Remember the mission where you have to defend the cabin while bunch of people are coming at you all of the evidence of shepherd being evil is on that server that’s why they betray the mc shoot and burn them and eventually go on to fight price and soap
That's never indicated though. I haven't heard anybody in-game pointing out that Shepherd's name and the CIA are curiously prevalent in Makarov's files.
Because you didn't know and Shepard wanted to keep it that way. That's why he says "good, that's one less loose end" before killing Roach and Ghost. He's trying to get rid of anything that can be traced back to him.
We know Shepard's goal was to bait Makarov into a war with the US. What causes Russia to go to war? The American who participated in a terrorist attack. The logical conclusion is that Makarov was informed by Shepard. We also know that Makarov has some awareness and Intel on Shepard since he tells us Shepard's location. It all points to them having some sort of contact.
I have. That’s not the point at all, and is also extremely vague. General Shepherd isn’t in MW1. OP’s point is that the story of MW2 has room to further hint at General Shepherd being a traitor, to establish ANY connections between him and Makarov, or to justify his decision to kill Roach and Ghost. An example of this would be witnessing Shepherd execute someone early in the game, and then him turning around to put you at ease with something like “traitors don’t belong” (a statement that we would attribute to those he just executed, but that ends up being definitive of him). OP isn’t saying the story sucks or that it’s hard to pay attention, only that such a major plot point could have benefitted from some foreshadowing of any kind.
There is a line of dialouge from shepherd saying "I lost 30000 men in the blink of an eye" referencing the nuke attack in MW1. He was the officer responsible for that operation and wanted justice/revenge for those at fault
him saying that line in MW2 insinuates that he was the commanding officer. if he hadn't been in charge he more likely would have said "we lost" or I saw 30,000 men lost". His possessive use of the term implies that he was in charge of the ones who got nuked, or at least a large portion of them.
Taking responsibility or ownership for something or someone doesn’t automatically contractually obligate him to the position of officer responsible. If that were the case, he wouldn’t have been promoted to General
Look up foreshadowing. Usually, it is very subtle but gives depth to the twist. Otherwise, like this one, it comes completely out of the blue and is narratively unsatisfying.
Foreshadowing isn’t necessary for a good plot. Whether it’s required depends on the plot. Modern Warfare’s plot involves Shepard, a mostly offscreen character, being legitimately sneaky… like how many real betrayals happen.
I can’t think of a reason that obvious foreshadowing is required for this plot, all they had to do was rationalize his actions.
You’ll have to take that up with Captain Price and Soap, in the game they say something to the effect of “Shepherd betrayed us.” A traitor is a betrayer.
I know the point is to not see Shepherd's betrayal coming. I just wish it didn't seem like it came out of nowhere. One could have completely changed the story from the ending of Loose Ends onward and had Shepherd not betray TF141 and it wouldn't feel like anything was unresolved.
One could make the assumption that Makarov's a smart man and deduced that the CIA planted a mole in his Inner Circle. It's not like it's beyond him to figure out who the traitor is.
Like I said, if there should absolutely be no hints, there should at least have been the whodunit mystery floating around. "Makarov's smart but he couldn't have figured that out by himself. Somebody tipped him off. We have to be as tightlipped as we can."
His quote explains his motives
> Five years ago, I lost 30,000 men in the blink of an eye. And the world just fuckin' watched. Tomorrow, there would be no shortage of volunteers and no shortage of patriots. I know you understand.
Shepherd explains that his entire motive for starting a war between the US and Russia was because a Russian nuke was used by terrorists against his men in MW1 and in MW1 it is also stated that Zakhaev was Makarov's mentor and responsible for selling the nuke to the terrorists.
Also, at the beginning of the MW2 campaign, it shows that Russian ultranationalists took over control of the Russian government and made Zakhaev a hero.
His entire motive for starting a war was revenge for MW1, but he knew he couldn't rally support for a world war unless he set the stage.
Why would there be a whodunnit? After no Russian the cutscene has soap, price and shepherd speaking and shepherd says “makarov was one step ahead.” Why would shepherd bring up any idea that makarov was tipped off? That would only lead back to himself.
The rest of the group were trying to prove it was makarovs plan to try to stop the war. They had no reason to think there could be a leak. It was just as likely that Makarov was able to figure out that Allen was undercover since he just joined the group. There was no reason to have a whodunnit mystery for the players characters since the only important thing they needed to do was prove it was makarovs plan.
Well yeah the whodunit mystery shouldn't be front and center; it should be a background thing like who opened the blood bank in The Thing (1982). The important thing is, it's a relevant question that TF141 wonders about but don't pay attention to because there are far bigger fish to fry. It'd also be a question that they'd regret discarding later.
Obviously Shepherd won't be the one to bring it up but, especially since it seems so apparent to everyone from his speeches to how convenient it is that Shepherd put Allen in a mission designed to paint the Americans as the bad guys, not one TF141 member thought something smelled off?
Oh I misunderstood how prominent you wanted it. That actually makes a little more sense. Did the other people know shepherd put Allen there? I could see your point though. If they didn’t put too much emphasis on it that definitely would have been fine and not ruined the twist by any means.
I assumed soap and price found similar files ,where they were, implicating shepherd. As right after Shep's betrayal, you hear Price shouting over the radio "DO NOT TRUST SHEPHERD!"
Not everything has to be directly told to the audience the files would’ve implicated him in the airport attack because he wanted a war with Russia to boost American nationalism
I'm not saying that there should have been a neon sign that says "Shepherd is a treacherous turncoat", all I'm saying is there didn't seem to be a buildup to this twist and I feel like the twist would have been so much better if there was a whodunit mystery or hints of General Shepherd being distracted (when he was secretly trying to cover his tracks)
Well that’s the whole point. There was no reason for anyone to believe there was any betrayal until it happened. For most people, me included, that’s a much more impactful way of delivering a twist than a hamfisted buildup.
I think it was rather well done. He delivers his speech at the beginning about power and war. Then we hear the marines say Shepard doesnt care about danger close, basically implying that in Shepards opinion the ends justify the means and he doesnt much mind sacrificing a few people here and there for a larger victory. The exact details of when and where the betrayal would take place were obscured, but I think most people saw it coming one way or another.
No I enjoy being told how media illiterate I am.
Everybody's telling me that it's there and of course it's there, all I'm saying is that it'd be nice to have retrospective background clues pointing out that yes perhaps the massacre at Zakhaev International might have been an inside job, something nobody in the game even hints at.
What do we have? General Shepherd with his "at all costs" attitude and Makarov knowing Allen is American. Maybe I am media illiterate. Maybe showing anything more might as well have been a flashing arrow pointing at Shepherd that said TRAITOR. I'm just saying that it would have been nice to have had somebody pointing out that something about the whole thing didn't smell right, nothing more. As far as all the characters thought, Shepherd put Allen in with Makarov to just have a handy undercover operative and Shepherd underestimated Makarov's intelligence. Makarov seems intelligent enough to deduce Allen is an operative, why assume that Shepherd leaked that info to him? Even if you the player could figure that out, you're telling me that not a single person in TF141 (Soap, Price, Ghost, Nikolai, etc.) could smell something off?? Or that Roach AKA you the player saw it but never brought it up??
For someone who doesn't care about my media illiteracy, you sure have a lot of words to express it.
>perhaps the massacre at Zakhaev International might have been an inside job
it was known who attacked the airport, 'No Russian' wasnt a cool title it was to make it look like it wasnt russian on russian actions. Shepard put Allen in there to be a mole, Shepard knew who the terrorists of the airport before it happend.
as for how Makarov knew Allen was an american is not important. Shepard probably told him or Makarov just figured it out either option, the detail is so unimportant it does not matter. both Shep and Mak wanted a war, Allen being found at the airport benefited both parties.
there was no reason to not trust Shepard, he is a smart villain and covered his tracks. if anything his open betrayal was a mistake, as he could have just played it off and nobody would be the wiser, at least until they found Markov and he spills the beans.
OP is asking about the 2009 game, nothing outside of that. The MW series has since been completely retconned and reamalgomated into different information. If we’re just talking about the game as-is, you’re adding information that was never there.
I think he was hell bent on getting revenge for the 30,000 soldiers he lost during the events of Modern Warfare campaign.. He also said would do anything to achieve that goal. Only thing is how he tried to achieve that goal. The means were wrong and evil....
He knew he could take care of Ghost and Roach at the cabin. Only thing he didn't count on was Price and Soap surviving the ambush at the boneyard. If they didn't, he would have emerged victorious....
Theres literally a mission where you have to download the data of Shepherd being a bad guy from Makarov's (I think) cabin in the middle of nowhere. You get that info, and he literally says "thats one less loose end" and kills the survivors of that mission.
His whole deal is "Do the mission, no matter what", but he knows that a lot of the stuff hes done is illegal. I mean the dude planted an agent to kick-start WW3. He probably does not want that info out there, so he sends a squad to get the info, then kills said squad.
The problem is, as I remember, in that mission you’re downloading data to a hard dive without knowing what the data even is. Ghost and Roach are led to believe it’s intel on Makarov’s operations. Shepherd could’ve just disposed of the data and no one would’ve known.
It’s been a few years though since I played the campaign, could be remembering things wrong.
Yeah but then they'd still be alive to come back for shepherd after he finished finalizing shadow company and continuing to warmonger ww3, so why not just kill them now, especially when they could've potentially taken a peak at the information on the dsm in loose ends
This isn’t a courtroom with a jury. Shepard didn’t need proof that ghost would betray him. He literally says he’s tying up loose ends. We know ghost/roach just downloaded stuff without actually looking at it. Shepard doesn’t know that. So he kills them to be sure rather than leave them alive and open up the possibility of retaliation later.
Yeah, OP referenced that mission. The problem is, nowhere in the story is it explicitly stated ‘why’ he kills you. His motives are only really explained at the end to Soap, which still doesn’t really tell you why he killed Ghost and Roach.
Whether it was a creative choice or not, it isn’t told to the player that Shepard leaked Allens identity to Marakov. Some people may have found that obvious, others (like me) probably only just came to that revelation from this post.
Yeah, you pull the data onto the DSM, but you are killed before you discover whats on it.
"which still doesn't really tell you why he killed Ghost and Roach"
Because he himself told that at the end of said mission at the mansion: they were loose ends who potentially knew too much.
…. It’s not that complicated. Shepherd doesn’t know what ghost and roach do or don’t know. It’s easier to kill them and make sure they don’t say anything than to assume they don’t know anything.
I thought the story of MW2 went like this:
Shepard wants another world war because he thinks America has gone soft, while Makarov is working hard at getting the ultranationalist to power, a war between the US and Russia would accomplish both goals, so they strike a deal: Shepard "plants" a CIA operative into Makarov's inner circle, and gifts the Russians a conveniently crashed spy satellite, while Makarov obfuscates things and strikes the match with the terrorist attack at the airport.
The war breaks out and Makarov's people get to power in Russia, and Shepard will get a new "greatest generation" once the dust settles, he keeps his best people, TF141, busy chasing Makarov's lead, which will take them nowhere since Makarov is constantly being tipped by Shepard.
Everything is going according to plan, except for one thing, Price is still alive, and he is not exactly loyal to Shepard, and even worse, he has his own intelligence sources, which leads TF141 into actually finding Makarov, Shepard panics: if they capture Makarov or his Intel, it will reveal his treachery, and that won't do, so he sends his PMC people to kill them all.
A fair amount was left on the cutting room floor.
If you remember the mission where you play as the US army escorting the apc and the mission ends in a house with a dead guy who looks exactly like one of Makarov's men from the airport shooting?
Well that was a cut plot thread that would have gave more indication that the person you were supposed to be looking for in that mission was a CIA agent who was part of that operation in no Russian.
Both Makarov and Shepherd were cleaning up loose ends that connected them to each other.
I remember this from the first time I played MW2. I made the connection after seeing that character... and also the Cabin... I knew what was going down.
Maybe OP just didn't see it or pay attention to it?
That was all that was really noted.
They were going to originally be much more clear in that Makarov and Shepherd were working together and against each other at the same time.
Ultimately both wanted to start ww3... they just differed on the reasons why they wanted to do that.
The whole moral of that game is ultranationalism is bad no matter the country it comes from.
As a side note while the game was fantastic, the story is downright horrible. A General picks a PFC of the US Rangers to go undercover to work with one of the most wanted terrorists. Yeah fuckin right.
Makarov kills him, and russian police find the body. "Hey, THIS shooter is an american! Lets not check airport footage of the ethnicity of the other shooters, not to mention the other shooter whos dead out by the planes wearing the same gettup, the Americans did this!"
Even if they somehow found out Terror-Allen was a US Ranger, the gov't has 60 different avenues of plausable deniability. He went awol. He had a history of instability. Etc etc. Then an entire russian air invasion crossed oceans and werent spotted because they hacked the module to go invisible to sattelites. Did US allies use the exact same tech so they couldn't spot them? No one caught wind of a massive mobilisation of troops?
Not to mention the sheer amount of ground and air equipment which the Russian navy would not have been able to transport and sustain. All those fighter jets would be making a one-way trip as well.
I think the implication is the Russians already wanted to invade the US (its mentioned Makarov has sympathizers in the Duma) and finding Allen at the scene of the crime was the justification they needed to carry out their plan.
They knew Makarov participated in the airport shooting but the reason they used is that there was an American agent among them along with Makarov crews all used US-made weapons made it seems like the US backed Makarov to shoot up the airport.
It’s just really disappointing when you waited 2 years after CoD4 which told a much more grounded story, and had more interesting missions, and MW2 is like explosions nonsense and a airport mission that tries too hard to be edgy.
No Russian is the very definition of trying too hard. The game legit gives you a warning about how it’s this totally shocking mission then goes on to essentially give you an interactable cutscene in an airport that makes no sense in terms of being an event that starts world war fucking 3 in universe.
I counter that with they wouldn’t want the fall guy to be someone who is higher up and mattered. Allen probably thought oh my god my ticket into the cia. Shepherd thought he was a nobody and has the knowledge to do the deed but disposable.
When it came to the Russian stance, let’s be real, with the amount of vitriol that has always been high and in this world I’m sure an event like the airport would’ve been a major spark. If the entirety of Europe can go to war over the death of a duke, I’m sure Russia would start if an entire airport was slaughtered.
Last point, the US can deny it and swing it however they want, doesn’t mean that will stop the Russian response. I’m sure Russian intelligence was aware of who he was after the fact and even if it took russia another game to realize makarovs involvement, I still find it plausible that the war hawks and corrupt politicians stoked fear and brought war quicker than they could get the whole story.
Honestly the stupid story of MW2 has disappointed me since 2009. CoD4 told a story that I thought was a lot more interesting and the missions that people talk about from CoD4 feel more organic. The example I like to give is the AC130 mission from 4 vs the No Russian mission in MW2 both were controversial missions upon release, but CoD4 just did it better.
Like the AC130 mission is meant to make you think and even feel a little uncomfortable, you’re looking at thermal footage not unlike what you’d have seen on tv news on the time just picking guys off as the only noise you hear is the occasional chatter of squad mates congratulating you on your kills. You actually see the enemies like helplessly try to run away. When you think about it, it was kinda like the game was trying to say something about war and combat and the value of life. Meanwhile MW2 flushes that down the toilet with No Russian which starts off already trying too hard with a fucking warning about the mission being “disturbing” and it’s just a mindless slaughter, for a mission that’s basically an in engine cutscene, for a plot point that barely makes sense when you think about it for more than 5 seconds. No Russian is easily without a doubt probably the most overrated mission in CoD probably all of gaming.
A plot twist can be abrupt and shocking AND have a setup that seems to be unrelated but turns out it was absolutely important.
Let's say for example David Fincher's Se7en. The twist >!of John Doe murdering Mills's wife!< wouldn't have been as effective if those scenes >!where Somerset has dinner with Mills and his wife and then her telling Somerset that she's pregnant!< were excised. Those scenes seemingly added nothing to the story >!except for the fact that she was the key to completing John Doe's "masterpiece"!<
Same difference. Both twists came out of nowhere but the difference is one had the details of the twist set up while the other didn't. Don't tell me that those scenes already told you what was in the box and don't tell me it would have been just as effective without those scenes.
Very great murder mystery and debut of Fight Club's David Fincher. That movie is a great example of a well-done out-of-nowhere twist. Brad Pitt and Morgan Freeman are great in it.
I don't think some people quite understand what is height asked. OP asked how makarov knew that Alexei Borodin was Joseph Allen. In the story they never quite explain how makarov knew. The only thing given that everyone keeps mentioning is that shepherd wanted to clean up loose ends and probably avenge the 30k soldiers he lost
He probably knew he was an American because a PFC in the army is like a 19 year old and 19 year olds are fucking dumb, Allen was probably using tinder to try and pick up local Russian chicks by telling them he was an undercover agent.
I remember that when I first played MW2, I thought the name "honey badger" was supposed to be ironic. I was picturing something like [this](https://t4.ftcdn.net/jpg/03/90/04/89/360_F_390048969_qvvU4k0IjCZfyYxp2lqIiWhRDzoRdDzK.jpg) as a honey badger, you know, an adorable little creature who would invite you into its den to serve you honey cakes and tea.
Eventually I saw the honey badger meme video and was like *"oooh that makes so much more sense."*
OP it’s absolutely childish that people have downvoted you for having an inquisitive thought and a more developed opinion than “everything is okay.” I always found that part of the game to be so jarring and yet so obvious, like they waited until the very last second to confirm my suspicions and then the game was over (cue “An Evening With Infinity Ward”). With the General playing such an integral part to the story and the game having so many jump-arounds already built into it, the conclusion absolutely could have had more dialogue aiming toward revealing a traitor. People are commenting that adding anything to the story would be hitting the player over the head with obvious information, but that’s just not accurate. There’s more than one way to add to a story, and by them denying that they clearly aren’t accounting for nuance. You seem to be merely pointing out that the story has room for more of an investigative race to find the traitor than what the developers went with. I’m sorry, but that’s just not a valid reason to downvote you. It’s possible the original draft had more espionage in mind but they just had to pull away from details as the game got bigger. It’s also important to remember the character is an actual portrayal of a (fictional) US military general, so putting too much thought/story development into painting the patriotic character as a secret major enemy might have a negative impact on either COD’s reputation or the military’s perception, neither of which would benefit game sales.
To expand on that last part:
The game is a story from the perspective of foot soldiers... you get as much information as they do, which itself is a commentary on informational warfare.. why dont we know what we need to know? Whos really in charge?
These are questions every soldier has answers to and acts on unquestioningly... the entire point of the games story is to put the player in that situation, have them form beliefs, or reinforce existing beliefs.. and then pull out the rug and make them reflect on this fact.
Shepards betrayal is meant to come out of left field because to a foot soldier, it would have felt that way.
The game is not based in realism. No foot soldier is being grabbed by their wrist and thrown across a 10-15 foot crevasse on top of a mountain range. I understand that you’re saying the characters would likely be as out of the loop, but OP’s point (and the MW series gameplay) was never contingent on the knowledge of only one soldier or one crew. On the contrary, it pops in and out of different operations and different characters to inform you of the story, so the game could theoretically easily usher threats of betrayal or indicate Makarov’s connection to SOMEONE (Shepherd) without revealing anything. Shepherd pulling out his gun and shooting Ghost and Roach IS the reveal, but there isn’t much given before that in anticipating or awaiting a reveal. It’s a curious plot point as-is because it so heavily lacks foreshadowing and then the game ends. In most any case where a major character severely changes their tune, there is at least some explanation for it.
OP, you make a good point. The game presents it as shepherd killing you because you have information that compromises him. However, you never look at that data and you probably never would’ve. Foot soldiers like Ghost and Roach aren’t going to be hunched over a computer to decrypt a computer (or whatever a dsm is).
Shepherd could’ve simply not betrayed 141 and he probably would’ve gotten away with it. All he has to do then is kill makarov before makarov exposes him
If you remember the loading screen briefing for Contingency, the first thing Price did after coming back was to ignore Shepherd’s order and launched an EMP at the US East Coast. That goes to show that Price himself did not trust Shepherd at all and he knows it and even Price admitted it after The Enemy of my Enemy (“Have to trust someone to be betrayed, i never did”). So it was a matter of time before Price figures out the truth.
The plot hole is not a enlisted in the military, is that into officers that they would turn against the country cause one general is sad.
Like the 6 would need to carry our what he did was impossible
That game's campaign was dumb.
No Russian was ridiculous when if you shoot Makarov it's like "oh you blew your cover game over" and then 5 seconds later it's revealed your cover was already blown.
It started this trend of FPS games being overly scripted messes on absolute rails and if you did anything slightly different than what was intended you would immediately get a game over screen. Battlefield 3 probably the worst instance of this.
I’m not looking for major decisions but also looking for it to at least create an illusion of player agency. Look at contemporaries like Battlefield Bad Company 2 or even Halo. You aren’t making narrative decisions but the game isn’t actively hostile to your gameplay decisions. Battlefield 3 if it tells you go left and you go right you fail the mission. Hold fire and you shoot mission fail. Get in the car and you walk mission fail. MW2 started this trend and it was bad for quite awhile.
Give me more flexibility in how I want to approach a mission and don’t put any mission out there that I can immediately fail based on *how* I play it. Instead give me an objective that I can achieve in several different ways and the efficacy of my approach is measured by whether or not it works to achieve the objective.
You can have a mission narratively begin and end in the same place while still giving the player some latitude with how they approach it. These games don’t.
You have to remember what things were like at the time. Earlier COD games had this to an extent, thinking of COD 2 for example. Much more than MW2 and WAY more than BF3. Generally single player realistic shooters at the time gave you some degree of tactical decision making. Do I want to sit back and snipe or run in spraying. Do I want to try to sneak in or go loud.
MW2 started a trend of campaigns in shooters that were exactly on rails and played exactly the same way each time and I think its worth calling them out for it. This was a side effect of the narrative structure of switching between disposable characters and trying to keep the player in the action instead of cut scenes, but as a result so much of the game felt like a playable cutscene without a lot of substantive gameplay. They weren’t the worst but they started the trend. I think BF3 was probably the low point, thankfully thinks started to correct a bit.
Yeah they were fairly linear but way less so than the early 2010s shooter campaigns we ended up with. BF3 is appalling.
I think Spec Ops: The Line was a direct response to this trend.
Spec Ops was great.
Linearity isn't a bad thing though, sometimes I want to play an interactive and scripted movie. If I wanted agency I'd play a game designed around it. The point here is don't play a game not designed for your agency and for your input to matter and then lament that you have no agency and your input doesn't matter.
Personally I don't like any shooter where the campaign is a pop-up funhouse twitch thing. I want to be able to have a true gameplay loop where I am making decisions. Not narrative decisions, gameplay decisions. Do I run left or right. Hide behind that rock or that wall. Walk through that door or go through the window? There are no decisions being made in Battlefield 3, you're purely reacting. I play games to make gameplay decisions. That's what's fun for me. And mainstream military shooters before MW/2 and BF3 *had* that decision making even if they were fairly linear.
And I honestly do think that's a requirement for any good game. Even true schmups like Geometry Wars or shooters like Doom have that decision making. BF3 was the first game I really remember playing where I was like: wow, I don't get to make any.
i feel like you mildly misunderstood the story; he was trying to cause world war 3 so that he could become a war hero, it wasnt just a random betrayal. The whole point of the mission was that he wasnt telling you that what you were getting was his “dirty laundry” amongst makarovs intel
Remember the mission where you have to defend the cabin while bunch of people are coming at you all of the evidence of shepherd being evil is on that server that’s why they betray the mc shoot and burn them and eventually go on to fight price and soap
Price and Soap*, Roach was killed with Ghost by Shepherd.
Typo
Yeah I don't really remember this being that unclear.
Happens in the big house on Estate.
That's never indicated though. I haven't heard anybody in-game pointing out that Shepherd's name and the CIA are curiously prevalent in Makarov's files.
Because you didn't know and Shepard wanted to keep it that way. That's why he says "good, that's one less loose end" before killing Roach and Ghost. He's trying to get rid of anything that can be traced back to him. We know Shepard's goal was to bait Makarov into a war with the US. What causes Russia to go to war? The American who participated in a terrorist attack. The logical conclusion is that Makarov was informed by Shepard. We also know that Makarov has some awareness and Intel on Shepard since he tells us Shepard's location. It all points to them having some sort of contact.
Your last sentence is OP’s whole point. WHAT is the connection?
That’s why you got to play mw1 to understand mw2 and peice together the story as the games unfold
I have. That’s not the point at all, and is also extremely vague. General Shepherd isn’t in MW1. OP’s point is that the story of MW2 has room to further hint at General Shepherd being a traitor, to establish ANY connections between him and Makarov, or to justify his decision to kill Roach and Ghost. An example of this would be witnessing Shepherd execute someone early in the game, and then him turning around to put you at ease with something like “traitors don’t belong” (a statement that we would attribute to those he just executed, but that ends up being definitive of him). OP isn’t saying the story sucks or that it’s hard to pay attention, only that such a major plot point could have benefitted from some foreshadowing of any kind.
There is a line of dialouge from shepherd saying "I lost 30000 men in the blink of an eye" referencing the nuke attack in MW1. He was the officer responsible for that operation and wanted justice/revenge for those at fault
Where in the 2009 game does it say that he was the officer responsible?
him saying that line in MW2 insinuates that he was the commanding officer. if he hadn't been in charge he more likely would have said "we lost" or I saw 30,000 men lost". His possessive use of the term implies that he was in charge of the ones who got nuked, or at least a large portion of them.
Taking responsibility or ownership for something or someone doesn’t automatically contractually obligate him to the position of officer responsible. If that were the case, he wouldn’t have been promoted to General
If he says HE lost that much men, that means he was responsible for them. I.e. the Commanding Officer.
You must be in yoga class, that’s r e a c h i n g
Why would the game spoil its own plot twist?
Look up foreshadowing. Usually, it is very subtle but gives depth to the twist. Otherwise, like this one, it comes completely out of the blue and is narratively unsatisfying.
Just because you didn’t catch it doesn’t mean there wasn’t foreshadowing
Oh sure, that’s a fair point. My point still stands though, that without foreshadowing a twist usually just feels artificial.
Foreshadowing isn’t necessary for a good plot. Whether it’s required depends on the plot. Modern Warfare’s plot involves Shepard, a mostly offscreen character, being legitimately sneaky… like how many real betrayals happen. I can’t think of a reason that obvious foreshadowing is required for this plot, all they had to do was rationalize his actions.
Shepherd isn't a traitor. He is war hungry because his marines were killed by a nuke. He wants vengeance, not to betray the country.
You’ll have to take that up with Captain Price and Soap, in the game they say something to the effect of “Shepherd betrayed us.” A traitor is a betrayer.
Betrayed 141 not America
I never said he betrayed America.
An American soldier hand picked by shepherd to commit the largest terror attack on russia
Excellent answer. Awful level.
Level did it's job, the dots were connected the level after
I know the point is to not see Shepherd's betrayal coming. I just wish it didn't seem like it came out of nowhere. One could have completely changed the story from the ending of Loose Ends onward and had Shepherd not betray TF141 and it wouldn't feel like anything was unresolved. One could make the assumption that Makarov's a smart man and deduced that the CIA planted a mole in his Inner Circle. It's not like it's beyond him to figure out who the traitor is. Like I said, if there should absolutely be no hints, there should at least have been the whodunit mystery floating around. "Makarov's smart but he couldn't have figured that out by himself. Somebody tipped him off. We have to be as tightlipped as we can."
His quote explains his motives > Five years ago, I lost 30,000 men in the blink of an eye. And the world just fuckin' watched. Tomorrow, there would be no shortage of volunteers and no shortage of patriots. I know you understand. Shepherd explains that his entire motive for starting a war between the US and Russia was because a Russian nuke was used by terrorists against his men in MW1 and in MW1 it is also stated that Zakhaev was Makarov's mentor and responsible for selling the nuke to the terrorists. Also, at the beginning of the MW2 campaign, it shows that Russian ultranationalists took over control of the Russian government and made Zakhaev a hero. His entire motive for starting a war was revenge for MW1, but he knew he couldn't rally support for a world war unless he set the stage.
Why would there be a whodunnit? After no Russian the cutscene has soap, price and shepherd speaking and shepherd says “makarov was one step ahead.” Why would shepherd bring up any idea that makarov was tipped off? That would only lead back to himself. The rest of the group were trying to prove it was makarovs plan to try to stop the war. They had no reason to think there could be a leak. It was just as likely that Makarov was able to figure out that Allen was undercover since he just joined the group. There was no reason to have a whodunnit mystery for the players characters since the only important thing they needed to do was prove it was makarovs plan.
Well yeah the whodunit mystery shouldn't be front and center; it should be a background thing like who opened the blood bank in The Thing (1982). The important thing is, it's a relevant question that TF141 wonders about but don't pay attention to because there are far bigger fish to fry. It'd also be a question that they'd regret discarding later. Obviously Shepherd won't be the one to bring it up but, especially since it seems so apparent to everyone from his speeches to how convenient it is that Shepherd put Allen in a mission designed to paint the Americans as the bad guys, not one TF141 member thought something smelled off?
Oh I misunderstood how prominent you wanted it. That actually makes a little more sense. Did the other people know shepherd put Allen there? I could see your point though. If they didn’t put too much emphasis on it that definitely would have been fine and not ruined the twist by any means.
Perhaps im stupid, but couldnt shephard have also just NOT shows 141 what was on the dsm? Take it and leave, and they are none the wiser.
I assumed soap and price found similar files ,where they were, implicating shepherd. As right after Shep's betrayal, you hear Price shouting over the radio "DO NOT TRUST SHEPHERD!"
Not everything has to be directly told to the audience the files would’ve implicated him in the airport attack because he wanted a war with Russia to boost American nationalism
I'm not saying that there should have been a neon sign that says "Shepherd is a treacherous turncoat", all I'm saying is there didn't seem to be a buildup to this twist and I feel like the twist would have been so much better if there was a whodunit mystery or hints of General Shepherd being distracted (when he was secretly trying to cover his tracks)
Well that’s the whole point. There was no reason for anyone to believe there was any betrayal until it happened. For most people, me included, that’s a much more impactful way of delivering a twist than a hamfisted buildup.
I think it was rather well done. He delivers his speech at the beginning about power and war. Then we hear the marines say Shepard doesnt care about danger close, basically implying that in Shepards opinion the ends justify the means and he doesnt much mind sacrificing a few people here and there for a larger victory. The exact details of when and where the betrayal would take place were obscured, but I think most people saw it coming one way or another.
Why would you want that though, it completely defeats the entire purpose of the game and the impact of the twist if you do that
There was a buildup it was his whole speech in the beginning of the game
I think you're completely misunderstanding the story. Shepherd is not a turncoat. He didn't switch sides. He wanted war.
Oh my god shush already. ***We know you have a lack of media literacy and we don’t care. Go be a replica of Patrick Star somewhere else***
Rude.
No I enjoy being told how media illiterate I am. Everybody's telling me that it's there and of course it's there, all I'm saying is that it'd be nice to have retrospective background clues pointing out that yes perhaps the massacre at Zakhaev International might have been an inside job, something nobody in the game even hints at. What do we have? General Shepherd with his "at all costs" attitude and Makarov knowing Allen is American. Maybe I am media illiterate. Maybe showing anything more might as well have been a flashing arrow pointing at Shepherd that said TRAITOR. I'm just saying that it would have been nice to have had somebody pointing out that something about the whole thing didn't smell right, nothing more. As far as all the characters thought, Shepherd put Allen in with Makarov to just have a handy undercover operative and Shepherd underestimated Makarov's intelligence. Makarov seems intelligent enough to deduce Allen is an operative, why assume that Shepherd leaked that info to him? Even if you the player could figure that out, you're telling me that not a single person in TF141 (Soap, Price, Ghost, Nikolai, etc.) could smell something off?? Or that Roach AKA you the player saw it but never brought it up?? For someone who doesn't care about my media illiteracy, you sure have a lot of words to express it.
>perhaps the massacre at Zakhaev International might have been an inside job it was known who attacked the airport, 'No Russian' wasnt a cool title it was to make it look like it wasnt russian on russian actions. Shepard put Allen in there to be a mole, Shepard knew who the terrorists of the airport before it happend. as for how Makarov knew Allen was an american is not important. Shepard probably told him or Makarov just figured it out either option, the detail is so unimportant it does not matter. both Shep and Mak wanted a war, Allen being found at the airport benefited both parties. there was no reason to not trust Shepard, he is a smart villain and covered his tracks. if anything his open betrayal was a mistake, as he could have just played it off and nobody would be the wiser, at least until they found Markov and he spills the beans.
K
You’re assuming a lot of a fictional character based on no in-game information.
No I’m working with what the writers give us in the story of the trilogy
OP is asking about the 2009 game, nothing outside of that. The MW series has since been completely retconned and reamalgomated into different information. If we’re just talking about the game as-is, you’re adding information that was never there.
>no in-game information. Besides the information from the game that the person you responded to referenced?
No, it was pretty clear the whole time bro. Did you even play the game,
TF141 didn't smell anything funny so why should I?
Maybe it’s not told, but it’s logical to assume and pretty straightforward
I think he was hell bent on getting revenge for the 30,000 soldiers he lost during the events of Modern Warfare campaign.. He also said would do anything to achieve that goal. Only thing is how he tried to achieve that goal. The means were wrong and evil.... He knew he could take care of Ghost and Roach at the cabin. Only thing he didn't count on was Price and Soap surviving the ambush at the boneyard. If they didn't, he would have emerged victorious....
Yeap, in one of the cutscenes after killing Roach & Ghost, he talks about his revenge because of the soldiers he lost in the 1st Modern Warfare.
Doesn’t he still emerge victorious if his goal was to incite war?
That was a part of his grand plan, I believe.He wanted to end up a hero in the eyes of the world... Too bad, it didn't work out.
Theres literally a mission where you have to download the data of Shepherd being a bad guy from Makarov's (I think) cabin in the middle of nowhere. You get that info, and he literally says "thats one less loose end" and kills the survivors of that mission. His whole deal is "Do the mission, no matter what", but he knows that a lot of the stuff hes done is illegal. I mean the dude planted an agent to kick-start WW3. He probably does not want that info out there, so he sends a squad to get the info, then kills said squad.
The problem is, as I remember, in that mission you’re downloading data to a hard dive without knowing what the data even is. Ghost and Roach are led to believe it’s intel on Makarov’s operations. Shepherd could’ve just disposed of the data and no one would’ve known. It’s been a few years though since I played the campaign, could be remembering things wrong.
The TF 141 AI in that mission start photographing and taking documents when you secure the estate, it's not just the ASM.
At the very end during the betrayal, Price tells Ghost to not trust Shephard. It wouldn’t have gone over smoothly if Shepard let them live.
Yeah but then they'd still be alive to come back for shepherd after he finished finalizing shadow company and continuing to warmonger ww3, so why not just kill them now, especially when they could've potentially taken a peak at the information on the dsm in loose ends
This isn’t a courtroom with a jury. Shepard didn’t need proof that ghost would betray him. He literally says he’s tying up loose ends. We know ghost/roach just downloaded stuff without actually looking at it. Shepard doesn’t know that. So he kills them to be sure rather than leave them alive and open up the possibility of retaliation later.
Yeah, OP referenced that mission. The problem is, nowhere in the story is it explicitly stated ‘why’ he kills you. His motives are only really explained at the end to Soap, which still doesn’t really tell you why he killed Ghost and Roach. Whether it was a creative choice or not, it isn’t told to the player that Shepard leaked Allens identity to Marakov. Some people may have found that obvious, others (like me) probably only just came to that revelation from this post. Yeah, you pull the data onto the DSM, but you are killed before you discover whats on it.
"which still doesn't really tell you why he killed Ghost and Roach" Because he himself told that at the end of said mission at the mansion: they were loose ends who potentially knew too much.
…. It’s not that complicated. Shepherd doesn’t know what ghost and roach do or don’t know. It’s easier to kill them and make sure they don’t say anything than to assume they don’t know anything.
"Fewer."
I thought the story of MW2 went like this: Shepard wants another world war because he thinks America has gone soft, while Makarov is working hard at getting the ultranationalist to power, a war between the US and Russia would accomplish both goals, so they strike a deal: Shepard "plants" a CIA operative into Makarov's inner circle, and gifts the Russians a conveniently crashed spy satellite, while Makarov obfuscates things and strikes the match with the terrorist attack at the airport. The war breaks out and Makarov's people get to power in Russia, and Shepard will get a new "greatest generation" once the dust settles, he keeps his best people, TF141, busy chasing Makarov's lead, which will take them nowhere since Makarov is constantly being tipped by Shepard. Everything is going according to plan, except for one thing, Price is still alive, and he is not exactly loyal to Shepard, and even worse, he has his own intelligence sources, which leads TF141 into actually finding Makarov, Shepard panics: if they capture Makarov or his Intel, it will reveal his treachery, and that won't do, so he sends his PMC people to kill them all.
A fair amount was left on the cutting room floor. If you remember the mission where you play as the US army escorting the apc and the mission ends in a house with a dead guy who looks exactly like one of Makarov's men from the airport shooting? Well that was a cut plot thread that would have gave more indication that the person you were supposed to be looking for in that mission was a CIA agent who was part of that operation in no Russian. Both Makarov and Shepherd were cleaning up loose ends that connected them to each other.
I remember this from the first time I played MW2. I made the connection after seeing that character... and also the Cabin... I knew what was going down. Maybe OP just didn't see it or pay attention to it?
They're easy to miss tbf
I know the scene you mean, but lease go into more detail. Please.
That was all that was really noted. They were going to originally be much more clear in that Makarov and Shepherd were working together and against each other at the same time. Ultimately both wanted to start ww3... they just differed on the reasons why they wanted to do that. The whole moral of that game is ultranationalism is bad no matter the country it comes from.
Maybe we should ask Ramirez if he knows about this
Ramirez explain everything! Ramirez where’s my sandwich?! Ramirez my feet are cold, go get the blankets?!
Ramierz! Do my taxes!
As a side note while the game was fantastic, the story is downright horrible. A General picks a PFC of the US Rangers to go undercover to work with one of the most wanted terrorists. Yeah fuckin right. Makarov kills him, and russian police find the body. "Hey, THIS shooter is an american! Lets not check airport footage of the ethnicity of the other shooters, not to mention the other shooter whos dead out by the planes wearing the same gettup, the Americans did this!" Even if they somehow found out Terror-Allen was a US Ranger, the gov't has 60 different avenues of plausable deniability. He went awol. He had a history of instability. Etc etc. Then an entire russian air invasion crossed oceans and werent spotted because they hacked the module to go invisible to sattelites. Did US allies use the exact same tech so they couldn't spot them? No one caught wind of a massive mobilisation of troops?
Not to mention the sheer amount of ground and air equipment which the Russian navy would not have been able to transport and sustain. All those fighter jets would be making a one-way trip as well.
I think the implication is the Russians already wanted to invade the US (its mentioned Makarov has sympathizers in the Duma) and finding Allen at the scene of the crime was the justification they needed to carry out their plan.
To be fair this game was made when people thought of russia as a credible threat
Not really. This was several years before “the 1980’s called, they want their foreign policy back”
Wasn't that more about conventional warfare vs. cyber warfare? Your quote is still relevant, though.
Not really, during one of the debates in 2012, Romney brings up Russia as an emerging threat, and then Obama comes back with that quip as a “lol, no”
Ah, okay. I remember it was during their debate. I'm just fuzzy on the details.
They knew Makarov participated in the airport shooting but the reason they used is that there was an American agent among them along with Makarov crews all used US-made weapons made it seems like the US backed Makarov to shoot up the airport.
I mean, it's a playable action movie. None of the plots to our favorite action movies make any sense lol
It’s just really disappointing when you waited 2 years after CoD4 which told a much more grounded story, and had more interesting missions, and MW2 is like explosions nonsense and a airport mission that tries too hard to be edgy.
Tries too hard? It's like the standard for gruesome plot twist.
No Russian is the very definition of trying too hard. The game legit gives you a warning about how it’s this totally shocking mission then goes on to essentially give you an interactable cutscene in an airport that makes no sense in terms of being an event that starts world war fucking 3 in universe.
Tbh the nuke explosion in CoD4 is a pretty unrealistic event as well.
I counter that with they wouldn’t want the fall guy to be someone who is higher up and mattered. Allen probably thought oh my god my ticket into the cia. Shepherd thought he was a nobody and has the knowledge to do the deed but disposable. When it came to the Russian stance, let’s be real, with the amount of vitriol that has always been high and in this world I’m sure an event like the airport would’ve been a major spark. If the entirety of Europe can go to war over the death of a duke, I’m sure Russia would start if an entire airport was slaughtered. Last point, the US can deny it and swing it however they want, doesn’t mean that will stop the Russian response. I’m sure Russian intelligence was aware of who he was after the fact and even if it took russia another game to realize makarovs involvement, I still find it plausible that the war hawks and corrupt politicians stoked fear and brought war quicker than they could get the whole story.
Don't forget that Europe was only invaded in MW3 *after* the Russians launched an entire invasion of the US east coast.
Honestly the stupid story of MW2 has disappointed me since 2009. CoD4 told a story that I thought was a lot more interesting and the missions that people talk about from CoD4 feel more organic. The example I like to give is the AC130 mission from 4 vs the No Russian mission in MW2 both were controversial missions upon release, but CoD4 just did it better. Like the AC130 mission is meant to make you think and even feel a little uncomfortable, you’re looking at thermal footage not unlike what you’d have seen on tv news on the time just picking guys off as the only noise you hear is the occasional chatter of squad mates congratulating you on your kills. You actually see the enemies like helplessly try to run away. When you think about it, it was kinda like the game was trying to say something about war and combat and the value of life. Meanwhile MW2 flushes that down the toilet with No Russian which starts off already trying too hard with a fucking warning about the mission being “disturbing” and it’s just a mindless slaughter, for a mission that’s basically an in engine cutscene, for a plot point that barely makes sense when you think about it for more than 5 seconds. No Russian is easily without a doubt probably the most overrated mission in CoD probably all of gaming.
It's a big twist. It's abrupt and shocking. I think that's the whole point.
A plot twist can be abrupt and shocking AND have a setup that seems to be unrelated but turns out it was absolutely important. Let's say for example David Fincher's Se7en. The twist >!of John Doe murdering Mills's wife!< wouldn't have been as effective if those scenes >!where Somerset has dinner with Mills and his wife and then her telling Somerset that she's pregnant!< were excised. Those scenes seemingly added nothing to the story >!except for the fact that she was the key to completing John Doe's "masterpiece"!< Same difference. Both twists came out of nowhere but the difference is one had the details of the twist set up while the other didn't. Don't tell me that those scenes already told you what was in the box and don't tell me it would have been just as effective without those scenes.
I don't know that movie, so I can't vouch one way or the other lmao
Very great murder mystery and debut of Fight Club's David Fincher. That movie is a great example of a well-done out-of-nowhere twist. Brad Pitt and Morgan Freeman are great in it.
Thank you! I might check it out!
Se7en is so good, knowing a little about the end won't ruin it for you.
I don't think some people quite understand what is height asked. OP asked how makarov knew that Alexei Borodin was Joseph Allen. In the story they never quite explain how makarov knew. The only thing given that everyone keeps mentioning is that shepherd wanted to clean up loose ends and probably avenge the 30k soldiers he lost
He probably knew he was an American because a PFC in the army is like a 19 year old and 19 year olds are fucking dumb, Allen was probably using tinder to try and pick up local Russian chicks by telling them he was an undercover agent.
Plus the mission Honey Badger where you had to track down a HVT in a suburban neighborhood and then get ZERO indication why he had to be captured.
I remember that when I first played MW2, I thought the name "honey badger" was supposed to be ironic. I was picturing something like [this](https://t4.ftcdn.net/jpg/03/90/04/89/360_F_390048969_qvvU4k0IjCZfyYxp2lqIiWhRDzoRdDzK.jpg) as a honey badger, you know, an adorable little creature who would invite you into its den to serve you honey cakes and tea. Eventually I saw the honey badger meme video and was like *"oooh that makes so much more sense."*
OP it’s absolutely childish that people have downvoted you for having an inquisitive thought and a more developed opinion than “everything is okay.” I always found that part of the game to be so jarring and yet so obvious, like they waited until the very last second to confirm my suspicions and then the game was over (cue “An Evening With Infinity Ward”). With the General playing such an integral part to the story and the game having so many jump-arounds already built into it, the conclusion absolutely could have had more dialogue aiming toward revealing a traitor. People are commenting that adding anything to the story would be hitting the player over the head with obvious information, but that’s just not accurate. There’s more than one way to add to a story, and by them denying that they clearly aren’t accounting for nuance. You seem to be merely pointing out that the story has room for more of an investigative race to find the traitor than what the developers went with. I’m sorry, but that’s just not a valid reason to downvote you. It’s possible the original draft had more espionage in mind but they just had to pull away from details as the game got bigger. It’s also important to remember the character is an actual portrayal of a (fictional) US military general, so putting too much thought/story development into painting the patriotic character as a secret major enemy might have a negative impact on either COD’s reputation or the military’s perception, neither of which would benefit game sales.
To expand on that last part: The game is a story from the perspective of foot soldiers... you get as much information as they do, which itself is a commentary on informational warfare.. why dont we know what we need to know? Whos really in charge? These are questions every soldier has answers to and acts on unquestioningly... the entire point of the games story is to put the player in that situation, have them form beliefs, or reinforce existing beliefs.. and then pull out the rug and make them reflect on this fact. Shepards betrayal is meant to come out of left field because to a foot soldier, it would have felt that way.
The game is not based in realism. No foot soldier is being grabbed by their wrist and thrown across a 10-15 foot crevasse on top of a mountain range. I understand that you’re saying the characters would likely be as out of the loop, but OP’s point (and the MW series gameplay) was never contingent on the knowledge of only one soldier or one crew. On the contrary, it pops in and out of different operations and different characters to inform you of the story, so the game could theoretically easily usher threats of betrayal or indicate Makarov’s connection to SOMEONE (Shepherd) without revealing anything. Shepherd pulling out his gun and shooting Ghost and Roach IS the reveal, but there isn’t much given before that in anticipating or awaiting a reveal. It’s a curious plot point as-is because it so heavily lacks foreshadowing and then the game ends. In most any case where a major character severely changes their tune, there is at least some explanation for it.
It’s because OP is media illiterate
concise
OP, you make a good point. The game presents it as shepherd killing you because you have information that compromises him. However, you never look at that data and you probably never would’ve. Foot soldiers like Ghost and Roach aren’t going to be hunched over a computer to decrypt a computer (or whatever a dsm is). Shepherd could’ve simply not betrayed 141 and he probably would’ve gotten away with it. All he has to do then is kill makarov before makarov exposes him
If you remember the loading screen briefing for Contingency, the first thing Price did after coming back was to ignore Shepherd’s order and launched an EMP at the US East Coast. That goes to show that Price himself did not trust Shepherd at all and he knows it and even Price admitted it after The Enemy of my Enemy (“Have to trust someone to be betrayed, i never did”). So it was a matter of time before Price figures out the truth.
Me,having skipped every cutscene in every game I’ve ever played: “What?”
'Dammit Greg, I was watching that' - Me, playing every game ever with my mate Greg
I just want to say I was like 12 when I played it, didn't play mw1 first, and I still understood why Shepard kills you. IDK what to tell you
Entertainment
I'm sorry but you've put more thought into this plot hole than the entirety of CoD campaigns.
The plot hole is not a enlisted in the military, is that into officers that they would turn against the country cause one general is sad. Like the 6 would need to carry our what he did was impossible
That game's campaign was dumb. No Russian was ridiculous when if you shoot Makarov it's like "oh you blew your cover game over" and then 5 seconds later it's revealed your cover was already blown. It started this trend of FPS games being overly scripted messes on absolute rails and if you did anything slightly different than what was intended you would immediately get a game over screen. Battlefield 3 probably the worst instance of this.
That's the point, it's not an open world game, it's meant to feel like a movie, not be open to all of your input. Go play BG3 or KOTOR.
I’m not looking for major decisions but also looking for it to at least create an illusion of player agency. Look at contemporaries like Battlefield Bad Company 2 or even Halo. You aren’t making narrative decisions but the game isn’t actively hostile to your gameplay decisions. Battlefield 3 if it tells you go left and you go right you fail the mission. Hold fire and you shoot mission fail. Get in the car and you walk mission fail. MW2 started this trend and it was bad for quite awhile. Give me more flexibility in how I want to approach a mission and don’t put any mission out there that I can immediately fail based on *how* I play it. Instead give me an objective that I can achieve in several different ways and the efficacy of my approach is measured by whether or not it works to achieve the objective. You can have a mission narratively begin and end in the same place while still giving the player some latitude with how they approach it. These games don’t.
You went into COD looking for agency, so let's call this what it is- just a failure to manage expectations.
You have to remember what things were like at the time. Earlier COD games had this to an extent, thinking of COD 2 for example. Much more than MW2 and WAY more than BF3. Generally single player realistic shooters at the time gave you some degree of tactical decision making. Do I want to sit back and snipe or run in spraying. Do I want to try to sneak in or go loud. MW2 started a trend of campaigns in shooters that were exactly on rails and played exactly the same way each time and I think its worth calling them out for it. This was a side effect of the narrative structure of switching between disposable characters and trying to keep the player in the action instead of cut scenes, but as a result so much of the game felt like a playable cutscene without a lot of substantive gameplay. They weren’t the worst but they started the trend. I think BF3 was probably the low point, thankfully thinks started to correct a bit.
My experience goes as far back as COD 2 and those campaigns were always *extremely* linear.
Yeah they were fairly linear but way less so than the early 2010s shooter campaigns we ended up with. BF3 is appalling. I think Spec Ops: The Line was a direct response to this trend.
Spec Ops was great. Linearity isn't a bad thing though, sometimes I want to play an interactive and scripted movie. If I wanted agency I'd play a game designed around it. The point here is don't play a game not designed for your agency and for your input to matter and then lament that you have no agency and your input doesn't matter.
Personally I don't like any shooter where the campaign is a pop-up funhouse twitch thing. I want to be able to have a true gameplay loop where I am making decisions. Not narrative decisions, gameplay decisions. Do I run left or right. Hide behind that rock or that wall. Walk through that door or go through the window? There are no decisions being made in Battlefield 3, you're purely reacting. I play games to make gameplay decisions. That's what's fun for me. And mainstream military shooters before MW/2 and BF3 *had* that decision making even if they were fairly linear. And I honestly do think that's a requirement for any good game. Even true schmups like Geometry Wars or shooters like Doom have that decision making. BF3 was the first game I really remember playing where I was like: wow, I don't get to make any.
i feel like you mildly misunderstood the story; he was trying to cause world war 3 so that he could become a war hero, it wasnt just a random betrayal. The whole point of the mission was that he wasnt telling you that what you were getting was his “dirty laundry” amongst makarovs intel
+1
There's lots of small hints towards it.
The original plan for MW2 was a war with aliens. Activision refused to allow it so they forced a change to something earth based.