Talk:Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 2/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

On the ever changing title

The game is now Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 2

theyre putting in the Call of Duty part so that way ppl will associate modern warfare 2 with call of duty so that newcomers to the game wont think its just a new standalone game. they want to strengthen the franchise by associating the names together. i hav 2 links. i dont kno how to change the title of an article though so can someone do that....? (link below clearly stating that the name has changed for a pretty good reason i might add)

http://www.shacknews.com/onearticle.x/59481

http://news.vgchartz.com/news.php?id=4228 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mark0528 (talk • contribs) 04:28, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Going to known as simply "Modern Warfare 2"?

There's some chatter that it's going to be titled simply "Modern Warfare 2" (http://xbox360.gamespy.com/xbox-360/call-of-duty-6/966567p1.html). I'm thinking we should wait for an official word before moving it to Modern Warfare 2, so I reversed the recent page move. –xeno (talk) 17:05, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

I think we can move it back, more and more sites are reporting it: http://www.joystiq.com/2009/03/26/activision-modern-warfare-has-taken-on-a-life-of-its-own/ 68.145.34.136 (talk) 20:24, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

It's official now: http://investor.activision.com/releasedetail.cfm?ReleaseID=373355 –xeno (talk) 20:32, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Apparently "Call of Duty" is back in the name: http://www.computerandvideogames.com/article.php?id=214548 Can anyone confirm this? Crazydog115 (talk) 11:29, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

I don't consider that any official confirmation. Griffith apparently did refer to the game with the "Call of Duty" once but it doesn't seem as if he declared it as an official title. I'd wait for a direct statement of a name change. Dancter (talk) 15:46, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Anyone who wants to check what Griffith actually said can listen to the conference call or read the transcript. Dancter (talk) 21:59, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Look, I have an official statement from Activision saying that the name is officially "Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 2".(http://news.zergwatch.com/2009/05/18/activision-its-call-of-duty-modern-warfare-2/) Will people stop reverting my changes now? Deathstar79 (talk) 16:39, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Click through to Zergwatch's source. Dancter (talk) 17:05, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Right, sorry. Deathstar79 (talk) 22:30, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Final box art calls it "Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 2" (http://twitter.com/fourzerotwo/status/2555334500). I've edited the article's Marketing section to show this. Fire (talk) 21:25, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Also a confirmed source, link The Phantomnaut (talk) 23:09, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

I believe we're waiting for an official announcement. They've changed the name so many times that we need to be absolutely sure. -- Commdor {Talk} 23:14, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

A little more confirmation in the 3rd paragraph (Kind of) http://kotaku.com/5315981/infinity-ward-talks-modern-warfare-2-43-stories-up UltimateSin01 (talk) 18:17, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Thank you. While Bowling deliberately leaves the door open for an official name change in the future, I think this is good enough to settle the move debate for now. Dancter (talk) 19:52, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

I don't think it should be moved, if that's what your saying. Bowling is saying that is CoD:MW2 to let the community know that it's the sequel to CoD4, but its going to remain simply as MW2. UltimateSin01 (talk) 11:18, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Unfortunately, placing the various naming threads next to one another hasn't done much to reduce redundant discussions. Dancter (talk) 20:25, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Found another article but still confusion http://www.platformnation.com/2009/07/20/call-of-duty-depends/. They put the 'Call of Duty' name on the standalone game box but not on either special editions. So if you buy the Hardened or Prestige edition your only playing 'Modern Warfare 2', but if you bought the game-only version your playing 'Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 2'? UltimateSin01 (talk) 18:40, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

game title

Apparantly the publisher has changed the name to "Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 2".

Sources: http://www.xboxic.com/news/5276 http://www.computerandvideogames.com/article.php?id=214548

--Shadyaftrmathgunit (talk) 13:42, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

See http://www.destructoid.com/right-now-call-of-duty-is-not-attached-to-modern-warfare-2-131432.phtml The game is still "Modern Warfare 2," the interview you cite was a slip-up. -- Commdor {Talk} 15:49, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

It is now Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 2 ( http://news.zergwatch.com/2009/05/18/activision-its-call-of-duty-modern-warfare-2/ ) Ice (talk) 23:47, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

That's from the Dutch division of Activision, and I've never heard of the game site itself, so the reliability is questionable. I'd wait for an official press release from the American branch or Infinity Ward themselves. We can't keep moving the article every instant someone claims out of the blue that it's such-and-such 2. -- Commdor {Talk} 00:00, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

These source says it's called "Modern Warfare 2" - http://360.kombo.com/article.php?artid=16873, http://kotaku.com/5315981/infinity-ward-talks-modern-warfare-2-43-stories-up--Shadyaftrmathgunit (talk) 11:56, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Yes, title

I know there was some discussion about it earlier, but it's unclear to me. Is it Modern Warfare 2? If so, should it be in a Call of Duty template shown at the end of the article? Mallerd (talk) 18:54, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Oh, [1] nevermind. Other question still stands, though. Mallerd (talk) 18:55, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Infinity Ward needs to make up their gorram minds. THat being said, I think this box-art is enough, whether it was release on twitter or not. http://www.joystiq.com/2009/07/09/modern-warfare-2-box-art-includes-call-of-duty/ Note also four-zero-two is an IW employee. –xeno^talk 20:23, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

I dunno, I'd like an official confirmation from IW - the boxart really looks hacked together - the "Call of Duty" doesn't fit at all (I thought it'd been Photoshopped at first). Thanks! Fin©™ 21:19, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Sure. We can wait, there's no deadline. Hopefully Joystiq has success getting a firm answer. –xeno^talk 21:23, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

I've added that the box art was revealed in the Marketing section based off of the Twitter. I won't touch the official page title until we get formal confirmation from IW, though. Fire (talk) 21:28, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Just because the "Call of Duty" logo is on the package doesn't necessarily mean that it's part of the official title. If we are going to continue mentioning the box art like this, perhaps we should also mention the OTX survey results on brand awareness of the game without "Call of Duty" in the title.[2] Dancter (talk) 23:01, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Although many of the blog sites are claiming that it's a name change, I think the fact that Activision's statement continues to refer to the game as Modern Warfare 2 is telling.[3] To answer Mallerd's second question, I think the company's statement supports keeping it listed in the series template. Dancter (talk) 23:21, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

I officially think Infinity Ward has no idea what to name the game. If the article keeps getting moved should move protection be sought until things are sorted out? I'm done with this article until the dust settles. -- Commdor {Talk} 00:12, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

• I've protected the article for a week. There's no need to move it back and forth while we debate about it. –xeno^talk 15:59, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

I like your idea of having both Modern Warfare and Call of Duty in the lead, otherwise I think we should just stick to one name in the article for the moment (Modern Warfare 2, as that's the way the article is now). Thanks! Fin©™ 16:32, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

CoD title re-added

[4]. --90.208.178.125 (talk) 23:06, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

The Call of Duty title has been confirmed to appear on the game's box, but in official material they're still calling the game Modern Warfare 2. Until a definite source clarifies whether or not the game has been renamed, don't change it. There's nothing to suggest the game is called anything other than Modern Warfare 2 at this stage. Kflester (talk) 16:13, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Other sources

http://news.google.co.uk/news?pz=1&ned=uk&hl=en&q=call+of+duty —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.42.237.99 (talk) 17:12, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Possible ARG?

From what I've seen on the website, there might be a possibility of an Alternate reality game. Can someone try to confirm this?

no —Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.107.178.246 (talk) 06:06, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Game taking place in Rio de Janeiro?

There are rumours that the game will take place in Rio de Janeiro, as in the trailer, it's possible to see the Christ the Redeemer and a favela. Should this be added to the article? ShifterBr (talk) 06:07, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

No. Rumours should not be included. Thanks! Fin©™ 06:45, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Game may be released on the Nintendo Wii?

There are websites and rumours saying that Infinity Ward has confirmed a release on the Nintendo Wii. Has this actualy been confirmed by Infinity Ward themselves? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.77.163.94 (talk) 20:23, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Teaser Storyline

In the trailer we can clearly see some plot points (Russian terrorist attack on airport/civilian area). This isn't a rumor or speculation, it's directly from the trailer. Could we include some info on that in the Plot section? - Plastic Fish (talk) 14:12, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

How do we know that's an actual plot point? The teaser really didn't show anything big, and it's clear IW is still waiting for a better day to flood us with actual footage and game play. Anyway, I've seen loads of teasers where their content didn't reflect much of the game itself. That Ps3 teaser for Bioshock 2 is a good example, it's really abstract and in the background rather than giving an upfront experience of the game. I'm sure that the attack in the teaser might be referenced as a news point: resurgent Russian Ultranationalists doing terrorist strikes in America as revenge or something, one of the game's characters might mention it, like how Gaz and Capt. Price briefed the player about the Russian civil war at the beginning of COD4. Boiled down though, IW has given us a ton of nothing to stew over for the next few weeks. =/= Ironoclast (Talk) 19:28, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

I do not see any real connections to russians, their accents are ambiguous and he only says "Remember THE russian." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.22.206.163 (talk) 10:08, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

No, actually he says "Remember, no Russian". But that's irrelevant now anyway I suppose. - Plastic Fish (talk) 16:59, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Platforms

Seeing as how the teaser was released on the Xbox Live Marketplace and the Playstation Network, I think it is pretty safe to assume that this game will be on both the Xbox 360 and the PS3... as if we did not already know that. I believe we should put up the names of the consoles. Who agrees?Gamer93 (talk) 20:34, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

I agree, but someone will probably object using a very strict interpretation of WP:V and WP:CRYSTAL. –xeno (talk) 21:06, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

I agree. What platforms will this game be on? I'll search the net for ya, and I'll give ya a bell asap. mcjakeqcool Mcjakeqcool (talk) 10:35, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Yep! Got a link from IGN[5] with all the ports of Modern Warfare 2, If anyone for any reason thinks my source is unreliable, please take it up on this talk page before you delete it. mcjakeqcool Mcjakeqcool (talk) 10:53, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Infinity Ward have not announced any platforms. IGN is speculating. Thanks! Fin©™ 11:58, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

How can you asume that? Fair enough IGN classes the Wii port as 'rumored' but all the other ports are not rumored, and even have box art. Are you sure, or do you have a credible source to say IGN are specualating? mcjakeqcool Mcjakeqcool (talk) 17:02, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Infinity Ward/Activision have not announced any platforms (though 360, PS3 and PC would be a fair guess). Unless you can provide a news article quoting either Activision or IW, stating the platforms, then it's speculation. Thanks! Fin©™ 17:27, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

A search page is not an appropriate source. The databases of gaming websites are often speculative, error-prone and/or out-of-date. This sort of information should be attributed to something like an article or press release. Dancter (talk) 17:39, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

I think that based on comments by Infinity Ward's Director of Communications, the existence of the Xbox 360 and PlayStation 3 versions can be considered unofficially confirmed. http://www.fourzerotwo.com/2009/04/04/rumor-smash-fake-iw-quote/ Dancter (talk) 17:39, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

I myself can not think of a source anymore relyiable then a search page, but suit yourself. All I'm saying is that it won't be long until the wiki mods are on everyone's case editing this page to oblivion. mcjakeqcool Mcjakeqcool (talk) 18:18, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

That goes a long way to explaining things like why you couldn't figure out that the Xbox 540 report was bunk, and that there is no Dreamcast 2. Dancter (talk) 19:31, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Em... Yeah... Dancter kinda hit the nail on the head there. The most reliable source is one quoting the publisher or developer - essentially you want this story, but for MW2. Thanks! Fin©™ 22:16, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

The most important thing is that the infomation on wikipedia is sourced, and I always source the infomation I give on wikipedia. mcjakeqcool Mcjakeqcool (talk) 15:35, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

No, the most important thing is that the information on wikipedia is reliably sourced. Have a read of WP:RS. Thanks! Fin©™ 18:48, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Ok, well in that case, I have never known IGN as being a unreliable source. mcjakeqcool Mcjakeqcool (talk) 16:49, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

No joy wether or not IGN is a reliable source? Well as soon as anyone's got any joy, give us a bell asap. mcjakeqcool Mcjakeqcool (talk) 15:37, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

IGN is a reliable source for news, not for platforms or release dates before they're announced. Thanks! Fin©™ 16:48, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Ok then. I guess you're right, but it'dd say it is farly reliable, but not enough for wikipedia's standards. mcjakeqcool Mcjakeqcool (talk) 17:25, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

game add-ons

I haven't been here for awhile, so my question is this. Should we and are we aloud to add anything we have read that was stated in legitimate magazines such as GameInfromer. Because I read that the game will feature customizable online characters and the ability to use the xbox 360s cam to paste your face on the character?Flynn M Taggart (talk) 10:12, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Yes, you can cite some print sources; in fact, the Game Informer issue with the Modern Warfare 2 preview is already cited in parts of the article. I don't know what you're talking about when you refer to the online multiplayer, though. The issue has practically nothing about online, saying only that the devs are keeping it under wraps for now, and there was no mention of console cameras at all. -- Commdor {Talk} 19:29, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Cover Art

The unofficial cover art at the bottom of the page is useless; I think it should be removed. --90.220.24.211 (talk) 17:10, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Non-combatants

A first for CoD? Yes/No? GI seemed to feature them as obsticals not to shoot at, but can anyone confirm this? --Zero Serenity (talk) 06:03, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

The trailer pretty much does. 'The Ninjalemming' 15:58, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

There was a hostage on the 'mile high club' level in COD4. Is that what you mean by non-combatants? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.89.98.118 (talk) 17:05, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Gary "Roach" Sanderson

In Infinity Ward's demo in E3 (accessible from IGN's website), the much hyped mountain climbing level can be seen to take place in the Tian Shan Range in Kazakhstan, with the name of the playable character being Sergeant Gary "Roach" Sanderson. Shall we include this?? Ken l lee (talk) 05:23, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

DLC exclusive to the Xbox 360?

The E3 press conference merely stated that the DLC would come out first on the 360, not that it would be exclusive. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.234.227.124 (talk) 14:16, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

It's to come out first for xbox 360 then ps3 he never said they were exclusive to the xbox 360 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.45.127.120 (talk) 18:55, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

That's not what the current source says, and I have yet to find anything that says otherwise. If you can supply an appropriate source that backs this up, then we can see about updating/correcting the article. -- Commdor {Talk} 19:19, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

My Sources

I edited two sections on MW2: The release date, and the Consoles it will come out on I couldn't get to your refrences, so here is the place where I got my info: http://xbox360.ign.com/objects/142/14281102.html —Preceding unsigned comment added by Calebcass1 (talk • contribs) 17:12, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Release Date

The current release date is set at November 10, 2009, is it worth mentioning that this is the Marine Corps birthday, and could be coincidental due to the game being Marine Corps culture-heavy? —Preceding unsigned comment added by USMCSoftLove (talk • contribs) 08:59, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Until a reliable source mentions the tie in it is original research. Dbrodbeck (talk) 12:09, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

The date may be picked due to the mm/dd/yy format, as it will be "09.10.11." as evidenced in the trailer. --Kelvin_HO^{Wiknerd(talk)} 11:53, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Except that would be yy/dd/mm format Daeth (talk) 12:33, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Which, of course, no civilized nation on the planet uses. –xeno^talk 18:43, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

THe release date is 11/10/09 (as seen in all the trailers for CoD:MW2) so shouldnt the release date on the MW2 page say "11 October 2009"? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.245.182.162 (talk) 18:39, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

IW is in the U.S., so I would gather they are using MM/DD/YY. –xeno^talk 18:41, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Official Game Cover Art Released

As a result the current image which is being depicted should be changed immediately. Also this includes the articles name.

http://modernwarfare2.net/http://modernwarfare2.net/wp-content/uploads/2009/07/mw2-game-case-box-art.jpg —Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.74.186.199 (talk) 10:42, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

I know activision is trying to create a new series away from the main CoD line but because there was a recent survey suggesting more people would buy the game if it had the CoD title added to it they added it on. They are trying to do everything to get the game detached from it but maybe next time so for now I think the game art and at least the new title need recognition.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Shane3x (talk • contribs) 05:52, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

[DUCKLOL123] To add, I have uploaded the same picture many times but it has been declined

That image is not appropriate for use in this article. It is a second-hand picture of someone holding multiple copies of the box, not the cover art itself. Once suitable cover art images are available, the article will be updated. -- Commdor {Talk} 01:17, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Collectors edition

I've seen in this video, that there's going to be a collectors edition. Anything known about that already? Mallerd (talk) 21:24, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

add new box art

Add the new box art.... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.225.31.54 (talk) 06:31, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

It has been done, if anyone can find a higher quality resolution image could they please update it thanks? Avoid going back to the pre-reveal art please as we aren't babies, it's official what the actual art is now. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.74.186.199 (talk) 05:55, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

I uploaded the confirmed box art

Hey everybody i have uploaded the box art here at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:MW2_box_art_final_edition.JPG and calm down i know it isn't the best quality but at least its the real one. —Preceding unsigned comment added by KAPITALIST88 (talk • contribs) 08:23, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

don't think that was legit, the call of duty title looks like its been hastily slapped on, plus it just seems a little sparse and unfinished to me —Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.107.178.246 (talk) 05:49, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

here is the box art

http://pic40.picturetrail.com/VOL278/10103886/20795363/367192396.jpg —Preceding unsigned comment added by KAPITALIST88 (talk • contribs) 10:19, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

There's more to it than just that, like the Call of Duty logo and destroyed Washington backdrop. DancingCyberman (talk) 18:45, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Thats the actual box art for the game

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SpiH8q64Spk —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.37.223.57 (talk) 23:53, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Plot

I have seen some wrong information, it says that it was set several years after COD 4, but in an E3 interview (gamespot website) FOURZEROTWO said it took place straight after COD4

I'm sure he meant that MW2 was a direct sequel to CoD4, in that sense the game does take place "straight after" CoD4. The sentence in the article that says the game takes place several years later is sourced; the timing was mentioned in the Game Informer issue that previewed MW2. -- Commdor {Talk} 01:17, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

multiplayer

ac 130s

Title change debate

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was not moved. 20:23, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

---

Modern Warfare 2 → Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 2 — Correct name as seen in sources; [6], [7]. Shadyaftrmathgunit (talk) 16:32, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

See discussion above. The page shouldn't be moved again (or the title within the article changed) until we get a definite source. Thanks! Fin©™ 16:34, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Speedy close: see above. Sceptre ^(talk) 00:47, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

The box art is taken by fourzerotwo, one of the Infinity Ward developers. This is not fake. The title is clearly "Call of Duty Modern Warfare 2". There should be NO MORE DISCUSSION ABOUT THIS. The game's title is clear. LuGiADude (talk) 02:06, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

Numerous online retail stores have changed the name from "Modern Warfare 2" to "Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 2" - See hmv.com, amazon.com, walmart.com,--Shadyaftrmathgunit (talk) 13:55, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

The name should be changed, as FourZeroTwo (IW Staff Member) has shown the box art that clearly shows: Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 2. [8] AusBOX —Preceding undated comment added 03:58, 12 July 2009 (UTC).

As soon as an official source publishes a change, then of course change the name. Someone's post on twitter, even on an official account, is not good enough. Dbrodbeck (talk) 12:13, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

What about all the news sources reporting on the change? ShadowUltra (talk) 17:16, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Anything non-speculative? –xeno^talk 18:25, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Despite what is on the box, Infinity Ward and Activision continue to refer to the game as Modern Warfare 2. Neither have explicitly confirmed a name change. I specifically cited Gamasutra because it did a better job at not jumping to conclusions. Dancter (talk) 20:40, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

http://www.edge-online.com/news/modern-warfare-2-retains-call-of-duty-branding ShadowUltra (talk) 23:07, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

The phrase "Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 2" did not appear once in Activision's statement. Dancter (talk) 23:19, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Neither did any terms like "name," "change," or "new title." Also notice the packaging for the other editions of the game, like the Hardened Edition and Prestige Edition, shown right beside the standard edition package.[9] The Call of Duty brand is not present. Dancter (talk) 02:02, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Indeed. The only piece of merchandise with the Call of Duty branding anywhere on it is the standard game... the game disc doesn't have it, the Hardened Edition cover art doesn't have it, nor does the Prestige Edition. All throughout that video it's just being called "Modern Warfare 2", and the logo at the beginning also lacks the Call of Duty name. They probably just tagged the logo on the regular cover art for brand recognition's sake, the game is still just Modern Warfare 2. --99.128.246.74 (talk) 07:55, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

There hasn't been any response from advocates for a move for nearly three days. I am going ahead and removing the move request banners. Dancter (talk) 19:52, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

The hardend edition case only says Modern Warfare 2 but the regular case says Call of Duty Modern Warfare 2 and the disk only says Modern Warfare 2 for all of the disks as seen here[10]. The Movie Master 1 (talk) 02:28, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Should I add a list of weapons confirmed for single-player?

I added a list of weapons confirmed for singleplayer but someone deleted it

16/7/09

http://modernwarfare247.com/singleplayer/weapons

Hi. I deleted it per WP:GAMECRUFT. Thanks! Fin©™ 08:25, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Resolution

will be in 1024 * 600

http://www.gamezine.co.uk/news/games/c/call-duty-modern-warfare-2/modern-warfare-2-render-at-600p-$1314777.htm —Preceding unsigned comment added by 144.162.117.7 (talk) 23:01, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Reception section

one should be started to note the early reception from publishers delaying many games out of the Q4 2009 release window because of MW2's release. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.177.182.57 (talk) 02:34, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

That doesn't relate to the critical reception of the game, which is what "Reception" sections are intended for. Besides, only Singularity, also published by Activision, has been pushed back explicitly for that reason; no other game delays have been directly attributed to Modern Warfare 2's release. -- Commdor {Talk} 01:22, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

No special versions of MW2 for PC confirmed.

http://pc.ign.com/articles/100/1008895p1.html

Yep.

SniperWolf1564 (talk) 19:33, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

Someone with the appropriate permissions should be adding that 122.107.178.246 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 02:55, 10 August 2009 (UTC).

It's already in the article, and has been since before August 1st. See the "Retail versions" section. -- Commdor {Talk} 03:02, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Repost

Since there was no response on my first post, why is this game in the Call of duty template when the developer doesn't want it to be a call of duty anymore? Mallerd (talk) 19:42, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

As stated here by an Activision spokesperson: "Infinity Ward's Modern Warfare 2 is the direct sequel to Call of Duty 4: Modern Warfare. We have focused our attention on Modern Warfare in order to most effectively communicate the fact that this is the first true sequel in the Call of Duty series. Infinity Ward, the original creators of the Call of Duty franchise, has said from the beginning Modern Warfare 2 resides in the Call of Duty universe. This is reflected in the title's package."
The developer and publisher basically reversed their previous statements, and now want to emphasize the game is still a part of the franchise despite the different title. Therefore, MW2 will remain in the template. -- Commdor {Talk} 20:13, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

For the record, there was a response.[11] Dancter (talk) 20:18, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

Oh I'm sorry Dancter, I didn't see it :( anyway, it's clear to me now :) Thanks guys Mallerd (talk) 10:23, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

ESRB Rating

{{editsemiprotected}} The source for "ESRB: M" should be listed as www.callofduty.com/hub. Also, in the introduction, it should be mentioned that "Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 2" is rated M by the ESRB for Blood, Drug Reference, Intense Violence, and Language. FifthOfNovember (talk) 01:54, 10 August 2009 (UTC)FifthOfNovember, 8/9/09

A source for the ESRB rating isn't needed given that the official cover art clearly depicts the rating as M. It is also unnecessary to explain why the game is rated M because Wikipedia's not responsible to serve as a disclaimer for video games with mature content. It is sufficient that the average reader can see that the game is rated M. -- Commdor {Talk} 02:06, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

I really do hate edit conflicts! Anyway, the only thing I have to add to Commdor's response is that, unless the reasoning for or result of an "M" rating is notable, listing the various minutiae could be construed as WP:NODISCLAIMERS. ~ Amory (user • talk • contribs) 02:08, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Name Change

Should we change the name to Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 2, since it's packaged that way and websites around the web are calling it that? Legend6 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 20:09, 12 August 2009 (UTC).

Please see the discussion above. Dbrodbeck (talk) 20:14, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Dual wield handguns confirmed

robert bowling confirmed them in his twitter. i didnt know where to add this into the article. here is the link. http://www.mw2blog.com/go-akimbo-in-modern-warfare-2-with-dual-wield-handguns/Ice (talk) 23:05, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Make a new section in Gameplay entitled "Weapons" or just add into it. Noneofyour (talk) 02:45, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

People have done that it gets deleted I wouldnt recommend it The Movie Master 1 (talk) 02:53, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

You got a source and that's that. Why would they delete it? Noneofyour (talk) 03:03, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

look at the section above Should I add a list of weapons confirmed for single-player? somone made a list and it was deleted even with a source The Movie Master 1 (talk) 03:12, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

I know but its not like the full list of weapons. Noneofyour (talk) 03:19, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Then why a section and only mention 1 gun whats the point The Movie Master 1 (talk) 03:25, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

I'll find a new source of IGN and put it on. Doesn't hurt anything. Noneofyour (talk) 13:42, 25 August 2009 (UTC) Then just add it into the gameplay paragraph. Noneofyour (talk) 03:33, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

If someone wants to add it in go ahead. Ice (talk) 05:01, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

I am not sure the 'source' you cited there is one actually. It is a blog post, summarizing twitter posts. Dbrodbeck (talk) 13:05, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Kinda Nooby at this discussion thing, He has around about confirmed another perk, dead silence. " Like Dead Silence Perk in COD4. Some say useless, some live by it in Hardcore S&D." Source —Preceding unsigned comment added by DaleIX (talk • contribs) 12:11, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Remember this is not a forum, it is a place to discuss how to improve the article. Dbrodbeck (talk) 13:05, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Here is another source that isn't a blog post. http://xbox360.ign.com/articles/101/1017882p1.html Ice (talk) 17:39, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

I used the IGN source. Noneofyour (talk) 19:01, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

There's also a video of dual-wield machine pistols in action, using the Akimbo attachment:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m0h98xr5-BM

At 5:08, the player picks up and briefly uses the PP-2000 Akimbo.

Here's a video demonstrating Create-a-Class. At 3:46, Akimbo can be seen as one of the attachments on the PP-2000.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JH3xI4wSdWM

RYNO123 17:40, 29 September 2009 (UTC) RYNO123 —Preceding unsigned comment added by RYNO123 (talk • contribs)

Too many non-free images

I keep coming on here finding too many non-free images in the article. Last I checked, articles are not photo galleries. Go to WP:NFCC and read bullets 3 and 8, they support my reasoning for removing that latest image, File:Special ops.jpg. A photo of a menu screen is useless in the article because menus do not explain anything important about the game itself. I would like to ask editors to not add any more non-fee images to this article unless they show something absolutely necessary. Adding new images should be discussed on this talk page first. Looking at Call of Duty 4: Modern Warfare, a featured article, I think we should follow it as an example: CoD4 only has 4 non-free images including the cover, so this article should also be limited to 4 images, which it currently has. If we want to add other images which might be better for readers than the current ones, we should discuss it and then remove a less-quality image so that the total always stays at 4. =/= Ironoclast (Talk) 20:35, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Prestige Edition

Should it be worth mentioning that the Prestige Edition is no longer avaliable in the UK, because there sold out I think? I forgot the source but if you search on HMV(UK) for MW2 Prestige Edition, the link is broken. 212.183.134.67 (talk) 09:37, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

No I dont think it's sold out before the release. If that's true (somehow from preorders or something), they would restock it anyway. ✰Ffgamera✰ - My page! | Talk to me! | Contribs 09:51, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

Okay just thought i'd ask :) 212.183.134.67 (talk) 11:49, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

Actually, it's EXTREMELY limited stock, once it's gone, it's gone. there won't be many made and when they sell out, that's it. Robert Bowling said it. HMV link being dead doesn't necessarily mean it's sold out in the UK though, if other shops like GAME and GameStop are sold out, then maybe it's sold out in the UK. 89.100.113.253 (talk) 14:20, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Actually HMV was the exclusive seller of the Prestige Edition, so I doubt anywhere else are selling it 212.183.136.192 (talk) 17:26, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

Title change debate²

The title is just not correct. No matter what you guys wrote above please read this article carefully.--Dha (talk) 14:37, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

The game discs don't have "Call of Duty" on them. Look at the pictures on the official website.74.215.114.200 (talk) 21:39, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

If this is talking about it Call of Duty again it is, aparently (?) something 80% of American audiences didn't recognise the relation betwen it and call of duty. Some how. If it's not the topic then whoops :) 'The Ninjalemming'

I agree you guys are right there is no sign of any evidence of anything Japanese, though it might be cool but it is unlikely.

Characters - Ghost

Ghost is confirmed as british (http://callofduty.wikia.com/wiki/File:Ghost_is_british.png) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ando3000 (talk • contribs) 19:47, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Any mention of localization in Japan?

Activision did so before with MW and Square Enix for MW2. Wondering if it should be added or not? Ominae (talk) 20:15, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

Square Enix has announced they are publishing a Japanese version of the game. 98.227.186.160 (talk) 12:55, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

So I would say add it. 98.227.186.160 (talk) 12:56, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

It's already in there. Look at the info box.74.215.114.200 (talk) 00:08, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

Retail Editions

"Modern Warfare 2 will be released in four different retail versions across the PlayStation 3 and Xbox 360 platforms: standard, Hardened, Veteran, and Prestige." There doesn't seem to be a Veteran Edition.

In that case Veteren must go for now. 'The Ninjalemming' 19:45, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Veteran edition is only available in the UK

PEGI rating

PEGI has rated 18+ for the Festival du Jeu Video (Paris). This is the game's page of the official guide of the expo: http://img12.imageshack.us/img12/4236/file0001h.jpg --PhantomT1412 (talk) 16:42, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

That does not automatically mean that the full game for sale in November has been rated by the PEGI in the same way. In fact, it's likely that the PEGI have not rated the final game yet, as it is not currently listed on their website.

For some reason all languages of Wikipedia, except French and German, have 16+ as the rating for PEGI, can anyone clarify why this is? It is probable the full game will receive a 16+, as COD4 is rated 16+ by PEGI. And apparently, unlike COD WAW, according to comments made by Robert Bowling during an interview, Infinity Ward are sticking to what they had originally in COD4 with regards to blood and gore in MW2. There will supposedly be very limited blood and gore, and in COD4, Zakhaev's son shoots himself in the head, there is a firing squad where innocent civilians are killed, etc, and it still managed a 16+. Don't take this as absolute truth, but I think that it's possible that MW2 could get a 16+. Obviously it depends on what else is included in the gameplay and cinematics, and whether blood or gore that may make it into the game is exaggerated.

Although this is all logical, it could be that there are much more intense scenes and that it could be awarded an 18+, but I expect that it's most likely to receive a 16+ going by the logic above. I'm still skeptical about whether the full game has been rated yet by the PEGI.

77.96.200.31 (talk) 17:17, 29 September 2009 (UTC) RYNO123

Online

I was wondering if anyone was to add to it that its just not TDM that has been confirmed - FFA has also been confirmed, it was shown on the multiplayer video revealing the AC-130 gunship that he was playing Free-For All :) Nicolizzio 16:48, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

Demolition, Domination, Capture The Flag and Search and Destroy have also all been confirmed by way of video footage, and interviews with Robert Bowling.

77.96.200.31 (talk) 17:16, 29 September 2009 (UTC) RYNO123

Oh... that's new to me. Well can someone add that in with sources because I can't find any. Nicolizzio 13:50, 29 September 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nicolizzio (talk • contribs)

Here's the sources for those gamemodes listed on one handy webpage:

http://modernwarfare247.com/multiplayer/game-modes

On this page you'll see FFA, confirmed by the AC-130 video, CTF and S&D confirmed with links to Robert Bowling interviews, and on the right hand side of the page you'll see links named Demolition and Domination, which link to video footage of gameplay of each mode.

Also, TDM has been confirmed by this video of gameplay, in the map called Afghan. A L86 (w/Bling, RDS and silencer) is used, and UAV Recon, Air Drop (care package) and Predator Missile are seen in action, as well as confirmation of being able to use killstreaks that are still in your inventory, for example you might get a UAV and airdrop instantaneously, like in this video, and you can use the UAV after you've used the airdrop.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HKjHDwuJJ1I

77.96.200.31 (talk) 17:15, 29 September 2009 (UTC) RYNO123

Right I added it in - but if anyone wants to check it and clean up what I wrote, feel free :) Nicolizzio 17:32, 29 September 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nicolizzio (talk • contribs)

Slightly cleaned up. ;)

RYNO123 17:43, 29 September 2009 (UTC) RYNO123 —Preceding unsigned comment added by RYNO123 (talk • contribs)

Cheers :) I'm not good at writing things on here Nicolizzio 11:24, 30 September 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nicolizzio (talk • contribs)

PC Release Delayed

http://www.electronictheatre.co.uk/index.php/pc/pc-news/3220-call-of-duty-modern-warfare-2-delayed-on-pc

Lame. DEC42 (talk) 21:20, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

I don't think it's official, read 402's latest tweet, he hasn't heard of any change. Direct quote: "I know our PC players are anxious for official word. I am as well. I will let you know as soon as I do. I promise. When I left, it was fine." 164.107.91.32 (talk) 23:47, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Name Debate

Confirmed Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 2 title look at the new game covers!!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.117.123.17 (talk) 22:50, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

That's not the official name. It's Modern Warfare 2 - the Call Of Duty bit is just there to show that it's the official sequel to Modern Warfare :) Nicolizzio 16:52, 6 October 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nicolizzio (talk • contribs)

Yeah, just look at the comic book series they made for this game. Is there a Call of Duty logo anywhere in that title? No. If the comic is just Modern Warfare 2: Ghost, then why would the game its related to not have the same layout? Not even IW or 402 refer to the game with the COD title in it. 164.107.91.200 (talk) 02:50, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Beta

Betas have been confirmed for the PS3 system. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.117.123.17 (talk) 01:01, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

And your source is? Nicolizzio 16:50, 6 October 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nicolizzio (talk • contribs)

This guy's obviously lying. Somebody delete this troll's thread. 164.107.91.200 (talk) 02:52, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Perks

A lot of perks have come back but a lot have been added. Infinity Ward has also added PRO perks. Theese are normal perks but as you use them you unlock pro perks. A small list may be found on www.modernwarfare247.com/ —Preceding unsigned comment added by Matt5000matt (talk • contribs) 01:35, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

How dumb is it

That Wikipedia wont change the title when everywhere else has already changed the title. Activision posted the press release long time ago. But thats not good enough for Wikipedia.

I mean, is there any game in existence where the title was diffrent from what it was packaged as? Stop beign stubborn Wikipedia. 99.236.125.59 (talk) 17:15, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

I think it may be..erm, well i don't know (I actually get annoyed by it myself), it's probably a policy some where or Activsion said they were just going to package it as this and not actual change it's offical name. Even so it should so be debated here (as instant changes will be as instantly reverted. 'The Ninjalemming' 18:03, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

Actually see above for name debates. I don't follow this page to much, but will look into it any way. 'The Ninjalemming' 18:06, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

The only thing that seems to have changed since the previous discussion is that Activision started referring to Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 2 as a title in its press release three weeks ago, using it interchangeably with Modern Warfare 2, which it still uses. Infinity Ward still prefers Modern Warfare 2. The collector's editions are still Modern Warfare 2. Dancter (talk) 18:47, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

Sales Category?

well, the pre order numbers are already out for modern warfare 2 on various websites. im wondering if i could add a Sales section? revealing the current preorder numbers (2 million +) ?

im gonna add it to the article. any problems and u can just contact me here. --Mark0528 (talk) 23:44, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

Homophobic Easter Egg

Is this really notable? Just because there is a character in the game that might be homophobic (Even though that isn't guaranteed), that doesn't mean that the developers are homophobic. Just because Price lets the nuclear missile launch, doesn't mean the developers are terrorists bent on global Armageddon. This section just doesn't seem notable enough to be included. Vrinan (talk) 01:35, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Same thing goes for the Javelin Glitch and "FAGS" thing. Vrinan (talk) 01:36, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

You know, the whole controversy section seems over detailed. Just because there are reliable sources that documented the controversy does not mean it has to be included. They also all have the same sort of drift to them (making a negative statement on the controversial subject, and then ending on a positive note). I think that a lot of the sections are just unnecessary. It almost seems to dominate the article. Thoughts? Vrinan (talk) 01:40, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Who would you say put that character in the game? The developers perhaps? Nothing gets into a game by accident (not since hot coffee at least), and developers are 100% responsible for what is in their game. And I don't remember anything in the article about the developers being bent on global armageddon. You are comparing apples and oranges. I agree that there is a lot to the controversy section, but this is "the most profitable release in entertainment history" and with great success comes a lot of valid and notable criticism. I do however agree with you about the Javelin Glitch that has been/will be corrected and isn't really notable in the long run. --Austin de Rossi (talk) 03:57, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

The javelin glitch DID receive response from people, both positive and negative. And controversy is necessarily going to start with the negative to show WHY it was controversial. - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 06:24, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

I agree that currently it is notable, but in the long run I don't think it will be. A year from now nobody is going to care about something that was in the game for only a few weeks before being corrected. Everything else in that section is there to stay, and will be relevant to readers in the long-run. --Austin de Rossi (talk) 14:16, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

The gripe that I have with this is because we don't KNOW that they are homophobic, we just THINK so. So there is a character that might be homophobic in the game. How do you suppose that this means that Infinity Ward supports hating gays? If there is a terrorist who guns down innocent civilians, does that mean that Infinity Ward supports killing innocent people? Hell no. It is much more feasible that they simply put this "easter egg" in there to add on to the setting, make it feel more like a real Army camp. I think that all of you are reading too much into this. Accusing the developers of homophobia on Wikipedia just because some sources which have usually been reliable state so, is not exactly right in my mind. Before they make an official statement, we should put the section on hold, as it is simply assumptions by sources which are NOT Infinity Ward. 71.169.185.194 (talk) 22:24, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

An if it is decided to stay, then the "Controversy over the No Russian Mission in....." article should changed to "Controversy of Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 2". Vrinan (talk) 22:31, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

First of all, what we think is totally irrelevant. Wikipedia is based on sources and this claim is based on multiple valid secondary sources and what they are reporting. "We" are not reading too much into anything, nor are "we" accusing the developers of anything. We are reporting relevant material about the game. Nobody here is attempting to run a smear campaign against InfinityWard.

Second, what the developers put in a game is reflective of their views and perspectives especially with things like this. This "easter egg" is in no way relevant to the storyline, game play, or anything else which means it was a conscious decision by the developers to put it in the game for no other reason then to have it there. Removing it would have had no affect on the rest of the game. However, your example of Price shooting a nuke off is completely different because that is an essential part of the plot. Take that out and the entire game changes. See the difference? Apples and Oranges.

However, after what you said I do think it is a good idea to change the header to something other then "Homophobic easter egg". --Austin de Rossi (talk) 23:03, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

What exactly about the conversation makes it homophobic though? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.169.185.194 (talk) 00:14, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

It's not about controversy over MW2, it's about controversy over that one mission. It would be given undue weight if it were done in that way, because all other controversy over the game is much less important. - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 22:46, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

The writing in some of these controversy sections is pretty poor, like some of the phrases were taken out of the quotes and sort of seem out of place without the quotes. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Vrinan (talk • contribs) 22:58, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

It was written once and not copyedited. First and foremost, getting the content onto the article is most important. Getting it cleaned up is the second step, and its overall quality has nothing to do with whether it should be included. That's an argument for cleanup, not removal. - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 23:34, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Unit sales figure is incorrectly / ambiguously sourced

The worldwide unit sales figure quoted at the end of the introduction (just before the contents list) in this article is not confirmed in the original source, i.e. in the original source it appears that the figure used refers to UK/US sales only, and is much lower than other estimates I have seen around the web for the worldwide unit sales figure (between 7-11m units in the first 24 hours)

I propose that this 4.7m units figure should be removed from the article until it can be correctly sourced / verified. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.244.186.61 (talk) 16:07, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Archive

For the love of god would somebody please find out what is wrong with the auto archive (or lack thereof)?? I've looked at it about 50 times but have no idea how to fix it, and this page is driving me nuts. A huge thanks in advance!!! --Austin de Rossi (talk) 07:19, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

I was just going to comment on this! - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 07:27, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

Haha, good timing. Do you know how to fix it? It's been driving me SOO crazy! --Austin de Rossi (talk) 07:30, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

Nope! Was going to manually archive, but got lazy andforgot. - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 07:32, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

It is supposed to be set-up to do it automatically, but clearly that is not happening. --Austin de Rossi (talk) 07:37, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

I'd just do it manually. Doesn't take much time to do so. - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 07:40, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

I attempted the archive myself. It was my first time doing a manual archive, so if I made a mistake please feel free to fix it and let me know on my talk page... I want to make sure I know how to do it correctly. Thanks! --Austin de Rossi (talk) 16:02, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

Tried to fix auto-archive myself. Now we just need to wait. One possible reason why may be that, if you look at this diff, you'll see how the bot was being told to archive to "Talk:Modern Warfare 2" not "Talk: Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 2." That may have confused it. --Thejadefalcon^{Sing your song}_{The bird's seeds} 20:49, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

Variations between Xbox and PC bonuses

There seems to be differences between Xbox and PC gameplay bonuses.

Xbox players are awarded "achievements" which gain them points.

I think this should be included in the article under the subtitle "Gameplay", but since I am not really acquainted with how it works, I suggest a knowledgeable user add some information on it ie the usual number of points a player usually acquires after "achieving" something.

Please discuss.

Adrenalin 150% (talk) 08:48, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Err... try looking at the article on Xbox 360. Achievements are awarded for everything. Also, a list of the Achievements is not notable in the slightest. They'd only get mentioned if they didn't total to a thousand Gamerscore (the default total, excluding DLC, of all non-Xbox Live Arcade games, which have two hundred) or if an Achievement was controversial (e.g. "Shoot 250 civilians in No Russian. Mwuahahahahaha!" (I'd totally have that one >.>)). --Thejadefalcon^{Sing your song}_{The bird's seeds} 12:52, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Controversy Section Rework

Per the section of WP:CRIT dealing with the merits of sections dedicated to controversy, I'm going to remove the controversy section and integrate it into the article. For another article where this format is in use, take a look at Talk:Barack Obama, specifically question 6. Xenocide^{Talk|Contributions} 20:11, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Was discussed on my talk page here. --Thejadefalcon^{Sing your song}_{The bird's seeds} 20:26, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

That was fast. But you failed to mention F.A.G.S. --Thejadefalcon^{Sing your song}_{The bird's seeds} 20:50, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

I'm just trying to figure out where I should put that as related to the game's article, considering it's not actually part of the game. I suppose marketing, as it's designed as an advertisement? Xenocide^{Talk|Contributions} 20:54, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Sounds good. --Thejadefalcon^{Sing your song}_{The bird's seeds} 21:45, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Infinite Ammo Glitch

Considering that this is a glitch that has been going on for a while, and infects users who play with anyone using it, this should be mentioned in this article or the controversy one. Here are some links; http://xbox.boomtown.net/en_uk/articles/art.view.php?id=18996

http://www.video-game-forums.com/call-of-duty-modern-warfare-2/73652-mw2-infinite-ammo-glitch.html 71.169.185.194 (talk) 01:00, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

it should be noted that infinity ward have now said that a patch to fix this glitch is apparantly in the works. this virus spreads from machine to machine via any game however it does not save permanently and is kept in the cache switching off the xbox solves the problem however almsot every game is affected by this problem apparantly. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Frenchy9113 (talk • contribs) 03:08, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Wow, that's pretty extreme. We definitely need to note that. I don't have time right now, but this would fit better in the Controversies surrounding Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 2 article. --Austin de Rossi (talk) 06:02, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

With a note next to the Javelin's new location. I'll agree that the ranking glitch, which you can see in the talk page history, wasn't all that important though. Kotaku had a good article on this that we can use. --Thejadefalcon^{Sing your song}_{The bird's seeds} 15:35, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Russian locations

The locations in Russia should not referred to as Siberia. The Gulag area is usually known as the russian Far East or better - Kamchatka peninsula, and the area where the finale is taking place could just be "the Caucasus mountains" or the "Georgia-Russia border", as it is called in the game. Anyway, none of these locations are parts of Siberia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Geonikolas (talk • contribs) 18:50, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

What version of the article are you looking at exactly? Vrinan (talk) 01:32, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

The Kamchatka peninsula is not part of the Siberia adminstrative district of the current Russian Federation, yet it is within part of the area that is historically referred to as Siberia. 222.153.226.41 (talk) 17:43, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Comic section

I did some needed rewriting and updating. Merry Christmas. DavidHøstbo (talk) 23:05, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

The mentioning of the ACS module in the plot section

S.S.D.D., someone edited out the ACS module reference from the part where the Russians begin to invade the States. The way the plot section stands right now we may as well edit out the earlier ACS reference in Kazakhstan, since the ACS doesn't play any part in anything at all if we are not saying anything on its significance. 222.153.226.41 (talk) 17:51, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Actually after checking the history for the previous versions of the article I find the earlier version of the plot section to be better. Can we switch it back? 222.153.226.41 (talk) 17:57, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

What is the earlier version? I don't see why ACS should be left out, it's rather important for the Russians when they invaded US. Many people expect the US to be *uninvasionable. I think that's the very reason why IW came up with such a ACS module. I myself was wondering why and how the Russians got that module without the US going loud. Mallerd (talk) 19:14, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Ah yes, I deleted that part when I was editing the article and I seem to have forgotten to put it back in during my editing! Sorry, I will see if I can't edit the Plot section again and incorporate the ACS module back in. Kilkia123 (talk) 20:00, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Okay, I edited into the plot section that the ACS module had already been compromised before its retrieval. Thus, it allowed the Russians to carry out their invasion after bypassing America's early warning system. It's in the third paragraph. Again, sorry for leaving it out before. Kilkia123 (talk) 20:26, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Also, why are Raptor and the other HVI not mentioned? Harriers hovering at the house..tattooed militants dead near the panic room. Kinda comprised 2 missions baby. Mallerd (talk) 23:48, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

We don't have to mention everything that happened, just the salient points. --Eaglestorm (talk) 01:56, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Alright, well, I thought it would be important when the third part comes out. Mallerd (talk) 11:39, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

When, and if, the third game comes out, then we maybe could add such information. However, the purpose of the plot section is to summarize the game. Raptor and the harriers, etc. are all instances that take place while the Rangers are defending the U.S.. Kilkia123 (talk) 00:34, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

Title Capitalizations

Excuse me, all, but why is it better grammar to have a title read (as an example), "References in popular culture" rather than "References in Popular Culture?" As part of a title (or sub-title), all of the words should be begin with a capital letter, save words such as "in" or "the." Is this not true? I do not want to just undo another person's changes unless such changes are of a lesser quality than the original, and so I am asking you all formally. I had changed the titles to the capitalized versions, but then another user undid such changes. Kilkia123 (talk) 20:00, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

It is just how things are done. See WP:HEAD. --Torsodog^Talk 06:54, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

Ah thank you. I don't see why that's how it is done, but thank you for pointing it out none-the-less. Kilkia123 (talk) 06:12, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Splitting off the controversy section?

I don't know if others feel the same way, but I think that the amount of the article devoted to the game's controversy is a bit excessive. I think it makes the article seem a bit negatively slanted when the largest single section in the article is filled with nothing but negative criticism. I think the controversy section should be split off into it's own article (with the "No Russian" mission controversy included). That way it won't seem like the article is dominated by the controversy section. Splew (talk) 00:40, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

I agree. --Austin de Rossi (talk) 00:42, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

Is anyone willing to do the splitting off of the controversy section and the merging with the No Russian article? I would do it, but I'm still a relative novice here, so I don't know if I could handle it. Splew (talk) 01:22, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

The No Russian article is developed well enough that merging it into a general controversy article would give it undue weight. It's noticeably the biggest controversy, having response from people worldwide. It will probably go down as one of the most controversial things related to video games ever [and it's not even finished; that article's from about two days of work]. A separate controversy article can stand without it. I actually started making a whole Controversy of Modern Warfare 2 article, but when I noticed that so much of it was over No Russian, I focused on an article about that. Though honestly, the dedicated servers thing might be able to have its own article as well. - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 01:36, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

I understand that the No Russian article can and does hold it's own weight, but I still think it could be easily merged. Having two separate articles for MW2 controversies seem unnecessary (at least with what we have now). I don't see the No Russian article growing much more from here on out, so I'm pretty sure it can easily accommodate the rest of the controversies. I'll start working on a merge on my userpage and wait until we have a consensus before moving it. --Austin de Rossi (talk) 01:45, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

It can be easily merged but it doesn't necessitate that it should be. The only thing that would be of any competition to its size is the dedicated servers issue, which is a much weaker, less important subject. The No Russian mission is still a matter of fierce debate all over the world, and I guarantee you that it will not be the kind of thing that is very front-loaded with its controversy. I can't really see how you can't see it growing; all of the information I gathered was from probably four hours combined searching, and I can tell you that I had 60 more related references that I was going to use but were deleted before I could. - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 02:09, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

I think it is overstating it to say the mission is still a matter fierce debate. I think that most/all of the major reactions that will occur already have. Sure, details may change, but I don't see the No Russian article growing that much more then what it is now. And yes, you could probably find 1000 relevant references for the No Russian mission, but it's the same story with the same information over and over again. I think it makes sense to merge the articles. The other points of controversy don't have to be in "competition" with the No Russian mission as you said. Austin de Rossi (talk) 05:47, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

After two years, the Manchester Cathedral controversy is still being discussed; it was recently ranked amongst the top 10 most controversial video games, Resistance, because of it, and some time later, it was stated that the controversy was responsible for an increase in interest in the Cathedral. To say after a month that a controversy is over is silly; they didn't remove it from the game [with some obvious exceptions in certain regions], they didn't apologize [in fact going so far as to say they couldn't leave it out]. People are going to be buying this for a long time, continuing to react to it, and here it is: Until Modern Warfare 2 is dead, there is no potential that people will not react to it. One of the biggest controversies involves is how violent and cruel the scene is, so what has changed to make the controversy end? - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 06:56, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

Go back and re-read my reply... nowhere did I said the controversy had ended. Nor am I stating that it isn't important. What I am saying is that the game has been released, and unless a major real-life event happens (shooting linked to or resembling this) I don't foresee any more major reactions. Yes, it is controversial. Yes, it will remain to be controversial. Yes, people will have reactions to it. Yes, details will change and statements released. But none of that has anything to do with merging the articles. If either topic got big enough to split off then we could easily do that when the time comes, but it makes sense to merge for now. --Austin de Rossi (talk) 07:10, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

The logic of having such a major reactions as a shooting doesn't fly. Several controversies have arisen that merely have response from media and such. The article is already quite large, and it only encompasses what I've added and not the likely 100+ articles that discuss the article and could be used. - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 07:17, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

I'm not using that as "logic" for my argument. Please read and respond to my post entirely. I am merely saying that unless x happens then y is unlikely. You make it sound as though that was the foundation for my whole argument when it was merely an example, what about everything else I said (including the past 3 posts, none of which you have responded to entirely)? The point is that the controversy section for the article is too big, but it is all relavent and notable. It is pointless to have two different articles essentially about the same thing, so for now it would make sense to merge them. If in the future, you are correct and the "No Russian" mission controversies expand exponentially forever and ever then we could always easily split it back off. Clearly you and I are not going to be able to come to an agreement on this. Let's wait for some other editors to give us their thoughts. If you choose to reply to this, please be sure to read my post entirely and respond the the whole thing. Thanks. --Austin de Rossi (talk) 07:29, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

There's nothing to suggest that there can only be one controversy article. I don't feel that it's "one thing". The violence issue is a separate issue, with the No Russian mission being about the violence, the offensive depiction of Russians, etc. No Russian is particularly differentiated from the violence controversy in that even people who like Modern Warfare 2 found the scene to be in poor taste. I predict that in all likelihood, the controversy section itself will be merged back, however, once I finish up on the No Russian article and dedicated servers article. - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 07:40, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

We've said our peace... let's wait for some other editors to help us form a consensus. --Austin de Rossi (talk) 07:47, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

I support merging the controversy section here on this page with that of the "No Russian Mission" page. Just because the controversy is about different kinds of issues, doesn't mean that they aren't ALL controversy. Obviously, the No Russian mission would dominate the new article, but that does not mean that that should be only issue discussed there. Vrinan (talk) 15:41, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

I agree. No Russian would dominate it (it's larger than all of the others combined), but there should only be one article on it (at least, that's been my experience so far). This game is already unusual in that it has to have a separate article for controversy. It doesn't need two of them. We'll need to rewrite the main Modern Warfare 2 article to have a more generalised outline of all the controversies in one, maybe two paragraphs, but that's simple enough to do. So I say merge with the current No Russian-only article and rename it to simply "Controversies surrounding Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 2." If No Russian grows even further... well, let's deal with that if and when it happens. If you need me to expand on this post, just say what you need clarified. Sorry, but I've only got time for small stuff here and there right now. Trying to get my girlfriend's birthday, Christmas, New Year's and my birthday right is draining my spare time more than my contribution log would have you believe. --Thejadefalcon^{Sing your song}_{The bird's seeds} 20:21, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

Okay, I think we have enough of an consensus to move forward. I have started a rough draft on my userpage here. It needs a lot of work and is pretty much just copy/paste of the sections to be merged right now. New Age Retro Hippie, I would welcome any help with the editing considering how well you did with the "No Russian" split, and from anybody else who has the time. --Austin de Rossi (talk) 20:40, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

This is one of thousands of Wikipedia articles reporting a large media conglomerates data in a biased format. Metacritic, being owned by CBS, and it's data are not essential here. Otherwise we are simply reporting what that company wants us to, just like the Newscorp's Rotten Tomatoes. This is a virus all over the Wikipedia world and something needs to be done about it. For this particular game the IGN rating is absurd, since the user rating is less than 3. IGN of course is owned by Newscorp as well though, which is a partial competitor of Vivendi, since Vivendi owns about a fifth of NBC. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.214.231.194 (talk) 00:39, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

In Popular Culture

Per Wikipedia:"In popular culture" articles, Wikipedia:Trivia sections, Wikipedia:Handling trivia and specifically Template:In popular culture these sections should "explain the subject's impact on popular culture rather than simply listing appearances." I'm not against having such a section, as clearly a game such as this would have an impact, but currently it's just a list. Several other games with such impact, such as Halo 3 and Super Mario Bros. have had similar impacts on the world and have plenty of minor references such as the ones listed in this article, yet contain no In popular culture section. Inversely, World of Warcraft has a similar section (In other media) where a semi-lead is written to explain the impact in general, then the occurrences are given. Other good examples are the pop culture section of Cultural impact of the Guitar Hero series, Mario (series) and Halo (series). Yes, a list is given, but the content justifies the section, and the article itself explains the impact towards pop culture. Since this article is a high priority article, it needs to be held to those standards. A pop culture section is fine, but it needs to be justified, not just assumed that instances are worthy of mention. It may be better suited in Call of Duty (series), maybe not. I think it's worth discussion though.

If these refs are not trivial, justification should be given. For instance, the second ref is a common occurrence with popular video games nowadays. Can/should it be left? I'm not sure. But if justification as to why that's important can be left, that's fine. --Teancum (talk) 17:02, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

I think it should be removed. It looks very trivial and unecessary. Maybe one thing or two could be briefly mentioned in another section, but that's it. ӣicҟin\\talk with me\\\\\\\\\\ 21:05, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

I support deleting them as well. Really does not add onto the article. Vrinan (talk) 04:03, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

I would also like to see it removed. Dbrodbeck (talk) 01:38, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

Article Protection

I know there are many Activision, Vivendi, and IF employees (or whatever other company it would benefit) who have accounts with Wikipedia and did their best to make this article an advertisement for the game, but let's be realistic: there was not a single mention of the hundreds of thousands of signatures on that petition against the release, nor was there a single mention of the user rating disparity against the official corporate ratings. Let us keep in mind that the reception section of this article mentioned several ratings from GameSpy, IGN, GameInformer, etc., but failed to mention this: GameTrailers, GameSpot, and BOTH so called aggregate services Metacritic, and GameRankings, are ALL owned by CBS. Also IGN, GameSpy and GameStats are all the same as well, owned by Newscorp. These are just some of the problems with "ratings" listing for games and movies alike all over Wikipedia, they are owned by companies. Just like the PR companies hired out by Activision altered this page and eventually got it locked from access, they already had full control over the ratings systems for movies and games, among other things. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.214.123.146 (talk) 01:14, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

This is tied into a post on my talk page. --Thejadefalcon^{Sing your song}_{The bird's seeds} 02:03, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

Recent plot section changes.

Does anyone think the plot section is a little overly detailed now? Don't get me wrong, I'm all for lots of detail (even though most editors here prefer to keep it short and sweet), but even I think it's gotten a bit too wordy and detailed. I thought the plot summary was fine a few days ago, but now it has bits like mentioning that "Soap staggers after Shepherd through a sandstorm" and that he "struggles to pull the knife out of his chest", the mentioning of the sandstorm and Soap struggling seem a bit irrelevant to me.Splew (talk) 19:07, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

The plot section is definitely bloated. Most of the fluff could and should be edited out. --Torsodog^Talk 22:23, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

The plot section is fine the way it is. The point of it is to summarize the game for the reader. "Soap" struggling to pull the knife out of his chest is exactly what happened in the game. "Soap" staggering after Shepherd in a sandstorm is what took place. I have no idea why you'd think such information is "irrelevant." We shouldn't take out 'fluff' to the point that the plot summary just doesn't provide enough information. What I think is 'fluff' would be mentioning the Harriers hovering outside of a random house. Everything mentioned in the plot summary right now is fairly important to the overall story. Besides, it would be rather odd and quite bad, at least I would think so, if we just said, "Oh yeah "Soap" had a knife in his chest, he pulled it out, and he threw it at Shepherd." To be honest, the plot section looks great and I think we should just leave it as it is. It looks quite professional. Kilkia123 (talk) 06:28, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

The information about 4.7 million copies sold worldwide is wrong. That only applies to the US and UK. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Huaxiong90 (talk • contribs) 16:48, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

The current plot is wrong in a few details actually. Shepherd isn't actually turned russian extremist, but wants to kill everyone involved in the events in MW1 because he lost 30,000 marines in the nuke in once again MW1. As a result he allies Makarov in order to launch the war and allow him to launch an offensive on Russia. He doesn't want glory, but only kill the people who killed his marines and still get matryed and worshiped for this...Also the attacks on Makarov are only so his cooperation with Shepherd isn't revealed. He kills Ghost and Roach as a result of finding incriminating evidence of this alliance. This can be confirmed by the quotes of loose threads and Shepherd complaining of the loss in the end of the campaign... As a result of this section being semi protected I can't make edits so as a result I am writing about the mistakes in the wiki section here. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.239.226.130 (talk) 00:26, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

I agree with your conclusion, and this has been debated a few times (with me being the most vocal about making the change). Please see the archives for the full discussion, but the consensus was made that including the alliance between Shepherd and Makarov would require original research which is not allowed by wikipedia. If you have any other evidence to support this that hasn't already been discussed in the archive then I urge you to bring it forward, otherwise this will have to wait until this can be clarified by somebody from infinity ward or a sequel. Cheers! --Austin de Rossi (talk) 00:45, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Plot

What is the name of the device which Sanderson uses for copying Makarov's computer files?--AM ^(talk) 13:10, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

A... DSI? I'm... not totally sure. I'll check tomorrow, most likely. --Thejadefalcon^{Sing your song}_{The bird's seeds} 23:39, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Last sentence of Plot section

The last sentence of the plot section says that "Nikolai mentions a safe place to go to". He does not actually mention a place; he merely says that he knows a safe place to go, so sentence should rather be, "Nikolai mentions that he knows a safe place to go to." —Preceding unsigned comment added by AyoubZubairi (talk • contribs) 14:30, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

 Fixed --Austin de Rossi (talk) 15:13, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

MobyGames link

Per the notice, I'm not adding this outright. How about a link to the MobyGames article? It has full credits and scores of screenshots, something this article is lacking (and will probably never have). I know there are links to a couple of "official" sites with screenshots, but MobyGames has screenshots from actual gameplay. Thoughts? Objections? — Frεcklεfσσt | Talk 21:07, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Billion Dollar Sales

I think it's worth noting that MW2 has made over a billion dollars in sales. so noob —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.1.53.212 (talk) 16:15, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

Ars Technica: What we (and Activision) learned from Modern Warfare 2

Found some other info about this game from the Ars Technica site, mainly detailing the state of the game amongst other things. Could be useful for the reception section. -194.106.220.83 (talk) 12:39, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Task Force 141 isn't attempting to stop a nuclear launch from a submarine.

A review of the missions Of Their Own Accord (Act II), Contingency, and Second Sun (Act III) reveals that TF141 isn't attempting to stop a nuclear launch at the sub base. The time lines of the three missions actually converge, separate actions at the same time. So while the player is playing Of Their Accord and boards the Blackhawk to fire the vulcan, the story of Contingency is actually happening at the same time. Please note that at the mission Of Their accord, Shepherd mentions "evacuation order April" a few minutes before the chopper crash lands, indicating that he is aware of the rogue actions of TF141. Captain Price also mentions "We got ourselves a pretty big fire. Gotta need a huge bang," showing that he INTENDS to fire a nuclear missile over Washington DC airspace to detonate an EMP that would disable all electronics and vehicles in the city, suspending the hostilities significantly. Second Sun details the effect of the EMP detonation.

Please edit the page accordingly. Refer to this page for reference: http://callofduty.wikia.com/wiki/Call_of_Duty:_Modern_Warfare_2 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.87.201.38 (talk) 13:47, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Can you be more clear as to where this article is incorrect? I think the article currently encompasses what you are describing above. Thank you. --Austin de Rossi (talk) 15:15, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Here's the content of the present Wikipedia article: (Plot section) As a result, Task Force 141 assaults the prison and manages to free the prisoner, who turns out to be Captain Price. Price agrees to aid in the tracking down of Makarov. While attempting to stop a nuclear missile launch aboard a Russian submarine, he appears to go rogue, himself allowing the launch of a SLBM that is aimed at Washington D.C.

This appears to be incorrect, because there is no indication that they are stopping a nuclear launch, either in the cinematics (loading cinematics) or the gameplay itself. I think we should edit that one a bit. Thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.87.201.38 (talk) 09:57, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

If they weren't trying to stop it, why was Ghost screaming about the nuke being launched? --Thejadefalcon^{Sing your song}_{The bird's seeds} 12:40, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

I haven't played single-player for about a month so the details are a little fuzzy, but I am pretty sure TF141 is just following Price who says they are going to attack the base. Once they attack the enemy begins a countdown to launch a nuke, Price prevents this launch, but still makes a launch at DC. If you recall once you attack the base a countdown begins to prevent a launch. So I think you are right in that the original intention of the mission wasn't to prevent a launch, but it certainly becomes one as the mission progresses. --Austin de Rossi (talk) 16:02, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the response, sirs, but here's my observation out of playing the campaign. To sir Thejadefalcon, Ghost may have been uninformed of the details of the attack at the sub base for it were only Price and General Shepherd who were conversing via secure link of the TF141. Please take note of Price's "oil-fire" analogy (the Contingency loading cinematics), that should be enough proof of his intentions to go rogue, but not enough to say that there was a nuclear launch crisis that has to be prevented. Due to Price's relationship to Soap (the squad leader of the TF141) as Soap's previous commander, Soap may have seen through Price's rationale and authorized the attack without informing his subordinates of the details completely. Also, General Shepherd asked, "What's this (plans of a Russian sub) you're sending me?", indicating that he doesn't have any intel that reports any attempt by the Russians to decimate Washington DC with a nuke with their (Russian) forces in it. Ghost reacted that way because he's not well informed of his superiors' intentions. To sir Austin, the countdown referred by Price at Contingency was a countdown before the sub submerges and sails away from port. Capt. Price tells his men to hurry in order to prevent the sub from "submerging" not launching a missile. The alarm at the base indicates a perimeter breach, not a launch warning. If the sub submerges, Price will not have boarded it and launched a missile that would be detonated over Washington for an EMP blast. Another thing to consider, if TF141 were to stop a launch, you (as Roach) should've been able to board the sub too and take part of the plan to abort the launch sequence. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.87.201.150 (talk) 08:10, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Despite some WP:OR, I stand corrected. I forgot the countdown was indeed to prevent the sub from submerging. I think the facts support your idea and I have edited the plot to remove the erroneous information.  Fixed The wording may be a little goofy (I haven't finished my coffee this morning), but the info is there and I trust somebody with a better handle on the English language will improve it. Thanks user, you should consider registering and giving us a hand on improving this and other articles. --Austin de Rossi (talk) 17:06, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for your hardwork too, sir... I'll consider registering too (well, Filipinos just love MW2). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.87.201.38 (talk • contribs)

Time to unlock the Article

Vivendi successfully got this article locked. They made many millions from the game and made plenty more by putting false reviews and blocking out user ratings. The time is now to unlock this article and let any user edit this content. I notice this thing is a god damned commercial, like most Vivendi releases and something needs to be done. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.212.10.134 (talk • contribs)

No, Vivendi didn't get it blocked from editing by anonymous users, the anonymous users did. The sheer amount of vandalism this page suffered caused it. Also, if it's so much like a commercial, why has no one else spotted it, and why have you not given us anyways to improve it? Finally, please sign all of your talk page comments with four tildes (~~~~). RWJP (talk) 07:30, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

I renamed this section a bit as it was completely over-the-top (and made me consider that you were an annoyed vandal yourself). I've got some (minor) edits I want to make too, but can't yet since I'm not autoconfirmed, but I'm happy to agree that it was protected for a reason. If you're not a vandal, then the best thing to do is to sign up for an account and wait until you're autoconfirmed to do it. --Sypheria (talk) 14:57, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

There is a simpler explanation, everything is not a conspiracy and consensus in this article (and one other that you have edited) is different than your opinion. Please present real sources and alternative wordings and we can discuss them like adults. 13:13, 18 January 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dbrodbeck (talk • contribs)

I think the first post is a great example of why the article shouldn't be unlocked. This guy (I have no idea who he/she is since they didn't sign their post) seems one of many people who were un-satisfied in some way with the game and can't wait to start spreading their personal negative views and opinions throughout the article. I'm all for unlocking the article if everyone can be responsible and make good constructive edits, but I simply don't see that happening.Splew (talk) 20:05, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

I would tend to agree. Thanks for making that point. Dbrodbeck (talk) 22:37, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Change to prevent spoilers

I'm sure I'm not the only one who didn't know Shepherd was going to betray the other members (characters section). Could we remove this reference so as to prevent spoilers? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.3.45.80 (talk) 09:46, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

No. Wikipedia is not censored, therefore no "spoiler" is going to be removed. nickin/conversation/contribution 10:17, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

patch 1.08

can somebody add that ps3 and possibly xbox 360 recieved the 1.08 patch which fixed the unlimited airdrop glitch and the super fast airdrop running on 30/1/10 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.232.116.71 (talk) 22:41, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

Weapons list

I'd like to see there all weapons list. --62.192.241.249 (talk) 13:10, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Not gonna happen. Please read WP:GAMEGUIDE. thank you. --Eaglestorm (talk) 13:41, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

change 'AC-130 gunship to strike from the sky after 11 kills' to 'AC-130 gunship to strike from the sky after 13 kills'

{{editsemiprotected}} In the multiplayer section its says you need an 11 killstreak for the ac-130 when you actually need 13. Would change it myself but not allowed as page is semi-protected. Thanks

It's correct as is. Wisdom89 _{(T / ^C)} 21:37, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

User says it's correct, I will cancel the request.  Ronhjones  ^(Talk) 01:04, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

3PS

At what point in the game is it a third person shooter? I thought it was 1st person throughout. -mattbuck (Talk) 00:14, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

some multiplayer features include 3rd-person view such as 1v1, team deathmatch & domination, and others. some small differences distinguish both playing features, like switching your main viewing area from the left to the right ; others may argue it is easier to view your surroundings. Insomniakk (talk) 00:41, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Third person mode was a great add on to the game. It gave the game more depth and the player more options in multi-player. The only downside is the fact that the enemy can camp and see around objects and see you as you come around the corner. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.96.144.186 (talk) 17:33, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Also,3rd person mode might give you some realism issues,if you are very used to sights and find it hard to adjust.The game fucuses in your gun when you aim,but it shows only the HUD,not sight itself,and it still shows the aiming on guns such as assault rifles in an over-the-shoulder mode.For example,if you aim a Scar-H with a red dot sight,the game will still show you an over-the-shoulder perspective.Your HUD is zoomed in,but again,you won't see the red dot on the sight.Joel397 (talk) 03:15, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Changes

{{editsemiprotected}} Multiplayer Gameplay in the online multiplayer mode. The weapon pictured contains the heartbeat sensor attachment.

The online multiplayer mode of Modern Warfare 2 retains the same experience points and unlockable reward system as that of Call of Duty 4, with game modes that include Free-For-All, Search & Destroy, Demolition, Domination, Team Deathmatch, and Capture The Flag.[21] However, Modern Warfare 2 introduces several new features. Aside from new weapons, equipment, and perks that upgrade to "pro versions" after meeting utilization requirements,[22] 15 different kill streak rewards can be unlocked and selected by the player. Among these is the ability to receive a supply drop after achieving four kills in a row, order a Predator missile strike after five kills, and call in an AC-130 gunship to strike from the sky after 11 kills.[23] Another new feature is the in-game host migration; if a match host leaves the game, the current game no longer ends (as is the case in Call of Duty 4), as a 'host migration delay' allows a new host to be selected and the game to continue on.[24][25] There is also the addition of an optional third person mode which can be used in certain game types.[26]

In the Xbox 360 version of the game, the party chat system is disabled while the player is playing online in certain playlist types. This decision, designed to promote cooperation amongst team members, has caused some controversy within the Xbox Live community.

The offline (splitscreen and LAN) multiplayer mode still retains the experience and rewards system found online, a first for the series since the system was introduced. However, the rewards are separate from those that may be earned whilst playing online.

For the PC version, Infinity Ward has decided to implement a new matchmaking service: IWNET working through Steam. This system is nearly identical to the console version of IWNET. Dedicated server support is removed, eliminating the ability for mods or user-created maps to be incorporated. This removal has created anger among many PC gamers. Since the multiplayer aspect runs within Steamworks, the PunkBuster anti-cheat system utilized in previous titles has been replaced by Valve Anti-Cheat.[27] In addition, the PC version shares the same 18-player cap as the console versions (matches are a maximum of 9 versus 9).[28] —Preceding unsigned comment added by METAL-MAGEE (talk • contribs) 17:09, 22 February 2010

Question: It isn't clear what the change is that you are requesting. Could you be more specific and include less unchanged text? Thanks, Celestra (talk) 22:48, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Russian troops

The multiplayer reveals that the Russian troops in the game are Spetsnaz soldiers. I think this may be worth adding to the article, as both Modern Warfare games seem to focus on specific regiments of armies, such as the Task Force 141, the Ultranationalists, the US Marines, the US Army Rangers and the SAS. Grieferhate (talk) 11:32, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Famitsu Claim

It says MW2 beat games such as GTA4 and Uncharted Drake's Fortune to be best game this year when neither were actually released this year

The Famitsu claim is about best game sold in 2009, not released then. Chevymontecarlo. 17:36, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Lack of Australian servers

should it be noted that because of IW having not set up any Australian servers, it is near impossible for the tens of thousands of Australian owners to play online?

Could be included in the 'controversy' section, although do not know what the current situation is at the moment with the Australian servers...type four tildes, Goddamit! Chevymontecarlo. 17:35, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Strange Programming errors in Modern Warfare 2

It should be noted that Modern Warfare 2 multiplayer,as excellent as its online mode is,still has errores.For instance,in the map Favela,it has been observed that bullets cannot go through banana leaves.There is a barbershop mirror in that same level that,when knifed,will kill the player.Also,if you shoot glass and make it crack but not break,then if a smoke grenade is thrown on the other side of the glass and you look through the glass,you will be able to see through the smoke.I simply posted this topic because I thought people should be aware of certain programming glitches and errors in the system,and to tell them that the glitches can be in the most ridiculous of places.Joel397 (talk) 03:25, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Find a source and maybe we can put it in the article. Dbrodbeck (talk) 03:34, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

I could post a link to a mythbusters-like youtube video.Anybody want it? ������ —Preceding unsigned comment added by Joel397 (talk • contribs) 22:02, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

I don't think Wikipedia is really the place to list info on various obscure programing glitches in video games, while major glitches that seriously affect game play are included (see Javelin glitch in the separate controversy article), the things you listed seem pretty minor. That kind of info is better suited to a site like this: [12]. Splew (talk) 19:47, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Downloadable Content

http://marketplace.xbox.com/en-US/games/offers/0ccf0001-0000-4000-8000-000041560817?cid=SLink

I think that says enough, doesn't it, there are only 5 maps. Can someone change that? 80.101.25.118 (talk) 09:35, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

How did you find that link?Asher196 (talk) 16:17, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

It was on Kotaku.com, thought I'd just post it here.80.101.25.118 (talk) 20:24, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

First 360 bundle with 250g hard drive

no it wasnt, forza 3 bundle was availle first. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.13.80.156 (talk) 03:09, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Factual Error

In the reception section, it has listed that MW2 won 6 Game of the Year awards from Gametrailers. This is misleading, as Gametrailers only gave one Game of the Year award out, the rest were platform and genre awards. Please change that line to simply 6 awards, including Game of the Year, from Gametrailers. Thanks You. —Preceding unsigned comment added by SuperSnake667 (talk • contribs) 20:33, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

Criticism

As this is an article about the game and not an advertisement, why is it not available to edit? Where are the critical comments such as by Charlie Brooker in the Guardian who suggests that 'The storyline makes less sense than a gas ladder'? The criticism section is too low down, we all know that the campaign is far too short for the price tag yet this is almost only a footnote and should be in the opening synopsis. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 138.38.192.131 (talk) 15:08, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

The Reception section is in the standard location, with a subsection linking to an entire article worth of controversies and criticisms. Feel free to post some sources to reviews you feel need to be added. ferret (talk) 15:16, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Vivendi has had its commentators lock it. It is an advertisement. Why would they use the scoring systems they use? Most user ratings ranked between 2-3 our of ten when the game was first out. Such is life, friend. Don't use Wikipedia for information on anything that you can buy because the marketers OWN Wikipedia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.215.134.125 (talk) 16:59, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Oh yes, you are right. I'm actually getting paid by Activision because this game really is pathetic, and if we didn't have the criticism on a different page all to itself but actually on this page, people may think it's good. Get a hold of yourself, dude. I was about to delete your comment, but I found it humorous. 72.199.100.223 (talk) 23:51, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Shepherd's motive (again!)

This has been discussed vigorously a long time ago but I think it's fair to say the game has never explained explicitly why Shepherd betrays TF141. There is a "school of thought" that Shepherd has been working with Makarov from the outset, but this cannot be proved. The other explaination is that Shepherd is simplying seeking glory for himself, but it needs to be said that TF141 has been under the command of Shepherd himself (at one point he refers to TF141 as "my taskforce"), so why would he kill off TF141? After all he still needs the service of the Shadow Company so you can't really say he's done all of that single-handedly. So why has he done it? It's never explained and should just be left at that. Ken l lee (talk) 04:15, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

He wants to do whatever he can to gain revenge for the world ignoring that large amount of men who were ignored after being nuked to death in COD4.  rdunnalbatross  09:10, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

But how does killing TF141 help him achieve that? His intention to start the war may be to gain revenge, but his intention as to why he betrays TF141 is inconclusive. You see, there are two separate issues here: i) whether Shepherd is involved in instigating the war (if at all); ii) why he betrays TF141. Now these two things may be related, but we don't know. It's all speculations. So my point is, we can't really say Shepherd has taken away the intelligence to glorify himself. Ken l lee (talk) 09:23, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

He kills them because they know too much. I'm gonna play the level where he takes it tonight and am going to check.  rdunnalbatross  13:36, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Shepherd set up the war from the beginning. Starting with the massacre, he sent you in as a scapegoat, and Russia wouldn't let it slide. Next, they start a war with the US. Shepherd wanted this in order to get back at the Russians for the major casualties in the first game. Then Price goes "nuts" and launches a nuke, and Shepard truly sees Task Force 141's real power. Shepherd then uses them to get all the remaining intel he needed. After this he had them killed off, with the intent of silencing any possibility of his motives to be released to the public (Think of Star Wars Order 66 or whatever). Without TF141, he could continue on doing what he wants, with his blank check from the government. He would be seen as a hero and all would be "well." Remember, Price even said, "History is written by the victor." Halofanatic333 (talk) 14:16, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

A very good summary that man.  rdunnalbatross  14:22, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

rdunn and Halofanatic333, I agree with you guys on your interpretations on Shepherd's motive, but unfortunately this can't be stated in the article proper. The earlier "policemen" of this article have actually debated on this point. The sticking point in their debate was whether Shepherd is betraying TF141 to eliminate evidence, or is he doing it to make himself look like a hero (meaning Shepherd has not actually worked with Makarov at any stage at all, but kind of impromptu the betrayal). The truth is, the article has gone on for months with the part on Shepherd taking the intelligence saying that he's doing it to make himself responsible for taking it. This makes it sounds like that Shepherd's betraying TF141 not because he has been working with Makarov and needs to eliminate evidence, but merely to take credit for retrieving the intelligence. As I said earlier, which you two seem to concur, another plausible scenario is that Shepherd has been instigating the war with Makarov from the outset, and Shepherd betrays TF141 because he needs to eliminate the evidence. A few days ago, this has been put into the article, with the words saying something like "evidence implicating him and Makarov". Then yesterday, someone has come back and changed it back to "glorifying himself". What I want to say is, the game has never actually explicitly stated why Shepherd has betrayed TF141, so I think we should just avoid putting any reason why Shepherd has betrayed TF141.Ken l lee (talk) 14:29, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

When I played this mission, coupled with the next mission, I thought it was fairly clear that Shepherd was "cleaning up loose ends" by eliminating both TF141 (After they retrieved the data for him) and Makarov. While the game isn't clear, my interpretation at the time was that the data on the drive would have implicated Shepherd in some way. With everything else going on in the game, DC being EMP'd, so on and so forth, the idea that Shepherd would get a measure of glory for himself that justified killing his most skilled team is absurd. Shepherd may be after glory and being the hero, but this one particular event didn't really further that, other than in the sense of burying the truth. ferret (talk) 14:52, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

All of this discussion is moot without a reliable source. Dbrodbeck (talk) 20:56, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

That may be true, but that also applies to pretty much the entire plot section of the article. Most of it is cited to the game itself. ferret (talk) 22:24, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

The difference here is that it is not clear from the game. Dbrodbeck (talk) 22:26, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

If you actually listen to the narration of the game, everything I said will be revealed. Halofanatic333 (talk) 00:19, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

I really like this game, it poopy and dukie! —Preceding unsigned comment added by HowToGalaxy (talk • contribs) 01:17, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

HowToGalaxy that has nothing to do with it please stick to the conversation or go to a forum next time this is not the place to say you like the game The Movie Master 1 (talk) 01:41, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

I agree that Shepherd working with Makarov is the only logical explanation for him killing TF141, but as pedantic as it seems, this can't be referred to in the article because the game has never explicitly revealed that Shepherd has been instigating the war. This is because i) everything in Wikipedia must be verifiable ii) if someone is to be argumentative and says "I don't think Shepherd has been working with Makarov from the outset at all, I think they have been adversaries all along. Shepherd is only killing TF141 because he wants to seek the glory of eliminating the biggest enemy of the US to himself." You can think, "but this would be absurd, it'd be stretching it a bit too far wouldn't you think", but if this person is to counter-argue, "well then, show me the proof that Shepherd has been collaborating with Makarov", we would struggle to produce any proof at all. Believe it or not, and for this I can show proof, some earlier "policemen" actually believed that Shepherd and Makarov have been working independently. You can check the archive of the talk page on this if you want. Again, what I purport is only that we leave out any explanation for Shepherd betraying TF141. Ken l lee (talk) 02:42, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

The only thing that suggests that Shepherd was working with Makarov, is that he knew you were American (I doubt Shepherd was working with him). However, if you pay attention to what he (Shepherd) says to you at the end, "I lost 30,000 (don't remember) men in the blink of an eye, and the world just F***ing watched." This verifies that he wants revenge. The reason Shepherd betrays TF141 is so that they would not reveal to the mass his true intentions. Shepherd would be able to get away with it, considering that TF141 makes Delta Force look well known. But the Shepherd pretty much says he wanted the war to happen, after all he does get to kill a lot of Russians. It does go somewhat FUBAR with the invasion and all, but just listen to his speech during the end game, he tells you (almost) everything. All the blanks can be filled in by listening to the narrations during the load screens, remember Pierce hardly talks unless he is saying something wise or intelligent. Halofanatic333 (talk) 11:05, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

My personal belief is that Shepherd did not help instigate the war - he, in my opinion, seemed a little too patriotic for that. Instead, he probably just got greedy. He had the Task Force collect the information, and then betrayed them to take all of their glory for himself. If you say that killing the Task Force is "a bit absurd" and "stretching it too far," it should be noted that some people will go to extraordinary lengths to achieve glory and power, even at the expense of other people's lives. I think that he had no collaboration with Makarov, as he and his men were both seen fighting each other in the third-last mission, just after his betrayal. He seems simply to be determined to get revenge on him for instigating the war. I think that the game was intending to portray Shepherd and Makarov as two evil forces fighting each other, with Shepherd's task force caught in the cross-fire, almost literally in the third-last mission. It's vastly similar to the controversial mission involving espionage and how Price suggests to Makarov that "the enemy of my enemy is my friend" in an effort to side with him briefly, even though they spent the entire mission trying to kill each other. In this game, there are no good guys - only bad guys fighting each other. This takes the anti-war undertones to new heights. Grieferhate (talk) 00:45, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

If Shepherd did not have a conspiracy with Makarov, what would be Makarov's intention to create a wr with the US? Shepherd said that Makarov only kills for money, therefore there must be an agreement between the two of them. I support the idea that Shepherd used Makarov for his own gain and revenge. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.87.201.38 (talk) 17:04, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

Sales Number Off

The page claims that the game has sold 14 million, then cites a site that claims under 10million combined <http://www.videogamer.com/news/modern_warfare_2_the_3rd_best-selling_game_in_the_us.html.>

But then on a later post by the same site it appears this was false, and even the cites on this page, which appear more recent, contradict these sale numbers. <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_best-selling_video_games>

Does the wikipedia page need to be updated? Does the cite for 14 million need to be updated? Is this just one misunderstanding? I'm thinking we just need a new cite for 14 million, but I thought I'd raise the problem. 72.199.100.223 (talk) 23:40, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

The 10 million figure is NPD's. Which means only US sales. The 14 million figure is worldwide sales. You missed the first reference <http://www.metro.co.uk/tech/817620-call-of-duty-modern-warfare-2-is-uks-second-bestselling-game-ever> If you want a more credible source, the 14 million figure is also on Edge, <http://www.edge-online.com/news/modern-warfare-2-becomes-uk’s-second-bestselling-game>.

Also theres a new source from VideoGamer. Its moved from third to second best selling game in the US. <http://www.videogamer.com/news/modern_warfare_2_the_2nd_best-selling_game_in_the_us.html> User:Slushbunny (talk) 20:20, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

Edit request from 202.45.119.61, 19 April 2010

{tl|{editsemiprotected}}

The PS3 and PC realise dates for the "Stimuls" map pack are as follows acording to the Infinity Ward web site... PS3 4th May for USA & 5th May Worldwide. PC 5th of May Worldwide.

202.45.119.61 (talk) 22:44, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

 Not done Please provide a reliable source. --Mikemoral♪♫01:00, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

Wrong Uncharted Cited

On the "Reception" section, the Uncharted: Drake's Fortune was cited as coming out in 2009, but this is incorrect. It came out in 2006. Uncharted 2: Among Thieves came out in 2010. I would change this myself but, sadly, the article is locked due to frequent spamming.

Thanks, Xiphos15 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Xiphos15 (talk • contribs) 00:18, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

Red Dawn reference?

I was thinking that the Russian invasion of America in this game is something of a reference to the movie Red Dawn, as it seems to be very similar. Has anyone got any sources that have made a similar connection? Grieferhate (talk) 18:32, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

I have no exact refernces of this, but if Infinity Ward hasn't said anything, then I don't think so. Ever since the Cold War, similar games have had this same plot. Battlefield: Bad Company 2 has also had this plot. The same thing has happened with WWII games, and Vietnam and Korea, as well as the middle east. xXSc3n1cXx 18:12, 21 April 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by XXSc3n1cXx (talk • contribs)

Reference 2

Reference 2 is in the Japanese language. I was just wondering, even thought the reference cites the publisher in Japan, should it be in Japanese? This is Wikipedia: English. xXSc3n1cXx 18:19, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

Under the Downloadable Content page it states that the Stimulus Package has not been integrated into normal game modes, despite the fact that it was integrated into those modes about a week after release —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.140.188.177 (talk) 18:06, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

Unencyclopedic Language

I've briefly browsed through the article and noticed several instances of language that doesn't belong. For instance: "Unfortunately, on the Xbox 360 version of the game, Third Person Cage Match has been deleted off the playlists. This was because of people "Boosting" their levels. Infinity Ward obviously didnt make the game for that purpose, so they deleted it." There's several other examples of this throughout the article as well. 173.74.86.42 (talk) 16:42, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

This was vandalism that was cleaned up. ferret (talk) 12:18, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

Stimulus Package Info Incorrect

It states in the article that the maps are not used in regular modes. About a week or 2 ago they made it so that stimulus package maps were also randomly selected, but if you don't have the map pack you will be kicked out of the game when the session begins, so players can skip the map and continue playing, unless it picks another stimulus map of course. This is probebly to increase sales. Absorr2 (talk) 21:44, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

We should also indicate that it was also released May 4 for the PC through steam. Not sure if the editors were waiting for a secondary source. Wisdom89 _{(T / ^C)} 19:08, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

Free multi-player weekend

This seems to be more than a one-time thing, as Valve is again doing it this weekend. 70.254.192.188 (talk) 01:25, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

It's not unique to MW2 though, about every 3-4 weeks Steam has a free game weekend. Other notable mentions include L4D, TF2, Killing Floor, etc. ferret (talk) 12:17, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

Glitch Fix?

Does anyone know where to find the list of changes for the updates? So to know what 'glitches' have been fixed. So far, the seams are beginning to look more... seamless. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.233.222.197 (talk) 16:24, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

Multiplayer Maps

I don't know if its of enough importance for an article but could we have an article for all Modern Warfare 2 maps which brief section on each map? For that matter, these could be used for previous Call of duty games. Or is this too unimportant to be contributed? Teesideeeee (talk) 14:40, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

Not too sure but I do remember reading that the IW 4.0 engine makes the map file sizes smaller than that of COD4 and COD:WAW. Might have been IGN so I won't add to the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Chronosome (talk • contribs) 15:35, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

Resurgence Package

I just thought I'd let you guys know the new Modern Warfare 2 map pack entitled Resurgence Pack has been announced for a timed exclusive 360 release of June 3rd. It features 5 maps at the same 1,200MSP price point. It features Vacant and Strike from Call of Duty 4, along with 3 other maps including a carnival and a trailer park. You can listen to the discussion between Major Nelson and Robert Bowling here: http://majornelson.com/archive/2010/05/13/an-interview-with-robert-bowling-on-the-mw-2-resurgence-package.aspx —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.97.166.48 (talk) 07:30, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

-I think it would be a good idea if we were to have a article on each DLC to link it to. -Nyall. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.28.189.177 (talk) 21:39, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

It's pretty standard for DLC to be listed in the main article rather than having separate articles. ferret (talk) 11:59, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Special ops.

I'm probably splitting hairs, but I think it should be noted, when talking about how every special op has three difficulty settings, and stars are based on such, it should be noted that there's exceptions. The race missions, including the very first mission, are time graded and you can't change the difficulty. 71.104.189.58 (talk) 00:34, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

Last paragraph in the plot

However, Price manages to shoot the helicopter down just before the boat he and MacTavish are on tumbles over a waterfall.

It sounds like he would need a rocket launcher or some heavy machine guns - he shoots the helicopter rotor which causes the chopper to crash.

Can we change the sentence? Agree/disagree? DavidHøstbo (talk) 06:58, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

I tweaked it slightly. ferret (talk) 12:02, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Looks great. DavidHøstbo (talk) 18:41, 2 June 2010 (UTC)