MW 2 : Just a bad game ?

Recommended Videos

Jimbo1212

New member
Aug 13, 2009
676
0
0
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.

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?

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.

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?

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.


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.
 

Poomanchu745

New member
Sep 11, 2009
1,582
0
0
TB_Infidel said:
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.

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?

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.

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?

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.


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.
I think you missed all the MW2 news like a month ago. Welcome to November 2009! Hope it doesn't take you too long to get acclimated.

Ya none of this is news and you should have looked into the game more before buying it.
 

arc101

New member
May 24, 2009
1,173
0
0
I played it. I found it definitely mediocre. I like (unfortunately like yahtzee) the offline play. And I have found the 6 hours story line very easy and predictable. The online capabilities are dull, same ol', same ol' FPS style fighting thing.

Why did it get 9.0+ on all reviews??
 

Jonny49

New member
Mar 31, 2009
1,250
0
0
The reason MW2 got such high scores from critics can be blamed for 3 reasons.

1.) They were afraid of getting mangled by Call of Duty's large fanbase.
2.) Activison were passing a few dollars under the table.
3.) It's actually a good game...which it is. Although I do agree that it's in no way "the game of the decade" as so many critics are quick to label it as.
 

Necrith

New member
Feb 13, 2008
97
0
0
review sites are afraid that they will disappointed fanboys if they give a low score, resulting in less page views.

I have not bought the game yet, going to wait a bit longer.
good news is that they hacked the game already for dedicated servers
 

Dig Dug Dude

New member
Jun 9, 2009
5
0
0
While your gripes are perfectly legitament, I think it deserves a 9.0+ just because of the fun factor.

It's really unique and enjoyable when you get a good match going. I haven't really had any lag problems since I got it, so I'm pleased. A longer campagin would have been nice, the story so far is really good, and it has a bunch of memorable characters.
 

TsunamiWombat

New member
Sep 6, 2008
5,870
0
0
I ...disagree?

No one wanted to watch this bloated juggernaught fail more then me, but the fact of the matter is the gameplay is pure distilled fun.
 

Moosebomber

New member
Nov 4, 2009
95
0
0
Necrith said:
review sites are afraid that they will disappointed fanboys if they give a low score, resulting in less page views.
Not really. Gamesradar.com gave Infamous a 7/10. And then they waited for the 310 comments of arguments, being called jackasses who can't write and that they were biased. I salute them.
 

maddawg IAJI

I prefer the term "Zomguard"
Feb 12, 2009
7,840
0
0
Pacifist Chris said:
Why did it get 9.0+? same reason Halo 3 did
Because they were decent games with a sturdy multiplayer fanbase on the console? Am I the only one who belives that Halo 3 deserves the score it got?

OT: I understand that a lot of people are upset with the PC version of the game, but the console version is said to be better. The best thing you can do with it right now is return it and wait for Bad Company 2 or another Military FPS.
 
Jun 11, 2008
5,331
0
0
TB_Infidel said:
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.

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?

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.

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?

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.


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.
Well basically IW decided they could sell crap and succeeded and also decided to crap on the PC crowd that is why the game's is shit.
 

MiracleOfSound

Fight like a Krogan
Jan 3, 2009
17,776
0
0
I think it's fantastic.

Only things that piss me off are the overpowered air support, the SMGs being shit, and the lag.
 

MrTub

New member
Mar 12, 2009
1,742
0
0
Only downside I found with MW2 was no dedicated servers which could have made it so much funnier to play online. Choppers and stuff isn't hard to get ride of, you just equip a stinger as your second weapon and then aim for a few seconds and shoot. I live in Sweden and I have just lagged one time online, but I'm guessing it kinda depends on where you live =/
Overall its a great game and have given me lots of hours of fun
 

suhlEap

New member
Apr 14, 2009
1,044
0
0
anyone who says it's a bad game is foolish really. it isn't a bad game. it's a good game. it just wasn't what people have hoped for. having played it (quite a lot) i can say that it's good, at least in my opinion. everyone just thought it would be super amazing compared to the first. which it wasn't. but it is by no means a bad game.
 

Outlaw Torn

New member
Dec 24, 2008
715
0
0
This is why I don't buy games based on review scores or what the publishers say about it. I used to buy games because they had a lot of hype and interested me, but a few years of sheer dissapointment from overhyped games like Assassins Creed, Fallout 3 and a few more just sealed the deal that most reviewers are either idiots or are being influenced at some level.

The problem is that some publishers will bestow fabulous gifts and goodies upon reviewers rather than letting them just play the game and get on with it. Though a lot of independant sites are much better with reviews.

Simply put, just ignore any site that has to resort to giving you a scored review and find one like the escapist that actually has people who know how to write an article on a game. Then you at least know more about the game than a number can tell you. But even then you should make your own mind up rather than letting someone else decide.
 

crepesack

New member
May 20, 2008
1,189
0
0
I liked it, games are subjective. I didn't buy the game for the story (honestly) i bought the game for the multiplayer. HOWEVER. I don't discredit the game for bad story. Just bad story telling. I wouldn't mind picking up a book version of the plot at my local shop.
 

slipknot4

New member
Feb 19, 2009
2,180
0
0
arc101 said:
I played it. I found it definitely mediocre. I like (unfortunately like yahtzee) the offline play. And I have found the 6 hours story line very easy and predictable. The online capabilities are dull, same ol', same ol' FPS style fighting thing.

Why did it get 9.0+ on all reviews??
It's called infinity war's fat wallet and bribes.