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

i enjoy MW2 but it is definitely a flawed game. noob tubes, akimbo shotguns and some of the kill streak rewards are a few of my pet peeves...

I only need to give you one reason all the little **** campers who rather win than have fun and it's pothetic. It's been like that since the first and It's a game for people with no skill. I'm not saying this because I'm not good at it. I average 20 to 30 kills a game. I'm saying this because I have no patience for people who take winning so seriously that they have to do stuff like camping. It's a game you little brats.

1. Campaign is 3 hours long, and the story is stupid as hell.

2. Multiplayer is the same ****ing thing as CoD4...

3. ...but with terrible maps, and more kill streak (which I hated to begin with).

4. It takes little to no skill to get kills.

5. People spawn behind you, giving you no chance to return fire before you die.

6. You spawn in enemy fire way more often that you should.

I only need to give you one reason all the little **** campers who rather win than have fun and it's pothetic. It's been like that since the first and It's a game for people with no skill. I'm not saying this because I'm not good at it. I average 20 to 30 kills a game. I'm saying this because I have no patience for people who take winning so seriously that they have to do stuff like camping. It's a game you little brats.

Foulcry

I loved the game but the multiplayer became tiresome and boring very fast IMO, it's personal preference really.

1) Short campaign

2) A third of that short campaign is comprised of filler (South America missions)

3) Premise of said campaign is laughable (Russians being able to invade the US because they took out some dinky satellite, an airport shooting sparking a war)

4) Gaping plotholes left unexplained (Zakhaev somehow becoming a beloved national martyr for the Russian people, how Price survived, how the ultranationalists were able to win despite aforementioned leader being killed, what Europe, China, and the rest of the goddamn world was doing when the biggest conflict since WWII broke out)

5) Atrocious breaches of military authenticity (Russian VDV paratroops using French assault rifles and RPDs, the entire Russian armored invasion force consisting entirely BTR-90 APCs, without a single tank in sight)

6) AWFUL weapon sound effects

7) Multiplayer revolves entirely on who gets the most over-powered killstreak the fastest

8 ) Akimbo shotguns

9) Spawning system sucks

10) No dedicated servers for PC version, AND a $10 price hike

11) One word: Commando

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

svenus97

This is multiplayer only

Now these are all experiences on Xbox Live

1) In Modern warfare 1, sometimes when you knifed people you would litteraly go halfway accross the map, now this didnt happen alot but it did happen sometimes. In Modern warfare 2, instead of solving this bug, they turned into a Perk (Commando) which is TOTALLY :|

2) Spawning system in Modern warfare 1 would sometimes put you in the bullet spray of an enemy, so as soon as you would spawn you would die. This issue has NOT been addressed in Modern warfare 2, and conintues to be a pain the butt.

3) In Modern warfare 1, the MAXIMUM amount of claymores, grenades, and grenade launchers you were allowed were 2, so it made a more tatical to use. In Modern warfare 2, with the scavenger perk, you literraly have unlimited amounts of claymores, grenades and grenade launchers which again is :|

4) Claymores in Modern warefare one would sometimes not go off even when the target passed it. Instead of solving this issue, they give a perk that allows you to move faster and a perk which delays enemy claymores which again is :

5) There was no way of judging skill in modern warfare 1 and it continues to be a problem with modern war 2. Atleast in Halo3 you had ranks which showed you the maximum rank you have accquried.

Dont like the multiplayer, the care packages are **** getting killed by a missile from the sky feels to cheap in this game.

Campaign was OK. I just dislike how everyone can automatically be good at the game after getting killstreaks. Logan832

Not a great selection of options in the poll. :? Campaign is great, no real problem there. The multiplayer can be cheezy as heck, DLC was awful and overpriced, spawning after dieing is rediculous and not fair at all, I mean atleast throw some kind of shield in there for 5 seconds or so. I can't say the game is awful because it isn't, just certain areas of the muliplayer make it extremely frustrating to play.

I don't hate it. It has it's fun moments, but I can see where some people are coming from in their dissent.

1) Short campaign

2) A third of that short campaign is comprised of filler (South America missions)

3) Premise of said campaign is laughable (Russians being able to invade the US because they took out some dinky satellite, an airport shooting sparking a war)

4) Gaping plotholes left unexplained (Zakhaev somehow becoming a beloved national martyr for the Russian people, how Price survived, how the ultranationalists were able to win despite aforementioned leader being killed, what Europe, China, and the rest of the goddamn world was doing when the biggest conflict since WWII broke out)

5) Atrocious breaches of military authenticity (Russian VDV paratroops using French assault rifles and RPDs, the entire Russian armored invasion force consisting entirely BTR-90 APCs, without a single tank in sight)

6) AWFUL weapon sound effects

7) Multiplayer revolves entirely on who gets the most over-powered killstreak the fastest

8 ) Akimbo shotguns

9) Spawning system sucks

10) No dedicated servers for PC version, AND a $10 price hike

11) One word: Commando

Verge_6

I think these are the best reasons, but I don't think commando was the only perk I would single out. Scavenger is open to a lot of abuse for a start.

It's not 'awful' by any means, but it does not deserve the attention it gets nor the review scores it received. £10 more than any other game, a very short campaign, half-baked co-op and a fun but deeply flawed multiplayer. It just isn't for me.

what Europe, China, and the rest of the goddamn world was doing when the biggest conflict since WWII broke out

Verge_6

The single player is short and made me feel very...uncaring about the main characters. Other than Ghost, he was the only person I actually care for at all.

The multiplayer online is terrible with the fact that it has so many glitchy spots, and it is just cheesy with the supports or whatever you want to call them, in short Nukes have no spot in a game unless a plot device.

The special ops is mostly a repackaging of the first game...and that is cheap.

People blow it out of the water like it is something so amazing...and it isn't. I am just going to be happy when Reach comes out and takes back the thrown for Halo. Not that Modern Warfare made it go away at all.

Campaign was OK. I just dislike how everyone can automatically be good at the game after getting killstreaks. Logan832

[QUOTE="Verge_6"]

what Europe, China, and the rest of the goddamn world was doing when the biggest conflict since WWII broke out

Ninja-Hippo

[QUOTE="Verge_6"]

what Europe, China, and the rest of the goddamn world was doing when the biggest conflict since WWII broke out

Ninja-Hippo

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.

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.

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.

Haven't been playing much PC CoD4 have you?

Vesica_Prime

I can't choose to join games in Halo 3 -- I can join a game and be stuck with quite a bit of lag. That isn't a reason for a game being awful, there is a ton of games that do this.

Shotgun does not have the range of a SCAR. That's just crazy. At medium to long range the gun is useless. Don't heavily exaggerating things. Again, that setup is borderline useless on plenty of maps -- and it's not a dominant setup either.

But it's not an inherent indication of quality of the game itself. You can't say a game is awful because it doesn't have mods. Otherwise, a lot of console games just became awful.

I own it for X360.

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

I wouldn't call the multiplayer broken, and I'm not sure what's so incredibly "unbalanced" about MW2.

Not a reason for a game being awful. Besides, perhaps if you go into a game without a party playing with folks with no mics, and these folks have no sense of team skill/communication. Then yes, but you'll find that in every single game.

You'll run into campers in every game. Not an indication of quality

I own it for X360.

Stevo_the_gamer

Really? That´s very surprising,I assumed you had the PC version.

[QUOTE="Stevo_the_gamer"]

I own it for X360.

Arach666

Really? That´s very surprising,I assumed you had the PC version.

MW2 gets too much hate from system wars. It is a good game but it does have flaws.(no order)

1: Campaign is short really unbalanced. Like several action sequences where just tapped together.

2. Lag. They have your connection speed shown for a reason. Is dedicated servers too much to ask for.

3. Maps are badly designed and often favor one gameplay type. For example in Killzone 2 or Uncharted 2 you could easily play long range or short range on any map

I only played the multiplayer during the free weekend in steam. I think it gets a bit too much hate at times, most of the things that made CoD4 good are still there.

But it did feel a bit cluttered to me with all the unlockables and other crap, sometimes less is more.

The removal of dedicated servers surprisingly wasn't as bad as I thought, but the reduction in player count was noticable, I'm used to playing with ~30 players and it just didn't feel right with only half of that.

The 3rd con would be map design, for a multiplayer oriented game it's average at best. Also the lack of destruction or any proper physics made it feel somewhat old-fashioned after spending time with BC2.

And yes, no lean also annoyed me.

[QUOTE="Arach666"]

[QUOTE="Stevo_the_gamer"]

I own it for X360.

Stevo_the_gamer

Really? That´s very surprising,I assumed you had the PC version.

Majorly overhyped, they bring out a new one every year (i know different companies make it. But still, why?).

Bad level design.

Takes absolutely no skill.

Filled with little kids, bad community with hackers/modders.

It's activision.

Overpriced at release by £5, dlc is also overpriced.

Unbalanced gameplay.

Cheap deaths.

Overpowered killstreaks (although COD would be dead without killstreaks)

Spec Ops did not compare with Nazi zombies.

AMAZINGLY BAD SPAWN SYSTEM.

Totally unfair perks.

COD4 online was much better at the time, although i really enjoyed the mw2 campaign... speaking of campaign....

Confusing story (i like a good story, but this was just... What?)

They didn't have cctv to see it was Macarov at the airport scene (Wtf?)

I enjoyed it for a while, then i found bad company 2.

the SP was awesome but short. the multiplayer i can give you lots and lots of reasons

1 single player is to easy even on veteran compared to cod4.

2 supersoldiers who use the commando perk to just teleport all over the map.

3 way to many killstreaks

Overpowered Perks, Glitches tons and tons of them, Killstreaks.

Its the only game that really holds your hand, with the abundance of auto aim, you do good you get killstreaks to get even more easy kills, you do bad you get a death streak to compensate for how much you suck.

The only thing I disliked about the game was the godawfully written/unrealisticsingle player mode. Sure, in the first game, there were a few over the top parts (two guys fighting off an entire Russian army during the escape from the sniper mission) but comparing the story in the first MW and the second is like comparing the story of Saving Private Ryan to Die Hard

[QUOTE="kontejner44"]: 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) Skittles_McGee

no it's an unbiased analysis of the game, a breakdown of how it works

[QUOTE="Skittles_McGee"][QUOTE="kontejner44"]: 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) kontejner44

no it's an unbiased analysis of the game, a breakdown of how it works

gunplay is bad...

guns are suppose to have recoil in military shooters especially. It's problem when you can spray entire clips of guns FROM LONG RANGE and not have to burst at all..

[QUOTE="kontejner44"]

[QUOTE="Skittles_McGee"] Um thats EXACTLY what a review is for.Avian005

no it's an unbiased analysis of the game, a breakdown of how it works

if this was true, I wouldn't have been 99% in agreement with all the reviews (written reviews, scores differ depending on how you want to compare them)

btw from wikipedia; In addition to a critical evaluation, the review's author may assign the work a rating to indicate its relativemerit.

You can tell if a reviewer is good or not by comparing their scores, ofc they might fluctuate abit and not be in agreement with the general consensus all the time, but overall they should be. What, did you actually think reviews are 100% subjective views? then explain why SMG got reviews spanning from 90% to 100%, not lower, I mean, there has to be someone who personally disliked the game, but they did their job and rated it accordingly.

[QUOTE="Skittles_McGee"][QUOTE="kontejner44"]: 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) kontejner44

no it's an unbiased analysis of the game, a breakdown of how it works

[QUOTE="Avian005"]

[QUOTE="kontejner44"]

no it's an unbiased analysis of the game, a breakdown of how it works

kontejner44

if this was true, I wouldn't have been 99% in agreement with all the reviews (written reviews, scores differ depending on how you want to compare them)

btw from wikipedia; In addition to a critical evaluation, the review's author may assign the work a rating to indicate its relativemerit.

You can tell if a reviewer is good or not by comparing their scores, ofc they might fluctuate abit and not be in agreement with the general consensus all the time, but overall they should be. What, did you actually think reviews are 100% subjective views? then explain why SMG got reviews spanning from 90% to 100%, not lower, I mean, there has to be someone who personally disliked the game, but they did their job and rated it accordingly.

i liked the single player alot. it was a roller coaster ride. sure the story wasnt all that, but who cares it was fun as hell. the multiplayer is what killed it for me. campers, grenade spam, perks, noobs using over powered grenade launchers, duel shotguns that can kill you from far range, the perk comando is cheap as hell, helicopters that can shoot threw buildings, AC130's and whole lot of bombs going off the whole match, and did i mention the campers? the game takes no skill. sure COD4 had the same problems but it didnt take it over the top like this game did

[QUOTE="Avian005"]

[QUOTE="kontejner44"]

no it's an unbiased analysis of the game, a breakdown of how it works

kontejner44

if this was true, I wouldn't have been 99% in agreement with all the reviews (written reviews, scores differ depending on how you want to compare them)

btw from wikipedia; In addition to a critical evaluation, the review's author may assign the work a rating to indicate its relativemerit.

You can tell if a reviewer is good or not by comparing their scores, ofc they might fluctuate abit and not be in agreement with the general consensus all the time, but overall they should be. What, did you actually think reviews are 100% subjective views? then explain why SMG got reviews spanning from 90% to 100%, not lower, I mean, there has to be someone who personally disliked the game, but they did their job and rated it accordingly.

Single player is too short.

Story is crap.

Multiplayer is unbalanced and broken.

I just realized I had posted in this topic without actually saying what I disliked about MW2

its popular and gamespot kids hate mainstreamsboyer2