• Modern Warfare 2 Gameplay
    130 replies, posted
It's essentially Modern Warfare 2: Electric Boogaloo.
I think it looks okay, it won't hype me like BF3 did. But I will rent it, I had enough CoD multiplayer.
God what are they even playing anymore? They just butcher it with stupid gimmicks instead of making ANY fucking attempt to try and expand and innovate. STILL no vehicles? 7 fucking games and STILL not a single multiplayer vehicle? Fucking really?
[QUOTE=BigOwl;33097655]God what are they even playing anymore? They just butcher it with stupid gimmicks instead of making ANY fucking attempt to try and expand and innovate. STILL no vehicles? 7 fucking games and STILL not a single multiplayer vehicle? Fucking really?[/QUOTE] Yeah guys Battlefield 3 had vehicles so this should! No, that's like saying Quake 3 needs vehicles. Call of Duty is an arcade shooter where vehicles would just not fit in with it's game's style. Whether you like Call of Duty or not, you have to agree that vehicles would take away from the fast-paced man-on-man, gun-on-gun action.
[QUOTE=Zally13;33097695]Yeah guys Battlefield 3 had vehicles so this should! No, that's like saying Quake 3 needs vehicles. Call of Duty is an arcade shooter where vehicles would just not fit in with it's game's style. Whether you like Call of Duty or not, you have to agree that vehicles would take away from the fast-paced man-on-man, gun-on-gun action.[/QUOTE] When did I say ANYTHING about battlefield? I just think it's about time Call of Duty had vehicles. I want vehicles in call of duty. It's been 7 games of so much multiplayer, they've exhausted all other gimmicks, they might as well put vehicles into the game as well, am I wrong? At least it wouldn't be another retarded gimmicky game mode to help them sleep at night. And you can have maps both WITH and WITHOUT vehicles.
[QUOTE=BigOwl;33097747]When did I say ANYTHING about battlefield? I just think it's about time Call of Duty had vehicles. I want vehicles in call of duty. It's been 7 games of so much multiplayer, they've exhausted all other gimmicks, they might as well put vehicles into the game as well, am I wrong? At least it wouldn't be another retarded gimmicky game mode to help them sleep at night. And you can have maps both WITH and WITHOUT vehicles.[/QUOTE] Wasn't there vehicles in World at War, or was that campaign-only?
[QUOTE=RikohZX;33097866]Wasn't there vehicles in World at War, or was that campaign-only?[/QUOTE] There are vehicles in the campaigns, but those are more or less scripted events.
[QUOTE=BigOwl;33097747]When did I say ANYTHING about battlefield? I just think it's about time Call of Duty had vehicles. I want vehicles in call of duty. It's been 7 games of so much multiplayer, they've exhausted all other gimmicks, they might as well put vehicles into the game as well, am I wrong? At least it wouldn't be another retarded gimmicky game mode to help them sleep at night. And you can have maps both WITH and WITHOUT vehicles.[/QUOTE] Call of Duty players don't want something other than Call of Duty. They want an improved and more balanced multiplayer experience with something new (even if it's slight) every time. Call of Duty 4 introduced perks and attachments, Modern Warfare 2 introduced customizable killstreaks, and Modern Warfare 3 is introducing the whole strike package idea where you can play to how you wish to play without being punished, and weapons level up more fluidly, requiring less of a grind and allowing you to customize it more. That's all Call of Duty fans want, a little improvement over time, but nothing that will completely change the style of play. I don't get why Call of Duty has to "revolutionize". Call of Duty fans like how Call of Duty is now, no sense in changing it just to change.
[QUOTE=Zally13;33098223]Call of Duty players don't want something other than Call of Duty. They want an improved and more balanced multiplayer experience with something new (even if it's slight) every time. Call of Duty 4 introduced perks and attachments, Modern Warfare 2 introduced customizable killstreaks, and Modern Warfare 3 is introducing the whole strike package idea where you can play your own play style without being punished more easily, and weapons level up more fluidly, requiring less of a grind and allowing you to customize it more. That's all Call of Duty fans want, a little improvement over time, but nothing that will completely change the style of play. I don't get why Call of Duty has to "revolutionize". Call of Duty fans like how Call of Duty is now, no sense in changing it just to change.[/QUOTE] Sounds like the Madden football games that come out ever year "In Madden 26' we made the grass greener on the other side of the field, its AMAZING" I think CoD is going down that same road where if you want a significantly better game then you have to wait like 4 or 5 years otherwise you might as well save some bank and play the one you already have
I think it looks fun to play with friends casually It is basically an arcade shooter now, what it should be
[QUOTE=Luuper;33098916]I think it looks fun to play with friends casually It is basically an arcade shooter now, what it should be[/QUOTE] And yet it's sold full price for basically a bunch of new maps and new automatic-never-ever-recoiling guns.
[QUOTE=Zally13;33098223]Call of Duty players don't want something other than Call of Duty. They want an improved and more balanced multiplayer experience with something new (even if it's slight) every time. Call of Duty 4 introduced perks and attachments, Modern Warfare 2 introduced customizable killstreaks, and Modern Warfare 3 is introducing the whole strike package idea where you can play to how you wish to play without being punished, and weapons level up more fluidly, requiring less of a grind and allowing you to customize it more. That's all Call of Duty fans want, a little improvement over time, but nothing that will completely change the style of play. I don't get why Call of Duty has to "revolutionize". Call of Duty fans like how Call of Duty is now, no sense in changing it just to change.[/QUOTE] So madden?
Haha holy shit those weapons have no recoil whatsoever.
[QUOTE=Ganerumo;33096524]Because they share a same opinion and like to talk about it even though they hate it ?[/QUOTE] there are literally three modern warfare 3 threads on the first page of this section alone, anyone who feels the need to discuss how much they hate something so trivial so much really should have more hobbies.
[QUOTE=SomTervo;33107595]there are literally three modern warfare 3 threads on the first page of this section alone, anyone who feels the need to discuss how much they hate something so trivial so much really should have more hobbies.[/QUOTE] They HAVE other hobbies. Because you see people answering a thread about a game doesn't mean that's the one and only thing the do in their entire life.
[QUOTE=Ganerumo;33107619]They HAVE other hobbies. Because you see people answering a thread about a game doesn't mean that's the one and only thing the do in their entire life.[/QUOTE] okay, so let's say all the people who repeatedly discuss how much they hate something have better things to do: why do they care so much about something so trivial? seriously if you hate it so much just ignore it it's not like its existence effects you in the slightest.
[QUOTE=SomTervo;33107728]seriously if you hate it so much just ignore it it's not like its existence effects you in the slightest.[/QUOTE] Actually it does because modern warfare damages the entire industry by pushing activision to only make more of the same shit and encouraging all the other developers/editors to have the same policy of "fuck originality, let's milk franchise with more identical sequels".
[QUOTE=Ganerumo;33108027]Actually it does because modern warfare damages the entire industry by pushing activision to only make more of the same shit and encouraging all the other developers/editors to have the same policy of "fuck originality, let's milk franchise with more identical sequels".[/QUOTE] no it doesn't, stop being melodramatic most games don't actually do that believe it or not and you can easily avoid the ones that do. sure there are way more sequels then there should be but that's hardly CoD's fault.
[QUOTE=SomTervo;33108121]no it doesn't, stop being melodramatic most games don't actually do that believe it or not and you can easily avoid the ones that do. sure there are way more sequels then there should be but that's hardly CoD's fault.[/QUOTE] The first thing Kotick did when he arrived at Activision was asking for quickly done games and overwhelm all his dev teams with work, ultra short deadlines, and once they released their respective games, closed the said dev team. Rinse and repeat. Because of him a ton of perfectly good developers team have sinked into nothingness because he decided Call Of Duty needed all the money. He launched the DLC policy in Activision, admitted he hates video games and treats the industry in the exact same way he would treat any other business company. He endorses, in his own words, the exploitation of any game that "have the potential to be exploited every year on every platform with clear sequel potential and have the potential to become $100 million franchises" (that's an actual quote) and he also clearly despises small inventive games that he mentions as "speculative franchises" (another quote from the guy). And because Activision is making millions of dollars thanks to that hideous shit stain of a business strategy, a lot of other editors do the exact same shit, starting with EA.
lol
[QUOTE=Ganerumo;33090273] I can already some blind sheep saying "If you don't like it just don't buy it". This is a fool's argument[/QUOTE] Actually this is pretty standard advice I would give to someone if they didn't like something. It's far more fitting and unbiased than your "Everyone who enjoys CoD and buys it every year is the cancer that is killing videogames" bullshit. [editline]3rd November 2011[/editline] [QUOTE=SomTervo;33096465]okay, why do Internet-goers keep making cod and justin bieber threads?[/QUOTE] Easy ratings, views, and validation. The self-reciprocating circle jerk that is bashing the top selling FPS has been an internet staple for years.
Except that buying this game just supports Activision's policy of pissing on originality and massively producing the same old crap again and again. Even Bobby fucking Kotick admitted that's exactly how he works and how he's planning on ruling over Activision as long as he's the boss here. But yeah don't you be fucking surprised when Black Ops 2 and Battlefield 4 come out next year if you keep buying these games at full price.
[QUOTE=Ganerumo;33108776] But yeah don't you be fucking surprised when Black Ops 2 and Battlefield 4 come out next year if you keep buying these games at full price.[/QUOTE] Sequels to two games I enjoy coming out a year later? I'd pay full price for that. I don't buy a game based on arbitrary innovation, I buy games based on the entertainment value that they would satisfy me for. Who are you to say that someone is wrong for buying Black Ops 2 when Black Ops gave them 300+ hours of entertainment? That's a steal for $60, in my eyes.
And how about when you'll be bored of these games ? Because you will be. How about when these games will become shitty and offer nothing new (even less than right now) ? Because they will be. If we keep on going in the same direction we are going to hit a giant wall that will fuck everything up because all the good, inventive companies will be dead and buried, and the only things left will be games people don't want anymore because they became uninteresting, unoriginal and too expensive for what they are.
[QUOTE=Raidyr;33108578]Actually this is pretty standard advice I would give to someone if they didn't like something. It's far more fitting and unbiased than your "[B]Everyone who enjoys CoD and buys it every year is the cancer that is killing videogames[/B]" bullshit. [/QUOTE] It reaffirms the false notion that CoD is all what gamers want and will want. With Videogames the audience has much more interaction with the creators than any other medium of media, this allows the creators and the audience to collaborate, even in minor details like bugs and small glitches, to create a better and more fun experience for all. The repetitive buying of CoD sends out a false message to devs not just in Activision.
People were saying the exact same thing when Halo was the big name. "What are you going to do when every game is a generic alien shooter?". Then a few years later Modern Warfare dropped and started the present-day cashgrab that developers have been pandering to. As for me personally, I'm already not buying MW3 because I'm not interested in it at all. I think I am set with Battlefield 3 for atleast a few more months. But I'm not going to sit here and insult people who like or are interested in a game I don't care about.
[QUOTE=Ganerumo;33109351]And how about when you'll be bored of these games ? Because you will be. How about when these games will become shitty and offer nothing new (even less than right now) ? Because they will be. If we keep on going in the same direction we are going to hit a giant wall that will fuck everything up because all the good, inventive companies will be dead and buried, and the only things left will be games people don't want anymore because they became uninteresting, unoriginal and too expensive for what they are.[/QUOTE] If you want a nice parallel to this search the videogame crash of the 1980s.
[QUOTE=PunchedInFac;33109433]It reaffirms the false notion that CoD is all what gamers want and will want. With Videogames the audience has much more interaction with the creators than any other medium of media, this allows the creators and the audience to collaborate, even in minor details like bugs and small glitches, to create a better and more fun experience for all. The repetitive buying of CoD sends out a false message to devs not just in Activision.[/QUOTE] How does it send the wrong message? It's a popular series, a lot of people enjoy it. [editline]3rd November 2011[/editline] [QUOTE=PunchedInFac;33109444]If you want a nice parallel to this search the videogame crash of the 1980s.[/QUOTE] Entirely different situation. The video game crash in the 80's was not caused by one generic FPS series being so popular that it all the sudden assimilated all video games. Don't be so melodramatic.
[QUOTE=PunchedInFac;33109444]If you want a nice parallel to this search the videogame crash of the 1980s.[/QUOTE] Yeah I thought about that crash too but I preferred not to use it because of the possible "It was 30 years ago thus it's irrelevant" argument. Also, what Halo did was making FPS the basic genre of consoles, while before it was more plateformers. And, even to this day, the consequences can still be felt, as the majority of today first person shooters are clearly games that were first thought for console, then for PC.
[QUOTE=Ganerumo;33109536]Yeah I thought about that crash too but I preferred not to use it because of the possible "It was 30 years ago thus it's irrelevant" argument. Also, what Halo did was making FPS the basic genre of consoles, while before it was more plateformers. And, even to this day, the consequences can still be felt, as the majority of today first person shooters are clearly games that were first thought for console, then for PC.[/QUOTE] It's irrelevant because it is entirely unrelated. It would be like discussing the safety of nuclear power then referencing the bombing of Pearl Harbor. As for Halo, that is another argument entirely. My point was that every time a popular shooter franchise comes up people cry out about the end of gaming as we know it and that CoD is just the newest iteration of that.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.