Did Modern warfare 2 flop on the pc? ....NOT!!!

[QUOTE="dakan45"][QUOTE="Iantheone"]I think what bugs me the most is that he says that he does not support the focus of most developers on consoles, but instead of supporting the companies that do care about the PC market he buys the crap PC ports that haven't had any effort put into them to make them a real PC game. Iantheone

[QUOTE="DanielDust"][QUOTE="dakan45"] Funny, because many multiplatform games dont even have graphics settings nowadays, just resolution....dakan45

He said decent.

[QUOTE="dakan45"]Man, mw2 is not a rubbish port, gta iv is a rubbish port... Your logic is flawed and filled with hate. Infact definition speaking, wm2 is not considered a port since it came out the same day as the console versions. So your agument is flawed too since we both using flawed logic:Demperorist91

......

Semantics in Gaming are premature so dont go to the definition area . My logic isnt flawed since the MW2 PC Version is the xbox/ps3 version with mouse support , graphic options and IW Net.Oh **** .. such a great original game . And another argument why it is a port is this : It doesnt include all the characteristics pc games have for more than a decade : MP and SP wise(mods , servers etc etc etc).

I experianced some, the only one i can rember right now is rise of the argonauts that had only resolutuon and broken spell use controls alsp bionnic commando and silent hill homecoming had only resolution too.dakan45

[QUOTE="dakan45"][QUOTE="DanielDust"] Can't think of a single decent multiplatform game that didn't have video settings on PC.emperorist91

He said decent.

[QUOTE="emperorist91"]

[QUOTE="dakan45"] I experianced some, the only one i can rember right now is rise of the argonauts that had only resolutuon and broken spell use controls alsp bionnic commando and silent hill homecoming had only resolution too.dakan45

He said decent.

[QUOTE="dakan45"][QUOTE="emperorist91"]

He said decent.

DanielDust

no its not pefect, its the worst optimized porting result ever created. The way it handles resources is a mess and the way it connects them to build up the visuals is terrible.

[QUOTE="DanielDust"][QUOTE="dakan45"] Compared with gta iv and saints row 2, they are decent :)dakan45

no its not pefect, its the worst optimized porting result ever created. The way it handles resources is a mess and the way it connects them to build up the visuals is terrible.

Performance is decent after the last patch because I did had some problems thanks to the previous patch (even tho the latest one should do nothing for performance), but I can't complain because I don't have a graphics card with 1.5 gb of RAM for all the textures...yes it does need that much, because it's the most complex game released so far, Crysis pales in comparison. Considering the requirements that are justified, I am pleased with performance and if you think GTA IV has texture problems, you should play GTA SA, which I'm pretty sure I have at least 4 times the PC to max it out and textures pop up quite frequently.

But no use arguing with you, it's obvious you don't judge games by quality, just polish, which I do not look after. If I were like you then Empire TW would have a 2 score because performance is horrible, but because it's a great game, it deserved way more and that's why I gave it as much as I did.

[QUOTE="dakan45"]

[QUOTE="DanielDust"] GTA IV is perfect if you can play it and you don't call a game bad just because of performance issues. SR2 yes, crap game and not just performance, everything is.DanielDust

no its not pefect, its the worst optimized porting result ever created. The way it handles resources is a mess and the way it connects them to build up the visuals is terrible.

Performance is decent after the last patch because I did had some problems thanks to the previous patch (even tho the latest one should do nothing for performance), but I can't complain because I don't have a graphics card with 1.5 gb of RAM for all the textures...yes it does need that much, because it's the most complex game released so far, Crysis pales in comparison. Considering the requirements that are justified, I am pleased with performance and if you think GTA IV has texture problems, you should play GTA SA, which I'm pretty sure I have at least 4 times the PC to max it out and textures pop up quite frequently.

But no use arguing with you, it's obvious you don't judge games by quality, just polish, which I do not look after. If I were like you then Empire TW would have a 2 score because performance is horrible, but because it's a great game, it deserved way more and that's why I gave it as much as I did.

I think this just prove that you have a horrible taste for games :/Iantheone

[QUOTE="emperorist91"]

[QUOTE="dakan45"] I experianced some, the only one i can rember right now is rise of the argonauts that had only resolutuon and broken spell use controls alsp bionnic commando and silent hill homecoming had only resolution too.dakan45

He said decent.

nope

[QUOTE="Iantheone"]I think this just prove that you have a horrible taste for games :/dakan45

.....

Who are these pc gamers , do you have statistics , numbers , or any kind of proof for what you are saying? What a pile of generalising crap is this ffs.You are so in your own world that you are deviding PC Gamers to PC Gamer and You.It doesnt make any sense . Who are those PC Gamers " that like stalker and hl2" and didnt like cod and far cry 2 . Omg you are driving me crazy mate.And if i liked Doom 3 and FarCry and i didnt like Fear would we have same or opposite tastes?Jesus.

I think this just prove that you have a horrible taste for games :/Iantheone

[QUOTE="morrowindnic"]

The fact is you buying a game from a company that doesn't care about you. While those other games you listed were made by companies that did.dakan45

:shock: How the hell gta iv cared about us?

Or silent hill origins and bionic commando? Or fear 2 or rise of the argonauts? Or mercanaries 2? You know what? I give up. No game developer really cares about buyers, they only care about money, if you cant see that, then am sorry but this is how gaming industry works.

Actually Bethesda cares about its customers, and im pretty sure some of those others do also.

[QUOTE="Iantheone"]I think this just prove that you have a horrible taste for games :/dakan45

[...]be pissed at every multiplatform developer that do the same things and not only at IW [...]

So did it mw2 fail on the pc? So far its a hell no, because everything is going even better than cod4.dakan45

DICE did a watered down version of BF 2 to consoles and they chose to not port it to PC. Now they are doing BC 2, and they plans to the PC version included some enhancements like full support to dedicated servers, while they simultaneously develop BF 3 as a PC title. They have no real needs to make a PC version of BC 2 since the BF 3 announcement, but since BF 3 is a 2010 game they chose to port BC 2, and since the PC standards are higher they are improving the game to be a good bridge from BF 2 to BF 3.

On the other hand, IW did a awful work with the new MW 2, striping and disabling any key feature present in COD 4 and turning the game in a copy & paste from the Xbox 360 version. How can MW 2 be even better than COD 4 if currently COD 4 is ahead of MW 2 in number of players. As I said, they shot themselves in the foot, because Activision wants to milk COD franchise in the form of a MMO FPS, and the only platform in which a monthly fee game is currently viable is PC, and now have most of they potential purchasers angry against.

as much as we should have our own Dedicated servers, I couldn't help but laugh when the SteamGroup that boycotted the game saying they would refuse to buy it turned out 95% of their members were playing launch day on steam.

The sad thing is, it does just prove that Threats are nothing but Empty promises that no one ever intends to keep for matters like this because they want the game so bad, they don't care how they are forced to play.

if currently COD 4 is ahead of MW 2 in number of playersOndoval

no it's not

as much as we should have our own Dedicated servers, I couldn't help but laugh when the SteamGroup that boycotted the game saying they would refuse to buy it turned out 95% of their members were playing launch day on steam.

The sad thing is, it does just prove that Threats are nothing but Empty promises that no one ever intends to keep for matters like this because they want the game so bad, they don't care how they are forced to play.

Zemus

[QUOTE="Ondoval"]if currently COD 4 is ahead of MW 2 in number of playersEnosh88

no it's not

Yes, it is; 93.000 is > than 72.000 in my agenda, and even I known that Xfire numbers are not the whole amount of players online, I known that their % are pretty accurate:

http://www.xfire.com/games/cod4/Call_of_Duty_4_Modern_Warfare/

http://www.xfire.com/games/codmw2/Call_of_Duty_Modern_Warfare_2/

[QUOTE="SemperFi10"]

I won't buy this game, it's a piece of crap. Flop or not to most PC gamers, the game is still a flop to me.

dakan45

[QUOTE="Enosh88"]

[QUOTE="Ondoval"]if currently COD 4 is ahead of MW 2 in number of playersOndoval

no it's not

Yes, it is; 93.000 is > than 72.000 in my agenda, and even I known that Xfire numbers are not the whole amount of players online, I known that their % are pretty accurate:

http://www.xfire.com/games/cod4/Call_of_Duty_4_Modern_Warfare/

http://www.xfire.com/games/codmw2/Call_of_Duty_Modern_Warfare_2/

In this case it isn't as most people using steam have been disabling x-fire. MW2 is currently the most played online shooter on the pc with a 100 thousand playing online. (at this very moment CoD4 "only" has 30k.

[QUOTE="dakan45"][QUOTE="SemperFi10"]

I won't buy this game, it's a piece of crap. Flop or not to most PC gamers, the game is still a flop to me.

blade55555

Currently as I type this, the pc game is showing that 140,465 people are online playing right now. Yeah, huge flop. Lol.

Yes, it is; 93.000 is > than 72.000 in my agenda, and even I known that Xfire numbers are not the whole amount of players online, I known that their % are pretty accurate:

http://www.xfire.com/games/cod4/Call_of_Duty_4_Modern_Warfare/

http://www.xfire.com/games/codmw2/Call_of_Duty_Modern_Warfare_2/

Ondoval

so CoD4 had 93k people with xfire playing today

there are 94k people playing MW2 MP RIGHT NOW, I don't mean per day, I mean now, this very moment (add another 25k playing the single player/spec ops)

http://store.steampowered.com/stats

As others have stated, MW2 has completely obliterated MW. As MW never had more than 40k people playing multiplayer even at it's peak. While MW2 has twice as much.

And it's also become the most played online fps on the pc as a whole - even beating Counter Strike: Source.

I bought Frontlines since it was on sale for 75% off on Steam. I guess I can't complain because of the price I paid, but it's basically an amateurish version of Battlefield. I feel sorry for anyone who paid full price for it.

If it weren't for this whole deal, I would not have bought the game. I never liked the first one, but I decided to give the second one a go. Bought it on Friday, but I was gone for the weekend and couldn't play it. I did buy the 360 version, however, just because I'm the only one of my friends that has a gaming computer, but I would have bought it for the PC if that were not the case.

I bought Frontlines since it was on sale for 75% off on Steam. I guess I can't complain because of the price I paid, but it's basically an amateurish version of Battlefield. I feel sorry for anyone who paid full price for it.

Skeptomania