Bleh, don't remind me. Last I checked, Sanctuary wasn't a bright and colorful place.Amnestic said:
Infinity Ward Responds to Modern Warfare 2 Controversy
- Thread starter John Funk
- Start date
Recommended Videos
Its simply a horrible direction for PC gaming.
but the again, its getting to the point that i am thinking, depending on how BC2 plays on PC, than engine will be sufficient, and in several years, I'll be able to play it (BC2) with 96 players, while IWnet will drop its MW2 support in favor of MW3.
because the CAN with the system
but the again, its getting to the point that i am thinking, depending on how BC2 plays on PC, than engine will be sufficient, and in several years, I'll be able to play it (BC2) with 96 players, while IWnet will drop its MW2 support in favor of MW3.
because the CAN with the system
Squid let me put it this way, I play Infamous because I can get by just barely. It is far harder for me to play since I am not right handed than it is for people that are. It did not have to be this way either. I did not buy either of the Uncharted games because the control options basically make it impossible for me to actually enjoy the game because the controls are so terrible. I should be happy that it hurts to play COD4 on consoles because the Southpaw controls suck so much? Why the hell should anyone pay for the privilege of not having fun with a game? In this particular case because they have removed things players have come to expect from COD games, they are ruining what makes things fun for a great many people.
Are you asking me? Lol I am not a console gamer ask one of those creatures.Dudeakoff said:
All I am saying is Ward is following a course of good business. PC gamers that love previous games by Ward will most likely still buy a new version of a game no matter what they do to it. Don?t get me wrong if they destroy it, it may impede any further transactions with the PC gaming group. But if the last game was outstanding most gamers will not hesitate to give the new version a shot.
Example: Will I play SC2? Hell yes. Dose the lack of LAN piss me off? Yep. Will I get over it? No no no, don?t confuse me for one of those pretentious gamers that think the industry owes me something.
Okay, I'll biteParagon Fury said:
Granted, but it also means that you're going to get a lot more people joining a game, seeing that there's only a half-dozen people playing, and leaving immediately. At least with a server list people can see how many people are in a given server
Maybe I want those filter settings. Not all of us are incompetents that can't spend five minutes working out some fine details before we play.
Yes, that's what I'm looking for in a game: reliability. As for the whims of a server host, do you know how many times I've been kicked for making a simple mistake in L4D? Suddenly, everyone has admin powers! If you think the admin are being unfair in a server, just choose another. I think I'll do that with my MM-oh, the same game, I'll just roll agai- oh.
See my L4D argument above.
What if you want a server where it's no rules, just mindless fun? Oh well, I guess you have to play by the game's rules. Pretty much eliminating one of the main reasons I play PC multiplayer over console multiplayer. If I want to play a rocket jump server in TF2, I just find one and go. Or a game mode like Hide and Seek. I don't see any great user-made game modes in Halo. It's all slayer.
No, it really doesn't.
For example: I'm a noob, I (unwittingly) get pushed into a game filled with pros, all I can do is either suck it up, or leave and try again, well, on a server list, that's easy, just flag that server as one to avoid, not so easy when players are chosen at more or less random.
Well, you'd be semi-right, if IW hadn't decided to get rid of all our modding options at the same time. So now we have these choices: private or public, gametype, number of players. That's about it, no custom maps, not custom gametypes, what if I want to go just play a round or two ofsomething like Surf, in between real games? No surf servers, oh dear.
What YOU seem to deed to realise is this: we are not console gamers, we expect a bit more power over what do and don't play. We aren't content to just follow the herd and enjoy it, little gamers!
The thing is, I don't think any of us here would be even half as ticked off of IW had included MM in addition to traditional server setups. But they haven't given us a choice, they've told us "we don't care that this is what PC gamers use and ENJOY, you'll like what we tell you to like." imagine if console gamers were forced by a game to use a dedicated server lobby? I guarantee you'd see a lot more than the 200-odd comments here. There would be cries of "OMG why can't I just join a game this is gay!" Everywhere.
Its the same reason why everyone is in an uproar over the SC 2 LAN compatability, why can't we take our computers over to our friends houses andhave a good old fashioned LAN party? Why are they forcing us to remain isolated from the peole we play with?
EDIT: sigh, HTML fail
People complaining about the colour in Diablo 3 are.... /facepalm I don't even know what to say. The previous versions of Diablo mainly lacked colour due to lack of graphics, even then Diablo 2 was plenty colourful. Just look at Act 2! Bright yellow most of the time. As for the cartoony graphics argument? Really have you looked at the older ones? Do they look realistic at all? All of blizzards games have had some form of cartoony element, or at the very least never went for realism.Georgeman said:
The industry does owe us something. We give them their paychecks, that means they need to give us what WE want, not what they think we'll enjoy more. This is not a parent/child relationship, but a buyer/consumer relationship... and how does that saying go... the consumer is always right. Yeah, that's it. It'd be nice if activision could figure that the hell out.
This is absolute nonsense, and I doubt I'll be getting the game at all at this point. I'm not buying it for my PS3, because I prefer FPS with my mouse. I like servers, because they allow you to find the number of players, the best ping, and the map or rules that you prefer. This bullshit system they have currently is a dumb down step that will severely limit your options, and place your gaming at the whim of some 12 year old whose mom just told him his gaming hour is done and he needs to do his arithmetic homework.
Look at games like BF2142, where they have server support and a friend system. Look at games like AA, which have had them forever.
Servers are not difficult.
*Refresh server list*
*Ascending order for ping*
*Find a server <100 ping, with the map/rules/number of people you want.*
*Connect*
*Possibly tell friends over voip or IM what your server name is (or perhaps IW could ADD A DAMN BUDDY SYSTEM*
HOW IS THIS DIFFICULT?
Screw it, you want more money and do this? Forget it.
This is absolute nonsense, and I doubt I'll be getting the game at all at this point. I'm not buying it for my PS3, because I prefer FPS with my mouse. I like servers, because they allow you to find the number of players, the best ping, and the map or rules that you prefer. This bullshit system they have currently is a dumb down step that will severely limit your options, and place your gaming at the whim of some 12 year old whose mom just told him his gaming hour is done and he needs to do his arithmetic homework.
Look at games like BF2142, where they have server support and a friend system. Look at games like AA, which have had them forever.
Servers are not difficult.
*Refresh server list*
*Ascending order for ping*
*Find a server <100 ping, with the map/rules/number of people you want.*
*Connect*
*Possibly tell friends over voip or IM what your server name is (or perhaps IW could ADD A DAMN BUDDY SYSTEM*
HOW IS THIS DIFFICULT?
Screw it, you want more money and do this? Forget it.
as much as i love Halo 3(the only shooter on 360 i play consistently), the matchmaking leaves much to be desired: get shoved into a group of people you may or may not like or even compare to skill-wise, a couple will likely leave, then you get a choice between one game or another after vetoing the original, and the next gametype isn't necessarily going to be better!
I played every single CoD on the PC so far. from the first, to the most recently released CoD4, there has been a server list. out of these server lists, i choose one or two i find to be fun, and get comfortable, chat it up with the other players and get to know them. as has been said before, this creates a community, one of which i have been a part of since CoD first came about called Canadian Black Watch. this community building will be crippled by the new system, as the hardcore type players will jump from game to game, just trying to be the best, and casual players will be turned off by their competitiveness.
now, i am absolutely outraged by this announcement, and i find depending on the user-base commenting on it, is either pro- or con- for IW.net, with the pro's usually consisting of console gamers, or people who find the people complaining are just being whiney. who say that they should move on and stop bitching. the con's are people like me, loyal CoD players who are being denied a feature that has been a part of the game since they made it, for absolutely no frakking good reason!
Matchmaking is a console feature because of the limitations a console has in terms of support and interactivity! i'm sure if they could, they would have a dedi-server list in online shooters on consoles, because it is a tried and true formula for online gaming! every 'benefit' that IW(or maybe just the PR types, i like to think the whole company is made up of idiots) suggests from the new system are things that have been proven many times to not be a very good way of doing things on a platform such as PC. it is obviously a scheme for them to rule the player base with an iron fist, and dole out new content that we have to pay for, or else not play at all, thus fracturing the player base(which they claim the old system did, which is bollocks)
and a boycott would be a double edged sword in terms of a reaction from PC gamers; on one hand, we can't just stand by and let this happen, and we don't buy it(or pirate it) to show our opinion. however, then the powers that be say "hey, you didn't buy(or pay) for our games! pirates make up 60% of the players! we're not going to make games here anymore!" so in the end PC gamers will be stuck in a corner because of this.
my suggestion to anyone who agrees that this is a terrible idea, sign the petition that is being circulated everywhere, as it isn't a boycott petition, rather a plea for the developers to simply include a dedi server list. surely that isn't so hard?
http://www.petitiononline.com/dedis4mw/petition.html
I played every single CoD on the PC so far. from the first, to the most recently released CoD4, there has been a server list. out of these server lists, i choose one or two i find to be fun, and get comfortable, chat it up with the other players and get to know them. as has been said before, this creates a community, one of which i have been a part of since CoD first came about called Canadian Black Watch. this community building will be crippled by the new system, as the hardcore type players will jump from game to game, just trying to be the best, and casual players will be turned off by their competitiveness.
now, i am absolutely outraged by this announcement, and i find depending on the user-base commenting on it, is either pro- or con- for IW.net, with the pro's usually consisting of console gamers, or people who find the people complaining are just being whiney. who say that they should move on and stop bitching. the con's are people like me, loyal CoD players who are being denied a feature that has been a part of the game since they made it, for absolutely no frakking good reason!
Matchmaking is a console feature because of the limitations a console has in terms of support and interactivity! i'm sure if they could, they would have a dedi-server list in online shooters on consoles, because it is a tried and true formula for online gaming! every 'benefit' that IW(or maybe just the PR types, i like to think the whole company is made up of idiots) suggests from the new system are things that have been proven many times to not be a very good way of doing things on a platform such as PC. it is obviously a scheme for them to rule the player base with an iron fist, and dole out new content that we have to pay for, or else not play at all, thus fracturing the player base(which they claim the old system did, which is bollocks)
and a boycott would be a double edged sword in terms of a reaction from PC gamers; on one hand, we can't just stand by and let this happen, and we don't buy it(or pirate it) to show our opinion. however, then the powers that be say "hey, you didn't buy(or pay) for our games! pirates make up 60% of the players! we're not going to make games here anymore!" so in the end PC gamers will be stuck in a corner because of this.
my suggestion to anyone who agrees that this is a terrible idea, sign the petition that is being circulated everywhere, as it isn't a boycott petition, rather a plea for the developers to simply include a dedi server list. surely that isn't so hard?
http://www.petitiononline.com/dedis4mw/petition.html
Because regardless of what you all say, the majority will still buy the game. They'll still make their money, you'll still play their game. They're happy, they don't care if you are or not.Woodsey said:
I'm aware of that, but their claims are they're doing it for us because of the benefits. The point is the dedicated servers work better, and its no extra effort to them than making the system the way it is on consoles.No_Remainders said:
Why not then save the fuss and the whining, and not lose the couple of customers that will refuse to buy the game?
went on codwaw today on xbox, first 3 games bad connection to host, 4th 5th and 6th games the host ended soon as there team were winning, and 7th game me and 1 other guy were against a team of 6... oh i cant wait for this to come onto the pc =/
I may be wrong but does anyone know of a succesful game on pc that uses peer to peer connections? i mean far cry 2 uses it and trying to get a game on that is impossible. In my eyes this is IW being lazy and just porting a game to pc, but hey they wont care, they will still get scores of 9.9999999999 out of 10 across the bord and they still make and sell millions of coppies across the bord.
I may be wrong but does anyone know of a succesful game on pc that uses peer to peer connections? i mean far cry 2 uses it and trying to get a game on that is impossible. In my eyes this is IW being lazy and just porting a game to pc, but hey they wont care, they will still get scores of 9.9999999999 out of 10 across the bord and they still make and sell millions of coppies across the bord.
Im sure IW doesn't WANT to do this, but Activision is making them, So now they have to pretend they want to do it and give BS excuses, because they cant tell us "yeah we like dedicated servers as well, but activisions making us scrap them'. And I dont think activision will stop this just because we ask them.
One thing, don't apologize for IW doing this by saying that Actiblizzion is forcing them. That may be the case but that does not absolve them of anything. They tout this crap like it was an improvement. I won't lay of blaming IW for one. Actiblizzion sucks big time, but IW has responsibility. End of.
And this [http://www.computerandvideogames.com/article.php?id=225744] is the way to respond to this crap. I think the Escapist line is way to apologetic and condescending of what is an very real point of contention. John Funk at least was pretty good at scuffing at pc players.
And this [http://www.computerandvideogames.com/article.php?id=225744] is the way to respond to this crap. I think the Escapist line is way to apologetic and condescending of what is an very real point of contention. John Funk at least was pretty good at scuffing at pc players.