MW 2 : Just a bad game ?

[Hyperone]

What is MW2:

A) One of the best of all time?
B) An excellent bundle of creativity that should be hailed?
C) A solid timewaster?

Let's analyze:

A) Not a chance. It does not bring anything genre defying or awe-inspiring that will cause the average gamer to even consider picking it up two years from now. Please, for the love of god stop trying to claim it deserving of the same pedestal as Pokemon and Super Mario Brothers.
B) Once again no. Not as vehement shall I rag on it this time, but it is not creative at all. Almost every element in it has been done multiple times before.
C) Yes. MW2 is nothing more than a nice looking timewaster. You will forget about and stop playing it shortly after the next iteration is released. Controls work, graphics are nice, and you can play against others. You're average FPS I would say.

 

[PROXYCB]

The Campaign is very short, the spec ops thing is a waste of time and the online multiplayer has too many flaws to count such as matching noobs with pros, there should be some kind of 'new players only' lobby.

Still i got the game and i will keep playing the game because i find it enjoyable, so regardless of what anyone else thinks if you like it play it if not don't.

....That makes so little sense.
What platform you playing on? Because there will probably be a much better shooter out there on whichever platform you're playing on, but it just hasn't been hyped to the hills & back.

i agree there probably are better shooters on the ps3, the point i wanted to make however was that yeah it has its flaws but i like for what it is, a bit of fun and i didn't read or watch any reviews of the game until after i had bought it.

 

[n9philim]

Going to go ahead and not bother to read the last ten or so pages but put in my two cents anyway.

I don't really see how calling reviewers who gave the game 9.0+ scores fanboys is remotely legitimate. For one, most professional reviews are, yeah, professional. It's a job. Sites in general aren't going to stick a raving fanboy with the job of reviewing a new game unless it's just to get the fanboy angle, and many will include a supplementary "newcomer's" point of view. And even assuming all those zealous reviewers were fanboys... since when do fanboys go down with a burning ship? Sure some might, but in my experience most fanboys are the first ones to tear a sequel a new anus the moment it differs in the slightest from their expectations. They're fans of the game they played, the experience they had with it, not really the property, and want nothing more than a perfect recreation and surpassation (DB:GT THINKS IT'S A WORD SO I'M USING IT) of that experience... or else.

As for my opinion of the game, I think it's quite good. The only Call of Duty I've played is 2, and just the campaign then. Without having played the original modern warfare, and thus without any expectations of any kind, I found everything to be quite solid. The brief campaign wasn't much of an issue for me as, if you notice, you don't really spend much time pinned down in a single position and fighting waves of respawning enemies until you hit some arbitrary quota and get to move on to the next room as you do in, I dunno, MOST fps campaigns. Every single second felt new and interesting and the pace wasn't broken for an instant. This is something I can't say of any other fps and honestly of very few games at all. Would I rather they'd bolstered the hour count by throwing in an extra 20 respawning enemies around every corner (which they very well could have and probably gotten away with)? Hell no. Short and sweet is just fine with me. Honestly whenever I felt the campaign could have been a bit longer I just went and played one of the many spec ops missions which, to me, more than make up for the length.

Oh, and as to the issue of killstreak rewards being kind of cheap, I will openly say that I am a COMPLETE NOOB at this game and still have absolutely no problem with this. Sure, I get nailed by one now and again, but basically just make sure at least one of your classes is packing rockets and you're good.

The whole bad graphics argument is completely illegitimate imho and could easily stem from OP not having the best comp to run it on(?)

 

[Jimbo1212]

Snip

Snip again

You're wrong. I have a lot of experience with FPSs and I stand by my points firmly. Modern Warfare Two is easily one of the best I've ever seen. Yes, I haven't had any experience with dedicated servers because no major FPSs within the past few years have had them. Every FPS I've played has run on matchmaking or player-created lobbies. And I don't see the problem.

I'm sorry, but if you think moving the camera view back a meter will help with peripheral vision, you must be stupid. Say you're looking at a wall. Moving the camera back one meter would be the exact equivalent of the player character moving back one meter. It won't increase the angle of vision at all. I don't see why you can't grasp that.

And skill is a major part of FPS gameplay. Getting spawn-killed is coincidental. And the more powerful tools are unlocked at a later level for a reason. The law of averages means that, somewhere, there is a point that everyone is centered around. To some extent, every player is averaged around one level. This means that the people on each side will be balanced, with each team having some higher and some lower-level players on their side.

Well as Mazty has listed numerous major fps's with dedicated servers, Ill also shoot down more retarded points you make.
If you don't believe me about the peripheral vision, go get a camera, then zoom in and out with it. Does your peripheral change at all? Now that was not so hard was it.Or even better, change the angle of vision.
PS. Have you found the PERIPHERAL vision setting in the game where it renders more on the edges, proving it can be done? except it happens to be useless unless your TV is far wider then any in production.

So getting spawn killed is coincidental? Well when it happens a number of times per match, I think its poor map design and game mechanics as no other fps has had this problem since - oh, MW 1. And everyone knows the later weapons are over powered along with the knife. When you can run around a map and insta-kill with the knife, and beat those using guns, I think the game has lost the Modern bit in Modern Warfare.

 

[Jimbo1212]

Campaign is all over the place and a bit hard to follow unless you really pay attention. Single player is also a bit short. The multiplayer lobby sucks, thanks to the points above. Those are the only 3 negative points worth mentioning.

The creative content is excellent (ie: story)

The graphics are excellent and detailed.

The enemy AI is rather smart, which is awsome to see finally.

The guns and unlocks are fun, relatively easy to get, and all worthwhile.

The action is perfectly paced and just the righ level of difficulty with plenty of "Holy cr*ap!" moments.

Multiplayer, despite what anyone says, and once you actually GET into a game, is the best i've ever had on a console. Maps are tight and well designed. There is no "I win!" camping position.. its NOT a sniper-fest (yay!). Weapons, generally, are balanced and fair-ish. You don't just run around shooting a-la Halo.. you walk, sprint, duck, crawl, sneak your way to the kill. The air-dropped items such as a Stealth Bomber run are amazing and really add something cool to the game. (PS if you can't dodge the Harrier or Chopper fire, you need to try harder.. here's a tip, DON'T RUN OUT IN THE OPEN FOR A FEW SECONDS! )

OH and if you haven't had your buddy over for a night of drinking and Spec Ops, you haven't lived.

I'd definetly give it 8 or 9 out of 10. Fix the stupid Lobby system and i'd consider a 9.5. Its annoying to find that dropping a game and re-joining multiplayer is far faster than waiting for the 50 second countdown. If I NEED a break, i'll take one. Don't force me dammit.

Lets see if you can answer this as no one else can, or doesn't want to as it proves the Air support to be broken.
You tell me to hide when Air support comes in, fair enough - but your playing demolition or domination........then what?
Weapons are balanced?
Go watch http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HU6DPFDeUhU Balanced? Along with the 1887 everyone knows the knife is over powered as its one hit kill, yet a .50 cal rifle is not, and when the maps are compact urban environments, it means you can abuse the knife to ridiculous extents - which I have done.

The Spec Ops really is a cheap way of not having co op for the campaign as its mainly just reruns of parts of the campaign, and is frankly dull. Split screen online would have been much better, but then you people forget this and will swallow everything that comes your way.

 

[Jimbo1212]

This is not a bad game. Stop your crying you children. "Oh god they didnt have dedicated servers, it is the end of the world! I have to live with being even with the consoletards!" That is all I hear, yes it is a bummer that they got rid of them but get over it. You knew this for months and they are not going to change it. Just be happy that you still have a mouse + keyboard which is far better than a controller imo.

Bottom-line: This is a great game, while not the best, it is still among the greatest ones released these past few years. It deserves all the good scores it has been given. While some of you just dont like these types or shooters in general it is understandable you dont like it, however for all of you hating on the game just because of no dedicated servers, grow up and get over it.

When it takes you the better part of 5 - 10 minutes to join every game, and then sometimes the games close mid match, and your not annoyed at this, then your point is fair. Until that day, your just nieve and are commenting on something you have no idea about. So for you to say that a game with out dedicated is 'B3ST GAME Ev0R!', you really have not played anything else or are a fan boy.

 

[YoUnG205]

No not bad game just a down right terrible game haha it sucked

 

[GreeBo]

Lets see if you can answer this as no one else can, or doesn't want to as it proves the Air support to be broken.
You tell me to hide when Air support comes in, fair enough - but your playing demolition or domination........then what?
Weapons are balanced?
Go watch http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HU6DPFDeUhU Balanced? Along with the 1887 everyone knows the knife is over powered as its one hit kill, yet a .50 cal rifle is not, and when the maps are compact urban environments, it means you can abuse the knife to ridiculous extents - which I have done.

The Spec Ops really is a cheap way of not having co op for the campaign as its mainly just reruns of parts of the campaign, and is frankly dull. Split screen online would have been much better, but then you people forget this and will swallow everything that comes your way.

Hmm ok lets take a stab at it

The Demolition or Domination thing I can't really comment on because although I tried them briefly.. I wasn't really in love with them and went back to Team Deathmatch Express for all my killing needs. I assume you mean that it requires you to sit in the open for a while and hense you can't really "hide" per say. Generally when I can't hide in a map I make damn sure I bring along a rocket launcher. Harriers and gunships go down in 1 shot. In most maps I play the harriers barely have time to switch into hover mode before being blown up now-a-days. People have caught on.

The knife is overbalanced, no argument there.. but I counter that by simply being smart. Keep your back to the wall. Look around before diving into a room. Throw flashbangs. Other ways to keep yourself safe is to knife him before he knifes you.. I have had a lot of luck with backing up suddenly then charging with my finger on the knife button as well. Usually catches them with their pants down as there is a few seconds of delay before they can knife again. I have only ever met one guy online that was so uber with the damn knife I couldn't do anything but die repeatedly. Luckilly that's fairly rare.

The .50 cal can be a 1 shot 1 kill weapon. I use it to that effect fairly often.. but yeah.. sure, sometimes you need to shoot twice. They have compensated for that by limiting the recoil in the gun and making it a very fast reload semi-automatic which is somewhat out of proportion to the actual weapon from what i'm told. I think this was probably done to avoid the maps being sniper-fests (see 'counterstrike'). I haven't had trouble killing people weilding the 1887s myself.. but I hear they can be tough in the right hands..

Spec Ops sucks alone. Bring a friend over and play coop and it becomes infinitely better. We tend to spend friday nights doing a runthrough of the 1 star, and then jumping straight to 3 star. So far about 50% through and having a lot of fun doing it. Does it re-use some of the maps? Yes.. but they are fantastic maps so I don't complain.

No Co-op multiplayes DOES SUCK! I can't believe I forgot to mention that. Infinity Ward.. what happened there?? Sheeze. That had better be a downloadable add-on at some point. Grr.

I'm pretty hard on games. Assasins Creed? Didn't like it.. for many many reasons.. for instance. Interesting concepts but terrible execution. This game isn't 'bad'. It just lacks some features everyone expects now and some weapon balancing isn't quite right (mainly the knife.. its range is wrong.. and combined with stealth running.. its too deadly in cramped quarters like these).

.. here's a thought.. when knifed you shouldn't instantly die.. you should fall down and pull out your secondary, giving you a few minutes to fight back or be killed... seems slightly more fair.

I come out in the top 2 or 3 pretty much on every map I play.. so I don't know what to tell you. I hug corners, I use my scope to shoot, if a harrier shows up I stay indoors, I use silenced weapons so I don't show up on radar. Not sure if thats going to help you but.. there ya go

 

[kemosabi4]

Snip

Well your post clearly shows that the amount of mutliplayer games you have played is exceeding limited.
''IW beautifully shaped the multiplayer into a massive game of rock-paper-scissors''
So even you admit then that if you are equipped to take out one enemy, another will destroy you as 'your paper, and they are scissors'. Thanks for proving my point on horrific balancing issues, as skill will get you so far, then unless you have the perks, your stuffed. Truly the definition of fun, oh wait...
Also no one has ever explained how you are meant to take out numerous kill streak air support when either the enemy has a number of planes, or the opposing team are not stupid and they shoot everyone point blank when they are looking straight into the air and can not see the enemy coming. Or are you just playing against idiots?
Now to point out the lobby system.
' think the system couldn't have been any better' What the hell! So a system in which you can not even choose the map you play on is great? That is just lying.

To say your comment about peripheral vision was just plain stupid. Heard of rendering more on a screen and increasing resolution, or even better - pulling the players vision back a meter. Retard.

Im guessing with everyone talking about not experiencing host migration, the vast majority of you are PC or 360 players, as this will happen on the PS3 a number of times per hour.

I hate arguing on forums. All people do is reduce your arguments to the base instincts and turn it on you.

My point in the rock-paper-scissors analogy was that, no matter what the situation, there was always a tool to get the job done. I'm not saying defeat is inevitable. There's this thing called skill. Do you think that a player will kill a riot shield class just because he has semtex? No. The point of a n action game is using skill to overcome the enemy. If the other team was predictable, it would be a strategy game. As for your killstreak situation, you could either suck it up, or equip Cold-Blooded and shoot from behind your lines. And how do you think choosing the map would go when you have 12 people all arguing for different things? Randomly choosing the map ensures that players don't waste time arguing. And, like I said before, the vote-to-skip feature ensures that if you really have a major problem with a map, you can try to rally a vote to skip the map. Maybe you think you're entitled to getting your way in life, but the lobby system is the only fair way to do it. And finally, how do you think moving the view back a meter would fix anything? moving the view back a meter on screen would be the equivalent of backing up a meter. Everything would be exactly the same. And you should probably research the meaning behind 'rendering more on screen'.

Hm, you must not have played any other mutliplayer fps's to grasp the concept of dedicated servers as you have no idea how they work, reinforcing my point that people who think this game is good is merely due to lack of experience with any other fps. The vast majority of fps game lobbies ( you probably don't know what that truly is) have a LIST of games to choose from - not game modes, but game rooms. This will always be better.
When you wrote that moving the camera back would be like walking back, I think this shows how nieve you really are, no offence. To prove me wrong, how many other fps's have you played as its im guessing very few, thus your opinion is somewhat ill informed.

Also you still do not answer my point of how can SKILL help you when you spawn and get knifed in the back / shot by a plane within 2 seconds?
With the later guns being more powerful and accurate, again, how is skill going to help you? Please refer to post 362 if you do not believe me.

You're wrong. I have a lot of experience with FPSs and I stand by my points firmly. Modern Warfare Two is easily one of the best I've ever seen. Yes, I haven't had any experience with dedicated servers because no major FPSs within the past few years have had them. Every FPS I've played has run on matchmaking or player-created lobbies. And I don't see the problem.

I'm sorry, but if you think moving the camera view back a meter will help with peripheral vision, you must be stupid. Say you're looking at a wall. Moving the camera back one meter would be the exact equivalent of the player character moving back one meter. It won't increase the angle of vision at all. I don't see why you can't grasp that.

And skill is a major part of FPS gameplay. Getting spawn-killed is coincidental. And the more powerful tools are unlocked at a later level for a reason. The law of averages means that, somewhere, there is a point that everyone is centered around. To some extent, every player is averaged around one level. This means that the people on each side will be balanced, with each team having some higher and some lower-level players on their side.

Battlefield series...
Call of Duty 4
Call of Duty 5
Killzone 2
Resistance 2
The list goes on. If you really thing pings of 120+ on average are acceptable, you are deluding yourself.
Getting spawn killed is poor level design. Really poor level design.

Sorry, let me back up. No major console FPSs, at least not what I've played, has had dedicated servers. Sorry for the misunderstanding. But I'm perfectly fine with matchmaking. I don't see it as a problem. I wouldn't care if I didn't see a dedicated server the rest of my life.

As for spawn killing, it is not simply bad level design. It is the result of your team's inability to competently hold your ground.

 

[kemosabi4]

Snip

Well your post clearly shows that the amount of mutliplayer games you have played is exceeding limited.
''IW beautifully shaped the multiplayer into a massive game of rock-paper-scissors''
So even you admit then that if you are equipped to take out one enemy, another will destroy you as 'your paper, and they are scissors'. Thanks for proving my point on horrific balancing issues, as skill will get you so far, then unless you have the perks, your stuffed. Truly the definition of fun, oh wait...
Also no one has ever explained how you are meant to take out numerous kill streak air support when either the enemy has a number of planes, or the opposing team are not stupid and they shoot everyone point blank when they are looking straight into the air and can not see the enemy coming. Or are you just playing against idiots?
Now to point out the lobby system.
' think the system couldn't have been any better' What the hell! So a system in which you can not even choose the map you play on is great? That is just lying.

To say your comment about peripheral vision was just plain stupid. Heard of rendering more on a screen and increasing resolution, or even better - pulling the players vision back a meter. Retard.

Im guessing with everyone talking about not experiencing host migration, the vast majority of you are PC or 360 players, as this will happen on the PS3 a number of times per hour.

I hate arguing on forums. All people do is reduce your arguments to the base instincts and turn it on you.

My point in the rock-paper-scissors analogy was that, no matter what the situation, there was always a tool to get the job done. I'm not saying defeat is inevitable. There's this thing called skill. Do you think that a player will kill a riot shield class just because he has semtex? No. The point of a n action game is using skill to overcome the enemy. If the other team was predictable, it would be a strategy game. As for your killstreak situation, you could either suck it up, or equip Cold-Blooded and shoot from behind your lines. And how do you think choosing the map would go when you have 12 people all arguing for different things? Randomly choosing the map ensures that players don't waste time arguing. And, like I said before, the vote-to-skip feature ensures that if you really have a major problem with a map, you can try to rally a vote to skip the map. Maybe you think you're entitled to getting your way in life, but the lobby system is the only fair way to do it. And finally, how do you think moving the view back a meter would fix anything? moving the view back a meter on screen would be the equivalent of backing up a meter. Everything would be exactly the same. And you should probably research the meaning behind 'rendering more on screen'.

Hm, you must not have played any other mutliplayer fps's to grasp the concept of dedicated servers as you have no idea how they work, reinforcing my point that people who think this game is good is merely due to lack of experience with any other fps. The vast majority of fps game lobbies ( you probably don't know what that truly is) have a LIST of games to choose from - not game modes, but game rooms. This will always be better.
When you wrote that moving the camera back would be like walking back, I think this shows how nieve you really are, no offence. To prove me wrong, how many other fps's have you played as its im guessing very few, thus your opinion is somewhat ill informed.

Also you still do not answer my point of how can SKILL help you when you spawn and get knifed in the back / shot by a plane within 2 seconds?
With the later guns being more powerful and accurate, again, how is skill going to help you? Please refer to post 362 if you do not believe me.

You're wrong. I have a lot of experience with FPSs and I stand by my points firmly. Modern Warfare Two is easily one of the best I've ever seen. Yes, I haven't had any experience with dedicated servers because no major FPSs within the past few years have had them. Every FPS I've played has run on matchmaking or player-created lobbies. And I don't see the problem.

I'm sorry, but if you think moving the camera view back a meter will help with peripheral vision, you must be stupid. Say you're looking at a wall. Moving the camera back one meter would be the exact equivalent of the player character moving back one meter. It won't increase the angle of vision at all. I don't see why you can't grasp that.

And skill is a major part of FPS gameplay. Getting spawn-killed is coincidental. And the more powerful tools are unlocked at a later level for a reason. The law of averages means that, somewhere, there is a point that everyone is centered around. To some extent, every player is averaged around one level. This means that the people on each side will be balanced, with each team having some higher and some lower-level players on their side.

Battlefield series...
Call of Duty 4
Call of Duty 5
Killzone 2
Resistance 2
The list goes on. If you really thing pings of 120+ on average are acceptable, you are deluding yourself.
Getting spawn killed is poor level design. Really poor level design.

Sorry, let me back up. No major console FPSs, at least not what I've played, has had dedicated servers. Sorry for the misunderstanding. But I'm perfectly fine with matchmaking. I don't see it as a problem. I wouldn't care if I didn't see a dedicated server the rest of my life.

As for spawn killing, it is not simply bad level design. It is the result of your team's inability to competently hold your ground.

So you really are saying pings of around 120+ are acceptable?
And Killzone 2 & Resistance 2 are PS3 games which have dedicated servers....

Maybe not for an evolved PC gamer such as yourself, but consoletards like me are perfectly fine with it. I may occasionally experience lag, but otherwise, I'm fine with it. Core gameplay is really what matters.

 

[kemosabi4]

Snip

Snip

Snip

Well as Mazty has listed numerous major fps's with dedicated servers, Ill also shoot down more retarded points you make.
If you don't believe me about the peripheral vision, go get a camera, then zoom in and out with it. Does your peripheral change at all? Now that was not so hard was it.Or even better, change the angle of vision.
PS. Have you found the PERIPHERAL vision setting in the game where it renders more on the edges, proving it can be done? except it happens to be useless unless your TV is far wider then any in production.

So getting spawn killed is coincidental? Well when it happens a number of times per match, I think its poor map design and game mechanics as no other fps has had this problem since - oh, MW 1. And everyone knows the later weapons are over powered along with the knife. When you can run around a map and insta-kill with the knife, and beat those using guns, I think the game has lost the Modern bit in Modern Warfare.

I said it before and I'll say it again. Backing the view up does not increase peripheral vision. Get it through your thick skull. The only reason you can see more is because when you back up, the objects farther away move closer to the center of your vision. It's science! And that setting in-game only controls how vertically stretched the screen is. It doesn't allow you to see more, dumbass. And you can't change the angle of vision!

Spawn killing is not the result of bad level design or gameplay mechanics, it is simply the result of your team's inability to competently hold your ground. And CAMPING HAS BEEN A PROBLEM SINCE THE FPS HAS BEEN INVENTED! IT ALWAYS HAS, AND IT ALWAYS WILL BE!

And you would have to be extremely stupid to be outmatched by a player using only a knife. A chimp could probably win at CoD if he was facing a player using only a knife. Please, find something better to complain about.

 

[kemosabi4]

Snip

Well your post clearly shows that the amount of mutliplayer games you have played is exceeding limited.
''IW beautifully shaped the multiplayer into a massive game of rock-paper-scissors''
So even you admit then that if you are equipped to take out one enemy, another will destroy you as 'your paper, and they are scissors'. Thanks for proving my point on horrific balancing issues, as skill will get you so far, then unless you have the perks, your stuffed. Truly the definition of fun, oh wait...
Also no one has ever explained how you are meant to take out numerous kill streak air support when either the enemy has a number of planes, or the opposing team are not stupid and they shoot everyone point blank when they are looking straight into the air and can not see the enemy coming. Or are you just playing against idiots?
Now to point out the lobby system.
' think the system couldn't have been any better' What the hell! So a system in which you can not even choose the map you play on is great? That is just lying.

To say your comment about peripheral vision was just plain stupid. Heard of rendering more on a screen and increasing resolution, or even better - pulling the players vision back a meter. Retard.

Im guessing with everyone talking about not experiencing host migration, the vast majority of you are PC or 360 players, as this will happen on the PS3 a number of times per hour.

I hate arguing on forums. All people do is reduce your arguments to the base instincts and turn it on you.

My point in the rock-paper-scissors analogy was that, no matter what the situation, there was always a tool to get the job done. I'm not saying defeat is inevitable. There's this thing called skill. Do you think that a player will kill a riot shield class just because he has semtex? No. The point of a n action game is using skill to overcome the enemy. If the other team was predictable, it would be a strategy game. As for your killstreak situation, you could either suck it up, or equip Cold-Blooded and shoot from behind your lines. And how do you think choosing the map would go when you have 12 people all arguing for different things? Randomly choosing the map ensures that players don't waste time arguing. And, like I said before, the vote-to-skip feature ensures that if you really have a major problem with a map, you can try to rally a vote to skip the map. Maybe you think you're entitled to getting your way in life, but the lobby system is the only fair way to do it. And finally, how do you think moving the view back a meter would fix anything? moving the view back a meter on screen would be the equivalent of backing up a meter. Everything would be exactly the same. And you should probably research the meaning behind 'rendering more on screen'.

Hm, you must not have played any other mutliplayer fps's to grasp the concept of dedicated servers as you have no idea how they work, reinforcing my point that people who think this game is good is merely due to lack of experience with any other fps. The vast majority of fps game lobbies ( you probably don't know what that truly is) have a LIST of games to choose from - not game modes, but game rooms. This will always be better.
When you wrote that moving the camera back would be like walking back, I think this shows how nieve you really are, no offence. To prove me wrong, how many other fps's have you played as its im guessing very few, thus your opinion is somewhat ill informed.

Also you still do not answer my point of how can SKILL help you when you spawn and get knifed in the back / shot by a plane within 2 seconds?
With the later guns being more powerful and accurate, again, how is skill going to help you? Please refer to post 362 if you do not believe me.

You're wrong. I have a lot of experience with FPSs and I stand by my points firmly. Modern Warfare Two is easily one of the best I've ever seen. Yes, I haven't had any experience with dedicated servers because no major FPSs within the past few years have had them. Every FPS I've played has run on matchmaking or player-created lobbies. And I don't see the problem.

I'm sorry, but if you think moving the camera view back a meter will help with peripheral vision, you must be stupid. Say you're looking at a wall. Moving the camera back one meter would be the exact equivalent of the player character moving back one meter. It won't increase the angle of vision at all. I don't see why you can't grasp that.

And skill is a major part of FPS gameplay. Getting spawn-killed is coincidental. And the more powerful tools are unlocked at a later level for a reason. The law of averages means that, somewhere, there is a point that everyone is centered around. To some extent, every player is averaged around one level. This means that the people on each side will be balanced, with each team having some higher and some lower-level players on their side.

Battlefield series...
Call of Duty 4
Call of Duty 5
Killzone 2
Resistance 2
The list goes on. If you really thing pings of 120+ on average are acceptable, you are deluding yourself.
Getting spawn killed is poor level design. Really poor level design.

Snip

So you really are saying pings of around 120+ are acceptable?
And Killzone 2 & Resistance 2 are PS3 games which have dedicated servers....

Maybe not for an evolved PC gamer such as yourself, but consoletards like me are perfectly fine with it. I may occasionally experience lag, but otherwise, I'm fine with it. Core gameplay is really what matters.

Just bare with me but I'm going to be devil's advocate:
So saying core gameplay which hasn't evolved with the rest of the market in 2 years is also acceptable?

The gameplay is great, balancing the successful formula of the first MW, while adding enough new features to keep it fresh. I don't know what you have been playing, but the core gameplay of MW2 is some of the best I've seen.

 

[Jimbo1212]

Snip

Snip

Snip

Snip again.

I said it before and I'll say it again. Backing the view up does not increase peripheral vision. Get it through your thick skull. The only reason you can see more is because when you back up, the objects farther away move closer to the center of your vision. It's science! And that setting in-game only controls how vertically stretched the screen is. It doesn't allow you to see more, dumbass. And you can't change the angle of vision!

Spawn killing is not the result of bad level design or gameplay mechanics, it is simply the result of your team's inability to competently hold your ground. And CAMPING HAS BEEN A PROBLEM SINCE THE FPS HAS BEEN INVENTED! IT ALWAYS HAS, AND IT ALWAYS WILL BE!

And you would have to be extremely stupid to be outmatched by a player using only a knife. A chimp could probably win at CoD if he was facing a player using only a knife. Please, find something better to complain about.

Ha ha, you really know very little. Firstly, look at the mods for MW 1, and also how the static camera positioning works in games when fixed to the character model, but its obvious you have no clue about how to mod a game.
Also, get with the times! Not all new games have problems with camping, once again proving my point that you have not played many new fps's. If you want an example, look at Killzone 2 or as an even better example, Resistance 2.
Also my knife point was what I HAVE DONE with the knife to prove to people like you that it can be done. The combination of having a P90, and the right perks for the knife is KNOWN to be over powered. If you disagree then you are probably the only person out there who does.
You also nicely dodged the dedicated server point again. At least admit its a poor job by IW not to have any, rather then ignore or go into denial about it.
By the way, what platform do you play MW 2 on, and what platforms do you own? This may answer most of my questions.

 

[kemosabi4]

Snip

Well your post clearly shows that the amount of mutliplayer games you have played is exceeding limited.
''IW beautifully shaped the multiplayer into a massive game of rock-paper-scissors''
So even you admit then that if you are equipped to take out one enemy, another will destroy you as 'your paper, and they are scissors'. Thanks for proving my point on horrific balancing issues, as skill will get you so far, then unless you have the perks, your stuffed. Truly the definition of fun, oh wait...
Also no one has ever explained how you are meant to take out numerous kill streak air support when either the enemy has a number of planes, or the opposing team are not stupid and they shoot everyone point blank when they are looking straight into the air and can not see the enemy coming. Or are you just playing against idiots?
Now to point out the lobby system.
' think the system couldn't have been any better' What the hell! So a system in which you can not even choose the map you play on is great? That is just lying.

To say your comment about peripheral vision was just plain stupid. Heard of rendering more on a screen and increasing resolution, or even better - pulling the players vision back a meter. Retard.

Im guessing with everyone talking about not experiencing host migration, the vast majority of you are PC or 360 players, as this will happen on the PS3 a number of times per hour.

I hate arguing on forums. All people do is reduce your arguments to the base instincts and turn it on you.

My point in the rock-paper-scissors analogy was that, no matter what the situation, there was always a tool to get the job done. I'm not saying defeat is inevitable. There's this thing called skill. Do you think that a player will kill a riot shield class just because he has semtex? No. The point of a n action game is using skill to overcome the enemy. If the other team was predictable, it would be a strategy game. As for your killstreak situation, you could either suck it up, or equip Cold-Blooded and shoot from behind your lines. And how do you think choosing the map would go when you have 12 people all arguing for different things? Randomly choosing the map ensures that players don't waste time arguing. And, like I said before, the vote-to-skip feature ensures that if you really have a major problem with a map, you can try to rally a vote to skip the map. Maybe you think you're entitled to getting your way in life, but the lobby system is the only fair way to do it. And finally, how do you think moving the view back a meter would fix anything? moving the view back a meter on screen would be the equivalent of backing up a meter. Everything would be exactly the same. And you should probably research the meaning behind 'rendering more on screen'.

Hm, you must not have played any other mutliplayer fps's to grasp the concept of dedicated servers as you have no idea how they work, reinforcing my point that people who think this game is good is merely due to lack of experience with any other fps. The vast majority of fps game lobbies ( you probably don't know what that truly is) have a LIST of games to choose from - not game modes, but game rooms. This will always be better.
When you wrote that moving the camera back would be like walking back, I think this shows how nieve you really are, no offence. To prove me wrong, how many other fps's have you played as its im guessing very few, thus your opinion is somewhat ill informed.

Also you still do not answer my point of how can SKILL help you when you spawn and get knifed in the back / shot by a plane within 2 seconds?
With the later guns being more powerful and accurate, again, how is skill going to help you? Please refer to post 362 if you do not believe me.

You're wrong. I have a lot of experience with FPSs and I stand by my points firmly. Modern Warfare Two is easily one of the best I've ever seen. Yes, I haven't had any experience with dedicated servers because no major FPSs within the past few years have had them. Every FPS I've played has run on matchmaking or player-created lobbies. And I don't see the problem.

I'm sorry, but if you think moving the camera view back a meter will help with peripheral vision, you must be stupid. Say you're looking at a wall. Moving the camera back one meter would be the exact equivalent of the player character moving back one meter. It won't increase the angle of vision at all. I don't see why you can't grasp that.

And skill is a major part of FPS gameplay. Getting spawn-killed is coincidental. And the more powerful tools are unlocked at a later level for a reason. The law of averages means that, somewhere, there is a point that everyone is centered around. To some extent, every player is averaged around one level. This means that the people on each side will be balanced, with each team having some higher and some lower-level players on their side.

Battlefield series...
Call of Duty 4
Call of Duty 5
Killzone 2
Resistance 2
The list goes on. If you really thing pings of 120+ on average are acceptable, you are deluding yourself.
Getting spawn killed is poor level design. Really poor level design.

Snip

So you really are saying pings of around 120+ are acceptable?
And Killzone 2 & Resistance 2 are PS3 games which have dedicated servers....

Maybe not for an evolved PC gamer such as yourself, but consoletards like me are perfectly fine with it. I may occasionally experience lag, but otherwise, I'm fine with it. Core gameplay is really what matters.

Just bare with me but I'm going to be devil's advocate:
So saying core gameplay which hasn't evolved with the rest of the market in 2 years is also acceptable?

The gameplay is great, balancing the successful formula of the first MW, while adding enough new features to keep it fresh. I don't know what you have been playing, but the core gameplay of MW2 is some of the best I've seen.

The gameplay is unbalanced though - Akimbo shotguns? Pave Lows? Getting killed just after spawning? And again, how can barely changed gameplay still be good two years after the first, 3 games on, after many other games have shown many innovations?
Any chance you can clarify what makes the game play great?

Are you fucking listening to anything I'm saying? You just gave two examples right there of changed gameplay. Akimbo weapons and customizable killstreaks. Maybe you should take time to actually listen to others instead of constantly spouting the same points over and over again. Gameplay has changed in Call of Duty by leaps and bounds. Why don't you open your eyes and accept it?

 

[kemosabi4]

Snip

Snip

Snip

Snip again.

I said it before and I'll say it again. Backing the view up does not increase peripheral vision. Get it through your thick skull. The only reason you can see more is because when you back up, the objects farther away move closer to the center of your vision. It's science! And that setting in-game only controls how vertically stretched the screen is. It doesn't allow you to see more, dumbass. And you can't change the angle of vision!

Spawn killing is not the result of bad level design or gameplay mechanics, it is simply the result of your team's inability to competently hold your ground. And CAMPING HAS BEEN A PROBLEM SINCE THE FPS HAS BEEN INVENTED! IT ALWAYS HAS, AND IT ALWAYS WILL BE!

And you would have to be extremely stupid to be outmatched by a player using only a knife. A chimp could probably win at CoD if he was facing a player using only a knife. Please, find something better to complain about.

Ha ha, you really know very little. Firstly, look at the mods for MW 1, and also how the static camera positioning works in games when fixed to the character model, but its obvious you have no clue about how to mod a game.
Also, get with the times! Not all new games have problems with camping, once again proving my point that you have not played many new fps's. If you want an example, look at Killzone 2 or as an even better example, Resistance 2.
Also my knife point was what I HAVE DONE with the knife to prove to people like you that it can be done. The combination of having a P90, and the right perks for the knife is KNOWN to be over powered. If you disagree then you are probably the only person out there who does.
You also nicely dodged the dedicated server point again. At least admit its a poor job by IW not to have any, rather then ignore or go into denial about it.
By the way, what platform do you play MW 2 on, and what platforms do you own? This may answer most of my questions.

I don't even know what to respond with about the whole peripheral vision thing. I don't think you even know what you're saying anymore. And every FPS has issues with camping. It's natural. If camping isn't a problem in your games, I think you might have been playing a strategy game by mistake. I don't see any way that an FPS could deter camping. And knifing is not that unbalanced. I know insta-kills with knives are unrealistic, but sometimes you have to abandon some realism in order to make the gameplay an overall better experience. I highly doubt you could do any significant damage using primarily the knife.

I'm not dodging the dedicated server point, you asshole. I'm simply saying that I'm not that bothered by it. The server type isn't that important compared to core gameplay. Now please, please, fucking drop it.

I play on the 360, but what does that matter? The gameplay would be about equivalent for both the 360 and the PS3.

Oh, and by the way, I know now that you and Matzy are friends. Your attempt at double-teaming me won't quell me in any way.