MW 2 : Just a bad game ?

[Bretty]

Only one thing I need to say...

Bad Company 2 Beta... Look it up!

And MW2 campaign was crap, I dont like the whole Dedicated Server thing so I dont play MP.

Waste of $60.

 

[Swaki]

i agree, i tried it at a gameing café, the multiplayer suffers greatly, but im not really into CoDs multiplayer, heck i played world at war's multiplayer for 5 hours in all, but i love CoDs story campaigns to death, and even though they have a habit of being short, this one takes the price.

 

[yourbeliefs]

I've been VERY critical of the recent CoD games, especially of MW2. I'm also one who primarily goes for the SP experience and found it to be almost insultingly short and the story to be so far-fetched and outlandish that I couldn't really enjoy it or take it seriously. I also found the MP to be VERY noob unfriendly and rather cheap with its reward system.

Having said all that, I wouldn't classify MW2 as a BAD game, but an incredibly underwhelming game. Honestly, it could have just been sold as an expansion pack to MW1, because that's all that it feels like it is. Whereas MW1 was a legitimately groundbreaking game, MW2 is just the same formula with a few tweaks, and many of those tweaks involved removal of things that people didn't want to be removed (dedicated servers, Steamworks based, party chat, a compelling story, etc etc.)

 

[GuerrillaClock]

Wow you managed to completely ignore the main complaints of the game for subjective reasoning, and then have the audacity to call me stupid and a troll. Get yourself a mirror.
I have not played enough MW2 to comment on Lvl 1 vs 50, but have played enough CoD5 to tell you that if you think level difference doesn't make a difference, you are simply lying, as around the lvl 37 mark, the better guns became available meaning that it was hard as nails to compete with people who simply had guns with better scopes, more power & less recoil. I'm criticising the game for having a ridiculous RPG element to it which makes it unbalanced. Don't try to pathetically warp that into "I suck at FPS", because I really don't.
Your idea of rewarding the players doing well is flawed from the start. The main aim of a game is to win it, so to reward the people doing well halfway through the game is not just self-defeating, but also a mechanic that in effect unbalances the game. How can your really justify an effective MP mechanic to give the leaders an extra lead?? Where's the challenge in that?
Balance is if you are good at a game, you win, not if you are winning, you don't just win, but capture a lead so far ahead that the opponent is screwed. I have done this many a time using the attack dogs in CoD5 as they help to create a vicious cycle of power ups.
Plus, what in the hell is balancing about spawning and the getting bombed 2 seconds later?
I never mentioned camping and wasn't going to...Congratulations for ranting about nothing.
Don't worry though, I think I was expecting too much to think that kids wanted something more than a buggy MP system that's two years old and priced at £35.
Seriously though, if you cannot see how MW2 isn't a great game, mainly as it's pretty much a carbon copy of a 2 year old game with it's faults intact, then wow.....

Wow, I can't believe you just repeated yourself again but this time with an added attempt at putting words in my mouth with the whole "you just suck" thing. Maybe I just gave you too much credit.

Look, I've already explained why you are wrong about the balancing. I'm not going to wear my keys out on a tedious circular argument with you. You have said all this before. The killstreak system is not just in effect for a winning team. If you are on the losing team you can still gain killstreaks and claw back the game! If you don't like the system, fine, but don't be so pretentious as to claim the game is inherently flawed because of it, and that everyone who bought it, played it and enjoyed it is a gullible fool. We should not all think it is a bad game just because you mindlessly troll everyone who says it is (which is all you've been doing, you've given no quantifiable factors as to why the game sucks, only a couple of minor flaws that you had with lag and server issues), so bring your ego down a size or two, come up with a reasonable argument and maybe people wouldn't be so hostile.

 

[wgreer25]

Well saying a game is too short is not criticism, since its only too short if you want to play more of it, which means the game accomplished its goal. Secondly saying that its a bad game just means you don't like it, not that it really is a bad game, like i don't like Mass Effect put people worship it and pray to BioWare. Secondly anyone that says the multiplayer has overpowered upgrades is someone that is not very good at multiplayer and complains because he/she cant compete, which is not the developers fault. Overall i think MW 2 is an awesome game. Its what you expect, a great shooter with great graphics and mechanics, a great storyline that keeps you on the edge of your seat. Throughout the game you don't expect whats coming next and everything that does is more spectacular than you expect. The game fully deserves a 9.0+ score. A part of what makes it so great is that its not generic, its not like wolfenstein in the way that it adds nothing, it has a unique and strange story that binds well with the gameplay to make an awesome game. There's no other game in which you fight in a ruined, burning Washington in a huge war in our time. You didn't like it but it doesn't mean the game is not good.

I agree with you. And the sheer amount of "why do you like this game/console, it sucks?" threads are getting annoying. If you don't like it, don't play it, but it is your opinion so stop thinking that your opinion is fact.

Maybe it is an age thing. Maybe you young folk on the site are just a little too emotional and form pre-judgements too fast. Perhaps the wisdom you gain with maturity will help you be happier when amazing titles come out instead of just bitching about them.

What ever it is, I think I may have to leave this site as it seams every other post is a baseless slam of something popular for absolutely no reason.

 

[Ben7]

Despite the singleplayer being very linear and short, I found it fun, quick, tense, fast paced action. It would of been nice to have some more slow paced missions but hey you dont buy CoD for a singleplayer experience. Spec ops is alot of fun aswell.

I really do like the multiplayer but IW is so dissapointing, its a huge letdown from what PC users have been used to from the original CoD and games before hand. P2P is just ancient and a huge step back from Dedis.

I find the maps a good improvement and the customisation on offer is fun and creative.
Killstreaks are fun and theres a lot of variety in the weapons and challenges.

Ofcourse there are imbalances, due to the lack of dedis the competitive community will not be big as it was in COD4. No mods such as Promod and the lag issues mean this ride is going to be short. This is a real shame, being a big fan of competition and clans it just feels dissapointing. MW2 could of been alot of better, its still a decent game, its probably a great game on the console but yeah...

IW net suffers from torrents of problems, its just frustrating. I find it funny that this was supposed to be easier for casual players to get into, and yet you need to configure your router/NAT, I bet the majority of casual gamers dont know how to do that ( I dont even know!), when it would only take what 10 seconds to refresh the browser in Cod4? another 10 seconds to load and then bam your in. With this matchmaking system you choose from the limited selection of modes on offer, and then you wait for a good 5-10minutes of waiting, lobbies closing, no host migration, cant connect to host and a constant stream of people entering and leaving forcing a restart on the search, its just annoying.

The amount of hackers aswell is just absurd, and yet they cannot be kicked from the game becouse hey no admins....

IW have really backstabbed their original fanbase, there was no need to force IW net on us, why could they not tweak both the console and the PC version differently to suit both communities?

Im really considering just scrapping the PC version and attemt to fix up my console to get a better experience.


But hey BC2 beta in December There is always hope!

 

[MetallicaRulez0]

I have not played enough MW2 to comment on Lvl 1 vs 50, but have played enough CoD5 to tell you that if you think level difference doesn't make a difference, you are simply lying, as around the lvl 37 mark, the better guns became available meaning that it was hard as nails to compete with people who simply had guns with better scopes, more power & less recoil. I'm criticising the game for having a ridiculous RPG element to it which makes it unbalanced.

You just lost what (very) little credibility you had left. CoD5 was a game DOMINATED, and I mean dominated in every sense of the word, by a gun that you unlocked somewhere between level 10 and 13. That amounts to 2-3 hours of playtime until you unlock the MP40, the very definition of an imbalanced weapon. If you can't agree that the Dual Mag MP40 was far and away the best gun in World at War, then no one in this thread, forum, or community as a whole can ever take you seriously ever again.

By comparison, the best guns in MW2 in my opinion are the FAMAS, the UMP45, and the Intervention. All of those weapons are available from level 4, when you unlock Create a Class. The best perks in MW2 in my opinion are Sleight of Hand, Scavenger, Stopping Power, Steady Aim, and Ninja. 3 out of the 5 are available from level 4, when you unlock Create a Class. Scavenger is unlocked at level 13, and Ninja at level 29, both easily attainable with a day or two playtime. Feel free to argue with this point, even though everyone who has played any amount of MW2 knows I'm correct.

 

[arc101]

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.

Don't generalise me

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.

Again, do not generalise me. And no, I wouldn't, because if I like a game, I like it. I will find faults with it, it's human. But is it 'NITPICKING'? No, I don't think so. Nitpicking is when you say that the colours of the smallest of badge on the most insignificant gun is wrong, that is nitpicking.
Stating massive faults with a game and saying them, no, that is not nitpicking.

 

[TheEnglishman]

Wow! I nearly bought this game over the weekend but decided for Arkham instead. Looks like I may have done the right thing.

 

[GuerrillaClock]

Jees, I'm just going to quote what I previously said to highlight the big f**king hole in your idea:
"Balance is if you are good at a game, you win, not if you are winning, you don't just win, but capture a lead so far ahead that the opponent is screwed. I have done this many a time using the attack dogs in CoD5 as they help to create a vicious cycle of power ups. "
Granted anyone can get the power up, but as soon as one person gets it, especially in free for all, it's game over as the person with a killing streak is most of the time either the top player or in the top three.
Plus you haven't mentioned the fact that some guns are simply better than others, meaning that if you are a low level, if you were put against a player of equal skill, but a higher level, they would almost always win just because they have a better gun. How is that balanced as the only way you can unlock weapons is through essentially grinding?
People are hostile because they don't like admitting their brand new diamond is nothing but a blob of glass. End of the day, the MP experience is either the same or downgraded from MW (depending on platform), a two year old game. You can't seriously be telling me that £35 for the same thing two years on is a good idea, or a good game at that, because by definition it's dated.

Still not seeing any holes in here, chief. Yes, CoD 5's attack dogs were overpowered somewhat, but MW2's powerups are less so, and the ones that are require an insane amount of kills to unlock, basically rendering them useless for much of the game; as I said, it's a risk/reward system that makes you assess your own skill level and think about how you orgainse your killstreaks. The only one that is really game-breaking is the tactical nuke, and that takes 25 kills to attain - needless to say, I haven't encountered one yet. If you're on the recieving end of one of those, you're going to lose anyway.

Yes, some guns are better than others, but that's barely an issue. When you die, it's almost never down to some guy having the same gun as you. The low amount of health you have means its whoever connects with the most shots rather than who has the better gun, 9 times out of 10. The only gun that gives you a significant advantage is the one that has a heartbeat sensor, and even then it's incredibly short range. Not only that, but the really experienced players soon find themselves in prestige mode - if that isn't balancing, I don't know what is.

Not only that, but the multiplayer is much more refined than CoD4's, which is why it's better. The formula was solid enough to not need any major new innovations, and the new host migration as well as the new killstreak and deathstreak system, game modes and superbly designed maps make it fun - mount that on a solid control system and you have a recipe for fun. The core system might well be 2 years old but that does not make it bad, and it still works well, on the whole.

And furthermore, you aren't paying for a £35 multiplayer game. As a complete package, MW2 offers great replayability and value for money, which is why it's gotten the reviews it has.

 

[Bob Saget]

I actually have quite a few friends that really hated CoD 4 (the multiplayer at least; they loved the singleplayer), but they find CoD: MewTwo really enjoyable. Their reasoning is, is that they took most of the cheap crap out, added a ton of new features and guns, and balanced things out. Personally, I've only played some Spec-Ops missions at a friend's house, so I really have no room to talk.