Search forums

Forums

Export thread

COD: Modern Warfare 2

Nov 12, 2009#1

Adammon

Ok, I gave it two days but now I want to know from the players: Is it any good?

Is it worth picking up? Is it a good addition to the previous game or is it the equivalent of The Matrix Reloaded?

Nov 12, 2009#2

AshburnerX

I'd pick it up just to experience "No Russian". Damn, that's cold.

Nov 12, 2009#3

Terrik

Yeah I just finished playing throughg it yesterday. Rollercoaster ride from start to finish. Excellent plot twists and good action.

Nov 12, 2009#4

Bowielee

Most reviews I've seen pretty much hail it as the second coming of Crist.

Nov 12, 2009#5

Cuyval Dar

No mods/dedicated servers=no buy.

Nov 12, 2009#6

AshburnerX

Cuyval Dar said:
No mods/dedicated servers=no buy.

There was a screen shot of the Boycott group on Steam, posted up on Kotaku today. It showed nearly everyone on the list playing the game

Nov 12, 2009#7

JONJONAUG

AshburnerX;298059][quote=Cuyval Dar said:
No mods/dedicated servers=no buy.

There was a screen shot of the Boycott group on Steam, posted up on Kotaku today. It showed nearly everyone on the list playing the game

[/QUOTE]

That picture is a load of poppycock, Steam displays whoever is in-game at the top of their lists. All that proved is that 30 or so people out of however many people are in the group bought it.

That list showed the people who were in-game at the moment, not everyone in the entire group.

Valve can actually track how many people in the group have actually bought the game, but I don't think they'll be releasing that information.

Nov 12, 2009#8

Cuyval Dar

JONJONAUG;298072][quote=AshburnerX;298059][quote=Cuyval Dar said:
No mods/dedicated servers=no buy.

There was a screen shot of the Boycott group on Steam, posted up on Kotaku today. It showed nearly everyone on the list playing the game

[/quote]

That picture is a load of poppycock, Steam displays whoever is in-game at the top of their lists. All that proved is that 30 or so people out of however many people are in the group bought it.

That list showed the people who were in-game at the moment, not everyone in the entire group.

Valve can actually track how many people in the group have actually bought the game, but I don't think they'll be releasing that information.[/quote]
[STRIKE]Plus, it WOULD be kinda dickish to not even see how the game is (You know, besides firing up COD 4 & 5 and playing a multiplayer map by yourself, with no mods).
I probably will :arg: it, play it once, and delete it, just so I can say that I tried it.[/STRIKE]
See following post.

Nov 12, 2009#9

Cuyval Dar

http://arstechnica.com/gaming/2009/11/dancing-with-the-devil-ars-reviews-modern-warfare-2-pc.ars

Haha, never mind. Thanks, Ars, for saving me the bandwidth for :arg: it.

Nov 13, 2009#10

@Li3n

Cuyval Dar said:
No mods/dedicated servers=no buy.

You know, while mods might not be supported, it's not like they can do anything to stop modders who actually want to put in the effort... so whenever a dev says "no mods" i want to punch them in the face...

Nov 13, 2009#11

@Li3n

Also, who wants to take bets on how long it takes for them to blame piracy for PC sales being lower...

Nov 13, 2009#12

bhamv3

@Li3n said:
Also, who wants to take bets on how long it takes for them to blame piracy for PC sales being lower...

My bet is on "already."

Nov 13, 2009#13

@Li3n

I meant officially...

Nov 13, 2009#14

Shannow

Playing it on the Ol' xbox, having a blast the entire time. multiplayer is once again awesome.

Nov 13, 2009#15

TotalFusionOne

I really don't understand how the whole "This game wasn't made the exact way I wanted it to be" mentality means the game is any less fun.

Can someone explain?

(And OH MY GOD I WANT TO PLAY SO BAD)

Nov 13, 2009#16

Joe Johnson

I just bought it for console. The multiplayer is pretty awesome.
I do both PC and console games, but generally I don't end up using everything that a PC version of a game would offer, anyway. I can see how a PC gamer would be upset by the way they released this version - however, it's still a really fun game in it's own right.

Nov 13, 2009#17

bhamv3

TotalFusionOne said:
I really don't understand how the whole "This game wasn't made the exact way I wanted it to be" mentality means the game is any less fun.

Can someone explain?

(And OH MY GOD I WANT TO PLAY SO BAD)

I think it's because people can see the missed potential. The game COULD have had dedicated servers and all that other stuff that makes PC multiplayer gaming more fun, but it didn't. Lots of other games have this function, MW2 does not. Missed potential.

Sort of like when you hear a joke, and the punchline is all right, quite funny, but you can think of an even better one. Suddenly it's harder to laugh at the original joke.

Nov 13, 2009#18

Shannow

And yet, for all their bitching, the game went on to be a huge seller. I do not think the publisher really cares much at this point.

Nov 13, 2009#19

Joe Johnson

Right, a record breaker in sales. I guess the boycott didn't work.

Nov 13, 2009#20

Bowielee

Yeah, for all my bellyaching about the lack of LAN support on Starcraft 2, I'll be buying the hell out of that game when it's released. Even if they start charging for Battlenet, I'll still buy it but not play multiplayer.

Nov 13, 2009#21

@Li3n

Shannow said:
And yet, for all their bitching, the game went on to be a huge seller. I do not think the publisher really cares much at this point.

If they cared they would have never done it in the first place...

But of course the game sold well, console gamers never had dedicated servers in the first place...

Nov 13, 2009#22

JONJONAUG

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/30501433/vp/33844922#33844922

Surprisingly, MSNBC has done the best review of Modern Warfare 2 I've seen.

8 out of 10 sounds about right. The single player campaign is pretty good but has plotholes the size of planets and the airport mission is very well done but when taken with the rest of the game that feels like a cheap low-intelligence popcorn flick it feels like a poorly done move to generate publicity.

The multiplayer is solid, but could have been improved in several ways, including things that were already in Modern Warfare 1.

Overall, not the strongest entry in the CoD franchise, and certainly not "10/10 GOTY ALL YEARS" that everyone is making it out to be. It's really just another somewhat above average FPS that gets popped out at the rate of 1-2 a year.

Also: http://www.computerandvideogames.com/article.php?id=227204

To summarize the article: Activision is paying attention to all of the cries from people who want things in the game that have been in all the previous COD games and are major FPS mainstays. So they're calling them new innovations and saying that players should pay extra for them.

Nov 13, 2009#23

Shannow

@Li3n;298703][quote=Shannow said:
And yet, for all their bitching, the game went on to be a huge seller. I do not think the publisher really cares much at this point.

If they cared they would have never done it in the first place...

But of course the game sold well, console gamers never had dedicated servers in the first place...[/QUOTE]

Guess what, thats where most (most, not all though) of the money is to be made from gaming nowadays. and publishers know that and will cater to it. Sad to say, but it is true (there are notable exceptions, but in the overall, it is true)

Nov 13, 2009#24

Bowielee

JONJONAUG said:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/30501433/vp/33844922#33844922

Surprisingly, MSNBC has done the best review of Modern Warfare 2 I've seen.

8 out of 10 sounds about right. The single player campaign is pretty good but has plotholes the size of planets and the airport mission is very well done but when taken with the rest of the game that feels like a cheap low-intelligence popcorn flick it feels like a poorly done move to generate publicity.

The multiplayer is solid, but could have been improved in several ways, including things that were already in Modern Warfare 1.

Overall, not the strongest entry in the CoD franchise, and certainly not \"10/10 GOTY ALL YEARS\" that everyone is making it out to be. It's really just another somewhat above average FPS that gets popped out at the rate of 1-2 a year.

Also: http://www.computerandvideogames.com/article.php?id=227204

To summarize the article: Activision is paying attention to all of the cries from people who want things in the game that have been in all the previous COD games and are major FPS mainstays. So they're calling them new innovations and saying that players should pay extra for them.

Ugh, the more I hear about blizzard lauding their MMO subscriptions, the more it sounds like Bnet is going to be a pay service.

Nov 13, 2009#25

@Li3n

Shannow said:
Guess what, thats where most (most, not all though) of the money is to be made from gaming nowadays. and publishers know that and will cater to it. Sad to say, but it is true (there are notable exceptions, but in the overall, it is true)

It's because you're all playing WoW you bastards...

Nov 13, 2009#26

Dave

I hate to ask this, but....Why was there a boycott on?

Nov 13, 2009#27

@Li3n

no dedicated servers

Nov 13, 2009#28

Dave

That's it?

Nov 13, 2009#29

@Li3n

consoles got to you i see...

Oh, and 60$ price for the PC...

Nov 13, 2009#30

Dave

I don't play on the console, just the PC. And if the game is that good people will either pay the extra $10 or wait for the price to drop.

Nov 13, 2009#31

Chibibar

Dave said:
I don't play on the console, just the PC. And if the game is that good people will either pay the extra $10 or wait for the price to drop.

black friday

I'm sure some games will go on sale.

Also that is what people say about Dragon Age : Origin not having Multiplayer = sucks..... well I'm only 15 hours in (gameplay wise) and LOVING IT

Nov 13, 2009#32

Terrik

I thought MW:2 singleplayer was worth it alone + the spec ops.

And yes Chibi...at this point in time I couldn't care less of DA:O had multiplayer or not. It kicks too much ass.

Nov 13, 2009#33

Chibibar

Terrik said:
I thought MW:2 singleplayer was worth it alone + the spec ops.

And yes Chibi...at this point in time I couldn't care less of DA:O had multiplayer or not. It kicks too much ass.

Yup. And people are learning how to make mods (for some reason I can't get mine to work properly due to coding library issues. It keep saying it is not there, but I can see the libraries, but others have no problem

) the mods will be awesome cause in the past I have encounter some really talented people pretty much "rework" the game with mods.

Bioware said the toolset pretty much allow users to practically "change the game" via script and lots of creative ideas. I can see new adventures and even characters for this. Woo!

Nov 13, 2009#34

Bowielee

I've decided I'm going to stop rushing to make PC purchases. It seems like if you just wait a few months you can get them for 20 bucks on steam.

Nov 13, 2009#35

Seraphyn

I usually buy shooters for the multiplayer and especially the ability to hang on a couple of servers, getting to know the people there and have a blast with the zillion mods that were always available.

In all honesty, MW2 is a step down from MW so I'll stick with playing the superior game rather then it's newer and heavily stripped down successor. Seems to be more like a console port then a game designed for PC.

I hear good things about the single player though.

edit: Saw a nice little picture.

Nov 13, 2009#36

@Li3n

MW1 had a CS like thing going on, but i didn't see what was all that great... it was just a good FPS... those used to be a dime a dozen once...

Nov 13, 2009#37

Adammon

My god. No Russian.

WTF was that? Wow.

Just to add on to this a bit.

This is the only game I can think of in recent history that says as the first piece of setup after clicking START

"One of the missions may be upsetting. Do you wish to skip it?"

And then asks the question again, just to be sure you don't want to skip it.

And I can understand WHY.

Nov 13, 2009#38

AshburnerX

Adammon said:
My god. No Russian.

WTF was that? Wow.

Just to add on to this a bit.

This is the only game I can think of in recent history that says as the first piece of setup after clicking START

"One of the missions may be upsetting. Do you wish to skip it?"

And then asks the question again, just to be sure you don't want to skip it.

And I can understand WHY.

No Russian shows you that the best way to teach people that acts of terrorism are wrong is to make people perform them themselves. The only way they could have done it better is to make you gun down the unarmed people, instead of just letting your allies do it. You can justify it if your getting shot back at, but it's a lot harder to do it when you see people running for cover.

Nov 14, 2009#39

@Li3n

GOT TO KILL 'EM ALL....

Nov 14, 2009#40

Chibibar

Bowielee said:
I've decided I'm going to stop rushing to make PC purchases. It seems like if you just wait a few months you can get them for 20 bucks on steam.

or at least 15-40% off when they are having a sale!!

Nov 14, 2009#41

Rob King

I find it incredible that this 'No Russian' mission could be so affecting. I don't mean that in a flippant way, but it has to be very significant that we're at the point where massacring a crowd of people who don't exist can elicit an emotional response.

I mean ... I've felt drawn into a game before. I remember in Halo 2 when I met Commander Keys' daughter. My first thought was 'Your father was a great man.'

Nov 14, 2009#42

@Li3n

Getting an emotional response is fine, and one of the reasons we have art...

The problem is when people start accusing people of being sick etc. just because they painted someone getting stabbed, or because they killed some unarmed pixels etc...

Nov 14, 2009#43

Rob King

@Li3n said:
Getting an emotional response is fine, and one of the reasons we have art...

The problem is when people start accusing people of being sick etc. just because they painted someone getting stabbed, or because they killed some unarmed pixels etc...

I had a similar conversation to this the other night, except we were talking about nudity in still life, vs. nudity in cinema. I think the basic tenant is the same though: Cinema is more immersive than sculpture, so Dr. Manhattan bothers us more than David. Similarly, video games are more immersive than painting, so are likely to be more affected by 'No Russian' than 'Massacre in Korea.'

Not saying it's acceptable or good. In fact, I hesitate to make a decision on it at all. But at the very least, it's understandable.

Nov 14, 2009#44

@Li3n

Well that depends on the person... to me a well done painting can certainly resonate more emotionally then any video-game... mostly because slaughtering the innocent in video-games is old hat already.

Nov 14, 2009#45

Rob King

I'll agree that a particularly well executed painting is potentially more affecting than 'any' video game. But the point still stands that as a medium, video games have more potential to affect, based solely on how we interact with them.

Nov 14, 2009#46

phil

I really enjoyed what I played with my buddy Matt, who owns it. We traded off on missions and got through maybe half of it. I'm not too sure. I think we stopped right after

the nuke gets launched and kills the astronauts

I really enjoyed it and enjoyed (for a while) the difficulty of the missions. The multiplayer was pretty great too.

As far as getting an emotional response from me, both this and MW 1 got one from me. In this one during No Russians, and also seeing all those Russian troops just constantly parachuting into that neighborhood.

In the last one it got me at the end when

the main bad guy is just executing all your teammates

and also at the start on the boat when Price knifes one of the guards. For some reason to me it just occurred to me that this guy might not have actually done anything wrong. He might just be a soldier guarding a ship with no idea what's on it. It made me sad that we had to kill him in a way that is usually reserved for slasher films. It was weird.

Nov 14, 2009#47

Rob King

I have to admit that the end of Modern Warfare (the first one) was another thing that inspired some response. I remember finally finishing everything, shooting the guy on the bridge, and just going "It's finally over."

I mean, I loved the game. But it just felt like we had averted a crisis, after going through hell and back.

Nov 14, 2009#48

@Li3n

Rob King said:
But the point still stands that as a medium, video games have more potential to affect, based solely on how we interact with them.

Still depends on the person... but i guess you could make a good point that more people will be easier to affect with the interactive stuff.

I remember finally finishing everything, shooting the guy on the bridge, and just going "It's finally over."

I remember thinking "I finally managed to shoot them all without getting killed!!! SUCCESS!"

Nov 14, 2009#49

Adammon

Having now finished MW2, I really have to give Infinity Ward credit for actually putting effort into the scripting of the game. Each time I thought X would happen and Y would follow, they actually took it off in another direction.

For example

The nuke detonating over Washington, which we kinda already saw in a different locale in the first one...except this wasn't a regular nuke

Who the big bad actually is

Or even

The Empire Strikes Back ending

Hell, the entire mission "Wolverines" (Which is a distinct clue to what it actually entails) is something I've been wanting to see in a game for a long time.

It kept me entertained on Single Player, and the Multiplayer continues to engage me. If only I was better at MP, I'd probably enjoy the game even more

Nov 14, 2009#50

Alucard

I've heard this game takes place 5 years after the first one is that correct?
I'm itching to get it but wont be able to afford it until Thanksgiving break sighs

Nov 15, 2009#51

@Li3n

BlackCat said:
I've heard this game takes place 5 years after the first one is that correct?

Well from the videos i saw the british PC from mw1 is an npc helping you out, so it's definitely after.

Nov 15, 2009#52

Adammon

BlackCat said:
I've heard this game takes place 5 years after the first one is that correct?
I'm itching to get it but wont be able to afford it until Thanksgiving break sighs

The official timeline for the game is 5 years after MW1, yeah.

Nov 15, 2009#53

Chippy

Dave said:
That's it?

By far the best post in this thread.

Nov 15, 2009#54

@Li3n

Bahahahaha: http://www.joystiq.com/2009/11/15/activision-pursuing-online-monetization-models-for-call-of-dut/

So that's where the dedicated servers went.

Nov 15, 2009#55

The Pumes

The beginning was intense,

the whole we don't have clearance to fire on anyone unless they fire first while you're trapped in a humvee

No Russian made me wonder all the design intentions they made into it, like the walking calmly whilst civilians are being gunned down. Was it really just a cheap trick for you to watch the atrocities or maybe it was supposed to add to the edge that they were literally just strolling through the airport gunning people down like no one's business.

So far my favorite levels in the entire game were the Brazilian and American ones. It was quite interesting to see the pace from old MW1 of 'America F*** YEAHHHH' to this when the intro levels of the American side are 'MERICA FU-...oh what the balls man, those russians'.

Nov 16, 2009#56

@Li3n

Well in the 1st one the american guy died in a nuke, so the US getting screwed wasn't unexpected.

But the russians invading over some dead people in an airport?! the US ins't some 3rd world country one can just invade at the drop of a hat, no way thy would start what amounts to WW3 over that. They should have just used high tech terrorist attacks on US soil or something.

Oh, and man was that annoying how Makarov was unkillable during No Russian. Even more annoying that they would turn on you even if you just threw a flashbang too close to them.

Nov 16, 2009#57

Enresshou

Picked it up yesterday. 'No Russian' didn't really have the emotional impact for me it seemed to have for other people. I was actually a little bored by it, though I think it would've been better if they'd waited a little longer in the story.

I've been loving the rest of the game, though. Every level gets the blood pumping, and I really didn't see the twist when you were busting into

the Gulag

. It should've been obvious who it was, but as soon as I saw who Prisoner 627 was, my immediate reaction was

CAPTAIN PRICE!!!!!!

Nov 16, 2009#58

@Li3n

Yeah, that part was pretty good. Only realised it was him a couple of seconds before they said it...

And i totally loved the

Who the hell is Soap!

comment.

Nov 16, 2009#59

Enresshou

Gonna be playing some MW2 multiplayer tonight on Xbox 360 (probably around 6:30 or 7 PST). If anybody's interested, let me know; my gamertag is IOnceWasLegend.

Nov 17, 2009#60

@Li3n

Fight the power:

Modern Warfare 2 PC Hacked for Dedicated Servers

By Tyler Barber | Nov 16, 2009 For now, PC gamers are able to host ranked, dedicated servers.

MTV Multiplayer blog is reporting that modders have unlocked the ability to host dedicated servers in the PC version of Modern Warfare 2. The trick was accomplished by coders unlocking the developer console, allowing them to created ranked, "legal" dedicated servers.

According to a video on Destructoid, modders have already busied themselves, customizing the game's rule-sets to include options like infinite ammo, increased rate of fire, speed and gravity tweaks, and just about anything that you'd expect in an FPS mod. Infinity Ward and Activision have yet to issue a statement regarding the modders.

This news comes after weeks of boycotts and controversy for Infinity Ward's decision to axe dedicated servers in the PC version.
______________________________
Tyler says: Mess with the bull, you get the horns. There's nothing a few dedicated (er, maybe obsessed) gamers can't hack. The specifics of software hacking are so foreign to me that in my mind these folks could commandeer satellites orbiting our planet if they wanted. Of course, there would have to be something like a StarCraft II beta locked inside said satellite for gamers to be interested.

Jokes aside, I love the irony of this story. Infinity Ward's IWNet was supposed to circumvent the exact thing that happened here. How will it respond? What repercussions could the hackers face, if any? I'm sure we'll find out soon, as the lack of dedicated servers in MW2 is quickly becoming the biggest PC gaming news story of 2009.

And BTW, playing the L4D2 demo by mistake once with one player being the host the difference between that and the dedicated servers is huge.

Nov 25, 2009#61

Math242

i'm having a lot of fun playing mw2 multi but something irks me to no end.

why the fuck can't i have a mvt detector and a scope on the same gun. GEEZ.

Nov 25, 2009#62

Joe Johnson

The Bling perk allows two "things" to be mapped to your gun. I currently have a scope and a silencer on my FAMAS.

Nov 25, 2009#63

Math242

ah sweet. i have not unlocked it yet. i'll look at that tonight

Do you actually like the Famas? i can't kill shit with it and it's 3 round burst.

I like the scar-H but i can't wait for the next in line unlocked at level 20.

Nov 25, 2009#64

Joe Johnson

I LOVE the famas. I was an M16 guy from cod4, and love the 3 round burst weapon. It sucks close range - but is great at medium and semi-long. I'm using stopping power right now, so it has a little extra oomph. I'm hoping the FMJ bullets will add even more to that.

I also use a machine pistol as backup - that gets me out of trouble at close range stuff.

---------- Post added at 03:19 PM ---------- Previous post was at 03:18 PM ----------

The next gun is pretty nice, too. Can't remember the name - but it's another fully auto weapon.

Nov 25, 2009#65

Math242

yeah, it's the TAR, I love it (used it a lot in solo play)

Nov 25, 2009#66

Joe Johnson

I'm going to stick with the FAMAS until I "max" it out - ie, have all the attachments (I don't need all the camo).
Then, I'll start on something else, maybe I'll move to the SMGs for awhile. I'm a terrible sniper, so I usually don't bother doing much with those.

This damn game is so addictive now - it's an RPG for meat-heads.

Nov 26, 2009#67

Math242

TAR21 and bling unlocked. Ooooooooh boy this weapon rocks.

Nov 26, 2009#68

Iaculus

Enjoying your scope/detector combo?

Nov 26, 2009#69

Math242

not yet. Grenade launcher and red dot at the moment.

I'll switch to dot/silencer when i unlock the ninja perk.

my favourite game is ffa deathmatch and being invisible there is a huge asset.

When i play team dm or domination, it will indeed probably be detector/red dot with stopping power

Nov 27, 2009#70

Joe Johnson

I just unlocked the FMJ. I need 25 more "through the wall" kills with FMJ, and I'll get the "all attachments" bonus for the FAMAS. I need to do some research and see what the difference between FMJ and stopping power is, and if there is a point in using both. I unlocked the shotgun for the FAMAS earlier last night, but haven't gotten around to using it.

As to red dot, you may as well use the holographic site - I think it's an identical site, but with a slightly larger red dot - meaning you have a slightly larger "hit" area.

Personally, I'm going ACOG, but I know that annoys some people due to its size.

Nov 27, 2009#71

Math242

i get better results with the red dot, i don't really know why.

I was happy to unlock the acog but i get hammered when it is on. i lose too much peripheral vision or something.

I think the shotgun attachment is a waste. too bad cause it looks badass.

FMJ stack with stopping power making your weapon a one hit machine i think

Nov 27, 2009#72

Joe Johnson

I was looking through their wiki - it looks like FMJ is purely for going through objects, it offers no extra damage to flesh. Stopping power gives you more damage overall. So, yeah, combining the two will be great for killing through walls/cars/etc. I may end up going back to my silencer, though. I'm really using FMJ now for the challenge unlocks.

The holographic site theoretically gives you slightly more auto-aim, but yeah, I think the dot is larger, so it can actually obscure your vision a little.

I've also been working on my secondary weapon - with Bling Pro, you can have two attachments on that one. I need 10 more kills to unlock the silencer for that - so I can use a red dot and silencer on my secondary. Making it a pretty useful weapon.

Dec 6, 2009#73

Roxxoredizorz

I love it.

Dec 7, 2009#74

Math242

soooooo what does exactly happen when one enters prestige mode at 70?

ok, i googled my own question and jesus, i fought against 2 dudes who were prestige 10 yesterday. How the fuck did someone reach lvl 70 TEN fucking times.

Dec 7, 2009#75

Joe Johnson

Yeah, even if you consider some kid who doesn't have a job, and blows off school - or even some 19 year old living in his parent basement, that's a CRAP load of gaming time to get that high.

I guess one possibility is a shared account, where multiple people are playing it just to see what happens.

I prestiged in CoD4 - I probably won't this time. I barely have time to get that high of a level as it is - much less do it multiple times.

Dec 7, 2009#76

Math242

i have logged around 40 hours in multi and i'm lvl 51. ok, i'm not that good and i don't do runs with premade teams but still...

i won't prestige either. no way i reset my ACR for another 40 hours.

Dec 7, 2009#77

Joe Johnson

For the most part I play with 'pug's. Most of my friends don't get into this kind of game (their twitch reflexes aren't so great - most of them come from a non-gaming background), and I don't really have the time to invest in a clan/group, unfortunately. It can be really frustrating to play with the unwashed masses, but it's better than not playing at all.

Dec 20, 2009#78

LordRavage

Bought a Playstation 3 and Modern Warfare 2 yesterday. Hot damn Warfare is a fun game! Only made it to No Russian and now I want to blow off my plans so I spend the day playing..

Dec 21, 2009#79

redthirtyone

OK - after years of not giving in, this friggin game is gonna make me break down & buy a HDTV. I play on a 36" tube, and its just a never ending streak of getting sniped before I ever see an enemy. I have a lot of "most killcams watched" accolades... so I watch them just to see how these guys are finding me.. and most of the time I can't even see myself if it wasn't for the big red "YOU" arrow over my head.

Frustrating cause I just flat out suck anyways, and getting shot as soon as I poke my head out a window makes it even moreso.

And another thing... its called MODERN warfare. What kinda lameass spend their time running around stabbing people?? I mean come on... REALLY!! Seems like every game there's some jackass running around with marathon or commando just slashing people. Kinda makes me wish I had a baseball bat in my arsenal - but that's apparently not "modern" enough for this game.

Dec 21, 2009#80

Math242

marathon, lightweight and commando and you don't even need a gun.

I do it when i want to piss people off

Dec 21, 2009#81

Seraphyn

redthirtyone said:
OK - after years of not giving in, this friggin game is gonna make me break down & buy a HDTV. I play on a 36" tube, and its just a never ending streak of getting sniped before I ever see an enemy. I have a lot of "most killcams watched" accolades... so I watch them just to see how these guys are finding me.. and most of the time I can't even see myself if it wasn't for the big red "YOU" arrow over my head.

Yeah that happens to me all the time as well, some guys really have good eyesight and the reflexes to go with it.
If I'm sitting still for a few seconds I can make some 'impossible' kills as well, but seeing the killcams of some people jumping around while sniping people with a handgun from across the map is not something I can pull off.

Also, knifing is awesome if you're not playing seriously. Pretty much like how people used to run around bashing people in the older CoD's.

Dec 21, 2009#82

Math242

sometimes you gotta wonder if people have hacks going on.

Dec 21, 2009#83

Joe Johnson

What kinda lameass spend their time running around stabbing people??

Not sure if you heard, but the 30,000 troops they're sending to Afghanistan are only going to have knives and running shoes.

Dec 21, 2009#84

Bowielee

Seraphyn;318871][quote=redthirtyone said:
OK - after years of not giving in, this friggin game is gonna make me break down & buy a HDTV. I play on a 36" tube, and its just a never ending streak of getting sniped before I ever see an enemy. I have a lot of "most killcams watched" accolades... so I watch them just to see how these guys are finding me.. and most of the time I can't even see myself if it wasn't for the big red "YOU" arrow over my head.

Dec 24, 2009#85

Joe Johnson

So, I decided to go the jerk route, and play with a lightweight/marathon/akimbo class. I'm using the backup machine pistols as the weapon. I just wanted to try it, and see how it played. It's actually sort of fun. It' also not super overwhelming. When you get up close to people you can really tear them apart - doing circle strafing like a quake/halo style shooter. But, at any sort of distance I'm pretty much dead right away. So, my ktd using that class isn't that much different than my normal classes. Its best use seemed to be flanking another team. If you can get behind the enemy, you can gobble them up like a scene from a horror movie. However, you end up dying a lot.

I don't see using this that much, though. It sort of changes the way the game was intended to play. If I wanted to play a game like that, I'd just switch back to Halo 3.

I probably won't try the double shotguns - but maybe I'll try and unlock that, in case I need it for a "counter" move.

Dec 27, 2009#86

Jay

I borrowed my friend's copy of the game the last few days (he was on vacation down south) and I installed the game and played it. Holy fuck is the single player campaign short. I think I pretty much finished it in one sitting of 4 hours. Yes, it was intense and I love those missions where you are with Soap or Price in a coop stealth mission. There were some WOW AWESOME moments. (my fav are going up and down cliff sides and stabbing goodness). Those Brazil stages though... jesus fuck. Trying those stages at anything beyond normal difficulty is bullshit. Love how they always know where the fuck I am. They could have also worked on faster ally/foe recognition. Everyone looks the same with shades of gray to distinguish between them. In the old CoD, you always knew who was who. In those American campaigns, I truly was an American soldier... lots of friendly fire was done.

They could have worked on the storyline a bit as well... and it needed to be at least twice at long.. if not 4 times as long. I know people bought this game for the MP but really... 5 hours? For a 60$ game?

Gonna try to MP today, I'm sure it'll be good but still... 4 hours? Comon.

Dec 27, 2009#87

Rob King

I played the first few missions at my cousin's house today. I loved the Roach/Soap mission. There was this awesome point where this guard saw me through all the snow, and I was still bringing my weapon to bear ... and just as I thought he was going to shoot and alert everyone to my presence, he got shot in the throat by Soap from god only knows where.

Awesome, awesome moments in that game.

The first Rio level is redonkulous though.

Jan 9, 2010#88

Necronic

I picked up this game a couple days ago, and will be writing a full review of it sometime this weekend, but I wanted to read what's been said here about it because for the most part I find this group more mature than the standard gamer type person. So, frankly I am a bit surprised about your attitudes on the No Russian mission, and the implications on the game as a whole.

This is the first time I have ever been disgusted by the path a game took to the point where I may stop playing it permanently. When I played MW1 I was bothered that here I was, making a game out of something that a couple of my friends, who were at the time soldiers in Iraq, went through on a semi regular basis. I was finding enjoyment in something so emotionally traumatising that people often come back from it and aren't able to reintegrate with society.

This issue is something that any war game based on a real war will have to deal with. A friend of mine was playing the Omaha beach scene of a WW2 game and his Grandfather, a veteran who was on one of the beaches was watching him play it. My buddy had a moment of epiphany of what he was doing, enjoying a recreation of his grandfathers worst nightmare, and shut off the game, never played it again.

For WW2 games, and even Vietnam games this issue is less severe, however, as its so far in the past for most of us that we can't really empathize. MW1/2, on the other hand, are set in current times. The reason I finally let myself feel more ok about MW1 was that the combat and action were treated seriously and actually made me empathize with how terrible an experience that would be in real life. It was kind of like watching Black Hawk Down (or for WW2 Band of Brothers).

MW2, on the other hand, feels more like Rambo/Delta Force/Red Dawn/James Bond. There's poorly constructed plot, there's massive holes in the military strategy (eg why would the navy be bombing the gulag that was only a target because of the extraction, that makes no sense as a strategic target), there are fucking SNOW MOBILE CHASES. So Infinity Ward decided to do a lazy execution of this game because all that matters is the action.

The action was intense, no doubt, but it was immature. It was popcorn action, not action with a deep emotional impact, and to make popcorn action that so closely uses real horrors that exist in this world right NOW, deeply disturbs me. Moreover, the general reaction of the gaming media that "our medium can address such weighty issues" (Adam Biessener, game informer), only proves to me the exact opposite, that the level of emotional maturity that exists in our medium is so low that we clearly have no place attempting to address any serious issue.

Of course, many people may respond with "christ dude, its just a game", but you don't get to have it both ways. Its either a piss poor and highly exploitative attempt at a serious message, or its "just a game" that only wants to use these horrors as a form of entertainment for a culture so disconnected from reality that we may be as bad as people in the main stream media often want to say we are.

---------

What kills me most of all, though, is that for as much as I find the game distasteful, I fucking loved playing most of it. The firefights are great, the action sequences are incredible, I have never played something that was so breakneck all the way through. Frankly its a good thing the game was as short as it was, because if it wasn't I probably would have had an adrenaline overload and would have been found dead at my desk with my hands fiercely locked onto my mouse and gamepad.

Jan 9, 2010#89

Rob King

I feel like you might have a point. It's certainly food for thought.

I haven't played through the whole campaign of MW2, so I can't really speak to any of the plot there. That said, what I did play didn't feel that drastically different from MW in theme or execution. As a story I felt like both games were legitimate, and while you raise some excellent points about the appropriation of real-life horrors to serve as fantasy fodder for weekend warriors, I'm not sure if that's such a horrifying thing.

It can certainly be done tastelessly, but I don't feel like MW2 was tasteless. I played through part of the Russian invasion of America in MW2, and it actually affected me. A film would allow me to sit back and bask in the experience. I could have possibly wept freely (an exaggeration) if it was presented to me. But playing through it, I didn't have that luxury. In the back of my head as I was defending Burger Town was how absurd a situation this was, and there was an emotional kernel there. I didn't have the time to think on it or allow that kernel to grow, however until I stopped the game and thought about it.

I don't know what that means, really. We've only in the last decade gotten to a point where it's a legitimate exercise to talk about games as art, or approach the 'literature' of games so to speak. I'll certainly be thinking about what you've had to say over the next while.

Jan 10, 2010#90

Necronic

After playing multiplayer for a while tonight I am even more conflicted. Its incredibly fun, but of course whatever issues I may have had with the single player campaign are only exacerbated when there are people who go by Adolf Hitler, and [KKK] Obama. Of course there's also the fact that the lack of dedicated servers really kills the PC experience. Couldn't stay in a game for more than 2 rounds without the host leaving or everyone recycling to a new server. Ugh.

I have such mixed feelings. Certain aspects of the execution are so amazingly good, other parts (dedicated servers and dual wielding) not so good, and even other parts are bad on a much more meta scale.

Jan 10, 2010#91

Bowielee

I'd just like to point out that most of the people I know who served in Iraq love the Modern Warfare games, and "war-sploitation" entertainment in general.

Jan 10, 2010#92

Necronic

Yeah, that may be true, but I'm not sure its relevant. How I feel about racism or sexism, for instance, isn't dependant on the way that members of other races or sexes feel about the issue, but about how I feel about it. It is a self sufficient belief. And I think the only reason it really bothered me so much with this game was that it was supposedly so intent on making a message with the No Russian mission. By doing that the game becomes something other than "just a game" and therefore you have to look at it in a different light. When I view it in that different light, that's when I have the problem.

Jan 10, 2010#93

Ravenpoe

Necronic said:
(Big snip)

I can certainly see where you're coming from, and if it honestly bothers you, then there's no reason for you to keep playing. But I don't think that the 'exploitation' of war, or other traumas that real people go through, are necessarily bad.

People like having emotional responses. This is a very simple statement that carries a lot of detail with it. People enjoy experiencing simulated emotional responses in a safe environment. It's why war movies are popular. It's why horror movies are popular. It's why tragedies are popular.

Case in point? What's one of the biggest ways to make someone remember your game? Make them cry. If you can present a situation that is so emotionally powerful that the player cries, the player is going to praise that game, because it came across as an artform. Everyone has had friends who have died, but that doesn't mean that

Aeris's (does this really count as a spoiler anymore)

death should be seen as exploitation? I suppose it is, as most entertainment media is an exploitation of something to generate a response in the view/player, but whether this is a 'bad' thing is something I don't think is quite so easy to define.

If someone feels uneasy playing a game about something troubling for them, then that's perfectly understandable. They shouldn't play that game. But I don't think someone should feel that they 'should' feel bad because of this, or feel bad about enjoying it.

Jan 10, 2010#94

Zumbo Prime

This debate reminds me of the canceled "12 Days in Fallelujia"(or w/e) game that was being worked on. Too bad clueless controversy wins out over common sense and hard facts.

Jan 12, 2010#95

Necronic

Zumbo Prime said:
This debate reminds me of the canceled "12 Days in Fallelujia"(or w/e) game that was being worked on. Too bad clueless controversy wins out over common sense and hard facts.

Jan 12, 2010#96

Chazwozel

Necronic said:
I picked up this game a couple days ago, and will be writing a full review of it sometime this weekend, but I wanted to read what's been said here about it because for the most part I find this group more mature than the standard gamer type person. So, frankly I am a bit surprised about your attitudes on the No Russian mission, and the implications on the game as a whole.

This is the first time I have ever been disgusted by the path a game took to the point where I may stop playing it permanently. When I played MW1 I was bothered that here I was, making a game out of something that a couple of my friends, who were at the time soldiers in Iraq, went through on a semi regular basis. I was finding enjoyment in something so emotionally traumatising that people often come back from it and aren't able to reintegrate with society.

This issue is something that any war game based on a real war will have to deal with. A friend of mine was playing the Omaha beach scene of a WW2 game and his Grandfather, a veteran who was on one of the beaches was watching him play it. My buddy had a moment of epiphany of what he was doing, enjoying a recreation of his grandfathers worst nightmare, and shut off the game, never played it again.

For WW2 games, and even Vietnam games this issue is less severe, however, as its so far in the past for most of us that we can't really empathize. MW1/2, on the other hand, are set in current times. The reason I finally let myself feel more ok about MW1 was that the combat and action were treated seriously and actually made me empathize with how terrible an experience that would be in real life. It was kind of like watching Black Hawk Down (or for WW2 Band of Brothers).

MW2, on the other hand, feels more like Rambo/Delta Force/Red Dawn/James Bond. There's poorly constructed plot, there's massive holes in the military strategy (eg why would the navy be bombing the gulag that was only a target because of the extraction, that makes no sense as a strategic target), there are fucking SNOW MOBILE CHASES. So Infinity Ward decided to do a lazy execution of this game because all that matters is the action.

The action was intense, no doubt, but it was immature. It was popcorn action, not action with a deep emotional impact, and to make popcorn action that so closely uses real horrors that exist in this world right NOW, deeply disturbs me. Moreover, the general reaction of the gaming media that "our medium can address such weighty issues" (Adam Biessener, game informer), only proves to me the exact opposite, that the level of emotional maturity that exists in our medium is so low that we clearly have no place attempting to address any serious issue.

Of course, many people may respond with "christ dude, its just a game", but you don't get to have it both ways. Its either a piss poor and highly exploitative attempt at a serious message, or its "just a game" that only wants to use these horrors as a form of entertainment for a culture so disconnected from reality that we may be as bad as people in the main stream media often want to say we are.

---------

What kills me most of all, though, is that for as much as I find the game distasteful, I fucking loved playing most of it. The firefights are great, the action sequences are incredible, I have never played something that was so breakneck all the way through. Frankly its a good thing the game was as short as it was, because if it wasn't I probably would have had an adrenaline overload and would have been found dead at my desk with my hands fiercely locked onto my mouse and gamepad.

I refused to shoot people in the No Russian mission.

And I'll be honest, seeing Washington D.C. in smoldering ruins disturbed me to the point where I had to take a break from the game.

Jan 12, 2010#97

Bowielee

Necronic;327984][QUOTE=Zumbo Prime said:
This debate reminds me of the canceled "12 Days in Fallelujia"(or w/e) game that was being worked on. Too bad clueless controversy wins out over common sense and hard facts.

Could you expand on that? Seems like the standard open ended comment.

Also, after playing multiplayer more I've really come to like the game, and don't get the exploitative feel as much. In the Multiplayer you are really just using soldiers and weapons as flimsy skins, the actual combat is so far from realistic that it doesn't click. But I still think that the No Russian mission was very poorly executed and only illustrated the lack of depth in the gaming industry, as opposed to the opposite. That doesn't mean the game's bad, its really damned fun, its just in no way a statement about anything. Its just a game with some moments of poor taste.[/QUOTE]

Taste is, of course, subjective, so in your opinion, it's in bad taste. Some may not view it that way. Like I said, most of my friends who served in Iraq had no problems with the game at all, and are, in fact, big fans of it.

Jan 13, 2010#98

@Li3n

Chazwozel said:
I refused to shoot people in the No Russian mission.

And I'll be honest, seeing Washington D.C. in smoldering ruins disturbed me to the point where I had to take a break from the game.

And you call yourself a man... harrumph.

Jan 13, 2010#99

Necronic

Bowielee;328081][QUOTE=Necronic;327984][QUOTE=Zumbo Prime said:
This debate reminds me of the canceled "12 Days in Fallelujia"(or w/e) game that was being worked on. Too bad clueless controversy wins out over common sense and hard facts.

Jan 13, 2010#100

Zumbo Prime

I know, I meant to come back and add more to that post, but I kinda forgot. My apologies. :|

And my bad, it's actually Six Days in Fallujah. My memory is starting to go.

Essentially, the game was supposed to be based on a real, especially bloody battle in a town called, you guessed it, Fallujah by U.S. Marines and insurgents. It was completely based on memories and recollections by veterans who came back from the battle who wanted a game as a documentary. Then the press got involved. They started saying things like "too soon", "video games are not art", "video games are not documentaries", and even nutty things like "we don't want to be massacring innocent Iraqis". Apparently this got heavy and influential enough that Konami pulled the plug and cancelled the game completely.

Jan 14, 2010#101

Rob King

That sounds like it would be interesting.

Jan 14, 2010#102

Necronic

Zumbo Prime said:
I know, I meant to come back and add more to that post, but I kinda forgot. My apologies. :|

And my bad, it's actually Six Days in Fallujah. My memory is starting to go.

Essentially, the game was supposed to be based on a real, especially bloody battle in a town called, you guessed it, Fallujah by U.S. Marines and insurgents. It was completely based on memories and recollections by veterans who came back from the battle who wanted a game as a documentary. Then the press got involved. They started saying things like "too soon", "video games are not art", "video games are not documentaries", and even nutty things like "we don't want to be massacring innocent Iraqis". Apparently this got heavy and influential enough that Konami pulled the plug and cancelled the game completely.

Ah, you know I this actually helps me describe my point better. See, this is something I am ok with. The entire focus of the project is as an interactive experience. It truly is using the medium as a form of communication. Its the same for games like Super Columbine Massacre RPG, or Passage. When the focus is that pure, then it as appropriate thing. Now, if this 6 days in falluja had, say, a scene where you doing a snowmowbile chase, or something else that smacked of the popcorn genre then it would compromise the entire movie. And that's what I think MW2 did. It tried to give a serious message with one hand but compromised it with the other.

Forums