $1-$5, but a game like Assassin's Creed 2 can get a 7 or 8/10 because it costs $60. Is Assassin's Creed a better game than Peggle? Absolutely, but you can't justify the production values of a game that costs 12 times as much as another, let alone in a completely different genre. The idea of value lets us gauge how good a game is based upon its overall worth... ie. money vs. enjoyment.

I mean think about it from a car standpoint. Would you fault Toyota if they charged $15,000 for a corolla and the trunk was missing? Sure would, its because you're paying full price and you're not getting the full benefits of owning said car. Or a little less extreme, if you compared two cars of the same price and one had more trunk space, got better gas mileage, and handled snow better... wouldn't you only purchase the other car if it was cheaper? I know I would. Only way I'd buy an inferior product would be at a cheaper price, thus making its overall value for use ratio higher. Economics is what makes the world go round

I understand what you're saying. But the economics of the console gaming industry are simply that the majority people are willing to pay $59.99 for a new, core title. MW2 provides a new story line, building off the plot of the first, the usual amount of achievements, several multiplayer modes, several difficulties and an experience ladder to provide replay. Plus, IW is of course planning on supporting it with map packs and updates. If there was a reason you didn't enjoy the campaign, that's where you need to discuss it. But in comparison to the rest of the market, it meets and probably exceeds what the gamers have deemed worth of MSRP.