MW 2 : Just a bad game ?

[obex]

Well it can be a bad game very easily e.g. unbalanced multiplayer, short single player, poor lobby system.
Those are not features of a good game, unless you want to try and argue that...
If he said "This game is bad because I don't like the characters in it", that's rediculous.
However, saying the game is not good because the single player is too short and the multiplayer is unbalanced makes logical sense and is based on objective facts; the MP is unbalanced etc.
That's not to say you can't have some fun out of MW2, but as far as the technical & gameplay side of games go, it IS a poor game, without a doubt.

As i do not own this game i can offer no opinion on the truth of falsehood of the statements presented and i of course am not suggesting that no game can be bad because someone must like it. I am simply commenting on the no nonsensical argument put forth by the Op and how his comments are largely opinionated and therefore his opinion cannot be taken as the fact of the matter ego he does not like this game this does not mean the game is bad and i certainly doesn't mean that everyone including the reviews are fan boys for liking it.

 

[Jimbo1212]

Snip

Ever heard of approaching something onjectively?
I hate games like Ratchet & Clank, just not my genre. But I can appreciate why someone would like it as it does what is set out to do, for that genre.
You can't really argue if it's fun or not, you can simply point out the pro's and con's of a game, and if someone likes the game after coming to terms with the latter, then so be it. Take GTA4:
The cars handle like bricks on ice
The game is radically different to previous GTA's
The game has a lot less content then previous GTA's etc.
If someone enjoys it, then fair enough, but you can still say at the end of the day that the car's handle like sh*t.

I hardly think that titling a thread MW 2: Just a bad game? Is in anyway objective arguing, my point was that the OP said

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.

May a draw your attention to the use of the word FACT, its fact this game is bad apparently then he starts HIS list of what is wrong just to spiral this into a paradoxical nature, how can the game be bad FACT based of one person opinionated list ?

It seems that these days you cant have two different groups of people who like and dislike a game, no it seem these day you must have a YES or NO answer to something so if some people like and some people dislike modern warfare 2 there is a problem because one group must clearly [sarcasm] be wrong the Op has assumed that he is the correct one which means that all the reviews are "Fanboys" and were all idiots for thinking otherwise.

How in anyway has this thread been objective in its arguing



Additional : I also see no reason why i should take the time to formulate an objective argument with the original poster as he has not offered the same a vast majority of his points are of an opinionated nature therefore invalid for a review of a game which for obvious reason should remain un bias and certainly not reference technological limitations of the reviews hardware (read: lag) without any proof of this happening to anyone except the writter.

Of course as your post has shown a well thought and structured argument it has warranted a much more detailed post.

Wow, you wasted your time posting as you did not once comment on the topic at hand. Please go away and find some other means in which you try to gratify yourself rather then trolling forums.
Im not going to waste my time explaining myself on why I believe the game is bad as you clearly have no opinion of the game, merely the Poster - how very sad.

 

[obex]

okay let me totally toarch your ass in order, before you judge me i am not a fanboy this is the first cod game ive played.


campaign: yes it was a little short but it had a decent plot, the gameplay was smooth, and had lots of diffrent weapons, if one sitting for you is 5 hours then you sir need a life.

multiplayer: i am so sick of people whining about this server crap seriously get over it, god forbid you have to wait 30 seconds to find a new host, 5 minutes are you serious? again stop whining and get over it, how are the mechanics badly designed? if the helicopters and airstrikes werent there the multiplayer would be a little boring dont you think? and its not that hard to avoid an airstrike or a helicopter just stay in a building idiot.

okay i agree that the graphics werent that great, and neither was the voice quality but this game is a good one mainly because of how fun it is.

its funny you brought up reviews because what you think of it is a little biased so i dont think you have a decent standpoint, what with your whining about the lobby system

thank you and goodnight

All you did was torch any chance of credibility you may have had.
5 hours easily equals first day of owning the game. Buy game, sit down at 11am, play for 2 hours, get lunch, games finished before dinner with enough room to go to the gym and socialise left afterwards. Time management clearly isn't your strong point.
30 seconds not flow breaking? And why does MW2 have it, yet most other FPS' do not, and they don't demand £35?
Ever heard of unbalanced? You are winning, therefore you get aided to gain more kills. That makes sense how? Boring without them? So every MP is boring unless it has airstrikes or helicopters...Right...How about having literally better guns than other guns, yet pitting everyone in the same game. Balanced? Hardly.
And considering the lobby system is pretty archaic, how is it not a relevant complaint? Spend more time thinking about your posts and less time throwing insults around.

As my experience of MW1 allows me to offer some points towards this I will. Your point about the kill streaks is an interesting one it does seem un balanced that the winner get bonuses shouldn't the losers get it ? Well skipping straight over the death streak thing if the people who were losing got these bonuses then as soon as the good players started to win they would be thrashed down removing any point of trying to win, of course i realise you did not suggest giving the losers these things however i never see games in MW1 where both teams were not getting these bonuses one team may get more however if one team is doing so well then the addition of these extra kills would change nothing in the final result and if the losing team suddenly got a second wind recovery near the end then they will also get these bonuses so really it doesn't change much.

 

[obex]

Wow, you wasted your time posting as you did not once comment on the topic at hand. Please go away and find some other means in which you try to gratify yourself rather then trolling forums.
Im not going to waste my time explaining myself on why I believe the game is bad as you clearly have no opinion of the game, merely the Poster - how very sad.

Really i guess i must of missed the note that said user TB_Infidel is the centre of attraction an any post not directed at him is worthless i was unaware that by opening a dialogue with Mazty i was clearly for-fitting this clearly high brow and sophisticated argument you were conducting.

Also starting a thread titled MW 2 ( a highly rated a popular game) : just a bad game? then referring to commenter's posts as trolling is hypocrisy of such high order that i feel no need to formulated any kind of insult.

Also ladies and gentlemen this demonstrates my earlier hypothesis that the Op is under some delusion that his posts are always correct and once again use people defending the game are wrong and he is clearly right.

This thread is so clearly flame bait ( or i sure hope it is as i assume no one posts like this really) i suggest it is closed which is a shame because i think Matzy was actually putting well thought out and articulated points across.

 

[Jimbo1212]

okay let me totally toarch your ass in order, before you judge me i am not a fanboy this is the first cod game ive played.


campaign: yes it was a little short but it had a decent plot, the gameplay was smooth, and had lots of diffrent weapons, if one sitting for you is 5 hours then you sir need a life.

multiplayer: i am so sick of people whining about this server crap seriously get over it, god forbid you have to wait 30 seconds to find a new host, 5 minutes are you serious? again stop whining and get over it, how are the mechanics badly designed? if the helicopters and airstrikes werent there the multiplayer would be a little boring dont you think? and its not that hard to avoid an airstrike or a helicopter just stay in a building idiot.

okay i agree that the graphics werent that great, and neither was the voice quality but this game is a good one mainly because of how fun it is.

its funny you brought up reviews because what you think of it is a little biased so i dont think you have a decent standpoint, what with your whining about the lobby system

thank you and goodnight

Right, time to clear up my view an experience of air strikes:
An air strike or Pave Low comes in, your in cover - no problem, you just can't go outside. Oh wait a minute, your playing a domination match. You lose.
You go outside to shoot it down, sometimes you get it, sometimes it flares, sometimes it shoots you, but most often, you get shot whilst trying to get lock on it thanks to the great map design.
Also, to argue that cover saves you every time shows that you have not played many matches with the more powerful kill streak rewards, such as the Pave Low or AC-130 that can easily kill anyone within 4 m's of a window, rendering most of that team useless and huddled in a corner. Here comes the cooked grenades....

Yes, perks can help this problem, but then that shows that you have to play the game a certain way and that the other perks are pointless and by definition, shows a lack of balance.

But my main complaint about kill spree air support is the following one.
You spawn.
You get shot.
Good job, you had a real chance...oh wait, you were a free kill.

Now how can you not say that that is not broken?

 

[Jimbo1212]

Wow, you wasted your time posting as you did not once comment on the topic at hand. Please go away and find some other means in which you try to gratify yourself rather then trolling forums.
Im not going to waste my time explaining myself on why I believe the game is bad as you clearly have no opinion of the game, merely the Poster - how very sad.

Really i guess i must of missed the note that said user TB_Infidel is the centre of attraction an any post not directed at him is worthless i was unaware that by opening a dialogue with Mazty i was clearly for-fitting this clearly high brow and sophisticated argument you were conducting.

Also starting a thread titled MW 2 ( a highly rated a popular game) : just a bad game? then referring to commenter's posts as trolling is hypocrisy of such high order that i feel no need to formulated any kind of insult.

Also ladies and gentlemen this demonstrates my earlier hypothesis that the Op is under some delusion that his posts are always correct and once again use people defending the game are wrong and he is clearly right.

This thread is so clearly flame bait ( or i sure hope it is as i assume no one posts like this really) i suggest it is closed which is a shame because i think Matzy was actually putting well thought out and articulated points across.

Point proven.
Go away troll.

Edit: Just reading through your posts again, I have a feeling that you have not actually played MW2 at all. Your so vague about the game and only try to claim why my complaints are invalid on technical merits of how I present them and why I should not be mentioning them, rather then why MW2 is an enjoyable game. This would explain the pretentious tone of all your posts so well.

 

[Modzy]

SP 9/10, Awesome story start to finish and cant wait for next installment.
SO 9.5/10, Challenge's to keep u & mates playing the game for hours.
MP -10/10, Zero competitive gaming support + zero mod community support, multiplied by the poor skill level of players who actually bought the game and play MP = extremely poor MP experience for anyone with half a brain. complain all u like about that statement but its true & backed up by all the promod players worldwide. not to mention all those who actually work hard to get rank 10 prestige wont be able to be set apart from people using this:

GG http://www.mpcforum.com/showthread.php?t=244730

 

[Syndef]

This is by far the most subtle and eventful instance of trolling I have seen, EVEN if it was unintentional. 8 pages of strong responses for such a new member is phenomenal.

Ah, yes. But the topic at hand:
Yeah, the campaign was short, the multiplayer was frustrating, so I just walked away from it. In single player, I was able to appreciate the amount of work that went into a single scene. The developers were able to keep my interest until the very end. Simply cinematic quality, this game. There was only one other game I finished in one sitting, and that was the first Modern Warfare. Not even Portal or Mirror's Edge (both notoriously short games) held my interest like that. I do have to admit though: for what MW2 offers overall, I think 50 bucks is a bit pricey.

 

[Eclectic Dreck]

Firslty, breaking up a post in such way is against the forum rules.
Secondly, as with all well structured arguments, the post is meant to be taken as a whole, not broken down and criticised for points which are explained further on.
Thirdly, I hardly would expect you to apologise for either your lengthy post or socially bizarre way of writing as I am going to assume you and being conceited are as one.
Finally, this is where your argument is nothing more than fanboy nonsense:
"I have not experienced lag. The FOV does bother me. I enjoy the lobby system."
Congratulations. I stated that the MW2 MP problems are there and are not considered features of a good game. Your defense goes like this:
1)Hasn't happened to me, therefore doesn't exist. (Sorry, we aren't discussing Descartes here, this sh*t won't fly with me)
2)I'm okay with a feature, even though this feature is not what constitutes as a good FPS gameplay element, and is fact the opposite.
3)I "enjoy" the lobby system, even though it is a very limited and lacking lobby system when compared to most FPS. But sh*t, because I like it, it's okay, right?

You did the opposite of showing how MW2 MP is of quality and just said "I like it therefore it's uber".
Because you don't see them as faults, they don't exist? How about you take your head out of the sand and come into the real world. If you take a game which is widely reguarded as being sh*t, say, Haze, and gave it as well as a PS3 to a kid in 1985, it'd be the best game of the decade. But times move on and flaws are shown up. This is what has happened to MW2:
The multiplayer is unbalanced
The lobby system is exceptionally lacking in choice
The MP suffers tremendously from lag
You cannot deny the above. It is for these reasons the MP is average at best, as these are not qualities of a good MP system, unless you really want to say otherwise. You however are saying, that even with these faults, multiplayer is MW2's strongest point. You haven't even said how it is so other than "Doesn't exist, so MW2 still rockz". If you are going to pretend these faults don't exist, keep your fanboy thoughts to yourself.

To your first point, I was unaware (and still have no concrete evidence) that quoting your post in sequence was against forum rules. I have recieved no other censure than the one you have delivered and I do this routinely. Perhaps later I will check into your claimm

Second, I cannot adress your point as a whole because your argument is constantly shifting throughout the post. The moments where you are not making obvious fallacious arguments are worthy of being specifically noted just as the moments where you are a touch careless in your form are worthy of mention.

Third, you again dip deeply into the waters of rhetorical fallacy by using a generally disparaging term (fanboy) and using this as the basis for why your subjective stance holds greater value than mine. Your arguments lack coherence as you are consistantly attempting to argue that your opinion holds greater value than mine. Unless you are a divine being, I think you'll have a hard time demonstrating this.

You routinely attach strange meanings to my statements. When you ask "Can you explain logically how with these rather large faults that MW2 MP is still of such a high value, or letting your subjective side get the better of you?" I replied with "Easily. The faults you express either I do not experience, do not see as faults, or they do not serve to diminish the parts of the game that I enjoy." At no point in my statement do I attempt to draw the conclusion that other people will not see fault. I have stated repeatedly that it is obvious to me other people do.

The trouble is, at the end of the day, that your argument boils down to this "I see faults in the game. Obviously other people see the same faults I see. As such, the game is, objectively speaking, bad". My argument has been quite simple "I find that the game has sufficient value". I never once try and state that other people will somehow magically believe the same thing I do.

I will applaud your effort because this is certainly one of the better discussions of late. I will recognize that you do not like the game for reasons that I feel are entirely valid. I simply do not agree that the subjective conclusion you have come to holds any real value when you try and apply it elsewhere. To put it another way, does the fact that I find the game to be an enjoyable experience somehow alter the fact that you feel the game is a monstorous waste of money? I would hope in answering this question you will see my point.

There are ways to measure a game objectively, but such measurements have even less meaning. We can calculate average framerate and network latency and polygon count and a whole host of other things that do not rely on an opinion. But just because we know how many polygons are in the model or how many layers are required to produce a texture, do we come any closer to knowing that the game looks "good"? The answer, unfortunately, is no. Objective data and subjective interpretation rarely overlap in convenient ways.

 

[Omikron009]

I really liked it. Although I do play it on the 360. I honestly don't see what all the gripes regarding the story are about, and most of the other problems are PC exclusive.

 

[CheeseFlareUK]

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??

The thing is, you people will complain no matter what. It could have all dedicated servers and you would whine. If it were 40 hours you would say its too long. This is called NITPICKING.

 

[ArcWinter]

It's not the best, but it's good. Multiplayer is great, I've only been spawnkilled once the whole time I've owned it, compared to other CoD games where I'm spawnkilled twice a match. Air support is overpowered, you say? Hah! I eat air support in my sleep. I'm that guy on your team that always has a rocket launcher ready to take down some Pave Lows. It's not that hard. For the peripheral vision, just look around. If you never turn your head in a game, there's something horribly wrong with your neck (it's probably crusted over and become bone).

And the campaign? It was fun, very, and much too short. But multiplayer is the best part, anyway.

 

[Nautical Honors Society]

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?

This is your only complaint about the campaign? How short it is? /facepalm

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.

Not if you're good.

 

[MetallicaRulez0]

No offence, but unless the game is 100% dedicated to multiplayer (MMO's/CS-esque games) which MW2 clearly is not

I'm not sure what game you were playing, but Modern Warfare 2 is clearly a game based upon multiplayer and co-op through Spec Ops mode. CoD4 was a game based on multiplayer too, and so were the rest of the Call of Duty games developed by Infinity Ward. Just because a game has a single player mode doesn't mean the game isn't almost solely based upon a great multiplayer experience. In fact, the short length and lack of story in the single player of MW2 to me shows that it clearly is not a game designed to be a fulfilling SP experience. It's simply a tool to teach people how to play and to show off some of the great set piece moments Infinity Ward is known for.