Infinity Ward Teases Modding Tools for PC Modern Warfare 2

[Fire Daemon]

Lean huh? One semi-good reason I can see for it's dismissal is because the maps are filled, absolutely filled with graphical crap. While CoD4, 2 and 1 basically just had blocks painted like buildings so there were no problems in seeing people, so if someone leans out a window or whatever you can see them. In MW2 though there seems to be a lot more irregular shapes and forms of cover (as well as lower visibility in many maps) that the player can blend in with, so in order for people not to reveal only a couple of pixels of themselves yet still dominate the game they removed lean so that it easier to kill people. I'm sure that a lot of people here have no problem shooting a smaller target but MW2 attracts a more casual audience than the likes that you see here and no doubt many might not be as good as you or I, so IW decided to give them a fighting chance. That seems like a good thing to me.

With a ranked system though, is this really needed? Maybe. CoD4 did have some nifty spots that you could hide in and not be seen though, so I wonder if this was really needed. It was easier to see people in that game, but there were some places where you could be essentially invisible and there some in this game as well. There would have to have been some reason behind this and I don't think that laziness is the answer.

Mod support is good but I'm not sure how they'll put it in with the Matchmaking. They'll probably make a mod playlist and choose mods to be played in that play list from what they find out in the community.

 

[MrSnugglesworth]

I read through all of this, and found one overpowering realization.


PC gamers are crazy.


Well, most are anyway.


And because I can't resist, Its just Lean. I don't have it on my Console, you don't get it on your PC. Its not the end of the world, like some people here are making it seem like.

 

[John Funk]

I don't recall ever saying it was overpowered. Merely that it was different, and it apparently just wasn't part of the game they wanted to make.

I don't wanna come across as picking on every little thing you say...

I just think it's an incredibly stupid argument, because they weren't designing a game with lean. Maybe they looked at it in the previous games and said, "hey, this was too overpowered and gave the game a higher balance curve, we should get rid of it."

Its just that during the discussion on "lean", this was the only theory thrown out as to why they did it.

And the reason does interest me. Not because I am a diehard fan who believes "MW is nothing without its lean!!", but because its removal doesn't really make sense.

You keep bringing up TF2 grenades, but as I understand it, there was some sort of spamming issue. Removing them brought controversy, but Valve only did it because there was even more controversy when they were present.

What was the controversy with lean?

I'm really tired of this argument right now and we're not going to ever convince the other, but my point there was less overpowered, and more that it may have presented the game with a higher learning curve than the developers wanted, much like the grenades in TFC - they were so crucial to playing it at a high level (much like you claim leaning is) and yet took a lot of learning on how to use properly, so they opted to remove them for TF2.

For all people make fun of the "not balanced for lean" quote, I don't see how it doesn't make sense. There are new perks, new items (riot shield), new guns - who's to say that they didn't look at the game in the context of the Modern Warfare 2 additions and found that keeping the lean function in in combination with the new stuff was too powerful?

Clearly, as evidenced by how popular the game's multiplayer still is, people are functioning just fine without leaning. And considering how popular COD4's multiplayer was on 360 where there was no leaning, people functioned just fine there.

Oh COME ON Funk... why are you being like this? You know FULL WELL that other PC FPS games that lack lean have completely different play-styles.

Do all of them? I've played plenty of realistic shooters on the PC that have functioned just fine without lean. Look at the original granddaddy of the realistic shooter - CounterStrike - and did it have lean? I played the crap out of it and if it did, I was never aware of it.

As for your point about the 360 being the default platform, I don't think that was ever in doubt. It's where IW gets the majority of its sales, after all - why shouldn't it default to the platform where it has the largest audience? In terms of raw business sense, it makes the most sense to focus on the 360 first, then the PS3, then the PC, because that's the order of magnitude of their fanbases. So yes, they demo everything on the 360 because it's where they'll see the most sales. And it wouldn't make much sense to give their biggest fanbase the worst version, would it? If they make a game where leaning is REQUIRED, make it available on the PC and PS3 but screw over the 360 fanbase, they've just shot themselves in the damn foot.

Leaning is just another feature, and it was simply one that they decided not to put in the game, and obviously people have adapted and are enjoying it nonetheless.

I am really getting tired of all of thise news based off of tweets. I usually find news here compelling, but I don't understand why reporters for The Escapist are using tweets as their sources. It just seems silly.

And, what was this? A message to one person from Mr. Bowling? I hardly think this is worthy of even a tiny article. The petition for support for colorblind people was a good thing to report on, it's something that's actually happening and deserves some attention, but do we really need to call attention to a tweet!? Really!?

Maybe I am the silly one here, and it's not a big deal, but... Urgh. =_=; I came into this piece of news expecting there to have been some real substance behind what was being said, like someone did an official interview with Bowling, a more credible source. I'd still be fine with the "Maybe, maybe not" behind it, but at least there would be a reason to believe it. All we've got here is a conversation between two people. "So yeah, the guys and I are still thinkin' about mod tools. We still want you to play our game and not think we're total jerks, so we're gonna' pretend like it's a possibility, but you're getting your hopes up if you think we'll really do it." (Obviously not what was said, but you get what I mean.)

To me, that just doesn't deserve to be called attention to.

I'm sorry you don't like it, but Twitter is becoming an increasingly common way for developers to communicate not just with their fans, but with game journalists. They make announcements via Twitter, they reveal stuff via Twitter - it's no less valid than if they'd released the same info in, say, a standard press release.

 

[MR T3D]

I don't recall ever saying it was overpowered. Merely that it was different, and it apparently just wasn't part of the game they wanted to make.

I don't wanna come across as picking on every little thing you say...

I just think it's an incredibly stupid argument, because they weren't designing a game with lean. Maybe they looked at it in the previous games and said, "hey, this was too overpowered and gave the game a higher balance curve, we should get rid of it."

Its just that during the discussion on "lean", this was the only theory thrown out as to why they did it.

And the reason does interest me. Not because I am a diehard fan who believes "MW is nothing without its lean!!", but because its removal doesn't really make sense.

You keep bringing up TF2 grenades, but as I understand it, there was some sort of spamming issue. Removing them brought controversy, but Valve only did it because there was even more controversy when they were present.

What was the controversy with lean?

I'm really tired of this argument right now and we're not going to ever convince the other, but my point there was less overpowered, and more that it may have presented the game with a higher learning curve than the developers wanted, much like the grenades in TFC - they were so crucial to playing it at a high level (much like you claim leaning is) and yet took a lot of learning on how to use properly, so they opted to remove them for TF2.

For all people make fun of the "not balanced for lean" quote, I don't see how it doesn't make sense. There are new perks, new items (riot shield), new guns - who's to say that they didn't look at the game in the context of the Modern Warfare 2 additions and found that keeping the lean function in in combination with the new stuff was too powerful?

Clearly, as evidenced by how popular the game's multiplayer still is, people are functioning just fine without leaning. And considering how popular COD4's multiplayer was on 360 where there was no leaning, people functioned just fine there.

Oh COME ON Funk... why are you being like this? You know FULL WELL that other PC FPS games that lack lean have completely different play-styles.

Do all of them? I've played plenty of realistic shooters on the PC that have functioned just fine without lean. Look at the original granddaddy of the realistic shooter - CounterStrike - and did it have lean? I played the crap out of it and if it did, I was never aware of it.

As for your point about the 360 being the default platform, I don't think that was ever in doubt. It's where IW gets the majority of its sales, after all - why shouldn't it default to the platform where it has the largest audience? In terms of raw business sense, it makes the most sense to focus on the 360 first, then the PS3, then the PC, because that's the order of magnitude of their fanbases. So yes, they demo everything on the 360 because it's where they'll see the most sales. And it wouldn't make much sense to give their biggest fanbase the worst version, would it? If they make a game where leaning is REQUIRED, make it available on the PC and PS3 but screw over the 360 fanbase, they've just shot themselves in the damn foot.

Leaning is just another feature, and it was simply one that they decided not to put in the game, and obviously people have adapted and are enjoying it nonetheless.

I am really getting tired of all of thise news based off of tweets. I usually find news here compelling, but I don't understand why reporters for The Escapist are using tweets as their sources. It just seems silly.

And, what was this? A message to one person from Mr. Bowling? I hardly think this is worthy of even a tiny article. The petition for support for colorblind people was a good thing to report on, it's something that's actually happening and deserves some attention, but do we really need to call attention to a tweet!? Really!?

Maybe I am the silly one here, and it's not a big deal, but... Urgh. =_=; I came into this piece of news expecting there to have been some real substance behind what was being said, like someone did an official interview with Bowling, a more credible source. I'd still be fine with the "Maybe, maybe not" behind it, but at least there would be a reason to believe it. All we've got here is a conversation between two people. "So yeah, the guys and I are still thinkin' about mod tools. We still want you to play our game and not think we're total jerks, so we're gonna' pretend like it's a possibility, but you're getting your hopes up if you think we'll really do it." (Obviously not what was said, but you get what I mean.)

To me, that just doesn't deserve to be called attention to.

I'm sorry you don't like it, but Twitter is becoming an increasingly common way for developers to communicate not just with their fans, but with game journalists. They make announcements via Twitter, they reveal stuff via Twitter - it's no less valid than if they'd released the same info in, say, a standard press release.

multi-parter here bear with me,
Yes, in a business sense a company should cater to a large market, but that doesn't mean that original fans should accept it when the features they like are removed for the sake of other markets. so what if that sounds selfish?
Also, yeah, i'd call it silly to say counter-strike is realistic. its close, and this whole lean 'debate' made me think about CS last night, and how it doesn't have lean, and how with the AWP it could be a bit more overpowered with lean in a map like office, but CoD =/=CS, not by a long shot.
really? using popularity as a measure of functionality? i guess the javelin glitch is fine, same with the modified rooms, and the many other 'features' the game appears to be sporting, because, hey, its POPULAR. I would think a smart person like yourself wouldn't say something so foolish, but, hey, what do i know..?
Furthermore, any person in the company could easily 'tweet' (cringe) something false, or just as bait for attention, and then you report it almost as though it is fact, and then the company could easily retract the statement, just as unofficially, making you an (unintentional) LIAR, especially when persons like yourself are starting to trust them more, almost instantly eradicates my trust in you as a 'journalist'. A press release has some sense of professionalism, and as a 'journalist' you SHOULD accept it as a far more reliable source than the equivalent of someone in the company yelling outside the window.

 

[John Funk]

multi-parter here bear with me,
Yes, in a business sense a company should cater to a large market, but that doesn't mean that original fans should accept it when the features they like are removed for the sake of other markets. so what if that sounds selfish?
Also, yeah, i'd call it silly to say counter-strike is realistic. its close, and this whole lean 'debate' made me think about CS last night, and how it doesn't have lean, and how with the AWP it could be a bit more overpowered with lean in a map like office, but CoD =/=CS, not by a long shot.
really? using popularity as a measure of functionality? i guess the javelin glitch is fine, same with the modified rooms, and the many other 'features' the game appears to be sporting, because, hey, its POPULAR. I would think a smart person like yourself wouldn't say something so foolish, but, hey, what do i know..?
Furthermore, any person in the company could easily 'tweet' (cringe) something false, or just as bait for attention, and then you report it almost as though it is fact, and then the company could easily retract the statement, just as unofficially, making you an (unintentional) LIAR, especially when persons like yourself are starting to trust them more, almost instantly eradicates my trust in you as a 'journalist'. A press release has some sense of professionalism, and as a 'journalist' you SHOULD accept it as a far more reliable source than the equivalent of someone in the company yelling outside the window.

I have no doubt that the decision to remove lean was partially to achieve platform parity, but I'm just saying that without the full knowledge of why IW decided to take it out, how it impacted development, et al, bashing them for it is silly. But regardless of the reason, the fact of the matter is that they were developing a game built around a player character's abilities that did not include leaning, and I can certainly understand their desire to not give a market - let alone their biggest market - a markedly different experience. If the PC users had leaning and the 360 users did not... well, do you balance the campaign around a player character that can lean around corners? If so, then you screw over the 360 users. Do you balance it around a player character that can't? Then the PC users get easy mode. That's the sort of problem they faced.

Of course the actual PROBLEMS with the game aren't fine and should be fixed, because that's just a shoddy product. But errors in the product, glitches and the like, are not the same as a design decision. If people are arguing that leaning is absolutely crucial to how they play online but HUGE numbers of gamers are playing MW2 online and enjoying it without leaning (and huge numbers of gamers played COD4 online and enjoyed it without leaning) then that argument kind of goes out the window, as it's clearly possible to play without it.

Of course COD=/=CS, but it was just an example of a "realistic" (as in, a few shots = dead) shooter can have a thriving online community and be competitive without leaning.

Finally, Twitter is no more or less reliable than press releases *as long as you're following the official company twitter.* Robert Bowling is the company's official spokesperson, and the stuff he says on Twitter can (and should) be as trustworthy as anything they say in a press release. If they're found lying in an official tweet, then they should be blasted as hard as if they were found lying in an official press release. Now, if an employee has their own PERSONAL twitter account and they say something, that's a different story altogether and you'd be absolutely correct that we'd have to report on that in a much more careful manner. But "Random IW employee #42's Twitter feed" and "The official IW PR Twitter feed" are two very different beasts.

 

[MR T3D]

-stuff I said-

I have no doubt that the decision to remove lean was partially to achieve platform parity, but I'm just saying that without the full knowledge of why IW decided to take it out, how it impacted development, et al, bashing them for it is silly. But regardless of the reason, the fact of the matter is that they were developing a game built around a player character's abilities that did not include leaning, and I can certainly understand their desire to not give a market - let alone their biggest market - a markedly different experience. If the PC users had leaning and the 360 users did not... well, do you balance the campaign around a player character that can lean around corners? If so, then you screw over the 360 users. Do you balance it around a player character that can't? Then the PC users get easy mode. That's the sort of problem they faced.

Of course the actual PROBLEMS with the game aren't fine and should be fixed, because that's just a shoddy product. But errors in the product, glitches and the like, are not the same as a design decision. If people are arguing that leaning is absolutely crucial to how they play online but HUGE numbers of gamers are playing MW2 online and enjoying it without leaning (and huge numbers of gamers played COD4 online and enjoyed it without leaning) then that argument kind of goes out the window, as it's clearly possible to play without it.

Of course COD=/=CS, but it was just an example of a "realistic" (as in, a few shots = dead) shooter can have a thriving online community and be competitive without leaning.

Finally, Twitter is no more or less reliable than press releases *as long as you're following the official company twitter.* Robert Bowling is the company's official spokesperson, and the stuff he says on Twitter can (and should) be as trustworthy as anything they say in a press release. If they're found lying in an official tweet, then they should be blasted as hard as if they were found lying in an official press release. Now, if an employee has their own PERSONAL twitter account and they say something, that's a different story altogether and you'd be absolutely correct that we'd have to report on that in a much more careful manner. But "Random IW employee #42's Twitter feed" and "The official IW PR Twitter feed" are two very different beasts.

fair points, BUT i don't see and silliness bashing a company for doing something you don't like? If they do something i really dislike, why should i like them?
why: I can be confident in deducing that the big motivator was platform parity, and their cost-benefit analysis for the required carryover code, new animations, for a single platform was pointless to them. plus their big objective here is to make the PC game as 'successful' (as opposed to good) as the console bother, evidenced by the context of looking at their other controversial PC 'features'
for campaign balance: Does the PC have as great an aim assist as, say, the 360 version..? personally, i think those two thing can nicely balance each other out, the 360 player pops out 1/2 way, slightly more exposed, BUT can acquire targets quicker than a similarly skilled PC player, and the games like CoD2,4, AND W@W managed fine, so why now?
-i suppose the answer is this new sense that the different markets of PC and console gamers actually want the exact same thing, which is very foolish as far as i'm concerned as a PC AND console player.
I agree, leaning isn't crucial online, but its something else in the game thats symbolic of the direction IW has taken in achieving platform parity, REMOVING from the PC instead of GIVING to the console game (which i for one would prefer). I play a lot of the BF franchise, and it doesn't have lean either, but then, like CS, it NEVER did, so there's no sense of it being taken away.

And finally: Very fair point on the 'official' part of tw@tter, i neglected to consider that in my previous post.
yeah, part of it is my personal views on that service, can't help but have it leak in to my post there.

 

[chronobreak]

Wow, I had no idea that lean was that big of a deal, it seems to be on the level of rage people have over dedicated servers. Why did anyone go out and give IW their money if it was such a big deal, though? I just don't understand everyone raging about it, but then probably logging off the Escapist to join a match. Gamers need to start speaking with their wallets, not petitions or gripes on a message board. How many of you guys have emailed IW? Called their offices?

I'm just saying, I'm all for discussion, but the back and forth I see going on here would be better used being directed at a company representative. Or Jim Sterling, not Funk.

Nah, Jim's alright, but he fakes the funk.

 

[MR T3D]

Wow, I had no idea that lean was that big of a deal, it seems to be on the level of rage people have over dedicated servers. Why did anyone go out and give IW their money if it was such a big deal, though? I just don't understand everyone raging about it, but then probably logging off the Escapist to join a match. Gamers need to start speaking with their wallets, not petitions or gripes on a message board. How many of you guys have emailed IW? Called their offices?

I'm just saying, I'm all for discussion, but the back and forth I see going on here would be better used being directed at a company representative. Or Jim Sterling, not Funk.

Nah, Jim's alright, but he fakes the funk.

lean isn't literally a big deal, its symbolic, at least, to me, of what IW is doing with their series IE no longer putting a focus on the PC, where it WAS, and where PC gamers LIKED it. its pretty simple, and for the record, I have the balls to follow through on never buying MW2, and likely never buy another IW developed game.

 

[Treblaine]

Oh COME ON Funk... why are you being like this? You know FULL WELL that other PC FPS games that lack lean have completely different play-styles.

Do all of them? I've played plenty of realistic shooters on the PC that have functioned just fine without lean. Look at the original granddaddy of the realistic shooter - CounterStrike - and did it have lean? I played the crap out of it and if it did, I was never aware of it.

As for your point about the 360 being the default platform, I don't think that was ever in doubt. It's where IW gets the majority of its sales, after all - why shouldn't it default to the platform where it has the largest audience? In terms of raw business sense, it makes the most sense to focus on the 360 first, then the PS3, then the PC, because that's the order of magnitude of their fanbases. So yes, they demo everything on the 360 because it's where they'll see the most sales. And it wouldn't make much sense to give their biggest fanbase the worst version, would it? If they make a game where leaning is REQUIRED, make it available on the PC and PS3 but screw over the 360 fanbase, they've just shot themselves in the damn foot.

Leaning is just another feature, and it was simply one that they decided not to put in the game, and obviously people have adapted and are enjoying it nonetheless.

You don't really consider Counterstrike a "realistic" shooter, do you?

But that's beside the point, the people have spoken, and they know BS when they smell it and saying Modern Warfare 2 would be un-balanced with lean yet dual-wielding shotguns or tactical nukes are fine is BS of the steamiest variety.

You can pull out any distant and barely relevant example of a game that supposedly "manages without lean" but all the proof is in how the entire Call of Duty and very similar Medal of Honor franchises became so loved on PC had things like lean as a standard.

And if only they were just focusing on 360 first, then PS3 then PC. They aren't just giving the 360 priority focus, they seem to be going out of their way to deprive parallel platforms of capability they had given it in the past. They have given no explanation and I see nothing new in MW2 that would spoil Lean that worked perfectly in COD4. What is unfair is that while 360 may be the single platform with the most sales, this is a three horse race, more will be sold on PS3 and PC combined than on 360.

But this is all academic, as likely the very first thing to be patched as soon as mods are allowed (IF they are ever allowed even) will be to implement lean.

 

[ray=out]

and a curious stink over being lied to and the game changes only being explained after all pre-orders were made (most of which could not of been refunded)

fixed.

On the plus side...

MW2 Update in Test now: 1887s Balanced. Public ?private? Match fix. Infinite Ammo fix. Prestige Hack on PS3 fix. Texture Hack on PC fix. stated Robert Bowling via twitter.

*edit*
Also you realise dedicated servers worked when players hacked to enable the dev console (just the commands, nothing fancy) The support is already there, they just can't be bothered to give it to us.

see also: http://www.destructoid.com/modern-warfare-2-gets-dedicated-servers-via-hack-155250.phtml

 

[Tears of Blood]

I'm sorry you don't like it, but Twitter is becoming an increasingly common way for developers to communicate not just with their fans, but with game journalists. They make announcements via Twitter, they reveal stuff via Twitter - it's no less valid than if they'd released the same info in, say, a standard press release.

Maybe you're right, but I still think the casual banter of someone on a social site like Twitter is not cause for attention.

I mean, it's not like I hate Twitter. I don't use it, but I'm sure others have legitimate reasons for using it. And I am not trying to insult your journalism skills here or anything.

It wasn't just that it was on Twitter. I am fine with news coming from Twitter in some fashion. However, what you reported on was not an announcement, it was not a shout-out to all of the fans, it was a whisy-washy response to one person's message. If Bowling had said "There will probably be mod tools coming out sometime." or if it had not been directed at one person and was instead a real announcement to everyone, or if it had been a conversation between Bowling and someone more "important" I would have taken it seriously.

But no, it was a directed response to a tweet from a fan.

I realize that anything that involves MW2 and dedicated servers is big news, but if it had been any other game than this, I doubt you would've gave this news a second look.

You're probably right, and I'm probably just being overly critical about the whole thing, so you can take what I'm saying with a grain of salt, but I doubt I was the only person thinking this. I had linked this article to several people I've known, and they were in agreement with me.

 

[theSovietConnection]

While 'CantFaketheFunk' and I do not share the same views,I will not defend those who are attacking him.
The short of it is:
You're pissed about something
CantFake is not
You disagree.
End of.
He shouldn't be the entity you throw all your rage at.

I don't think it's so much that, as it is Funk seems to be picking and choosing which parts of the arguments he address. The best example can be found in the following.

Oh COME ON Funk... why are you being like this? You know FULL WELL that other PC FPS games that lack lean have completely different play-styles.

Do all of them? I've played plenty of realistic shooters on the PC that have functioned just fine without lean. Look at the original granddaddy of the realistic shooter - CounterStrike - and did it have lean? I played the crap out of it and if it did, I was never aware of it.

If you look farther into Treblaine's post...

Oh COME ON Funk... why are you being like this? You know FULL WELL that other PC FPS games that lack lean have completely different play-styles.

You are being manipulative and disingenuously dismissing how the entire COD and Medal of Honor franchise used lean by simply saying the asinine remark "other games manage without lean"

That is because they are run and gun shooters where you can take 20 bullets to the chest and still go on fighting without your vision getting so much as blurred. That isn't a bad thing, that is what Half Life 2 did but you don't have a powered Hazard Suit in Modern Warfare 2: one bullet and you lose your aim, two and you can't see from all the blood in your vision, a few more and you're dead.

Hell, even the health system in COD franchise and Modern Warfare 2 even is based on staying still and IN COVER for your bullet wounds to magically heal (I think we can suspend our disbelief on the biology of that) but you can't deny this is a cover shooter where lean is essential.

He did not so much as even address the portion I have bolded. He immediately dismissed Treblaine's post by saying he's played plenty of realistic shooters, not addressing that Treblaine was talking about cover shooters vs run and gun shooters at all. That's not to say all of the anger directed at Funk is caused by this, but it doesn't help any, other.

By the way, welcome to the Escapist! Watch your step, ensure you use the search bar before making threads to avoid rage-posts, and mind the troll under the stairs.

 

[John Funk]

While 'CantFaketheFunk' and I do not share the same views,I will not defend those who are attacking him.
The short of it is:
You're pissed about something
CantFake is not
You disagree.
End of.
He shouldn't be the entity you throw all your rage at.

I don't think it's so much that, as it is Funk seems to be picking and choosing which parts of the arguments he address. The best example can be found in the following.

Oh COME ON Funk... why are you being like this? You know FULL WELL that other PC FPS games that lack lean have completely different play-styles.

Do all of them? I've played plenty of realistic shooters on the PC that have functioned just fine without lean. Look at the original granddaddy of the realistic shooter - CounterStrike - and did it have lean? I played the crap out of it and if it did, I was never aware of it.

If you look farther into Treblaine's post...

Oh COME ON Funk... why are you being like this? You know FULL WELL that other PC FPS games that lack lean have completely different play-styles.

You are being manipulative and disingenuously dismissing how the entire COD and Medal of Honor franchise used lean by simply saying the asinine remark "other games manage without lean"

That is because they are run and gun shooters where you can take 20 bullets to the chest and still go on fighting without your vision getting so much as blurred. That isn't a bad thing, that is what Half Life 2 did but you don't have a powered Hazard Suit in Modern Warfare 2: one bullet and you lose your aim, two and you can't see from all the blood in your vision, a few more and you're dead.

Hell, even the health system in COD franchise and Modern Warfare 2 even is based on staying still and IN COVER for your bullet wounds to magically heal (I think we can suspend our disbelief on the biology of that) but you can't deny this is a cover shooter where lean is essential.

He did not so much as even address the portion I have bolded. He immediately dismissed Treblaine's post by saying he's played plenty of realistic shooters, not addressing that Treblaine was talking about cover shooters vs run and gun shooters at all. That's not to say all of the anger directed at Funk is caused by this, but it doesn't help any, other.

By the way, welcome to the Escapist! Watch your step, ensure you use the search bar before making threads to avoid rage-posts, and mind the troll under the stairs.

"Realistic" Shooters with low health values (i.e. Counterstrike) naturally lend themselves to being cover-based shooters, not run-and-gun. Hell, given that Counterstrike has no respawning until the round is over, you could argue that it's even MORE cover-based than run-and-gun (or rather, that cover is more important).

None of this changes the fact that even if MW2 is a cover based shooter (or even if COD4 was a cover based shooter) lean is hardly essential, or else it would have never taken off on the consoles.

 

[Sud0_x]

While 'CantFaketheFunk' and I do not share the same views,I will not defend those who are attacking him.
The short of it is:
You're pissed about something
CantFake is not
You disagree.
End of.
He shouldn't be the entity you throw all your rage at.

I don't think it's so much that, as it is Funk seems to be picking and choosing which parts of the arguments he address. The best example can be found in the following.

Oh COME ON Funk... why are you being like this? You know FULL WELL that other PC FPS games that lack lean have completely different play-styles.

Do all of them? I've played plenty of realistic shooters on the PC that have functioned just fine without lean. Look at the original granddaddy of the realistic shooter - CounterStrike - and did it have lean? I played the crap out of it and if it did, I was never aware of it.

If you look farther into Treblaine's post...

Oh COME ON Funk... why are you being like this? You know FULL WELL that other PC FPS games that lack lean have completely different play-styles.

You are being manipulative and disingenuously dismissing how the entire COD and Medal of Honor franchise used lean by simply saying the asinine remark "other games manage without lean"

That is because they are run and gun shooters where you can take 20 bullets to the chest and still go on fighting without your vision getting so much as blurred. That isn't a bad thing, that is what Half Life 2 did but you don't have a powered Hazard Suit in Modern Warfare 2: one bullet and you lose your aim, two and you can't see from all the blood in your vision, a few more and you're dead.

Hell, even the health system in COD franchise and Modern Warfare 2 even is based on staying still and IN COVER for your bullet wounds to magically heal (I think we can suspend our disbelief on the biology of that) but you can't deny this is a cover shooter where lean is essential.

He did not so much as even address the portion I have bolded. He immediately dismissed Treblaine's post by saying he's played plenty of realistic shooters, not addressing that Treblaine was talking about cover shooters vs run and gun shooters at all. That's not to say all of the anger directed at Funk is caused by this, but it doesn't help any, other.

By the way, welcome to the Escapist! Watch your step, ensure you use the search bar before making threads to avoid rage-posts, and mind the troll under the stairs.

I, myself, didn't feel it was an issue for points of either party to be ignored. I was simply suggesting that contesting either view was a little fruitless. Also, the news article wasn't asking for a debate on the subject. I found it to be satisfactory just to state my own opinion and try to dispel some of the tension. Though, in hindsight, did nothing to accomplish the latter. I'm not directing at any single party, but all involved.
Thanks for the welcome! I appreciate you taking the time to address me.

 

[theSovietConnection]

I, myself, didn't feel it was an issue for points of either party to be ignored. I was simply suggesting that contesting either view was a little fruitless. Also, the news article wasn't asking for a debate on the subject. I found it to be satisfactory just to state my own opinion and try to dispel some of the tension. Though, in hindsight, did nothing to accomplish the latter. I'm not directing at any single party, but all invloved.
Thanks for the welcome! I appreciate you taking the time to address me.

Problem is we're dealing with an issue of the PC version of MW2 being given a royal shaft (I play console mostly, before this is dismissed as PC gamer ranting). I understand where the PC people are coming from, because really, without the PC gamers, there wouldn't be a Call of Duty series. For Activision to remove so many things from the game that have been staples of the series and of PC multiplayer in general, and then basically tell PCers "it's what you really want", despite massive protesting to the contrary, I can understand why they're a bit miffed, and really, it's why I as a gamer find I can no longer support a company like Activision.

Anyway, now that mild rant is over, don't mention it. Hope you find your stay enjoyable!

 

[Sud0_x]

I, myself, didn't feel it was an issue for points of either party to be ignored. I was simply suggesting that contesting either view was a little fruitless. Also, the news article wasn't asking for a debate on the subject. I found it to be satisfactory just to state my own opinion and try to dispel some of the tension. Though, in hindsight, did nothing to accomplish the latter. I'm not directing at any single party, but all invloved.
Thanks for the welcome! I appreciate you taking the time to address me.

Problem is we're dealing with an issue of the PC version of MW2 being given a royal shaft (I play console mostly, before this is dismissed as PC gamer ranting). I understand where the PC people are coming from, because really, without the PC gamers, there wouldn't be a Call of Duty series. For Activision to remove so many things from the game that have been staples of the series and of PC multiplayer in general, and then basically tell PCers "it's what you really want", despite massive protesting to the contrary, I can understand why they're a bit miffed, and really, it's why I as a gamer find I can no longer support a company like Activision.

Anyway, now that mild rant is over, don't mention it. Hope you find your stay enjoyable!

Why the rant?
I'm a PC user.
I was quite vocal about my views on the matter earlier in this very thread.
Please don't quote me and tell me things I've already made clear.
Once again; thank you for your hospitality.

 

[Glademaster_v1legacy]

the most inconsequential complaint of all time, the removal of the ability to lean around corners).

None of this stopped the PC version of MW2 from selling like hotcakes - far outstripping its predecessor, Call of Duty 4, even - but it seems that Infinity Ward may have been listening to the fans after all... Maybe. Sort of.

Firstly leaning around cover is very important so you don't die by making yourself a massive target so it is not inconsequential.

I would only go for this if they added in dedicated server support too as those too were the main gripes for me although I would feel like I was missing something without lean.

Also I'd too know where you get your figures for PC sales on MW2 as any I have seen or heard about on the Internet said it sold badly compared to CoD4.

 

[Nazulu]

None of this changes the fact that even if MW2 is a cover based shooter (or even if COD4 was a cover based shooter) lean is hardly essential, or else it would have never taken off on the consoles.

I haven't played any games with the lean feature but it seems it is one of those little extra things that can make it more interesting or even more fun. If that is the case then IW have taken a step backwards when it comes to improving the over all experience. I don't know if any other games have lean but it could be also what made Call Of Duty different to other FPS's and that makes it especially important to those playing the sequals before it.

I have seen a lot, and I mean A LOT of these arguments about IW removing features and if there is that many people complaining about it then it should'nt be ignored, the things IW did take out are obviously important.

 

[Doug]

*edit*
Also you realise dedicated servers worked when players hacked to enable the dev console (just the commands, nothing fancy) The support is already there, they just can't be bothered to give it to us.

see also: http://www.destructoid.com/modern-warfare-2-gets-dedicated-servers-via-hack-155250.phtml

Those sons of bitches. Infinity Ward is doing an Interplay on us.

 

[Cyberjester]

the most inconsequential complaint of all time, the removal of the ability to lean around corners).

Seriously?

You must not play a lot of FPS online if you don't get the importance of leaning. You can live without it, but there is a difference between barely being seen around the corner/shooting a guy then withdrawing like its whack-a-mole .vs. strafing to the side exposing more of your body.
~
As for mod tools...well lets wait for them to come out first...

Uh, I'm sure that it's a fine feature, but that's like complaining that the game doesn't have rocket-jumping (which is also a fine feature). If a game isn't developed around a certain ability, it's not developed around a certain ability. If they'd balanced a game with lean from the beginning and then took it out, you'd have a point, but they never intended it to be in the game in the first place.

Is TF2 bad because it doesn't have lean? Of course not, because it wasn't ever intended to have it.

We were promised all of the PC specific features that were in CoD4 and that includes lean. Speaking of promises, bowling has been proven to be full of bullshit, who can say with any certainty that he's honest about this?

Lean is actually pretty good in PC games. MW2 is a console game, ported to the PC. On a console, exposing your entire body to a sniper isn't such a bad thing, on a PC with stupidly high res mouse aiming, that's suicide. =P If it was in CoD4, then it was expected for MW2. Now it's just annoying, they could have at least _pretended_ it wasn't a straight port.

Id forgive them.

Come on, we need to encourage developers to experiment. IW thought that Mods were unnecessary, and that they could make a matchmaking service that would replace dedicated servers. Both thoughts were dismal, dismal failures, which they probably should have realized, seeing how it's not like no one told them. However, far more important then screwing up is the capacity to recognize a mistake and correcting it. Also, if PC Gamers forgive IW when they correct there mistakes, then they will be encouraged to support PC gaming as much as possible. If we give the proverbial, "F you, too little too late", well...they really have no reason to fix there mistakes and improve, do they? If you want IW to act like part of a dynamic community, which we do, we have to be able to forgive and forget when they make mistakes but fix them. If we want them to act like cold and distant corporate entities disconnected from there consumers, then we will keep getting shafted, and they won't notice the drop in revenue while there rolling in their money beds. I suggest that if IW adds mod support and dedicated, everyone who was complaining about IW screwing us over seriously consider taking out your wallets and purchasing the game which you wanted, now with the features you wanted.

Gonna have to go with this post right here.

Yes, IW was a little dismissive and more than a little stupid about the way they acted towards PC gamers, who still turned out in droves to buy their game. I agree with how the community reacted, telling them in no uncertain terms how it felt about essentially getting a direct and crappy port from the consoles.

But, Xanadu is spot on about forgiveness. If they're willing to show repentance and correct their mistakes, grudgingly or not, I think we owe it to them to show approval of actions like that, just as we showed disapproval before. Being an avid PC gamer myself and mostly shunning consoles, I've lately been worried about the future of PC gaming. Flaming developers for making mistakes, and continuing to hate them even if they fix them, is not going to mean good things for PC gaming in the future.

Firstly, "alittle" dismissive?

Secondly, this isn't confirmed AT ALL. And even if it was, dedicated servers are still missing.

but with mods, couldn't third party servers then be supported?

I don't know how deep into the code some mods can go.

Without dedicated servers, modding tools are useless. Yes, it's possible that someone could code up a third party server, they don't even need mod tools for that, just hack the thing. Point being, that's too much effort. =P

Come on, we need to encourage developers to experiment. IW thought that Mods were unnecessary, and that they could make a matchmaking service that would replace dedicated servers.

Yea.. No. No experimenting. If it's an online shooter, it needs dedicated servers. If you want it to be immensely popular for years to come, you include modding tools. The problem with IW is, they weren't "experimenting". They simply made a console game and made a straight port of it for the PC. And it sucks. You can live without Lean and Mods, dedicated servers is.. Well, even RTS games suck with "auto matchmaking service" only.

I can't tell you how much it sucks for a bot to go "Yea, you're both the same lvl, different countries, stupidly high lag if you connect, game is going to lock up in the first few seconds, but hey, you're the same lvl. hf".

They've patched that out of consoles finally, now it factors in country/ping which is nice, but it's still stupid. FPS's on the PC generally have clans spring up overnight if it's a good game, auto matchmaking kinda ruins that. =P

Dedicated servers first, then I'll think about "forgiving the poor devs who tried so hard to experiment and try new things". Or just release hack after hack for the game and kill it off as quickly as possible so we can move on. =P

Thinking of putting a scope on a knife and then being able to shoot out the blade.. Or just ye olde infinite health mod, remade for 2009 with ricochet.