Are you happy with your Modern Warfare 2 PC version?

[sack_patrol]

And again, dedicated servers are bad. Why? You gave two reasons: the non-existent servers won't be maintained and the non-existent servers won't be supported in a P2P multiplayer setup.

 

Wow. You sure convinced me. <_<

Yeah, too bad everybody maintains their games and servers. It sucks rite. COD 4 is so boring with it's 20v20 servers with no lag ever. CSS too...I mean cmon, when will they learn to stop wasting time taking care of their servers and put some p2p awesomeness. That's sure to boost sales and get more people interested eh. They should also charge $10 extra for this luxury.

[damian]

I'll buy it when it goes down in price. Maybe 49 or 39

 

Although i do remember that Cod 4 took FOREVER to go down in price. So....

Edited January 4, 2010 by damian

[tkrow21]

I'll buy it when it goes down in price. Maybe 49 or 39

 

Although i do remember that Cod 4 took FOREVER to go down in price. So....

 

As awesome as both games are I agree $60 isn't worth either of them.

[sack_patrol]

As awesome as both games are I agree $60 isn't worth either of them.

Thats why cod4 was never $60.

[Fogel]

If you play the game 60hrs ...which is easy to do on an online FPS, that means it cost you $1 /hr to play the game. Play more than 60hrs and its even better value for your money. But hey, let's not insert a different way of thinking about things ...

 

Btw, CoD4 that everyone is still using as a comparison is still selling for $40 and its over 2yrs old (Nov 2007). There are 2009 PC games already dropped down to $20. If I was IW, I'd financially screw over the public too. They obviously aren't hurting by the boycotters.

[Deathmineral]

For everyone that keeps commenting on my idea negatively, I have one question: Why do you want less weapons? I'm not trying to say they shouldn't have added weapons, I'm saying they should not have removed weapons that were in the first game, in my opinion the game would be a lot better if you had the option to choose between the MP5k and the MP5 or the G3 and FAL, to add more variety to the list of weapons available. I simply think they should have tried to put more emphasis on the shooting than the tactical diversity, by that I mean sticky grenades, riot shields, and throwing knives, I mean these aren't crowd control or ninjas that you are playing as in the game, I'm not trying to say these are bad additions though, I'm saying they put too much work into these kind of items to give off the idea that your weaponry is very diversified when they should have simply diversified it by giving you a large variety of guns. As for my comment about the kind of people that play this game, I still believe it's mostly call of duty fanboys, and for the people that made this their first call of duty game, why? I mean this is a continuation of cod4's story, you shouldn't want to play a sequel first unless it's a game like final fantasy where the stories don't involve each other in every sequel.

 

Just try to keep in mind that this isn't my theory or anything like that on this game, this is my opinion, my way of expressing what I think could have made this game better without removing anything that is already in it.

[Fogel]

I'll bite since you directly reference my comments

 

Since it IS my first CoD I can honestly say I don't miss the removed guns, but I can totally see why you would feel slighted seeing your favorite weapon/s removed from this version. Since I don't have that slighted feeling of missing guns, my outsider coming in opinion of the weapon diversity is actually very good. For me it is far better than BF2 and I played BF2 for a long time. First thing (and really the only thing) I truly missed when I went Prestige was all my custom classes. Combining weapons with the right perks makes for some really disgustingly awesome diversity. And depending on the combo I sometimes have to completely change my playstyle to get it to work.

 

 

I made this my first CoD because I had about 6-10 (it's late and I don't feel like counting) real-life friends say they were getting the game ...all on the same platform no less - sadly it was the 360 so I had to re-learn how to do FPS on console. Which took a LOT of work, but that's a different story. I always heard from my friends that the CoD storyline was only about 6hrs so I really wasn't worried about the SP storyline and really didn't factor it into the equation when I was deciding to buy it or not. I still haven't finished it - once I started the MP I haven't went back to SP.

 

From what I did see of the SP I'm honesly not impressed at all. It coddles you too much - as long as you have the time you WILL finish it. That is just lame - it takes almost zero skill to progress through that game's SP campaign. At the very least the SP campaign should help improve your twitch skills. And then, what little I did see of the story I'd have to call - over pretentious. The characters had no soul and they didn't flesh any of them out. It basically had the same formula as a porno - lame excuse to go get some action. Now I will say the SP did offer some good gameplay that was good enough I may just have to check the rest of the SP campaign out sometime ...but if I bought this game only for the SP I'd be ticked off more than the loudest MW2 hater in this thread. For me, this game is all about the MP ...and the Special OPS missions are extremely fun with friends as well. They did do a good job on the musical score for this game both in SP and Special Ops - I would even say it is one of the better games in that category.

[Union Of V]

Yeah, too bad everybody maintains their games and servers. It sucks rite. COD 4 is so boring with it's 20v20 servers with no lag ever. CSS too...I mean cmon, when will they learn to stop wasting time taking care of their servers and put some p2p awesomeness. That's sure to boost sales and get more people interested eh. They should also charge $10 extra for this luxury.

No lag? I've seen more lag in CSS than I've ever seen on XBox Live! Do you really believe that P2P is inherently more laggy? If someone lags they lag, there's nothing you can do about it. The only problem with P2P matches is that the lag of the host affects the other players, but there's a simple solution to that - avoid lagging hosts.

 

As for 20v20, I can't say since I've never played a 20v20 CoD4 map. All I can say is in CSS, over 15 it sure got crowded...

[sack_patrol]

No lag? I've seen more lag in CSS than I've ever seen on XBox Live! Do you really believe that P2P is inherently more laggy? If someone lags they lag, there's nothing you can do about it. The only problem with P2P matches is that the lag of the host affects the other players, but there's a simple solution to that - avoid lagging hosts.

 

As for 20v20, I can't say since I've never played a 20v20 CoD4 map. All I can say is in CSS, over 15 it sure got crowded...

I've never had lag in css...unless a rare maintenance problem with the server which goes away for like 5 seconds.

 

Also yes, if u lag then u lag. Though p2p is simply sucky and by no means better than dedicated servers. If not lag then p2p is simply not practical, if noobs decide to leave in the middle of the game then it would stop every freakin time to choose the next host. The host then will always have a ping advantage which for me is a big deal. Another thing is that the maximum of 8v8 is...downright boring. Even in css.

[Union Of V]

I've never had lag in css...unless a rare maintenance problem with the server which goes away for like 5 seconds.

 

Also yes, if u lag then u lag. Though p2p is simply sucky and by no means better than dedicated servers. If not lag then p2p is simply not practical, if noobs decide to leave in the middle of the game then it would stop every freakin time to choose the next host. The host then will always have a ping advantage which for me is a big deal. Another thing is that the maximum of 8v8 is...downright boring. Even in css.

Not server lag, but user lag which in my eyes is worse - you're shooting, you're shooting but it won't hit!

 

There we go again. P2P sucks, nah nah nah, and no reasons. How often do people leave the game anyway? If the host has a ping advantage, who cares - ping should be below 100 anyway, and noone has reactions that fast. And my favorite server has always had less than 8v8 - never stopped me playing.

 

I think the problem is that you haven't played multiplayer on a console before. Believe me for the most part it's identical to dedicated servers, if you're worrying about how it's going to work then you're simply not focusing enough on the game.

[Waco]

Sorry if u can't tell a bad game from a good game without playing it.

Wow. I have no words to explain how ridiculous this statement is.

[Krieg1337]

I've never had lag in css...unless a rare maintenance problem with the server which goes away for like 5 seconds.

 

Also yes, if u lag then u lag. Though p2p is simply sucky and by no means better than dedicated servers. If not lag then p2p is simply not practical, if noobs decide to leave in the middle of the game then it would stop every freakin time to choose the next host. The host then will always have a ping advantage which for me is a big deal. Another thing is that the maximum of 8v8 is...downright boring. Even in css.

 

Most competition games are 5v5 or lower. You said yourself you mainly care about competition, so not point in having more than 5v5 if in lets say TWL you never go above that. Just lets there be less people to get naded, so less kills. I remember CoD 4, sure it was fun sometimes getting 1 airstrike and getting a like 20 kill streak with it on Crossfire when there were 48 players. But it was mostly just nade spam and who can shoot at the other spawn the most.