Modern Warfare 2 will be a perfect game for noobs!!

I think this game will be pretty decent but all the crap thatg they have will make it a noob paradise. The main thing I can't stand anymore is this rewarding system they have implemented in order to reward those who die all the time. I really fell like this game will be very unbalanced. COD 4 was already full of campers, just expect it to be worse with more helicopters

I think everybody knows this TC.

Prepare to have Live filled with 11 year olds again.

Oh wait they never left.

May just be in certain game rooms. Like Bootcamp was for WAW. I doubt the hardcore settings will have things like death streak. Defeats the purpous of hardcore.

I think everybody knows this TC.

Prepare to have Live filled with 11 year olds again.

Oh wait they never left.

Crazyguy105

I'm fine with the copycat thing for dieing, but the starting with 3x your health or whatever the other thing is sounds really lame.

How does it reward dying? SpruceCaboose

You die a lot then get a similar power to a kill steak? That is somewhat dumb to reward dying a lot. Good thing all I play on MW is freeze tag and that's all I'm probably gonna play on MW2.

[QUOTE="SpruceCaboose"]How does it reward dying? dragonpuppy

You die a lot then get a similar power to a kill steak? That is somewhat dumb to reward dying a lot. Good thing all I play on MW is freeze tag and that's all I'm probably gonna play on MW2.

What do you expect? When COD4 came out, all the people that sucked at Halo 3 started playing COD4. Halo is built on skill, if you suck, YOU DONT WIN, and you dont progress. If you see a person's back in COD4, instant kill, try that in Halo and if you havent approached the fight correctly, you'll still die. This appeals to noobs because they can pop in the new game and isnatly feel like they're acheiving something without actually gaining any skills. mtron32

Both games require skill to win consistently, and they need different kinds of skills to be good in each. You can always suck and win a game on occasion, any game. It is called luck.

I think everybody knows this TC.

Prepare to have Live filled with 11 year olds again.

Oh wait they never left.

I think everybody knows this TC.

Prepare to have Live filled with 11 year olds again.

Oh wait they never left.

[QUOTE="Crazyguy105"]

I think everybody knows this TC.

Prepare to have Live filled with 11 year olds again.

Oh wait they never left.

h575309

Please stop with that.

You dont know how many people that are 15-16 that are perfectly mature and wanna play games with 17+ ratings.
Just mute all the little hyperactive monkeys...

[QUOTE="dragonpuppy"]

[QUOTE="SpruceCaboose"]How does it reward dying? SpruceCaboose

You die a lot then get a similar power to a kill steak? That is somewhat dumb to reward dying a lot. Good thing all I play on MW is freeze tag and that's all I'm probably gonna play on MW2.

As for painkiller, if you are getting killed, it starts you with some extra health (not 3x as much like someone claimed), and in CoD, if you have played it, you know some extra health is not that much help (think Juggernaut).

http://www.giantbomb.com/news/hands-on-with-modern-warfare-2s-multiplayer/1685/

"The only two in the demo I played were Painkiller, which starts you with a triple health boost after you're killed three times without making any kills of your own, and Copycat, which lets you use the loadout and perks of the last guy who killed you for one life."

Actually, it's 3x health. But I appreciate the BS.

NOOBS WITH BOOBS ARE GOING TO PWN MW2!

-Melix-

Or you could just not buy the game and help stick it to Activision...

Dispite what you think, i'll playing this game, with the young, old, my friends and even people i dont know!

This game is gonna own, join in or beat it, nothing is perfect but this game still gives a good effort, particularly the online side of it.

Ill get this game mostly for the single player. Multiplayer wise, nothing will beat Bad Company 2!!

[QUOTE="Crazyguy105"]I think everybody knows this TC. Prepare to have Live filled with 11 year olds again. Oh wait they never left.h575309

When you run into machine gun fire, you get chewed to pieces. When people run at you with a submachine gun, they rip you apart.

None of this results in a very enticing view of warfare to me. I realize that warfare is....as Kurt Vonnegut put it, a duty-dance with death. Compare this horrible view of warfare in which there are consequences (grisly deaths, realistic gibbing, instantaneous kills) to your traditional FPS (Halo 3) in which there is no gibbing and no blood, just smacking and shooting bullets into your crosshairs. Which one encourages or rewards violent gameplay? If the guns were modelled more realistically and you watched your opponent explode every time you threw a grenade under his feet into 6 bloody pieces, do you think you'd be more or less inclined towards physical violence in the real world?

The way I like to approach this is from the direction of Penn and Teller's episode on gun violence arising from videogames, which is to say that it doesn't. In that episode they took a young boy who played a lot of violent videogames and took him out to meet a gun enthusiast, a friendly fellow who allowed the boy to shoot his AR15. The boy was inexperienced and didn't know how to hold the gun. He managed to pull off a single round which fired back into his shoulder and jarred him with a loud noise and a big muzzle flash. When asked if he wanted to fire again, the boy said no and then ran into his mother's arms where he cried.

Real guns are scary. Real warfare is scary. The closer games simulate it, the less glamourousness you're going to see, the less inclined you're going to be towards a glamorous view of violence.

NOOBS WITH BOOBS ARE GOING TO PWN MW2!

-Melix-

[QUOTE="SpruceCaboose"][QUOTE="dragonpuppy"]

You die a lot then get a similar power to a kill steak? That is somewhat dumb to reward dying a lot. Good thing all I play on MW is freeze tag and that's all I'm probably gonna play on MW2.

Brownesque

As for painkiller, if you are getting killed, it starts you with some extra health (not 3x as much like someone claimed), and in CoD, if you have played it, you know some extra health is not that much help (think Juggernaut).

http://www.giantbomb.com/news/hands-on-with-modern-warfare-2s-multiplayer/1685/

"The only two in the demo I played were Painkiller, which starts you with a triple health boost after you're killed three times without making any kills of your own, and Copycat, which lets you use the loadout and perks of the last guy who killed you for one life."

Actually, it's 3x health. But I appreciate the BS.

You know, I think this game will be good. I mean, it looks like its actually going to provide a little more of a challenge for good players and bad players alike. Besides, I'm mainly looking foward to the campaign.

The way I like to approach this is from the direction of Penn and Teller's episode on gun violence arising from videogames, which is to say that it doesn't. In that episode they took a young boy who played a lot of violent videogames and took him out to meet a gun enthusiast, a friendly fellow who allowed the boy to shoot his AR15. The boy was inexperienced and didn't know how to hold the gun. He managed to pull off a single round which fired back into his shoulder and jarred him with a loud noise and a big muzzle flash. When asked if he wanted to fire again, the boy said no and then ran into his mother's arms where he cried.Brownesque

[QUOTE="h575309"][QUOTE="Crazyguy105"]I think everybody knows this TC. Prepare to have Live filled with 11 year olds again. Oh wait they never left.Brownesque

When you run into machine gun fire, you get chewed to pieces. When people run at you with a submachine gun, they rip you apart.

None of this results in a very enticing view of warfare to me. I realize that warfare is....as Kurt Vonnegut put it, a duty-dance with death. Compare this horrible view of warfare in which there are consequences (grisly deaths, realistic gibbing, instantaneous kills) to your traditional FPS (Halo 3) in which there is no gibbing and no blood, just smacking and shooting bullets into your crosshairs. Which one encourages or rewards violent gameplay? If the guns were modelled more realistically and you watched your opponent explode every time you threw a grenade under his feet into 6 bloody pieces, do you think you'd be more or less inclined towards physical violence in the real world?

The way I like to approach this is from the direction of Penn and Teller's episode on gun violence arising from videogames, which is to say that it doesn't. In that episode they took a young boy who played a lot of violent videogames and took him out to meet a gun enthusiast, a friendly fellow who allowed the boy to shoot his AR15. The boy was inexperienced and didn't know how to hold the gun. He managed to pull off a single round which fired back into his shoulder and jarred him with a loud noise and a big muzzle flash. When asked if he wanted to fire again, the boy said no and then ran into his mother's arms where he cried.

Real guns are scary. Real warfare is scary. The closer games simulate it, the less glamourousness you're going to see, the less inclined you're going to be towards a glamorous view of violence.

And in the hands of the wrong kids, the ones whose parents let violent videogames babysit them instead of doing it themselves, are the ones who do this kind of crap. If parents monitored this, I think it would be better for everyone.

[QUOTE="Brownesque"]The way I like to approach this is from the direction of Penn and Teller's episode on gun violence arising from videogames, which is to say that it doesn't. In that episode they took a young boy who played a lot of violent videogames and took him out to meet a gun enthusiast, a friendly fellow who allowed the boy to shoot his AR15. The boy was inexperienced and didn't know how to hold the gun. He managed to pull off a single round which fired back into his shoulder and jarred him with a loud noise and a big muzzle flash. When asked if he wanted to fire again, the boy said no and then ran into his mother's arms where he cried.SpruceCaboose

Young kids should not be playing violent video games all night, every night, and it should not be the majority of people you find online playing these games. So I guess we should let kids drink, have sex, and go to war at the age of ten too eh?h575309

Ok, I found a second site that said Painkiller was 3x the health, but I also found a site that stated the perk was also time limited, which negates much of that. Either way, these perks are a balance that was sorely missing from CoD4.SpruceCaboose

[QUOTE="SpruceCaboose"]Ok, I found a second site that said Painkiller was 3x the health, but I also found a site that stated the perk was also time limited, which negates much of that. Either way, these perks are a balance that was sorely missing from CoD4.Brownesque

so what if the noobs play it? you should be happy coz you are so l33t and you'll be getting so many kills.

so what if the noobs play it? you should be happy coz you are so l33t and you'll be getting so many kills.

sikanderahmed

[QUOTE="h575309"]Young kids should not be playing violent video games all night, every night, and it should not be the majority of people you find online playing these games. So I guess we should let kids drink, have sex, and go to war at the age of ten too eh?Brownesque

For instance, say an unsupervised child is playing this game, and remembers that his father has a pistol. He wants to hold the real thing. Goes and finds it wherever, doesnt know how to handle it, and BANG shoots himself or his friend. It all comes down to parental responsibility, And the reason that theres ratings on these games is because some children mature at certain ages, realizing the difference between virtual reality and reality, or right from wrong. Its a case by case basis, and in order to eliminate it, they make the upper limit of 17 or whatever. It obviously doesnt matter though since parents dont care.

Its not a problem with the games, its a problem with parents not participating in the childs life, or offering some other stimulation than violent video games.

[QUOTE="Brownesque"][QUOTE="h575309"]Young kids should not be playing violent video games all night, every night, and it should not be the majority of people you find online playing these games. So I guess we should let kids drink, have sex, and go to war at the age of ten too eh?h575309

For instance, say an unsupervised child is playing this game, and remembers that his father has a pistol. He wants to hold the real thing. Goes and finds it wherever, doesnt know how to handle it, and BANG shoots himself or his friend. It all comes down to parental responsibility, And the reason that theres ratings on these games is because some children mature at certain ages, realizing the difference between virtual reality and reality, or right from wrong. Its a case by case basis, and in order to eliminate it, they make the upper limit of 17 or whatever. It obviously doesnt matter though since parents dont care.

Its not a problem with the games, its a problem with parents not participating in the childs life, or offering some other stimulation than violent video games.

well for one, the death streak help people have FUN when they're doing badly. I mean how many timess have you been so terrible that you can't even get 1 kill and get 3 deaths? and even then it only gives you a fighting chance, not an automatic kill.

One thing also is that i know I'll have FUN. As long as i'm having fun, i don't care if it's "noobish" or a "Leet" game as long as i'm having fun.

I'm fine with the copycat thing for dieing, but the starting with 3x your health or whatever the other thing is sounds really lame.

Eddie-Vedder

well for one, the death streak help people have FUN when they're doing badly. I mean how many timess have you been so terrible that you can't even get 1 kill and get 3 deaths? and even then it only gives you a fighting chance, not an automatic kill.

One thing also is that i know I'll have FUN. As long as i'm having fun, i don't care if it's "noobish" or a "Leet" game as long as i'm having fun.

swamplord666

[QUOTE="h575309"]

[QUOTE="Brownesque"] Why shouldn't they? You forgot your argument. If you're going to make a normative claim I expect you to support it.Brownesque

For instance, say an unsupervised child is playing this game, and remembers that his father has a pistol. He wants to hold the real thing. Goes and finds it wherever, doesnt know how to handle it, and BANG shoots himself or his friend. It all comes down to parental responsibility, And the reason that theres ratings on these games is because some children mature at certain ages, realizing the difference between virtual reality and reality, or right from wrong. Its a case by case basis, and in order to eliminate it, they make the upper limit of 17 or whatever. It obviously doesnt matter though since parents dont care.

Its not a problem with the games, its a problem with parents not participating in the childs life, or offering some other stimulation than violent video games.

Well, a overabundance of brutal images can also desensitizes. For example; the SAW movie series is known for it's blood and gore, yet it surely doesn't deter people from going to every single seqeul/\. More blood and gore is not always better.

Why shouldn't they? You forgot your argument. If you're going to make a normative claim I expect you to support it.Brownesque

For instance, say an unsupervised child is playing this game, and remembers that his father has a pistol. He wants to hold the real thing. Goes and finds it wherever, doesnt know how to handle it, and BANG shoots himself or his friend. It all comes down to parental responsibility, And the reason that theres ratings on these games is because some children mature at certain ages, realizing the difference between virtual reality and reality, or right from wrong. Its a case by case basis, and in order to eliminate it, they make the upper limit of 17 or whatever. It obviously doesnt matter though since parents dont care.

Its not a problem with the games, its a problem with parents not participating in the childs life, or offering some other stimulation than violent video games.

First i heard of this, buti can't understand why they would do this since they have sorted out the host leaves game problem.

i would hate to have my kill streak ruined by someone who was performing poorly and being rewarded for it, but i will see how it pans out in the game play itself,because if i amhonest when i played cod4 and completely sucked, i could not understand why the guy who was pawning was being rewarded with airstrikes and Helicopters when he obviously did not need them, but when i started getting kill streaks all these complaints suddenly left my mind lol.

MW2 is a perfect game forppl who never played a FPS before.

I think this game will be pretty decent but all the crap thatg they have will make it a noob paradise. The main thing I can't stand anymore is this rewarding system they have implemented in order to reward those who die all the time. I really fell like this game will be very unbalanced. COD 4 was already full of campers, just expect it to be worse with more helicopters

Heroldp813

I don't get what the big deal is.

It just helps people that are new to the game and can help a team that is getting pwned.

I for one, like the idea. Can't wait for this game.

[QUOTE="SpruceCaboose"]Ok, I found a second site that said Painkiller was 3x the health, but I also found a site that stated the perk was also time limited, which negates much of that. Either way, these perks are a balance that was sorely missing from CoD4.Brownesque