637 replies to this topic

[Wanderer]

If you scroll abit up, not the first post of mine but the second one. In the beginning I've got a quote that say that IW will be first updating MW2 across all platforms and then they will work on MW (CoD4)

[Stalker]

I'm perfectly fine with support of past games, but some questions come to my mind:

1) Why now and not 2-4 years ago?

2) Will they be able to do this? In the past IW failed at supporting 1 game, now they want to support 3 games at once?

[General]

First of all, they don't need to support the released games, you had support for your games 10 years before ? you just get them and play them once and its done with it, why the heck people want so much more than a singe player mode, everything else is a plus. Singleplayer alone worth to the money, if you think its don't worth it then its not your kind of game...

[Wizard]

There were few (if any) online MP games 10 years ago so you wouldn't expect it.

Everything else a plus? What are you smoking? If you can't see that there is more to MW than the SP I wouldn't post in this thread too much if I were you. You clearly don't get it.....

[General]

Wizard, on 12 Jun 2011, 22:38, said:

There were few (if any) online MP games 10 years ago so you wouldn't expect it.

Everything else a plus? What are you smoking? If you can't see that there is more to MW than the SP I wouldn't post in this thread too much if I were you. You clearly don't get it.....

Left 4 Dead : Online Based game which has no meaning on single player

Call of Duty : Has a cool cinematic single player gameplay and story and a good multiplayer but its not all about multiplayer, if there is no MP option for COD, it will still be cool.

[Wanderer]

Single player in CoD you might play once or twice. It's the multiplayer that keeps the game living after the SP-guys have long gone to other games. It's not just CoD. Most games that are still around and played are multiplayer games. Look at steam for example. The most played game STILL is Counter-strike 1.6
Single player games don't need that much support after the bugs have been killed off (When did blizzard release the latest patch for diablo 2?), but for example IW is gonna take care of hacking and cheating in CoD4. It makes the customers happy. The ones that STILL PLAY IT because they like it. Nothing could give a better image of the company that they care about their customers.

I've played CoD4 SP twice and MW2 once. I don't buy them for SP, I get them for MP. Same with battlefield,L4D,Magicka,Bloody good time etc...

Edited by Wanderer, 12 June 2011 - 21:12.

[Stalker]

I wouldn't care if CoD had no SP at all. In fact I really wish CoD(and Battlefield, etc.) had no SP at all. Cause then there would be more effort going into MP. MP is the only reason I buy such a game. The main purpose of SP is to kill the time when the MP servers are down (usually the first 3-5 days -.-). Although SP gets nearly all the media attention, MP is the core part of Call of Duty.

Don't get me wrong, CoDs SP is usually quite nice (although it could be way better), but in relation to the time I spend in MP, its insignificant.

COOP/SpecOps could be fun as well, but you still won't play it more than once (apart from the survival mode maybe)

[Chyros]

Wizard, on 12 Jun 2011, 22:38, said:

There were few (if any) online MP games 10 years ago so you wouldn't expect it.

Quake was a worldwide multiplayer hit 15 years ago. DOOM set the benchmark for multiplayer FPS shooting years before that. I'd say MP is not something only of today, tbh.

General, on 12 Jun 2011, 22:54, said:

Call of Duty : Has a cool cinematic single player gameplay and story and a good multiplayer but its not all about multiplayer, if there is no MP option for COD, it will still be cool.

I agree and disagree. CoD would still be cool if there would be no MP, but it wouldn't be anywhere NEAR the hit it is at the moment. In a few months, at best, everyone would be pretty tired of it. If you look at the player traffic, almost all of it is multiplayer in CoD. Fun fact: there are more SP players than MP players. But the SP players get in almost no play volume compared to the MP players.

Seriously, saying CoD is not about the MP mode is being in denial at this point. Since CoD 1 the series has ALWAYS been about multiplayer.

Stalker, on 12 Jun 2011, 23:38, said:

I wouldn't care if CoD had no SP at all. In fact I really wish CoD(and Battlefield, etc.) had no SP at all. Cause then there would be more effort going into MP. MP is the only reason I buy such a game. The main purpose of SP is to kill the time when the MP servers are down (usually the first 3-5 days -.-). Although SP gets nearly all the media attention, MP is the core part of Call of Duty.

Don't get me wrong, CoDs SP is usually quite nice (although it could be way better), but in relation to the time I spend in MP, its insignificant.

COOP/SpecOps could be fun as well, but you still won't play it more than once (apart from the survival mode maybe)

To be honest, I agree with you in part. I've always hoped MW2 wouldn't feature a Zombies mode, because that was a great excuse for Treyarch to discontinue all game support for WaW and focus on the Zombies mode instead. When a minigame overtakes the main game, you know you've hit a loser, and WaW is a perfect example of this.

However, I have always felt that the SP mode kind of guides the MP part. Of course, the MP mode is what the game is all about. But the SP is there to let all the sides and locations make sense, to guide you to the new additions to the game (weapons, hardpoints, gadgets etc.) and to provide a bit of background on the whole. I agree that the MP mode should get all the attention and development time, but I'd say SP does have a tiny bit of functionality and charm to it.

[Alias]

General, on 13 Jun 2011, 6:54, said:

Wizard, on 12 Jun 2011, 22:38, said:

There were few (if any) online MP games 10 years ago so you wouldn't expect it.

Everything else a plus? What are you smoking? If you can't see that there is more to MW than the SP I wouldn't post in this thread too much if I were you. You clearly don't get it.....

Left 4 Dead : Online Based game which has no meaning on single player

Call of Duty : Has a cool cinematic single player gameplay and story and a good multiplayer but its not all about multiplayer, if there is no MP option for COD, it will still be cool.

If you think Call of Duty is the pinnacle of single player gaming, I feel very sorry for you.

[CJ]

Alias, on 13 Jun 2011, 0:52, said:

General, on 13 Jun 2011, 6:54, said:

Wizard, on 12 Jun 2011, 22:38, said:

There were few (if any) online MP games 10 years ago so you wouldn't expect it.

Everything else a plus? What are you smoking? If you can't see that there is more to MW than the SP I wouldn't post in this thread too much if I were you. You clearly don't get it.....

Left 4 Dead : Online Based game which has no meaning on single player

Call of Duty : Has a cool cinematic single player gameplay and story and a good multiplayer but its not all about multiplayer, if there is no MP option for COD, it will still be cool.

If you think Call of Duty is the pinnacle of single player gaming, I feel very sorry for you.

Agreed.
Also, how in the hell would one pay 40€ for a 4 hours Singleplayer mode such as MW2's when the Half Life games (for example) are sold for 20 bucks max and have a far better story than MW2's?

[Sgt. Rho]

Cod always had a short Singleplayer, although I really did enjoy the Campaing of CoD4. But my favorite campaign will always remain that of Crysis 1

Edited by Sgt. Rho, 13 June 2011 - 02:20.

[Raven]

For me MW needs an SP campaign. Its an integral part of the brand. However, its not everything. Both MP and SP should be their to make it a complete package. COD without SP would also sell, but I would feel empty without it.

[General]

Alias, on 13 Jun 2011, 0:52, said:

General, on 13 Jun 2011, 6:54, said:

Wizard, on 12 Jun 2011, 22:38, said:

There were few (if any) online MP games 10 years ago so you wouldn't expect it.

Everything else a plus? What are you smoking? If you can't see that there is more to MW than the SP I wouldn't post in this thread too much if I were you. You clearly don't get it.....

Left 4 Dead : Online Based game which has no meaning on single player

Call of Duty : Has a cool cinematic single player gameplay and story and a good multiplayer but its not all about multiplayer, if there is no MP option for COD, it will still be cool.

If you think Call of Duty is the pinnacle of single player gaming, I feel very sorry for you.

Metal Gear Solid is more likely pinnacle of single player for me. But Call of Duty has a storyline way better than most of the action movies', thats what makes it so popular among gamers, yes multiplayer is good and I personally played it over hundred hours but despite that, its not necessary.

[Wizard]

General, on 13 Jun 2011, 9:01, said:

Alias, on 13 Jun 2011, 0:52, said:

General, on 13 Jun 2011, 6:54, said:

Wizard, on 12 Jun 2011, 22:38, said:

There were few (if any) online MP games 10 years ago so you wouldn't expect it.

Everything else a plus? What are you smoking? If you can't see that there is more to MW than the SP I wouldn't post in this thread too much if I were you. You clearly don't get it.....

Left 4 Dead : Online Based game which has no meaning on single player

Call of Duty : Has a cool cinematic single player gameplay and story and a good multiplayer but its not all about multiplayer, if there is no MP option for COD, it will still be cool.

If you think Call of Duty is the pinnacle of single player gaming, I feel very sorry for you.

Metal Gear Solid is more likely pinnacle of single player for me. But Call of Duty has a storyline way better than most of the action movies', thats what makes it so popular among gamers, yes multiplayer is good and I personally played it over hundred hours but despite that, its not necessary.

I don't think IW or Activision would agree with you there. Whilst the game would still sell, they would not get half as much publicity from a SP only version and it's following would honestly be half of what it is. SP is good, granted, but MP makes it the game that everyone plays/talks about.

[Wanderer]

I've got 745 hours logged on steam for MW2 multiplayer. Only 3hrs in SP. SP is fun to play but it's the MP that keeps me playing especially with friends

[Stalker]

Chyros, on 13 Jun 2011, 1:40, said:

However, I have always felt that the SP mode kind of guides the MP part. Of course, the MP mode is what the game is all about. But the SP is there to let all the sides and locations make sense, to guide you to the new additions to the game (weapons, hardpoints, gadgets etc.) and to provide a bit of background on the whole. I agree that the MP mode should get all the attention and development time, but I'd say SP does have a tiny bit of functionality and charm to it.

You're right, but I'm not sure if this is a good thing. Most weapons, gadgets, etc. have to be 1000x more effective in SP, as a you are always fighting millions of enemys (which is something I totally hate about CoD's SP). This usually leads to lots of overpowered or totally useless stuff (because they nerfed it too hard) in MP.
SP defines the (basic) locations for the MP maps, however if you look it MW2 MP maps you'll notice quite a few which don't resemble any SP map at all.
And one thing always bugged me:
SP doesn't decide the weapons (firearms), MP does. This then leads to the bullshit in MW2 where 80% of your enemies where Russian, and there were exactly 2 (~70 years old) Russian guns available.

[Chyros]

Stalker, on 13 Jun 2011, 11:15, said:

Chyros, on 13 Jun 2011, 1:40, said:

However, I have always felt that the SP mode kind of guides the MP part. Of course, the MP mode is what the game is all about. But the SP is there to let all the sides and locations make sense, to guide you to the new additions to the game (weapons, hardpoints, gadgets etc.) and to provide a bit of background on the whole. I agree that the MP mode should get all the attention and development time, but I'd say SP does have a tiny bit of functionality and charm to it.

You're right, but I'm not sure if this is a good thing. Most weapons, gadgets, etc. have to be 1000x more effective in SP, as a you are always fighting millions of enemys (which is something I totally hate about CoD's SP). This usually leads to lots of overpowered or totally useless stuff (because they nerfed it too hard) in MP.
SP defines the (basic) locations for the MP maps, however if you look it MW2 MP maps you'll notice quite a few which don't resemble any SP map at all.
And one thing always bugged me:
SP doesn't decide the weapons (firearms), MP does. This then leads to the bullshit in MW2 where 80% of your enemies where Russian, and there were exactly 2 (~70 years old) Russian guns available.

OK, you've got a fair point there mate. But still even if the SP stuff only vaguely resembles the MP stuff at best, for me at least, it's good to have some sort of perspective. I'd like to stress that I firmly agree with you that MP should be the primary development concern, though.

[Dutchygamer]

I bought the CoD games for the SP, as I couldn't really care about MP. I stopped buying the CoD games when I finished the CoD4 campaign on the day I bought it...

[General]

Dutchygamer, on 13 Jun 2011, 19:07, said:

I bought the CoD games for the SP, as I couldn't really care about MP. I stopped buying the CoD games when I finished the CoD4 campaign on the day I bought it...

Thats the bad thing about high end visuals, cool gameplay but too short

[Stinger]

http://www.latenightwithjimmyfallon.com/vi...-61311/1333686/

Infinity Ward have adopted Treyarch's first person pistol wield. Not gamebreaking or anything, but just, ewwww, incredibly lame when your character starts running - it gives you the impression that you're in control of a short fat kid who's running from the bully with his lunch money.

My money's on BF3.

[Wizard]

Stinger, on 14 Jun 2011, 14:46, said:

http://www.latenightwithjimmyfallon.com/vi...-61311/1333686/

Infinity Ward have adopted Treyarch's first person pistol wield. Not gamebreaking or anything, but just, ewwww, incredibly lame when your character starts running - it gives you the impression that you're in control of a short fat kid who's running from the bully with his lunch money.

My money's on BF3.

I know this is spammy (I shall do my penitence later), but because I don't have sound at work, I have an over-powering feeling that that video is just larp-larp-larp-larp-larp

[Chyros]

Wizard, on 14 Jun 2011, 15:49, said:

Stinger, on 14 Jun 2011, 14:46, said:

http://www.latenightwithjimmyfallon.com/vi...-61311/1333686/

Infinity Ward have adopted Treyarch's first person pistol wield. Not gamebreaking or anything, but just, ewwww, incredibly lame when your character starts running - it gives you the impression that you're in control of a short fat kid who's running from the bully with his lunch money.

My money's on BF3.

I know this is spammy (I shall do my penitence later), but because I don't have sound at work, I have an over-powering feeling that that video is just larp-larp-larp-larp-larp

No, it was more "Like, larp, like, larp, like, larp, like." Ears did bleed from the accent .

The pistols doesn't look that good but tbh it doesn't look bad IMO. If the guy didn't go insane in it it might've gone better - tbh the mode didn't look bad from what little we saw of it.

[Stinger]

Public multiplayer reveal event coming early September:

http://www.pcgamer.com/2011/06/30/call-of-...nd-burger-town/

Activision intends to make its money back from this, with tickets costing $150. Tickets will cost $150, with proceeds going to the CoD Endowment charity.

More info:

http://www.callofduty.com/xp

Quote

the ultimate paintball firefight on a life-size re-creation of Scrapyard

That would actually be pretty amazing if I liked paintball.

Edited by Stinger, 30 June 2011 - 13:14.

[Wizard]

Stinger, on 30 Jun 2011, 14:04, said:

Activision intends to make its money back from this, with tickets costing $150.

Actually they are donating the proceeds to charity.

Just sayin..

[Stinger]

PC Gamer either missed or omitted that detail.