What is so wrong about Modern Warfare 2

Hey,

I do not have it. I have beaten MW1 and WAW. I loved them both. What is the fuss about MW2? It got a 9.5/10 and there are over 30,000 people playing the multiplayer portion through Steam alone. What is so bad about it? It looks awesome to me.

-Thanks

Hey,

I do not have it. I have beaten MW1 and WAW. I loved them both. What is the fuss about MW2? It got a 9.5/10 and there are over 30,000 people playing the multiplayer portion through Steam alone. What is so bad about it? It looks awesome to me.

-Thanks

KeithTobberman

MW2 has been stripped of many of the most basic features that are present in nearly every PC game released these days.

The problem isn't in the game but in the gamers.

]

This is what's wrong.

The benefits of using Dedicated Servers are basically that they do one thing only: host whatever game you tell it to do - it isn't somebody's home PC running sixty or more other processes on a residential connection. They also allow the modding community to create and host their own content (new maps and the like, even new modes of play) extending the life of the game immensely. There's also the fact that because they only host your game, they can support usually up to 64 players rather than the dismal 18 offered by IW.net and they are much, much faster due to them having business class internet connections.

Essentially Infinity Ward have decimated the modding community by not allowing PC gamers to enjoy community-created content and reduced the number of players to a pathetic 18 rather than the maximum of 64 which most would say is mandatory for an FPS like MW2. The PC gamer stands to gain nothing, Infinity Ward get to control all game content (forcing PC gamers to pay whatever they charge for new content) and when the time comes for Infinity Ward to release Modern Warfare 3, they can shut off the listening servers and pull the plug on online play making people buy their newest title.

For me it's the price. 60 bux is just INSANE! it should be 30!

I think many of the complaints about the game are focused on the multiplayer. The single player campaign seems to be receiving praise from gamers on all platforms, including PC.

This is what's wrong.

lettuceman44

This is a good example of what is wrong compared to the previous version.

You should also note the following:

- you CANNOT 'opt out' of being the host for matches - and it is still unclear if some people would run into problems with their ISPs for 'hosting' game servers
- the player limit is actually 12 for most game modes. Only Groundwar game mode supports 18 players.
- from feedback on the MW2 forums - there is no team autobalance. So if a few players on your team drop out...you are stuck with lower numbers, eg, 6 v 2.
- you need a majority vote in the lobby to change a map. You cannot vote in-game for a map change.
- Each game mode has set playlists, ie, only certain maps are available for each game mode.
- Hardcore game modes are LOCKED and you have to increase Rank to be able to unlock them.
- Search And Destroy is LOCKED, and ditto.
- VAC only tracks hacks and then does a global ban after several weeks have passed - so you will still have to play with hackers in the mean time.
- you cannot kick any player during a public match.

Many people are experiencing problems because they do not have the correct ports open on their routers, and the casual gamers who were supposed to be the 'target audience' for IWnet have no idea what NAT settings or ports are. So it is categorically NOT easier for them to use than simply picking and clicking a server from a list.

I have also been hearing (unsubstantiated) rumours that the PC version uses some form of Aim Assist in multiplayer, and the 'hit boxes' have been expanded so that targets are easier to hit. This is apparently IW's answer to the latency issues. IF that is true, then...

What more can I say?

As the brilliant reviewers from IGN have put it: "Infinity Ward has worked to make sure the experience on PC is identical to that of 360 and PS3, and while I'd say the team has succeeded overall, that's so a good and bad thing for various players."

Well, no SH*T. I hate IGN and I hate those people who think PC gamers want the same thing as consoles. THAT is what is wrong with the game.

The single player campaign is 6 hours! That's $10 an hour! THAT is what is wrong with the game.

No more dedicated servers means no more gaming community that flourished on MW1. THAT is what is wrong with the game.

The PC is dying because of crap like Mr. IGN stated. Consoles can go screw themselves. Why can't developers let PC's be PC's?

I think many of the complaints about the game are focused on the multiplayer. The single player campaign seems to be receiving praise from gamers on all platforms, including PC.

[QUOTE="lettuceman44"]

This is what's wrong.

RobertBowen

This is a good example of what is wrong compared to the previous version.

You should also note the following:

- you CANNOT 'opt out' of being the host for matches - and it is still unclear if some people would run into problems with their ISPs for 'hosting' game servers
- the player limit is actually 12 for most game modes. Only Groundwar game mode supports 18 players.
- from feedback on the MW2 forums - there is no team autobalance. So if a few players on your team drop out...you are stuck with lower numbers, eg, 6 v 2.
- you need a majority vote in the lobby to change a map. You cannot vote in-game for a map change.
- Each game mode has set playlists, ie, only certain maps are available for each game mode.
- Hardcore game modes are LOCKED and you have to increase Rank to be able to unlock them.
- Search And Destroy is LOCKED, and ditto.
- VAC only tracks hacks and then does a global ban after several weeks have passed - so you will still have to play with hackers in the mean time.
- you cannot kick any player during a public match.

Many people are experiencing problems because they do not have the correct ports open on their routers, and the casual gamers who were supposed to be the 'target audience' for IWnet have no idea what NAT settings or ports are. So it is categorically NOT easier for them to use than simply picking and clicking a server from a list.

I have also been hearing (unsubstantiated) rumours that the PC version uses some form of Aim Assist in multiplayer, and the 'hit boxes' have been expanded so that targets are easier to hit. This is apparently IW's answer to the latency issues. IF that is true, then...

What more can I say?

Sixty dollars for a game with a five to six hour campaign? No way.

I bought it for the PC, its fantastic, $60 for a 360 copy or $60 for a pc copy? It looks better on the pc, plays better with a keyboard and mouse, and thats enough for me to get this over the 360 versionFrenzyd109

Agreed. I also have no interest in playing this game online so most of the points outlined above mean nothing to me.

PC gamers are supposed to be smarter than console gamers. Yet it's obvious many here can't even read a simple review. These "$60 just for a 5 hour game" complaints are a hoot.

PC gamers are supposed to be smarter than console gamers. Yet it's obvious many here can't even read a simple review. These "$60 just for a 5 hour game" complaints are a hoot.

Qixote

[QUOTE="Qixote"]

PC gamers are supposed to be smarter than console gamers. Yet it's obvious many here can't even read a simple review. These "$60 just for a 5 hour game" complaints are a hoot.

Nibroc420

[QUOTE="Nibroc420"][QUOTE="Qixote"]

PC gamers are supposed to be smarter than console gamers. Yet it's obvious many here can't even read a simple review. These "$60 just for a 5 hour game" complaints are a hoot.

Qixote

Interesting. I've just discovered this game contains:

Fabulous Americans In Leotards.

P.S. You work it out. :P

Interesting. I've just discovered this game contains:

Fabulous Americans In Leotards.

P.S. You work it out. :P

RobertBowen

They state that Spec ops is a few select missions from the original campaign but it's co-op. You can revive eachother, and in some select missions one player defends the other from the sky. THATS IT so if you're player 1. and you've beaten the campaign, and your buddy comes and wants to play spec ops, you're REDOING the same missions, except this time your friend is providing cover. There are a couple spec ops only missions, but they're otherwise the same.Nibroc420

There's a difference between what Spec-Ops has to offer and what the campaign has to offer. Spec-Ops does use the same maps and similar layouts as the campaign, but the objectives are more generic and lacks meaning; the campaign, however, has a story backed behind it, so you feel that you are actually accomplishing something with a friend. If you're all about just getting the action and violence fix from a shooter, then sure, those "co-op" missions would suit you just fine. Some people, however, enjoy going through an actual storyline with a friend or two. Additionally, you said something about how we're complaining about how multiplayer maps use the same layouts as the campaign. That is completely false; we aren't complaining about the maps. We're complaining about the features that go along with playing with those maps, and the stripping of any possibility for new maps and game modes made by several mod communities out there.

[QUOTE="RobertBowen"]

Interesting. I've just discovered this game contains:

Fabulous Americans In Leotards.

P.S. You work it out. :P

Nibroc420

haha i like that.

Even after reading about all that had been stripped from MW2's PC version, I was still considering buying it. But after Activision had the gall to say they're "not worried" about the complaints from the PC community, I will definitely be passing on this one. It's a shame, it looks so good.

Thanks for the replies. To me, I don't mind a short campaign. If a game is 30 hours long, I will seldom beat it. This way it is most likely a great 5 hour game. I am sure it would be a blast....plus...online looks cool.

lol 30k .... there are 48k people playing CS:S and almost 58k people playing CS1.6 .... so whats your point? The game is trash, all the good players who actually pay attention to gaming dont own the game either which means the ones playing are typically garbage fanatics who arent really taht good at MP games anyway.

I bought it for the PC, its fantastic, $60 for a 360 copy or $60 for a pc copy? It looks better on the pc, plays better with a keyboard and mouse, and thats enough for me to get this over the 360 versionFrenzyd109

unfortuanately that doesn't mean they havn't screwed over the multiplayer (to an extent)

You can't lean.

I'm sorry, but that's just a slap in the face.

PC gamers are supposed to be smarter than console gamers. Yet it's obvious many here can't even read a simple review. These "$60 just for a 5 hour game" complaints are a hoot.

Qixote

CUSTOM MOUSE SUPPORT!!11!

Yea the problem are gamers...

You can't lean.

I'm sorry, but that's just a slap in the face.

HaloEleven

[QUOTE="HaloEleven"]

You can't lean.

I'm sorry, but that's just a slap in the face.

fudgeblood