Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 2 confirmed
#302
#303
Posted 01 August 2009 - 17:25
Some levels were pretty frustrating in CoD4 even in normal. IIRC there were 4 difficultys in CoD4, so I'm going second hardest. I do seek the challenge but I don't want to spend hours to try one situation over and over again.
#304
Posted 01 August 2009 - 21:23
Stalker, on 1 Aug 2009, 16:07, said:
TehKiller, on 1 Aug 2009, 11:14, said:
I never really played that one TBH. I played it once on a schoolmates laptop, but it was an expension or something. Looked like CoD2 with worse graphics to me
To keep on topic: What are you more looking forward to? MW2's SP or MP
I'll have to say MP. I'm gonna play SP once on medium difficulty and then move on to countless hours of MP.
Hell, I'm even gonna buy the game this time
First of all I need to do some derailing ...anyways here is a comparison of pro's in the CoD vs. CoD2:
CoD: Sprint, Vehicles, FG42,deployable LMG's (MG34, .30cal, Dp-28) Pavlov (hey that map is too awesome), cookable grenades, satchel charges, zooks, artilery strikes and the ability to beat the crap out someone with a grenade (or in cooler cases with Binoculars), ability to have 2 main weapons+sidearm (and unlike CoD2 it had PB when it was released)
CoD2: Shiny graphics, PPS-43, Half a dozen african maps
as you can see CoD has more in common with the 4th title than CoD2 is.
Now onto the SP MP comparison (after all that text i will wonder if anyone is gonna read the rest):
SP= very good and very fun but only backdraw is that is gonna be too short (and due to the lame ass health system too easy even on the hardest difficulty) but on the otherhand MP will be full of smacktards, imbalanced equipment, smacktards, weird and stupid glitches and smacktards. But all in all my final decision will always be the same: SP
Edited by TehKiller, 01 August 2009 - 21:24.
#305
Posted 02 August 2009 - 02:41
#306
Posted 02 August 2009 - 09:59
#307
Posted 02 August 2009 - 12:27
that and the fact that the auto-team maker made the most imbalanced teams ever... (at least on the xbox)
#309
Posted 02 August 2009 - 15:14
#311
Posted 02 August 2009 - 15:40
like the measly m9 pistol
#312
#313
Posted 02 August 2009 - 17:48
COD4 took a very odd approach to weapon balance. After playing the game for a while, I eventually realised that the starting weapons in COD4; e.g. the Mp5, the AK64, the M16, the first shotgun, the first sniper rifle, were all just as good as the guns you unlock later in the game as you progress up each rank.
I believe this was done to allow the people just starting to play COD4 to compete against those using guns you unlock at the later levels.
This means, a level 5 COD4 player using an M16 with stopping power, could theoretically do better than a maximum prestige level 55 player using a G36C with stopping power.
I think for the most part this approach to weapon balance works very well. Pretty much any weapon in COD4 can be useful if given the right perks.
Now we come to the second part of balance, the COD4 perk system.
I believe the COD4 perk system was set up in a different way. The player gets some of the most powerful perks right off the bat, stopping power, and juggernaut being two good examples.
However the player has to work for and level up to around level 40 to get the deadly 3 frag grenade perk. By this time they'll have gotten most of the other perks in the game as well.
Overall the only thing I'd consider, "unbalanced" in COD4 is the 2 claymore and 3 frag grenade perks. Since the patch, claymores are almost impossible to outrun once you step on one. I wouldn't mind that much, except that the claymore doesn't kill the person who planted it, even if the person that planted it is standing on the claymore itself. If the enemy that planted the claymore could die in it's explosion, then I'd consider it a fair perk.
As for free frag, a perk that allows you to hurl not one but three highly explosive, extremely deadly, grenades into the enemy spawn position on some maps, well that just seems like an extremely cheap way to get kills.
The bottom line is, that although some parts of game are balanced in a questionable way, I still have frankly stupid amounts of fun playing it online with friends. It's still my favourite multiplayer 360 game.
*Wonders how many people took the time to read this*
- Sam
Edited by Samster01, 02 August 2009 - 17:50.
#317
Posted 03 August 2009 - 07:28
Pistols: I didn't really notice any differences. Of course the Desert Eagle is the best, but it's the last you'll unlock.
SMGs: I think they are all more or less equal. The P-90 is a bit better but it's the last you'll unlock, so thats okay too.
Shotguns: IMHO the Automatic is better than the Pumpgun. Again this is okay.
Rifles: Yeah, M16 is really powerful, but the burst isn't that good in melee combat. AK, M4, G36 are equal imho. As for me, I never really used the G3 and M14. Useless to me.
Sniper: M82=M21>SVD>R700>M40
LMGs: I guess they are equal too. I personally preferred the RPD
#318
Posted 03 August 2009 - 08:37
M16 is actually brutal in close range as all its enough is to land a burst into someones face (especially if you got stopping power...and chances are pretty much high that you will). As far as "assault rifles" go the more you unlock the worse the weapons are. Best rifles are AK and M16 (ok M4 can tag along).
apparently LMG's (well never noticed anything wrong with them) and Shotguns (they utterly fail...they tried to avoid CoD2 situation but end up making a useless weapon) are the only ones without any problems
#320
Posted 03 August 2009 - 13:01
TehKiller, on 3 Aug 2009, 10:37, said:
...
It has been a while since I played. I leveled fast so I used the P-90 most of the time.
I think G36 is ok.
I agree, there shouldn't be any useless weapons. But sadly this happens to every game where players can freely choose their weapons. Look at Counterstrike: 90% of players are using M4/AK-47 + Desert Eagle.
There will always be a 'best' weapon. And if they make every gun have equal stats it would be boring. And if the unlocked weapons would be better, beginners wouldn't have a chance.
#321
Posted 03 August 2009 - 13:06
i for once, suck with m16.
#322
Posted 03 August 2009 - 13:13
Perhaps returning to topic rather than discussing weapon balance is in order.
#323
Posted 03 August 2009 - 15:39
We are discussing possible improvements for Modern Warfare 2, by analysing it's predecessor's flaws.
But if you wish so...
What do you guys think about vehicles. SP or MP. IIRC there is none controllable vehicle in CoD4, but you are the gunner in a few situations. In MP there were none at all.
In MW2, the AC130 is confirmed for MP, but I doubt we will see another Spectre-SP-level. In CoD2 and 5 there were Tank-levels. CoD5 had Tanks in MP, but I really disliked them.
Should MW2 have driveable vehicles in SP or MP?
#324
Posted 03 August 2009 - 15:44
Stalker, on 3 Aug 2009, 16:39, said:
We are discussing possible improvements for Modern Warfare 2, by analysing it's predecessor's flaws
No you are just arguing over weapon balance for COD4. No where in the above posts does anyone say I think it should be thus for MW2.
#325
Posted 03 August 2009 - 16:19
we are discussing COD6 and COD4 in comparison, no need to be a forum nazi.
26 user(s) are reading this topic
0 members, 26 guests, 0 anonymous users