Was there ever a time when Call Of Duty Mw2 was good - Games

[QUOTE=waxrock;25122267]baww i wasn't paying attention i deserve a chance to kill[/QUOTE] More like "whoops client synchronization/hit detection hiccup I guess you didn't really fire your gun". But that's a whole 'nother can of worms.

[QUOTE=Snuffy;25122455]More like "whoops client synchronization/hit detection hiccup I guess you didn't really fire your gun". But that's a whole 'nother can of worms.[/QUOTE] it's a shame there's no fps with perfect hit detection... welp i guess we'll have to make do and only play with 4 bars

[QUOTE=waxrock;25122494]it's a shame there's no fps with perfect hit detection... welp i guess we'll have to make do and only play with 4 bars[/QUOTE] No, but there are plenty that are better than MW2. I never had a problem of that magnitude in CoD4, SWAT4, ArmA 2, Red Orchestra, Battlefield 2, or Team Fortress 2. It's largely due to the peer-to-peer system MW2 uses. It's easily abused and is a total downgrade from what us PC players are generally used to.

[QUOTE=Snuffy;25122676]No, but there are plenty that are better than MW2. I never had a problem of that magnitude in CoD4, SWAT4, ArmA 2, Red Orchestra, Battlefield 2, or Team Fortress 2. It's largely due to the peer-to-peer system MW2 uses. It's easily abused and is a total downgrade from what us PC players are generally used to.[/QUOTE] CoD4 had the same problem. BF2 most definitely has a problem with hit detection. I haven't played TF2 extensively, but since it's the source engine I'm sure it shares the same problems with CSS, such as bullets curving corners and bullets not registering much like every other fps. Not sure about SWAT4 or ArmA 2 though.

[QUOTE=Elmand;25116103]First month or so. Then everyone stopped trying new weapons, and stuck to the stupidly overpowered tactics such as tac-knifing and noob tubing. It is a very fun game that is plagued by a few balance issues that could easily be fixed.[/QUOTE] They needed a multiplayer beta badly.

I'll admit though: in both MW2 and CoD4, if you had anything less than 4 bars, the lag was really noticeable.

MW2's campaign was just another generic USA vs. Russia plot. Multiplayer is broken. For instance, poor server connections, weapon balancing, overpowered kill streaks that promote camping and no teamwork. Personally, I find the game alright when there aren't thirty aircrafts in sky killing you upon respawn and about a dozen idiots running around with tac-knife.

It's funny because I don't find the killstreaks that overpowered at all. Same with the weapons. And if people want to run around with knives, let them. That's when you whip out a nice shotgun and put lead into their faces.

No, it was never good. The game was only created so that Activision could horde money. The game has barely enough additions from the first one to even be considered for a $50 expansion, let alone a stand-alone sequel for the full price. The first Modern Warfare had its moments, but the game was still very bland.

opinions are divided the people who like or dislike the game usually feel that way because it is so popular. personally, when playing online on PC, I never saw any hackers or cheaters, and most people played relatively fairly. but then I played for a bit on my friend's xbox and it was unbearable

[QUOTE=Hobo4President;25122988]No, it was never good. [B]The game was only created so that Activision could horde money[/B]. The game has [B]barely enough additions from the first one[/B] to even be considered for a $50 expansion, let alone a stand-alone sequel for the full price. The first Modern Warfare had its moments, but the game was still very bland.[/QUOTE] I know we all hate Activision as much as the next guy, but really? This is what you come up with? Show me one company/business whose sole purpose [I]isn't[/I] to make money. Dear god. Also, barely enough additions? I'd consider 16 new maps, a ton of new weapons, new player models, new hud, new toys, etc enough for a sequel.

The people who constantly talk about how it is the paragon of any form of media to ever exist are what ruins it. Other than that, it has a decent story that would have been infinitely better if they had more time by not having multiplayer.

[QUOTE=texanderson;25119461]dumbs for you being a dumbass[/QUOTE] I wish the ratings system still told you who rated what so everyone could see how mad you are at me :3 Also sure is bandwagon in here. "Rage inducing unbalanced multiplayer" makes you sound like you just died, a lot, and moved on to something easier.

Shooting first usually is a marker of a skilled player, because they have better reflexes than you. Using "skill" as a measurement is stupid anyway.

I really enjoyed the campaign for Modern Warfare 2. The majority of the time, I also enjoyed the multi-player. Sure, there were the idiotic matches with tactical knife morons fucking around everywhere, but that was the minority. The rest of it was genuinely fun. Was the campaign as good as CoD4? I wouldn't say so... But I certainly had as much, if not more fun with the multi-player.

[QUOTE=thirty9th;25124199]I really enjoyed the campaign for Modern Warfare 2. The majority of the time, I also enjoyed the multi-player. Sure, there were the idiotic matches with tactical knife morons fucking around everywhere, but that was the minority. The rest of it was genuinely fun. Was the campaign as good as CoD4? I wouldn't say so... But I certainly had as much, if not more fun with the multi-player.[/QUOTE] pretty much this

I liked the campaign and spec-ops but the multiplayer was just terrible in my opinion.

[QUOTE=Stupideye;25124369]I liked the campaign and spec-ops but the multiplayer was just terrible in my opinion.[/QUOTE] I didn't really think it was much different from the CoD4 multi-player apart from the different gun strengths and the new tactical-knife rushing morons.

Well considering it's exactly the same game it was when it was released it's kind of impossible for it to have been good at some stage.

Before the wave of 12 year olds.

[QUOTE=Grim Joker;25119509]I'm not sure why people are saying it's a bandwagon. There are tons of things wrong with the game. The story seemed like something out of a horrible action movie, the weapons had no recoil, and you died in like three shots from any weapon in the goddamn game. For the first month or so it was nice, but after that it turned into a contest of who shoots first.[/QUOTE] CoD4 guns mostly had no recoil, it was purely visual. FPS has [i]always[/i] been about who shoots first. [QUOTE=Hobo4President;25122988]No, it was never good. The game was only created so that Activision could horde money. The game has barely enough additions from the first one to even be considered for a $50 expansion, let alone a stand-alone sequel for the full price. The first Modern Warfare had its moments, but the game was still very bland.[/QUOTE] If MW2 is a rehash then what would you call HL2 episodes? Honestly, MW2 added new maps, new guns, a new singleplayer, a new co-op mode, and whatnot. [i]What more do you want in a sequel?[/i] Now, I am not much of a multiplayer person, but the MP was alright. All this discussion about the game makes me wish I could play the singleplayer again, however.

MW2 is by no means a bad game, it's just that the community and the greed of Activision ruins it.

I lost interest in CoD ever since it became like a sports game

nope

[QUOTE=Raidyr;25123966]I wish the ratings system still told you who rated what so everyone could see how mad you are at me :3 Also sure is bandwagon in here. "Rage inducing unbalanced multiplayer" makes you sound like you just died, a lot, and moved on to something easier.[/QUOTE] I have played no game that makes me rage like MW2 It isn't even hard to get kills, but you still die from really stupid shit like tac-knives and quick-scopers But that's not the game's fault that's the community

[QUOTE=waxrock;25123097]I know we all hate Activision as much as the next guy, but really? This is what you come up with? Show me one company/business whose sole purpose [I]isn't[/I] to make money. Dear god. Also, barely enough additions? I'd consider 16 new maps, a ton of new weapons, new player models, new hud, new toys, etc enough for a sequel.[/QUOTE] HAHA... really? That is barely anything, actually that is close to nothing. That would be alright for an expansion... maybe... [QUOTE=Zezibesh;25126187]CoD4 guns mostly had no recoil, it was purely visual. FPS has [i]always[/i] been about who shoots first. If MW2 is a rehash then what would you call HL2 episodes? Honestly, MW2 added new maps, new guns, a new singleplayer, a new co-op mode, and whatnot. [i]What more do you want in a sequel?[/i] Now, I am not much of a multiplayer person, but the MP was alright. All this discussion about the game makes me wish I could play the singleplayer again, however.[/QUOTE] Why did you bring up the Half-Life 2 episodes? They aren't stand alone full priced games but are more like episodic standalone games that are much less then the price of a full game. If you consider that enough for a sequel then you are lost. They added a 4 hour singleplayer (full priced games should be a minimum 10 hours), they had the EXACT same multiplayer with an addition of some maps and visuals. That is pretty much all they did.

[QUOTE=PonceDeLeon;25115857]no, someone hated it, and then it went on to bandwagon hating it from there on :/ nothing really wrong with the game.[/QUOTE] No, I think we all just realised it was a horrible game.

Fuck you ALL. When i first got this game every match was 6v6 with one noob tuber every couple of maps I started and was getting 13+ killstreaks at only rank 10. I used to get SO many chopper gunners and AC130's What happened? who the fuck knows, all the assholes shat on the game and ruined it. then you had commando fags everywhere running around with care package smokes.

Before it was released. In all seriousness, it has its ups and downs but overall I dislike it and stick to other games.

Ya when you could care package knife. Then they patched it.