The game itself is alright, although it seems like everyone's bones are made of cardboard judging by how easily they die; it's definitely the people surrounding it that have given it such a bad rap, and rightfully so.
Link to said debate please? This sounds like a real interesting readLogicNProportion said:I believe Pimppeter2 and his review-buddy (who's name I can't remember) has a review/debate on this. Was very entertaining and very well though out.
I would say the game, though. I don't know if it's just me, but I almost never run into the dumb-asses most of you guys seem to. Do I hate snipers? Yes. Is there always a lot of snipers in a shooter? Yes. Do I sneak around and knife them all? HELL YES!
However: *Ahem*
NOOB-TUBING IS UNFORGIVABLE!
Should they make a non-war shooter?lacktheknack said:I hate it for what it is: YET ANOTHER war shooter.
More would be nice. Or better yet, how about a non-shooter?Genesis_Man said:Should they make a non-war shooter?lacktheknack said:I hate it for what it is: YET ANOTHER war shooter.
y'could argue that, say, painkiller isnt one, or ghostbusters.Genesis_Man said:Should they make a non-war shooter?lacktheknack said:I hate it for what it is: YET ANOTHER war shooter.
lacktheknack said:More would be nice. Or better yet, how about a non-shooter?Genesis_Man said:Should they make a non-war shooter?lacktheknack said:I hate it for what it is: YET ANOTHER war shooter.
I'm still waiting for the sequel that "Clone" promised me... or another "Gubble"... or another "Mirror's Edge"... thus, I am always disappointed.
True that. I forgot about those (i could argue painkiller is a war between Heaven/Hell or something like that) but i generally think of shooters and war. For the most part they go hand and hand, Shooters (generally) involves weapons to be fired at enemies, which generally cause people to die. Which is a big part of war.Blanko2 said:y'could argue that, say, painkiller isnt one, or ghostbusters.Genesis_Man said:Should they make a non-war shooter?lacktheknack said:I hate it for what it is: YET ANOTHER war shooter.
or super mario sunshine.
not all people, a good 8% aren't assholesTheTaco007 said:It's an extraordinarily flawed game, and it caters to the worst of the online community.
Therefore BECAUSE the game is bad, the people who play it are the biggest assholes in the world.
So really, it's both.
But it only takes 1 asshole to ruin an entire lobby.CombiBlood said:not all people, a good 8% aren't assholesTheTaco007 said:It's an extraordinarily flawed game, and it caters to the worst of the online community.
Therefore BECAUSE the game is bad, the people who play it are the biggest assholes in the world.
So really, it's both.
Have to disagree with TF 2. People who get more achievements unlock new weapons (a great way to discourage team play as if just people abandoning their team to get the achievements for their own sake wasn't enough), not to mention the more you play the more hats you gets, some of which bost stats.TPiddy said:The same complaint I had for MW 2 is the one I now have for NHL 11. The competitive multiplayer is horribly unbalanced. I don't know that much about MW 2's micro-transactions or other cash grabs outside of a few maps, but NHL 11 allows players to buy boosts that increase their performance. The performance is largely based on these numbers and those with extra money to plunk down can quickly come in and dominate, regardless of their actual skill level. There's also no match-making to pair you up against a similarly rated opponent, so quite often games turn into mismatches.
MW 2 is the same in the sense that it doesn't care about providing a balanced multiplayer experience. For some reason, its players are more tolerant of the broken game play, yet they love to complain about it, making the community just as bad as the game. At least Halo, TF 2 and others provide an environment where veterans are given the same options as relative newbs and skill is allowed to rule the day. Gears is mainly like this as well, though it suffers from host lag and a few cheap tactics.