Give me 3 reasons why MW2 is so ''awful''

the single player was freaking awesome. as for the multiplayer i hate simply because of the damn perks

[QUOTE="kontejner44"]

[QUOTE="jg4xchamp"] 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. jg4xchamp

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.

Damn, you are always on the other side of the spectrum whatsup with that. I am in 99% of the cases in agreement with the consensus of profesional reviewers take on games. Let me quote a reviewer that gave the game 89, from metacritic:

Uncharted 2 is a blockbuster made with passion. The best ten hours you'll spend sitting before the TV in 2009.

When opinions of the reviewers are in agreement, then that is an indication of something done right. General consensus = games quality.

[QUOTE="mitu123"]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.

Stevo_the_gamer

-excessive price on PC ($60)

-really short campaign, not worth the money

-generic B-movie action plot, incoherent storytelling

-no dedicated servers

-no mod support

-no 64 person servers

-console matchmaking system

-low end graphics

I could go on.....

[QUOTE="kontejner44"]

[QUOTE="jg4xchamp"] 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"

jg4xchamp

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".

Kevin VanOrd words from the review of Demon Souls:

Perhaps the game's greatest triumph, however, is that it takes qualities normally associated with frustration and discomfort--constant trial and error, slow progression, harsh enemies--and makes them virtues.

Health regen= less T and E = generally accepted = better = fact, that's my reasoning

Also story is not so relevant, gameplay heavily outweights story factor

[QUOTE="jg4xchamp"]

[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.

kontejner44

Damn, you are always on the other side of the spectrum whatsup with that. I am in 99% of the cases in agreement with the consensus of profesional reviewers take on games. Let me quote a reviewer that gave the game 89, from metacritic:

Uncharted 2 is a blockbuster made with passion. The best ten hours you'll spend sitting before the TV in 2009.

When opinions of the reviewers are in agreement, then that is an indication of something done right. General consensus = games quality.

2- The fact that Uncharted 2 is #3 in my top 10 games this gen.

All covers the part where I think it's a great game. The difference is I don't throw out the word "perfect" because it's not. It is NOT a game devoid of criticism. NO game is. Some of us you know. Have your own opinions and arguements and don't just get spoon fed by the "critics"

[QUOTE="jg4xchamp"]

[QUOTE="kontejner44"]

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".

kontejner44

Kevin VanOrd words from the review of Demon Souls:

Perhaps the game's greatest triumph, however, is that it takes qualities normally associated with frustration and discomfort--constant trial and error, slow progression, harsh enemies--and makes them virtues.

Health regen= less T and E = generally accepted = better = fact, that's my reasoning

Also story is not so relevant, gameplay heavily outweights story factor

[QUOTE="kontejner44"]

[QUOTE="jg4xchamp"] :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.

jg4xchamp

Damn, you are always on the other side of the spectrum whatsup with that. I am in 99% of the cases in agreement with the consensus of profesional reviewers take on games. Let me quote a reviewer that gave the game 89, from metacritic:

Uncharted 2 is a blockbuster made with passion. The best ten hours you'll spend sitting before the TV in 2009.

When opinions of the reviewers are in agreement, then that is an indication of something done right. General consensus = games quality.

2- The fact that Uncharted 2 is #3 in my top 10 games this gen.

All covers the part where I think it's a great game. The difference is I don't throw out the word "perfect" because it's not. It is NOT a game devoid of criticism. NO game is. Some of us you know. Have your own opinions and arguements and don't just get spoon fed by the "critics"

The critics basically sums my thoughts about this game up, I don't need to, they are better writers than me, It's better if I quote them :P

The content on the disc is perfect (single-player), but as a game it has issues namely too short and not innovative. Why is it so hard to distinguish what is, and what it could have been. What is = perfect. Because what it could have been is realistic, it does not get a 10 from me.

The critics basically sums my thoughts about this game up, I don't need to, they are better writers than me, It's better if I quote them :P

The content on the disc is perfect (single-player), but as a game it has issues namely too short and not innovative. Why is it so hard to distinguish what is, and what it could have been. What is = perfect. Because what it could have been is realistic, it does not get a 10 from me.

kontejner44

[QUOTE="jg4xchamp"]

[QUOTE="kontejner44"]

Damn, you are always on the other side of the spectrum whatsup with that. I am in 99% of the cases in agreement with the consensus of profesional reviewers take on games. Let me quote a reviewer that gave the game 89, from metacritic:

Uncharted 2 is a blockbuster made with passion. The best ten hours you'll spend sitting before the TV in 2009.

When opinions of the reviewers are in agreement, then that is an indication of something done right. General consensus = games quality.

kontejner44

2- The fact that Uncharted 2 is #3 in my top 10 games this gen.

All covers the part where I think it's a great game. The difference is I don't throw out the word "perfect" because it's not. It is NOT a game devoid of criticism. NO game is. Some of us you know. Have your own opinions and arguements and don't just get spoon fed by the "critics"

The critics basically sums my thoughts about this game up, I don't need to, they are better writers than me, It's better if I quote them :P

The content on the disc is perfect (single-player), but as a game it has issues namely too short and not innovative. Why is it so hard to distinguish what is, and what it could have been. What is = perfect. Because what it could have been is realistic, it does not get a 10 from me.

[QUOTE="kontejner44"]

The critics basically sums my thoughts about this game up, I don't need to, they are better writers than me, It's better if I quote them :P

The content on the disc is perfect (single-player), but as a game it has issues namely too short and not innovative. Why is it so hard to distinguish what is, and what it could have been. What is = perfect. Because what it could have been is realistic, it does not get a 10 from me.

Vaasman

It makes total sense. What is on the disc (single-player) is perfected. But it could have been more, realistically speaking. If you don't want to think like this then go ahead and call it nonsensical

[QUOTE="Vaasman"]

[QUOTE="kontejner44"]

The critics basically sums my thoughts about this game up, I don't need to, they are better writers than me, It's better if I quote them :P

The content on the disc is perfect (single-player), but as a game it has issues namely too short and not innovative. Why is it so hard to distinguish what is, and what it could have been. What is = perfect. Because what it could have been is realistic, it does not get a 10 from me.

kontejner44

It makes total sense. What is on the disc (single-player) is perfected. But it could have been more, realistically speaking. If you don't want to think like this then go ahead and call it nonsensical

Just thought I'd pop in and give my take on MW2. I liked the campaign, while the plot was a little silly there were alot of cool moments and fun missions and it had an AWESOME soundtrack thanks to hans zimmer. The multiplayer seems pretty unbalanced, i havent played its online that much though, not a massive fan of playing shooters online. mostly coz i fail when it comes to playing online :P

Its worse than CoD4, the weapons in the game sound horrible, the campaing makes no sense and the No Russian level is just there to stir up controversy.

[QUOTE="Vesica_Prime"]

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?

Stevo_the_gamer

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. Yes there is lag on games with dedicated servers but you can choose not to join servers that have a high ping. But with MW2 you're thrown into a laggy cluster**** most of the time.

There is a counter to everything. That setup is useless on certain maps. I don't know, a shotgun with a range of a SCAR is pretty hard to counter. Because you know I die in one hit from it and its pretty damn accurate.

That doesn't make the game awful. It decreases the replay value of the game for me, I still play Half-Life 1 because of the community mods. Plus the DLC is a ****ing joke for the price.

What? Haven't been playing much PC CoD4 have you?

No. Yes.

.

.

[QUOTE="kontejner44"]

[QUOTE="jg4xchamp"] 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.

jg4xchamp

Kevin VanOrd words from the review of Demon Souls:

Perhaps the game's greatest triumph, however, is that it takes qualities normally associated with frustration and discomfort--constant trial and error, slow progression, harsh enemies--and makes them virtues.

Health regen= less T and E = generally accepted = better = fact, that's my reasoning

Also story is not so relevant, gameplay heavily outweights story factor

It's'better' only in the eyes of the non main stream, the game is good for what it is, but it doesn't appeal to the majority. I call it a fact because it is generally accepted to be better

[QUOTE="jg4xchamp"][QUOTE="kontejner44"]

Kevin VanOrd words from the review of Demon Souls:

Perhaps the game's greatest triumph, however, is that it takes qualities normally associated with frustration and discomfort--constant trial and error, slow progression, harsh enemies--and makes them virtues.

Health regen= less T and E = generally accepted = better = fact, that's my reasoning

Also story is not so relevant, gameplay heavily outweights story factor

kontejner44

It's'better' only in the eyes of the non main stream, the game is good for what it is, but it doesn't appeal to the majority. I call it a fact because it is generally accepted to be better

You're reasoning fits no single definition of the word "FACT"

[QUOTE="kontejner44"]

[QUOTE="jg4xchamp"] If anything that line pretty much shows that you can take something that the "general audience" associates as a bad thing and make a great game around it and make it the strong points of the game. It's not a fact. All it is is a main stream friendly concept. And who cares if story isn't a big part(I agree gameplay is far more important). It's still one aspect of a game. An aspect that is consistantly mediocre at best. What do you agree with everything the general consensus does? and assume it's a fact?jg4xchamp

It's'better' only in the eyes of the non main stream, the game is good for what it is, but it doesn't appeal to the majority. I call it a fact because it is generally accepted to be better

–noun1.something that actually exists; reality; truth: Your fears have no basis in fact. 2.something known to exist or to have happened: Space travel is now a fact. 3.a truth known by actual experience or observation; something known to be true: Scientists gather facts about plant growth. 4.something said to be true or supposed to have happened: The facts given by the witness are highly questionable. 5.Law. Often, facts.an actual or alleged event or circumstance, as distinguished from its legal effect or consequence.

You're reasoning fits no single definition of the word "FACT"

Do you even have any idea why people are reviewing games? It's not to get one persons opinion of how the game is (subjective), no it is to find the target audience and tell them if the game is good for whom it is targeted for. It's an unbiased analysis of the game.

Obviously there are people who like the not so generaly accepted mechanics, for them demon souls is probably a great game etc.

It's obviously not a 'fact' in the traditional sense, I'm not a logic whore, did you know that a calculator defines 0.999999999 = 1, when it factually is not? It's like that for the sake of convenience.

all I'm saying is that removal of T and E is commonly accepted as better, health regen does just that. In MW2 it's not so apparent because it is flawed in other areas, not thanks to health regen.

[QUOTE="jg4xchamp"]

[QUOTE="kontejner44"]

It's'better' only in the eyes of the non main stream, the game is good for what it is, but it doesn't appeal to the majority. I call it a fact because it is generally accepted to be better

kontejner44

–noun1.something that actually exists; reality; truth: Your fears have no basis in fact. 2.something known to exist or to have happened: Space travel is now a fact. 3.a truth known by actual experience or observation; something known to be true: Scientists gather facts about plant growth. 4.something said to be true or supposed to have happened: The facts given by the witness are highly questionable. 5.Law. Often, facts.an actual or alleged event or circumstance, as distinguished from its legal effect or consequence.

You're reasoning fits no single definition of the word "FACT"

Do you even have any idea why people are reviewing games? It's not to get one persons opinion of how the game is (subjective), no it is to find the target audience and tell them if the game is good for whom it is targeted for. It's an unbiased analysis of the game.

Obviously there are people who like the not so generaly accepted mechanics, for them demon souls is probably a great game etc.

It's obviously not a 'fact' in the traditional sense, I'm not a logic whore, did you know that a calculator defines 0.999999999 = 1, when it factually is not? It's like that for the sake of convenience.

all I'm saying is that removal of T and E is commonly accepted as better, health regen does just that. In MW2 it's not so apparent because it is flawed in other areas, not thanks to health regen.

Some weapons are extremely overpowered...

It's easy to get killstreaks...

U can use 'intentional lag' to get even easier killstreaks... (LOL)

* Broken and unbalanced multiplayer * Its all Run n Gun with no use of team-based strategy * CampersLastRambo341

People that say this haven't played it at all. At least at competitive levels. U do that against me, or my party, and u won't kill me/us more than a couple of times.

Reasons

1. The weapons, killstreaksand perksare way too unbalanced.

2. Sooo many glitchers and campers.

3. The campaign is bad and they should make something similar to CoD2's campaign.

[QUOTE="LastRambo341"]* Broken and unbalanced multiplayer * Its all Run n Gun with no use of team-based strategy * CampersGiveMeSomething

People that say this haven't played it at all. At least at competitive levels. U do that against me, or my party, and u won't kill me/us more than a couple of times.

I don't think the game is awful but it was definitely a disappointment in comparison to COD4. And im really not praising this new Treyarch game, because I didn't like WaW at all, in fact I find it worse than MW2. MW2 just has a stupid stupid story imo, thats what ruined the single player for me. In terms of online, the ridiculous killstreak rewards they put in the game completely ruined the balance. I mean what the heck is a care package? Its a reward based on luck which is stupid imo.

Every weapon has same annoying azz sound effects, last gen maximum players standard (18 instead of 16 WOW thats an amazing number..) and useless killstreaks.

I don't have any big problems with MW2. I just stopped playing it when BC2 was released. I like it much more. It isn't perfectly balanced either, but more fun to me.

last gen maximum players standard (18 instead of 16 WOW thats an amazing number..)

silversix_

However, this is something I disagree. The maps of MW2 are so small that having more players would be only bad. Sometimes even having 16 players can make some maps total cluster**** I tried Ground War in COD4, and it had too many players, 18, for the maps.

I think it gets a lot more hate then it should, but at the same time I found both the campaign and multiplayer a little disappointing after playing COD4.

You should have included "I hate it because everyone else does and it is cool to hate" .

I don't have any big problems with MW2. I just stopped playing it when BC2 was released. I like it much more. It isn't perfectly balanced either, but more fun to me.

[QUOTE="silversix_"]

last gen maximum players standard (18 instead of 16 WOW thats an amazing number..)

Icarian

However, this is something I disagree. The maps of MW2 are so small that having more players would be only bad. Sometimes even having 16 players can make some maps total cluster**** I tried Ground War in COD4, and it had too many players, 18, for the maps.

Single player was trash compared to the first. The story was retarded and made zero sense. The multiplayer is unbalanced lag fest. heartbeat is dumb, commando is dumb, one man army is dumb. They just added a bunch of things like those killstreaks that promote camping and things that would attract little kids to play the game. Its retarded when some 13 year kid is mouthing off to everyone about how good he is when hes using commando pro, lightweight, marathon pro, with the only 4 bar connection.

[QUOTE="Icarian"]

I don't have any big problems with MW2. I just stopped playing it when BC2 was released. I like it much more. It isn't perfectly balanced either, but more fun to me.

[QUOTE="silversix_"]

last gen maximum players standard (18 instead of 16 WOW thats an amazing number..)

silversix_

However, this is something I disagree. The maps of MW2 are so small that having more players would be only bad. Sometimes even having 16 players can make some maps total cluster**** I tried Ground War in COD4, and it had too many players, 18, for the maps.

key quote, maps need to be designed to accomodate a certain number of people.

Every weapon has same annoying azz sound effects, last gen maximum players standard (18 instead of 16 WOW thats an amazing number..) and useless killstreaks.

silversix_

Unreal Tournament a 1999 game had a cap of 32 players...

[QUOTE="silversix_"]

Every weapon has same annoying azz sound effects, last gen maximum players standard (18 instead of 16 WOW thats an amazing number..) and useless killstreaks.

Vesica_Prime

Unreal Tournament a 1999 game had a cap of 32 players...

1-MP is horrificly balanced.

2-MP Is a glitch fest

3- Though fun the campaign is extremely short

4-Akimbo Shotguns

[QUOTE="OB-47"]

People love to hate popiular but flawed games. They want to be with the flow of system wars. MW2 is not so awful, I bet you 75% of the people who have sayed MW2 sucks havent played it. YEs COD4 is better but seriously there are much worse game out there. AND MW2 online aint glitchy, its just laggy and stuff, The perks are hardly cheap.

mtradr43

popular but FLAWED........ herp derp derp

A larger player count for online modes, at least they could have gone up to 24 players.. (even though for me 32 players should be 'standard' for certain game modes)

1. Campfest online. That is literally ALLanyone does.

2. BC2 is just far superior in every way.

3. The single player was meh.

1) The multiplayer is moronically unbalanced

2) The Stimulus package is awful and horrendously overpriced

3) Bad Company 2 makes it irrelevant

-excessive price on PC ($60)

-really short campaign, not worth the money

-generic B-movie action plot, incoherent storytelling

-no dedicated servers

-no mod support

-no 64 person servers

-console matchmaking system

-low end graphics

I could go on.....

Brendissimo35

What he said. Also, the game's just capped at being good with no chance of being made to be superb or a masterpiece thanks to it being multi plat, set on a short deadline and trying to appeal to everyone.