What did Modern Warfare 2 do...
- Thread starter Zannah
- Start date
Recommended Videos
i have never had a problem with lag and i have basic time warner cable internet.. my main complaint is the unbalanced weapon combos, but other then that i didnt care about how ridiculous the story was... in any given game theres at least one person who knife runs, noob tubes, or takimbo shotguns but the majority of the players play fairly.. most of the people i know who dislike the game really suck at it that might have something to do with it.. its obviously not the best game ever but it doenst deserve all the flak it gets
As for the knifers, Right as they stab, jump towards the NON-KNIFE hand. For normal stabs, its the right hand, so move to his left or your right. Reverse for Tac-knifes. Second. Duck or go prone. Do it fast enough and the knife will miss if its a lunge.ArcWinter said:
NOTE: This doesn't work in when the enemy does a wide slash, only for a lunge. If there close enough to slash (Right next to you) WHY THE FUCK AREN'T YOU KNIFING THEM!
This is all based on my observations in multi-player. I'm a huge user of the Marathon/Lightweight/Commando with Tac-Knife set up.
-Because the campaign was a bunch of "Oh Shit" moments, with only the new 'breaching' concept going for it.
-Because its not balanced for lean.
-Because IW thought having no dedicated servers was a good idea
And I hear that the multiplayer is both unbalanced and 'arcadey'. I never bought it though, so I wouldn't know.
-Because its not balanced for lean.
-Because IW thought having no dedicated servers was a good idea
And I hear that the multiplayer is both unbalanced and 'arcadey'. I never bought it though, so I wouldn't know.
I don't hate it or even just dislike it, although I do hate Activision now for wanting to milk the franchise into nothing, that and some other reason.
The one thing specifically I don't like about MW is I'm not a big fan of modern army games, hell I still prefer WW2 shooters over this, and since modern army games are the fad now I'm kinda not looking forwards to all the clones that'll be coming out in the next 5-7 years....-_-
The one thing specifically I don't like about MW is I'm not a big fan of modern army games, hell I still prefer WW2 shooters over this, and since modern army games are the fad now I'm kinda not looking forwards to all the clones that'll be coming out in the next 5-7 years....-_-
Ah. I see. It appears that you embarked on a rant without every actually bothering to find out what "dedicated servers" are.OptimusPrime33 said:
I actually quite like it! I think a lot of the hate is aimed at the community, with good reason. Everyone who's played it will have had people with microphones who use them with the distinct purpose of putting on irritating voices, trying to be funny by insulting other players' mothers, or screaming 'OMG NOOB!' whenever/however you kill them. I now mute everyone in every playlist. Apologies if you're shouting relevant tactical information that I can no longer hear...
It wasn't awful, but it gets a lot of hate because, being so popular, it took up a lot of forum discussion for a long time. Because of this, people who didn't like the game or didn't care about it were had it shoved in their faces a lot and came to gradually resent its existence. Then other people who like to think of themselves as some kind of elite counter-culture but aren't really, jumped on the bandwagon.
That's my take on it, anyway.
That's my take on it, anyway.
Dedicated servers are a big BIG issue. First of all this is fascism. The game forces us to play on their servers and not by any means anywhere else with different rules. I experience lag every day and stupid exploiters/campers/noobtubers aren't punished. The greatest measure against hacking is having an admin on the server.
On CoD4 I was given the choice to which server i would game on,in what map, with how many players and by what rules and so on and so forth. This makes for a perfectly balanced game (as balanced as a CoD game can be), as the game rules enforced by the worldwide gaming community's preferences are far more effective and makes a much better game overall than a solid piece of broken gameplay (MW2)
On CoD4 I was given the choice to which server i would game on,in what map, with how many players and by what rules and so on and so forth. This makes for a perfectly balanced game (as balanced as a CoD game can be), as the game rules enforced by the worldwide gaming community's preferences are far more effective and makes a much better game overall than a solid piece of broken gameplay (MW2)
What pissed me off most, 20% price increase for PC version. And that was why I didn't buy it.Zannah said:
I rented it on PS3, and it was barely worth that, and that was a free rental. What I thought of the campaign:
Without going into how incredibly unrealistic it all was... The first half of the campaign jumped around WAY too much. The mission didn't connect at all really. Yes, I know that you play as different characters that were in different places, but unless you were playing as 6 different characters at the beginning, then just 2 later, it made no sense. Leaning. The campaign REALLY needed leaning, but no. The whole dying from nuke thing (CoD4) was cool, but it got old after they kept doing it over and over again. Plus, the thing ended the same exact way as the first, only a knife instead of a gun. But the most annoying part of the game; get shot once and your screen is full of blood and you can't see shit.
Multiplayer - didn't play because I like my PS3 in it's working condition...
You have to love this game, because Soap has a bad-ass mohawk and probably inspired a load of little kids to get the exact same haircut, which is hilarious.
I flit in and out of it. Not as crazy about it as I was the first one, but the same happened when Gears 2 came out. Still my second most played multiplayer game though.
Any problems I have with it could most likely be attributed to every other FPS, so I can't hold it against it personally.
I flit in and out of it. Not as crazy about it as I was the first one, but the same happened when Gears 2 came out. Still my second most played multiplayer game though.
Any problems I have with it could most likely be attributed to every other FPS, so I can't hold it against it personally.
Well, for me, the story was trite and too "Michael Bay-splosion" action movie-y.
As for multiplayer, I actually enjoy playing it. Except for the constant wall hackers that I encounter, the dropout in play every other round when the host RAEGQUITS!!!1, the constant lag because the host doesn't have a server-grade computer, not to mention the CONSTANT WALLHACKERS.
As for multiplayer, I actually enjoy playing it. Except for the constant wall hackers that I encounter, the dropout in play every other round when the host RAEGQUITS!!!1, the constant lag because the host doesn't have a server-grade computer, not to mention the CONSTANT WALLHACKERS.
I dislike it because the first one was a much better game, MW2 didnt bring much to the table that improved the game, most of it dragged it down into a clusterf*ck fragfest.
The singleplayer wasnt that special either, it was just recycled shock events from the first game stringed together by a barely coherent plot.
Looked pretty though...
The singleplayer wasnt that special either, it was just recycled shock events from the first game stringed together by a barely coherent plot.
Looked pretty though...
it annoyed me because it was insanely overhyped. I played through the single player campaign on veteran and most of the spec ops on veteran and enjoyed myself but that was in the two days that i had after borrowing it and unless it's like $10 in a bargain bin i'll probably never play it again
basically it annoys me when people hero worship a game that is pretty good, but not all that great
basically it annoys me when people hero worship a game that is pretty good, but not all that great