NewYork_Comedian said:
So most of the guys I know seem to think Modern Warfare 2 is the reincarnation of Christ. They claim it has the best story in the series (even though freaking Ign says otherwise)
Is IGN some sort of holy authority? I disagree with IGN all the time.
NewYork_Comedian said:
that the idea that Russians invading America and trying to destroy D.C. is brilliant, even though its convoluted, cliche, and has huge plot holes. (Sorry but I've wanted to say how bad it is compared to previous titles in the series).
I think the key issue is that it's a FUN idea. And I don't think it's really cliche in video games at all and even in other media - it's a pretty rare plot (I can think of Red Dawn and a few vague others, but not really very many). But again, even if it were, it's still a FUN idea and games are intended to be FUN.
NewYork_Comedian said:
They also say how it has the best looking graphics out there (and that the xbox has the best graphics as well or coarse.) "What's Crysis,some retarded pc game for fags? Lolololol" :/
I don't know about comparing it to Crysis, but it does have really good graphics. Let's also bear in mind that 360 graphics are more consistent because they don't need to be adjusted for different hardware. If you don't have a pretty powerful rig, Crysis will definitely look worse than MW2 on the 360.
NewYork_Comedian said:
Now to the muliplayer, which I might have complimented if it wasn't for the fact that Activision forced I.W.to put more effort into it than the singleplayer experience (something that angers me a lot because I agree with YZ in that a game must always be able to stand on its singleplayer component alone).
I've always felt that such a view is really pretty absurd. This is a game in a series known FAR more for its multiplayer than its single player. You can complain, but they focused on precisely what they were expected to focus on and they delivered a damn good product in all the ways that they were expected to. It's like complaining that well-designed cups should have handles and then becoming angry over the fact that bowls don't have handles: primarily single player games should have good single player, primarily multi player games might have good single player as an additional perk, but it shouldn't be seen as a requirement. If you weren't primarily interested in playing MW2 for its multi player, I would just suggest not picking it up.
NewYork_Comedian said:
But what really makes me rage is when I point out that the series used to be pc only, to which they respond along the lines of, "Well then they realized no one plays pc cus its ghey, 360 forevaaaar!111" -_____-
*facepalm*
I don't really understand what this is supposed to mean but it sounds like you were trying to play some sort of "well
my gaming device of choice had this game
way earlier, you're just some newb" card. They're also sort of right about no one playing PC anymore. Market size is definitely a big reason why it's on consoles now (that and people enjoy the game, so consoles just let more people enjoy the game (OH NO MY PRECIOUS ELITISM)).
NewYork_Comedian said:
So guys, do you have any friends who think MW2 is the best ever, am I overeacting? Thoughts?
Yes and yes.
NewYork_Comedian said:
EDIT: Yes, to put it simply [aka TLDR], they are being ignorant about what they are saying about how its the best game ever, refusing to believe differently, and giving no real evidence as to why they think its the best.
Does them thinking it's the best game ever somehow harm you? Such statements should generally be taken to be somewhat casual hyperbole. Or they might honestly like it enough to find it the best game ever. I still fail to see how this affects you. Is it hurting you somehow that they won't bow down to your obviously superior taste and judgment? I think you're taking this way, way too seriously.
