What did Modern Warfare 2 do...

[Xanadu84]

First off, I disagree with one thing: it is a better game then the original Modern Warfare. It took the original, and polished it, while adding on a good deal of new ideas. Particularly the multi player. In reality, the new multiplayer isn't unbalances, so much as certain strategies, equally available to both sides, can be GREATLY capitalized upon to deadly effect.

While hate is too strong a word, I do reserve a good deal of ire for IW. On the PC end, they raised the price while simultaneously removing features, dedicated servers being the most obvious. ANd its not like it would have taken a lot of effort to include these very basic features. The game is certainly still playable, but there's a reason things like dedicated servers are standard for PC games. Without them, there is no way to police for cheaters, griefers, or other problems, as well as making a in game community harder to make cohesive. You can't apply the same framework to both consoles and PCs, and even if PCs are not the largest share of the market, the money they give IW is not a small quantity. It would be better if IW screwed up in regards to gameplay mechanics. A bad mechanic will fall by the wayside, but a precedent in how a game is supported threatens to make many PC games to come much less accessible. Basically, I'm not breaking out the long knives, but IW screwed up, and deserves a little flak from its jilted consumers. Particularly those who gave them a chance, ponied up the cash, tried the game on faith, and never saw IW fix there mistakes once it became clear that they were mistakes.

 

[major28]

here is why cod and any games of its genre need to be destroyed first of all a nine hour story line is absolutely unacceptable 2nd of all a game thats only selling point is online gameplay is retarded

 

[omega 616]

The only thing I didn't like about the single player is, it's like watching two films at once ... back and forth constantly, about half way through I gave up trying to understand it and kept to the shooty bits.

The multi player is a bit rage inducing, my particular hate is the knifer class, For those of you who haven't played it:

Marathon - lets you run non stop.
Lightweight - move faster
Commando - 6ft lunge attack, which you can't shoot the user during the lunge.
Any hand gun with a tac knife - tac knife speeds up the attack.

They run around till they find you and stab you, there really hard to shoot in time.

It sounds like a really easy thing to counter but trust me it's not, since most of the maps are tight and confined they have the advantage over an assault rifle, even a shotgun.

Good example at 1:40 ish

 

[Caligulove]

people will always ***** about the small things to make them into giant "this game is bollocks" or "this game sucks" statements.

I admit the single player is pretty stupid in essence. The execution was good though! But I just got tired of it... I think its people getting annoyed from something after playing it FAR TOO long.

 

[Hayate_GT]

i quite liked the story...was a bit hard tho...havent had a chance to try the multiplayer tho...but i have no real problems with the game...

 

[TelHybrid]

5 Hour single player campaign (unacceptable for the £45 price tag it had, and especially unacceptable for the £55 price tag Infinity Ward wanted retailers to sell it for)

Hacked to bits online (just because you're an exeption doesn't change that)

Poorly programmed peer to peer, which leads to random hosting, which means the player with the worst connection in the match can end up as the host, which makes it unplayable due to horrible lag

12 year olds with microphones online (no elaboration needed)

anything else needed?

 

[Daedalus1942]

...to deserve all the hatred it gets?

Sure we can all agree, it didn't reach the extremely high standards of it's predecessor. But while not being as good as cod4, it was by no means a bad game.
The story was questionable, but you only realize that halfway through, since the way the story is told, both atmosphere and pacing are exellent.
In about five days or so, playing online, I have encountered as much as one hacker, and no litches at all (or they where too small for me to realize) - and aside from massive waves of crying, I couldn't find any game-breaking balance issues. Sure it has no dedicated servers, but that only concerns Pc-gamers, and I had problems connecting like three or four times... (and not having an admin, that can come up with any whatsoever stupid rules can be a plus). Besides, it took me some time going back, playing cod 4, to realize the massive improvements, certain parts of the multiplayer have undergone.

So why is everyone bashing on Mw2?
Because it's not as good as the previous mw?
Because it has no dedicated servers?
Because it's popular? (which would be my personal assumption, but isn't condemming something because it's popular just as stupid as doing something cause its popular?)

So please share your thoughts, where does all the alsmost haloesque hatred for Mw2 come from?

I didn't hate it, I just feel it didn't change enough to warrant the $100 pricetag.
Multiplayer is pretty much identical except for the maps, Spec Ops, and the removal or Martyrdom and Juggernaut as normal perks.

 

[Hirushia]

It IS because it's popular. If people don't like the game for whatever reason, they talk about it ALL THE TIME, because they're different than the millions of people who like mw2. It gets attention.

 

[Daedalus1942]

5 Hour single player campaign (unacceptable for the £45 price tag it had, and especially unacceptable for the £55 price tag Infinity Ward wanted retailers to sell it for)

Hacked to bits online (just because you're an exeption doesn't change that)

Poorly programmed peer to peer, which leads to random hosting, which means the player with the worst connection in the match can end up as the host, which makes it unplayable due to horrible lag

12 year olds with microphones online (no elaboration needed)

anything else needed?

Not to mention that with the random hosting, as soon as the main host leaves, the game stops for like 5 minutes and then resumes when it finds a suitable host (I always get kicked from the match when this happens). But regardless, it really breaks the flow and feel of the match.
I play on the ps3 version, btw. It might be different for 360 and pc, though I doubt it.

 

[FaithorFire]

As someone who enjoyed the game (except multiplayer), I think it has to do with people railing against a game being treated like the pinnacle of gaming technology when it is really only a slight bar-raising game. It is better than most: in terms of pacing, game-play, graphics, and set pieces, but MW2 has its obvious flaws. When fans of the game talk breathlessly about it (in my experience, its often with a"Chris Matthews-getting-hard-for-Barack Obama" level of passion), it creates a parallel populace of gamers harboring only hatred for the game.

 

[shotgunbob]

off-balance, poor AI in campaign, plain levels in campaign, generic shooter campaign, half the guns weren't even "modern" (M16, Thumper, AK-47), etc.

I'm pretty sure BFBC2 is more deserving of the title "Modern Warfare".

Considering the M16 and AK47 are both being used today it still makes them modern

and the AK47 is the most widely used gun in the world

 

[onioftheash]

i think the problem here is the players ruin the game with their hacks, mods, lag switches, and just taking advantage of in game exploits. Since there are so many players in modern warfare there are more hackers, which is why there are a lot of complaints.

 

[onioftheash]

...to deserve all the hatred it gets?

Sure we can all agree, it didn't reach the extremely high standards of it's predecessor. But while not being as good as cod4, it was by no means a bad game.
The story was questionable, but you only realize that halfway through, since the way the story is told, both atmosphere and pacing are exellent.
In about five days or so, playing online, I have encountered as much as one hacker, and no litches at all (or they where too small for me to realize) - and aside from massive waves of crying, I couldn't find any game-breaking balance issues. Sure it has no dedicated servers, but that only concerns Pc-gamers, and I had problems connecting like three or four times... (and not having an admin, that can come up with any whatsoever stupid rules can be a plus). Besides, it took me some time going back, playing cod 4, to realize the massive improvements, certain parts of the multiplayer have undergone.

So why is everyone bashing on Mw2?
Because it's not as good as the previous mw?
Because it has no dedicated servers?
Because it's popular? (which would be my personal assumption, but isn't condemming something because it's popular just as stupid as doing something cause its popular?)

So please share your thoughts, where does all the alsmost haloesque hatred for Mw2 come from?

I didn't hate it, I just feel it didn't change enough to warrant the $100 pricetag.
Multiplayer is pretty much identical except for the maps, Spec Ops, and the removal or Martyrdom and Juggernaut as normal perks.

Right now everyone and their mum has juggernaut on were as before you had to give up perks like stopping power to get juggernaut ect.

 

[TelHybrid]

5 Hour single player campaign (unacceptable for the £45 price tag it had, and especially unacceptable for the £55 price tag Infinity Ward wanted retailers to sell it for)

Hacked to bits online (just because you're an exeption doesn't change that)

Poorly programmed peer to peer, which leads to random hosting, which means the player with the worst connection in the match can end up as the host, which makes it unplayable due to horrible lag

12 year olds with microphones online (no elaboration needed)

anything else needed?

Not to mention that with the random hosting, as soon as the main host leaves, the game stops for like 5 minutes and then resumes when it finds a suitable host (I always get kicked from the match when this happens). But regardless, it really breaks the flow and feel of the match.
I play on the ps3 version, btw. It might be different for 360 and pc, though I doubt it.

I played on the 360 version. I had exactly the same problems.

Thanks for emphasizing my point. =]

 

[MR T3D]

I have no qualms with popularity, but MW2 did serve to polarize me in terms of consoles and PC gaming.
I was excited for the game, then they declared that the PC's features are only 'graphics/control options and text chat'
that is why i hate them, they took out dedi servers (which gave me largely lag free matches of over 40players in previous instalments, which were 1/2 the reason i liked the game.)
and then it got attention-whory with no rushin and its SP plot elements.
this game has very justifiable hate.

 

[cubikill]

Well for one there going to charge $15 for there first map pack.

 

[Lamppenkeyboard]

I can't say for the rest of the anti- fan base (hur hur i r clever) where the hatred comes from, but I just get annoyed by the multiplayer. Seriously the majority of the people are complete assholes on the multiplayer.

Although I actually enjoyed the campaign as a "sit down with a mountain dew and large bowl of popcorn" experience. But I say the same about both Bad Boys movies too, so that shows how shallow my "tastes" really are XD

 

[Guy32]

It was the first CoD I owned. I don't hate it, I just think it's too highly praised. I don't think the multiplayer is fun, it doesn't encourage people to work together at all.