I see lots of people on AG say it's bad but it's not. Those who have said this probably suck online , A Halo fan or really have'nt played it.
You see I want to know how many people think it's bad. I personally don't think it's bad . All the people who do obviously have'nt played online , special ops or the campaign.
You got to actually try every bit of the game before saying it's bad.
Man, guys lay off! games are not perfect, and yes, i hate the way it is unbalanced, and the **** server setup, its still cod, and i think the biggest fail was definitely cod 5! anywayz... its still a good game but yes i was a little dissapointed
[quote=Johnnathann]They are obviously doing something right, being as popular as it is.[/quote]
Yeah, Infinity Ward did do something right, they made a brilliant series of 3 games and bunch of great expansion packs. Even people that had only played Modern Warfare had high expectations of this game - they gained the trust of the population, knowing that they could sell as anything, and they sold us crap. That's why it's popular, everyone expected it to be brilliant.
[quote=delossantosj]theres nothing programmers can really do to prevent that[/quote]
That depends on the platform. On PC, they could just use a reliable anti-cheat system like PunkBuster, and then for extra-security implement dedicated servers so that admins can watch over their own games, leaving no hassling about for IW. However, we've already seen that IW couldn't give two shits about anyone who plays this game, as long as they're willing to buy map packs which are £5 more expensive than they should be.
[quote=Johnnathann]Also, why should there be more online modes when they have plenty to choose from already?[/quote]
I'm fine with the current modes, what I would like to see is more flexibility, where you allow the host (or admin if dedicated servers were implemented) choose allowed weapons, maximum health, map etc.
[quote=Johnnathann]Apparently, since Modern Warfare requires no skill to play, then people with no skill would be playing it. Therefore you should be able to beat those people easily, unless of course you are wrong, or also have no skill.[/quote]
You're good at saying retarded things aren't you? These people have no skill and often substitute with overpowered weapons, like the PP2000 or AUG or UMP or tactical knife. Therefore I conclude that using skill in this game cannot prevent two bullet kills?
And by the way, I'll admit, I'm not great at tactical shooters like MW2, but still skill cannot overwhelm the ridiculously over-powered weapons damage.
[quote=Hophop121]i think the biggest fail was definitely cod 5![/quote]
I think you say that because you haven't played the first three, which have similar mechanics to COD5 and are much better than Modern Warfare 2. Just because you can't have ridiculous perks and two bullet, full auto shots doesn't mean the game is bad. You've also got to notice COD5 maintains strong servers, and keeps weapon balance - note how these are the two main things that piss you and everybody else off, so what has COD 5 manages to pull off? Remove the biggest flaws in MW2? What does this make it? Less aggravating - and we all know you'd prefer fun over aggravation in a video game, correct?
And no, most other games on the market don't include teleporting, have modding communities, have explicit rules that are normally followed, have reliable anti-cheat technologies, don't require 3rd party software, keep ping times low, include customisable map rotations, rules and mods, sell expansion packs at reasonable prices (or at least, produce better quality ones), have fair weapons and unlock order, require practice, don't have ridiculously powered, easy to obtain, extras, if they do have a replacement to dedicated servers it's half decent, but most the time they use the unbeatable system, and can create (or let the community create) very inventive maps.
I did not contradict myself because the point I was trying to point out is that how "opular" something is is not a measure of how many people like it. Justin Bieber is "opular" but a lot of people do not like him and those that do not like him are not a very small group in comparison to those that do. MW2 is "opular" but a very large group of people hate it. Then theres BC2 which is not as "opular" as MW2 but there is a very small group of people that do not like it therefore the game itself has successfully created a middle ground for skilled and less-skilled players to enjoy the game. Your logic is that a game must appeal to the larger group of less-skilled players to be successful. This logic, however, is flawed because a successful game appeals to both groups therefore leaving no group of notable size that does not like the game. This tactic of appeal to both groups of people so everyone can enjoy the game is at the very base of game development and can be seen in games such as BC2, Cod: 4 and Halo 3. Your logic and way of thinking on this subject is incorrect and flawed...end of story. Please don't ever become a game developer if you think that your way of thinking is correct
1) Akimbo G18s are worse, unbeatable at CQC and no skill to use 2) I dislike campers worse 3) Yes, noob tubers must die 4) There would be no hackers if we had god damn dedicated servers 5) Maps do suck
1) UAV Jammer is almost the same thing, it just doesn't keep you invul from killstreaks (in the case of COD4, just the helicopter killstreak), then again, the heli in CoD4 wasn't hard to kill anyways.
its an awesome game but i think its so overated its not even funny and i think ppl hate it cuz they dont have it and i think its rlly hard cuz the killstreaks go way up to 25 i mean what kind of noob would get there all im saying is that ppl usually like underated games cuz not very many ppl play or say that that game is better
So many things are wrong with it. #1: There is nothing special about. Almost every other online game is better than it. #2: Cod 1, Cod2, Cod3, Cod4, Cod5, and Cod6 have all been almost exactly the same. I could keep going but I don't want to make a thread thats to long.
i also think that its really futuristic and blackops will suck cuz of that
Its actually not as futuristic as you would think because the current level of military tech does include whats in that game. It also includes more "futuristic" type things than are in the game. Also do not be confused about the setting of Black Ops by thinking it is set in the Vietnam War only. Since it is set in the Cold War which went from 1945 to 1991 its may not be as "Old" weaponry wise as you may think.....
