Black Ops - Mod Tools confirmed!

[QUOTE="Pug-Nasty"]

[QUOTE="cobrax25"]

lol you wish

cobrax25

Yes I wish. That's bad? Mod tools allow a bad game to made playable, even good. UT III on ps3 had them, and I see no reason not to include them for console versions. Clearly, Sony allows them to be made available, and they take almost no effort on the part of the developer.

Clearly, the only thing they don't want to do it for is because it nullifies any point in buying the next iteration of their annual pile of crap.

UT3 modding was very limited though, people ran into all sorts of problems with limitations. You cant really mod for fixed hardware and the PS3 is no different. There were severe memory limitations with what could be done and that created all sorts of problems.

The problem is that console games tend to be designed to use all the memory they have access to, and mods tend use more memory than the regular game does. On the PC, this isnt a problem for 2 reasons, first off, you have a ton of memory (a lot of which is never even used) and even if you run into problems, you can play around with the settings.

Mods will simply never work on a closed platform. Thats why console games with map editors actually place limitations on the amount of objects that may be included,

That makes sense, but mods don't have to just be there to make things look better and more detailed (suck more power), they could just make things different. Different look, different weapons, whatever. At least a map editor would be nice.

But, that's not the make or break for me with the game. It's the lack of servers that makes it pointless to play it online.

It's far from that. First you have to consider that IW invented Call of Duty and made the superb COD4, which re-invented the series and set the current standard we have today for online shooters. Ever since the beginning Treyarch has basically piggy backed off of IW's designs and game assets. Without the blue print IW has laid out since COD1, and especially COD4, I wonder where Treyarch would be? Also, look at Treyarch's separate ventures. The're not as good. They haven't designd an original game from the ground up that I find worthwhile. And if anyone remembers Call of Duty 3, made by Treyach, was the worst entry into the franchise IMO (along with Big Red One which Treyarch made as well).

TREAL_Since

I agree that IW>Treyarch but I'm not exactly happy that COD4 is the standard for online shooters. :P

But who knows? Treyarch might overtake IW, Black Ops can't be worse than MW2.

[QUOTE="cobrax25"]

[QUOTE="Pug-Nasty"]

Yes I wish. That's bad? Mod tools allow a bad game to made playable, even good. UT III on ps3 had them, and I see no reason not to include them for console versions. Clearly, Sony allows them to be made available, and they take almost no effort on the part of the developer.

Clearly, the only thing they don't want to do it for is because it nullifies any point in buying the next iteration of their annual pile of crap.

Pug-Nasty

UT3 modding was very limited though, people ran into all sorts of problems with limitations. You cant really mod for fixed hardware and the PS3 is no different. There were severe memory limitations with what could be done and that created all sorts of problems.

The problem is that console games tend to be designed to use all the memory they have access to, and mods tend use more memory than the regular game does. On the PC, this isnt a problem for 2 reasons, first off, you have a ton of memory (a lot of which is never even used) and even if you run into problems, you can play around with the settings.

Mods will simply never work on a closed platform. Thats why console games with map editors actually place limitations on the amount of objects that may be included,

That makes sense, but mods don't have to just be there to make things look better and more detailed (suck more power), they could just make things different. Different look, different weapons, whatever. At least a map editor would be nice.

But, that's not the make or break for me with the game. It's the lack of servers that makes it pointless to play it online.

[QUOTE="cobrax25"]

[QUOTE="Pug-Nasty"]

Yes I wish. That's bad? Mod tools allow a bad game to made playable, even good. UT III on ps3 had them, and I see no reason not to include them for console versions. Clearly, Sony allows them to be made available, and they take almost no effort on the part of the developer.

Clearly, the only thing they don't want to do it for is because it nullifies any point in buying the next iteration of their annual pile of crap.

Pug-Nasty

UT3 modding was very limited though, people ran into all sorts of problems with limitations. You cant really mod for fixed hardware and the PS3 is no different. There were severe memory limitations with what could be done and that created all sorts of problems.

The problem is that console games tend to be designed to use all the memory they have access to, and mods tend use more memory than the regular game does. On the PC, this isnt a problem for 2 reasons, first off, you have a ton of memory (a lot of which is never even used) and even if you run into problems, you can play around with the settings.

Mods will simply never work on a closed platform. Thats why console games with map editors actually place limitations on the amount of objects that may be included,

That makes sense, but mods don't have to just be there to make things look better and more detailed (suck more power), they could just make things different. Different look, different weapons, whatever. At least a map editor would be nice.

But, that's not the make or break for me with the game. It's the lack of servers that makes it pointless to play it online.

it actually doesnt have anything to do with looking better, when modders design anything, it always tends to use more recources then the original game. They place a lot less emphasis on optimizing memory then developers do.

it actually doesnt have anything to do with looking better, when modders design anything, it always tends to use more recources then the original game. They place a lot less emphasis on optimizing memory then developers do.

cobrax25

That's usually the case when adding extra content, but sometimes you get those mods that make the game look better AND makes it run better. :)

[QUOTE="jamejame"]

Treyarch - 1

Infinity Ward - 0

I've been saying Treyarch was the better dev for the longest time. They actually offer continuous support and patches for their games while Infinity Ward releases and moves on. Glad to see their listening to the community.

TREAL_Since

didn't MOH came before COD

[QUOTE="TREAL_Since"]

[QUOTE="jamejame"]

Treyarch - 1

Infinity Ward - 0

I've been saying Treyarch was the better dev for the longest time. They actually offer continuous support and patches for their games while Infinity Ward releases and moves on. Glad to see their listening to the community.

badtaker

didn't MOH came before COD

IW is comprised of the award winning MOH PC team, ACTIVISION stole them from EA to create a MOH clone for ACTI.

ACTI just wanted a WWII shooter, and stole the talent and MOH died, COD was born in one fell swoop.

[QUOTE="TREAL_Since"]

[QUOTE="jamejame"]

Treyarch - 1

Infinity Ward - 0

I've been saying Treyarch was the better dev for the longest time. They actually offer continuous support and patches for their games while Infinity Ward releases and moves on. Glad to see their listening to the community.

badtaker

didn't MOH came before COD

[QUOTE="badtaker"]

[QUOTE="TREAL_Since"]First you have to consider that IW invented Call of Duty .

Verge_6

didn't MOH came before COD

Not according to METACRITIC or GAMERANKINGS.

Treyarch is AA at best, IW was AAA....even with the IW decline. IW's worst bested Treyarchs best effort to date.

Also, the original MOH PC team was made up of IW, ACTI stole them from EA for the purpose of having a WWII shooter, and hurting EA at the same time. ;)

[QUOTE="badtaker"]

[QUOTE="TREAL_Since"]First you have to consider that IW invented Call of Duty .

SolidTy

didn't MOH came before COD

IW was the MOH team, ACTIVISION stole them from EA to create a MOH clone for ACTI.

[QUOTE="SolidTy"]

[QUOTE="badtaker"]

didn't MOH came before COD

badtaker

IW is comprised of the award winning MOH PC team, ACTIVISION stole them from EA to create a MOH clone for ACTI.

ACTI just wanted a WWII shooter, and stole the talent and MOH died, COD was born in one fell swoop.

I didn't confuse them, you missed my edit at 12:18 your post here is 12:21 (it's a fast paced forum, I've got 6 tabs open, and you have to post and think quickly)...I OWN and PLAYED all of these games from PSone to PC. I own Medal of Honor on PSOne, and it's great sequel Medal of Honor : Underground. That said, the PC team is the team that really got the online game community to notice.

It doesn't change the fact COD exists because ACTI wanted it's own MOH, and they stole the MOH PC team from EA to create COD. I wasn't confused at all, but I can only type so many words before people stop reading.

[QUOTE="Verge_6"][QUOTE="badtaker"]

didn't MOH came before COD

SolidTy

Not according to METACRITIC or GAMERANKINGS.

Treyarch is AA at best, IW was AAA....even with the IW decline. IW's worst bested Treyarchs best effort to date.

Also, the original MOH PC team was made up of IW, ACTI stole them from EA for the purpose of having a WWII shooter, and hurting EA at the same time. ;)

[QUOTE="TREAL_Since"]

[QUOTE="jamejame"]

Treyarch - 1

Infinity Ward - 0

I've been saying Treyarch was the better dev for the longest time. They actually offer continuous support and patches for their games while Infinity Ward releases and moves on. Glad to see their listening to the community.

badtaker

---

I'm not saying Treyarch are terrible developers. Sure they have heart and listen to the community which is what successful developers need. Also, people need to know that Black Ops is being developed by 200 full staffed people. IW was around 60-70 employee (before the "incident"). That's considerably less than 90% of developers who make AAA shooters. For comparisons: Bungie = 180; Guerrilla Games = 130; DICE = 200+; Crytek = 550 (plus Cyrytek UK = 60); Valve = 225.

---

I hope that Black Ops is a great game though. I think it's gonna be a pleasant surprise for us. But to say they are straight up better than IW is wrong IMO.

didn't MOH came before COD

[QUOTE="badtaker"][QUOTE="SolidTy"]

IW is comprised of the award winning MOH PC team, ACTIVISION stole them from EA to create a MOH clone for ACTI.

ACTI just wanted a WWII shooter, and stole the talent and MOH died, COD was born in one fell swoop.

SolidTy

I didn't confuse them, you missed my edit (it's a face paced forum, and you have to post and think quickly)...I OWN and PLAYED all of these games. I own Medal of Honor on PSOne, and it's sequel Medal of Honor : Underground. That said, the PC team is the team that really got the online game community to notice.

It doesn't change the fact COD exists because ACTI wanted it's own MOH, and they stole the MOH PC team from EA to create COD.

[QUOTE="SolidTy"]

[QUOTE="Verge_6"] Also, the people that made the superior expansion pack, United Offensive, went on to found *gasp* Treyarch. IW's games got progressively worse, whilst Treyarch's have been improving.Verge_6

Not according to METACRITIC or GAMERANKINGS.

Treyarch is AA at best, IW was AAA....even with the IW decline. IW's worst bested Treyarchs best effort to date.

Also, the original MOH PC team was made up of IW, ACTI stole them from EA for the purpose of having a WWII shooter, and hurting EA at the same time. ;)

*Posts pic*

If rating were a true indication of quality, I don't think W@W would be considered a joke by so many people on this site. :roll:

Also, I highly doubt we should be using SW, or even GS community to rank a game. I know Meta is flawed, but using some internet community is even more flawed.

Like I said, even with IW on the decline, IW's WORST >>>>>>>>>> Treyarchs best, even if they are on the rise. I'm going to side with myself, and the worlds majority of critics that agree with me. IW's supposed Sharp decline still got them AAA metascore, it's not a sharp decline at all. I would argue that it was a small decline, yes, but not sharp, and still bests AA efforts from Treyarch anyday (I've given them so many chances over the years, and W@W was so broken as well)

Also, just so you know, I own every MOH and COD game that ever released as well, so I'm speaking from experience. Also, I have played probably every Treyarch game released in the last decade to boot.

IF COD7:Black Ops ends up getting a metascore of AAA, it will be a huge deal for Treyarch, since it will be their first time. In the meantime, I'm not holding my breath...but I surely hope they do it. I've already held my breath for their last few efforts, and I'm done with it.

[QUOTE="SolidTy"]

[QUOTE="badtaker"] First MOH came out for PS1 IW was the team of MOH:AA that came in 2002 You are confused 1st MOH was not made by IWbadtaker

I didn't confuse them, you missed my edit (it's a face paced forum, and you have to post and think quickly)...I OWN and PLAYED all of these games. I own Medal of Honor on PSOne, and it's sequel Medal of Honor : Underground. That said, the PC team is the team that really got the online game community to notice.

It doesn't change the fact COD exists because ACTI wanted it's own MOH, and they stole the MOH PC team from EA to create COD.

I already know, and I already said that (Go back to my first post, edited 12:18, before your reply), multiple times for years here at SW. In fact, for all I know, I told you this a few years ago. I've taught and educated many users over the years here at SW, and this was one my my points I've explained over the years as well. Here's my post, in case you don't go back :

"IW is comprised of the award winning MOH PC team, ACTIVISION stole them from EA to create a MOH clone for ACTI.

ACTI just wanted a WWII shooter, and stole the talent and MOH died, COD was born in one fell swoop."

[QUOTE="SolidTy"]

[QUOTE="Verge_6"] Also, the people that made the superior expansion pack, United Offensive, went on to found *gasp* Treyarch. IW's games got progressively worse, whilst Treyarch's have been improving.Verge_6

Not according to METACRITIC or GAMERANKINGS.

Treyarch is AA at best, IW was AAA....even with the IW decline. IW's worst bested Treyarchs best effort to date.

Also, the original MOH PC team was made up of IW, ACTI stole them from EA for the purpose of having a WWII shooter, and hurting EA at the same time. ;)

For me, COD2>COD3 and COD4>WAW. But this time around I have a strong feeling that Black Ops will >>> MW2 pretty hard lol. We'll see. Treyarch's track record isn't proven with me. I woulndt rank them above IW just yet.

@SolidTy : then why you quoted me with this comments """"""IW is comprised of the award winning MOH PC team, ACTIVISION stole them from EA to create a MOH clone for ACTI. ACTI just wanted a WWII shooter, and stole the talent and MOH died, COD was born in one fell swoop."""""

you should have said MOH AA PC team not MOH PC team

[QUOTE="Verge_6"]

[QUOTE="SolidTy"]

Not according to METACRITIC or GAMERANKINGS.

Treyarch is AA at best, IW was AAA....even with the IW decline. IW's worst bested Treyarchs best effort to date.

Also, the original MOH PC team was made up of IW, ACTI stole them from EA for the purpose of having a WWII shooter, and hurting EA at the same time. ;)

SolidTy

*Posts pic*

If rating were a true indication of quality, I don't think W@W would be considered a joke by so many people on this site. :roll:

Also, I highly doubt we should be using SW, or even GS community to rank a game. I know Meta is flawed, but using some internet community is even more flawed.

Like I said, even with IW on the decline, IW's WORST >>>>>>>>>> Treyarchs best, even if they are on the rise. I'm going to side with myself, and the worlds majority of critics that agree with me.

Also, just so you know, I own every MOH and COD game that ever released as well, so I'm speaking from experience. Also, I have played probably every Treyarch game released in the last decade to boot.

@SolidTy : then why you quoted me with this comments """"""IW is comprised of the award winning MOH PC team, ACTIVISION stole them from EA to create a MOH clone for ACTI. ACTI just wanted a WWII shooter, and stole the talent and MOH died, COD was born in one fell swoop."""""

you should have said MOH AA PC team not MOH PC team

badtaker

[QUOTE="SolidTy"]

[QUOTE="Verge_6"] If ratings were a true indication of quality, I don't think MW2 would be considered a joke by so many people on this site. :roll: Despite your precious rankings and ratings, most hardcore fans of the franchise will agree that IW's games have been in a sharp decline since their debut with CoD1. Treyarch has been on the rise. But, hey, what do I know, I've only been a player of CoD since the day first goddamned game came out.

*Posts pic*Verge_6

If rating were a true indication of quality, I don't think W@W would be considered a joke by so many people on this site.

Also, I highly doubt we should be using SW, or even GS community to rank a game. I know Meta is flawed, but using some internet community is even more flawed.

Like I said, even with IW on the decline, IW's WORST >>>>>>>>>> Treyarchs best, even if they are on the rise. I'm going to side with myself, and the worlds majority of critics that agree with me. IW's supposed Sharp decline still got them AAA metascore, it's not a sharp decline at all. I would argue that it was a small decline, yes, but not sharp, and still bests AA efforts from Treyarch anyday (I've given them so many chances over the years, and W@W was so broken as well)

Also, just so you know, I own every MOH and COD game that ever released as well, so I'm speaking from experience. Also, I have played probably every Treyarch game released in the last decade to boot.

IF COD7:Black Ops ends up getting a metascore of AAA, it will be a huge deal for Treyarch, since it will be their first time. In the meantime, I'm not holding my breath...but I surely hope they do it. I've already held my breath for their last few efforts, and I'm done with it.

Feel free to use polls here at SW to make your decisions, or a poll to at least to validate your decisions. ;)

I'm not negating my own opinion at all, but I was merely suggesting that COD4 was better than COD6, but not by a large margin, as they were both AAA games after all. I was merely speaking of any minor tenths that MW2 may have lost in comparison to MW1, not that they weren't both AAA games recognized by the world. Treyarch has yet to make that happen. ;)

I like to think for myself as well as I'm very familiar with Treyarchs NON COD efforts and ALL of their COD efforts, I happen to side with the majority of the world's critics because I own and played these games, thank you very much.:P

[QUOTE="badtaker"]

@SolidTy : then why you quoted me with this comments """"""IW is comprised of the award winning MOH PC team, ACTIVISION stole them from EA to create a MOH clone for ACTI. ACTI just wanted a WWII shooter, and stole the talent and MOH died, COD was born in one fell swoop."""""

you should have said MOH AA PC team not MOH PC team

TREAL_Since

I was about to go further into it, but thank you.;)

To be honest, I think he knows that, and is just having a bit of fun. What else could he be referring to? :P

[QUOTE="Verge_6"]

[QUOTE="SolidTy"]

If rating were a true indication of quality, I don't think W@W would be considered a joke by so many people on this site.

Also, I highly doubt we should be using SW, or even GS community to rank a game. I know Meta is flawed, but using some internet community is even more flawed.

Like I said, even with IW on the decline, IW's WORST >>>>>>>>>> Treyarchs best, even if they are on the rise. I'm going to side with myself, and the worlds majority of critics that agree with me. IW's supposed Sharp decline still got them AAA metascore, it's not a sharp decline at all. I would argue that it was a small decline, yes, but not sharp, and still bests AA efforts from Treyarch anyday (I've given them so many chances over the years, and W@W was so broken as well)

Also, just so you know, I own every MOH and COD game that ever released as well, so I'm speaking from experience. Also, I have played probably every Treyarch game released in the last decade to boot.

IF COD7:Black Ops ends up getting a metascore of AAA, it will be a huge deal for Treyarch, since it will be their first time. In the meantime, I'm not holding my breath...but I surely hope they do it. I've already held my breath for their last few efforts, and I'm done with it.

SolidTy

Feel free to use polls here at SW to make your decisions, or at least to compliment your decisions. ;)

I'm not negating my own opinion at all, but I was merely suggesting that COD4 was better than COD6, but not by a large margin, as they were both AAA games after all. I was merely speaking of any minor tenths that MW2 may have lost in comparison to MW1, not that they weren't both AAA games recognized by the world. Treyarch has yet to make that happen. ;)

I like to think for myself as well, I happen to side with the majority of the world's critics because I own and played these games, thank you very much.:P

[QUOTE="SolidTy"]

[QUOTE="Verge_6"] Something tells me that if a poll was made on which title sucked more, MW2 would win by a landslide. I like to think for myself, thank you very much. But, hey, if you want to continue to ignore common community opinions, be my guest. Also, if you're going to be contrarian, don't negate your own statements. I stated that IW titles were on the slump and that Treyarch was improving, and you stated that rankings said otherwise. Then, you post "Even with IW on the decline" and "Even if Treyarch is on the rise.".

Verge_6

Feel free to use polls here at SW to make your decisions, or a poll to at least to validate your decisions.

I'm not negating my own opinion at all, but I was merely suggesting that COD4 was better than COD6, but not by a large margin, as they were both AAA games after all. I was merely speaking of any minor tenths that MW2 may have lost in comparison to MW1, not that they weren't both AAA games recognized by the world. Treyarch has yet to make that happen.

I like to think for myself as well as I'm very familiar with Treyarchs NON COD efforts and ALL of their COD efforts, I happen to side with the majority of the world's critics because I own and played these games, thank you very much.

I'm not sidestepping anything, but I was being nice to find some common ground with you...I should have remembered something about that.:|

I already covered this.

Treyarch's best recent COD efforts were still merely AA, IW's 'supposed' worst recent COD efforts were still AAA.

Rise, decline, it doesn't matter, IW is better than Treyarch so far judging by their COD efforts. :)

[QUOTE="SolidTy"]

[QUOTE="Verge_6"] Something tells me that if a poll was made on which title sucked more, MW2 would win by a landslide. I like to think for myself, thank you very much. But, hey, if you want to continue to ignore common community opinions, be my guest. Also, if you're going to be contrarian, don't negate your own statements. I stated that IW titles were on the slump and that Treyarch was improving, and you stated that rankings said otherwise. Then, you post "Even with IW on the decline" and "Even if Treyarch is on the rise.".

Verge_6

Feel free to use polls here at SW to make your decisions, or at least to compliment your decisions. ;)

I'm not negating my own opinion at all, but I was merely suggesting that COD4 was better than COD6, but not by a large margin, as they were both AAA games after all. I was merely speaking of any minor tenths that MW2 may have lost in comparison to MW1, not that they weren't both AAA games recognized by the world. Treyarch has yet to make that happen. ;)

I like to think for myself as well, I happen to side with the majority of the world's critics because I own and played these games, thank you very much.:P

Rise, decline, it doesn't matter, COD's supposed decline is still AAA material.

SolidTy

Christ, look at the time. I'll continue this tomorrow. :)

[QUOTE="Verge_6"]

[QUOTE="SolidTy"]

Feel free to use polls here at SW to make your decisions, or at least to compliment your decisions. ;)

I'm not negating my own opinion at all, but I was merely suggesting that COD4 was better than COD6, but not by a large margin, as they were both AAA games after all. I was merely speaking of any minor tenths that MW2 may have lost in comparison to MW1, not that they weren't both AAA games recognized by the world. Treyarch has yet to make that happen. ;)

I like to think for myself as well, I happen to side with the majority of the world's critics because I own and played these games, thank you very much.:P

TREAL_Since

That's it,

Ahoy Matey! Thar she blows! :P

That's it in a nutshell. While I feel in some respects IW dropped the ball compared to COD4, IW's latest and greatest still trumps any efforts by Treyarch to date. And while I do feel that IW has its ups and downs they are still better than Treyarchs highest ups and what a coinkydink, the majority of the worlds seem to agree with me as well. That works out for me.:P

[QUOTE="SolidTy"]

I'm not sidestepping anything, but I was being nice to find some common ground with you...I should have remembered something about that.

I already covered this.

Treyarch's best recent COD efforts were still merely AA, IW's 'supposed' worst recent COD efforts were still AAA.

Rise, decline, it doesn't matter, IW is better than Treyarch so far judging by their COD efforts.

Verge_6

Christ, look at the time. I'll continue this tomorrow. :)

Actually, I just use the world's majority of game critics to back up what I've already determined on my own time with my own games, as we know it's hard to argue just on my mere opinion alone. :)

Oh,you gotta go? C-ya!

*waves*

[QUOTE="SolidTy"]

Rise, decline, it doesn't matter, COD's supposed decline is still AAA material.

Verge_6

Christ, look at the time. I'll continue this tomorrow. :)

[QUOTE="Verge_6"]

[QUOTE="SolidTy"]

Rise, decline, it doesn't matter, COD's supposed decline is still AAA material.

TREAL_Since

Christ, look at the time. I'll continue this tomorrow. :)

Maybe you should write my posts for me after I compose them...I will send payment over through paypal, and we will call it the Treal Filter.

That way, there is no misunderstanding with other users that may or may not be misunderstanding, because again, you read my words and you said what I said but in a new way. I love it, absolutely love it. Bravo.:P

The scores don't dictate what I feel, and he knows it, I already told him I played and own those COD games. The scores just happen to back my opinion in this case.

Nothing can be worse than MW2 really. Treyarch is a much better PC dev than IW. So i might get it

Seriously, I would like to know why they're doing this. As far as I can tell MW2 did pretty well on PC. I'm not sure this would cause much of a sales boost.

[QUOTE="SolidTy"]

[QUOTE="Verge_6"] Also, the people that made the superior expansion pack, United Offensive, went on to found *gasp* Treyarch. IW's games got progressively worse, whilst Treyarch's have been improving.Verge_6

Not according to METACRITIC or GAMERANKINGS.

Treyarch is AA at best, IW was AAA....even with the IW decline. IW's worst bested Treyarchs best effort to date.

Also, the original MOH PC team was made up of IW, ACTI stole them from EA for the purpose of having a WWII shooter, and hurting EA at the same time. ;)

huh? yeah no... sorry but as a fan of COD IW has maintained a constant quality level, where as Treyarch has maintained a constantly low quality level.
The scenario between the 2 devs is allways.

IW makes game, game is usually high rated and sells a bit. Treyarch comes along, takes the engine reskins it adds in loads of glitches and problems...and the game doesn't score nearly as much.
COD4-World at War.

we have cod4 the superior game then we have world at war, COd4 had its problems, and instead of fixing said problems treyarch just took the engine, reskined it back to WW2 and added a whole set of new problems.
some one earlier said that Treyarch is ""better" cause they constantly patch the game and such...yeah they do because they introduce so many new glitches into the game its often unplayable on some maps online because people will continuely cheat. I remember the one circular map in WaW it took them near 4 months to release a patch to fix the under the map glitch and thats just one of the problems.

Citing problems with mw2 means nothing because there was vested interest by anti MW2 people to find every glitch, and hack the hell out of the game before its release. I've never seen another game that had so many glitchers and Hackers on day one, People went out of their way to hack that game, and find every glitch so as to bring some sort of revenge against IW. Sadly the problems left in MW2 wont be patched out cause IW is dead.

Does the console version have dedicated servers ?Immortal--

no

[QUOTE="Immortal--"]Does the console version have dedicated servers ?cobrax25

no

and it never will.

You know if treyarch made the game and Activision just put IW logo on it as the devs people wouldn't be able to tell the difference.

Zombies?

Takes a few more hits to kill people?

Slightly better graphics?

Dedicated servers?

Leaning?

Mods?

It's not out yet and it's already better than MW2...