I was pleasantly surprised at Spec-Ops. I seriously didn't think I'd have as much fun as I did.

I also don't think you are giving the No Russian scene a fair shake. I don't think it was done for media frenzy, and IMO, it worked exactly as intended. It was the catalyst for the story of the game and your motivation for revenge.

Very good write up, the score sits exactly where I figured it would hit.

CoD has always had the solid mechanics but seems this time they really failed to approach a wider audience.

--- Replying to bapenguin -----
You don't think they could have done just as well by putting you in the shoes of a victim? This is Infinity Ward...they can create emotional motivation without bringing down the media on their game (which, oddly, hasn't happened much so far). It's meant as a shock tactic, and I'm pretty sure that publicity - even negative publicity - was a major factor in the decision-making meetings ("F.A.G.S.", anyone?).

glad to hear how extensive the co-op action is. it can get tagged onto the bottom of the list of games we'll buy once we finish with borderlands

No, I don't think being the shoes of a victim in that scene makes sense.

I really think you should play the scene, because knowing what the scene is and actually experiencing it are two completely different things.

I don't think playing as a victim would have the same "OH SNAP" story hook as finding out you were used to incite global warfare. There's only two logical ways the scene could have played out as a cutscene, or as it was presented.

It made me feel terribly uncomfortable, and the end of the mission (though it was spoiled for me before playing) worked incredibly well. Mission accomplished.

--- Replying to bapenguin -----
I hear you. I have to wonder, though, why Infinity Ward basically implores you to skip it, then offers no cutscene to fill the gap. It makes the purpose of the scene suspect, that's all.

I think the review was right on target. I object strongly to everyone who seems to believe in censorship and that games shouldn't be allowed to explore mature and meaningful subjects -- that's all BS. And I'm not sure Infinity Ward was just looking for controversy; the scene serves a purpose in the story and has some meaning. The problem, IMO, is that the scene comes too early and it's not written well enough. I know it's meant to be the inciting incident, but we're just not attached to the character yet, and we're never clear on exactly what they're trying to accomplish by accompanying Makarov on that particular mission. In a scene like that, we should be feeling the weight of the awful choice they're making -- accompany Makarov in order to accomplish something specific that's really, really important, but at an awful price, or refuse to pay the price and as a result pay a completely different price by failing to accomplish the original goal. That would make you feel the burden and the difficulty of the decision all the way through the scene, and it would make the tragic end of the sequence have a much more visceral, emotional impact, because in the end you wind up paying both prices and accomplishing nothing. Having some genuine attachment to the character you're playing would also add an important personal dimension to the effect.

(Sorry for being vague; I don't know whether people reading this thread have already played that part of the campaign.)

All in all, the campaign is fun, but it hasn't grabbed me the way really great games do -- I enjoy it while I'm playing, but I feel no urgency to get back to it and finish it up. And the co-op is kind of disappointing so far. Yes, there's a lot of it, but the missions I've played to date just feel arbitrary and kind of uninteresting. My regular couch co-op gaming partner was bored, my other couch co-op friend isn't into FPS games at all, and without online matchmaking (WTF were they thinking???) I might wind up sending the game back to GameFly after I finish the campaign without playing much more Spec Ops at all.

I'm with Jim on thinking that it's just trying to bring even more controversy and media attention on the game. I might be willing to give IW some more credit on that, if it weren't for stuff like F.A.G.S. and (as the Joystiq podcast mentioned), having prominent weed references in the game as jokes. I think it's very hard to claim the moral high ground regarding your content, when you're also trying to satisfy the absolute lowest common denominator.

I just don't think a company spends the time and money on putting something like that into a game simply because it'll generate controversy.

My guess is it never even crossed their mind until it got to product testing phases and they saw the affect it had. At that point they had to make a decision to cut it or give people the option to even play it.

--- Replying to bapenguin -----
You're probably right. Which is why I used the word seems...as in, that's the appearance that it's giving.

I'm kind of on the fence on this game. Only the multiplayer seems intriguing to me. That's the only thing from WAW that kept me going for a while.

Yeah, I am on the fence too. The only thing in the game I could really play would be split-screen Spec Ops. Not sure if that feature would be worth the price of admission by itself.

@ W4R EAGL3 & Brainp0wa

The multiplayer, in my opinion, is top-notch this time around. I thought the single-player campaign was enjoyable, if a bit short. But the MP keeps me coming back...it feels like there's better balance this time, and I don't have to continually worry about moron teammates trying to Zerg rush through the maps, only to give the enemy tons of Martyrdom kills. The weapon customization has more depth, and advancing through doesn't have to be such a chore like the last game sometimes seemed. Just my 2 cents.

New User here...

How are you guys finding a co-op mode? none of the options that I can find will allow it, I see that split screen is ON, both players are logged in, but only one player mode comes up when the game starts

XBox360 version, BTW