I'm a firm believer that more games should rip off Far Cry 2, a little bit. This one should have reigned things in a tad though, like the constant vapid dialogue, or the meandering storyline that only introduces some real stakes towards the end once it's already overstayed its welcome. I also have a bone to pick with games that give you all kinds of fun combat tools, and then encourage you to play stealthily, lest you fall on the wrong side of the game's strange sense of morality.

The whole series shares most of these issues though, and in being a less focused experience, I'm not sure Exodus is any better than the rest of them.

Maybe the most solid and inoffensive ARPG ever made. Nothing in this game is excellent, but also nothing about it is truly bad. A huge improvement over its predecessor, and more faithful to the classic Diablo 2 than that other big ARPG from 2012. Character building and gearing is simple and fun, with enough depth reserved for the endgame to make you stick around for a little while, although Path of Exile this certainly is not. It's only when you play on difficulties higher than normal do cracks begin to show, like an over-reliance on enemies that spawn monsters while they're alive, enemies that push and pull you around, and an overabundance of slowing and mana draining effects.

This is a tough game for me to judge. Does it succeed at being a balls to the wall action thrill ride? Absolutely. Modern Warfare 2 is bigger, louder, more savage, and has much more variety than Call of Duty 4 did. Does that make for a strictly better game? Not at all, in my opinion.

Call of Duty 4 was a major improvement over its predecessors in the storytelling department. It offered a clear geopolitical thriller narrative that immersed players in events instead of simply showing them in cutscenes. The game had only a few important characters, just enough to drive the plot forward. Modern Warfare 2 takes a different approach, this time putting you in control of 5 different characters throughout the campaign, with multiple competing villains, and events that take you to every corner of the Earth and beyond. However, the plot moves so quickly that you might not notice how little sense everything makes. Why is Price in the Russian gulag? Why exactly does Shepherd want to rescue him? Because it makes for a cool looking level, that's why. Consequently, most of the levels feel like they were designed as cool set pieces first, and logical parts of a coherent story second. Character motivations are often unclear or unbelievable, with major leaps in logic required to accept a lot of the story’s events.

Modern Warfare 2 takes the same approach in the gameplay department, being bigger and more chaotic in every way possible. There's more weapons, diverse locations, and gameplay gimmicks. However, this results in an experience that doesn’t feel as tightly crafted as Call of Duty 4, and left me feeling disoriented as I jumped from one level to another. In the first act alone you go from an on-rails shooting mission in the Middle East, to a stealth mission in a snowy mountain range, to a terrorist attack in a Russian airport, and ending with an absurd shooting gallery type mission in a Brazilian favela. These transitions happen so quickly that it's easy to lose track of why you're on these missions. There's little continuity between missions, as you frequently switch between characters and locations, leading to uneven pacing. In contrast, Call of Duty 4 had the player swap between characters, but they gave each portion of the story time to develop before yanking them out and dropping them in some other part of the world and presenting them with a new gameplay hook.

Modern Warfare 2 is visually impressive and delivers over the top, blood-soaked and action-packed gameplay. However, it sacrifices narrative coherence and tight pacing compared to Call of Duty 4. It has plenty of memorable moments, but not always for the right reasons.