MW 2 : Just a bad game ?

[Jimbo1212]

I think MW2 is fantastic. It did a nice job of balancing the feel of the old game, while keeping things fresh with new features and gameplay mechanics.

Like Yahtzee said in his review, I think that the story drifted from the realism of the first one. Nevertheless, it was exciting, fast-paced, and the plot twists were great. However, I think the high points of the story also hurt MW2. It seemed that IW tried so hard to capture the excitement of the first MW, and ended up tripping over their own feet. They tried so hard to capture the same drama, that the story came across as confusing and convoluted. It took a second glance to understand what happened after I finished the story mode. I don't have any lengths about complaints about length, but I suppose that's because I have a life. And if you're an anti-socialite who thinks you'd have no use for the game once you finished story, the spec-ops mode ensures that you have something else to do.

As for the multiplayer, I think that the OP mostly griped about coincidental issues. Server time-outs and migrating hosts are both occasional problems at best. And host migration only happens when a host leaves a game. And the host is always the person in the lobby with the best connection, so server time-outs are rare. As for the lobby system, I think the system couldn't have been any better. If the map could be chosen, it would lead to bickering, repeats, and even more players leaving. The vote-to-skip option keeps things fair by giving players a chance to do something about a map they don't like.

Killstreaks: if they really piss you off that bad, do something about it. Equip "Cold-blooded" and shoot the fucking thing down. IW set up the multiplayer with a system of checks and balances. If killstreaks bother you, you can take them out. Camping enemies can be taken care of with riot shields. Riot shields can be dispatched with semtex. IW beautifully shaped the multiplayer into a massive game of rock-paper-scissors. And how do you expect to get peripheral vison out of a fucking television? Seriously, use your damn brain. Peripheral vison can only exists in living creatures and fish-eye lenses.

Finally, if you think MW2 has average graphics, bad voice quality, too-small games, and generic gameplay elements, you are truly wrong. Pardon my French, but the OP can fuck off. The only reason any sane human being could call MW2 a bad game is if they had impossibly high expectations.

Well your post clearly shows that the amount of mutliplayer games you have played is exceeding limited.
''IW beautifully shaped the multiplayer into a massive game of rock-paper-scissors''
So even you admit then that if you are equipped to take out one enemy, another will destroy you as 'your paper, and they are scissors'. Thanks for proving my point on horrific balancing issues, as skill will get you so far, then unless you have the perks, your stuffed. Truly the definition of fun, oh wait...
Also no one has ever explained how you are meant to take out numerous kill streak air support when either the enemy has a number of planes, or the opposing team are not stupid and they shoot everyone point blank when they are looking straight into the air and can not see the enemy coming. Or are you just playing against idiots?
Now to point out the lobby system.
' think the system couldn't have been any better' What the hell! So a system in which you can not even choose the map you play on is great? That is just lying.

To say your comment about peripheral vision was just plain stupid. Heard of rendering more on a screen and increasing resolution, or even better - pulling the players vision back a meter. Retard.

Im guessing with everyone talking about not experiencing host migration, the vast majority of you are PC or 360 players, as this will happen on the PS3 a number of times per hour.

 

[Jimbo1212]

Btw here's a little video I found that shows MW 2 online has much more in common with Quake online then any type of vaguely realistic military fps such as GRAW etc.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HU6DPFDeUhU

So how is this mutliplayer like the campaign?
Seems to me like 2 different games....

 

[Carlston]

Controversy didn't help this game. Controversy is like America's funniest home videos. It's intresting when it pops around from being spontanious and a unknown outcome of just what the games was intended to be.

When forced... you can tell... and it's no longer intresting.

I was a great expansion pack, multi player missions are ok....but...

All games, good games, no matter what that use multiplayer to keep them going end up in a crapper. First they make a good game, then they learn they can just make multiplayer for the sequal and the zombies flock to it. Then they totally ditch single player to appease the reatards who whine about camping, and their idea of tactics is running around someone with a shotgun pointed at the enemys toes and hope they get the kill.

Why Rainbow 6 series died, no one has a tactical mind or can think past, shotgun, charge aim at feet, cry about campers....in a tactical shooter game.

I found MW good, 2 is ummmm yeah....it's ok. The real fun is the night vision goggles if you got um.

 

[MetallicaRulez0]

With me saying MW2 is very similar to MW1, you say "so what?". You flat out ignore the main point that a new game is VERY similar to a two year old game.

Well yeah... maybe because it's a SEQUEL to the game it is so similar to? How many other games are VERY similar to their prior incarnations? The entire Halo series, Uncharted 2, Assassin's Creed 2, Left 4 Dead 2, the Pokemon gameboy series, pretty much every sequel out there is at least 75% similar to it's previous entry. To fault this game this much for being too similar to one of the best games of all time is pretty retarded if you ask me.

I honestly don't know why you started this thread, or why I and so many other people continue arguing with you. It's plainly obvious that you aren't going to see it our way or even admit you were anything but 100% correct in all of your 'critique'. At this point I'm pretty sure you're just trolling, but whatever.

 

[28_06_42_12]

the SMGs being shit

Let me introduce you to my friend, Call of Duty 5. She has an SMG that can kill in two body shots, or one headshot. It's called the MP40. Additionally, she has an SMG that fires at 1,250 RPM in multiplayer. It's called the PPSH-41.

Have fun.

 

[Adeptus_Astartes]

Well I liked it. Yeah the campaign was short, and I'm not getting much fun out of the multiplayer because my internet is screwed up. But overall I enjoyed it. It doesnt go in the direction of the first in terms of realism, but overall I enjoyed it. Story was good( if short) Gameplay was good, I didnt notice any issues, and the multiplayer works good.

I think it deserves close to what it got from critics.

 

[PROXYCB]

The Campaign is very short, the spec ops thing is a waste of time and the online multiplayer has too many flaws to count such as matching noobs with pros, there should be some kind of 'new players only' lobby.

Still i got the game and i will keep playing the game because i find it enjoyable, so regardless of what anyone else thinks if you like it play it if not don't.

 

[Flying-Emu]

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.

Single-player gameplay, and you nailed it.

 

[Crazedtraceur]

Honestly, I love it. People keep saying "the storyline wasn't realistic!". My response is a loud WHO GIVES TWO SHITS! You don't go see an action movie and come out saying "You know... that part where the main character got shot twice and lived wasn't realistic. That movie sucked".

 

[Evil Tim]

1.Lack of imagination
2.Bribes (Seriously, want to know where all that marketing money went?)

Never assign to malice what can be explained by simple cowardice. Or, a more extended explanation of review scores:

http://www.escapistmagazine.com/forums/read/9.155663#3805721

Bottom line, videogame review publications are set up in the worst possible way.

 

[assassinat3r]

Ok MW2, A game we all seen coming guess what it would be and it was, a game who's story line is something like a bad conspiracy book and is half as long. Now I have played the online and let me just get this out of the way I played 4 and this and mainly the only reason i got these games is because for some reason killing people is fun anyway that's not the point, the point is the online is okay but in no way shape or form would I give this a 9, maybe a 7 on a good day. The hype and large fan bases are my believe on what happens to critics.

 

[Nick31091]

Hi guys, new user here and I just noticed this thread and also have played MW2 on PC.

Modern Warfare 2 to me just seemed unfinished, like they just ran out of time with everything they were putting into multiplayer and finally just made a port of the console version so that PC multiplayer would at least function at any rate, but I agree that it's still screwed up. It just doesn't have the staying power of CoD4. Though frankly, instead of patching in dedicated servers and all that to MW2 I'd rather infinity ward spent the time making sure MW3 is the diamond-encrusted wonder we were promised.

Probably some or all of this has already been said by someone or another but... just my two cents.

 

[MiracleOfSound]

the SMGs being shit

Let me introduce you to my friend, Call of Duty 5. She has an SMG that can kill in two body shots, or one headshot. It's called the MP40. Additionally, she has an SMG that fires at 1,250 RPM in multiplayer. It's called the PPSH-41.

Have fun.

That's strange, I think I know your friend.

Small world.

 

[Shintsu2]

cut

+1,000,000,000

I played through MW 2, thought the campaign was decent albeit annoying - but I agree exactly with Yahtzee. You get killed from every direction without even having a chance to look. The multiplayer is indeed the "meat" of this game and it was so lacking to me. I played the solo on hardened, then went online. Oh man, the powerups are stupid - they make the game so arcadey and ridiculous. CoD 4 had decent ones, but now they're just insane and I'm determined there's a "Instant Kill Perk" you get at prestige level or something. If you watch the spectator cam of someone who's a prestige or has an insane K/D ratio you can see they're like a robot. And it's as if they mechanically are able to perceive where people are all the time. One guy just blindly throws a nade, cooked just right into a doorway and deflects off the wall - boom, two guys. How in the!? He had no sonar, no UAV (game just started). It's just so weak, and so many people with no life have already played this game so long to know the ins and outs to make it a "fanboys only" game. I enjoy CoD 4 and will still play it, but MW 2 was a piece of crap IMO.

The matchmaking is truly terrible. First off, anyone with some sense will avoid clans in this game like the plague. For whatever reason, clan people are almost like clairvoiants - they sense and see what the other sees and can react as a cohesive unit. No one else in game plays well with anyone so the clan people are like robotic terminators or something - not even fun to play in the same room. Constantly you'll search for a match and then get a room, decent map - some idiot says "BACK OUT, BACK OUT!" and then half the lobby leaves and now you join another lobby with a different map. Stupid design!! Sometimes you join during a pre-match countdown but other times you're thrown in mid-combat, but it makes you think you're going to be in the pre-match lobby first and does not allow you to pick what kind of room you join. Sometimes you join the game just in time to get killed five times, no kills yourself then match over - it's just really lame. And almost always you get thrown on the losing team.

So many times I'll be in a game and we start to lose - half the team quits and now it's 2 or 3 vs 9. Seems like forever before more players are put in - at one point everyone quit on my team but me so it was 1 vs 9...yeah I quit too. The people online have no life, they play this game like their life depends on it. I have racked up 12 hours online play total and I was a level 21 or 22. I was way lower level than anyone else and I played it online about four days after it came out...good lord, that is fanboyism right there. It ruins any game if you ask me.

Perks online overpowered, the guns are unbalanced and the attachments don't help. I had a MG shooting a guy who had his back turned - hit him at least 10 times because I heard the hit sounds and saw the indicator and he didn't die, he turns around while I'm still hitting him and shoots me with an SMG (UMP 45) blam blam blam I'm dead. How did he not die!? And how did I die from that!? Tons of stuff like that throughout this game. The online is not fun at all. People camp and hide in annoying spots that are impossible to see and use their lame little perks to sniff you out. If you try to run gung ho you'll get knifed and blasted to bits, if you try to carefully sneak around you'll be spotted and sniped, try to hide and camp like the other idiots and they'll see you through the wall somehow and kill you - or someone will run in and kill you first SOMEHOW even if you're already aiming down sight at the door they come through - it's just stupid. The game tries to be so realistic in some ways but then craps on the idea online. It feels like it wants to be fast paced like Ut 2k4 (which I like btw) but the controls and everything are not setup properly. Why was it necessary to screw things up from CoD 4 in this game? It was almost there but they ruined it IMO.

Just look at review sites, they're creaming their pants like fanboys. No one dares write a negative review...I mean it's the most pre-ordered game ever so if they said "It's decent, but we've seen better" then fanboys would outcast their review site in large numbers. The score from users on Gamefly and some other places were still in the 9.0+ range on a 10 point scale. Uh uh, this game is not a 9.0. At best I would give this game a 7.5 and I'm being really generous. The online just took me over the edge though with how crappy it is - I even replayed the game on veteran to try and get better and I played the whole game through (I NEVER beat a game on hardest difficulty EVER!) and I still couldn't do the online, it's just ridiculous. How is sixth sense AI easier than people? Everyone knows the AI can almost sense your presence anywhere, yet human players are somehow even better. This has to be the most overhyped game ever produced though, take all the Halo games hype and multiply it by 5 and you have the hype level of MW 2. I'm not a fan of the Halo series but good lord I occasionally ENJOY playing Halo - 9 times out of 10 MW 2 just irritated me and I turned my console off. I won't lie, I probably don't like Halo as much because I'm just not the best at it - MW 2 I can play really well, it's just the game requires some ungodly skill level to cope with the outrageous gameplay mechanics.

But brainwashed masses will say it's good because IW made it and they can do no wrong...I only rented MW 2 thankfully and I already returned it. I'll keep playing CoD 4 - now that is good fun. Good server setup - no host mitigation and lag like MW 2 is full of, large number of players, good gameplay mechanics that require more skill than lack of life to devote to unlocking all the ridiculous perks.

MW2 is like the new Halo 3. Extremely hyped, everyone bought it, and now everyone hates it because it isn't the best game in the history of ever. I mean, I'm sure people don't like it because they simply don't like it, but there are also two other groups of people. Those who don't like it because the game didn't live up to their astronomically high expectations, and those who don't like it because its popular.

I never buy into game hype. I was going to play it when it came out because I liked CoD 4 but honestly, I didn't follow anything about the game pre-release. I put it in my game rental Q and just waited for it to come out - hoping it'd be as fun as CoD 4. I will say I'm amplified in my opinion due to the overhyped nature of the game - but if it was a genuinely good game and also popular I'd have no problem with it. Sadly, the popular games are almost never as good as everyone makes them out to be (And in reality, people tend to make things that are overrated immensely popular - no one can ever like things all equally, it has to be the bestest evar!). Some people are easily pleased and eat hype - but I can safely say there is only one game in my life I have bought into hype on and have been doubly satisfied with: Half Life 2. Loved the first, the second brought more of the great gameplay (And after a long wait too). That's honestly all I expect from a sequel - minor tweaks but more of the same basic good gameplay. Why change something drastically if the previous one worked out SO well?

 

[W00tbeer1]

MW2 is possibly the worst game in the series. In fact, it is. It is an absolute piece of garbage that I regret buying.

Let's go over each individual piece of the game, explaining the positives and negatives of each:

CAMPAIGN: You can describe the whole MW2 campaign in one concise word - 'short'. A Call of Duty campaign shouldn't take 2 hours to beat on Veteran difficulty! World at War took me probably days to beat with the constant bombardments of grenades, but at least it was satisfying! I have no incentive to play it again. There is zero characterization of the people in the game. Remember Call of Duty: Big Red One? Remember Brooklyn? Remember what happened to him? That was the saddest moment in video game history for me. There is no moment in which you are tied to your teammate.

SPEC OPS: Spec Ops is a great addition to the game, don't get me wrong. But answer me this - what happens when you beat every one on veteran? What do you do? Nothing. You're done. There may be like 4-5 released in a map pack, but that doesn't add up to the amount of time you would spend on a Nazi Zombies map, finding secrets, beating your high scores and getting those achievements with friends while mauling hordes of zombies.

MULTIPLAYER: This is the worst part of the game. They put ZERO work onto this online component in the game. Let's get the most obvious parts over with first.

The Spawning System - An absolute disaster. In none of the other CoD games have I been knifed from behind after spawning within .2 seconds. Why would they spawn me next to an enemy? Because IW proposed that they would fix the spawning in the game, but they messed something up and then just decided to leave it the way it was. It's always fun being on a high kill streak, getting killed, and the kill cam showing your teammate killing the guy, spawning, and then knifing you within a second.

Guns - Overpowered. The guns in this game take absolutely no aim to use. Your reticule could be an inch away from an enemy, then you just go down the sights and you're directly on the enemy's head. That takes skill. FAMAS = One Burst. One gun I would like to discuss are the Model 1887 Shotguns. I honestly have no clue why they are placed under the shotguns side-arm section when they should be placed under "Sniper Rifles". Have you seen the range on these beasts? They can kill you across the map without any aim! It just shows how the game caters to the new players, making the game EXTREMELY easy to play. My Kill/Death Ratio in the other CoD games is average; 1.51 in WaW and 1.56 in 4. In this game it's 2.33. I'm not even that good at Call of Duty games. It's just cheap and unfair.

Kill Streaks - Cheap. The new kill streaks added to this game are very creative. The ability of sitting inside a chopper or AC130 gunning others down sounds like a fun, innovative idea. NO. I was terribly wrong. Inside the "Chopper Gunner" killstreak you don't have to have any skill at all to get 30 kills in the 1 minute time you have in this beast. You could shoot the floor a mile away from where the enemy is standing and hit them. It also clearly indicates where your enemies are. It takes about a quarter of a second to kill somebody with these guns. Then the spawning effect comes into play. Since everybody spawns next to each other, the chopper gunner can just shoot in one spot and the people keep spawning there because people are there but people keep dieing by the chopper gunner but you keep spawning and once you spawn you die you spawn you die you spawn you die. IS THAT FAIR?

Matchmaking - I don't even want to go into how terrible the matchmaking is. The highest time I've spent sitting in one lobby without backing out is about 25 minutes. I wanted to see how long it would actually take to start the game. When you're in a game and it's like a 2 on 6, you don't get matched up with other players. It could possibly take a year for others to join the game.

I could add onto this post and make it into a 50 page novel, but I'm tired of typing honestly. Let me finish it off with one point:

The reason the game got such high reviews is because that the people that reviewed the game were scared to feel the wrath of the large CoD Fan Base. It would ruin their site popularity and why would they take that risk? Just give a 9.5 to keep the fans happy. I am forced into playing this game, and it's really sad how nobody realizes how bad this piece of shit really is.

/end rant

^^ My Novel 09'

 

[kemosabi4]

I think MW2 is fantastic. It did a nice job of balancing the feel of the old game, while keeping things fresh with new features and gameplay mechanics.

Like Yahtzee said in his review, I think that the story drifted from the realism of the first one. Nevertheless, it was exciting, fast-paced, and the plot twists were great. However, I think the high points of the story also hurt MW2. It seemed that IW tried so hard to capture the excitement of the first MW, and ended up tripping over their own feet. They tried so hard to capture the same drama, that the story came across as confusing and convoluted. It took a second glance to understand what happened after I finished the story mode. I don't have any lengths about complaints about length, but I suppose that's because I have a life. And if you're an anti-socialite who thinks you'd have no use for the game once you finished story, the spec-ops mode ensures that you have something else to do.

As for the multiplayer, I think that the OP mostly griped about coincidental issues. Server time-outs and migrating hosts are both occasional problems at best. And host migration only happens when a host leaves a game. And the host is always the person in the lobby with the best connection, so server time-outs are rare. As for the lobby system, I think the system couldn't have been any better. If the map could be chosen, it would lead to bickering, repeats, and even more players leaving. The vote-to-skip option keeps things fair by giving players a chance to do something about a map they don't like.

Killstreaks: if they really piss you off that bad, do something about it. Equip "Cold-blooded" and shoot the fucking thing down. IW set up the multiplayer with a system of checks and balances. If killstreaks bother you, you can take them out. Camping enemies can be taken care of with riot shields. Riot shields can be dispatched with semtex. IW beautifully shaped the multiplayer into a massive game of rock-paper-scissors. And how do you expect to get peripheral vison out of a fucking television? Seriously, use your damn brain. Peripheral vison can only exists in living creatures and fish-eye lenses.

Finally, if you think MW2 has average graphics, bad voice quality, too-small games, and generic gameplay elements, you are truly wrong. Pardon my French, but the OP can fuck off. The only reason any sane human being could call MW2 a bad game is if they had impossibly high expectations.

Well your post clearly shows that the amount of mutliplayer games you have played is exceeding limited.
''IW beautifully shaped the multiplayer into a massive game of rock-paper-scissors''
So even you admit then that if you are equipped to take out one enemy, another will destroy you as 'your paper, and they are scissors'. Thanks for proving my point on horrific balancing issues, as skill will get you so far, then unless you have the perks, your stuffed. Truly the definition of fun, oh wait...
Also no one has ever explained how you are meant to take out numerous kill streak air support when either the enemy has a number of planes, or the opposing team are not stupid and they shoot everyone point blank when they are looking straight into the air and can not see the enemy coming. Or are you just playing against idiots?
Now to point out the lobby system.
' think the system couldn't have been any better' What the hell! So a system in which you can not even choose the map you play on is great? That is just lying.

To say your comment about peripheral vision was just plain stupid. Heard of rendering more on a screen and increasing resolution, or even better - pulling the players vision back a meter. Retard.

Im guessing with everyone talking about not experiencing host migration, the vast majority of you are PC or 360 players, as this will happen on the PS3 a number of times per hour.

I hate arguing on forums. All people do is reduce your arguments to the base instincts and turn it on you.

My point in the rock-paper-scissors analogy was that, no matter what the situation, there was always a tool to get the job done. I'm not saying defeat is inevitable. There's this thing called skill. Do you think that a player will kill a riot shield class just because he has semtex? No. The point of a n action game is using skill to overcome the enemy. If the other team was predictable, it would be a strategy game. As for your killstreak situation, you could either suck it up, or equip Cold-Blooded and shoot from behind your lines. And how do you think choosing the map would go when you have 12 people all arguing for different things? Randomly choosing the map ensures that players don't waste time arguing. And, like I said before, the vote-to-skip feature ensures that if you really have a major problem with a map, you can try to rally a vote to skip the map. Maybe you think you're entitled to getting your way in life, but the lobby system is the only fair way to do it. And finally, how do you think moving the view back a meter would fix anything? moving the view back a meter on screen would be the equivalent of backing up a meter. Everything would be exactly the same. And you should probably research the meaning behind 'rendering more on screen'.

 

[quellan_thyde]

Remember the ancient wisdom: It's not bad, it's not good, it's just the same.

 

[The_ModeRazor]

The camapign was just as incoherent as it can get.
Like Michael Bay directed it.
After Modern Warfare, it was an incredible disappointment.