Modern Warfare 2 - why it makes people angry. Read if you've ever played the game.
- Thread starter MiracleOfSound
- Start date
Recommended Videos
I never considered MW2 realistic. Quickscoping doesn't bother me as in game terms, it's not overpowered and requires some skill.jacobgr43 said:
when i run around a corner with akimbo G18's i expect to be able to kill a person with a long ranged sniper rifle not shot by a auto locking sniper round and itts ever more anoying when its some 10yr old doing it and thinking there badassMiracleOfSound said:
This, coupled with the plans for charging and the expensive map packs, is why I am selling my copy. I won't get much, but I don't care, it's one of the worst 360 games.
Got to disagree here. I've moved back to being more of a cod4 player than MW2, but I don't think it's very different between games.MiracleOfSound said:
Quickscoping is, generally, a one hit kill. Scoping isn't that slow generally, and can be sped up by attachments and on MW2, sleight of hand pro. As well as this you can shoot before you are scoped in, basically as soon as the reticule disappears, and it will go to the centre of where the reticule was(same as when you shoot just after scoping). So, if they are accurate, it is usually faster than other guns to kill. Snipers are also quick to fire-if you do miss, you may get a chance for a second shot, depending on how fast they can kill you.
Now, this greater power wouldn't be much of an issue, if it did take skill, but I disagree here too. I used to think, when seeing kill-cams of quickscoping, that it must be ridiculously hard. When I actually tried it, I found it quite the opposite(and stopped soon after because I felt I was playing cheaply). To quickscope, you simply have to have the person, more or less, in the centre of your reticule. This is easy. You just have to look at them. Quickscoping did not feel to me like it took any more skill than using any other gun, so I do think it's overpowered, because it's just as easy to use as other guns, and more powerful. There are also a fair number of tactics that can be used to give you another advantage-such as hiding behind something after you've been shot at, scoping in so that you're in line with where they were, popping out, and shooting. This won't always work, but on maps like showdon that have thin corridors, can give you a large advantage.
The only real disadvantage I felt there was to quickscoping was when you were taking on multiple enemies at once, from a short range.
Really, you shouldn't be able to use a sniper like it's an assault rifle, but it really isn't that difficult to do, I felt, and is, in a 1v1 situation, more powerful than an assault rifle, so I do find them overpowered.
John Jmes Rambo. If you want to play a match sometime.MiracleOfSound said:
OT: I have never understood the gripe about MW2 and its flaws. This seems to be the common list of complaints.
1. Commando sucks.
2. The heartbeat sensor should be removed.
3. Thermal is way too cheap.
4. Akimbo shotty's suck.
5. Commando Pro is WAY over powered.
6.Host has amazing ability's from winning a knife fight instantaneously to soaking up bullets.
Okay, maybe I do understand.
Here's my solutions.
1. Grab a shotgun, you can kill knifers before you knife them with a well-placed shot.
2. Agreed, promotes camping. Causes overall rage to all players.
3. Agreed. Thermal makes sniper's have a much easier time identifying targets. I still don't see a lot of sniper in games, though.
4. True, but most players with Akimbo shotty's suck as players.
5. The truest statement ever. No falling damage is the biggest F.U. to players.
6. I put up with it. The worst though is when you re-spawn after a clicking the knife button, and THEN the knife animation plays AS SOON AS YOU RE-SPAWN. That gets me pissed.
I've never had a problem with kill streaks, mostly because I play with at least one other who shots it down as soon as it comes into the map.
Does the game make me rage? Occasionally. I only play with friends however. So I have a good time, even when I'm having a bad time.
My biggest complaint however, is the DLC. I paid $60 for my game, why, in order to experience more that the game has to offer, must I dish out another $20?
To say that one game is broken more completely isn't much of an argument. That another game is worse does nothing to excuse faults and that there are other games that are better does not undermine strengths.Conqueror Kenny said:
In a very general way, it is point one that causes the most rage in any game. Games like Battlefield or Modern Warfare or even Halo to an extent have an experience that is based largely around how competent your own team is with respect to the enemy. If the two teams are fairly matched, the game can be fun. If the two teams are poorly matched, the experience is usually frustrating at best. In the case of Modern Warfare 2 however, the failure of but a handful of your team is sufficient to cause enormous problems given that said failings are more than capable of introducing the third and fourth factions to the game (that is, Air Support and nuclear weaponry).
Not all games are like this however. Team Fortress 2 encourages team play by its basic design and reinforces it at every turn. A good engineer can still have a good time playing as engineer even if his teams offense is lacking. Tribes was much the same. My experience as a scout did not rely on the skill of my own team beyond ensuring that we generally had power and working stations.
The real problem I see in most of these games is actually the result of a shift in gameplay from unrealistic towards the realistic. In Modern Warfare, the battleground is so lethal that even a highly skilled player can (and will) be killed by a less skilled player. The margin of survival and death is so slim that even the slightest imbalance in the equation can have an excellent player simply choking rivers with his dead. In older games, or games based upon an older interpretation of the FPS rule set, the game offered a better reward for incredible levels of skill. In a game of tribes for example it was entirely possible to go an entire match and rack up dozens of kills without ever being killed in return. The basic structure of the game enforced the assumption that skill above all else must be the arbiter of any given engagement. This does not mean that a very skilled player could never be killed by an unskilled player but rather ensured that such an occurace was incredibly rare.
The reason I see this as being the fundamental problem is that MW2's chief sin was that it did not reward skilled play so much as it rewarded a skilled team. Yet in spite of this, the fundamental mechanics of the game do not encourage me to support my team. In many cases it doesn't even allow such a thing to regularly occur. This same problem exists to a degree in battlefield but instead of relying on my entire team to do well I instead primarily rely upon a small subset of my team (the squad). The game also encourages team play by allowing me to spawn near a small group of my team at any given time.
It Has Become The Dominant Thing In My School. Every Morning You Always Hear
"HEY JOE! I GOT A 360 9-IN-1 CLUTCH WITH A RIOT SHIELD LAST NIGHT ON RUST!"
"HEY STEVE! I GOT A 360 QUAD KILL NO SCOPE HEADSHOT WITH A SMOKE GRENADE ON DERAIL!"
ETC ETC lol
"HEY JOE! I GOT A 360 9-IN-1 CLUTCH WITH A RIOT SHIELD LAST NIGHT ON RUST!"
"HEY STEVE! I GOT A 360 QUAD KILL NO SCOPE HEADSHOT WITH A SMOKE GRENADE ON DERAIL!"
ETC ETC lol
Great post! I have only had experience with Modern Warfare 1 and part of MW2's campaign, but I know now that if I ever rented MW2 again I would still avoid the online portion. I've heard so much negativity towards the multi that I can only imagine what a vitriol-spewing, hellhole it is now.
Shame really, I thought COD4 had a great multi and enjoyed it for a while with friends, but haven't played online in years because I had only a 360 up until now. From the sound of things, they went a little crazy with about... everything. I can tell even from the single player portion that it went a little crazy and saw one too many action films, what with...
or even
I laughed (and threw up a little) when I found out you can actually get a nuke in multiplayer.
Shame really, I thought COD4 had a great multi and enjoyed it for a while with friends, but haven't played online in years because I had only a 360 up until now. From the sound of things, they went a little crazy with about... everything. I can tell even from the single player portion that it went a little crazy and saw one too many action films, what with...
James Bond-esque snowmobile chase
Shooting up a Russian airport with a group of criminals who are obviously going to turn on you when as someone deep undercover you could have just killed them first. Getting yourself shot like a moron for not listening to that voice that says "WTF?!? STOP IT!!!!" in the back of your mind. And Russia invading the United States as a result.
I'm sorry but I really don't think you should be putting up with something as ridiculously thick as that. I have said it before and I'll say it again cutting the Dedicated Servers and Server List on the PC version and not having Deds on the consoles is the most dumbest thing ever. They prevent this unfair advantage and all the other problems with of easily been solved by more beta testing to actually balance the game. Although if you do enjoy fair enough I just don't think people should put up with a flawed system.andrewfox said:
It's actually crazy how much of a difference the host advantage makes. I mean, there are some nights it will make you think you're slow and you suck, then you get host and suddenly it's like that scene in Spiderman where everyone moves in slow motion except you.Glademaster said:
I understand completely. Although I am nto that proud to mention it that is why I boycotted and did not get MW2. The differene between having 0 and 100+ ping is immense. It is a delay of around 3/4 of a second which although when said like that might not seem a bit difference but in the game that does make a big difference. Especially since while I am not the quickest on the draw and I have a rough mouse click reaction time of 0.16 of a second have a 0.75+ advantage is insane.MiracleOfSound said:
I'm just curious as I have only played the first Modern Warfare; How big of a difference is the lag from 1 to 2? The video alone makes the MW2 look like it was made by another company compared to what I found to be a rather smooth experience in COD4. The only other game with an equivalently horrendous amount of lag as the MW2 video was Gears of War which was inexcusable and infuriating.MiracleOfSound said:
What would cause such a disparity in lag between COD4 and MW2? Coding or something?
Well COD4 was pretty host dependant too sometimes.SelectivelyEvil13 said:
But the bg difference is that you die a lot faster in MW2, so sometimes you don't even get a chance to see someone before they've emptied thier entire mag into your face.
This also causes Commando's invincible lunge to reach ridiculous levels of overpoweredness, as knifers have a huge advantage in close quarters battles, especially if they have host.
I think it's because unlike in Halo, Battelfield etc... COD decides between who has won a battle, you never both kill eachother except when explosives are involved.
Add to that the fact that most guns kill you in under half a second and yep, it's a huge difference.Glademaster said:
It all comes down to the fact that even though the game is completely unbalanced and bullshit it is the most played video game on Xbox live for an entire year straight. Not to mention there's an entire Youtube channel (Machinima Respawn) that is dedicated to that game and each video there gets over 100,000 views!
