BF2S Forums [MW2]Official Multiplayer Gameplay

Uzique wrote:

the 'pro scene' of cod4 makes me want to eat my own arse with a spoon

naabs

now that is something i would like to see.

What are you all going on about?

If you dont like it then why sit around and complain? What did you want in MW2?

KuSTaV wrote:

What did you want in MW2?

bf2 with cod4 gameplay

kthx

Firing modes, weakened nades, no perks, no kill streak awards, army specific weaponry, etc...

Miggle wrote:

Firing modes, weakened nades, no perks, no kill streak awards, army specific weaponry, etc...

Operation Flashpoint 2.

I really don't think Modern Warfare 2's MP is exactly going for realistic.

Poseidon wrote:

Miggle wrote:

Firing modes, weakened nades, no perks, no kill streak awards, army specific weaponry, etc...

Operation Flashpoint 2.

I really don't think Modern Warfare 2's MP is exactly going for realistic.

I don't think any of those requests are for "realism". They are all pretty game play specific requests. Of course you could claim that any one of the changes is to make the game more realistic, but they all have distinct game play aspects to them as well that would radically change the game.

Namely, more with the pew pew, less with the boom boom.

Flaming_Maniac wrote:

Poseidon wrote:

Miggle wrote:

Firing modes, weakened nades, no perks, no kill streak awards, army specific weaponry, etc...

Operation Flashpoint 2.

I really don't think Modern Warfare 2's MP is exactly going for realistic.

I don't think any of those requests are for "realism". They are all pretty game play specific requests. Of course you could claim that any one of the changes is to make the game more realistic, but they all have distinct game play aspects to them as well that would radically change the game.

Namely, more with the pew pew, less with the boom boom.

If you want all that, OFP2 is your best bet. They're not going to change MW2 radically from what MW1 was. It sold a shitload of copies and still has a thriving community.

MW2 is an arcade shooter. Adding any of Miggle's requests would, as you said, radically change the game. They're not bad requests, they'd just change the recipe which made MW1 so popular. If people want that, they need to buy a game which labels itself as a realistic military shooter. Hence my mention of OFP2.

Miggle wrote:

Poseidon wrote:

Flaming_Maniac wrote:

I don't think any of those requests are for "realism". They are all pretty game play specific requests. Of course you could claim that any one of the changes is to make the game more realistic, but they all have distinct game play aspects to them as well that would radically change the game.

Namely, more with the pew pew, less with the boom boom.

If you want all that, OFP2 is your best bet. They're not going to change MW2 radically from what MW1 was. It sold a shitload of copies and still has a thriving community.

MW2 is an arcade shooter. Adding any of Miggle's requests would, as you said, radically change the game. They're not bad requests, they'd just change the recipe which made MW1 so popular. If people want that, they need to buy a game which labels itself as a realistic military shooter. Hence my mention of OFP2.

those were all in VCoD

I'm gonna take a wild guess and say that CoD1 didn't sell nearly as well as CoD4.

Poseidon wrote:

Miggle wrote:

Poseidon wrote:

If you want all that, OFP2 is your best bet. They're not going to change MW2 radically from what MW1 was. It sold a shitload of copies and still has a thriving community.

MW2 is an arcade shooter. Adding any of Miggle's requests would, as you said, radically change the game. They're not bad requests, they'd just change the recipe which made MW1 so popular. If people want that, they need to buy a game which labels itself as a realistic military shooter. Hence my mention of OFP2.

those were all in VCoD

I'm gonna take a wild guess and say that CoD1 didn't sell nearly as well as CoD4.

Doesn't mean it wasn't better.

Poseidon wrote:

Miggle wrote:

Poseidon wrote:

I'm gonna take a wild guess and say that CoD1 didn't sell nearly as well as CoD4.

Doesn't mean it wasn't better.

I don't think Activision/IW really care.

of course not.

It would be nice if new games were better than old games.

It would be nice if companies made games good instead of profitable.

It would be nice if consoles supported mice and keyboards and proper online for no extra cost.

Gaming is an industry where the consumer pays the dev to give them the shaft.

Last edited by Miggle (2009-09-04 19:05:09)

Poseidon wrote:

Miggle wrote:

Poseidon wrote:

I don't think Activision/IW really care.

of course not.

It would be nice if new games were better than old games.

It would be nice if companies made games good instead of profitable.

It would be nice if consoles supported mice and keyboards and proper online for no extra cost.

Gaming is an industry where the consumer pays the dev to give them the shaft.

And it would be nice if all old games weren't lumped into a "god" category and all new games weren't lumped into an "antichrist" territory, but you can't always get what you want.

But if you try sometime.

You just might find.

You get what you need.

You get what you need.

Yeah.

Oh baby.

Without even thinking about it you suggested OFP2 based on the things I had mentioned. I'm thoroughly uninterested in a "realism" game, but just like all "gamers" you're most interested in the shiny new games. Of course some of them will be good, I enjoyed Team Fortress 2 and Left 4 Dead, which were both recent, as well as Oblivion and I'm sure several other games to come out in the last few years. And of course some of the worst games ever made are "old", but much like any other form of media, be it books, music, or movies, the "best" are rarely the newest.

There are a shitload more old games than new ones, and as such shitload more bad old games than bad new games, but there's also quite a few more good old games than good new games. Thus not all old games are "god" and not all new games are "the antichrist". But by simple probability, the best game ever made was probably made before this year.

And that's pure statistics. I can also go into how gaming's increasing popularity has decreased the quality of games, but I assume you'd call it baseless hate or trolling, so I'll save that.

As Einstein said: Insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results.

When you continuously buy the flashy new $60 games which end up burning you, you're doing something wrong.

Poseidon wrote:

Miggle wrote:

Without even thinking about it you suggested OFP2 based on the things I had mentioned. I'm thoroughly uninterested in a "realism" game, but just like all "gamers" you're most interested in the shiny new games. Of course some of them will be good, I enjoyed Team Fortress 2 and Left 4 Dead, which were both recent, as well as Oblivion and I'm sure several other games to come out in the last few years. And of course some of the worst games ever made are "old", but much like any other form of media, be it books, music, or movies, the "best" are rarely the newest.

Not really, the last game I bought was Fight Night Round 4 in June, before that, Empire: Total War (which I didn't really even get to play because of my computer). I do like plenty of old games (Spy Fox and Putt Putt ftw) but I don't have this overwhelming hate of certain games just because of their release date. Doing that is just asinine. I've been gaming on consoles since around 1997, gaming seriously on PC since around 2005. That doesn't mean I haven't played PC games that came out before 2005. I don't like all new games because their new. I like games because of their quality.

There are a shitload more old games than new ones, and as such shitload more bad old games than bad new games, but there's also quite a few more good old games than good new games. Thus not all old games are "god" and not all new games are "the antichrist". But by simple probability, the best game ever made was probably made before this year.

Yes, that's likely when "old" games are probably considered to be like, pre-2005 to you, and most "new" games are post-2005. The "old" games have a bit more titles and years to select from, and doing really isn't fair. It's statistics sure, but unfair statistics.

And that's pure statistics. I can also go into how gaming's increasing popularity has decreased the quality of games, but I assume you'd call it baseless hate or trolling, so I'll save that.

As Einstein said: Insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results.

When you continuously buy the flashy new $60 games which end up burning you, you're doing something wrong.

And as some guy once said, "if it ain't broke, don't fix it". That applies to MW2. They made a shitload of money off of CoD4 and they're not about to change the recipe, as I said.

P.S. Everything Else is an awesome forum, don't hate.

But MW1 was horribly broken, and they seem to have broken it even more...

I don't hate based on the date, I hate based on experience with either the game in question or that game's prequel (if made by the same dev). I play most new games, and I look forward to some I shouldn't (Fallout 3, Far Cry 2). Ultimately I judge a game based on it's quality which I have determined by playing it. I'm not sure where this concept came from that I hate all new games and only new games, because it's horribly inaccurate. What I do hate is consolization, I hate seeing devs making more money for worse games, and I hate the direction gaming in general is headed. I hate all of that because of my experience with gaming in the past few years, which is fairly extensive.

I know you have played several pre-2005 PC games, but I really suggest you check out the original fallouts, system shocks, deus ex, mafia, and a few of the old star wars games, as they are some of my all time favourites.

Poseidon wrote:

Miggle wrote:

But MW1 was horribly broken, and they seem to have broken it even more...

I don't hate based on the date, I hate based on experience with either the game in question or that game's prequel (if made by the same dev). I play most new games, and I look forward to some I shouldn't (Fallout 3, Far Cry 2). Ultimately I judge a game based on it's quality which I have determined by playing it. I'm not sure where this concept came from that I hate all new games and only new games, because it's horribly inaccurate. What I do hate is consolization, I hate seeing devs making more money for worse games, and I hate the direction gaming in general is headed. I hate all of that because of my experience with gaming in the past few years, which is fairly extensive.

I know you have played several pre-2005 PC games, but I really suggest you check out the original fallouts, system shocks, deus ex, mafia, and a few of the old star wars games, as they are some of my all time favourites.

I never got into MW1's MP. But like I said, what they had obviously attracted a shitload of people and what they were doing was working well, so why change it? No offense, but they're not going to change it so a teenage kid on a Battlefield 2 forum can be happy. The overwhelming majority, regardless of what you think of them, rules.

Seeing over the years, gaming really hasn't changed THAT much quality-wise. There were a lot of mediocre to okay games back then, just like there is now. And then comes along a game that really blows me away (Resident Evil 2 just to name an example from old games, Fallout 3, Bioshock - as much as you hate it or think it copied SS2 - for an example from modern games). There's always been a lot of shitty games, a lot of okay/decent games, and a few amazing games. That will never, ever change.

The only games out of your list I plan to check out are Fallout 1 + 2 and Mafia I. Maybe KOTOR. Besides that, I can't really think of any that interest me besides what I've played.

I guess I've killed SS2 for you, but I still find it difficult to understand how you love Bioshock and aren't even willing to try it's far superior big brother.

The argument on economics is futile. We both understand that if a bad game makes more money than a good game, then we'll see a lot more bad games. The only difference between our beliefs on the issue seem to be that I think it's a problem.

The important thing isn't just that gaming has changed for the worse, but it certainly hasn't changed for the better. Of course there were mediocre games back then, there were godawful games back then, the worst ever made. And they haven't [I would say learn from their mistakes, but their "mistakes" haven't been bad for them] changed anything that was wrong with many old games. They also seem not to have picked up on the things they did right back then either. _{of course, none of this matters because regardless of quality, if they profit enough it's a good game to them}

With consolization, or at least current gen consolization, we do see change though. Maybe not on the console side, but a clear negative change on the PC side. As you have no doubt noticed, the primary design system for a vast majority of current devs is the x360, which is in every way weaker than the PC. As such, we see titles being merely ported to the PC, which means that although the PC has the ability to do so much more, it has to be dumbed down for the console controller and the leeches known as "casual gamers" and this current generation of casual gamers is exactly why your economic argument is true.

These casual gamers give the devs exactly what they want, an audience that will reward them for doing whatever the fuck they want, which seems to be detrimental to the gamers, and gaming itself. The reason bad games can make more money than good games is because they don't have to invest in a game's quality, and as such will minimize expenses and maximize exposure. You see more hype, more pre-rendered trailers, and as much as possible to make sure that these casual gamers will know that the game is just waiting to be bought.

The problem is the uninformed user base, not the devs (who can blame them for making money?) The users who know no better than to buy without thinking, and even if they were thinking, they haven't got any gaming experience prior to the purchase of their ^first xbox 360. How can they be expected to know how good a game is?

It's a problem with no easy solution, people will continue to have low standards, I will continue to be called a troll, and games will continue to be the same bland regurgitated waste that they often are. Maybe the casual user base will notice, but I would bet against that. After all people still go to bad movies they've seen trailers for, listen to the bad music because it's on the radio, and feed their obesity with food advertised on their 50" televisions. And all of those have far larger groups of concerned consumers than gaming.