325 replies to this topic

[Wizard]

Can't see me trading in this in for a while.

[Libains]

Same, although as it's tied to my Steam account that would make it impossible....

Got to say I do like it, A LOT. Will have to play more for more stuffs though.

[Wizard]

MW is just one of those games you have to love. The more you play it the more you love it.

[Wanderer]

I like the game alot but I do find it abit troublesome keep getting alot of disconnects and whatnots and it kinda ruins the game sometimes. Gameplay itself is veeery addicting

[Camille]

very true. a bit too addicting I've noticed.

currently though, the endless care package bug is seriously pissing me off

[Wizard]

I thought that was fixed now?

[Camille]

not on xbawx apparently.

it's even worse when they do it with emergency airdrops... those games become unplayable clusterfucks of random death by over 9000 AC130s choppergunners and whatnot.

[Chyros]

Now that I've done BC2 I should probably do this one as well.

MW2 is much like CoD 4, retaining basically the exact same strong core gameplay that made CoD 4 a famous bestseller, except considerably more extreme at everything. They fixed a lot of things and in return messed a lot of stuff up which boils down to a very easy shooter you either love or hate. Personally I have a love-hate relationship with it, knowing the full extent of what they changed, but the love definitely dominates. I consider it a better game than CoD 4.

What they improved or fixed:
-perk balance is now MUCH better
-maps are much less campy and considerably better balanced... for FFA and TDM (for everything else, they are arguably worse)
-game mechanics reward players much more for helping in other ways than killing, such as destroying vehicles, capturing points, defending points, etc. etc.
-many more gametypes to choose from which are also better executed
-much more weapons to choose from, attachments are now an actual, very big gameplay element which is very elegantly worked out, and secondaries are pretty nicely worked out in theory, each of them with their own pros and cons
-there are a lot more viable weapon in MW2 than CoD 4
-though the matchmaking system sucks, it DOES allow you to play in a party with your friends. This was a pleasant surprise to me (though dedis would be undeniably better)
-lag compensation greatly limits lag disadvantages
-the killstreak system is executed a lot better this time around and gives players a much better chance against killstreaks, as well as no longer forcing people to hide indoors anymore
-suiciding yourself now counts as a kill for the last person who wounded you if you're at less than 100& health
-frags are no longer overpowered

(the last two measures immediately meant the demise of the Chyrorist attack, by the way)

What they messed up:
-weapon balance is MUCH worse; even though there are more overpowered weapons to make a viable choice from now (instead of just AK-47, AKs-74u, RPD and M16 in that order), the weapons are a lot further apart in their viability now
-lame, no-skill weaponry is not only a lot more powerful but their use is encouraged
-the game gives massive advantages to the first player who lands a hit first because of shell shock and damageviewkick, which makes the game much more easy for noobs to do well at
-this one is at the bottom for a reason. The matchmaking system can make it a lot more slow to get a game going, and introduces a lot of extra lag for players, as well as not being able to choose any game parameters other than a gametype. It sucks badly, but it doesn't affect core gameplay, fortunately. All the others do.


An inherent but unfortunate disadvantage of both, which of course still hasn't been fixed, is that they're made by infinity ward. IW have a notorious history of patching badly (though they do it more now than they did in CoD 4, it's still not good enough IMO) and now there's no mod tools available.

All in all though, I think it's a great game and a great shooter. I'd enjoy it more if I were bad at the game, without a doubt, but I'm still taking this over any shooter I know at the moment.

Edited by Chyros, 09 February 2010 - 01:06.

[AllStarZ]

The thing that irks me the most is that one of the more effective builds on a lot of maps involves getting a second knife and running around very, very fast and jumping from three-storey buildings without shattering your knees. If you get stabbed in the back you probably deserve it, but not if you get stabbed in the face after emptying a clip into someone.

MW2 was, and still is, incredibly fun. But now I'm wondering if I should move onto either MAG or Bad Company 2 next.

Before anything else though, I still have to get Little Big Planet (for my sister).

Edited by AllStarZ, 14 February 2010 - 00:47.

[Wizard]

AllStarZ, on 14 Feb 2010, 0:40, said:

The thing that irks me the most is that one of the more effective builds on a lot of maps involves getting a second knife and running around very, very fast and jumping from three-storey buildings without shattering your knees.

You think that's bad, watch this.



It's broken and we can't even get rid of the boosters or lamers now.

[Pav:3d]

OH THAT WAS BRILLIANT.
I knew something like this would eventually be found out.

[TehKiller]

Thats what happens when you allow them to charge you extra 10 bucks... next time demand a polished game ffs

[Camille]

things like that make me wonder why i still play this game so much.

i mean, it's beyond a mere exploit. it's, as states so often in the vid, pretty damn game breaking. there's no kind of fun to be had when you're up against this kind of player. and the fact that almost half if not 3/5th of all players use this kind of bullshit only makes things worse.

i think it's fun to play as long as you can mentally filter out the infuriating parts. alternatively, just keep your cool and hit start => exit => start again. that's what i do when things like this happen.

[Wizard]

TehKiller, on 15 Feb 2010, 13:40, said:

Thats what happens when you allow them to charge you extra 10 bucks... next time demand a polished game ffs

Sorry dude but wtf are you talking about? The gaming industry has to be the only industry on the planet that is, in reality, accountable to no one. You don't know what you get until you get it. And because of the demographic of the users you wouldn't get a decent review anyway. No one can ever review a MP game before it's released either.

How exactly would you suggest that we 'demand a polished game'? There was no beta so how does anyone know that there were gaming breaking exploits before it was released? What, we're supposed to sit back and just not buy it? If everyone did that.... I don't even want to continue that argument.

MW2 is Infinity Wards fuck up. Simple. They made a high octane shooter and pretty much left it there. No attention to real detail and absolutely no quality control at all. Why, because they're dickheads. And you think that a L4D2 style boycott would work? God no. If it won't work with Valve it will never work.

Bottom line this game is two things, all that is right in how to make a game playable and all that is wrong with game developers/distributors today. And if we've learnt anything from this, it's that devs listen to no one.

[BeefJeRKy]

I'd say devs listen to the investors

[TheDR]

Valve listens to the Tf2 community a lot and so do other companies (Tripwire, EA... Sometimes and Blizzard).
CoD4 wasn't balanced at all and it sold well and got great reviews. Why would IW care if there new game was balanced or tested.

CoD4 was a balloon about to burst, build off the successful run and gun CoD 1 and 2 gameplay it was great fun but it was already full of silly game mechanics of overpowered this and camping that. Instead of fixing this balloon IW decided to cram more mechanics into this balloon and the balloon exploded into what we like to call MW2.

Its not over yet, wait till the over priced map packs come out or maybe even patches you have to pay for

[Ion Cannon!]

TheDR, on 15 Feb 2010, 14:23, said:

Valve listens to the Tf2 community a lot and so do other companies (Tripwire, EA... Sometimes and Blizzard).
CoD4 wasn't balanced at all and it sold well and got great reviews. Why would IW care if there new game was balanced or tested.

CoD4 was a balloon about to burst, build off the successful run and gun CoD 1 and 2 gameplay it was great fun but it was already full of silly game mechanics of overpowered this and camping that. Instead of fixing this balloon IW decided to cram more mechanics into this balloon and the balloon exploded into what we like to call MW2.

Its not over yet, wait till the over priced map packs come out or maybe even patches you have to pay for

Indeed, by forcing IWnet, and therefore not releasing mod tools they can charge you through the nose for custom maps which would have been made by the community otherwise. I also hear work of a MW2 MMO, or some sort of pay to play system being implemented. The games industry have been trying to "Monetize" many things we are used to getting for free, this is the first step.

I feel MW2 showcases everything that is wrong with the games industry, so on principle, I refuse to buy it.

Unfortunately so many people bought MW2 its unlikely the situation will improve for the ineveitable MW3.

[Wizard]

Ion Cannon!, on 15 Feb 2010, 15:09, said:

Unfortunately so many people bought MW2 its unlikely the situation will improve for the ineveitable MW3.

Don't count your chickens just yet. MW2 has been nearly an unmitaged fuck up from day one. Even the console fags fanboys are complaining about it almost as much as the PCelitists. Also Treyarch are due to be handling the next MW installment which should be a slightly different kettle of fish to IW. So they'll probably just fux up all of the gameplay rather than just the MM system.

Edited by Wizard, 15 February 2010 - 15:15.

[Ion Cannon!]

Wizard, on 15 Feb 2010, 15:14, said:

Ion Cannon!, on 15 Feb 2010, 15:09, said:

Unfortunately so many people bought MW2 its unlikely the situation will improve for the ineveitable MW3.

Don't count your chickens just yet. MW2 has been nearly an unmitaged fuck up from day one. Even the console fags fanboys are complaining about it almost as much as the PCelitists. Also Treyarch are due to be handling the next MW installment which should be a slightly different kettle of fish to IW. So they'll probably just fux up all of the gameplay rather than just the MM system.

MW2 may have been a fuck up, but its still sold millions of copies. Gamers vote with their pockets, and most of us emptied ours for MW2.
I'm sure I also remember hearing Activision brought in a third studio to work on the CoD franchise. I can't comment on Treyarch/CoD5 though, as i've never played it.

Edited by Ion Cannon!, 15 February 2010 - 15:28.

[Wizard]

The no server thing was only going to be an issue for us PC gamers, however, it's the glitches, lame load outs and hackers that have been the real disappointment for me. Treyarch are likely to get the nod if it hasn't already been decided, but for CoD:MW not the next CoD iirc.

*waits for Chyros to tell everyone different now *

[Ion Cannon!]

Wizard, on 15 Feb 2010, 15:31, said:

The no server thing was only going to be an issue for us PC gamers, however, it's the glitches, lame load outs and hackers that have been the real disappointment for me. Treyarch are likely to get the nod if it hasn't already been decided, but for CoD:MW not the next CoD iirc.

*waits for Chyros to tell everyone different now *

The balance problems stem from the fact your implementing RPG elements into an FPS game, something which is becoming more and more common. In most RPG's you try and build the most powerful character you can, in order to beat the singleplayer game. This means intelligent usage of skill points, attributes ect. And generally, after a while most of these RPG's have cookie cutter builds, that is, builds that are substantially more powerful than other builds. The problem comes when these cookie cutter builds are present in a game like MW2, as they are substantially more powerful than other builds, which really takes away any skill in the game. What MW3/4 needs to do, is eliminate the possibility of cookie cutter builds, and this is only really possible with alot of play-testing. Its unlikely they can balance it entirely, but the game can be balanced so no load out has such huge advantages over the others.

[TheDR]

Wizard, on 15 Feb 2010, 15:31, said:

The no server thing was only going to be an issue for us PC gamers, however, it's the glitches, lame load outs and hackers that have been the real disappointment for me. Treyarch are likely to get the nod if it hasn't already been decided, but for CoD:MW not the next CoD iirc.

*waits for Chyros to tell everyone different now *

IMO the server thing should go the other way round, sever connections have always been a lot better than PvP and i can't see why consoles can't get that kind of system. I guess it all comes down to control in IW case, with dedicated severs you get horrible things like custom maps and mods, how dare consumers get more from their products when they should be buying map packs or next years overpriced installment

[Chyros]

Camille, on 15 Feb 2010, 15:49, said:

things like that make me wonder why i still play this game so much.

i mean, it's beyond a mere exploit. it's, as states so often in the vid, pretty damn game breaking. there's no kind of fun to be had when you're up against this kind of player. and the fact that almost half if not 3/5th of all players use this kind of bullshit only makes things worse.

i think it's fun to play as long as you can mentally filter out the infuriating parts. alternatively, just keep your cool and hit start => exit => start again. that's what i do when things like this happen.

The online function of all CoD games, and let's be honest, all shooter games, in fact, arguably all games ever, have always been completely filled with lamers and people who would exploit everything as much as they could. MW2 has a number of sloppily coded things which are wide open to exploitation and this has caused several generations of glitchers - though IW have smoothed these out in times ranging from extremely quickly to extremely slowly. Even so, even MW2 still allows players to do private matches - the categorical Activision hatred (tbh I can't really blame them) of many players is what causes a relative lack of players in clans and communities (including FS) which makes it more difficult to organise games relying on community players alone. The PC side of FS players now have enough to host matches in theory but we've been without a decent amount of players for a pretty long period. If all CoD 4 PC enthusiasts on FS had bought MW2, we'd never have had issues with lamers online in the first place, and would have just played with each other, of whom we know are nice people and not exploiters.

Wizard, on 15 Feb 2010, 16:03, said:

TehKiller, on 15 Feb 2010, 13:40, said:

Thats what happens when you allow them to charge you extra 10 bucks... next time demand a polished game ffs

Sorry dude but wtf are you talking about? The gaming industry has to be the only industry on the planet that is, in reality, accountable to no one. You don't know what you get until you get it. And because of the demographic of the users you wouldn't get a decent review anyway. No one can ever review a MP game before it's released either.

How exactly would you suggest that we 'demand a polished game'? There was no beta so how does anyone know that there were gaming breaking exploits before it was released? What, we're supposed to sit back and just not buy it? If everyone did that.... I don't even want to continue that argument.

MW2 is Infinity Wards fuck up. Simple. They made a high octane shooter and pretty much left it there. No attention to real detail and absolutely no quality control at all. Why, because they're dickheads. And you think that a L4D2 style boycott would work? God no. If it won't work with Valve it will never work.

IMO the principle flaw in MW2 is its balance, not the degree to which it's polished. The MM system, while it has obvious flaws (and one or two small advantages which tbh don't compensate for it), is not what breaks the game. The poor weapon balance, which was put in by design I think, and didn't come into the world because of a lack of polishing, is what breaks it. This is brought forward in several facets, some of them subtle, some of them blatant, such as the increased explosives damage, the higher amount of explosives you can start with, the lack of recoil on most weapons and the addition of a damageviewkick variable. Apart from MM and the worse weapon balance, everything in MW2 is much more polished than it was in CoD 4: perk balance, map balance (well in TDM and FFA: in team games it is arguably worse), variety in everything, and a lot of lame things in CoD 4 were fixed as well.

TheDR, on 15 Feb 2010, 16:23, said:

Valve listens to the Tf2 community a lot and so do other companies (Tripwire, EA... Sometimes and Blizzard).
CoD4 wasn't balanced at all and it sold well and got great reviews. Why would IW care if there new game was balanced or tested.

CoD4 was a balloon about to burst, build off the successful run and gun CoD 1 and 2 gameplay it was great fun but it was already full of silly game mechanics of overpowered this and camping that. Instead of fixing this balloon IW decided to cram more mechanics into this balloon and the balloon exploded into what we like to call MW2.

Nah, that's not true. In fact IW specifically made CoD 4 in such a way that it deviated as much as possible from CoD 1 and 2 without throwing it beyond the series. Originally it was scheduled by the publishers to be a CoD 2 WW2 copy until IW practically boycotted the project and were allowed to make the Modern Warfare series instead. Besides, though weapon balance was undeniably bad in absolute terms, it was relatively good for a shooter - and campers were never a problem for any skilled player, since campers were literally sitting sucks.

Wizard, on 15 Feb 2010, 17:14, said:

Ion Cannon!, on 15 Feb 2010, 15:09, said:

Unfortunately so many people bought MW2 its unlikely the situation will improve for the ineveitable MW3.

Don't count your chickens just yet. MW2 has been nearly an unmitaged fuck up from day one. Even the console fags fanboys are complaining about it almost as much as the PCelitists. Also Treyarch are due to be handling the next MW installment which should be a slightly different kettle of fish to IW. So they'll probably just fux up all of the gameplay rather than just the MM system.

The biggest flaw of MW2, weapon balance, is, I think, inherent to IW. I'm all but positive they never wanted a truly balanced weapon system because from the coding it's soooo obvious they made the game very easy for noobs. Therefore I'm really not opposed to a different developer giving a try on the MW series. Except perhaps Treyarch, who have proven time and time again they did balance even worse than IW without any of the gripping mechanics, atmosphere or coolness that IW did manage to input. All Trey ever did well was the zombie mode on WaW - the main game was infinitely inferior to CoD 4.

Ion Cannon!, on 15 Feb 2010, 17:39, said:

Wizard, on 15 Feb 2010, 15:31, said:

The no server thing was only going to be an issue for us PC gamers, however, it's the glitches, lame load outs and hackers that have been the real disappointment for me. Treyarch are likely to get the nod if it hasn't already been decided, but for CoD:MW not the next CoD iirc.

*waits for Chyros to tell everyone different now *

The balance problems stem from the fact your implementing RPG elements into an FPS game, something which is becoming more and more common. In most RPG's you try and build the most powerful character you can, in order to beat the singleplayer game. This means intelligent usage of skill points, attributes ect. And generally, after a while most of these RPG's have cookie cutter builds, that is, builds that are substantially more powerful than other builds. The problem comes when these cookie cutter builds are present in a game like MW2, as they are substantially more powerful than other builds, which really takes away any skill in the game. What MW3/4 needs to do, is eliminate the possibility of cookie cutter builds, and this is only really possible with alot of play-testing. Its unlikely they can balance it entirely, but the game can be balanced so no load out has such huge advantages over the others.

I don't disagree with you at all, Wiz . Nut MW2 doesn't have RPG elements, really. Just because you can unlock stuff doesn't give you RPG elements. BC2 is much more of a RPG shooter than MW2 is. The cookie build thing you're talking about is kind of true though - this is mainly because MW2 discarded a number of fundamental balance rules CoD 4 was built around. Because of this, CoD 4 had substantially better weapon balance. MW2 DID manage to improve considerably on perk balance though - the most major flaw in CoD 4.

TheDR, on 15 Feb 2010, 17:45, said:

Wizard, on 15 Feb 2010, 15:31, said:

The no server thing was only going to be an issue for us PC gamers, however, it's the glitches, lame load outs and hackers that have been the real disappointment for me. Treyarch are likely to get the nod if it hasn't already been decided, but for CoD:MW not the next CoD iirc.

*waits for Chyros to tell everyone different now *

IMO the server thing should go the other way round, sever connections have always been a lot better than PvP and i can't see why consoles can't get that kind of system. I guess it all comes down to control in IW case, with dedicated severs you get horrible things like custom maps and mods, how dare consumers get more from their products when they should be buying map packs or next years overpriced installment

The matchmaking system was put in place just as a kind of DRM, nothing else. I don't think anybody other than Fourzerotwo (the brainless IW "creative strategist" who was too big of a console fanboi to imagine what console balance would do to a PC game) ever thought the matchmaking system was in any way superior to dedicated servers, and it probably never was meant to be either. If IW released mod tools, not a single player would be playing stock MW2 within the month, since about half a page of small balance tweaks are enough to fix the weapon balance completely.

[Kalo]

The whole kill streak system is another reason I don't play this game. Nuke boosters and bullshit kill streaks ftl.

[Chyros]

Kalo, on 16 Feb 2010, 8:23, said:

The whole kill streak system is another reason I don't play this game. Nuke boosters and bullshit kill streaks ftl.

IMO the killstreak system is pretty good. Killstreaks are powerful but easy to counter. But nuke boosters, yeah, those are quite irritating when you find them. They're rare and usually leave when you interrupt their streak, but still very irritating.