Crysis 2 writer slams Modern Warfare 2

By Ellie Gibson Published 12 April, 2010

IW "way too impressed with themselves".

Richard Morgan, the sci-fi author currently penning the script for Crysis 2, has taken a pop at Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 2.

"I thought Modern Warfare 2 was an immense disappointment," he told CVG.

"[The storyline] made no sense. It was totally implausible. It doesn't resolve. Basically, all the things that bad storytelling does. I just think they were way too impressed with themselves and that's always a danger. It's just unfortunate."

According to Morgan, MW2 represented "a massive stepdown" from Call of Duty 4 - and not just because the plot was a bit pony.

"What I thought when I played it was, 'Jesus guys, what have you been doing? You've not ramped anything up. The story is worse and the game doesn't really hang together, it's just a bunch of mission levels.'"

Morgan reckons Naughty Dog's Uncharted 2: Among Thieves stands up as a good example of how sequels can improve on their predecessors. "Everything that didn't work very well, they fixed or ramped up or did something with," he said. "They really took it to a new place and you can honestly say to people if you played the first game, the second one is the same but better.

"Modern Warfare 2 is the same but... Way worse. And it cost more money."

So how is Crysis 2 shaping up? Read our recent preview to find out.

Picture of Ellie.

About Ellie Gibson

Since joining Eurogamer in the mid 2000s, Ellie has written about subjects as diverse as the fall of Gizmondo, the rise of Hollyoaks actresses in Red Alert games and the noise a bear makes under NSFW circumstances.

Read more articles from Ellie by visiting the Ellie Gibson archive page.

You may also like...

Comments (38) Latest comment 2 years ago

Comments for this article are now closed, but please feel free to continue chatting on the forum!

  • onezeonx #1 2 years ago

    Totally agree with what he says tbh

    But I'm sure alot of MW2 bumboys will disagree lol

  • SAMagic #2 2 years ago

    MW: Like a Tom Clancy novel.

    MW2: Like a Michael Bay movie.

  • ChthonicEcho #3 2 years ago

    And in other news, the geocentric model has been proven wrong.

  • Raz76 #4 2 years ago

    I think he is right but maybe the guy who is setting his story in post-apocalyptic New York shouldn't point fingers.

  • effinjamie #5 2 years ago

    Yep, totally agree, I didn't have a clue what was going on most of the time or which character I was playing.
    Felt like the writers had spent far to much time watching repeats of 24.

  • bad09 #6 2 years ago

    This guy had exactly the same reaction to MW2 as me, but lets wait until we see Crysis 2 and how the story develops first before slagging other games.

  • macmurphy #7 2 years ago

    Also thought the story was bit toss. That No Russian bit where they randomly pick a us soldier and the next day he's infiltrated with the Russians so well they'll take him on a secret mission. It just seemed like an excuse for some gratuitous controversy.

    I'm not going to troll the game. It's very playable and arguably the best shooter of it's kind (I think bad company wees on it from a great height in terms of multiplayer depth and involvement).

    But I agree that nowhere near enough was done to differentiate the sequel. It felt like an upgrade pack. It's a quality bit of work, but it's like they took the original and spent all their time making it shiny and new, as opposed to taking it apart and pondering what they could change.

    Spend all my time with battlefield now.

  • AphoticCosmos #8 2 years ago

    I recently played through MW2 again in lieu of all the court shenanigans

    It's shit. Unutterably shit. It's just a series of enormous explosions, plot devices and set pieces strung together in an illogical manner to give the illusion of excellence. As for the multiplayer . . . play BFBC2 and tell me MW2's offering is better.

    Now, Crysis didn't have the most original storyline, but it worked damn well. The fact that the gameplay was actually fun, unlike MW2s, also helped.
    Edited by AphoticCosmos at 12/04/10 @ 09:02

  • dsmx #9 2 years ago

    SAMagic I find that offensive even Michael bay has some ability to almost plausibly tie events together which MW2 failed at on every occasion.

  • metalangel #10 2 years ago

    The whole Brazilian bit just didn't fit... oh whatever, your only contact is some guy who happens to live in Rio and is being protected by the biggest fucking criminal army in the world. You just wanted a globe-trotting story.

    (NB: This has nothing to do with how much I hate the Favela levels in MW2. No, really. Honest. Er.)

  • CaptainQuint #11 2 years ago

    I agree with him. MW campaign wipes the floor with that of MW2.

  • Jamieb87 #12 2 years ago

    The MW2 story is utter balls.

    On a side note has anyone read any of Morgans books? They're pretty good, doesn't mean he can necessaraly pen a good game but I have high hopes.

  • jag10 #13 2 years ago

    So true, and the gameplay was copied of.......................... Ah forget it, not worth it for the crap that will get posted.

  • PearOfAnguish #14 2 years ago

    I think he is right but maybe the guy who is setting his story in post-apocalyptic New York shouldn't point fingers.

    Don't think it was up to him, he's freelance and is unlikely to be making big decisions like that.

  • Lobosolitario #15 2 years ago

    For those commenting on the original Crysis story, Richard Morgan didn't have anything to do with it - he's been brought on purely to improve this area in the sequel.

    Morgan has published five sci-fi novels and one fantasy novel since 2002. I've read three of his novels so far (Altered Carbon, Market Forces and Black Man) and they were good reads - imaginative, intricate and stylish (although I found the central concept of Market Forces to be a bit far-fetched).

    Full list of published works at
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Mor...

  • MrE26 #16 2 years ago

    He's right. MW2 was just a series of impressive but random set pieces held together by an incomprehensible plot. I like the game as a spectacle, but still have little idea what the fuck was actually going on. The first game was impressive but actually made narrative sense.

  • dr_faulk #17 2 years ago

    My gut feeling was exactly this, when playing MW2 for the first time. Nothing about it came close to the solemnity and resolve of the Chernobyl level from CoD4, which I still think is a landmark in videogame design.

    However, for all its faults, I still have great fun with MW2 multiplayer.

  • UncleLou #18 2 years ago

    lol I bet his script is shit as well.

    It's very very very hard to make a believable script for a game taht requires you to kill 6 people a minute.

    Keep it simple, then. I'd rather have a simple, unoriginal plot than the convoluted, incoherent mess of MW2 that really is just a bad excuse to distribute unconnected setpieces all over the world.
    Edited by UncleLou at 12/04/10 @ 10:06

  • erp #19 2 years ago

    I've not played either MW game as they don't interest me. But what does interest me is, given the comments in this thread, how come MW2 is so staggeringly highly rated and sold so well?

    It depresses me quite a lot, actually.

  • local_celebrity #20 2 years ago

    He's right. Modern Warfare 2 marked the death of narrative gaming.

  • JamieR #21 2 years ago

    I agree with him that the story needed a lot of work but where i part ways is he claims the first one is better i really am not a big fan of the first game.

  • dr_faulk #22 2 years ago

    @lolal_celebrity Such a comment would be lost on Mr. Kermode, given the context. =P

  • sneetch #23 2 years ago

    @Raz76
    I think he is right but maybe the guy who is setting his story in post-apocalyptic New York shouldn't point fingers.

    The location was probably not his decision, he's a writer, not the director or a producer and I'd guess that decision was made before he got involved.

    Although he didn't have anything to do with it, I thought Crysis had quite a good story (cliches and all :) ). One of the first games I've played to the end in ages and well worth the sponds.

    As for MW2 I always felt that the CoD story lines felt like someone took scenes from the various war movies du jour and rehashed them into a plot line, nothing special but with spectacular cut-scenes to set the scene.

  • Raz76 #24 2 years ago

    @Sneetch

    I doubt very much that remarks like this just happen casually. My guess is that this is a calculated attempt from the Crysis team to position themselves against MW as something other than just a graphics powerhouse. So he is indirecty promising that C2 will have a more interesting, better told story than MW2. Whether it will or not obviously remains to be seen but they've hardly done themselves any favours with the setting.

  • frugtkompot #25 2 years ago

    "The plot is shit, but so are the levels.
    I still haven't finished it, - I played some last week and found myself defending a series of fast food establishments for 30 minutes.
    Couldn't hear what the fuck I was supposed to do because of all the explosions, so just followed the arrows to defend whatever burger place the Russians were attacking next."

    I'll agree with this. That level is atrocious, but also by far the worst one in the game. There's a lot of pessimism surrounding this game, and rightly so, but while the story is garbage, there are actually some of the single player levels that by themselves work quite well. Especially the snowy ones. If anything describes MW2's campaign it's "uneven". It goes from shit to great to shit to great.

    Considering the amount of pessimism surrounding this game, I do think it'll hurt the next entry in the series. I can only speak for myself of course, but I at least won't be getting it on release date again.

    It sells well because it has a lot of awareness in the more casual sectors, where most people just enjoy a quick spin on the multiplayer.

  • McFly55 #26 2 years ago

    This sums it all up pretty well - Spoilers

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=THU2H5_na...

  • chrisola #27 2 years ago

    He's just upset Soap wasn't gay, or a dragonslayer :p


    He is right though!

    His Sci-Fi books are all brilliant. In fact, his concept of soldiers \ people that are able to be 're-sleeved' (eg respawn) in different bodies unless perma killed is probably what happens behind the scenes in Call of Duty games, maybe we have been killing the same 10 soldiers all this time?

  • Darren #28 2 years ago

    I have to agree with Mr. Morgan.

    Modern Warfare 2 was a good first person shooter but the campaign storyline was absolute drivel and was seemingly tagged on late in development as a way to link all the spectacular set-pieces together with the odd controversial bit thrown it to ensure people are paying attention (we all know which bit I'm talking about here right... the airport... terrorists...?). That might be no different from the average Hollywood approach to an action movie you might say but, nevertheless, I was hoping for something a bit more substantial from IW.

    It seems to me that by taking the Call of Duty series out of WWII, where it had least some historical context and meaning, and bringing it into the present day it has lost its way as far as the story goes, sacrificing realism and logic for the sake of spectacle and action. It's not the only game to do this either, UbiSoft's own Ghost Recon Advanced Warfighter and Rainbow Six Vegas games also had silly, far-fetched plots. Not only that but the decision to switch between three different faceless, personality free soliders during Modern Warfare 2's campaign meant that I never, at any point, felt any emotional connection to any of them. It's all po-faced and over serious really. Battlefield Bad Company 2 does a far better job of that IMO and injects some humour into the proceedings in the form of banter between your team mates. It does a great job of sucking you into the gaming world IMO.

  • Darren #29 2 years ago

    @erp - MW2 is so highly respected and liked for its online multiplayer, which obviously doesn't need a story to be enjoyed. The campaign was pretty much an afterthought really although it wasn't always like that as anyone who has played Call of Duty and Call of Duty 2 will tell you. It's only with the Modern Warfare games that IW have focused more on the online aspects of the game at the expense of a gripping single player campaign. Oh it's entertaining enough if a little short but it's just so disposable/forgettable really. As I said, like a typical Hollywood summer blockbuster. ;)

  • ignatiusjreilly #30 2 years ago

    If you weren't sure about this just being a cynical way of getting Crysis 2 in today's news, read the interview with NowGamer, also released today, where he calls Halo bullshit: [link url=http://www.nowgamer.com/news/2906/crysis-2-lead-writer-halo-is-bullshit
    ]http://www.nowgamer.com/news/2906/crysis...[/link]

    Halo is bullshit, MW2 was immensely disappointing - two statements guaranteed to get you on every gaming site.

  • Phishfood #31 2 years ago

    Well if Crysis 2 happens to flop then he'll just happen to say "Hey I didn't make the game, I just wrote the story"

  • robg #32 2 years ago

    Yeah, I love MW2 but the plot was possibly the worst I've ever experienced, in any medium.

  • sneetch #33 2 years ago

    @Raz76 @ignatiusjreilly

    Hmmm... fair enough, I hadn't realised he was being quite so "your games sux" about this. Well, he'd better be pretty damn impressive now, I mean I better be so emotionally involved that I need post traumatic stress disorder counselling after playing C2. ;)

    That said, I dislike articles on websites where people take a contentious or inflammatory quote and present it out of context. I'll give him the benefit of the doubt for now.

  • TheLittlestHobo #34 2 years ago

    Part of this is down to Activisions requirement to have a COD game released every year. According to the legal wranglings IW was only given 18 months to produce MW2 from start to finish.

  • kongzi #35 2 years ago

    I agree.. but at least the stupid story of Call of Duty was somewhat followable..so that you knew there was a story and it's ridiculousness gave it a certain charm.
    Crysis never even tried to make you care about the situations you were in, even though it had plenty of opportunity to do so. Stuff only made sense because you've played at least 20 games before where that stuff made sense, so it sorta did in Crysis.

    The man is right.. but he should've shut up about it.. at least untill we get to play crysis2.

  • Doctor_What #36 2 years ago

    Morgan's 'Altered Carbon' is incredible, it's a real shame that nothing else he's written has come close, so at least he can relate to how hard it is to make a good sequel...

  • AHiFi #37 2 years ago

    Disagree on most of this. Agree that it is ridiculous, but I think omission adds a certain intrigue to a game or any story. I don't know if they have the answers I want or considered them...but I'll just go with presumption that they did and just didn't include them.

    I think some Tom Clancy novels are drivel, but still entertain the side of my brain that dwells on the ridiculous. Why can't video games have similar titles? Just enjoy it for the mindless entertainment it provided.

    I also refuse to believe the comments of this being the worst video game storyline...you're not serious, surely?

  • MuppetThumper #38 2 years ago

    The question is, why did this ever get the reviews it did? I was of the opinion from day one, especially considering the limitless budget and resources it had in development and all the hype before release, that this was a 7 out of 10 game at best.

    Kind of regret I added 1 to the millions that sold, even if I did pick it up for only £26 on day of release.