691 replies to this topic

[RaiDK]

Soul, on 8 Nov 2009, 6:19, said:

Foxhound, on 7 Nov 2009, 15:01, said:

Bobby Kotick, CEO of Activision Blizzard. I don't need to remind you of his philosophy towards gaming.

Mind telling me what it is please?

He's only interested in publishing games with clear sequel potential (IE. Things they can release on a yearly basis). It's also clear that he himself isn't a gamer, he's a businessman.

Quote

I'm not complaining about the Matchmaking, I'm complaining because the PC version is nothing like COD4, which it should be because its a sequel.

Weren't you the one complaining it was too similar to CoD4 and it looked more like an expansion pack until a moment ago?

[Foxhound]

RaiDK, on 7 Nov 2009, 15:50, said:

Soul, on 8 Nov 2009, 6:19, said:

Foxhound, on 7 Nov 2009, 15:01, said:

Bobby Kotick, CEO of Activision Blizzard. I don't need to remind you of his philosophy towards gaming.

Mind telling me what it is please?

He's only interested in publishing games with clear sequel potential (IE. Things they can release on a yearly basis). It's also clear that he himself isn't a gamer, he's a businessman.

And I quote, from August's Deutche Bank tech conference thingy: He wanted to "promote an air of uncertainty, fear, and skepticism" in game developers, and that if he had it his way, he would "raise the cost [of Guitar Hero peripherals- already 60 dollars, mind] to 100 dollars or more". And that's just SOME of his gems. You should see him, he even looks the part of an utter tool.

[RaiDK]

BEHOLD

[TheDR]

RaiDK, on 7 Nov 2009, 20:50, said:

Quote

I'm not complaining about the Matchmaking, I'm complaining because the PC version is nothing like COD4, which it should be because its a sequel.

Weren't you the one complaining it was too similar to CoD4 and it looked more like an expansion pack until a moment ago?

Yeah, sorry didn't word that right.
What i meant to say is that it is similar in gameplay but not similar in features

[RaiDK]

This could end up like Fallout 3 did: Everyone called foul when FO3 was announced to be 1st person and non-turn based, but then it went on to pretty much be considered game of the year.

[Foxhound]

RaiDK, on 7 Nov 2009, 16:09, said:

BEHOLD
*Guy who looks too much like Bobby Kotick*

KILL IT WITH FIRE

Edited by Foxhound, 08 November 2009 - 05:55.

[D.K.]

Yes!

[BeefJeRKy]

RaiDK, on 8 Nov 2009, 6:47, said:

This could end up like Fallout 3 did: Everyone called foul when FO3 was announced to be 1st person and non-turn based, but then it went on to pretty much be considered game of the year.

Tbh, that was just a number of fanboys of the original Fallout games. Those were fun but the turn-based isometric view is outdated IMO. This is nowhere near as radical a change. MW2 will still be a good game regardless of the lack of dedicated servers. However I fear it will be shortlived for me, as I am sure that this system would exaggerate my horrible ping.

[Chyros]

JRK, on 8 Nov 2009, 12:44, said:

[...]However I fear it will be shortlived for me, as I am sure that this system would exaggerate my horrible ping.

Even that would depend on who you play with though .

[Nem]

KiraSama, on 6 Nov 2009, 6:08, said:

Actually the 360 version has party chat droped, apparently because you can cheat with it by telling your friends were the enemies are

This is not true. Provide a link to your source so I may hunt them down.

[RaiDK]

Foxhound, on 8 Nov 2009, 15:55, said:

RaiDK, on 7 Nov 2009, 16:09, said:

BEHOLD
*Guy who IS Bobby Kotick*

KILL IT WITH FIRE

Fix'd.

[D.K.]

RaiDK, on 8 Nov 2009, 13:27, said:

Foxhound, on 8 Nov 2009, 15:55, said:

RaiDK, on 7 Nov 2009, 16:09, said:

BEHOLD
*Guy who IS Bobby Kotick*

KILL IT WITH FIRE

Fix'd.

Well, I'd still

[KiraSama]

Nem, on 8 Nov 2009, 13:18, said:

This is not true. Provide a link to your source so I may hunt them down.

http://www.meristation.com/v3/des_noticia....188&pic=GEN
http://scrawlfx.com/2009/11/modern-warfare...-360-party-chat
http://www.ripten.com/2009/11/02/modern-wa...ltiplayer-mode/
http://www.vg247.com/2009/11/02/360-party-...dern-warfare-2/

[Wizard]

Wow 2 days without a post, for this thread that is an epic necro!

Pre-purchase done! I'll be creating a Hamachi group for us all to play on...........oh wait.....

[Wanderer]

I'm waiting to see the pc-reviews

[Kichō]

Don't know if you guys have seen this...but http://ve3d.ign.com/articles/news/51288/Mo...Locked-By-Steam



Also I was going to get this game but after reading more about I've decided not to..

Edit: Nvm I just realized that the unlock time is today...

Edited by Noh, 10 November 2009 - 18:07.

[KiraSama]

Noh, on 10 Nov 2009, 19:02, said:

Edit: Nvm I just realized that the unlock time is today...

Actually if you pre-order the game by stream you dont get to plat till the 12 of this month

[Wanderer]

How long will it take for the multiplayer on pc to die? I've been checking around the net for forums and other sites for peoples reactions to the game and what I've heard so far is that the game itself is good but the matchmaking sucks bigtime. Lot of tries to find one good game, lagging, warping.

[RaiDK]

Quick, everyone act surprised!

[Ion Cannon!]

Wanderer, on 10 Nov 2009, 23:23, said:

How long will it take for the multiplayer on pc to die? I've been checking around the net for forums and other sites for peoples reactions to the game and what I've heard so far is that the game itself is good but the matchmaking sucks bigtime. Lot of tries to find one good game, lagging, warping.

Its more than just a cruddy multiplayer experience, because they are dumbing it down to console standards there is no server control, no modding, no custom maps they have even reduced the player count to 9v9, and thats only on one mode, for everything else its 6v6. For a game thats so multiplayer centric it has taken leaps and bounds - backwards - in terms of what a multiplayer game should be expected to provide for the PC.

[Wizard]

Ion Cannon!, on 11 Nov 2009, 8:52, said:

Wanderer, on 10 Nov 2009, 23:23, said:

How long will it take for the multiplayer on pc to die? I've been checking around the net for forums and other sites for peoples reactions to the game and what I've heard so far is that the game itself is good but the matchmaking sucks bigtime. Lot of tries to find one good game, lagging, warping.

Its more than just a cruddy multiplayer experience, because they are dumbing it down to console standards there is no server control, no modding, no custom maps they have even reduced the player count to 9v9, and thats only on one mode, for everything else its 6v6. For a game thats so multiplayer centric it has taken leaps and bounds - backwards - in terms of what a multiplayer game should be expected to provide for the PC.

That's more than a little bit zealous. In the games I've played on MW anything more than 10 people, on even the largest maps, turns into a respawn-fest. Yes, IWnet is bound to be a pain in the arse. But that won't stop the game itself from being superb.

Edited by Wizard, 11 November 2009 - 09:02.

[Wanderer]

I really hope that other gamemakers learn from this little adventure and keep the dedicated servers as standard. I was really looking forward to this game but what can you do PC might not be the big seller anymore but fucking multiplayer up this bad is a sure way to kill it completely and fast.

@ Wizard: But even if the game is good balance-wise and game-wise, can you say you enjoy a game when your lagging and warping all over the place? IW made a great game, especially on the consoles. The problem is that they made the multiplayer on pc so bad that you are missing the good game-part of this.

Edited by Wanderer, 11 November 2009 - 09:10.

[Wizard]

Wanderer, on 11 Nov 2009, 9:07, said:

@ Wizard: But even if the game is good balance-wise and game-wise, can you say you enjoy a game when your lagging and warping all over the place? IW made a great game, especially on the consoles. The problem is that they made the multiplayer on pc so bad that you are missing the good game-part of this.

How have they made the MP so bad? The game isn't released until tonight? We don't even know how it'll work properly yet? I have no interest in anything other than private matches. So long as I am able to connect to other FS'ers then I'll be happy. Until we get a chance to test that how can you say it's bad? You're only going to be able to game with the same people you'd probably game with anyway. You still get lag from servers if someone has a bad connection anyway? It was a weird decision to adopt this approach, but I'd suggest not bashing it until you have some evidence to bash it with.

[Ion Cannon!]

Wizard, on 11 Nov 2009, 9:02, said:

Ion Cannon!, on 11 Nov 2009, 8:52, said:

Wanderer, on 10 Nov 2009, 23:23, said:

How long will it take for the multiplayer on pc to die? I've been checking around the net for forums and other sites for peoples reactions to the game and what I've heard so far is that the game itself is good but the matchmaking sucks bigtime. Lot of tries to find one good game, lagging, warping.

Its more than just a cruddy multiplayer experience, because they are dumbing it down to console standards there is no server control, no modding, no custom maps they have even reduced the player count to 9v9, and thats only on one mode, for everything else its 6v6. For a game thats so multiplayer centric it has taken leaps and bounds - backwards - in terms of what a multiplayer game should be expected to provide for the PC.

That's more than a little bit zealous. In the games I've played on MW anything more than 10 people, on even the largest maps, turns into a respawn-fest. Yes, IWnet is bound to be a pain in the arse. But that won't stop the game itself from being superb.

Perhaps, but I think its dumb for a game to be that hyped up, to be missing several key things which differentiate it from a console version. Its taken steps back, instead of forwards.

[Chyros]

Ion Cannon!, on 11 Nov 2009, 11:27, said:

Wizard, on 11 Nov 2009, 9:02, said:

Ion Cannon!, on 11 Nov 2009, 8:52, said:

Wanderer, on 10 Nov 2009, 23:23, said:

How long will it take for the multiplayer on pc to die? I've been checking around the net for forums and other sites for peoples reactions to the game and what I've heard so far is that the game itself is good but the matchmaking sucks bigtime. Lot of tries to find one good game, lagging, warping.

Its more than just a cruddy multiplayer experience, because they are dumbing it down to console standards there is no server control, no modding, no custom maps they have even reduced the player count to 9v9, and thats only on one mode, for everything else its 6v6. For a game thats so multiplayer centric it has taken leaps and bounds - backwards - in terms of what a multiplayer game should be expected to provide for the PC.

That's more than a little bit zealous. In the games I've played on MW anything more than 10 people, on even the largest maps, turns into a respawn-fest. Yes, IWnet is bound to be a pain in the arse. But that won't stop the game itself from being superb.

Perhaps, but I think its dumb for a game to be that hyped up, to be missing several key things which differentiate it from a console version. Its taken steps back, instead of forwards.

It has taken several steps back BECAUSE it was so hyped up. If CoD 4 wasn't such a massive success and MW2 not one of the most anticipated gamed of all time, IW/Activision would NEVER have dared lay their hands on their games in ways like this.

Edited by Chyros, 11 November 2009 - 11:12.