What games multiplayer does?Guy32 said: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.
But in Modern Warfare 2 Juggernaut only works if you die 4 times without a kill. It's less obnoxious than it was in the first game, and the players who are really good can't use it.onioftheash said: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.Daedalus1942 said:I didn't hate it, I just feel it didn't change enough to warrant the $100 pricetag.Zannah said:...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?
Multiplayer is pretty much identical except for the maps, Spec Ops, and the removal or Martyrdom and Juggernaut as normal perks.
You're very welcome. I agreed with everything you said, but wasn't sure if it was the same on the 360 as the ps3.TelHybrid said:I played on the 360 version. I had exactly the same problems.Daedalus1942 said: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.TelHybrid said: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?
I play on the ps3 version, btw. It might be different for 360 and pc, though I doubt it.
Thanks for emphasizing my point. =]
Zannah said:...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?)
It's not a problem with the game, it's a problem with the community. This is why people hate on Halo aswell, having such a large community means there's a significant number of douchebags. Dickheads who just camp for their chopper gunner, or nuke boost, its just not on.
Likewise in vanilla WoW nobody was an asshole and look at now it's popular, the community is a bunch of arrogant jerks who think a high Gearscore makes them a-mazing.
So please share your thoughts, where does all the alsmost haloesque hatred for Mw2 come from?
M16 is severely outdated and rapidly being replaced/already replaced and the AK-47 in MW2 is an old version. The new ones are much nicer looking.shotgunbob said:Considering the M16 and AK47 are both being used today it still makes them modernMONSTERheart said: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".
and the AK47 is the most widely used gun in the world