Give me 3 reasons why MW2 is so ''awful''
This topic is locked from further discussion.
I still dont get how the reviews for them game are so glowing, heck even the GS review praised the SP.People who think others hate on MW2 just because it's popular could not be more wrong. It's a bad game, plain and simple. Here's a handful of reasons why...
The single player compaign is awful. The story is so bad, it feels like it's straight out of some terrible 80's action movie. Russians invade the US and take over the White House? Give a me a break. It also has an awful sense of "pacing" and never gives the player room to breath or take in what's going on. Every single second of this game is putting the player in a situation where there are tons of explosions and bullets being thrown at you, and you can't stand still for one moment without being shot or bombed. The game is a sensory overload and tries to throw as much crap on the screen as possible in attempt to make the experience "intense". It's like being inside the brain of kid with ADD while he's simultaneously having an aneurysm. Oh, and the single player is 5 hours long.
The multiplayer is awful. It encourages spaming and camping in order to achieve kill streaks. The game punishes the player for the mistakes his team makes, not the player himself. The weapons are unbalaced. The perks take away any skill required to play the game. Crappy matchmaking. No dedicated servers. Lag. Poorly designed maps. Have to pay $15 for a new map pack.
35th_shields
[QUOTE="jg4xchamp"]It's not awful,but it's not as good as COD 1 or COD 4. It falls under uninspired and dull territory like COD 2. tomarlynHealth regeneration was an inspired move for the series IMO How is that an inspired move? it went against everything the series was about. And the health regeneration was done in COD 4. Thus making MW2 still uninspired.
1. Campers. 2. CAMPERS. 3. C.A.M.P.E.R.S!!!! and bunch of other things like death streaks, noob tubing, chopper gunners, takes like 2 bullets to the body to kill someone, very laggy, controls feel like your a twitchy floating camera not an actual human being with heavy gear on, $15 DLC map pack, when you get shot red kool-aid is splashed on your screen, you can knife someone like 10 feet away from you..., dual wield shotguns that you can use as sniper rifles, and plenty of more stuff that sucks the fun out of the game.
[QUOTE="tomarlyn"][QUOTE="jg4xchamp"]It's not awful,but it's not as good as COD 1 or COD 4. It falls under uninspired and dull territory like COD 2. jg4xchampHealth regeneration was an inspired move for the series IMO How is that an inspired move? it went against everything the series was about. And the health regeneration was done in COD 4. Thus making MW2 still uninspired. Health generation made the game way more engaging in CoD2. The games worth finishing on Veteran even though you die so many times between checkpoints, wouldnt be possible without health regeneration.
Glitching, IW.net being laggy and needing to change host if he decides to drop, gameplay promote camping, player controlled perks are silly, campaign is shorter than titanic and the guns are pretty imbalanced... I won't mention the glitching and extra 10 dollars or the extremely silly spots they put the domination flags.
1) campaign is way too short
2) online is super flawed- horrible respawn system, unbalanced weapon and perks, killstreaks make the game more noobish, etc
3) its pretty much the exact same thing as cod4 just better graphics and more add ons.
[QUOTE="tomarlyn"][QUOTE="jg4xchamp"]It's not awful,but it's not as good as COD 1 or COD 4. It falls under uninspired and dull territory like COD 2. jg4xchampHealth regeneration was an inspired move for the series IMO How is that an inspired move? it went against everything the series was about. And the health regeneration was done in COD 4. Thus making MW2 still uninspired.
Seriously. This is a game that's supposed to portray war, and all you have to do is sit behind a rock for a few seconds, and you're all healed again.
I can't wait for the day when health packs make their way back into FPS. Recharging health was appropriate in the Halo series (although, Halo CE still did it best with the health + recharching shields), but it doesn't have a place in all FPS, especially CoD.
[QUOTE="tomarlyn"][QUOTE="jg4xchamp"]It's not awful,but it's not as good as COD 1 or COD 4. It falls under uninspired and dull territory like COD 2. jg4xchampHealth regeneration was an inspired move for the series IMO How is that an inspired move? it went against everything the series was about. And the health regeneration was done in COD 4. Thus making MW2 still uninspired. Fair enough in regards to COD4. But health regen made Veteran Mode a brutally challenging and rewarding experience that would be too daunting otherwise.
[QUOTE="jg4xchamp"][QUOTE="tomarlyn"] Health regeneration was an inspired move for the series IMOtomarlynHow is that an inspired move? it went against everything the series was about. And the health regeneration was done in COD 4. Thus making MW2 still uninspired. Fair enough in regards to COD4. But health regen made Veteran Mode a brutally challenging, realistic and rewarding experince that would be too daunting otherwise. Or you could you know. Not have an aggressive enemy spam and just have enough spots where health is easy to pick up between points. and REALISTIC? the **** you mean realistic? You can regenerate health. I don't know one soldier capable of doing that . Not to mention the sack of trash and unbelievable plot totally craps on the concept of "realistic"
How is that an inspired move? it went against everything the series was about. And the health regeneration was done in COD 4. Thus making MW2 still uninspired.[QUOTE="jg4xchamp"][QUOTE="tomarlyn"] Health regeneration was an inspired move for the series IMO35th_shields
Seriously. This is a game that's supposed to portray war, and all you have to do is sit behind a rock for a few seconds, and you're all healed again.
I can't wait for the day when health packs make their way back into FPS. Recharging health was appropriate in the Halo series (although, Halo CE still did it best with the health + recharching shields), but it doesn't have a place in all FPS, especially CoD.
It's a solid gameplay mechanic and a necessity for FPS games. Regen health = core mainstream mechanic. It removes Trial and Error aspects, which is a good thing. It's not about making the game realistic, there's no need for justification with some uninteresting backstory even, just put it in there ;p
The online is unbalanced, at its core MW2 is a very good game. I do like the game, but it could have been a whole lot better. Lots of people hate COD4 & W@W yet i thought those were good games, people will dislike cod games no matter what.
[QUOTE="tomarlyn"][QUOTE="jg4xchamp"] How is that an inspired move? it went against everything the series was about. And the health regeneration was done in COD 4. Thus making MW2 still uninspired. jg4xchampFair enough in regards to COD4. But health regen made Veteran Mode a brutally challenging, realistic and rewarding experince that would be too daunting otherwise. Or you could you know. Not have an aggressive enemy spam and just have enough spots where health is easy to pick up between points. and REALISTIC? the **** you mean realistic? You can regenerate health. I don't know one soldier capable of doing that . Not to mention the sack of trash and unbelievable plot totally craps on the concept of "realistic" Disregard ''realism'' if you truly want. But it did make firefights more realistic because the enemy skill was pumped up so high. If you exposed yourself for too long you'd get shot to death almost instantly, instead of absorbing bullets like most other shooters.
I liked MW 1 better because it had more enjoyable multiplayer maps, a better story, and funner campaign missions (favela and the DC missions were just boring for me, although I did like the prison mission). Still, I don't think MW 2 is awful by any means, I just enjoyed MW 1 a lot more.
[QUOTE="35th_shields"]
[QUOTE="jg4xchamp"] How is that an inspired move? it went against everything the series was about. And the health regeneration was done in COD 4. Thus making MW2 still uninspired. kontejner44
Seriously. This is a game that's supposed to portray war, and all you have to do is sit behind a rock for a few seconds, and you're all healed again.
I can't wait for the day when health packs make their way back into FPS. Recharging health was appropriate in the Halo series (although, Halo CE still did it best with the health + recharching shields), but it doesn't have a place in all FPS, especially CoD.
It's a solid gameplay mechanic and a necessity for FPS games. Regen health = core mainstream mechanic. It removes Trial and Error aspects, which is a good thing. It's not about making the game realistic, there's no need for justification with some uninteresting backstory even, just put it in there ;p
Again, it's a solid gameplay mechanic for some games, but certainly not for all. In the CoD series, it feel completely out of place.
And it's not a necessity for FPS because clearly FPS were just fine without it (before Halo).
Or you could you know. Not have an aggressive enemy spam and just have enough spots where health is easy to pick up between points. and REALISTIC? the **** you mean realistic? You can regenerate health. I don't know one soldier capable of doing that . Not to mention the sack of trash and unbelievable plot totally craps on the concept of "realistic" Disregard ''realism'' if you truly want. But it did make firefights more realistic because the enemy skill was pumped up so high. If you exposed yourself for too long you'd get shot to death almost instantly, instead of absorbing bullets like most other shooters. accept you do absorb it since you fight off the damage by just hiding behind a rock. it made nothing realistic. "intense" maybe. Realistic? HELL NO[QUOTE="jg4xchamp"][QUOTE="tomarlyn"] Fair enough in regards to COD4. But health regen made Veteran Mode a brutally challenging, realistic and rewarding experince that would be too daunting otherwise.tomarlyn
[QUOTE="kontejner44"]
[QUOTE="35th_shields"]
Seriously. This is a game that's supposed to portray war, and all you have to do is sit behind a rock for a few seconds, and you're all healed again.
I can't wait for the day when health packs make their way back into FPS. Recharging health was appropriate in the Halo series (although, Halo CE still did it best with the health + recharching shields), but it doesn't have a place in all FPS, especially CoD.
35th_shields
It's a solid gameplay mechanic and a necessity for FPS games. Regen health = core mainstream mechanic. It removes Trial and Error aspects, which is a good thing. It's not about making the game realistic, there's no need for justification with some uninteresting backstory even, just put it in there ;p
Again, it's a solid gameplay mechanic for some games, but certainly not for all. In the CoD series, it feel completely out of place.
And it's not a necessity for FPS because clearly FPS were just fine without it (before Halo).
Halo redefined the entire FPS genre. I love that game sooooo much. Tell me, from a gameplay perspective, how is shield-HP not good? It may feel out of place from your point of view but that has nothing to do with gaming
[QUOTE="35th_shields"]
[QUOTE="kontejner44"]
It's a solid gameplay mechanic and a necessity for FPS games. Regen health = core mainstream mechanic. It removes Trial and Error aspects, which is a good thing. It's not about making the game realistic, there's no need for justification with some uninteresting backstory even, just put it in there ;p
kontejner44
Again, it's a solid gameplay mechanic for some games, but certainly not for all. In the CoD series, it feel completely out of place.
And it's not a necessity for FPS because clearly FPS were just fine without it (before Halo).
Halo redefined the entire FPS genre. I love that game sooooo much. Tell me, from a gameplay perspective, how is shield-HP not good? It may feel out of place from your point of view but that has nothing to do with gaming
Except it does whenPresentation is such a focus of the game(COD doesn't exactly not through it's narrative in your face)
and it contradicts the realism, gritty, grounded nature of the presentation.
Not to mention when in retrospect it becomes a more arcadey and easier shooter compared to what was in COD 1. One that the developers foolishly try to offset with respawning enemies. Which sure added to the challenge, but instead of being rewarding it entered the realm of cheap and frustrating. It's neither here nor there but it wasn't anything of a significant improvement for the series. If anything the series hasn't improved much at all.
At it's core it's the same game Medal of Honor: Allied Assault was. Slight upgrades to COD 1, and a more modernized aesthetic(thus modern weapons) for MW and MW2.
Campers, unbalanced multiplayer, bland, generic single player that does nothing to break the mold (not a problem itself but made worse by the fact that...) and it is far less entertaining and well done as other leading FPS games.
[QUOTE="35th_shields"]
[QUOTE="kontejner44"]
It's a solid gameplay mechanic and a necessity for FPS games. Regen health = core mainstream mechanic. It removes Trial and Error aspects, which is a good thing. It's not about making the game realistic, there's no need for justification with some uninteresting backstory even, just put it in there ;p
kontejner44
Again, it's a solid gameplay mechanic for some games, but certainly not for all. In the CoD series, it feel completely out of place.
And it's not a necessity for FPS because clearly FPS were just fine without it (before Halo).
Halo redefined the entire FPS genre. I love that game sooooo much. Tell me, from a gameplay perspective, how is shield-HP not good? It may feel out of place from your point of view but that has nothing to do with gaming
I agree, Halo is probably the most important console game in the past 10 years and it's one of my favorite games ever. But that doesn't mean everything about it needed to be copied verbatim by numerous other shooters.
Regerating health doesn't hold the player accountable for their actions because you know you can just sit behind a rock and regenerate your health immediately. It cheapens the experience, and in a lot of ways makes things too easy. This is especially detrimental in multiplayer, IMO. At least in Halo CE, they had health AND regen shields. That way, if you were low on health and you're shields went down, you knew you were screwed.
The amount of hate this game gets pleases me, it shows that reviewers just threw 9s and 10s all thanks to the hype to force you to waste money on this, and the game is loaded with problems, even some that weren't even mention in most reviews. It makes you wonder why it got a 9 here on consoles and 8.5 on PC here.
And LOL at IGN giving the graphics a 10.:lol:
[QUOTE="kontejner44"]
[QUOTE="35th_shields"]
Again, it's a solid gameplay mechanic for some games, but certainly not for all. In the CoD series, it feel completely out of place.
And it's not a necessity for FPS because clearly FPS were just fine without it (before Halo).
35th_shields
Halo redefined the entire FPS genre. I love that game sooooo much. Tell me, from a gameplay perspective, how is shield-HP not good? It may feel out of place from your point of view but that has nothing to do with gaming
I agree, Halo is probably the most important console game in the past 10 years and it's one of my favorite games ever. But that doesn't mean everything about it needed to be copied verbatim by numerous other shooters.
Regerating health doesn't hold the player accountable for their actions because you know you can just sit behind a rock and regenerate your health immediately. It cheapens the experience, and in a lot of ways makes things too easy. This is especially detrimental in multiplayer, IMO. At least in Halo CE, they had health AND regen shields. That way, if you were low on health and you're shields went down, you knew you were screwed.
What's your take on Uncharted 2 (and 1) use of this mechanic?
[QUOTE="35th_shields"]
[QUOTE="kontejner44"]
Halo redefined the entire FPS genre. I love that game sooooo much. Tell me, from a gameplay perspective, how is shield-HP not good? It may feel out of place from your point of view but that has nothing to do with gaming
kontejner44
I agree, Halo is probably the most important console game in the past 10 years and it's one of my favorite games ever. But that doesn't mean everything about it needed to be copied verbatim by numerous other shooters.
Regerating health doesn't hold the player accountable for their actions because you know you can just sit behind a rock and regenerate your health immediately. It cheapens the experience, and in a lot of ways makes things too easy. This is especially detrimental in multiplayer, IMO. At least in Halo CE, they had health AND regen shields. That way, if you were low on health and you're shields went down, you knew you were screwed.
What's your take on Uncharted 2 (and 1) use of this mechanic?
I couldn't tell you, because I haven't played Uncharted 1 or 2. Unfortunately, I had to take a 3-4 year hiatus from gaming because of college, but I've recently been able to take up the habit again now that I'm almost through with school. I haven't played a lot of current games this gen, so I can't give you my opinion on Uncharted (although, I do plan on playing those games this summer).
Yeah i didnt get that either, the game looks so flat and uninspired.The amount of hate this game gets pleases me, it shows that reviewers just threw 9s and 10s all thanks to the hype to force you to waste money on this, and the game is loaded with problems, even some that weren't even mention in most reviews. It makes you wonder why it got a 9 here on consoles and 8.5 on PC here.
And LOL at IGN giving the graphics a 10.:lol:
mitu123
[QUOTE="35th_shields"]
[QUOTE="kontejner44"]
Halo redefined the entire FPS genre. I love that game sooooo much. Tell me, from a gameplay perspective, how is shield-HP not good? It may feel out of place from your point of view but that has nothing to do with gaming
kontejner44
I agree, Halo is probably the most important console game in the past 10 years and it's one of my favorite games ever. But that doesn't mean everything about it needed to be copied verbatim by numerous other shooters.
Regerating health doesn't hold the player accountable for their actions because you know you can just sit behind a rock and regenerate your health immediately. It cheapens the experience, and in a lot of ways makes things too easy. This is especially detrimental in multiplayer, IMO. At least in Halo CE, they had health AND regen shields. That way, if you were low on health and you're shields went down, you knew you were screwed.
What's your take on Uncharted 2 (and 1) use of this mechanic?
feels out of place in that series as well, but it's made up for. COD 4 has health regen and it's made up for. It's not a game killer, it's just a trend that's getting a bit irritating with how out of place it is in so many of these games.How is that an inspired move? it went against everything the series was about. And the health regeneration was done in COD 4. Thus making MW2 still uninspired.[QUOTE="jg4xchamp"][QUOTE="tomarlyn"] Health regeneration was an inspired move for the series IMO35th_shields
Seriously. This is a game that's supposed to portray war, and all you have to do is sit behind a rock for a few seconds, and you're all healed again.
I can't wait for the day when health packs make their way back into FPS. Recharging health was appropriate in the Halo series (although, Halo CE still did it best with the health + recharching shields), but it doesn't have a place in all FPS, especially CoD.
Yeah, cause we all know that the US military uses instaheal health packs. :roll:
[QUOTE="jg4xchamp"][QUOTE="GulliversTravel"]Health generation made the game way more engaging in CoD2. The games worth finishing on Veteran even though you die so many times between checkpoints, wouldnt be possible without health regeneration.GulliversTravelYou can do intensity without the health regen, but I'll avoid that entirelyat this point. COD 2 wasn't anywhere near as intense and as memorable as COD1. Partially because a ton of the set pieces and levels in COD 2 were rehashed, copy and pasted, and less subtle versions of the stuff done in COD 1. I-Ward knows how to set up something up, but do a follow up sequelthey usually they just retry to caputre what the first one did(too literally). COD1/COD 4 felt like fresh takes(although still COD at their core) on their formula. CoD2 and MW2 tried too hard to just re-do what the games before them did. CoD1 really isnt as great as people make it as it hasnt stood the test of time. CoD2 has bigger battles, and regeneration health means that youre always on the move. Theres never a dull moment in the game, and is as i said before, worth finishing on Veteran just for its intensity. Most importantly, shooting enemies is actually worth it, i dont know why you like MW1 SP so much, but all you did in that game was time your runs to get past spawn points. Hanging back and shooting did little. Thats why despite what seemed like a pitched battle going on, it was all an illusion because actually shooting enemies felt like a chore. Tigther pacing, more variation with the level designs(the SAS stuff was more light stealth and spec ops type stuff), more interesting set pieces. and shooting enemies is more about gunplay if anything and to be honest the gunplay isn't satisfying in any COD if we really want to talk about how it holds up. It's so...simple. Shooting someone in FEAR? now that's satisfying. COD 2 might be more polished, and slightly more expansive than COD 1. But it's also overly safe, and part of it's "magic" is lost when it tries soo hard to just do what the game before it did. It's why MW2 inspite of being technically more polished and better designed in some extent(NO Respawning enemies for one) just isn't upto par with MW1. Too many of it's game moments feel like direct copies of some of the stuff you were doing in MW1. and COD 1 was far more rewarding for it's veteran difficulty. It wasn't overly cheap ala (COD 4/MW2). It didn't need a health regen at the time, and COD 2s health regen didn't really add anything to the experience that really made it stick out. It was just another WW2 shooter at that point that never really delivered the same punch it's predecessor did or what some of it's direct competition was doing(Brothers in Arms for instance was certainly a more refreshing take on WW2 shooters).
The amount of hate this game gets pleases me, it shows that reviewers just threw 9s and 10s all thanks to the hype to force you to waste money on this, and the game is loaded with problems, even some that weren't even mention in most reviews. It makes you wonder why it got a 9 here on consoles and 8.5 on PC here.
And LOL at IGN giving the graphics a 10.:lol:
mitu123
Most of the complaints, in fact, damn near all of the complaints rest with the multiplayer portion of the game. And those problems can only show themselves after months of usage when millions play through it. I have no complaint about the AAA score the console versions got.
As for the graphics, it does have some great graphics. And the beauty of it is that it flies -- no hiccups, and no slowdowns. The 10/10 might be stretching it, but the graphics themselves are nothing to bash. At all.
Battlefield 2 has all that and is widely considered one of the greatest multiplayer shooters of all time.Campers, unbalanced multiplayer, bland, generic single player that does nothing to break the mold (not a problem itself but made worse by the fact that...) and it is far less entertaining and well done as other leading FPS games.
oldkingallant
[QUOTE="oldkingallant"]Battlefield 2 has all that and is widely considered one of the greatest multiplayer shooters of all time.Campers, unbalanced multiplayer, bland, generic single player that does nothing to break the mold (not a problem itself but made worse by the fact that...) and it is far less entertaining and well done as other leading FPS games.
Stevo_the_gamer
It's not even the est multiplayer game this gen much less one worthy of being among the titans of all time :?
Campaign was OK. I just dislike how everyone can automatically be good at the game after getting killstreaks. Logan832Campaign was alright. The multiplayer is alright as well. I just hate noobtubers =P and the hackers for the PC version, I am guessing its the same for the Xbox 360 version as well. Logan832, I don't think that players being good due to killstreaks is a bad thing. I mean, you have those killstreaks as well, if anything it should make you better than them still. It does make the game fair. Not like some noob is going to be getting a Tactical nuke first few times they play.
[QUOTE="kontejner44"]
[QUOTE="35th_shields"]
Again, it's a solid gameplay mechanic for some games, but certainly not for all. In the CoD series, it feel completely out of place.
And it's not a necessity for FPS because clearly FPS were just fine without it (before Halo).
jg4xchamp
Halo redefined the entire FPS genre. I love that game sooooo much. Tell me, from a gameplay perspective, how is shield-HP not good? It may feel out of place from your point of view but that has nothing to do with gaming
Except it does whenPresentation is such a focus of the game(COD doesn't exactly not through it's narrative in your face)
and it contradicts the realism, gritty, grounded nature of the presentation.
Not to mention when in retrospect it becomes a more arcadey and easier shooter compared to what was in COD 1. One that the developers foolishly try to offset with respawning enemies. Which sure added to the challenge, but instead of being rewarding it entered the realm of cheap and frustrating. It's neither here nor there but it wasn't anything of a significant improvement for the series. If anything the series hasn't improved much at all.
At it's core it's the same game Medal of Honor: Allied Assault was. Slight upgrades to COD 1, and a more modernized aesthetic(thus modern weapons) for MW and MW2.
It does not fit the presentation, so what? Like I said, they shouldn't even try to make it fit, just put it in there.
I'll enlighten you with a fact:
Oldschool FPS: You fight some enemies, kill them, advance to the next area with 10% health = death. You respawn, go through previous areas, get to the room you died in but this time you have 50% hp which will ensure victory.
Modern FPS: You regen after each fight, ensuring that you don't have to replay any area due to the effect of T and E, the game flows better, it's generaly easier yes, but it eliminates frustration.
Respawning enemies is bs yes, also MW2 campaign was not done very well, it had T and E moments despite the HP regen. In other words, I shouldn't die on normal difficulty unless it's my fault, which wasn't the case in MW2.
1) Broken multiplayer with the PC that is extremely laggy and full of hackers and glitchers that cannot be banned.
2) Unbalanced weaponry and perks (e.g commando + marathon + tactical knife and SPAS-12 with grip and the fire more accurately from hip perk.)
3) Deliberately cutting out community mods so they can profit off overpriced DLC.
4) 'Is not balanced for lean' -Infinity Ward
Do I win a prize?
Vesica_Prime
I've put quite a few hours into the PC version and I haven't experienced lag. Even then, that's not a reason to say the game is awful. You will experience lag in every online game you play, whether one likes it or not.
There is a counter to everything. That setup is useless on certain maps.
That doesn't make the game awful.
What?
No.
It's not even the est multiplayer game this gen much less one worthy of being among the titans of all time :?That's because it's not part of this generation. And I'd be dumbfounded to see someone say it isn't one of the greatest multiplayer shooters of all time.jg4xchamp
[QUOTE="kontejner44"][QUOTE="35th_shields"]
I agree, Halo is probably the most important console game in the past 10 years and it's one of my favorite games ever. But that doesn't mean everything about it needed to be copied verbatim by numerous other shooters.
Regerating health doesn't hold the player accountable for their actions because you know you can just sit behind a rock and regenerate your health immediately. It cheapens the experience, and in a lot of ways makes things too easy. This is especially detrimental in multiplayer, IMO. At least in Halo CE, they had health AND regen shields. That way, if you were low on health and you're shields went down, you knew you were screwed.
jg4xchamp
What's your take on Uncharted 2 (and 1) use of this mechanic?
feels out of place in that series as well, but it's made up for. COD 4 has health regen and it's made up for. It's not a game killer, it's just a trend that's getting a bit irritating with how out of place it is in so many of these games.Seriously you are getting to the point where it's funny. UC2 is the perfect game, 96 Metascore with lots of 10's. Its problem was short campaign (not imo) and no innovation. Nobody complains on the mechanic, only you.
Seriously you are getting to the point where it's funny. UC2 is the perfect game, 96 Metascore with lots of 10's. Its problem was short campaign (not imo) and no innovation. Nobody complains on the mechanic, only you.Wait, if it was perfect... wouldn't there be no problems, and wouldn't the metacritic score be > 96?kontejner44
[QUOTE="mitu123"]
The amount of hate this game gets pleases me, it shows that reviewers just threw 9s and 10s all thanks to the hype to force you to waste money on this, and the game is loaded with problems, even some that weren't even mention in most reviews. It makes you wonder why it got a 9 here on consoles and 8.5 on PC here.
And LOL at IGN giving the graphics a 10.:lol:
Stevo_the_gamer
Most of the complaints, in fact, damn near all of the complaints rest with the multiplayer portion of the game. And those problems can only show themselves after months of usage when millions play through it. I have no complaint about the AAA score the console versions got.
As for the graphics, it does have some great graphics. And the beauty of it is that it flies -- no hiccups, and no slowdowns. The 10/10 might be stretching it, but the graphics themselves are nothing to bash. At all.
I'm pretty sure the campaign is flawed too, it definitely isn't perfect, and while I admire the high framerate with no problems, like Resistance 2 and a lot other games it isn't graphically consistent. It looks great at times and not so great either, to me, the textures need the most work. I found the lighting to be excellent though.
Except it does when[QUOTE="jg4xchamp"]
[QUOTE="kontejner44"]
Halo redefined the entire FPS genre. I love that game sooooo much. Tell me, from a gameplay perspective, how is shield-HP not good? It may feel out of place from your point of view but that has nothing to do with gaming
kontejner44
Presentation is such a focus of the game(COD doesn't exactly not through it's narrative in your face)
and it contradicts the realism, gritty, grounded nature of the presentation.
Not to mention when in retrospect it becomes a more arcadey and easier shooter compared to what was in COD 1. One that the developers foolishly try to offset with respawning enemies. Which sure added to the challenge, but instead of being rewarding it entered the realm of cheap and frustrating. It's neither here nor there but it wasn't anything of a significant improvement for the series. If anything the series hasn't improved much at all.
At it's core it's the same game Medal of Honor: Allied Assault was. Slight upgrades to COD 1, and a more modernized aesthetic(thus modern weapons) for MW and MW2.
It does not fit the presentation, so what? Like I said, they shouldn't even try to make it fit, just put it in there.
I'll enlighten you with a fact:
Oldschool FPS: You fight some enemies, kill them, advance to the next area with 10% health = death. You respawn, go through previous areas, get to the room you died in but this time you have 50% hp which will ensure victory.
Modern FPS: You regen after each fight, ensuring that you don't have to replay any area due to the effect of T and E, the game flows better, it's generaly easier yes, but it eliminates frustration.
Respawning enemies is bs yes, also MW2 campaign was not done very well, it had T and E moments despite the HP regen. In other words, I shouldn't die on normal difficulty unless it's my fault, which wasn't the case in MW2.
you're T and E would make sense if games like lets see No One Lives Forever still didn't hold up so well interms of flow and pacing. Lets not even get into Half Life 2 which is still arguably the pinnacle of the genre as far as the campaign(crappy gunplay aside). Then there is Crysis(another game not bogged down by its health pack?) or Halo 3: ODST which has a better flow of pace than Halo 3. Those are repeat "modern shooters' without the auto-regen. Also it has no business in a tactical shooter ala Rainbow Six. Which it found its ugly way in Rainbow Six Vegas.Not saying old gmaes didn't have their own trial and error aspects or some bad design(ofcourse they had bad design to some extent). But the mystical theory that autoregen is a great addition that enhanced the genre is well one that holds very little merit. Right now your "fact" comes off as more of a false perception than a "fact"
[QUOTE="oldkingallant"]Battlefield 2 has all that and is widely considered one of the greatest multiplayer shooters of all time.Um sorry but the reason BF2 is widely regarded as one of the best multiplayer games is because it doesn't contain any of that.Campers, unbalanced multiplayer, bland, generic single player that does nothing to break the mold (not a problem itself but made worse by the fact that...) and it is far less entertaining and well done as other leading FPS games.
Stevo_the_gamer
Almost nobody camps in BF2 because maps are so big and you'll probably get sniped or good commanders are likely to drop artillery on you if you've racked up any decent killcount.
Unbalanced? Maybe jets but who plays with those anyway. Strike at Karkand is arguably the best multiplayer map ever because it has no jets. Everything else is completely balanced, every class has a distinct purpose on the field, that can work as well as any other class, unless maybe you use engineer or anti tank on a vehicleless game.
There is no singleplayer, except bots. I guess MW2 wins :roll:
I'm pretty sure the campaign is flawed too, it definitely isn't perfect, and while I admire the high framerate with no problems, like Resistance 2 and a lot other games it isn't graphically consistent. It looks great at times and not so great either, to me, the textures need the most work. I found the lighting to be excellent though.The campaign is flawed, and the Gamespot's review touched on those flaws. It's still a blast to play through, even if the story is mind numbingly stupid as ****. As for the inconsistency in graphics, I never noticed that.mitu123
Wait, if it was perfect... wouldn't there be no problems, and wouldn't the metacritic score be > 96?[QUOTE="kontejner44"]Seriously you are getting to the point where it's funny. UC2 is the perfect game, 96 Metascore with lots of 10's. Its problem was short campaign (not imo) and no innovation. Nobody complains on the mechanic, only you.
Stevo_the_gamer
It's the perfect game, but it does nothing new as it too short, but the content itself is perfect. 10 doesn't mean perfect dude
I don't see why people complain about the game... They dog on the game for having killstreaks. Its not that hard to take out a stinger and shoot down a harrier right when it spawns... I do it all the time. As for the Ac130 and Chopper gunner its called taking cover if you run out in the open then you are the newb that deserves to die... Death streaks are also no big deal. They don't affect the game much at all. Playing online with both PS3 and 360 i haven't witnessed and gltiches so i cant voice my opinion on that.
Um sorry but the reason BF2 is widely regarded as one of the best multiplayer games is because it doesn't contain any of that.
Almost nobody camps in BF2 because maps are so big and you'll probably get sniped or good commanders are likely to drop artillery on you if you've racked up any decent killcount.
Unbalanced? Maybe jets but who plays with those anyway. Strike at Karkand is arguably the best multiplayer map ever because it has no jets. Everything else is completely balanced, every class has a distict purpose on the field, that can work as well as any other class, unless maybe you use engineer or anti tank on a vehicleless game.
There is no singleplayer, except bots. I guess MW2 wins :roll:
Vaasman
Yes, it does. Infantry only on SaK and you got a point. But once vehicles get thrown into the equation, the balance isn't perfect. Saying nobody camps is downright crazy. Even at SaK, you can run into folks who camp. I've put PLENTY of cars on top of campers in BF2, that is the most gratisfying thought is when you crush a camper with a vehicle.
Who plays with those anyways? Really? :|
It's the perfect game, but it does nothing new as it too short, but the content itself is perfect. 10 doesn't mean perfect dudeYou're right, on Gamespot, a 10 doesn't mean perfect.kontejner44
[QUOTE="kontejner44"]
[QUOTE="jg4xchamp"] Except it does when
Presentation is such a focus of the game(COD doesn't exactly not through it's narrative in your face)
and it contradicts the realism, gritty, grounded nature of the presentation.
Not to mention when in retrospect it becomes a more arcadey and easier shooter compared to what was in COD 1. One that the developers foolishly try to offset with respawning enemies. Which sure added to the challenge, but instead of being rewarding it entered the realm of cheap and frustrating. It's neither here nor there but it wasn't anything of a significant improvement for the series. If anything the series hasn't improved much at all.
At it's core it's the same game Medal of Honor: Allied Assault was. Slight upgrades to COD 1, and a more modernized aesthetic(thus modern weapons) for MW and MW2.jg4xchamp
It does not fit the presentation, so what? Like I said, they shouldn't even try to make it fit, just put it in there.
I'll enlighten you with a fact:
Oldschool FPS: You fight some enemies, kill them, advance to the next area with 10% health = death. You respawn, go through previous areas, get to the room you died in but this time you have 50% hp which will ensure victory.
Modern FPS: You regen after each fight, ensuring that you don't have to replay any area due to the effect of T and E, the game flows better, it's generaly easier yes, but it eliminates frustration.
Respawning enemies is bs yes, also MW2 campaign was not done very well, it had T and E moments despite the HP regen. In other words, I shouldn't die on normal difficulty unless it's my fault, which wasn't the case in MW2.
you're T and E would make sense if games like lets see No One Lives Forever still didn't hold up so well interms of flow and pacing. Lets not even get into Half Life 2 which is still arguably the pinnacle of the genre as far as the campaign(crappy gunplay aside). Then there is Crysis(another game not bogged down by its health pack?) or Halo 3: ODST which has a better flow of pace than Halo 3. Those are repeat "modern shooters' without the auto-regen. Also it has no business in a tactical shooter ala Rainbow Six. Which it found its ugly way in Rainbow Six Vegas.Not saying old gmaes didn't have their own trial and error aspects or some bad design(ofcourse they had bad design to some extent). But the mystical theory that autoregen is a great addition that enhanced the genre is well one that holds very little merit. Right now your "fact" comes off as more of a false perception than a "fact"
It is a fact because Health regen HP > Normal HP. Now if the game itself is good or not has to do with other factors aswell not just this single mechanic. That's all I'm saying, it is generally accepted as "better".
feels out of place in that series as well, but it's made up for. COD 4 has health regen and it's made up for. It's not a game killer, it's just a trend that's getting a bit irritating with how out of place it is in so many of these games.[QUOTE="jg4xchamp"][QUOTE="kontejner44"]
What's your take on Uncharted 2 (and 1) use of this mechanic?
kontejner44
Seriously you are getting to the point where it's funny. UC2 is the perfect game, 96 Metascore with lots of 10's. Its problem was short campaign (not imo) and no innovation. Nobody complains on the mechanic, only you.
:lol: perfect my ass(actually it is...my ass not the game)pfft those pitiful puzzles, that overly linear platforming, and let's not even get into the unbalanced multiplayer with it's "perks" Not to mention every single aspect of that game is hand picked and borrowed from something else. The plot is nothing special it's ripped whole sale from a ton of adventure flicks and novels. We're not even getting into the part where the coop while fun isn't exactly up to par with superior cooperative experiences ala Left 4 Dead 2, Borderlands, the 8 player coop in Resistance 2.
and who said I hate the mechanics of Uncharted 2? I have a review on the game praising how I think the gunplay is the best gunplay in the third person shooter genre. if you disagree with my opinion that's fine. But perfect? and a game devoid of criticism? pfft that's a joke.
you're T and E would make sense if games like lets see No One Lives Forever still didn't hold up so well interms of flow and pacing. Lets not even get into Half Life 2 which is still arguably the pinnacle of the genre as far as the campaign(crappy gunplay aside). Then there is Crysis(another game not bogged down by its health pack?) or Halo 3: ODST which has a better flow of pace than Halo 3. Those are repeat "modern shooters' without the auto-regen. Also it has no business in a tactical shooter ala Rainbow Six. Which it found its ugly way in Rainbow Six Vegas.[QUOTE="jg4xchamp"]
[QUOTE="kontejner44"]
It does not fit the presentation, so what? Like I said, they shouldn't even try to make it fit, just put it in there.
I'll enlighten you with a fact:
Oldschool FPS: You fight some enemies, kill them, advance to the next area with 10% health = death. You respawn, go through previous areas, get to the room you died in but this time you have 50% hp which will ensure victory.
Modern FPS: You regen after each fight, ensuring that you don't have to replay any area due to the effect of T and E, the game flows better, it's generaly easier yes, but it eliminates frustration.
Respawning enemies is bs yes, also MW2 campaign was not done very well, it had T and E moments despite the HP regen. In other words, I shouldn't die on normal difficulty unless it's my fault, which wasn't the case in MW2.
kontejner44
Not saying old gmaes didn't have their own trial and error aspects or some bad design(ofcourse they had bad design to some extent). But the mystical theory that autoregen is a great addition that enhanced the genre is well one that holds very little merit. Right now your "fact" comes off as more of a false perception than a "fact"
It is a fact because Health regen HP > Normal HP. Now if the game itself is good or not has to do with other factors aswell not just this single mechanic. That's all I'm saying, it is generally accepted as "better".
Accept it's not a fact, that would also be an opinion as much as the quality of a game. it's bad enough you don't know definitions but now you're telling me to give a rats ass about what's generally accepted. What's generally accepted is some mediocre story telling and narratives in terms of what is done in videogames.Please Log In to post.
Log in to comment