MW 2 : Just a bad game ?

[Rancid0ffspring]

yawn... another MW2 thread.

 

[EBass]

I've completely lost confidence in most mainstream games journalism, a high proportion of it is due to total veneration of hyped titles. If you like the game and think it deserves a good score fine but AT LEAST LIST ITS FLAWS and then make a rational judgement on them when weighed up against its plus points. Not just say "OMFG ITS AMAZING", if you can't you're either incompetant or untruthful.

 

['-_-]

Honestly, the single-player of MW2 has a lot of twisted plots and things that don't work.
»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»WATCH OUT SPOILERS COMING THROUGH!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!«««««««««««««««««

1)The ultranationalists have now taken control of Russia and still their Vladimir Makarov leads a terrorist attack on A RUSSIAN AIRPORT!!!! WTF?

2)When Makarov learns that a CIA agent is part of that attack on the airport, he uses it as a context to declare war on the US and by the next day half of the Russian Army is in Washington DC. This means that in 1 day,the Russians managed to assemble all their forces, cross half the world without anybody noticing and bypass all the US bases and fleets stationed around the world. WTF??????????

 

[Eclectic Dreck]

After reading many reviews of MW 2 and seeing it get scores of 9.0 + from almost every reviewer, I naturally presumed that MW 2 was going to be a very good game, when in fact it is a fairly poor game and shows most reviewers to be nothing more then fan boys.

This is an incredibly dangerous and counter-productive stance to take so early in the post. Never begin your argument with a rhetorical fallacy. In this case, your opinion of the game does not meet the expectations that had been set by the media. You, in essence, state that your own subjective stance supercedes that of anyone else's and postulate that there is clearly something wrong with these people as a result. The most obvious fallacy on display is the ad-hom argument, where you call into question the character of those who stand against you, but there are lesser problems that I will ignore for the moment.

Now I begin my list of what is wrong with this game.
Firstly the campaign is far to short. Being able to complete an FPS in one sitting is sometimes expected, but to have a campaign only 5 hours long, on the second hardest difficulty is a joke. Why do game developers think it is fine to produce games with shorter and shorter campaigns?

Why precisely does a game need to have a single player component at all? I can think of a number of games that have no single player component at all - for example, the early editions of counter-strike, Tribes 1 and 2 and so forth. Others only have the multi-player component where humans can be replaced by AI driven characters (or bots), such as Unreal Tournament or Quake 3.

In my view, there is no requirement that one part of the experience should hold any greater value than the other. The harsh reality is that the resources used to make any game are finite, and resources expended to expand one component will inevitably result in fewer resources for others. In the case of MW and indeed most of the Call of Duty series to date, most of the percieved value lay in the multi-player experience. Not only does each moment of gameplay require more resources to produce as technology advances, but the value to the average consumer has been diminished greatly. Why therefore should IW expended more resources expanding a component of the game that is generally seen by the customers as having inherently less value than the multi-player component?

Your argument here is not without merit however, at least if you sort past some of the opening bits. At the end of the day it is a question of value. In a game without a signifcant multiplayer component, we would tend to expect to find a great deal of value in the single player experience. Yet there have been a number of games, like Mirror's Edge for example, that have very little multi-player experience that are also quite short. While I enjoyed the game, I firmly believe that the game did not present enough value to be worth the $60 USD asking price it was released at. The short version of this is quite simply, the length of the campaign has little real meaning because the real question is not about length but rather about the perceived value you have been presented.

After completing the campaign so quickly,I decided to go onto the mutliplayer and this is where the real faults of MW2 show. My first gripe is with the lobby system. Why the hell did they get rid of dedicated servers?! No FPS has had private host servers for years and for a very good reason. The amount of lag experienced in a standard match is ridiculous and its makes for an incredibly frustrating experience, and that is if the host does not disconnect and you have to wait 30 seconds to find a new host, or the game closes. Also due to a poor lobby system, the player can not choose the map and this leads to numerous players leaving lobbies which results in a 5 minute wait to start a game.

For most people who have played the CoD series, there never WAS a dedicated server experience. There are plenty of arguments to be made in favor of the dedicated server that I will not reiterate here, but at the end of the day the entire argument is superceeded by an amazingly simple business point - IW and Activision would rather make millions of dollars rather than zero dollars. Disregarding for a moment the subject of piracy (which will not further the debate being made by either of us), this change was made because it has been postulated that there is greater money to be made with this change than without it.

Of course, none of the issues you have presented really seem to indicate you think the game is good or bad, and you are instead attacking things that will, at times, serve to impeed your ability to experience the game. This is a legitimate concern to voice but I do not believe it provides an adequate basis to declare the game itself is bad.

To make this game even better, you also two very badly designed mutliplayer game mechanics. The first problem is fairly common - over powered boosts and power ups. These come in the form of helicopters, air strikes etc. These just make the game very hard and annoying. The second problem I've have not seen in an FPS for a very long time - limited peripheral vision. It is not very noticeable in the campaign, but in the mutliplayer it is a disaster and results in you missing people anywhere beyond 45 degrees to your left or right. This also causes people to camp in corners of rooms and to run around with the knife - at what point did MW2 become Counter-Strike?

Again, you are making the mistake of believing that an opinion you hold (that something is out of balance) is widely regarded as being true. While an appeal to authority is a fallacy, in this case it seems necessary. Were it widely regarded to be imbalanced, the game would not be achieving the sheer saturation of players it currently enjoys.

From my own standpoint, I have seen no instance of a mechanic that seemed overpowered. The MW2 arena is a fantastically lethal place regardless of the presence of airstrikes and the like, and most of the time I die it is the result of a simple bullet, knife, grenade or other personal weapon. These "overpowered" weapons are powerful precisely because acquiring them is difficult and thus, if the pursuit of such things is to be worthwhile, they must be powerful. Moreover, acquiring such weapons demonstrates either a remarkable streak of luck or a skill level that is better than the average of the opposing team. If there were an imbalance it would seem that it would actually level the playing field so that personal skill meant little in terms of victory. Mario Kart has long had such an imbalancing mechanic in the form of the Blue Shell and arbitrary top speeds for karts, the combination of which ensures that one can never truly credit skill for a victory and instead can only truthfully claim to have been luckier than the rest.

There are a few more problems I could delve into about MW 2, but ill just quickly note them to save time: Average graphics, terrible voice quality for mutliplayer, small number of people allowed per game and a generic game which does nothing new.

I find it difficult to actually regard most of these statements as true or containing any real value. To state the game has "average graphics" has very little value without knowing what we are comparing the game to. If one looks at current generation shooters, MW2 has fully competative graphics, notable because of the efficiency achieved for the level of fidelity presented. There are games that look better, but they make powerful computers struggle. There are games that look worse but have no real advantage in frame-rate consistancy. Stating they are simply average is, in effect, a statement that is desinged to seem inflamatory yet contains no legitimate information to speak of.

Voice Quality in multiplayer is another complaint that has no real value without perspective. Given that the voice quality is only influenced by a handful of factors (fidelity of audio capture and playback equipment, connection speed and reliability, compression method employed), I find that there is no single factor that points to a problem in MW2. The compression method used is the same used for most VOIP implementations so the problem cannot lie there. Recording and playback devices are beyond the ability of the game to affect, as is network speed. To state that this is terrible only means something if you can demonstrate instances where VOIP has been implemented with better results across a wide variety of system configurations.

The number of people in a game is a valid point, because the game does have a fairly low player count (with respect to the PC standards which are generally 32+). That said, within the context of the maps and game modes available in the game, the question needs to be does this smaller player count adversely affect gameplay. Given the lethality of the world and the compact nature of the maps, I would tend to argue that significantly larger player counts would, in fact, harm gameplay rather than better it. In order to justify more players, the maps need to be larger. The shame to be found here is, of course, that significantly larger maps are simply not possible without an increased player cap, but I cannot truly say that I think the trade-off is terrible. Smaller player counts and smaller maps means it is easier to achieve an optimal player count for a given game. Larger player counts and variable map sizes mean that randomly achieving a proper number of players for the map is unlikely at best, leading to sparsely populated large maps and overcrowded killing floors where victory or defeat has little to do with personal skill.

The final point, however, that the game does nothing new, is a point that is entirely true and yet has no impact on me as a player. It is generally true that the game has not made any significant changes with respect to shooters that have come before. It is also my opinion that the game executes the features it has well enough that the quality of execution itself becomes notable. There is value in doing something incredibly well just as there is value in doing something nobody has ever tried before.

So, please tell me how did people over look all these faults and give it such good reviews ?
Please try to keep posts objective and no fan boy spams.

There are a number of ways to approach this closing question. The first is to simply point out that most of the things you have expressed as faults are the result of an opinion, which, being subjective, has no real value unless looking for consensus. You cannot be right or wrong in matters of opinion, you can simply hold one that is contrary to someone else.

Another possibility is simply that in most instances where someone would agree with the faults you cite (or others that you did not), they deliver a positive review because the totality of the experience was positive meaning that the faults they identified did not sufficiently dimish the game to make them dislike it.

I would point out that, in closing, it is probably best if you refrain from the fallacies you request people not engage in themselves.

 

[pirateninj4]

It's the same reason Twilight has been such a shocking success...feed people enough BS and they'll start to believe that it's good or important. I personally find the MP side of MW2 very fun as a knifing bastard and it's been worth the BS price I paid for it. But yes, the lobbying system sucks and IW are being fuckwits about it. Hoorah for corporate culture ruining our fun.

 

[Marowit]

Completely agree with you OP.

I could have dealt with the single-player being so meh if the multi-player was something to behold, but I found the exact same problems. I couldn't stand the power-ups, and constantly having to find cover from helicopters/missiles/bombs/jets.

The worst thing, is that with dedicated servers there would have been mods that removed all that aerial junk, and, for me at least, would have gone a long way to making multi-player the experience I was expecting/hoping for.

Plus - I think you hit the nail on the head about the peripheral-vision bit. I couldn't figure out what it was that was bothering me so much about the randomness feeling to my deaths (other than the aerial junk), and poor peripheral vision (which I have no idea how you'd fix) is definitely it.

 

[MrDarkling]

Meh it was ok, nothing to special.
That's all I have to say about MW2

 

[ejb626]

What kind of game did you buy? Doesn't sound like MW2 now the campaign is short and the plot makes the average summer blockbuster look like a newberry award winning novel it was pretty much a conglomerate of different action movie references but good old Commie blasting never gets old plus I like the MP a lot and I suck at it so that says a lot coming from me. Did you get the PC version? Because that one has very bad online I have the 360 version which works perfectly. Now I agree its not the best game or game of the century, but its not bad.

 

[Marowit]

*SNIP*.

I agree on you on many things. Personally my biggest complaint, and this is a HUGE one, is the multiplayer maps. In MW1 the maps were simple, you cover a hallway and it's covered. There are maybe 3, tops, possible routes to get killed from. In MW2, the maps are rediculous. Anywhere you stand leaves you exposed to, well, EVERYONE.

This might have been a way to tackle campers but ffs it also means you can't take two steps without dying sometimes :S I mean wtf. I hate to say this but the maps in CS are better...

My favorite online fps will always be MW1. For it's simplicity and most of all, because it's fun.

Oh and I don't agree on them not doing anything new. If you ask me, they just raised the bar on FPS campaigns

I found this to be one of the things that made the game a lot less fun for me too.

There are plenty of ways to penalize camping (such as more points for people who run around capturing nodes). TF2 is a perfect example of balance with camping and allowing people who like to snipe to snipe.

My faaaaaavorite map ever in the CoD franchise is Foy. Sooooo much fun.

 

[Radkolf]

1. Air Support Problem - If you had even LOOKED at the secondary weapons category, you would notice there are launchers that shoot down the air support in seconds. The Stinger can take down any air support in 1 round, only having to use 2 rounds for the ones that are tough or let off flares.

2. Matchmaking Complaining - The only reason games are laggy is because the hosts are laggy. You can't blame a game for having laggy lobbies when it is someones internet connection that is causing the problem.

3. Campaign - You cannot base the game alone on SP, because (and I'm referring to the general population of people who play) the gamers play MP. Everyone plays the SP to get used to the guns and learn the story, people play Spec Ops to enjoy the game with another friend, and people play MP to get some competition going.

4. Maps - The maps are fine. some maps (like Estate) or exactly like other maps in CoD4. Estate is a lot like Overgrown; filled with sniping spots yet you can still do well with assault rifles and SMG's. The maps were geared towards smaller player numbers. I highly doubt you are getting killed from EVERY direction, as the game has many places you can spawn in without dying. It is of lack of knowing where people go (or just lack of skill, which I am not saying anyone who complains has a lack of skill) that is causing you to die. You need to know where people rush, you need to know key sniping spots and choke points. The maps don't make the game bad.

 

[Skuffyshootster]

I love it and you can fuck right off. I'm going to go headshot a few insurgents.

Congratulations for trolling, here's your medal *slap*.
Why is it good? Care to elaborate?

I'll do it for him.

-Great graphics
-Exciting, if short, singleplayer
-Great voice work
-Spec ops mode
-Deep multiplayer, which includes tons of weapons and upgrades.

Is it that hard to accept the fact that someone liked a game you didn't?

 

[Apocalypse Tank]

You failed to mention spec-ops, which is 1/3 of the game

 

[Radkolf]

"Short Multiplayer' is a way of saying "Months of game play is short". I'm assuming you mean the single player, which was short because it was filled with action. Any longer and it would have just dragged on longer then needed. It is not unbalanced. You could come at me with the AK47 (last gun you unlock I believe) and I could kill you with the FAMAS (One of the starting Assault Rifles). The beginning guns are just as good as the later ones. There are some guns that should have been balanced a little more, but it is all fairly balanced. Some guns excel at certain styles of combat. I have played my friend who is level 47 over multiplayer, and I can still beat him. "I can't pick a map I like, Boo-hoo". Suck it up. Everyone plays those maps you don't like, everyone lives with it. If you are good at the game, your score won't be affected by a map you don't like. As I stated before, the air support can be destroyed by a launcher you unlock at level 27 (I believe). It's not rigged, you just failed to shoot it down, resulting in you dying 4 billion times.

 

[Eclectic Dreck]

-Snipped as it's getting late and I'm only going to comment on SP for now

One thing that put CoD4 above & beyond other shooters was the immersive SP. Without SP, CoD just becomes a MP frag-fest which immediately gets shot to sh*t by the games which actually focus on MP, such as MAG, CS (possibly if that's your thing) to name only a few.
With a short, bizzare at best from what I have read, single player, what the hell is the £35 asking price going on? A game for that asking price should have stellar production costs (Which amazingly MW2 did, yet I would like to know how many millions were pissed away on just the advertising), and should show it in the gameplay. This should me an amazing game engine, great storyline, great AI and the like. MW2 falls short on all these notes.
I haven't played the MP yet, but from what I can tell, it's exactly the same as the previous two titles, bugs included, such as the F**KING retarded idea that if you are doing well, grab yourself an even bigger lead with extra support, and with lag thrown on top of it.
Considering games now are being criticised for their lack of ingenuity, MW2 should have been plastered with a "Been here, done it all before" sticker.
Plus your entire argument falls on it's face when games such the ones listed below are brought up for their solid single player without any MP:
Morrowind
Shadow of the Collosus
Devil May Cry
Quake 4
Doom 3 (not my personal favourite, but if you like horror FPS, perfect)
Call of Juarez
Prey

The first three aren't FPS' but still no MP, so single player is hardly looked upon as being pointless in the gaming industry. The latter four are all FPS and the strongest elements of them are the SP which are exceptionally good when compared to the average FPS.
So in conclusion, saying SP is pointless is ludicrous and short sighted as you have to consider the offline market as well, not to mention the above points.

I find it difficult to actually deliver an argument against a critique of a point I did not make. To reiterate for the sake of clarity, my position is this: the length of the campaign or the quality of the campaign does not constitute the total value of the package. I, like many who purchased the game, find our value in the multiplayer component. As a consumer, I feel as though the 60 USD I paid for the game have been repaid in the entertainment I have received.

I never stated that SP was pointless, I simply questioned why one was attaching such value to the experience. I find a great deal of value in some SP only games, but in others I do not and feel a bit slighted. In the case where the SP experience is only a part of the package, to call the total value of the game into question based on the quality and length of the SP experience makes as much sense as purchasing two seats on an airline and complaining about the space alloted in one of them for the price you paid. It is not as though the price, the length of the single player campaign or the mutli-player focus of MW2 was a secret - it was and still is commonly available consumer information.

The point of my original post was twofold. The first was to point out the fallacy inherent in the argument and the second was simply to state my own perspective on the subject. I would point out that many of the games you cited were, in fact, poorly recieved and/or actually possessed a multiplayer component. Call of Juarez was not acclaimed by any stretch (metacritic rating 71) and Prey didn't fair well either (metacritic score of 81). Moreover, Doom 3 and Quake 4 had mutiplayer components but they were lackluster and secondary (Doom) or a reskin of another game (Quake 4 is literally the same as quake 3 arena).

I also never once stated nor did I imply that MW2 is anything other than derivative. In fact, I believe my exact statement was:

The final point, however, that the game does nothing new, is a point that is entirely true and yet has no impact on me as a player. It is generally true that the game has not made any significant changes with respect to shooters that have come before. It is also my opinion that the game executes the features it has well enough that the quality of execution itself becomes notable. There is value in doing something incredibly well just as there is value in doing something nobody has ever tried before.

I will gladly stand by my closing statement in that quote.

There are other points that I would contest. For example, you state your opinion (that the multiplayer in MW2 isn't fun) and then compare it to games that you belive do the job better including a game that has not been released to the public in any form (MAG). I am quite certain that I can gin up ideas about a game I have not played as well, and I am confident that I will like this theoritical game far more than any game currently on the market.

Other points in your post (that you find the value lacking etc) are your own opinion and, while I do not agree with them, I will at least recognize that you have at least made the effort to defend your position (even if I do not necessarily think your defense is effective). Do not take my post to mean that I think the game has sufficient value for everybody - I cannot say anything of the sort. I am simply calling into question why people are placing value where they do and often ignoring other potential sources of value along with pointing out that their subjective stance on a subject holds no more value than anyone else's and therefore should not serve as the basis for an argument of "this game is bad" (it serves just fine for the argument "I think this game is bad")

 

[Belvadier]

i was very excited about this game when it came out and i loved every minute of playing it after i got it at midnight. The next day was a different story, however. The campaign is average, really...not great: more like 7.5/10 material. Spec opps is great fun in my opinion even though it consists of a lot of re-hashed single player levels. Multiplayer is just plain NOT FUN, however, which as it was the main reason that i got this game, is quite a disappointment.

Honestly, i got CoD4 when it came out and had a blast but i didn't really realize how much better game could be until WaW came out -- cod4's levels were just not nearly as good as WaW's. Now granted, all the tank levels in WaW are bad but they learned from that seeing as how none of the 3 map packs had a tank in them. All of the map packs were excellent, as well.

MW2 just continues the trend of very poorly designed multiplayer maps that render the game no fun. It's a shame because i like all the new perks, the guns, even the nwe killstreak rewards are fine by me, but i just don't even have any fun playing the game because i can't stand one single map.

I am much more excited for the next Treyarch COD offering, to be honest, whatever it is I just hope they keep making good maps...