COD: MW2 sucks!

There's already a game like that Bacara, it's old at this point but if there are still people playing it it sounds like exactly what you want. Joint Ops: Typhoon Rising. I had some good times with it, been meaning to reinstall. It's sort of like Battlefield with much bigger maps, more players (up to 168 on a single server if I recall correctly), and more realism (though it's not in the same league as ArmA or OFP in that department).

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Lxe9kditNLY

I had an awesome moment sniping a rebel chopper pilot out of his ride with a Barrett M82. Got a LOT of kills when it crashed.


On topic, I finished MW2. Certainly the most epic ending to a game since Metal Gear Solid 4. They really didn't give many hints about the plot twist either, caught me totally off guard. When it happened I was like "Wait, did I just see that?" My favorite weapon combo was the FAL w/ holosight and GLOCK 18. Probably not the best technically speaking, but it suits me perfectly. Was a bit disappointed in the Mk. 17 - it does a lot less damage than the FAL for some reason.
 
Last edited:
Zastava-Arms said:
Trust me, Killzone 2 is nothing compared to MW2. MAG might be good though...I wouldnt hold my breath, id expect a fair bit of lag.
Click to expand...


trust me ive played both, i prefer killzone, less epic chaos and noobs do stupid crap like camping and no overpowered guns, the famas this time, also the campain is epic and strategic, you cant just run around a shot people like cod, also the graphics are far better, the AI is incrediblely smart, almost too smart, if you find a vantage point on them they will take cover, and find your weakness. Also ive read reviews of the beta, NO lag on MAG
 
Last edited:
Yea me to, really all games are today are shoot and scoot, dumbs down reality and makes the world look like a action movie with no consequences. Kinda pisses me off, games are getting ridiculous in the fact that it is considered more realistic just means it has more blood and gore in it...
 
13th, I have the gold edition with all three, I could probably burn you a copy with a crack for it.
Anyway, I'm just pissed at there being no dedicated servers, ability to lean, and 9v9 MAX for the PC, where as Call of Duty 4 had dedicated servers, you could lean, and 32v32 max. I expressed my anger by making some minor adjustments to Kaled Al-Asad's speech in Call of Duty 4 in the mission called "The Coup". Here it is.

"Today we rise again as one series, in the face of betrayal and corruption! We all trusted these people to deliver our great series into a new era of prosperity. But like Treyarch before the release, they have been colluding with the 360 and PS3 with only self-interest at heart! Collusion breeds slavery! And we shall not be enslaved! The time has come to show our true strength. They underestimate our resolve. Let us show that we do not fear them. As one people we shall free our brethren from the yoke of developer oppression! Our armies are strong and our cause is just. As I speak, our armies are nearing their objectives, by which we will restore the independence of a once great series. Our noble crusade has begun. Just as they lay waste to our game, we will lay waste them. This is how it begins."
 
Last edited:
Im playing it, but I cant help but feel dissappointed.

1. 9V9 Teams suck
2. You cannot disable the Killcam
3. There is no lean
4. Campaign is bloody short.
5. Story is Meh...

All in all it feels that too much was sacrificed just so that it could be played on consoles.
 
Im sorry for you PC owners but, well gamers on budgets tend to lean more toward console gaming, sure the games are expensive, but upgrading your PC every few years to meet the demand of freaking amazing graphics with expensive software just isn't economical to everyone. So game developers ,maybe are starting to lean more towards the console market to appeal more towards console gamers.
 
Just because they're leaning towards the console doesn't mean they need to remove the CORE elements of PC multiplayer. A lot of console players don't understand why we're so pissed, and that makes it worse.
 
Sukio said:
Im sorry for you PC owners but, well gamers on budgets tend to lean more toward console gaming, sure the games are expensive, but upgrading your PC every few years to meet the demand of freaking amazing graphics with expensive software just isn't economical to everyone. So game developers ,maybe are starting to lean more towards the console market to appeal more towards console gamers.
Click to expand...

First of all, it terms of games there is really only one expensive pc component: the video card. A good one when will cost you the same as a console. The rest is pretty inexpensive. Secondly considering the console Games are considerably more expensive than PC games I am not so sure the economic aspect of your arguement works. You buy 10 XBOX 360 games and you have a Gamer PC.

Secondly remember that COD and the original MW existed first and was designed specifically FOR the PC market. Removing key features from the original game in order to please the console market is a sure way to annoy the original fans of the series.

I knew about the no dedicated servers beforehand, but I didnt realize when a pain find a game can be without it. The rest like the no-killcam disable came as a surprise. the result of which is I am going to give 2nd thought when MW3 is released if I will invest in it.

MW2 is like Deux Ex 2, a "dumbing" down of a great game, and it will have a impact on my next activsion purchase.
 
Well, really, the processor should cost more than your video card. I never bother with anything less than a processor that can play games maxed out for some time, in the end it ends up costing less than frequent upgrades, especially considering you may have to switch motherboards when you change the processor.

I would have no problem with developers making their games more accessible to console gamers (there are a lot less buttons after all) - if that didn't mean dumbing them down in the extreme. I'd consider it offensive if I were you - they make everything much simpler for consoles, as though they believe you are less intelligent than everyone else. Or maybe they just assume you're lazy. Wii is the console for games like that.

PS3 doesn't have this problem though, the entire reason I bought it was for niche Japanese games which are generally some of the hardest out there. I don't think I own a single western title for it.
 
Last edited:
I was a beast at CoD 4 but MW2 it's gonna take some time to memorize the maps and the millions of camping spots people seem to be using right now -_-
I hate campers!
It takes away from the happiness I feel when I snipe some fool out :/
 
Campers indeed are annoying but sometimes I catch myself doing it, it's just alittle strange to me, the game is called Modern Warfare, but were in modern ware fare do up wards of 30 heavily armed men go running aimless around shooting at each other without a care in the world? If Modern warefare were that simple then causality rates for any way or conflict nowa days would be like negative 800 points and no achievements unlocked!
 
Sukio said:
Campers indeed are annoying but sometimes I catch myself doing it, it's just alittle strange to me, the game is called Modern Warfare, but were in modern ware fare do up wards of 30 heavily armed men go running aimless around shooting at each other without a care in the world? If Modern warefare were that simple then causality rates for any way or conflict nowa days would be like negative 800 points and no achievements unlocked!
Click to expand...

Not knowing anything about real combat, but I would guess that tactics like using a static defense (camping in gamers terms) is probably much more realistic than watching soldiers bunny-hop over bullets. I personally dont mind campers, I think its a valid strategy with the exception of spawn camping which is just pathetic.

My only complaint against it is because the maps are so small and linar, its harder to deal with campers, whereas a game like Battlefield 2 with its enormous maps allow for more interesting possibilities like to flank or bypass campers or calling in support to deal with the pest.

Manys the time as a sniper I have pinned down an entire squad -only to be forced to bat a retreat when they brought up a tank to flush me out.
 
The video card is definitely not as expensive as some other parts such as the system board or processor. A good gaming machine these days will run you up to 2 to 5 grand.
 
Classic Ghost Recon FTW.
I think online gaming just impossible to make "realistic" because it's too hard to get people to cooperate. There are merits to single player games.
AND, I've always found playing games on the PC to be way better than Console with only a few exceptions.
When you make a console version of a game, you turn a sim into a mindless shoot fest for retards.
Best example is Rainbow Six. Started off on the PC as a part strategy, part shooter and it redefined the whole genre of the First Person Shooter. They had a Rainbow Six for the Playstation and it sucked. The planning phase was totally missing.
I got Rainbow Six 3, and it still had the elements we like about Rainbow Six so when Lockdown came out, I got it. Nearly sh&t myself. That is NOT Rainbow Six! Subsequently Rainbow Six became just another shooter.
Ghost Recon went that way too. :(
I did manage Operation Flash Point years ago (a friend's) but didn't like the controls.
 
Well 13th in Red Orchestra and ArmA there are realism clans that pride themselves on doing things by the book. I think they're ****, but watching them play ArmA is like watching a reenactment. Sadly, I agree with you about ArmA and OFP - the controls are just too frustrating, no matter how good the game as a whole might be. They need to have ironsights and breath control bound to separate keys, and remove the head movement altogether unless everyone gets a TrackIR device. I also have no idea why a game that is marketed as being the most realistic would allow you to zoom in when you hold your breath. I don't know about you, but when I shut one eye to aim I don't magically zoom in, I just halve my field of vision.
 
Major Liability, the "zoom" is not really a zoom.
In your regular first person view, you are seeing a zoomed OUT version of "reality" to get your entire field of view onto your computer screen. Or else it would be like moving while looking out of a straw. But when you aim, it tries to re-create natural zoom... x1 zoom. Then again, I don't know because I don't know exactly how much it zooms in when you aim (been a long time since I played it like... once).
The head turn really ticked me off. There is no reason for it and all it does is destroy the game. I've played many other games where there is no head turn and it doesn't look too unnatural. It's one of those things that could have been sacrificed to make it more playable.
 
I play targetware, if I want to do multiplayer, its a WW2 WW1 Korea combat flight sim. If I want Army games I have War Rock and Combat Arms, both free, but more funny than realistic, for Navy, I'm still playing Harpoon trying to beat the Russians, back in the Cold War
 
I had Jane's Naval Command once, Harpoon ismore believeable to me since when I was on carriers that stuff really did happen.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top