In defense of MW2

Critically acclaimed? Check. One of the best selling games of the generation? Check. People hate on what's popular, it's plain and simple. People can make any argument towards the game on how "flawed" it is, but that's just their opinion and it doesn't make it a bad game.TheRapture

campaign was good, multiplayer sucked, butI have over 15 days on it.

who got the last laugh? obviously not me.

Also, the game had some unholy expectations and wasn't exclusive so people owning it couldn't feel more inclined to like it.

When GTA IV came out it was amazing, a breathing world in a can for you to mess in yet many people hated it despite being one of the best games this generation.

MW2 is the same, but being involved with Activision (a company that is impossible to hate) and not living up to some people's expectations makes it easy to hate on by the pampered internet crowd.

Critically acclaimed? Check. One of the best selling games of the generation? Check. People hate on what's popular, it's plain and simple. People can make any argument towards the game on how "flawed" it is, but that's just their opinion and it doesn't make it a bad game.TheRapture

Only read the first few lines, but scores are given when the game releases, not after the problems with it became apparent. That's the problem with reviews for online games that feature unlocks in general, as you don't quite know how things will pan out eventually.

Dedicated serves >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>P2P.

The campaign which everyone rags on for being so short is actually perfect at the 5 hr mark. Its been said before why make a game thats 12 hours with only 5 hours of real content and 7 hours of fluff and repetition. As a action game, its important to have a lot of things happening and if you were to keep the high pacing for 10+ hours, after a while the "plot twists" would become expected and not have as huge of an impact. Also some say the cod storyline is over the top and just rediculous, but honestly tell me one game that isnt.

Even if you felt you were gimped on the campaign, Spec-ops is a great addition to cod. Instead of copying treryarchs popular zombie mode, IW made a just as equally addicting coop mode. There is a huge amount of replayability that extends the playtime making up for short campaign.

The glitches and bugs are expected from a big game. Exploitation of games is not new and has always been a part of gaming. When playing big games its expected to run into more people who choose to cheat. And people seem to exxagerate the amount of cheaters and glitches in this game, there are far more games without cheaters than there are with.

PC gamers are angry over lack of dedicated servers, however I own both pc and xbox versions of the game and the pc version is not as bad as people make it out to be. Sure you get your laggy games, but be honest having dedicated servers does not get rid of lag. I play a lot of online games and people still lag on dedicated. Also not every pc game supports dedicated servers. Once again its completely the devs choice on how they want to present a game, nothing is owed to you.

Those who complained its a reskinned cod is wrong and they have obviously done more than they are given credit. Its a sequel not a new IP so you wouldn't expect something radically different. To do so would be silly. U2, Halo reach, BFBC2, GOW3, SMG2 are all sequels and all handle very similar to their predecessors and they don't add any more content than IW did to their games.

You not liking a game =/= a bad game

The graphics people say are sooooo bad. Sure they are sub hd, but most "next gen" games are anyway. And running a smooth 60 fps really makes a difference over 30 fps. And to have a consistent 60 fps is a huge feat. I would take cod's sub-hd 60 fps over barely 720p 20-30 fps

tutt3r

Online and Co-op is pretty standard in shooters, dedicated services > MM for lag. Not to mention, if the host lags in MW2, everyone lags until the host either drops or is replaced, which stops the whole game or closes it down if a suitable one cannot be found, dedicated servers are as part of PC gaming as much as matchmaking is part of console gaming, excluding either from your game and putting a premium price is asking for trouble. This whole we are not owed anything is very pro-corporation thinking and it's something you should stop doing, this day and age people have certain expectations of what should be in certain games as a standard . Also, co-op is something that most big shooters have, it's nothing "huge" or revolutionary as you try to put it.

Glitches and bugs are expected from a big game? Quite contrary my friend they aren't expected from big games at all, maybe small developers with low budgets but not huge devs with huge budgets.

Secondly, MW2 is just a reskinned cod.. the game plays the same except they added even more imbalanced perks and guns. It's funny you mention UC2, halo reach, BFBC2 and SMG 2 all sequels which have more content than MW 2 and yet changed enough to make themselves their own game, especially in UC2's and Halo Reach's cases. GOW 3 didn't do this so I didn't mention it.

I've never seen talk of the graphics though, they are fine.

So why don't people hate more on Leisure Suit Larry: Box Office Bust?

Answer: Because its not popular at all and people here have never played a "truly" terrible game.

People like to think that a game witha few flaws or a game that isn't their thing is automatically horrible, but since they've never actually played a real, bad game they can take that hatred and spread it all over.

Also the PC crowd was quite against it for a number of reasons.

So why don't people hate more on Leisure Suit Larry: Box Office Bust?

Answer: Because its not popular at all and people here have never played a "truly" terrible game.

People like to think that a game witha few flaws or a game that isn't their thing is automatically horrible, but since they've never actually played a real, bad game they can take that hatred and spread it all over.

Also the PC crowd was quite against it for a number of reasons.

SPYDER0416

So why don't people hate more on Leisure Suit Larry: Box Office Bust?

Answer: Because its not popular at all and people here have never played a "truly" terrible game.

People like to think that a game witha few flaws or a game that isn't their thing is automatically horrible, but since they've never actually played a real, bad game they can take that hatred and spread it all over.

Also the PC crowd was quite against it for a number of reasons.

SPYDER0416

Because Leisure Suit Larry was terrible, and everyone agrees it was terrible, people hate on MW2 because it has HUGE flaws that many reviewers seemed to cover their eyes and plug their ears about.

I think it's a bit easy to say that it's just because people hate on everything popular.
There were quite a few reasons.
The people who liked it can just as well be ignored as the people who didn't.

The campaign is a mess.
It's multiplayer component is a mess.
It is missing basic features on the PC.
It's DLC is hilariously overpriced and lacking content.

So there. It isn't a terrible game, it isn't a bad game, and it is better than average. This is a game that is good, and highly flawed.skrat_01

This. I don't know why the game got such high scores when it's flaws were obvious.

I hate when people criticize games like MW2 and GTA4 and the defenders are all like "omg ur tryin to be c00l!!111one." The reason it got such glowing reviews is because of hype, and dedicated servers are so much better than matchmaking it isn't even funny. Yes there's still lag, but that's why you find a low ping server. People from Korea aren't going to drop in your Georgia based server and lag it up.

MW2's multiplayer had a ton of game design flaws, and the SP was fun the first time, but it was far too short and the story was terribad. The reason it didn't get marked for the multiplayer bugs and exploits in reviews is because Video Game Reviewers play the multiplayers for these games in events, against other reviewers. Nobody there was going to try to javelin glitch, care package infinite run, or camp and realise how broken the killstreak system is.

[QUOTE="TheRapture"]Critically acclaimed? Check. One of the best selling games of the generation? Check. People hate on what's popular, it's plain and simple. People can make any argument towards the game on how "flawed" it is, but that's just their opinion and it doesn't make it a bad game.chaplainDMK

I hate when people criticize games like MW2 and GTA4 and the defenders are all like "omg ur tryin to be c00l!!111one." The reason it got such glowing reviews is because of hype, and dedicated servers are so much better than matchmaking it isn't even funny. Yes there's still lag, but that's why you find a low ping server. People from Korea aren't going to drop in your Georgia based server and lag it up.

MW2's multiplayer had a ton of game design flaws, and the SP was fun the first time, but it was far too short and the story was terribad. The reason it didn't get marked for the multiplayer bugs and exploits in reviews is because Video Game Reviewers play the multiplayers for these games in events, against other reviewers. Nobody there was going to try to javelin glitch, care package infinite run, or camp and realise how broken the killstreak system is.

Upparoom

Well in my opinion the game is bad

Massive glitches that killed the game for me

50% of the time when playing with friends it wouldn't put everyone in the game

Perks and killstreaks made the game very unbalanced.

I'm one of the 'haters'.

I thought the single player campaign story was so dumb that it actually affected my enjoyment of the game. This normally wouldn't have been a problem, there's plenty of games with over the top, dumb or crazy stories. But those games generally don't take themselves so damned serious. the campaign was incoherent, badly told and had plot holes in every single aspect of the story. I don't want to start listing the flaws but the whole premise of the story was silly in the first place.

The gameplay was solid from a functional point of view but it completely lacked the innovation and imagination that made CoD4 such a great game. They just reused the ideas of CoD4 with little to no originality. Instead of the AC130 mission you used predator drones but same functionality.

To me nothing in MW2 felt new, original or surprising, it felt like the designers were out of new ideas and really just trying to make up for the lack of originality by adding bigger explosions and more outrageous plot twists.

The multiplayer generally worked ok for me, it was just a little sub-par when compared to a 'regular' dedicated server system. It took longer to get into a match, you'd end up with new random players after each game instead of being able to stick with a group that worked well together, lag and disconnects were more frequent than what I'd normally expect from a multiplayer game.

However MW2 was a horrid game in the sense that it was totally broken. It worked well. The performance were great even on mid range machines. The Visuals were good, controls were fine. The frustration was that I felt that every single aspect of MW2 was worse than MW1.

I have to agree with TC on this one, it's not as bad as people make it out to be. Sometimes things are popular for a reason...

Although Modern Warfare 2 is a fun game but the game is a bit of a Black Sheep of the Franchise.

It was a bad game. It was not beta tested (which is unacceptable nowadays), the DLC is overpriced, the maps are meh, it's unbalanced as all hell, the campaign is short and so scripted it might as well be on rails, no dedicated servers, etc, etc.

It's not a bad game, it's just not anywhere near as good as CoD4 was.

Doolz2024

^^ Your answer for all the MW2 hate. CoD4 was just better in almost every way, other than content.

I dont personally like MW2 all that much, but the hate is really uncalled for.

MW2 scored a 94 on metacritic and a 9 here on gamespot giving it AAA status. This means that reviewers everywhere were pleased with cod and thought it was a good game.

The campaign which everyone rags on for being so short is actually perfect at the 5 hr mark. Its been said before why make a game thats 12 hours with only 5 hours of real content and 7 hours of fluff and repetition. As a action game, its important to have a lot of things happening and if you were to keep the high pacing for 10+ hours, after a while the "plot twists" would become expected and not have as huge of an impact. Also some say the cod storyline is over the top and just rediculous, but honestly tell me one game that isnt.

The storyline? DUDE, they didnt even have cctv cameras at the airport. Ghost was only liked because he had a mask

Even if you felt you were gimped on the campaign, Spec-ops is a great addition to cod. Instead of copying treryarchs popular zombie mode, IW made a just as equally addicting coop mode. There is a huge amount of replayability that extends the playtime making up for short campaign.

Multiplayer is a huge component for cod and no one can say they failed to deliver content wise. They have a wide variety of guns, attatchments, gametypes, etc. than what most devs have. Sure maybe you have some problems with some design choices, but nothing there that completely breaks the online. There isn't one game where someone doesn't complain about certain guns, maps, equipment, etc. As you get well adjusted with cod, or any game for that matter, you learn how to handle or counter those things you have a problem with.

Design choices??! Nothing game breaking? The killstreaks and respawning system for a start.

The matchmaking that people compain about is better than 90% of online console games out there. It matches you up quickly and alows easy partying up and does a fairly good job of choosing host. Other console games have persistent lag and isnt as smooth or as quick to finding a game like cod.

What games?

The glitches and bugs are expected from a big game. Exploitation of games is not new and has always been a part of gaming. When playing big games its expected to run into more people who choose to cheat. And people seem to exxagerate the amount of cheaters and glitches in this game, there are far more games without cheaters than there are with.

Big game? What do you mean? The same amount as content as Halo 3: ODST? Great..

People are angry over no beta and thats why there were so many things wrong with the online that could have been prevented. Very few games have betas and its completely up to the dev whether or not to have one, its not something we as gamers are owed.

Why didnt they have one? Because they know it will sell no matter how crap it is.

PC gamers are angry over lack of dedicated servers, however I own both pc and xbox versions of the game and the pc version is not as bad as people make it out to be. Sure you get your laggy games, but be honest having dedicated servers does not get rid of lag. I play a lot of online games and people still lag on dedicated. Also not every pc game supports dedicated servers. Once again its completely the devs choice on how they want to present a game, nothing is owed to you.

Yes but for pc standards they expect alot more

Those who complained its a reskinned cod is wrong and they have obviously done more than they are given credit. Its a sequel not a new IP so you wouldn't expect something radically different. To do so would be silly. U2, Halo reach, BFBC2, GOW3, SMG2 are all sequels and all handle very similar to their predecessors and they don't add any more content than IW did to their games.

Halo reach actually has a graphical upgrade. waayy more content, meaning MW2 still can't justify the higher price

You not liking a game =/= a bad game

The graphics people say are sooooo bad. Sure they are sub hd, but most "next gen" games are anyway. And running a smooth 60 fps really makes a difference over 30 fps. And to have a consistent 60 fps is a huge feat. I would take cod's sub-hd 60 fps over barely 720p 20-30 fps

They are. Very. Bad, seriously, I GENUINLY started playing and was like "Wtf? The detail on the cars is PATHETIC!" But it does have pretty good singleplayer character models

Having a coop and online mode is more than most devs do. They did give you enough content for your money, whereas some expect you to pay 60 bucks for a 12 hour game you may play through once.

On a multiplayer focused game it's expected. I kinda agree on this, but its nothing to make them stand out.

$15 dollars for 5 maps, 2 of which are old maps. Halo had $10 dollars for 3 new maps as well as many other games. Some games like socom, MAG, expect just as much as cod. So while pricing may be a bit high and work of a greddy publisher, its isnt as outrageous when compared to somegames.

But what you can do with the halo 3 maps is alot more, they are different enviroments. You can edit them with forge to many different types of maps.

Now you not liking a game is all personal preference and you are entitled to your opinion, however to say the game is a bad game is unfair. I may hate MGS4, however that does not in no way make it a bad game. I still appreciate it for the things it does, however I will not play the game again. Same for cod if you don't like it, fine. But it isnt the abomination people make it out to be.

Yes, but, Mw2 doesn't actually do much good. Apart from the singleplayer, the story is worse than just cause 2's though...

Of course cod isnt perfect and I too have my problems with it, but this game is a solid game and those who say its the worst game ever is being unfair.

tutt3r