Quote:Original post by Moe Am I the only person who hasn't jumped on the Call of Duty bandwagon yet? I played the demo for CoD 4, and didn't really think of it as anything special. To me it seemed about the same as the CoD 2 demo, just with a modern setting and different guns. Maybe I missed something and should give the demo another shot, but my first impression was that of 'meh'.
I am right there with you. The idea of gaining better guns as you play more was very unappealing to me. It just gave the kids who sit online and play 10 hours a day even more of a leg-up against my noobiness, and I was killed freely at will by the opposition.
I just don't see what makes it so amazing, honestly. I also prefer fictional settings in my games because it just makes them more impressive to me.
Also, to the people who only want to play multiplayer, I would just rent it. For $9 or less, you could play through the whole single-player campaign in one or two days and be done with it.
I just picked up MW:2 for the PS3 yesterday night ( since I knew the PC version was a console port, might as well get it for the console .... *grumble* ). It only cost me a cool $65 USD *grumble*, and I beat it the same night. Like someone said earlier, if you compare the $/hour it's about the same or less than a long theatre movie or a blu-ray.
Single player looked great in 1080p [ for a console ;-) ], sounded good on the 5.1, it was a hell of an experience. I was skeptical and mocking during the first few levels, but the game grew on me. I only played on regular, and used my COMPUTAR PROGRAMING skills to glitch the AI in some situations, but I think it'll be more interesting on the higher difficulty levels.
I know people who loooove COD multiplayer, but to me it's lowest-common-denominator deathmatch, and I can't stand not having a mouse to play ... so I suppose I've got most of my kicks out of the game. I also despise their rank up system (lose all your guns every new prestige lvl or some-such), and nearly every aspect of their multiplayer now that I realize it. I'm much more into the style of BF2,Crysis,TF2 type multiplayer - and I need a MOUSE lol.
Never thought about renting the game, that would be a good idea since the SP is so short, but I figured it's a good game to have around when ppl come over, since it's so popular.
I also don't think there is really any disputing the sucess of the game $$$ wise. Also I must stay the production values on the project are absurdly high...overall, I thought it was a'ight.
I admit I wasn't too thrilled with all the announcements about the game, but I went ahead anyway to try and give it a fair shot. Honestly, I'm not too thrilled with the game so far.
I've never been a fan of single player FPS's, but I'm a big fan of multiplayer FPS's. This is a console port, and you can obviously tell it immediately, even without dedicated servers, lean, etc. Just the overall feel of it seems to be Halo 3 in the Modern Warefare universe. (Sorry, it's hard to explain).
This video I made of my second game ever gives you an idea of the better portions of the game I have experienced:
I'd honestly suggest skipping the video, as it's quite boring.
So far, I've experienced nothing but lag. In about 40 games, I've been the host 12x and in the games I haven't been the host, I've had at most 4 out of 10 bars (120+ ping). It's definately noticeable. There's a significant disconnect between me moving my mouse and my character on screen turning. I thought World at War was bad, but this is so much worse. Although, I'm sure with time, I'll get accustomed to it as I did with World at War.
I haven't seen anyone cheating, but then again, I seldom see anyone cheating in any game in the first place. I have experienced rubber banding though, which is quite annoying.
I guess I'm extremely upset with how things went, and the promises which were made about IW.Net, and at least for me, none of the promises have been met. Why is it that I'm playing constantly against players hosting in Europe or CA when I live near NYC? I was told I should make several changes to the config files which can alleviate those problems, but I thought part of this whole matchmaking was to make things easier for the average customer. I don't see how tweaking ini files (naturally there's nothing in game to do the tweaks) makes life easier for people.
As I stated, I'm not a fan of single player, so I can't really give an opinion on that. I guess the Arstechnica review probably is the most objective review I've seen of this game. I'm glad many people are enjoying this game, and I'm happy for them. I have no doubt it will win game of the year because it's an improvement over the previous console versions, but for myself, having come from the PC side of CoD, this is a huge step back and a huge disappointment. I admit I regret purchasing this, and if I could, probably would have rented it on a console instead could I do it over again.
Quote:Original post by jackolantern1 I am right there with you. The idea of gaining better guns as you play more was very unappealing to me. It just gave the kids who sit online and play 10 hours a day even more of a leg-up against my noobiness, and I was killed freely at will by the opposition.
MW2 has death streak "perks" in multiplayer; one of them available from the start is "Copycat," where upon dying 3 or more times in a row without getting a kill you can opt to copy the loadout of the guy who killed you, including guns, perks, and armour (whether or not these are actually unlocked). It makes a big difference and was pretty much introduced to help address this problem with CoD4.
I've only just got around to playing the PC version (despite it being unlocked on Steam yesterday) and I have to say if this is a PC 'port' then it's the best PC port I've played.
The reason I like this, and the first one, is because it has changed the formula a bit.
It seems most FPS games, including the majority of the COD series, are as a certain Yahzee once said basically the US jerking itself off over the one moment of glory in living history; WW2.
COD4 however broke from this by, firstly, putting you in modern times and secondly removing this whole 'my country r bestest!' thing. (Well, unless you are British and ok with 'iffy' methods of doing things).
The US do what they are known best for, running into battle, and this goes tits up in a rather intresting way and the British SAS, while coming out better I feel, are shown as a questionable bunch of bastids doing what it takes to get the job done.
All in all I feel the story of MW was done well, with a fresher take on, what is frankly a stale gaming mode, of the FPS.
MW2 has, thus far, continued in much the same way and based on the first 3 missions alone (the first SAS in perticular which was really well done) has been worth the cash I paid for the game.
I liked MW1 but I can't believe that people camped at Best Buy to pick this up at 12am.
I never liked the infinite spawns of CoD (not sure if they fixed that for MW2) and the multiplayer was fun but I never got addicted to it like I did for Halo or Battlefield.
Quote:Original post by ChurchSkiz I liked MW1 but I can't believe that people camped at Best Buy to pick this up at 12am.
I never liked the infinite spawns of CoD (not sure if they fixed that for MW2) and the multiplayer was fun but I never got addicted to it like I did for Halo or Battlefield.
I don't understand the camping out either. As far as I know, stores are nowhere near close to running out, so people shouldn't have made this like the PS3 and XBox 360 consoles. In fact, I can't think of any game since World of Warcraft that actually sold out and became unavailable for a period of time; a very different scenario than game consoles, which routinely sell out and cannot be purchased for months on end.
However, I am checking out CoD:MW2. I just went to Blockbuster an hour or two ago, and I noticed they had tons of XBox 360 copies in, so I grabbed one. I just want to see what all the fuss is about, and I am not the type of write-off a game without giving it a try.
The method of COD games is to punch through the spam until the respawn stops triggering. It's an exercise in frustration really. You'll have to take hits, which is counter-intuitive (I like to 'clean up'). MW2 still has the same mechanics, but it's better, in that the friendly AI seems to be able to take the initiative.
I like the single player, but the levels are very short. I quite enjoy the game so far (only about 1/3 of the way through).
No idea about the multiplayer. I never warmed to it for some reason, and I don't think it will happen now without dedicated servers.
GG, but over-hyped. The marketing boys must have had quite a party.
The "cost per hour as compared to movies" argument used to be applied to $40 games with twenty to hundreds of hours of gameplay. A dollar per hour of fun? That's way cheaper than going to the movies!
It feels disingenuous to apply it to MW2. $65 for 5 hours of gameplay? $13 an hour? That's equal to movies now. I wouldn't really say that it's a strong justification anymore.
Who pays full price for five movies at once and calls it cheap? Movies are 'cheap' entertainment when they're viewed at a normal rate (once or twice a month).
$65 for 5 hours of a (probably great) single player campaign and a seriously gimped MP is not my idea of a good value when it comes to PC games.
