MW 2 : Just a bad game ?

[cheese_wizington]

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?

Too.Much.Multiplayer.Ranting!

 

[GuerrillaClock]

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.

Go troll somewhere else.
Saying a game is nothing new, with an easy and exceptionally short SP and unintuitive MP is not nit picking, it's saying the game is average at best. And bloody hell, MW2 is. It's the same MP system that's been around since CoD4/2007 with all the bugs & imbalances intact.

Seems to me like the only troll in this thread is you. You've essentially tried to assert your own opinions as cast iron fact throughout this whole thread and insulted several peoplem who tried to have a reasonable discussion with you. Cheeseflare wasn't even talking to you and you called him a troll for absolutely no reason. You do your argument no favours by being such a prick. Stop trying to tell people what they can and can't have fun with.

Your argument is poorly constructed to begin with anyway. You're criticising people for using the exact same style of argument that you're using! How can the millions of gamers who enjoy CoD complain about lag that they don't get? I don't get it at all, so how can I possibly comment on it? You're judging it on personal experience, just as everyone else is, so you are no more or less qualified to start defining criteria of quality than every other gamer on the planet - in short, knock your fucking attitude on the head and stop calling out everyone who dared to enjoy their purchase. You might have lag, and it might irritate you, but, using your own (ahem) "objective" logic one relatively minor probelm of a bit of lag does not substantially diminish the quality of the rest of the game and make it 'bad'.

The multiplayer's balancing is also fine. I will concede, the lag may be a problem for some and not for others, as I said, I can't subjectively comment on it because I haven't got it, but I can tell you the balancing is fine. You ever hear of a thing called a 'reward'? That's the system CoD uses to keep people hooked and playing, and it's fun. If I'm accomplishing things in-game, why shouldn't I be rewarded? You start with a decent enough weapon set, you unlock new weapons as you get better. What's wrong with that? It's satisfying, and your killstreaks only add to the satisfaction. It's a team game that rewards the individual by helping out the whole team! That's a great system! If you're on the recieving end, too bad, but bitching about it is like bitching about TF2 because you're always on a team full of idiots and you end up losing. It's not like the killstreaks are that hard to avoid anyway, air support is easily taken down or avoided - in fact I've never been killed by it once yet, because I know how to deal with it. The whole thing is designed to poke at your reward centres and encourage you to try harder, and in this regard it's a success. The deathstreaks offer a helping hand to those less skilled players but it doesn't rubber-band them above everyone else either. They help people who aren't as good as other players without making it unfair on everyone else, and that's the way it should be. Remember the better players can't be dragged down by rubber-band rewards, or the game becomes frustrating.

As for the lobbies, I concede that they aren't great, but most of the time a decent match is available. It really isn't as bad as advertised by some, but it's not perfect either. But, again, going by your argument about 'objectivity' such a small problem does not make the MP bad! It's a mild blemish at worst.

As for the SP, it's short, yes, but it's undeniably a masterclass in game design that warrants multiple playthroughs. Things do not have to be new or innovative if they work as well as this formula does, and actually playing the game tells you IW managed to use the formula to take the series into a whole new playing field. It is superbly crafted, and you're always doing something. There is not one wasted line of code, and that's the secret to CoD's success.

I'm not anticipating much of a discussion with you, as all you seem to be doing on this thread is repeating the same badly constructed argument about your problems with the game whilst attacking anyone who didn't have a problem with it. I've seen everything you 'argument' has to offer, and it doesn't wash with me. I can accept that you might not like it, but don't try and feed me this horseshit about how 'objectively' the game is bad and I shouldn't be having fun with it.

 

[MiracleOfSound]

Just finished a session of private games with 6 buddies where we were only allowed to get kills by cooking grenades and blowing ourselves up.

Made all the pain of competitive play dissappear in a happy bang

 

[IICortezII]

I think my biggest problem with Modern Warfare 2 was that it felt to similar to the first game. They added killstreaks and new weapons and maps, which is great,but I play the multiplayer and I just feel like I've already been playing this game for the last two years, and I got tired of it somewhere along the way. It's still a fun game, and given the chance to review it I would probably give it a 7.5 or an 8, as I did like the single player, and the multiplayer will always end up drawing you back.

I guess I just feel like there could have been more, for example, although I'm not the biggest fan when it comes to halo, Halo 3 added in forge and theatre, two very big aspects of the game. Anytime that I ever play halo I'm playing custom games with friends, so I guess what I'm saying is that If Modern Warfare 2 had added something new and innovative like that It would have earned it's 9 and the countless game of the year awards it's no doubt going to win.

 

[ScottocS]

+10000 to not seeing these threads anymore.
It has been said before but i will say it again.
You either like it or you don't. These two DIFFERENT opinions will not get along.
Too much objectiveness in all of this!

" I SAID IT ON THE INTERWBZ SO THEREFORE I AM RIGHT! " This pretty much sums up a lot of people and their OH SO VALUED and HIGH opinions.

I be one to enjoy a game for what it is xD I don't make decisions on what people who get payed to "spin" information say, let alone your average forum user. Use your iniative and make your own mind up As for these MW2 threads... Yes, there are people that like it and are enjoying it (on different levels/aspects) and there are people that don't like it.

PLAIN AND SIMPLE xD

 

[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.

A game which is based on a MP system that it hasn't bothered to change for over 2 years, and in fact it's made some platforms worse?
It may have a strong focus on MP, but it hardly constitutes a good one.
Plus I was referring to games with a much stronger focus on MPe.g. MMO's and CS, which CoD clearly is not.
And the question that has to be asked is, if IW are so good at making set pieces, why is SP so short? And how can they really expect people to play almost the exact same MP as they have been since 2007? Oh yeah, the public are gullible...

Well, your opinion is "the multiplayer isn't good". About 4 million people (a conservative estimate, mind you) would disagree. As for your last question, how does Valve expect people to play the same Counterstrike they've been playing since 1999? How does Bungie expect people to play the same multiplayer they've been playing since 2001? The real question is, why change a good thing? CoD2 had great multiplayer. CoD4 was a similar but improved version. Now MW2 is a similar but (debate-ably) improved version. If it ain't broke, don't fix it.

 

[Keepitclean]

The truth is that games that have enough hype will make people think that they are good without the condition of them actually being good.

Proffesional reviewers have to tell the public what they want to hear or they get the sack its that simple. Also i played it on 360 I thought the campaign was sweet but not long enough to be worth buying, i played it at my friends house.

Modern Warfare 2 for me was a good game but not good enough to buy, I guess thats because i paly games for single player and i think multiplayer should compliment the single player.

Oh and to the people who have been bitching about the balancing of perks and killstreak bonuses, they're fine some perks and weapons are good against your style of play thats why they KILL YOU. It's just glorified paper scissors rock and if your as good at CoD as you think you are you should be able to beat all perk/weapon combinations in any situation.

 

[Jimbo1212]

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.

Read post 265
Now try to justify air support.

Also why are people not bothered with the length of games any more?
Is this something reserved for the older generation of gamers who remember that a game would have been shot down a few years back if its campaign was a measly 5 hours long as it shows a lazy developer, and that if you wanted a solely online game you would go buy WoW.

 

[JourneyThroughHell]

It's a matter of opinion.
HOWEVER, if you have nothing to contribute apart from "bring back the dedicated servers", you shouldn't be creating a topic like that.
I love Modern Warfare 2, love every goddamn second of it. The campaign is short for a reason - because they fill it with bullshit and boring sewer levels. It's insanely fast-paced and that's what COD is known for.
They took away your servers, oh, cry me a fucking river. Nobody stops you from playing Call Of Duty 4, you know.
Also, multiplayer is unbalanced if you suck, plain and simple.

 

[GuerrillaClock]

"The balancing is fine..."
Really? Then how come there are literally better guns than others, and a levelling system? So if I pitted a level one player against his level 50 counterpart, it would be an even match?
Thought not. So much so for your balanced multiplayer idea.
Killstreaks add to satisfaction? Maybe you should come down from your euphoric state and see the impact it has on the game. The person who is doing well is reward with a system to allow him to get more kills. That is entirely broken right there and does nothing to balance the game at all. Nice to see your argument is nothing more than that of a amoeba, "LOL if you get killed by it tough!!! LOL!".
The lobby system is dire. You just have to hope a good game is going on. Because that's a good lobby system...Oh and great sized matches too....
Don't worry, I won't expect you to understand this as you are stuck in the rutt of "IM HAVING FUN SHUUUUUT UP" mind set and won't accept that your gem is anything but flawless as you deny a whole load of facts about it.

Aaaaand you've gone and done exactly what I thought you would: stating your opinion as facts and cover it in conjecture and insults. Smooth.

Of course a level one character can beat a level 50 character (or something similar), it happens in literally every game. If the balancing was so fucked, there would be one or two players dominating an entire team every single game, and if you claim this is happening then you are lying. That's all there is to it. I have played enough CoD to know that this barely ever happens, and the only time it does happen is when you get some twitch-reflex kid who plays it far too much and has a disproportionate skill level, which can be frustrating but is no fault of the game. If you're going to criticise a game for having people play it and be good at it, then fine, but don't expect to be taken seriously.

And no, my argument was bugger all to do with "if you get killed by it, tough". Nice job reading absolutely nothing that I wrote. My argument was that CoD employs a system that rewards the winners as well as rubber-banding the losers into contention, and that there is nothing wrong with that. What, you want to be on the winning team only to find that the losers have a horde of insane power ups that totally sweep you up and dominate you until they win the game? The problem here is you do not know what 'balance' is. Balance is not levelling the playing field so that anyone can win, balance is meaning that if you are good at the game, you generally win, and if you are bad at the game, you don't until you get better. There is nothing wrong with that, and it is the very purpose of competition and the reason that multiplayer was invented. The killstreaks are a means of encouraging the player to go out and seek combat rather than hide in a corner and wait for the combat to come to them. And no, MW2's maps do not encourage camping before you start on that whole argument. Not only that, but the risk/reward element involved in choosing your killstreaks adds a clever tactical element to the game. You want a nuke that wins the game instantly? Fine, but you're going to have to sacrifice a killstreak slot that could be used for something else and hope you manage to get a 25 killstreak which almost certainly isn't going to happen. The power of the high level killstreaks is weighed against the relatively easy attainability of the low level ones, so explain to me how this feature (which EVERYONE has, by the way) fucks the balancing? Seems to me to be the epitome of balance.

I already conceded the lobby system wasn't great, so I have nothing more to add on that. I can accept CoD isn't the best game ever, although it certainly is great, but what I can't accept are idiot trolls like you who seem to have not even played the game and are building flatly invalid "arguments". (If ever a word deserved snarky quotation marks around it, it's the word "argument" when used in relation to your posts.)

I can actually see your response right now. It's probably the same as every single post you've made on this thread, just your usual trolling and childish insults with no actual argument involved. "The MP is unbalanced cos I say so! The game is bad! I'm not going to actually try and support my argument but I'll sure insult you till you buy it!" If you're not going to come up with an actual argument don't bother replying to this post, you'll only make yourself seem even more trollish and stupid.

 

[suhlEap]

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.

Wow, please be more vague.
I'm foolish because it's good in your opinion - either explain how its a good game, or go away and stop following reviews as you obviously don't have the capacity to make your own decision about a game.

well ok if you're gonna be a dick about it i'll explain.
i enjoyed the campaign, the story evolved from the first game and continued it in an interesting way. i was pleasantly surprised by some of the characters which cropped up again for a start and thought the campaign culminated in a pretty exciting way, despite being a bit too short. however...

the length of the main campaign was rectified by the addition of spec ops mode which was a very good way for the game to go. it gave an oppurtunity to play the game differently and tactically which i felt wad a good decision and the inclusion of co-op play was a stroke of genius in my opinion. it gave a challenge which the campaign couldn't provide while also providing a different way of playing with friends which brings me to...

the multiplayer, which is just as good as the first game (if not better) and though i don't really play online very much, i made an effort just because i enjoyed this game a lot.

happy now? or are you going to keep accusing me of not having my own opinion?

 

[Kinghoza]

Lies.

 

[Zhandarr]

The PSM gave it a 10. Which it deserved. Not on the same level as LittleBigPlanet or Uncharted, but still a great game. And the online'll keep us entertained for years - I was still playing cod4 for a few years.