IW confirms dual-wield for MW2

By Robert Purchese Published 26 August, 2009

Plus: Mad Catz lists game accessories.

Infinity Ward has confirmed dual-wield guns for Modern Warfare 2, and demonstrated the 'Akimbo' ability using two Desert Eagle weapons.

"Just walked off stage. Crowd was amazing, went insane chanting 'pick it up!' when I stumbled over dual-wield Deagles. lol - Akimbo confirmed," Tweeted Robert Bowling, Infinity Ward's community voice.

In a post on the Modern Warfare 2 forums, Bowling added:

"Now to calm some initial fears of 'OMG! Overpowered!'. Akimbo is limited and balanced, just like everything in the game. It's limited to side-arms, harder to aim than standard and you can't go ADS (aim down sights) since you have a weapon in each hand," he said. "So don't freak out before you see it in action."

Such is the fervour around Modern Warfare 2 that Mad Catz has made some special accessories for the game, which range from $15 to $100 to buy. There are controllers, keyboards, faceplates and even a throat communicator - a microphone that straps around the neck for clear and uncluttered voice communication. The army use them.

Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 2 will be released on 10th November for PC, PS3 and Xbox 360.

Picture of Robert.

About Robert Purchese

Bertie is Eurogamer's Senior Staff Writer. When he's not hunting down news stories he's often found playing with his kids or gabbling about fantasy games and strange online worlds. @Clert on Twitter.

Read more articles from Robert by visiting the Robert Purchese archive page.

You may also like...

Comments (80) Latest comment 3 years ago

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

  • Hog-lumps #1 3 years ago

    Hmmmm, so which day of the SAS and Marines intense training do they cover dual wielding then?!

    This just seems wrong to me.......

  • ChthonicEcho #2 3 years ago

    In the next MW2 news: your superior is voiced by 50 Cent and he dual-wields MP5s.

  • Bazfrag #3 3 years ago

    @Hog. Lol that was my first thought. S.A.S: All that training and you flipped out and started dual wielding. Real pro Soap...
    Edited by Bazfrag at 26/08/09 @ 11:34

  • Hog-lumps #4 3 years ago

    ChthonicEcho, you may joke - but hasn't 50cent already been confirmed for MW2 as a voice actor? They haven't mentioned the dual wield MP5s though :)
    Edited by Hog-lumps at 26/08/09 @ 11:31

  • KayJay #5 3 years ago

    in the heat of battle anything goes... :-)

  • retr0gamer #6 3 years ago

    'Where's ma skull!'

  • Bazfrag #7 3 years ago

    ""in the heat of battle anything goes... :-)" Only if your American.... Holy hell at the madcatz prices, mw is its own industry!

  • Daymare #8 3 years ago

    What's next, IW confirms grenades for MW2?

  • skillian #9 3 years ago

    IW should be embarrassed. I wonder if most of them are.

  • RedPanda #10 3 years ago

    Post deleted at 14:31:59 28-01-2012

  • viper_h #11 3 years ago

    "a throat communicator - a microphone that straps around the neck for clear and uncluttered voice communication"

    But then it's transmitted over XBL at some insanely rubbish codec level and distorted to shit anyway. GG.

  • Zomoniac #12 3 years ago

    Surely as long as Live's voice comms system is so shite anyway that won't do anything. I get voices cutting out ALL the time, with wireless and wired headset, the sound quality is awful and there seems to be a fairly substantial delay.

  • Matt_B #13 3 years ago

    I'll reserve judgement until I see it in action, but my gut feeling say's that dual wielding isn't a good thing. On a side note - I can't wait to see the kidz with modded controllers empty two desert eagle clips into my face within 0.5secs.

  • Bazfrag #14 3 years ago

    To be fair, its not just xbl. psn and gfw chat also sound like people trying to gargle mud while inside a metal box.

  • Eraser #15 3 years ago

    I don't see why everybody flips out so much over dual wielding. Apart from the realism aspect, I don't think it's out of place in terms of gameplay. People seem to consider dual wielding weapons as the equation weaponX * 2, but if you consider dual wielding Desert Eagles as a different weapon from a single Desert Eagle, with different properties and a different way it's supposed to be handled, then it's just another weapon in the list of weapons. It will be balanced, I'm sure. I don't see why it should be any harder to balance dual wielding side arms than any SMG or rifle.

  • skillian #16 3 years ago

    It will be balanced, I'm sure. I don't see why it should be any harder to balance dual wielding side arms than any SMG or rifle.

    I don't think people have a problem with the balancing, they have a problem with the stupid concept of dual wielding in a military shooter.

  • Fab4 #17 3 years ago

    I wonder if one of the other new perks is the ability to walk away from a massive fireball, exploding in close proximity behind you, while looking cool? As an added bonus they could have Diana King singing 'Shy Guy' in the background.

    They are slowly turning CoD into a joke.

  • Matt_B #18 3 years ago

    "Hmmmm, so which day of the SAS and Marines intense training do they cover dual wielding then?!"

    Ahem ;-) - [link url=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X4nfZu8VqgQ
    ]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X4nfZu8VqgQ
    [/link]

  • muscleblade #19 3 years ago

    @Eraser

    This is supposed to be a realistic shooter. Dual wielding is cool in games like Halo and Borderlands not in COD games. The games balance has nothing to to with it.

  • ChaK #20 3 years ago

    do not want

    thx

  • sneetch #21 3 years ago

    @skillian
    I don't think people have a problem with the balancing, they have a problem with the stupid concept of dual wielding in a military shooter.

    I have a problem with the idea of someone leaping around a corner, landing prone on a jagged pile of debris and snapping off a head shot against a target lying prone on a roof 250m away all within .5 of a second in a military shooter. ;)

    Also, the gyro-stabilised gun mounts (arms) on your high-speed hover craft (soldier) seem a bit out of place. Nary a waver as they aim, these guys are made out of steel.

    Edit:

    @Matt_B

    Well, there ya go everyone. Completely legit. I presume "Dual Wielding M249" is a perk? ;)

    Edited by sneetch at 26/08/09 @ 12:35

  • sneetch #22 3 years ago

    Also:

    "It's limited to side-arms, harder to aim than standard and you can't go ADS (aim down sights) since you have a weapon in each hand."

    Translation: No-one will use this after the first week because a deagle you can actually aim is worth three you can't. :)

  • bodypopper #23 3 years ago

    CoD a 'realistic shooter'?
    LOL. Only in the Hollywood blockbuster sense of 'realism'. Anyone one who says different clearly slept walked through the MW single player campaign.
    Edited by bodypopper at 26/08/09 @ 12:45

  • Hog-lumps #24 3 years ago

    Sorry Matt B, youtube is blocked for me at work :(

    I assume its a clip of some real SAS guys shooting 2 guns at once? If so then I'm stunned....

  • Bigfellahull #25 3 years ago

    Lol since when are any of the perks realistic?? Last stand, martyrdom, slight of hand etc. COD is no realistic military shooter, and if you think it is you really need to play operation flashpoint or something.

    I for one think dual wield is a fine addition to the franchise.

  • stevetuck #26 3 years ago

    i really wish i had infinate money... some of the stuff Mad Catz bring out is so awesome :D

  • skillian #27 3 years ago

    @sneetch

    No it's not realistic, but surely there are some conventions to be followed? If not, why not just go the whole way and put miniguns and power armour in?

    Anyway, I'm just commmenting, I don't really care - Call of Duty has become an ugly corporate monster and an example of many of the things I dislike most about modern videogaming. It's funny, because playing the original was one of the first times I realised just how amazing video games could be.

  • Fab4 #28 3 years ago

    @hog-lumps, no its an american soldier struggling to control 2 heavy machine guns at a firing range. You can even hear the cameraman saying it doesnt look safe.

  • Hog-lumps #29 3 years ago

    @fab4

    That sound hilarious - definately checking that video out when I get home tonight! :)

  • Lebowski #30 3 years ago

    Level 11 - unlock needler
    Level 28 - unlock Nazi Zombies
    Level 42 - unlock Mark King who sonic-booms enemies with bass guitar.

    Still sounds realistic to me.

  • paulf #31 3 years ago

    ok firstly it's a game, it's also a part of a series of games where infinite numbers of enemies respawn until you move to the next spot. So shall we quit all the 'realism' chat please.

    Have a bit more faith in IW COD4 is one of the best games of the decade - if they say dual wielding adds to the gameplay then lets at least give them the benefit of the doubt (due to reputation) until we can try it out for ourselves

  • Artemus #32 3 years ago

    Next Activision says "that's worth twice the price!"

  • Fab4 #33 3 years ago

    CoD4 had so much wrong with its unbelievable. That it sold well is due to the fact they dumbed down the gameplay so much that basically anyone could play it straight off the bat and not suck. Its like the M$ Windows of FPSs.
    Edited by Fab4 at 26/08/09 @ 13:14

  • muscleblade #34 3 years ago

    @bodypopper

    Not realistic in a real life kind of wayof course. Is any games? But its not unrealistic in a Halo way either. In other words a realistic shooter ( kind of).

  • beastmaster #35 3 years ago

    I've only got into multi-player FPS through COD4. I really prefer Bad Company and very much looking forward to Flashpoint 2. But every now and then, a bit of run and gun is fine by me.

  • RedSparrows #36 3 years ago

    cries of 'realism' are moot. i bet you that most of the people moaning will use dual wield and enjoy it. OHNOTEHHORRORZ.

  • RedSparrows #37 3 years ago

    'No it's not realistic, but surely there are some conventions to be followed? If not, why not just go the whole way and put miniguns and power armour in? '

    How does that work? Simply cos Halo or Red Faction had dual wielding, CoD must follow the game-logic, rather than merely saying..'ok, here are two handguns.'

  • dingo75 #38 3 years ago


    To be fair, its not just xbl. psn and gfw chat also sound like people trying to gargle mud while inside a metal box.



    On the PC you have the option to rent a Ventrilo server which offers kickass voice com.
    On the consoles you don't have the option to use your own solutions...

  • skillian #39 3 years ago

    How does that work? Simply cos Halo or Red Faction had dual wielding, CoD must follow the game-logic, rather than merely saying..'ok, here are two handguns.'

    I don't really understand your question.

  • kangarootoo #40 3 years ago

    I think Hog-lumps has set the tone for the overall feeling of this thread. I also immediately raised an eyebrow when I read this.

    Many parts of MW aren't realistic, but that isn't the point. Something like dual weilding is far more about the narrative than it is about realism. The narrative of the previous game was dark and, whilst maybe not completely realistic, was aiming at being a story presented in a realistic setting.

    Everything I've heard about this new version feels like they are pushing the narrative in what they might consider to be a more marketable "action film" direction. But for me, its not what the series is about. If I want that sort of thing I'll play Halo or Stranglehold or Gears of War. If MW2 becomes more like any of those games, I will effectively have less variety available to me as a gamer.


    P.s. narrative is not the same as "story line", just in case someone was itching to flame me.

  • skillian #41 3 years ago

    Very well put kangarootoo.

  • kangarootoo #42 3 years ago

    @RedSparrows

    Halo and Red Faction created their own worlds with their own rules. MW put you in the shoes of SAS and UMS soldiers in a real world story location. The whole point was that you were "in their shoes", doing the stuff they did, experiencing what they might experience (insofar as a game can convey any of that, obviously).

    When Master Chief or Bob Faction duel wield it doesn't matter, because as far as we know that is what soldiers do on Mars and .. err, Halos. But we know that UMC and SAS staff do no such thing, so it breaks the "realism" of the narrative the game is setting out to create.


    Its not THAT big a deal (despite how our repeated moans and complaints may make it appear), but neither is it no deal at all. Its just a little detail that does or doesn't matter depending on what you think is important in a game of this type I guess. For me it matters, a bit. And it is also perhaps a worrying indicator of what other changes might be in the works.
    Edited by kangarootoo at 26/08/09 @ 13:53

  • muscleblade #43 3 years ago

    @kangarootoo

    Exactly. Well put.

  • Hog-lumps #44 3 years ago

    Maybe a better word for ‘realism’ would be ‘immersion’, in this discussion?

    I.e. the dual wielding of weapons could destroy some of the immersion you felt playing as a skilled SAS operative and make the whole game less believable?

  • RedPanda #45 3 years ago

    Post deleted at 14:31:59 28-01-2012

  • carlitoswagon #46 3 years ago

    Don't mind dual weilding pistols.

    Don't mind IW adding new facets to gameplay. Would rather they tried and failed than didn't try at all.

    Good work IW!

  • Hog-lumps #47 3 years ago

    @red panda
    perhaps a degree of role-playing is required where you know its there if you want to use it but its a foolish thing to do.

    I suppose that's one way to look at it :) - although that illusion may be slightly ruined if AI enemies can dual wield, or perhaps when you venture into MP mode?

  • sneetch #48 3 years ago

    @kangarootoo

    I take your point completely but for me all the CoD games have been "action-movie" style games. Look at MW, it was a movie right down to the chasing the tracksuited "Behind Enemy Lines" escapee before he tops himself. I don't see this as really altering that all that much.

    Also it is an option not a requirement (this isn't really directed at you Kanga, btw) you could look at it as being more realistic; you have two hands so you can hold two pistols and you could shoot them both at the same time. You'd be less accurate (which is covered in the game) but you could do it. For me it's like "mantling", I can't stand it when my character can't even climb up onto a chest high ledge, why couldn't he and why couldn't I wield two pistols if I wanted to?

    People won't of course, because when you jump around the corner pistols blazing, bullets flying everywhere but where you need them to go and get nailed by the guy calmly crouching with a single pistol for the 14th time you'll say "fuck this" and re-equip. It's nice to have the option but eventually, no-one will use it because it's no good except for "lolz" that's why nearly everyone in MW uses the M4, MP5, AK 47 or AK 74u. They're just better.

    And while we're on the subject of realism lets not forget that this is the game where, apparently, after being shot a few times all you need is a bit of a breather but the slightest contact with a knife will kill you. Apparently bullets just cause a shortness of breath, extended exposure to hot lead may be fatal but if you fight in a well ventilated area while wearing loose fitting clothes you should be ok. ;)

    Finally, Patton dual wielded in WWII.

  • AphoticCosmos #49 3 years ago

    MW3: dual wield automatic minigun nuclear grenade launchers whilst smoking a big cigar!

  • smoothpete #50 3 years ago

    Multiplayer matches where everyone is limited to two .45 pistols could be pretty awesome IMO

  • sneetch #51 3 years ago

    @smoothpete
    Multiplayer matches where everyone is limited to two .45 pistols could be pretty awesome IMO

    It'll beat the crap out of the "melee round to determine who goes first" in competitive matches. :)

  • kangarootoo #52 3 years ago

    @sneetch

    I realise its an option, and when it comes down to the gameplay it will probably make no difference. My main concern (and it is still minor) is that the team felt that of all the things they might change or add, this came out near enough the top to be put into place. For something like MW it just feels sort of out of place (like getting 50cent to voice act - good or bad is subjective, but the decision to hire him at all for this game just seemed oddly out of place to me), which makes me wonder what else might be down the road ready to "sex up" the franchise.


    I remember in the tutorial for MW, and the game specifically drew attention to why the side arm exists (a backup for your main weapon). And they even pointed out that drawing a sidearm is usually quicker than reloading your rifle - something Ghost Recon and RB6 could learn from I might add. On a tangent, this was shown to cool effect in the film Black Hawk Down as it happens - unrealistic perhaps, but it seemed "professional" in the eyes of a layman.

    I thought that was quite a cool touch, and heightended the sense of realism/immersion (whether genuine or not). Dual weilded desert eagles flies directly in the face of that precedent. AGAIN I say, not a big deal. But you see where I am coming from.


    "Finally, Patton dual wielded in WWII"

    Really? I can understand a paranoid man carrying more than one side arm, but using them both at the same time? Anyway, I'd be surprised if Patton saw much personal combat during WW2.


    Edit: ah, are we talking about the film Patton? Oops :)
    Edited by kangarootoo at 26/08/09 @ 14:40

  • JahB #53 3 years ago

    you have two hands so you can hold two pistols and you could shoot them both at the same time.

    the example lists desert eagles. assuming they mean the standard IMI .50 cal, rest assured it is not possible to fire those akimbo style without the guns going flying from recoil or your wrists taking damage.

    MW was never about realism, but it was credible to some extent. physically impossible nonsense likes this just breaks immersion

  • RedPanda #54 3 years ago

    Post deleted at 14:31:59 28-01-2012

  • jaguarwong #55 3 years ago

    Really don't understand all the 'that's not realistic' whining.

    This is a game where you can recover from getting shot five times in the chest by hiding behind a wall for ten seconds.

    Actually, you can ignore everything after the first 4 words of that sentence.

  • kangarootoo #56 3 years ago

    @jaguarwong

    The point has already been made several times that literal realism is not the issue here, and that immersion is something else.

  • muscleblade #57 3 years ago

    "Really don't understand all the 'that's not realistic' whining. "

    I really dont understand why some people dont understand what realistic setting means. No games can be 100% relalistic but there is a huge diffference between games like COD4 and Halo3/Killzone2. Their not equally unrealistic. You can agree on that cant you?

  • Hog-lumps #58 3 years ago

    This is a game where you can recover from getting shot five times in the chest by hiding behind a wall for ten seconds.

    Unless you play on a higher diffuculty setting of course - where you can absorb tiny damage only and the opportunity to heal is reduced significantly ;)

    Anyway as Kanga says, the real worry is that possibly unwise additions like these might add up to spoil our total immersion in the game. Yes it may be still fun, but may not be the dark and gritty game we were after....

  • jefranklin18 #59 3 years ago

    For some reason, I am reminded of the sequel to Good Will Hunting (Good Will Hunting: Hunting Season) on Jay & Silent Bob Strike Back. Oh that's right, it's Hollywood-ised bollocks...

  • sneetch #60 3 years ago

    @kangarootoo
    But you see where I am coming from.

    I do yes, I take and share the concern that this is the thin end of the wedge and they'll go completely over the top here, as someone else in this thread warned, mini-guns may not be far behind dual wielding and at the first sign of someone jumping over a helicopter with a truck/tank/humvee/bike or on the back of a terrorist I'll be walking away sighing and shaking my head.

    Edit: in fact, this is the second warning for me... 50p voicing characters is also very hollywood. I wonder how many 'motherfuckers' he can fit into a sentence. Sorry, I meant to say "I wonder how many 'motherfuckers' he can fit into a sentence, bitch!" ;)

    "Finally, Patton dual wielded in WWII"

    Really? I can understand a paranoid man carrying more than one side arm, but using them both at the same time? Anyway, I'd be surprised if Patton saw much personal combat during WW2.

    Edit: ah, are we talking about the film Patton? Oops :)

    Actually, film Patton is very like real Patton, he wore twin, ivory-handled pistols in real life. Mind you, the man was a complete, sheep-eating lunatic so I'm really not helping my case there. ;P
    Edited by sneetch at 26/08/09 @ 15:34

  • bratmandu #61 3 years ago

    I want triple wielding or no buy.

  • Xerx3s #62 3 years ago

    "Don't mind IW adding new facets to gameplay. Would rather they tried and failed than didn't try at all. "

    MW may have been a very solid and fun shooter but if it did one thing, it was avoiding big new things. Dualwielding just underlines this. Other games tested and perfected it before MW2 and now they will use it.

    Nothing wrong with that, clearly sticking to the tried and tested results in very decent shooters.

  • YoshiMcTaggis #63 3 years ago

    "IW confirm more boxes ticked in box-ticking competition"

  • actionfitz #64 3 years ago

    I'd like to dual wield a pair of double Middle fingers in the direction of Activision, you fucking price gouging bastards.

    /angry gamer face.
    Edited by actionfitz at 26/08/09 @ 16:51

  • kangarootoo #65 3 years ago

    @evilfoxhound

    So everyone in here who objects is a "litle wannabe SAS kiddie"? There is only one person in this thread talking like a kiddie, regardless of what they want from a game. Irony?

  • sneetch #66 3 years ago

    @actionfitz

    I snorted so hard when I laughed that I almost inhaled my own sinuses. :)

  • sneetch #67 3 years ago

    Oh good, one of the "-1 to everything" people has just visited the thread.

    Edit: There, I undid as much as I could.
    Edited by sneetch at 26/08/09 @ 17:21

  • Salaminizer #68 3 years ago

    so you guys have issue with "realism" in a game where the terrorists have the Infinite Respawn Machine?

  • busboy33 #69 3 years ago

    The last multiplayer gameplay video (the one with the AC-130) ended with a gunfight in an office setting with the player throwing semtex at his opponent, where it sticks and then detonates.
    [link url=http://www.gametrailers.com/video/gt-pop-block-modern-warfare/53553
    ]http://www.gametrailers.com/video/gt-pop...[/link]
    Compared to that, dual-wield Eagles is practically The Sims.

  • neems #70 3 years ago

    I'm probably wrong, but I got the impression that the player can pick up a second deagle, as opposed to actually carrying two around at all times.

  • RedSparrows #71 3 years ago

    'so you guys have issue with "realism" in a game where the terrorists have the Infinite Respawn Machine? '

    Came to say this. Honestly, claims realism are MOOT. The game fits into a 'gritty real-world' narrative, sure. The fact that dual-wielding is in, *especially in multiplayer, which is so obviously an abstract game world and not a 'real world'*, is something of an odd point to get annoyed about.

    Re - my 'game-logic' question: all too often one sees people using inverted logic. A game has dual wielding, and has bunny hopping a la Halo. Therefore all other games following with dual wielding will somehow become tainted with this bunny hopping or something else from the original series (yes, I know Halo wasn't the first, just a prominent example).

    Obviously, one can take it as an indicator of what *might* happen in later installments, but given how overblown CoD4's 'realism' hype machine has gone, reason doesn't enjoy much time in the spotlight! ;p

  • DUFFKING #72 3 years ago

    Aren't Desert Eagles 50 caliber? Wouldn't trying to use those things akimbo basically break your arms?

  • DUFFKING #73 3 years ago

    Well that's me told :p

  • iWolf #74 3 years ago

    "The army use them."

    No wai!

  • Razz #75 3 years ago

    Games, serious business.

  • Eraser #76 3 years ago

    @kangarootoo: I wasn't planning on replying to this discussion anymore. But what you say is very well put. Good point. I also see what people mean with the realism. Dual wielding might feel a bit out of place in a game like modern warfare. Personally I'm not that "offended" by it but I can see where others are coming from.

  • Darren #77 3 years ago

    Dual-wielding of guns does sound a little too Hollywood but Call of Duty has never been a technical simulation like ArmA II anyway so I guess it would suit the game fine without feeling out of place, so long as it is limited.

  • JensonJet #78 3 years ago

    On the subject of getting shot and how realistic it is in games... I had a conversation with an ex-military gaming friend of mine about this. He told me that on several occasions during combat he'd been hit. The bullets hit his body armour so he wasn't injured and was able to carry on with his duties. Had he taken a shot to the leg or arm, clearly this would have been a different matter. So when games allow us to take several shots the way to imagine this being realistic is to assume that the shots are hitting body armour (obviously ignoring the fact the adversarial gamer or AI may well be aiming and hitting our legs or arms).

    While it's clearly outrageous in terms of realism that we can dual wield pistols, personally I'm more annoyed that we can't pick up ammo, or pass and take ammo from team members. It's also incredibly unrealistic that we get to choose which gun can shoot through walls. A more realistic way would surely be for the game to determine this based on calibre size, weapon, wall type and distance!? Many of the perks, while great as gaming options, are utter ridiculous. Extra damage, extra health, quick reloading, etc., the list of unrealistic issues with Modern Warfare is endless.

    I think for a more realistic take on combat you'd have to consider other games. I'll be getting Modern Warfare for the action-movie combat, and Operation Flashpoint for a more atmospheric and realistic take on combat.

  • Buran #79 3 years ago

    The Desert Eagle pistol is not "realistic" itself -no army or official police force in the worrld uses it-, so dual wielding pistols -another tactic unused by any professional- fits perfectly is this unrealistic game.

  • CaptCastle #80 3 years ago

    If only I didn't need dual wield wallets to afford the thing.