View Full Version : Wishlist for CoD: MW2
Prussian to the Iron
08-11-2009, 06:50
I am compiling a wishlist for what we, as a community want in Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 2.
I will add your guys' suggestions to the list as we go.
Heres my wishlist:
-Map editing/construction set similar to Hao 3's Forge
-Better thermal/night vision. As it stands now, the night vision can almost never be used to reliably detect a persons heat signature.
-Addition of new guns. I'd love to see the STG-44 (or, in-game in CoD4, MP-44) replaced with an XM8. More variety would be nice too.
-Maps that actually require night-vision. In CoD4, night vision was almost exclusively an impairment in MP. How about a couple maps that you ahve to use night-vision on, due to pitch blackness?
-Better ACOG scopes. I cannot use ACOG scopes right now, because I have a hard time switching between iron-sights, red-dot sight, and ACOG scopes. If they added a cross-hair instead of an arrow in the ACOG scopes, they would be much more useful.
-Multiple weapon attachments at once. There is no reason I cannot have an M203 grenade launcher on the underside of my barrel, and a red-dot sight above it.
-More weapons used by true armies rather than insurgents or crappy armies. I'd like to see less and less RPD's and more and more H&K MG4's. Give us more good-guy weapons!
-More accurate machine guns. I cannot stress this enough. If I cannot hit an enemy with an M60 from perhaps 50 feet away (with a red-dot sight, mind) while going through my ammo, only to have him pop up for a second and shooting me as my gun starts shooting at wild angles, despite my aim staying on their position.
-Custom Server Choice. By this, I mean that, in addition to the standard match-making already present, there would be a list of custom games you can choose from. This way, people can create their own game variants and maps, and allow anyone to play them.
-Picture taking and movie playback. Similar to halo 3's mechanism.
-CoD: WaW's assistance system. In this system, rather than getting 1/5 of the points for aiding somone in killing a person, you get an amount of points proportionate to the damage you do to the enemy. I hate when I have maybe 2 shots left to kill someone, then some douche-bag on my team steals my kill and gets full credit, while i get 2 points.
-CTF Game Mode. Simple enough: Get into the enemy base, steal the flag, bring it back to your base. In CoD, this could be represented by an intel laptop or something similar.
-Vehicles. I know what everyone is about to say: Remember the tanks in CoD: WaW? Yes, I do. Personally, I think it adds an extra challenge, and means that you have to compromise between firepower and whatever you want. However, tanks and any other vehicles could not possibly be over-powered in CoD:MW2; in an urban environment, odds are that the only thing you could do is stay at one end of the map, with your team controlling any buildings around you. This forces the enemy to either try to rocket-snipe you and risk getting blown to pieces immediately, or forces them into the side-buildings to get a good shot. With Humvees and APC's, you could quickly get players around in more open maps. Which brings me to the next wish:
-Open desert/oasis maps for Humvees and light vehicles to drive around. of course, these would have buildings as well as cover in the more open areas, but not too much. Probably best used for Domination and CTF.
-Better thermal/night vision. As it stands now, the night vision can almost never be used to reliably detect a persons heat signature.
Night vision doesn't detect a person's heat signature, whether thermal vision that can be worn on the head actually exists I do not know, only seen it in Splinter Cell or other semi-sci-fi. :shrug:
Hooahguy
08-11-2009, 12:59
im writing an article on all known features for MW2 in the next issue of the gahzette. stay tuned.
by the way, its not COD:MW2, just MW2.
im writing an article on all known features for MW2 in the next issue of the gahzette. stay tuned.
by the way, its not COD:MW2, just MW2.
No it's not. (http://blog.nielsen.com/nielsenwire/consumer/name-change-is-game-changer-for-modern-warfare-2/)
Hooahguy
08-11-2009, 14:09
hm. thanks for the info. now i need to change my article a bit.
tibilicus
08-11-2009, 14:53
More diverse and bigger maps, generally there is a set format for maps where by there's two ways round, crossfire and bog for example, it would be nice to have a bigger tactical element.
More diverse weapons, also no m16. I don't appreciate a gun which can kill me in one shot, 2 shots maximum.
There the main ones to be honest, also some new perks would be nice. I want it to feel like a new game, not just a cod 4 re-skin..
Hooahguy
08-11-2009, 14:57
no the m16 will be in its been confirmed.
Furunculus
08-11-2009, 17:20
a price that means i won't automatically reject the game on principle until its lying at the bottom of the bargain bin.
tibilicus
08-11-2009, 20:25
no the m16 will be in its been confirmed.
:wall:
My blood boils every time I die at the hands of an m16 user. No gun should ever bee one shot kill..
Hooahguy
08-11-2009, 20:43
if you are so annoyed about the m16 use it you can use it as well. personally use the m4 for bigger maps and the mp5 for smaller ones. beats those m16 n00bs any day of the week. they may also be using the stopping power perk.
tibilicus
08-12-2009, 00:35
if you are so annoyed about the m16 use it you can use it as well. personally use the m4 for bigger maps and the mp5 for smaller ones. beats those m16 n00bs any day of the week. they may also be using the stopping power perk.
Yup, standard set up. M16, stopping power and steady aim. I see people in 10th prestige still using it and I can't understand why, I would get really bored of using the same gun over and over.
I personally like diversity, at the minute im currently using the MP40 as my assault rifle, mp5 and p90 for silenced classes, and a scorpion with an acog scope for general purpose. You wouldn't think the last one would be any good but surprisingly it is..
Prussian to the Iron
08-12-2009, 23:12
wait wait wait....MP-40 as an assault rifle, but MP5 as well????
i think you mean the MP-44 (STG-44) in CoD4
also:I used to use the M16(beastly with a red-dot sight), but once I got the G-36C and M14, I kinda said screw it.
BTW: adding to the list: 1-Shot kill sniper rifles at higher levels. I swear to god, if i shoot someone in the chest with a .50 Caliber sniper rifle and do not kill him 1 more time, i will go insane.
Hooahguy
08-12-2009, 23:20
BTW: adding to the list: 1-Shot kill sniper rifles at higher levels. I swear to god, if i shoot someone in the chest with a .50 Caliber sniper rifle and do not kill him 1 more time, i will go insane.
dude, what are you talking about? i get 1 shot kills with the .50 cal all the time. only if the target has juggernaut does it take more than one hit.
Prussian to the Iron
08-12-2009, 23:25
do you have stopping power? i traded out stopping power for overkill, so i can have an M14 instead of a pistol.
Hooahguy
08-13-2009, 01:01
nope. i have uav jammer and deeper penetration.
Prussian to the Iron
08-13-2009, 01:53
hmmm......... i know deep penetration doest effect damage, only if it goes through walls, but could it possibly add just that tiny little bit of damage left? with the higher muzzle velocity and sharper bullets?
if not, then it makes nos ense that we would have different damage for the same gun.
Hooahguy
08-13-2009, 02:05
where do you usually hit? i almost always hit the upper torso/head.
Prussian to the Iron
08-13-2009, 02:13
with my barret, ive hit the mid-upper torso.
also ive noticed that if you hit the heart or lungs, its instant kill, as opposed to a lower hit which just hurts like hell.
Hooahguy
08-13-2009, 03:05
interesting.
now, back to topic. i want a better filtering system for the servers, like an option to choose a min and max ping level. as of now the filtering system is pretty shallow.
Prussian to the Iron
08-13-2009, 04:54
probably my biggest annoyance ever:
a way to mute people in the pre-game menu. it is so annoying when i just want to play, and a couple guys are blasting crappy music and just about yelling through their damned microphones, forcing me to turn off the volume until i can mute them in-game.
Hooahguy
08-24-2009, 12:05
probably my biggest annoyance ever:
a way to mute people in the pre-game menu. it is so annoying when i just want to play, and a couple guys are blasting crappy music and just about yelling through their damned microphones, forcing me to turn off the volume until i can mute them in-game.
pc version ftw: theres no in-game menu for the idiots to chat on. :beam:
Has anyone seen the new multiplayer trailer? Customizable kill streaks, grenades that stick to your opponents, and some kind of portable homing missile you can use against airstrikers. Sounds good, but the settings (at least the ones I've seen) are too open and I'm worried that the game is becoming too Battlefield-ish.
Prussian to the Iron
08-24-2009, 16:29
customizable kill streaks? mixed blessing i think. perhaps they should make it a default kill streak rewards until a mid-level like 30, then make it so that you can only customize kill streaks after 10 kills. then they really deserved it.
heli-dogs anyone?
sticky grenades? i thought those were just for tanks. of course, we all know that the grip magically goes and clips onto their shirt.
portable homing missile? i think if it was like a weapon that had only 10 shots, replaced perk 1, and was only unlockable at the highest level, maybe it could work. then again, the flamethrower in CoD5 isnt too terribly overpowered; type-100 will beat it with double tap.
Hooahguy
08-24-2009, 18:27
i beleive the sticky grenade will be like the plasma grenade in Halo3. probably will only work if the enemy stays perfectly still or something. i trust that IW wont make it too overpowered. and theyll probably make it some sort of perk.
Prussian to the Iron
08-24-2009, 21:23
the difference is:
plasma grenade and halo 3=sci-fi obviously fake never going to happen no matter what
CoD: Modern Warfare 2=(somewhat) realistic shooter based with real, existing weapons and equipment.
modern grenade that sticks to personnell= lame+unrealistic.
then again, ive never been able to stick someone with a sticky grenade in CoD5, so maybe it will be an extremely rare thing?
what would be great is if you could hold 'throw grenade' button and click the melee button at the same time when behind an enemy, and it would then be clipped onto the back of their necks. detached heads anyone?
Hooahguy
08-24-2009, 22:12
well first of all, Semtex is a sticky plastic explosive, so a nade covered in semtex isnt such a far off idea.
Prussian to the Iron
08-25-2009, 13:01
1 problem:
if you threw it, wouldnt it stick to your hand first? unless you covered everything but 1 part, and you carried it around in your hand to make sure you have the right part.
I want the insane gore of World at War https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uIqZ1TFRPMk
Prussian to the Iron
08-26-2009, 13:28
hellz yeah! I can't imagine theres anything quite like watching a helicopters M230 Chaingun ripping and tearing to pieces some random guy, as you watch on with both horror and glee.
what would be great is if you could hold 'throw grenade' button and click the melee button at the same time when behind an enemy, and it would then be clipped onto the back of their necks. detached heads anyone?
I want the insane gore of World at War https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uIqZ1TFRPMk
No. Just no. :help:
This isn't Gears of War, there's no need to be so over the top in the gore level especially since the engine is much more photo-realistic. High gore levels in games like that just make me entirely uncomfortable.
Don't have a problem with it it's just a game. I like the gore in WAW, it even serves a purpose, WAW has this whole war is hell going for it. When you shoot someone with a heavy weapon I want feedback, and boy does WAW give it, makes the action so much more satisfying if you can utterly destroy them.
Hooahguy
08-26-2009, 19:06
too much gore makes it a bit silly.
When you empty a LMG on someone and he still has all limbs attached is kinda silly. In WoW you can really mess them up good, I like. Usually you don't notice how gory it is but once in a while you get a truly horrific kill, or the absolutely sickening sound of your buddy being shot in the head, deary. It's hardcore bloody fun. Can't get enough of the bayonet hehe *SWOB*
I don't mind the gore, makes it all the more intense. Will there be zombie mode in this? I've had a lot of fun with that.
Prussian to the Iron
08-27-2009, 13:18
I think the majority of players will want gore, especially the ones who came from WaW. i mean, if i shoot a guy with a .50 caliber bullet in the face, his face should not still be there.
i do hope they dont go Gears of War gore on us, but not too much less than it. maybe i'm just sick and twisted like that :P
I'm betting they won't bring back zombie mode, but they would be able to bring over everyone from WaW if they did. I think just about everybody in the world would love to noscope zombies with a barret repeatedly.
Hooahguy
08-27-2009, 18:26
no zombies. its been confirmed.
no zombies. its been confirmed.
A shame, that was one of the few things that I truly enjoyed in WaW.
Hooahguy
08-27-2009, 19:01
well IW wanted to stay away from WaW. but there are rumors that instead of zombies, it will be aliens.
Prussian to the Iron
08-28-2009, 13:37
aliens? not sure how to react to that...wouldn't they have guns after breaking out of Area 51? lol :P
makes sense though: has anybody ever seen a movie where there has ever been al qaeda zombies? no? it's because they can't become zombies duh! everyone knows that wearing a red headband, unfashionable sunglasses, and living in a cave makes you immune to zombies.
Hooahguy
09-02-2009, 00:26
new vid!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V4PMRFkx07g
new vid!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V4PMRFkx07g
Absolutely amazing.
Suddenly all the hatred I have for WaW is washed away. Bring on MW2! :2thumbsup:
edit: The guy clearing the way with the riot shield? Yeah. Awesome.
Prussian to the Iron
09-02-2009, 12:58
OMG THAT IS AWESOME!!! I love that they included a bunch of new guns, not the same old "Ok, take a bunch of american guns, a bunch of russian guns, some British guns, and then throw in a couple miscellaneous guns from other countries"
whereas now its more like:
"Ok, find every gun you can in moden militarys and put it in."
Plus, that supply drop would be pretty nice, especially fi you didnt have bandolier.
Hooahguy
10-05-2009, 04:00
new vid:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8toHfZm6jNE&feature=sub
D.C is in flames. :help:
Apparently MW2 is all done, as the devs were spotted playing their game on Live (http://kotaku.com/5373544/looks-like-modern-warfare-2s-gone-gold) a few nights ago.
November is shaping up to be an absolute treat. Assassin's Creed 2, MW2, and Dragon's Age: Origins all within a few weeks of one another. How am I ever gonna find the time for them all? :sweatdrop:
Absolutely amazing.
Suddenly all the hatred I have for WaW is washed away. Bring on MW2! :2thumbsup:
edit: The guy clearing the way with the riot shield? Yeah. Awesome.
hrmph. Why the hate, WaW does nothing wrong it is just extremely violent, the campaign is tight like drum and the multiplayer improves upon modern warfare. They did afine job taking it to pacific. The pacific WW2 has always come acros as more savage and nightmarish, maybe that is just me but WaW delivers in spades, such hostile and alien place
hrmph. Why the hate, WaW does nothing wrong it is just extremely violent, the campaign is tight like drum and the multiplayer improves upon modern warfare. They did afine job taking it to pacific. The pacific WW2 has always come acros as more savage and nightmarish, maybe that is just me but WaW delivers in spades
The AI is a true and utter joke in WaW's campaign. You don't notice it in the soviet campaign because the Germans aren't scripted to banzai charge you at the drop of a hat. The AI doesn't really know how to handle it and will do it at odd times (with odd targets in mind). It makes the pacific campaign really easy, the only thing holding you back is the grenade spam on the higher difficulties.
The pacing is all over the place like it was in CoD4, but there's no real characterization for me to grasp onto. In CoD4 there was a general over arching storyline that made both the SaS and the Marine's Force Recon missions feel almost like they were apart of a greater whole. In WaW we're going back to how things were in previous CoD games in that the narrative of the game is "there's a war on" and that's it. The two campaigns aren't related in any way other than being set in ww2, and what happens in the pacific isn't effecting what's happening on the Eastern front. I found it to be two steps backward after Infinity Ward's step forward.
Multiplayer, though, was a huge improvement over CoD4's, grenade spamming was much less common and the "War" mode was particularly fun. But the multiplayer replayability was hurt (in my eyes) by the time period. I loved all the weapons and mods you had in WaW's predecessor and seeing nearly half the arsenal reduced to bolt action didn't make me enjoy the combat too much.
By the end of WaW i hated it, to the point I later sold the game. Now my "anger" has cooled, but I still wouldn't play it if given the chance.
all fair criticism, did'nt really notice but yeah. I never played part 1 and 2, maybe I let them get away with more. On points mentioned modern warfare wins hands down.
Prussian to the Iron
10-05-2009, 14:15
EDIT: nvm, i read the date wrong. still, a month is so close!!!
Hooahguy
10-06-2009, 15:36
i cant wait to find out the system requirements.
Prussian to the Iron
10-06-2009, 15:47
ur gettin it for PC?
no doubt im getting it on the Xbox, or maybe the PS3. i can only play the xbox once a week....so ps3 might be better bet.
Hooahguy
10-06-2009, 16:04
oh no!!! (http://www.rockpapershotgun.com/2009/10/05/angrytank-time-codmw2-pc-delayed/)
oh no!!! (http://www.rockpapershotgun.com/2009/10/05/angrytank-time-codmw2-pc-delayed/)
Much anger in that one over a two week delay. The news is disappointing to be sure, but let's not burn the world down just yet.
Hooahguy
10-06-2009, 19:59
Much anger in that one over a two week delay. The news is disappointing to be sure, but let's not burn the world down just yet.
well considering i am forced to get it for PC...
it wont matter for me anyways. i wont get my laptop back until at least january.
Prussian to the Iron
10-06-2009, 22:03
oh....i have a great idea of how you will pay me back for the Metallica videos:
I'm going to continually send you plot details of every mission as i progress through them!! MUAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!
Spartan198
10-11-2009, 09:38
I'd be in warfare heaven if they'd give me a freaking fire selector this time...
Prussian to the Iron
10-11-2009, 16:49
while i agree that a fire selector would be nice, its not really that hard to use assault rifles on burst or semi-auto by just controlling your trigger.though having a realistic (non burst-only) M-16 would be awesome!
Deep breath (http://twitter.com/fourzerotwo/statuses/4942365785)!
Straight from FourZeroTwo, there's no delay for PC MW2. Seems like the internets lied to us. What a shock! :laugh4:
Hooahguy
10-18-2009, 02:18
Deep breath (http://twitter.com/fourzerotwo/statuses/4942365785)!
Straight from FourZeroTwo, there's no delay for PC MW2. Seems like the internets lied to us. What a shock! :laugh4:
*faints*
Prussian to the Iron
10-19-2009, 00:03
hey, check this poster:
http://image.com.com/gamespot/images/bigboxshots/4/951944_109830_front.jpg
in the background is s destroyed capital building. i hope its not something that obvious. maybe an alternate ending depending on your actions?
Hooahguy
10-22-2009, 05:21
i doubt it. the COD series have always been linear.
Prussian to the Iron
10-22-2009, 13:45
well thats true.
however in cod 5 you had the choise to either save roebuck or the other guy in the last american mission (haven't played campaign in ages. but i got the achievement!!) so hopefully. i just think taking it to washington dc would be a little too obvious. so is in the ME, but you dont just burn down DC.it would make more sense to go somewhere in maybe SE Asia or Pakistani/Indian jungles.
Hooahguy
10-29-2009, 15:00
COD: MW2 minimum system requirements for PC:
Hard Drive Space : 16 GB free hard drive space
Operating System : Windows® Vista/XP
Processor : AMD 64 3200+ or Intel Pentium® 4 3.0GHz or better
RAM : 512 MB RAM (XP) / 1 GB RAM (VISTA)
Video Card : Shader 3.0 or better 256 MB nVidia® GeForce™ 6600GT / ATI® Radeon™ 1600XT or better
tibilicus
10-29-2009, 16:05
Not sure if this video is genuine but it was uploaded on game trailers. Also quality is poor.
WARNING, fairly graphic.
http://www.gametrailers.com/user-movie/modern-warfare-2-leaked-footage/333509
I'm not actually sure if I agree with such a level being in the game if this is in fact genuine. I mean, I'm normally the sort of person who laughs at those people who claim video games are a bad influence but if this is genuine this level seems pretty chilling to me..
Prussian to the Iron
10-29-2009, 16:48
I'm just......speachless. I can't believe that they would do that. I hope it's either:
A. Not actually in the game
B. At least not in the American version
Look, me and my dad think playing Gears 2 and going on a chainsaw rampage all over the enemy is awesome and hilarious, but this....geeze it makes me wanna puke almost.
And why do they make you be a terrorist who has to do it? I'd be fine if I had to be like some Special Forces people or something that followed them, and saw the dead people but not actually killing anybody but the terrorists.
If it is in when I get the game, I'll do either one of two things:
1. Just run through the level, not looking, and not killing anyone until the fight with the police comes.
2. If killing everyone in the airport is a required objective (which I think I saw pop up in the top left corner, but hope not) than I'm just skipping the campaign. Infinity Ward will not make me kill all those innocent computers. I would rather pay someone to do it for me, than to have to do it myself.
Hooahguy
10-29-2009, 17:48
wow. just saw the footage.
Prussian to the Iron
10-29-2009, 18:02
well thankfully we wont have to do it:
http://xbox360.ign.com/articles/104/1040095p1.html
http://www.destructoid.com/official-statement-issued-on-modern-warfare-2-video-leak-153453.phtml
The leaked footage was taken from a copy of game that was obtained illegally and is not representative of the overall gameplay experience in Modern Warfare 2.
Infinity Ward’s Modern Warfare 2 features a deep and gripping storyline in which players face off against a terrorist threat dedicated to bringing the world to the brink of collapse. The game includes a plot involving a mission carried out by a Russian villain who wants to trigger a global war. In order to defeat him, the player infiltrates his inner circle. The scene is designed to evoke the atrocities of terrorism.
At the beginning of the game, players encounter a mandatory “checkpoint” in which they are warned that an upcoming segment may contain disturbing elements and they can choose not to engage in the gameplay that involves this scene. Consistent with its content, the game has been given an “M” for Mature by the Entertainment Software Ratings Board. The rating is prominently displayed on the front and back of the packaging, as well as in all advertising.
So that likely means we have to still hear it, we just dont need to do anything.
Personally, I'm going to walk backwards looking at the ceiling until the police part comes up.
No more disturbing than WaW forcing you to gun down Germans as they tried to flee or watching as your comrades slaughter PoWs and encourage you to kill men trying to surrender.
tibilicus
10-29-2009, 18:23
I'm just not sure what purpose such a segment would serve. Maybe they want us to get into it and really feel some hate for our adversary?
Either way it just doesn't make sense. I mean games like GTA for example, we've all gone on a random rampage but the way it's done it doesn't feel realistic, you can detach yourself from it. I just think game play like this is a step to far. There has been far to many cases in recent years of people going into schools ect and doing this kind of thing.
Quite frankly I think the only way the scene could be more controversial is if they made you hijack a plane..
Prussian to the Iron
10-29-2009, 18:46
No more disturbing than WaW forcing you to gun down Germans as they tried to flee or watching as your comrades slaughter PoWs and encourage you to kill men trying to surrender.
much more disturbing; here is what happens in that scene in WaW:
1. WaW takes place 65 years ago.
2. We can detach ourselves from that, because they are "the bad guys"
3. You have to admit that the Sergeant (Reznov?) makes it a little funny
4. Those scenes aren't on such a large scale. there are maybe 2-3 scenes of that? and those scenes are very short, and 3 people and at largest maybe 10 for the scene in the fields where you get molotovs.
Here is what happens in that scene from MW2:
1. It takes place in a post-9/11 world where everyday innocents are killed for no reason by terrorists.
2. You and 4 other terrorists cold-heartedly slaughter hundreds of innocent people in an airport
3. Crawling, mangled people trying to escape are shot
4. The screaming is extremely unnerving.
If anyone remembers a while back I had that thread "Is there something wrong with me?" because I had this horrible gory dream. That is what I imagine this scene will be like, only the people never did anything bad and you kill hundreds.
Like I said; I'm going to turn the sound off, and walk backwards looking at the ceiling until the firefight occurs.
much more disturbing; here is what happens in that scene in WaW:
1. WaW takes place 65 years ago.
2. We can detach ourselves from that, because they are "the bad guys"
3. You have to admit that the Sergeant (Reznov?) makes it a little funny
4. Those scenes aren't on such a large scale. there are maybe 2-3 scenes of that? and those scenes are very short, and 3 people and at largest maybe 10 for the scene in the fields where you get molotovs.
No, I do not.
The violence portrayed in WaW was very intense, enough so that even though it took place over six decades ago it had a powerful message: War is ugly. There are also more than three scenes, but listing off the ones I remember wouldn't prove a point. The original point is that WaW encouraging war-crimes is just the same as this imho.
1. It takes place in a post-9/11 world where everyday innocents are killed for no reason by terrorists.
2. You and 4 other terrorists cold-heartedly slaughter hundreds of innocent people in an airport
3. Crawling, mangled people trying to escape are shot
4. The screaming is extremely unnerving.
I'm really failing to see the difference. Was it any less bad when the soviet commander demanded you to kill surrendering germans near the subway, but if you refused he ordered them burned alive with molotovs and mocked you?
"You should have been merciful and saved those animals some misery."
The Call of Duty series already took steps down this road in WaW. The only difference this time around is that Infinity Ward seems to understand not everyone wants to interact with this sort of scene, instead of shoe-horning you into the situation and further punishing you if you don't play along like Treyarch did. :shrug:
Prussian to the Iron
10-29-2009, 19:04
well, if it is the same than why is there a big outrage with this and not with WaW?
and you were never forced to kill POW's or surrendering germans in WaW either. you could, but you could also look away for 5 seconds.
you don't seem to get that there is now an entire level devoted to killing civilians.
maybe you just think different than everyone else, but nobody else seemed to care much about WaW's few scenes where POWs or surrendering enemies were killed by you.
this isnt a debate. im not arguing this any further.
well, if it is the same than why is there a big outrage with this and not with WaW?
I dunno, no one was paying attention? :laugh4:
maybe you just think different than everyone else, but nobody else seemed to care much about WaW's few scenes where POWs or surrendering enemies were killed by you.
this isnt a debate. im nto arguing this any further.
I just don't feel the two things are that different. :shrug: While I very much dislike the scene, I don't understand why there's so much outrage now instead of then.
Call of Duty: Brütal Warfare?
Really seems a bit useless, playing the bad guy, but whatever. :shrug:
Hooahguy
10-29-2009, 22:58
Call of Duty: Brütal Warfare?
Really seems a bit useless, playing the bad guy, but whatever. :shrug:
apparently its part of the story.
apparently you were, in the mission, a CIA or whatever agent who was with the bad guys, trying to get close to marakovs ring of advisors or something along those lines. or so i read somewhere.
Prussian to the Iron
10-29-2009, 23:44
apparently its part of the story.
apparently you were, in the mission, a CIA or whatever agent who was with the bad guys, trying to get close to marakovs ring of advisors or something along those lines. or so i read somewhere.
I read that too, but you die at the end. apparently they knew.
Still, I wouldn't kill people like that just to infiltrate his inner ring. I would instead have called the police as soon as possible, and wear some sort of defining clothing. at least then they would be caught as soon as they got off the elevator; maybe I'd have one other guy not get caught too so it didnt look suspicious. we would run and they wouldn't get us. then I'd continue infiltrating.
apparently the CIA isn't as smart as a 14 year old boy.
tibilicus
10-29-2009, 23:54
apparently its part of the story.
apparently you were, in the mission, a CIA or whatever agent who was with the bad guys, trying to get close to marakovs ring of advisors or something along those lines. or so i read somewhere.
Makes sense.
And then they kill the CIA agent to make it look like an American plot and as a result support gathers for the ultra nationalist movement.
Guess it does kind of fit in..
Hooahguy
10-30-2009, 00:26
I read that too, but you die at the end. apparently they knew.
Still, I wouldn't kill people like that just to infiltrate his inner ring. I would instead have called the police as soon as possible, and wear some sort of defining clothing. at least then they would be caught as soon as they got off the elevator; maybe I'd have one other guy not get caught too so it didnt look suspicious. we would run and they wouldn't get us. then I'd continue infiltrating.
apparently the CIA isn't as smart as a 14 year old boy.
wow you clearly have no idea about espionage. when you are undercover and trying to get infiltrate an organization, you do NOTHING to make them suspicious. you act EXACTLY as they do, even if that means some un
apparently IW and CIA are much smarter than a 14 year old. :wink:
Prussian to the Iron
10-30-2009, 01:32
wow you clearly have no idea about espionage. when you are undercover and trying to get infiltrate an organization, you do NOTHING to make them suspicious. you act EXACTLY as they do, even if that means some un
apparently IW and CIA are much smarter than a 14 year old. :wink:
:sweatdrop::sweatdrop::sweatdrop:
A Very Super Market
10-30-2009, 01:55
It's an FPS. You kill people all the time. I don't care if you think it's "justified" to kill Germans, Russians, or lizardmen from the Earth's core. You're killing them.
I pains me to hear someone say that. It absolutely destroys me to know that someone can happily mow down thousands, but cry crocodile tears when something like this is thrown their way. Maybe it puts things into perspective. No matter how evil someone can be (And sometimes that is even arguable) a life is a life.
IW had another controversy when people learned you would get nuked, I believe. I thought it was a chilling truth of our day and age.
Here's my wishlist:
Dedicated Servers.
/thread.
Prussian to the Iron
10-30-2009, 12:29
It's an FPS. You kill people all the time. I don't care if you think it's "justified" to kill Germans, Russians, or lizardmen from the Earth's core. You're killing them.
I pains me to hear someone say that. It absolutely destroys me to know that someone can happily mow down thousands, but cry crocodile tears when something like this is thrown their way. Maybe it puts things into perspective. No matter how evil someone can be (And sometimes that is even arguable) a life is a life.
IW had another controversy when people learned you would get nuked, I believe. I thought it was a chilling truth of our day and age.
I never heard of the nuke controversy; I was kinda pissed to learn that I couldn't keep playing as a marine, but it was a good plot twist/element.
I think part of it though is you're killing innocent civilians, whereas in previous CoD you were in a real war. I don't know, but I never saw any controversy or uproar over WaW.
al Roumi
10-30-2009, 15:09
This article (http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/2009/oct/29/games-gameculture)offers interesting discussion of the issue.
As it says, for me context plays a large part. I've not played COD5:WAW, but I'm drawn to agree with Monk in questioning why one concept is worse than the other.
I suspect the reason for the lack of uproar around COD5:WAW is that it happened in the past and that oddly, people may be less upset about war crimes in WW2 than in the contemporary, post 9/11 context.
Ok, so a brief perusal of the Monastery and backroom here might provide evidence to the contrary of that last statement, nonetheless in the Uk at least, WW2 is generaly accepted as a past time of great evil. As if WW2 is what the old order stood for or allowed, and the contrast with which supposedly legitimises the present -and ultimately contemporary expedients of "questionable morality", e.g. (on a simple level) at least is wasn't as bad as what the Nazis did.
It could also be that WW2 has been so washed and re-washed through western culture and psyche that people are more innured to it -dare i say blase about it.
On the other hand, gratuitous targetting of civilians with violence, Terrorism, is seen as a polar opposite to the western world's current "mission" -liberating the world through the war on terror, or more sedately - ensuring our national security.
I was disturbed at the POW slaughterings, and the Japanese bayonettings. I cringed watching the Marine get his throat sliced, all in WaW.
I stopped the aforementioned video clip when they blew up the elevator.
WaW pushed it, but it was manageable. However, I don't need to partake in the killing of civilians, virtual as it may be, to know that these things acts are being committed. To devote a whole level to gunning down airport civilians, a situation that CAN occur nowadays, is crude, in my opinion.
My wish:
That they don't censor the Aussie version. It appears that the suits in power feel it could train you up to become a terrorist. :wacko:
Anyway just another to buy overseas.
Crazed Rabbit
11-01-2009, 08:52
wow you clearly have no idea about espionage. when you are undercover and trying to get infiltrate an organization, you do NOTHING to make them suspicious. you act EXACTLY as they do, even if that means some un
apparently IW and CIA are much smarter than a 14 year old. :wink:
No, IW is stupider. It seems to me the whole point of infiltrating a terrorist cell would be to stop an airport massacre.
And from what I know, the grunts involved in such a mission would not be part of a terrorist leader's inner circle. Planning attacks and shooting fleeing civilians are not the same.
Also, what kind of BS plot is IW throwing together? Some Russian villain wants to start WWIII? What 60s spy movie reject script did they take that from? If they are going to claim a realistic portrayal of war, they could at least try to have a believable story.
Finally, though, is the simple fact that if they wanted to show the atrocities of terrorism, they could have had the player in the role of a civilian, instead of having an entire level devoted to the player shooting fleeing, defenseless, civilians. I don't think they'll show how terrible such an act is by having you commit it I think it will just desensitize you to it and lessen whatever impact the game would have had.
One thing I know, though; I am not buying this game.
CR
a completely inoffensive name
11-01-2009, 10:21
No, IW is stupider. It seems to me the whole point of infiltrating a terrorist cell would be to stop an airport massacre.
And from what I know, the grunts involved in such a mission would not be part of a terrorist leader's inner circle. Planning attacks and shooting fleeing civilians are not the same.
Also, what kind of BS plot is IW throwing together? Some Russian villain wants to start WWIII? What 60s spy movie reject script did they take that from? If they are going to claim a realistic portrayal of war, they could at least try to have a believable story.
Finally, though, is the simple fact that if they wanted to show the atrocities of terrorism, they could have had the player in the role of a civilian, instead of having an entire level devoted to the player shooting fleeing, defenseless, civilians. I don't think they'll show how terrible such an act is by having you commit it I think it will just desensitize you to it and lessen whatever impact the game would have had.
One thing I know, though; I am not buying this game.
CR
The point of infiltrating a terrorist cell is to stop the hijacked nuke and the tens of millions of American deaths in the future not the dozens of Russian civilians they kill to start their war.
The definition is a terrorist is one who uses terror as a weapon to further his/her goals. It doesn't matter what rank they are, they kill because killing is the best way for people to fear. Killing public and getting away with with is the best way for people to fear constantly knowing they are not safe anywhere.
It is no BS plot. When the Berlin Wall and the Iron Curtain fell, the Communists and Nationalists did not all suddenly disappear and the US did not buy all the nuclear material or weapons from former Soviet Republics or Russia itself by far. It is not WW3 the terrorists want to start, it is end of everyone who does not believe the same as they do. The dangers of The Taliban or Al Queda acquiring a nuke are (were?) real, so this is actually extremely believable.
I'm glad IW pushed it with this intro mission. We can kill thousands and thousands of simulated Nazis and terrorists because they were the bad guys, but even one glance in the eyes of an active terrorist is too far? It is hypocrisy on two counts, for one claiming that a game where you kill people goes too far because it kill those you wouldn't want to see die and second for the stunning backlash video games get for being the newest entertainment medium and treading into more mature grounds that other mediums cross every day. We can watch a show revolving around a serial killer (Dexter) and see him kill innocents and try to blend into normal life and get away with it, oh but lets focus on the video game.
What is the purpose of this scene? Gratuitous death? I doubt it, obviously the developers knew with this game they would get hassle from the content they decided to include so there must have been a reason. This scene is more likely supposed to bring about a emotional reaction, it gives a bigger connection to the player about how terrible terrorists can be and breaks down the standard "bad guy" whitewash that every other FPS has by shoving reality in your face, literally.
I'm glad IW pushed it with this intro mission. We can kill thousands and thousands of simulated Nazis and terrorists because they were the bad guys, but even one glance in the eyes of an active terrorist is too far? It is hypocrisy on two counts, for one claiming that a game where you kill people goes too far because it kill those you wouldn't want to see die and second for the stunning backlash video games get for being the newest entertainment medium and treading into more mature grounds that other mediums cross every day. We can watch a show revolving around a serial killer (Dexter) and see him kill innocents and try to blend into normal life and get away with it, oh but lets focus on the video game.
Terrorists/Combatants does NOT equal civilians. They're incomparable. It's not hypocrisy, it's sickening and shameful. Are you ok with a special unlockable 9/11 level! You can fly planes into buildings and watch as the passengers scream! HOW REALISTIC! :no:
I'd rather we had a cutscene of this. It is ridiculous to dedicate and ENTIRE LEVEL TO SHOOTING CIVILIANS.
Can't wait to unlock the "Beat Osama's High Score" achievment.
This scene is more likely supposed to bring about a emotional reaction, it gives a bigger connection to the player about how terrible terrorists can be and breaks down the standard "bad guy" whitewash that every other FPS has by shoving reality in your face, literally.
Yeah, a level dedicated to shooting civilians is totally "revolutionary" and "in my face", and not a cheap shock attempt.
Crazed Rabbit
11-01-2009, 19:32
The point of infiltrating a terrorist cell is to stop the hijacked nuke and the tens of millions of American deaths in the future not the dozens of Russian civilians they kill to start their war.
Like I said, some grunt is not going to be part of the inner circle.
It is no BS plot. When the Berlin Wall and the Iron Curtain fell, the Communists and Nationalists did not all suddenly disappear and the US did not buy all the nuclear material or weapons from former Soviet Republics or Russia itself by far. It is not WW3 the terrorists want to start, it is end of everyone who does not believe the same as they do. The dangers of The Taliban or Al Queda acquiring a nuke are (were?) real, so this is actually extremely believable.
Then why not have an Al Queda or Taliban linked group try to set off a nuke? Oh, yeah, because they're afraid of offending certain people so they use some farcical villain, like the movie adaption of Sum of All Fears.
I'm glad IW pushed it with this intro mission. We can kill thousands and thousands of simulated Nazis and terrorists because they were the bad guys, but even one glance in the eyes of an active terrorist is too far? It is hypocrisy on two counts, for one claiming that a game where you kill people goes too far because it kill those you wouldn't want to see die and second for the stunning backlash video games get for being the newest entertainment medium and treading into more mature grounds that other mediums cross every day. We can watch a show revolving around a serial killer (Dexter) and see him kill innocents and try to blend into normal life and get away with it, oh but lets focus on the video game.
Bah, there's no hypocrisy. Nazis and terrorists are not in any way unarmed civilians. Heck, they could have had terrorists attacking soldiers, you know, someone who could fight back. And television shows are not interactive; you're watching other people, not doing anything yourself.
This seems nothing like a cheap shock, since they could have easily conveyed what they claim they wanted to through other methods.
CR
Knight of Ne
11-01-2009, 20:13
Like I said, some grunt is not going to be part of the inner circle.
You can't just waltz in and join the inner circle, you have to prove your part of the team.
Then why not have an Al Queda or Taliban linked group try to set off a nuke? Oh, yeah, because they're afraid of offending certain people so they use some farcical villain, like the movie adaption of Sum of All Fears.
Because A: They don't have one
B: By detonating a nuke these organistaions would be signing there own gravestone.
Although personally i couldn't care if this level is included or not, i cannot understand what the developers were thinking while making it.
Ne:2thumbsup:
a completely inoffensive name
11-01-2009, 21:57
Terrorists/Combatants does NOT equal civilians. They're incomparable. It's not hypocrisy, it's sickening and shameful. Are you ok with a special unlockable 9/11 level! You can fly planes into buildings and watch as the passengers scream! HOW REALISTIC! :no:
I'd rather we had a cutscene of this. It is ridiculous to dedicate and ENTIRE LEVEL TO SHOOTING CIVILIANS.
Can't wait to unlock the "Beat Osama's High Score" achievment.
The context is different. That would be in bad taste because of the lingering emotional effects due to its recency. However, if there was another Call of Duty game where you play as the Japanese and bomb Pearl Harbor there would be much less backlash. We already have Call of Duty and Metal of Honor games where we witness Pearl Harbor being bombed, but no backlash was made about that. However, Fallout 3 puts posters up of the city in the game around D.C. to advertise and that gets flak. This just seems to be the case of modern events and politics hitting too close to home for people. There is also a reason why they use a made up Russian ultranationalist faction as the main villain instead of Osama, it's about context not content. Lets at least wait for the game to come out so we can full examine the full context around it.
That last statement is know is supposed to a cutting remark, but it fails because you already do such a challenge in many other games with a different context around it. In the GTA games most of the missions are to be better at stealing, killing, selling drugs and being the kingpin then the other kingpins. Instead of beat Osama, in GTA Vice City the long term goal is to beat the Liberty City mafia at being the biggest and richest criminal faction in the country.
Yeah, a level dedicated to shooting civilians is totally "revolutionary" and "in my face", and not a cheap shock attempt.
I didn't say revolutionary. Don't put words in my mouth. And again, let's wait until the game comes out before we pass judgment. It will be interesting to see if you and CR actually do play through the whole game before you make a call, or if you two are going to be stubborn, and close minded and refuse to even play before going about life with your strong opinion on the game.
a completely inoffensive name
11-01-2009, 22:11
Then why not have an Al Queda or Taliban linked group try to set off a nuke? Oh, yeah, because they're afraid of offending certain people so they use some farcical villain, like the movie adaption of Sum of All Fears.
They did use a Al Queda like faction in CoD4, who actually does set off a nuke if you remember. They are using this faction to do the dirty work instead because of the different context it brings. Seeing a bunch of Arabic, Islamic terrorists to kill all these civilians would hit too close to home for many people then some more generic evil Communist/Nationalist Russians.
Bah, there's no hypocrisy. Nazis and terrorists are not in any way unarmed civilians. Heck, they could have had terrorists attacking soldiers, you know, someone who could fight back. And television shows are not interactive; you're watching other people, not doing anything yourself.
The German soldiers who surrender during the campaign of WaW are POWs not enemy combatants, yet in the game they get slaughtered anyway, with no complaint because they were all obviously Nazi's so we shouldn't care if some of those guys who get executed die.
That last statement is dead wrong. All mediums of entertainment are interactive. Books require you to envision what you are reading, movies and television allow to visually see and put yourself into that world by suspending your disbelief. I hear idiotic articles all the time about how violent television contributed to increased aggression in children all the time, so don't tell me television is ok and video games are bad because instead of the T.V. telling you how this story goes, you play along and find out yourself.
And all that is a moot point anyway, because with any form of medium it does not matter how "interactive" you claim it is. It is all fiction. Fake. And everyone who watches T.V., movies, or plays video games should know the difference between fiction and reality in the first place.
Prussian to the Iron
11-01-2009, 22:37
Bah, there's no hypocrisy. Nazis and terrorists are not in any way unarmed civilians. Heck, they could have had terrorists attacking soldiers, you know, someone who could fight back. And television shows are not interactive; you're watching other people, not doing anything yourself.
No matter what anyone says, this will be the view of the majority of gamers/people everywhere. Even if some people say that it is no worse than the Nazi killings in WaW, most people (including me) will say that civilian killing is totally different.
It doesn't matter why, no one is going to change their mind on it. The plain truth is most people playing this game (and people in general) will say Nazi=Kill, Civilian=Let Live (You don't know how hard it was to not put "Live and Let Die" :yes:)
Let's re-establish what we are doing here.
There is controversy, over whether grown men (Since that is who should be playing it; if you are worried about your poor little Timmy being corrupted by all this terrisums then DON'T BUY IT) should "shoot" completely imaginary "civilians".
So basically, it's OK to fire little polygons at one group of moving polygons, but not at other groups of polygons, because the second group cannot fire those little polygons back at "you".
Bwuh?
Seriously though, this a ridiculous controversy. If you are OK with killing terrorists in a video game, or slaughtering inhabitants of a city (Who are just numbers btw), Total War style, then there is no logical, or moral reason why you should be opposed to the "death" of entirely fictional civilians in an entirely fictional terrorist attack. Period.
Prussian to the Iron
11-02-2009, 00:11
Let's re-establish what we are doing here.
There is controversy, over whether grown men (Since that is who should be playing it; if you are worried about your poor little Timmy being corrupted by all this terrisums then DON'T BUY IT) should "shoot" completely imaginary "civilians".
So basically, it's OK to fire little polygons at one group of moving polygons, but not at other groups of polygons, because the second group cannot fire those little polygons back at "you".
Bwuh?
Seriously though, this a ridiculous controversy. If you are OK with killing terrorists in a video game, or slaughtering inhabitants of a city (Who are just numbers btw), Total War style, then there is no logical, or moral reason why you should be opposed to the "death" of entirely fictional civilians in an entirely fictional terrorist attack. Period.
well, this would make sense if it was a game from 1995 with 2-D graphics. however, now it is realistic, and even on crappy TV's it is still too close to real life to be so disconnected with it.
and lets be realistic here: the majority of gamers, even if the game is rated M (more than half my games are, and I possess no games under T besides Kirby and some Wii games) are between the ages of 10-18.
hell, i played M rated games at age 8. any non-uber-conservative parent doesnt care about rating. I played God of War 1 and 2 at release! I was 10 when I played God of War 1. despite the sex and nudity and gore.
ratings dont matter.
im not saying at all that this will screw people up, but im saying that im not sure if i would let a 12 year old play this select mission.
well, this would make sense if it was a game from 1995 with 2-D graphics. however, now it is realistic, and even on crappy TV's it is still too close to real life to be so disconnected with it. .
They are still made of triangles. They don't actually exist, and it is nothing like real life.
and lets be realistic here: the majority of gamers, even if the game is rated M (more than half my games are, and I possess no games under T besides Kirby and some Wii games) are between the ages of 10-18..
That's false. The majority are between the ages of 18 and 30.
hell, i played M rated games at age 8. any non-uber-conservative parent doesnt care about rating. I played God of War 1 and 2 at release! I was 10 when I played God of War 1. despite the sex and nudity and gore.
ratings dont matter.
.
So the ratings don't matter, except when they do.
Right.
im not saying at all that this will screw people up, but im saying that im not sure if i would let a 12 year old play this select mission.
That's fine. But if you were comfortable with playing other M games, where you shot terruriztz rather than civilians, then it is hypocritical to be uncomfortable with shooting "civilians".
Prussian to the Iron
11-02-2009, 14:26
They are still made of triangles. They don't actually exist, and it is nothing like real life.
okay, when you look at an HD screen of CoD 4 or 5, do you just think "oh look at all those triangles!"? nobody else does. they look realistic enough to be unnerving.
That's false. The majority are between the ages of 18 and 30.
would you like to know why you have that statistic? because most underage gamers lie about their age.
hell, i still say I'm 30 when I register a game!
in my entire neighborhood, with very few kids, i know at least 6 teenagers who play games all the time. I've never seen a parent or adult in my neighborhood who plays games like me and my buddies do.
So the ratings don't matter, except when they do.
Right.
?????where did you get that from????
That's fine. But if you were comfortable with playing other M games, where you shot terruriztz rather than civilians, then it is hypocritical to be uncomfortable with shooting "civilians".
no, it's not. i dont know why you cant understand that Terrorists=Bad and all need to die, and Civilians=Good and have no reason to be slaughtered.
posted by CR:
Bah, there's no hypocrisy. Nazis and terrorists are not in any way unarmed civilians. Heck, they could have had terrorists attacking soldiers, you know, someone who could fight back.
okay, when you look at an HD screen of CoD 4 or 5, do you just think "oh look at all those triangles!"? nobody else does. they look realistic enough to be unnerving.
That's not the point. Regardless of how realistic they look, however relative a term that is, they are just made of triangles. They are not real people.
would you like to know why you have that statistic? because most underage gamers lie about their age.
hell, i still say I'm 30 when I register a game!
in my entire neighborhood, with very few kids, i know at least 6 teenagers who play games all the time. I've never seen a parent or adult in my neighborhood who plays games like me and my buddies do.
http://www.gamespot.com/pages/forums/show_msgs.php?topic_id=26367451
Also, your entire neighbourhood/network of friends != the entire gaming community.
?????where did you get that from????
That the impression I get. It looks confusing, because that's the message you seem to be saying.
You say:
hell, i played M rated games at age 8. any non-uber-conservative parent doesnt care about rating. I played God of War 1 and 2 at release! I was 10 when I played God of War 1. despite the sex and nudity and gore.
ratings dont matter.
Whilst saying a few sentences before:
im not saying at all that this will screw people up, but im saying that im not sure if i would let a 12 year old play this select mission.
Ummm....
no, it's not. i dont know why you cant understand that Terrorists=Bad and all need to die, and Civilians=Good and have no reason to be slaughtered.
Ignoring the fact that neither even exist in the context we are talking about, let's have a thought experiment.
SUPER HAPPY FUN LUCKY QUIZ:
When does war stop, and murder start being committed?
1. Terrorists break into an army barracks, and kill everyone inside, including army cooks, medics etc.
2. Terrorists break into an armanents factory, and kill all the workers and management who were making weapons that were killing terrorists.
3. Terrorists break into a conference of a political party that supported war against the terrorists, and kill everyone inside regardless of their political views.
4. Terrorists walk out in the street, and kill random passersbys, some of whom supported aforementioned party, others not, whilst all contributing to the economy of the country which is fighting the terrorists.
Before I show you the answers, here's another quiz.
LUCKY FUN HAPPY SUPER QUIZ:
When does war stop, and murder start being committed?
1. Commandoes break into a terrorist hide-out, and kill everyone inside, including surgeons, religious leaders etc.
2. Commandoes break into an bomb factory, and kill all the workers and management who were making bombs that were killing soldiers
3. Commandoes break into a meeting of tribal leaders which broadly supported war against that country, and kill everyone inside regardless of their personal views of the conflict.
4.Soldiers walk out in the street, and kill random passersbys, some of whom supported the freedom fighters, others not, whilst all contributing to the economy of the country which is fighting the commandoes.
ANSWERS:
Trick question, as war is murder regardless of who is being killed
would you like to know why you have that statistic?
33% of gamers are over 18. 50% are over 16. I'll try dig up the related article.
http://www.usatoday.com/tech/news/2004-05-12-gamer-demographics_x.htm
This is the average, all the way back from 2004
Edit, aha here we go
http://www.library.illinois.edu/blog/gaming/2009/05/interesting_stats_on_gamer_dem.html
Women over 18 years of age represent 33% of the game playing population; which is nearly double the population share of males 17 and under (18%).
Prussian to the Iron
11-02-2009, 18:22
T
SUPER HAPPY FUN LUCKY QUIZ:
When does war stop, and murder start being committed?
1. Terrorists break into an army barracks, and kill everyone inside, including army cooks, medics etc.
2. Terrorists break into an armanents factory, and kill all the workers and management who were making weapons that were killing terrorists.
3. Terrorists break into a conference of a political party that supported war against the terrorists, and kill everyone inside regardless of their political views.
4. Terrorists walk out in the street, and kill random passersbys, some of whom supported aforementioned party, others not, whilst all contributing to the economy of the country which is fighting the terrorists.
Before I show you the answers, here's another quiz.
LUCKY FUN HAPPY SUPER QUIZ:
When does war stop, and murder start being committed?
1. Commandoes break into a terrorist hide-out, and kill everyone inside, including surgeons, religious leaders etc.
2. Commandoes break into an bomb factory, and kill all the workers and management who were making bombs that were killing soldiers
3. Commandoes break into a meeting of tribal leaders which broadly supported war against that country, and kill everyone inside regardless of their personal views of the conflict.
4.Soldiers walk out in the street, and kill random passersbys, some of whom supported the freedom fighters, others not, whilst all contributing to the economy of the country which is fighting the commandoes.
ANSWERS:
Trick question, as war is murder regardless of who is being killed
you completely miss the point. terrorists attacking a country are not in a "war". that is true murder. unprovoked killing.
and 3 and 4. when were those ever commited by real soldiers? I know that no one in the right mind would support walking in the street and killing passersby.
it seems you are trying to say "terrorists affiliated with a country" rather than the more realistic "terrorists who simply hate those different from themselves and kill others for no reason.
lets take the "terrorists affiliated with a country" example. Vietnam War would fit this perfectly (Viet Cong terrorists with the North, in addition to the North's real army).
1. Probably happened, though merciless killing of everyone would have been strictly reprimanded by American authorities.
2. See above.
3. Never happened
4. Also never happened.
this is from the American Commando perspective. don't make up events and say that it is on an equal level no matter who is doing it.
If an evil force kills thousands, and a good force kills thousands of the evil force, than is the good force truly evil? absolutely not. this would make all humans horrible and evil, and thus we would have no aspect of what good could possibly be.
besides, you are going totally off-topic. if instead there was a war with russia in the game, and as an american/british soldier you had to slaughter civilians in a Russian airport, I would object just as much.
it is the slaughtering of helpless and otherwise inconsequential civilians that everyone is against.
frogbeastegg
11-02-2009, 18:40
This topic's taken a big turn towards the backroom now. I suggest that anyone interested in discussing whether the scene is suitable or not start a new thread over there; the arena's intended for the lighter sides of gaming.
:bow:
Hooahguy
11-02-2009, 18:41
ok, stop now. any further and it will be a backroom discussion and *poof* this thread will dissapear from the Arena like pie dissapears from an American Pie Council convention.
EDIT: beaten by Frog.
anyhow, anyone see the review on youtube (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rvPYk8LG8bg) for MW2? looks amazing, especially the space blowup scene, but if im not mistaken, in one scene it shows you slowly rappelling down to kill some US commandos?
Martyrdom is gone? Hahaha!
Martyrdom is gone? Hahaha!
Thank :daisy: lord. The only thing worse than Martyrdom were the people who complained endlessly about it. It was only really bad in Hardcore mode anyway. :help:
Prussian to the Iron
11-02-2009, 21:43
Thank :daisy: lord. The only thing worse than Martyrdom were the people who complained endlessly about it. It was only really bad in Hardcore mode anyway. :help:
I found that, at least in WaW, martyrdom might kill you and give you a kill maybe once or twice in an entire game.
however, it did get annoying in hardcore when you TK and get TKed by it.
CoD 4 was a little more of a problem. i can see urban environment being totally unfair with grenades dropping all the time.
and i just didnt put on my headset so i couldnt hear people :D
In that case, could the thread be split so as to continue our discussion in the backroom? I'll post my reply here, out of convenience.
:bow:
*********************
you completely miss the point. terrorists attacking a country are not in a "war".
They think they are. They consider themselves soldiers, just like the IRA, Al Qaeda, Tamil Tigers, ETA etc. And they consider anyone who disagrees with them at war with them, regardless of whether they are combatants or not.
that is true murder. unprovoked killing.
Murder, as defined in common law countries, is the unlawful killing of another human being with intent (or malice aforethought),
Surely anyone who dies in conflict has been murdered, according to this definition?
and 3 and 4. when were those ever commited by real soldiers? I know that no one in the right mind would support walking in the street and killing passersby.
They were hypothetical scenarios, intended to highlight the absurdities of war, and the fact that black and white are non-existent in war.
Also, you might want (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/My_Lai_Massacre) to check these out. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brighton_bombing)
it seems you are trying to say "terrorists affiliated with a country"
So you mean, state sponsored terrorism? That happens very rarely, as it seldom has any positive effects for the donor. Perhaps you mean proxy wars, Cold War style (Of course, you wouldn't be so foolish to mistake irregular soldiers like the Vietcong for terrorists...would you?).
rather than the more realistic "terrorists who simply hate those different from themselves and kill others for no reason.
That's not terrorism. That is just being a psychopath. Terrorists do have motives, and they seek to achieve them through the use of fear as a weapon.
lets take the "terrorists affiliated with a country" example. Vietnam War would fit this perfectly (Viet Cong terrorists with the North, in addition to the North's real army).
:shame:
1. Probably happened, though merciless killing of everyone would have been strictly reprimanded by American authorities.
2. See above.
3. Never happened
4. Also never happened.
this is from the American Commando perspective. don't make up events and say that it is on an equal level no matter who is doing it.
I never said that they did happen. I said it was a thought experiment, and I said (twice) that the aim was for you to decide when war turned into murder, for both sides.
If an evil force kills thousands, and a good force kills thousands of the evil force, than is the good force truly evil? absolutely not..
Good and evil, (although according to Nietzsche, they don't even exist) are incredibly relative concepts. There is no "good force", or "evil force".
this would make all humans horrible and evil, and thus we would have no aspect of what good could possibly be
I think all humans, including myself, have the potential to do evil. The good comes about from resisting that. And killing people you disagree with is not doing good.
besides, you are going totally off-topic.
Ok, I admit I have gone totally way off topic.
But it's still interesting, don't you agree :beam:
if instead there was a war with russia in the game, and as an american/british soldier you had to slaughter civilians in a Russian airport, I would object just as much. it is the slaughtering of helpless and otherwise inconsequential civilians that everyone is against.
Yet you were OK with the shooting of German POWs in game in WaW, people who were pretty "inconsequential and helpless". I'm not saying that you shouldn't play that, but that it's hypocritical to say that that scenario is "kinda funny", and then to criticise a similar situation set in the modern day.
Hooahguy
11-02-2009, 23:46
aw man, they took the MW2 review vid down.
also, Subotan, what didnt you understand?
I asked a mod to split the dicsussion, and my reply into a new thread.
Prussian to the Iron
11-03-2009, 01:09
instead oc reating the thread yourself and posting?
whatever. that topic is done with in this thread. dont want pissed off moderators now do we?
a completely inoffensive name
11-03-2009, 01:22
I am ok with the serious stuff being split into a new thread.
instead oc reating the thread yourself and posting?
whatever. that topic is done with in this thread. dont want pissed off moderators now do we?
In case you haven't noticed, I lack the ability to split threads. Besides, we're more likely to get a wider range of viewpoints from the backroom.
Yo, Mods, could one of you split the serious stuff into a new thread in the backroom, please?
Prussian to the Iron
11-03-2009, 13:39
In case you haven't noticed, I lack the ability to split threads. Besides, we're more likely to get a wider range of viewpoints from the backroom.
Yo, Mods, could one of you split the serious stuff into a new thread in the backroom, please?
i meant making a new thread, not splitting this one.
keep it to MW2 talk guys.
frogbeastegg
11-03-2009, 18:27
Topic splitting is only really feasible when there's a small number of posts to be moved. There's 49 to move here.
Hooahguy
11-03-2009, 19:31
7 days.
Prussian to the Iron
11-03-2009, 20:26
wow, its really that close?
unfortunately I think this will vastly overshadow the release of Assassins Creed 2. While a huge amount of people will still want to and/or will buy it, I think more people will go for the longer-lasting MW2 than assassins creed 2.
Personally, I haven't killed enough nazi/misnamed japanese zombies to go on to MW2. assassins creed for me :D
I'll post a review when I finish (or while i play)
wow, its really that close?
unfortunately I think this will vastly overshadow the release of Assassins Creed 2. While a huge amount of people will still want to and/or will buy it, I think more people will go for the longer-lasting MW2 than assassins creed 2.
Personally, I haven't killed enough nazi/misnamed japanese zombies to go on to MW2. assassins creed for me :D
I'll post a review when I finish (or while i play)
AC2 devs are pretty confident about going head to head with MW2 from a kotaku article I read, I can't blame them - both games look amazing and should be lots of fun. MW2 is going to overshadow a lot of things coming out this month just because of how hotly anticipated a title it is.
Personally I feel this is the best holiday release schedule we've seen since 07, and I plan to scoop up a lot of titles from here to Jan. :2thumbsup:
Prussian to the Iron
11-03-2009, 22:07
AC2 devs are pretty confident about going head to head with MW2 from a kotaku article I read, I can't blame them - both games look amazing and should be lots of fun. MW2 is going to overshadow a lot of things coming out this month just because of how hotly anticipated a title it is.
Personally I feel this is the best holiday release schedule we've seen since 07, and I plan to scoop up a lot of titles from here to Jan. :2thumbsup:
at least they have the right spirit. those youtube shorts will help a ton to build up anticipation as well.
The main reason I'm getting AC2 first is:
1. My parents only buy 1 wii game (super smash bros) and my grandma only buys 1 game for me for the holidays, so i dont make anyone's wallets feel bad,
2. I know if I get MW2 first than I won't play AC 2 for months. thats what happened with Bioshock; finally got it after much anticipation, then started playing WaW and forgot about it mostly.sad truly; it was a great game for the first 3 chapters I played
a completely inoffensive name
11-04-2009, 02:06
Made a new thread in the backroom.
Veho Nex
11-04-2009, 05:47
60$ is wayyy to steep for me...
Prussian to the Iron
11-04-2009, 14:21
????????? seriously?
Veho Nex
11-04-2009, 22:07
10-4, I only paid 0$ for both cod 4 and CoD5
Prussian to the Iron
11-05-2009, 00:28
10-4, I only paid 0$ for both cod 4 and CoD5
presents?
so at this point you owe them $120.....pay up with CoD 6!!!:laugh4:
Truly.. this is not the game I fell in love with.
Reports are coming out (http://kotaku.com/5397149/modern-warfare-2-pc-multiplayer-capped-at-9v9) that PC multiplayer will be restricted to 9v9 matches. What in the heck? Are you telling me the massive brawl fest, 'nade spamming, kill 25 people with a single air strike servers are... gone? Now that may not have been some people's thing, but you could have always played on the server size that was right for you. That was the beauty of the PC market!
This is very.. very disappointing. :help: Some say since the maps are smaller and more focused, it'll feel the same and still be pretty satisfying. Personally I am very skeptical.
60$ is wayyy to steep for me...
:furious3: It will cost over $100 when it comes out here, I will be waiting 6 months until the price has dropped and then buy it when it's $60 :shame:
Prussian to the Iron
11-05-2009, 14:36
Truly.. this is not the game I fell in love with.
Reports are coming out (http://kotaku.com/5397149/modern-warfare-2-pc-multiplayer-capped-at-9v9) that PC multiplayer will be restricted to 9v9 matches. What in the heck? Are you telling me the massive brawl fest, 'nade spamming, kill 25 people with a single air strike servers are... gone? Now that may not have been some people's thing, but you could have always played on the server size that was right for you. That was the beauty of the PC market!
This is very.. very disappointing. :help: Some say since the maps are smaller and more focused, it'll feel the same and still be pretty satisfying. Personally I am very skeptical.
While I have to say that Xbox and PS3 have always been limited to matches of 12 (unless its a smaller server or big team matchmaking, which only bumps it to 18), that does kinda ruin it for the computer.
That has always been a big highlight of multiplayer PC games: "We have more human interaction!!!"
that really sucks. anyone remember Frontlines: Fuel of War with it's 64 player online PC matches? Oh the lag!
While I have to say that Xbox and PS3 have always been limited to matches of 12 (unless its a smaller server or big team matchmaking, which only bumps it to 18), that does kinda ruin it for the computer.
That has always been a big highlight of multiplayer PC games: "We have more human interaction!!!"
that really sucks. anyone remember Frontlines: Fuel of War with it's 64 player online PC matches? Oh the lag!
Yes i always thought that was what the console could boast. Fewer players, more controlled chaos, less chance of lag.
However I loved the insane matches on the PC. Get 25 people on each team and just watch the mayhem! You could have three distinct fights going on in the same map and each could have direct effects on the others. If your connection could handle it and you didn't mind spawning in a grenade every now and then, it was great fun.
Like i said.. IF is saying maps this go around are much smaller and more focused. So maybe 9v9 will be fine for that setting? I dunno. :shrug:
Prussian to the Iron
11-06-2009, 00:07
i dunno....i remember seeing a multiplayer preview of one map and it was fairly large; in fact, perfect for 14 v 14.
ill try and re-find it.
Crazed Rabbit
11-06-2009, 07:56
More info from (http://arstechnica.com/gaming/news/2009/11/pc-modern-warfare-2-its-much-worse-than-you-thought.ars) infinity ward, that makes you wonder if any of them play games on a computer:
Q: Is there a console in the PC version of the game, so we can change our field of view from the xbox's default 65 FOV to 80 also can we tweaks the weapon damage for each gun, removes perks, graphical debris, breathing sway, also thru console like we where able to before or is this all gone?
Vince-IW: We would like you to play the game the way we designed and balanced it.
Infinity Ward says the maps are balanced for only nine players per side, but they also say there is no lean in the game because the game "isn't balanced for lean." Remember, you can easily answer any inconvenient questions by saying it would ruin the game's balance.
Seriously. "Oh, we didn't have nades, they would ruin the balance. And we only have one gun because more would ruin the elegant balance of our game."
This is, for all intents and purposes, a console game that plays on your PC. You won't be able to make any tweaks, you can't adjust anything, and even better? You won't be able to make recordings of your matches. The question in the chat showed just how far the gulf between what gamers want and what Infinity Ward is giving them has become. "Is there a /record feature? Answer yes... please. We're trying to give you a 'chance'," the gamer asked. The answer was a simple "No."
And the grand winner for most oblivious quote from a PR man goes to...Mackey and the whole IW team!
DudezTY: Since we cannot kick people in ranked matches, how will we stop hackers who get past VAC?
Mackey-IW: Our goal is to ban hackers from the game.
:dizzy2:
Wow. They want to prevent people from cheating and are so arrogant that they don't allow for any failsafe.
And to top it off, listen to the PC exclusive features:
Moriarte: Ignoring IW.net, is the PC version a direct port of the console version?
Mackey-IW: No, PC has custom stuff like mouse control, text chat in game, and graphics settings.
Wow, how amazing! Revolutionary stuff there. Graphics settings! Take that, original 386 version of Lemmings! Or, wait, could you change resolution in that game?
And 9v9? If I ever see one of the devs I am going to beat them about the head with tribes 2.
CR
Clearly, Mackey-IF has never played on a VAC enabled server. Hackers do get through, it's inevitable. With no chance to ban them from ranked servers this is just sounding rediculous.
Does IF plan to have a full-time support staff able to respond to thousands of "There's a hacker in game #45327, please ban him!" at any given time of day? I hope so, because without server side ability to kick hackers that's what they'll need. It isn't like the consoles where it's one idiot in a few thousand sporting a mod-chip... This is the PC. Here there be monsters.
edited for:
And 9v9? If I ever see one of the devs I am going to beat them about the head with tribes 2.
Preach, brother! Not to mention t2 had all the things IF is denying us and vehicles.. and jetpacks.. and.. guns that could make explosions the size of a small building. So many memories.
Prussian to the Iron
11-06-2009, 14:05
It isn't like the consoles where it's one idiot in a few thousand sporting a mod-chip... This is the PC. Here there be monsters.
I hate people who use those cheat machines.
however 2 of my friends are amazingly fast shooters with most guns in WaW, with any cnotroller, with no controller mods. they often get mod blocked. it is crazy as hell though!!!
frogbeastegg
11-06-2009, 16:25
Another pebble added to the pile that's building on top of this game:
Digital distributors Direct2Drive, Impulse and Gamersgate have decided not to sell Modern Warfare 2, as the game requires installation of Valve's Steamworks tools.
"We don't believe games should force the user to install a Trojan Horse," D2D told Kotaku.
Steamworks was announced for Modern Warfare 2 just weeks ago. Infinity Ward's mammoth shooter is Valve's most glamorous supporter yet. The tools fulfil an array of functions: game authentication, auto-patches, updates, achivements, anti-cheating and persistent player saves via the Steam Cloud.
But D2D - unhappy with the forced installation of software from its rival - will continue to boycott Steamworks games until Valve "decouples its retail marketplace" from the tools. Source (http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/d2d-impulse-gamersgate-boycott-mw2)
Since people are talking about the game's price, it's £54.99 here. That's £14.99 higher than the current RRP, which is in and of itself higher now than it was when the announcement was made.
The arrogance at play with this game is astounding. I'd love it see it fall flat on its face at retail, though I know it won't.
Prussian to the Iron
11-06-2009, 16:35
wow. in so little time they completely :daisy: up:
-the game for PC players
-Digital Distribution
-Pricing
-What people think about a certain campaign mission
-Any chance that it will go down in video game history like CoD 4 did.
is that about right?
frogbeastegg
11-06-2009, 16:52
COD4 has held its price better than any other game I can think of. It was still full price in most places a year after release, and is still well above the level you would expect for a two year old game today. Why is that possible? Because of the multiplayer. The audience they are upsetting most with their decisions.
The situation has potential to develop into a circle of doom. People are being put off buying at launch by the announcements and the price, which means the MP scene will be a little weaker. The decisions themselves seem to run contrary to what many fans want, which puts the MP scene in far greater danger. If the MP scene is weaker than it's more likely to fade. If the MP scene fades then the game won't hold its price point as COD4 did. Before you know it the game's in the bargin section and has a bad reputation.
Far from repeating COD4's success the game could collapse under its own weight. It's not hard to imagine; COD5 didn't manage to replicate COD4's success.
A Very Super Market
11-06-2009, 17:01
Anyone else also perturbed by their ad? The one brought to you by
Fight
Against
Grenade
Spam?
Prussian to the Iron
11-06-2009, 17:27
Far from repeating COD4's success the game could collapse under its own weight. It's not hard to imagine; COD5 didn't manage to replicate COD4's success.
Well you can't really replicate the success of a game using basically the same engine with tanks added. CoD 5 I like better for Nazi Zombies. if CoD 6 had brought like Terrorist zombies, than I think everybody would g from CoD 5 to it.
Anyone else also perturbed by their ad? The one brought to you by
Fight
Against
Grenade
Spam?
??? never heard of/seen it.
F.A.G.S. (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IuFSVpZJnAk)
Hooahguy
11-06-2009, 18:03
all i know is that im waiting a long time - maybe even after i get back from my service in the IDF, about 3 years - until the price drops, which it probably will.
Prussian to the Iron
11-06-2009, 18:10
F.A.G.S. (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IuFSVpZJnAk)
Anyone else also perturbed by their ad? The one brought to you by
Fight
Against
Grenade
Spam?
its all in good fun. i mean, who is actually going to be offended by that? so he said (spoiler'd for not knowing if its allowed or not. if its not please remove it) "pussy" and ****. and yes, F.A.G.S spells...well we all know what it spells. i dont see anything wrong with it.
i found it a little funny actually.
*prepares to be flamed*
Crazed Rabbit
11-06-2009, 18:57
Well, gay gamers, as in people who play games and are gay, might not like the implication behind the ad.
CR
Prussian to the Iron
11-06-2009, 19:09
Well, gay gamers, as in people who play games and are gay, might not like the implication behind the ad.
CR
does this mean that female gamers all hate god of war, or prince of persia (both with nude women)? no.
i wouldn't be offended by it, just like if they had instead made the acronym J.E.W.S. its not really a slur against gays even.....now its more of an insult against people we dont like, as opposed to only gays.
the definition's history is explained as well as how the word is changing to no longer define homosexuals and transvestites by today's youth.
Since people are talking about the game's price, it's £54.99 here. That's £14.99 higher than the current RRP, which is in and of itself higher now than it was when the announcement was made.
Well, games are getting more expensive to make. Intense competition ,graphically (Since that's seen as the biggest definer of quality by laymen) drives up costs by a huge amount, along with the Hollywood-isation of the games industry, in an attempt to be taken "seriously", means that a PS3 game costs ten times as much to make as a PS2 game. This means that games now have to:
1. Reduce the amount of content in games, so production time is shorter, and costs are lower. You've probably noticed that games which would previously have been thirty hour epochs are now eight hour strolls in the park.
2. Pay programmers/modelers/etc. buttons
3. Generally be sequels or spin offs; why take a risk with a new franchise, when you could grind out the same old mush to the same old audience?
4. Raise the cost of games
The last one is the most controversial, because games companies still want to be seen as chummy, community driven companies. Yet charging £50 for a game is seen to be ripping of their fans (This is ignoring the fact that N64 games for example used to routinely cost £50 such as Majora's Mask, and Donkey Kong 64; And I needed an Expansion Pack for both!). So, there are other ways around it, such as DLC, subscriptions, Special Editions, etc.
Don't worry, I'm not criticising you for being angry at such an extortionate price. There's not much we can do about it as individuals.
frogbeastegg
11-06-2009, 22:25
It's not a very tasteful advert; nonetheless discussion of it is rather close to backroom material.
MW2's price is something of an academic matter for me as I've no intention of buying it, it's not my kind of game. It attracts my interest mainly as an observer. Recently the side which says cheaper games = more sales = more money has been slightly the stronger of the two, and games last year were perhaps the cheapest they have been in a long time. MW2 firmly boots the ball back towards the camp of 'exploit the early adopters for as much as possible, then drop the price later.'
Whether it's going to be a mostly isolated blip or the start of a new market trend remains to be seen. Games prices at launch are cyclical; some years new games cost a fortune, others they are cheaper. The game's price is doing some different things to the high street market. The supermarkets are all set to wade in and sell it in bulk and at a loss. Specialist game shops are scrambling to offer the game in a way which makes it appear more affordable without causing them to make a loss on each copy. The online shops don't appear to be doing anything differently to usual.
Thus MW2 is a game to watch.
While I have quite a few thoughts on the state of modern gaming, pricing, and evolution most of them are too off-topic to post here. I don't agree that - overall and speaking generally - games are getting shorter, for one thing. MW2's singleplayer mode will take a similar amount of time to the singleplayer modes in the decade old FPS I used to play, which is to say around 8 hours. N64 games were criticised as being too expensive back when the system was new. Much as I loved mine, I knew the expense of the cartridges for both developers and gamers held it back.
wow. in so little time they completely :daisy: up:
-the game for PC players
-Digital Distribution
-Pricing
-What people think about a certain campaign mission
-Any chance that it will go down in video game history like CoD 4 did.
is that about right?
That's about right, yes.
This is something that started with the dedicated server fiasco. That, for many, was a travesty and they went up in arms. As someone who has played in a system without dedicated servers (consoles) I can tell you that it's not that big of a deal.. on its own.
Now we're looking at the very things that make PC multiplayer possible being denied to us, no way for host to kick hackers? 9v9 matches? A price that is $10 more than any other PC game on the market (for no reason other than to do it, i might add)? I have no doubt that MW2 for xbox and ps3 will be every bit as good as COD4, but I cannot say the same about the PC port.
Let's face it, that's what we PC gamers are getting.. a console port. And I for one am not thrilled about it. :shame:
Prussian to the Iron
11-07-2009, 03:11
That's about right, yes.
This is something that started with the dedicated server fiasco. That, for many, was a travesty and they went up in arms. As someone who has played in a system without dedicated servers (consoles) I can tell you that it's not that big of a deal.. on its own.
Now we're looking at the very things that make PC multiplayer possible being denied to us, no way for host to kick hackers? 9v9 matches? A price that is $10 more than any other PC game on the market (for no reason other than to do it, i might add)? I have no doubt that MW2 for xbox and ps3 will be every bit as good as COD4, but I cannot say the same about the PC port.
Let's face it, that's what we PC gamers are getting.. a console port. And I for one am not thrilled about it. :shame:
$60 for a PC game? or $50? $50 is the norm for new pc games. 60 would be outrageous!!!
i only payed 20 bucks for my Halo 2 Vista: one of the best 20 bucks ive ever spent. far superior to the xbox version in many ways. why? they made it just for the PC. they even had a different company taking it on.
$60 for a PC game? or $50? $50 is the norm for new pc games. 60 would be outrageous!!!
i only payed 20 bucks for my Halo 2 Vista: one of the best 20 bucks ive ever spent. far superior to the xbox version in many ways. why? they made it just for the PC. they even had a different company taking it on.
MW2 for the PC will cost $60, just like any console game. :no:
A Very Super Market
11-07-2009, 03:27
I'm less offended than I am surprised at IW's juvenile sense of humour. Making a "funny" word with an acronym or having a baseball player call people names doesn't strike me as very inspired marketing.
Words may be words, but the worst we can do is turn a racial or social slur into a generic term for "jerk"
Prussian to the Iron
11-07-2009, 15:19
MW2 for the PC will cost $60, just like any console game. :no:
thats insane!!!! and you dont even get anything extra. I say if they charge that much than get it on the Xbox or PS3. they should still have that big team playlist (i think it was called War in WaW) and you get better graphics. and more control. and....a bigger screen (hopefully)
I'm going to skip this one it seems... :shrug:
Krusader
11-07-2009, 15:41
http://arstechnica.com/gaming/news/2009/11/pc-modern-warfare-2-its-much-worse-than-you-thought.ars
Nice little article by Ars Technica on PC-MW2.
The paranoia-cynical part of me thinks this is Activision and IW's way of making CoD franchise console-only.
I was actually considering getting this game for the multiplayer aspect, but after all this stuff I can easily say forget it. I got other games to play.
Off to play Arma2...
thats insane!!!! and you dont even get anything extra. I say if they charge that much than get it on the Xbox or PS3. they should still have that big team playlist (i think it was called War in WaW) and you get better graphics. and more control. and....a bigger screen (hopefully)
And the best bit? They'll almost certainly pump out loads of DLC as well. That's it, milk the lemmings for all they're worth...
tibilicus
11-10-2009, 00:58
Kind of a shame about the PC situation. After receiving the game early I've had a chance to spend a couple of hours playing MP and can say that the maps probably would of worked quite well for most large player games.
It might just be because they're new but most maps seem about the same size as overgrown was, some of them seem even bigger, this might just be because they're new to me but I could see large player games working. Even the smaller maps, like karachi for example seem big due to the many houses and buildings you can duck in and out of.
Well it's there, commercial sites are more in love with it than the consumers it seems, 9.8 press avarage, 8.5 user reviews. Smelly.
Prussian to the Iron
11-10-2009, 14:24
the horrible thing is, that despite all their HUGE screw-ups on this game, these will barely put a dent in the sales.
I'll be pretty busy for a while anyway: I'm gettting Assassins Creed 2, then Left 4 Dead 2. its gon be a fun winter!!!
Forget Modern Warfare 2, I'm interested in 3 (http://www.theonion.com/content/video/ultra_realistic_modern_warfare?utm_source=videoembed)! :laugh4:
Forget Modern Warfare 2, I'm interested in 3 (http://www.theonion.com/content/video/ultra_realistic_modern_warfare?utm_source=videoembed)! :laugh4:
I would so would love to see a game like that.
I was reading the Ars MW2 thing, and all I can say, I am glad I don't play this franchise.
Prussian to the Iron
11-10-2009, 22:48
Forget Modern Warfare 2, I'm interested in 3 (http://www.theonion.com/content/video/ultra_realistic_modern_warfare?utm_source=videoembed)! :laugh4:
"Where players must repair Humvees for 10 hours a day"
-Collect Cigarette Butts outside Office
-Repair 3200 Humvees
that was an epic won Monk. I wish I could give you a frickin zeppelin just for finding that!
So my copy of CoD arrived this morning and I was excited. Then to my horror I saw that it requires Steam. I HATE STEAM! So I promptly put it back in the postage box with the foamy balls and taped the box closed. Placed enough stamps on it and wrote the address of the place I pre-ordered it from on the box. Went to the post office and had it posted as a bulky item. Sent an email to them, and they have replied just now and are sending me my money back. Awesome.
"Where players must repair Humvees for 10 hours a day"
-Collect Cigarette Butts outside Office
-Repair 3200 Humvees
that was an epic won Monk. I wish I could give you a frickin zeppelin just for finding that!
They don't have the Onion in SC? Hell, I live in the UK and I know what the Onion is. I wish they had it over here...
So my copy of CoD arrived this morning and I was excited. Then to my horror I saw that it requires Steam. I HATE STEAM! So I promptly put it back in the postage box with the foamy balls and taped the box closed. Placed enough stamps on it and wrote the address of the place I pre-ordered it from on the box. Went to the post office and had it posted as a bulky item. Sent an email to them, and they have replied just now and are sending me my money back. Awesome.
Niiice. But why do you hate Steam? Sure, it's a real pain, but why do you dislike it so much?
Niiice. But why do you hate Steam? Sure, it's a real pain, but why do you dislike it so much?
Steam is great. There is no logical reason for any hate.
There is no logical reason for any hate.
I've had nothing but bad experiences with Steam in the past and as such I make sure I do not use their "services" whenever possible.
The only time I use Steam is when borrowing my brother's PC to play L4D and probably L4D2 when that comes out.
As much as I want to play games like CoD:4:2 and TF2 I do not like Steam and I'd rather not bother with the potential hassle.
I've had nothing but bad experiences with Steam in the past and as such I make sure I do not use their "services" whenever possible.
The only time I use Steam is when borrowing my brother's PC to play L4D and probably L4D2 when that comes out.
As much as I want to play games like CoD:4:2 and TF2 I do not like Steam and I'd rather not bother with the potential hassle.
Seems like you had no bad experiences for L4D.
If it is because of E:TW, then blame CA for releasing a bad game, not Steam.
Seems like you had no bad experiences for L4D.
No, I just breathe deep and close my eyes until the game has actually loaded. :laugh4:
If it is because of E:TW, then blame CA for releasing a bad game, not Steam.
ETW? Eww. I take that as a significant insult. The last CA game I actually really played was MTW-VI.
Hooahguy
11-11-2009, 16:12
the console reviews of MW2 are amazing.
the PC reviews, not so much.
Prussian to the Iron
11-12-2009, 01:25
They don't have the Onion in SC? Hell, I live in the UK and I know what the Onion is. I wish they had it over here...
Niiice. But why do you hate Steam? Sure, it's a real pain, but why do you dislike it so much?
SC? NC i believe you mean. and if its a show....than i dont think so. i just thought the vid was hilarious.
and i too harbor a deep, eternal hatred for steam. for the release of ETW. it is not the game itself i hate (I like it, especially modded) but how the release and patches and auto-patch goes. it means if i want to play a mod, i have to re-copy-paste all the data back into the folder. and hope it works. and then once i exit, i get to do it again if i want to play more.
back ontopic guys!!!
so, i just read the story online; sounds pretty boring:
*WARNING!!! HUGE SPOILER TO FOLLOW!!!*
so the start is just basic fighting, and then the story starts at our oh so beloved airport level (complete sarcasm in case no one saw it). the russians see the american body, and then DoW on america. then they attack D.C., and the multi-national task-force 141 tries to find the terrorist leader's rival in Rio de Jainero. it turns out to be Cpt. Price from cod 4, and he hijacks a nuclear submarine from russia. than he fires a nuke at DC, but makes it detonate in space and take out the ISS. the sudden lack of communication from both countries forces means the army ranger unit has to go re-capture the white house, place green smoke, and prevent a massive carpet bombing.
than Nikolai (also from the first game) brings Price to a safehouse. they are now fugitives.
not. overused. at all. russia and us have a misunderstanding and then have a massive war. never seen that.
note my over-use of sarcasm. ill get it in the bargain bin in a few months.
story-aside, with the same engine and ability to use an AC-130, and weapons besides just american and terrorist, id say its better multiplayer wise than CoD4 on the consoles. still, ill just keep my nazi zombies and PPSH's for another year.
SC? NC i believe you mean
Apologies.
and i too harbor a deep, eternal hatred for steam. for the release of ETW. it is not the game itself i hate (I like it, especially modded) but how the release and patches and auto-patch goes. it means if i want to play a mod, i have to re-copy-paste all the data back into the folder. and hope it works. and then once i exit, i get to do it again if i want to play more.
Um. That has never happened to me, and I've used plenty of mods (Goldeneye Source FTW)
Prussian to the Iron
11-12-2009, 14:11
Apologies.
Um. That has never happened to me, and I've used plenty of mods (Goldeneye Source FTW)
no more steam talk please, unless it is specifically related to the release of CoD MW2.
So why did they make a deal to use Steam? Apart from Steam, Valve are awesome, and it doesn't make sense to via Steam to give money to another game making company (Vale, the company that owns Steam). Unless, from Steam, IF get more money, as they get to bypass shops such as Amazon, GAME etc, because they can sell their products through Steam?
Prussian to the Iron
11-12-2009, 15:37
ummm.........
maybe so they had to put minimal effort into the PC multiplayer, and just let steam take the fall for the lack of reliable multiplayer, like with ETW.
A Very Super Market
11-12-2009, 17:13
That isn't really how it works. Steam is a distribution system combined with a bit of social networking. The MP servers are unrelated to Steam, and that's common knowledge.
Prussian to the Iron
11-12-2009, 18:12
That isn't really how it works. Steam is a distribution system combined with a bit of social networking. The MP servers are unrelated to Steam, and that's common knowledge.
oh.......well..................
To the Secret Vault to evade being wrong!
That isn't really how it works. Steam is a distribution system combined with a bit of social networking. The MP servers are unrelated to Steam, and that's common knowledge.
Exactly, Steam is like Last.fm for gamers, except Steam does updates.
maybe so they had to put minimal effort into the PC multiplayer, and just let Steam take the fall for the lack of reliable multiplayer, like with ETW.
That doesn't make any sense. Apart from the fact that Steam is run by a company called Valve, who have numerous times over proved their ability to use Steam in MP, (TF2 Anyone? Counterstrike?), MP in COD was developed by IF rather than "Steam", so a bad MP would leave IF liable.
Prussian to the Iron
11-13-2009, 03:12
my buddy got it today, and we played a little.
i have to say, it is just as i expected. a carbon copy of CoD4 and 5 with new guns and different places. even more than half the dialogue in the tutorial mission is the same lines as in cod 4's.
Are you curious as to what boycotters of MW2 are playing right now? Rock Paper Shotgun was, and the pic found its way to Kotaku.
http://cache.gawker.com/assets/images/kotaku/2009/11/1258035395841.jpg
Epic boycott fail.
A Very Super Market
11-13-2009, 06:45
To be fair, most of them probably joined just to see what was happening. The lesson being re-learned today is that internet boycotts are silly.
Warluster
11-13-2009, 07:07
Okay I just finished the SP in four hours (MW2).
My opinion on SP;
The first three hours are quite brilliant. I read somewhere that they have cut out all the 'filler' shooting bits and made it all highly intense. And it was. Obviously the series has taken a nosedive from the slight reality of the first four Call of Duty's, and it feels like an action movie then a war FPS, but its still a magnificent ride worth playing (Even just a weekend rent is enough).
Sometimes the SP felt like it was showing off all the new stuff for MP. Especially the American missions. The Gulag mission was incredibly amazing and the first Cliffhanger snow mission was superb, and some moments are memorable.
But when I really started to get into the plot (Yeah, it was really cliche, but it was still done well) it got really, really unbelieveable; in a bad way. I don't want to give too much away for those who will play it; but basiclly it ditches the old CoD formula and goes James Bond-style.
And a horrible, horrible ending.
MP returns, and its updated and improved from the last game (CoD4). It has titles, embelms, more ingame achivements, and a lot of stuff which makes it fun, but I really miss the 64 player game, or even 32 players. Haven't entered any grenade festivals yet, and the new Killstreaks are fun and well implemented.
I honestly think the best part about this game is the Spec Ops mode. Me and a mate have been churning through it and its really. Its not coop like WaW, but you get singular missions which are unique to Spec Ops. If you've beena round the gaming world for the past few years you've surely heard of the AC - 130 gunship mission in CoD 4; well you can replay that in Spec Ops but instead your covering a friend on the ground who has to race to a finish line. After moments of said friend blowing you up with the 105 mm cannon it is really fun.
The only downside is the poor Internet connection we both have so its lags a lot sometimes; and the frustration some hard missions cause.
Thats my opinion. I was excited about MW2, and I will be hanging onto it mainly just to experiment with MP a bit more and wait for the DLC for Spec Ops. SP can hide away for another year. I am interested in the next CoD to see where Treayarch heads for (I am one of the freaks who enjoyed WaW!). Not the game of the decade but a fun game.
Edit: I forgot to mention, some of the plot doesn't add up at all.
Why was Price in the Russian gulag anyway? And why would Shepard devote an entire task force to rescue him, when he knows Price is an enemy? Was he trying to stuff up? And how did Price know that the sub had a EMP bomb? I am hoping this stuff is plot lines which IW is trailing into the next game, just like the dead VIP you discover and recover the laptop on the floor, or the data Roach collects at Makarov's.
Prussian to the Iron
11-13-2009, 16:26
To be fair, most of them probably joined just to see what was happening. The lesson being re-learned today is that internet boycotts are silly.
unfortunately, the majority of players lack the will to boycott such an anticipated game. i probably wont buy it...ever, but i know if someone said "Everyone, let's boycott CoD WaW until they give us a new free zombie map!" I would start off playing Bioshock for maybe a week, get back into battlefield bad company, and then lose my willpower. and guess what. i dont have any fortify willpower potions (if youve played morrowind or oblivion you know). and id go back to WaW.
Okay I just finished the SP in four hours (MW2).
My opinion on SP;
The first three hours are quite brilliant. I read somewhere that they have cut out all the 'filler' shooting bits and made it all highly intense. And it was. Obviously the series has taken a nosedive from the slight reality of the first four Call of Duty's, and it feels like an action movie then a war FPS, but its still a magnificent ride worth playing (Even just a weekend rent is enough).
Sometimes the SP felt like it was showing off all the new stuff for MP. Especially the American missions. The Gulag mission was incredibly amazing and the first Cliffhanger snow mission was superb, and some moments are memorable.
But when I really started to get into the plot (Yeah, it was really cliche, but it was still done well) it got really, really unbelieveable; in a bad way. I don't want to give too much away for those who will play it; but basiclly it ditches the old CoD formula and goes James Bond-style.
And a horrible, horrible ending.
MP returns, and its updated and improved from the last game (CoD4). It has titles, embelms, more ingame achivements, and a lot of stuff which makes it fun, but I really miss the 64 player game, or even 32 players. Haven't entered any grenade festivals yet, and the new Killstreaks are fun and well implemented.
I honestly think the best part about this game is the Spec Ops mode. Me and a mate have been churning through it and its really. Its not coop like WaW, but you get singular missions which are unique to Spec Ops. If you've beena round the gaming world for the past few years you've surely heard of the AC - 130 gunship mission in CoD 4; well you can replay that in Spec Ops but instead your covering a friend on the ground who has to race to a finish line. After moments of said friend blowing you up with the 105 mm cannon it is really fun.
The only downside is the poor Internet connection we both have so its lags a lot sometimes; and the frustration some hard missions cause.
Thats my opinion. I was excited about MW2, and I will be hanging onto it mainly just to experiment with MP a bit more and wait for the DLC for Spec Ops. SP can hide away for another year. I am interested in the next CoD to see where Treayarch heads for (I am one of the freaks who enjoyed WaW!). Not the game of the decade but a fun game.
spoiler'd for length.
i agree that MP is still great, but think of why it is: it is the same engine running in CoD 4 and WaW. i do adore the customizable kill streaks, and ninja deathstreak is useful if youre goin against like an uber team. i just simply cannot get over the fact that they made each kill 100 points instead of 10 (5 in FFA) like in the last 2 games. it throws me off.
I'll rent it this weekend and try out the SP. hopefully i'll be surprised. and regarding the plot, refer to this post:
not. overused. at all. russia and us have a misunderstanding and then have a massive war. never seen that.
note my over-use of sarcasm.
Prussian to the Iron
11-13-2009, 16:36
To be fair, most of them probably joined just to see what was happening. The lesson being re-learned today is that internet boycotts are silly.
unfortunately, the majority of players lack the will to boycott such an anticipated game. i probably wont buy it...ever, but i know if someone said "Everyone, let's boycott CoD WaW until they give us a new free zombie map!" I would start off playing Bioshock for maybe a week, get back into battlefield bad company, and then lose my willpower. and guess what. i dont have any fortify willpower potions (if youve played morrowind or oblivion you know). and id go back to WaW.
Okay I just finished the SP in four hours (MW2).
My opinion on SP;
The first three hours are quite brilliant. I read somewhere that they have cut out all the 'filler' shooting bits and made it all highly intense. And it was. Obviously the series has taken a nosedive from the slight reality of the first four Call of Duty's, and it feels like an action movie then a war FPS, but its still a magnificent ride worth playing (Even just a weekend rent is enough).
Sometimes the SP felt like it was showing off all the new stuff for MP. Especially the American missions. The Gulag mission was incredibly amazing and the first Cliffhanger snow mission was superb, and some moments are memorable.
But when I really started to get into the plot (Yeah, it was really cliche, but it was still done well) it got really, really unbelieveable; in a bad way. I don't want to give too much away for those who will play it; but basiclly it ditches the old CoD formula and goes James Bond-style.
And a horrible, horrible ending.
MP returns, and its updated and improved from the last game (CoD4). It has titles, embelms, more ingame achivements, and a lot of stuff which makes it fun, but I really miss the 64 player game, or even 32 players. Haven't entered any grenade festivals yet, and the new Killstreaks are fun and well implemented.
I honestly think the best part about this game is the Spec Ops mode. Me and a mate have been churning through it and its really. Its not coop like WaW, but you get singular missions which are unique to Spec Ops. If you've beena round the gaming world for the past few years you've surely heard of the AC - 130 gunship mission in CoD 4; well you can replay that in Spec Ops but instead your covering a friend on the ground who has to race to a finish line. After moments of said friend blowing you up with the 105 mm cannon it is really fun.
The only downside is the poor Internet connection we both have so its lags a lot sometimes; and the frustration some hard missions cause.
Thats my opinion. I was excited about MW2, and I will be hanging onto it mainly just to experiment with MP a bit more and wait for the DLC for Spec Ops. SP can hide away for another year. I am interested in the next CoD to see where Treayarch heads for (I am one of the freaks who enjoyed WaW!). Not the game of the decade but a fun game.
spoiler'd for length.
i agree that MP is still great, but think of why it is: it is the same engine running in CoD 4 and WaW. i do adore the customizable kill streaks, and ninja deathstreak is useful if youre goin against like an uber team. i just simply cannot get over the fact that they made each kill 100 points instead of 10 (5 in FFA) like in the last 2 games. it throws me off.
I'll rent it this weekend and try out the SP. hopefully i'll be surprised. and regarding the plot, refer to this post:
not. overused. at all. russia and us have a misunderstanding and then have a massive war. never seen that.
note my over-use of sarcasm.
Ok. So I tried it at a friend's place.
Finished the SP in just under 3 hours on Hardened. Was decent, some good play at the start, then it trails off. Very short.
MP. Arcade game much? I dislike how matches aren't auto-balanced, and you can't switch teams. I dislike most of the guns. I want to shoot whoever thought it was a good idea to allow double P90. What on earth were they thinking!?!
All-round. This game gets a massive meh from me.
Lastly. I loved this (http://au.pc.ign.com/articles/104/1043744p2.html). Official reviewer gives it 9.5. The general public gives it 1.9 (975ish votes).
I saw this about MW2 - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cudCajMNRM0&feature=player_embedded
How was that even possible?
Alexander the Pretty Good
11-14-2009, 06:03
The single player felt like a step down from MW1. They got rid of endless enemies, which was nice, but instead had a finite number of enemies who spawn behind you. Big improvement.
The fighting in American suburbs was neat, though more for the setting than technical reasons. In contrast, a lot of the British missions felt gimmicky. The "race to the end" with the snowmobiles and boats were annoying instead of cinematic (and the auto-kill-anything-in-front-of-you guns were silly). It was also getting a bit silly the number of times you were shot in the stomach by people who had just rescued you.
And the plot holes are big enough to fly an AC-130 through. The first one required some real suspension of disbelief but this was ridiculous.
Not playing MP.
Prussian to the Iron
11-14-2009, 06:24
I saw this about MW2 - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cudCajMNRM0&feature=player_embedded
How was that even possible?
thats.....stupid. hilarious, but stupid. why do thye have throwing knives anyway? do you have any idea how hard it is to hit something accurately with a throwing knife? apparently every soldier, terrorrist and "Militia" (that was his team i think) is adept at throwing knives. real realistic.
And the plot holes are big enough to fly an AC-130 through. The first one required some real suspension of disbelief but this was ridiculous.
what i liked about the plot of the first one was that it was simple, and with the exception of that many soldiers dying when a confirmed nuclear threat is present for a while, realistic. but a general killing members of a multi-national task force simply to make himself a hero in the upcoming war?
thats an idiotic thought, in the modern west at least. as is russia invading washington DC. think about the logistics:
you have to ship all those tanks, vehicles, and troops (because no invasion would dare use only infantry, and transporting that much would be resource-wasting with planes) from the Black sea or the North sea, through the hellespont, out of the meditteranean, out the pillars of hercules, and across the atlantic. one would expect the (obviously unlikely; you dont start a huge war like that over 1 american, who is disguised as a russian terrorist. at least not after lots of deliberation) russian invasion to cross from Siberia to Alaska, and all along the west coast, taking only a day or 2 at most to get ready-to-deploy troops into california. than, if it is going well enough, using ICBM's and paratroopers against DC and other east coast cities.
does anyone else agree?
(and the auto-kill-anything-in-front-of-you guns were silly).
Though realistic compared to games where you fire your machine gun at them, and they are still running about fullspeed and not dead.
Prussian to the Iron
11-14-2009, 15:09
Though realistic compared to games where you fire your machine gun at them, and they are still running about fullspeed and not dead.
??? what game is that?
Alexander the Pretty Good
11-14-2009, 19:18
Though realistic compared to games where you fire your machine gun at them, and they are still running about fullspeed and not dead.
On the snowmobiles/rubber boats you hold the gun sideways.
tibilicus
11-14-2009, 20:08
I saw this about MW2 - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cudCajMNRM0&feature=player_embedded
How was that even possible?
That's nothing. Not sure if it's a bug or something but I've been in a couple of games where the enemies had up to three air support kill streaks in at once. There was a helicopter, a Harrier jump jet hovering about and then to top it of an AC 130 flying above.
That knife was pretty ridiculous though, didn't even know they could curve myself..
Prussian to the Iron
11-14-2009, 22:27
On the snowmobiles/rubber boats you hold the gun sideways.
didn't you hear? apparently, you are an undercover gangster from LA, and you are trying to get DC destroyed to eliminate some west coast rivals.
I saw this about MW2 - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cudCajMNRM0&feature=player_embedded
How was that even possible?
:laugh4:
This is all over the internet. Apparently the guy who did it says he thought he was throwing a grenade at first and had completely forgot he had knives in his load-out. Listening to the reactions, however, makes it priceless. "That's :daisy: !" :laugh4::laugh4:
LOL what are the odds of that
Prussian to the Iron
11-15-2009, 18:48
my buddy had that happen to him today too; only it was square into his nose and it was just a long-distance non-obstructed street.
but, after playing MW2 MP, and playing MW1 MP, I'm having infinitely more fun with MW1. but I also liked MW1's MP more than WaW's; it was pretty perfect with the exception of the lack of many foreign guns.
p.s.: just got the MP-44 (STG-44) on MW1. im lovin it!!!
Warluster
11-16-2009, 07:41
but, after playing MW2 MP, and playing MW1 MP, I'm having infinitely more fun with MW1. but I also liked MW1's MP more than WaW's; it was pretty perfect with the exception of the lack of many foreign guns.
I can't see the diffrence between the two games. The only difference between the two is that the player amount is limited and there are no dedicated servers. Is that really that much of a negative to stop people playing the multiplayer?
From the several hours I've spent they've added some really good positives; more guns, more levels, more maps and more of the smaller additions like more killstreaks, or titles, etc.
Has anyone on this forum actually got MW2 and playing it? I'll add you on Steam and verus on MP or complete some Spec Ops missions. Heard there was a .Org Steam User Group, where could I find that? :book:
Prussian to the Iron
11-16-2009, 17:52
I can't see the diffrence between the two games. The only difference between the two is that the player amount is limited and there are no dedicated servers. Is that really that much of a negative to stop people playing the multiplayer?
From the several hours I've spent they've added some really good positives; more guns, more levels, more maps and more of the smaller additions like more killstreaks, or titles, etc.
im talking about PS3.
and i despise some of the kill streaks. it is so annoying when people place those turret miniguns. i have no trouble with them, but my buddies always get torn up. i like the AC-130 and the fact that you can control helis, but you can have all at once, making it totally unfair.
one time, the enemy team had the harrier, pave low (uber helicopter), normal helicopter, a helicopter gunner, an AC-130, and a stealth bomber all at once. then i got nuked.
obviously this is a 1-in-a-million chance, but i dont think its fair to have that much. i would have left out the Harriers and the Pave Low. the other killstreak perks are pretty balanced as it is.
one of the thing i hate about it is the new blood splatter. the red edges in previous games weren't enough apparently, so we needed to be blinded. even if you're shot in the foot, your vision still becomes covered with blood. dont like it. everyone agrees with me on that.
honestly, i probably would buy it if they had a "Ultra-Nationalist Zombies" or something as a sequel to nazi zombies. thats pretty much all i do in WaW anyway, unless more than 1 friend is over.
Unless it's different on PS3 then I don't believe that. On xbox you can only have 2/3 (not sure which) helicopters/planes in the air at once, and only one of each type. And I don't agree with you on the blood splat either, it only impairs your vision when you are very close to death, at which point you wil either die anyway or have to and hide for a bit so you don't really need to see. I think the balance is pretty good overall though I do admit that the killstreaks can get a bit much, once you have one it get enough kills for the next two on it's own and then yeah, everone dies.
Prussian to the Iron
11-20-2009, 19:13
ive now seen someone use the nuke:
not as impressive as i thought. awesome, but i hoped that it would:
show like a bomber, or an ICBM coming from above, than you watch in slow-motion, while an audible, very slow heartbeat pumps, and you see the green and yellow markings, and for a split-second, you see "NUKE" on the side....and then it impacts, and the mapflares out, while the explosion emenates and engulfs all the players, sending everyone flying into the nearest solid object, and than crawling, dying after 15 seconds
that would be truly epic.
tibilicus
11-21-2009, 16:30
Pretty much done with this game.
Gets boring quick if you play by yourself, never really got fun, just made me really really angry..
Prussian to the Iron
11-28-2009, 07:00
okay, I finally broke down and got the game on Xbox. its pretty standard with the last 3. I do like the more variety and cooler guns and attachments.
i mean, i liked the last 2, and you get used to the blood splatter. if you like the last 1 or 2 or modern warfare 1, youll like this.
the special ops is where the game really shines though. my dad and i spent like an hour just doing the AC-130 mission on veteran, and it was well worth it. well probably do it more tomorrow. the new 55 inch HD TV helps too :P
You mean you had it on PC, then you bought it on Xbox?
:dizzy2:
edyzmedieval
11-28-2009, 23:23
I find it ridiculously overpriced when in 6 months it's going to be at least half the price.
60 euros for an improvement over MW1? No thanks. At least not now.
Prussian to the Iron
11-29-2009, 00:02
You mean you had it on PC, then you bought it on Xbox?
:dizzy2:
??? where did i say that? i played it on my buddies ps3 for a while, than got it on the xbox after getting a 55 inch, HDTV with 1080P and surround sound.
BTW: get stars quick in special ops and repeatedly do the AC-130 mission. it is the funnest spec-ops ever.
vBulletin® v3.7.1, Copyright ©2000-2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.