Lessons of Modern Warfare 2, per Ars Technica

[KMFJD]

I can't believe the amount of controversy this supposedly shitty game creates...it must be doing something right.

 

[Zargon]

Companies are in it for a profit. Sapping every last penny? You mean charging ten dollars more? I paid fifty dollars for NES games that just came out. That was like almost 20 years ago. I paid 53 bucks for this, there were a lot of deals like Amazon free gift card, newegg 7$ off with free shipping etc.

I recall NES games costing 20-30 bucks, and being SHOCKED when N64 games went up to 40 bucks for certain titles.

 

[Zargon]

TF2 is NOT the same game type as COD6 other than its genre.

TF2 is a casual game, it takes little or no skill to play, and you cannot feel competitive in a pub.

I play tf2 when I do not feel like putting my try face on. Run around as a pyro flaming everything easy high score.

Only two classes require any skills which are sniper and scout.

TF2 is a great game with a good community, plus the developer likes to keep the game alive but just like TF wasn't really in competition with CS. TF2 isnt in competition with COD6.

You are right, the 'tactical combat game' missing tactical features that were present 10 years ago in Ranbow 6, is certainly not a 'casual game' with its innovate in game 'cutsecenes' requiring you to alternate what mouse button you hit for 10 minutes at a time, is just hardcore.

 

[clamum]

Hahaha. Yet another shit talk MW2 thread (as if other forums weren't full of them already). I'll give them the review point, that's kinda shady, but that's it. For such a supposedly "shitty" game, as so many people love to say, it must be doing something right obviously.

I almost never take into account what others say about a game these days it's so pathetic.

 

[Rezident]

Except things like :"PC gaming doesn't matter" make the article (and author) sound petty. If it didn't matter they wouldn't have made a game for PC. The PC game sold millions of dollars (hundred of millions?) worth so obviously it does matter and the article is hard to take seriously therefore.

 

[digitaldurandal]

LOL you just lost ALL credibility saying TF2 is a casual game. CoD 6 is a trash simple and that. I've played it and it has NOTHING against TF2 in depth. MW2 is nothing but Halo 3 with new skin and ideas stolen from PC community. How do I know? Because every time I play Halo 3, I can't stop feeling how inferior it feels to what PC FPS offer. Same goes to MW2 when I fire it up.

You want depth and skill? Try Red Orchestra. That is what hardcore skill is. MW idiots like you would die by the dozen by my accurate rifle fire 400m+ away, while you are bewildered by an actual weapon RECOIL!


I wouldn't mind so much about MW2 and console fanboys praising their crap, but insulting classics like TF2 without any merit, that touches a nerve.

Okay, you are very ignorant. Firstly, you do not state any argument - you simply say "haha you said tf2 is casual hahaha look at me I can post on teh interweb."

Then you went on to make many assumptions including: that I have not played or do not play red orchestra. Second: that I would get pwned by your mad 1337 skillz. Third: That I play anything at all on a console.

Cool loved all the logic in your reply to me. Do me a favor, next time you are going to post an argument Make a list of the points you would like to make, gather (read: don't just make it up in your head) some supporting evidence, then after you write your post before hitting submit have someone read over it and make sure you have qualified your points. This will help you not to come off as such a donkeytroll in later discussions.

 

[digitaldurandal]

Except things like :"PC gaming doesn't matter" make the article (and author) sound petty. If it didn't matter they wouldn't have made a game for PC. The PC game sold millions of dollars (hundred of millions?) worth so obviously it does matter and the article is hard to take seriously therefore.

I agree. The next step would be not to make the game for the PC. Personally I enjoy the game and I am glad they made it.

Is the game for everyone? Nope. Does it have issues? Yea. Is it the end of PC gaming? I got tired of hearing that when the first xbox came out and it surely is old by now.

 

[digitaldurandal]

You are right, the 'tactical combat game' missing tactical features that were present 10 years ago in Ranbow 6, is certainly not a 'casual game' with its innovate in game 'cutsecenes' requiring you to alternate what mouse button you hit for 10 minutes at a time, is just hardcore.

Who marketed the game as tactical single player? Certainly I didn't refer to it as that.

I made a comparison to TF2 because another poster stated it was better. TF2 is multiplayer and I was comparing the multiplayer and all of my statements perhaps should be qualified as only referring to multiplayer as I have not even started the singleplayer.

Personally I have no idea what cutscenes you refer to. Ten minutes does seem like a long time to alternate mouse buttons.

 

[digitaldurandal]

What? D:

MW2 is not a competitive game. The weapons have zero recoil and the kills are determined by who is lagging the least

Lets play 1v1 you be host and see you prove it.

 

[digitaldurandal]

Counter-Strike: Source.

Team Fortress 2.

They're not now, but they're "out there" and they're better.

I enjoy TF2 but it is not the same experience it is a different game type. The game is casual, from the goofy models, to the no aim classes (pyro, medic, soldier, heavy, engineer.)

CS:S in my opinion isn't better. If you want to play and do well you are rather limited in your gun selection and play style. The models feel stiff and limited, no interaction with your environment is possible, maps are bilinear.

I did enjoy CS 1.6 for a short time, but CS:S never did anything for me. The recipe was there (single life rounds, modern weapons, goal) but I never got into it. Honestly considering the player base size from 1.6 and the size of Source: I am not the only one thinking they did something wrong with the game.

 

[zerocool84]

I enjoy TF2 but it is not the same experience it is a different game type. The game is casual, from the goofy models, to the no aim classes (pyro, medic, soldier, heavy, engineer.)

Have you played TF2? It is not casual. MW2 is the casual shooter. TF2 have infinitely more depth in the amount of classes and how to play them.

 

[Zargon]

Who marketed the game as tactical single player? Certainly I didn't refer to it as that.

I made a comparison to TF2 because another poster stated it was better. TF2 is multiplayer and I was comparing the multiplayer and all of my statements perhaps should be qualified as only referring to multiplayer as I have not even started the singleplayer.

Personally I have no idea what cutscenes you refer to. Ten minutes does seem like a long time to alternate mouse buttons.

so you havent even seen the other half of the game...?

they (IW) are the ones saying how you can think while you play and you cant just run and gun. that puts it towards tactical, yet you cant even lean around a corner to see what is there without getting your ass shot off.

go play SP, get to the Rio levels and tell me how awesome the system works. its horrid.

 

[fatpat268]

Bull. See most titles under the EA Sports franchise, same game every year, 50+ price tag. See The Sims, the initial games were fun, but the record setting number of expansions destroyed it. And it still outsells most titles when they release another expansion. See World of Warcraft.

Once again, just because you don't like a game doesn't make that game shitty.

 

[coloumb]

I can't believe the amount of controversy this supposedly shitty game creates...it must be doing something right.

I don't see why people think it's crappy... unless they are just pissed off about not being able to host a game. I've just finished up the area with the fast food joints and am having a blast so far.

 

[VashHT]

I don't see why people think it's crappy... unless they are just pissed off about not being able to host a game. I've just finished up the area with the fast food joints and am having a blast so far.

Does it really baffle you that people have different opinions? I got bored of the game pretty fast, it had nothing to do with being able to host or not.

 

[ScorcherDarkly]

I wasn't impressed with the first one, the second doesn't seem to have much more to offer, certainly not anything I'd want to pay $60 to get.

In my opinion, the game isn't wildly successful because its a fantastic game. It's successful because its a decent, safe sequel to a wildly popular game, and has a massive marketing engine pushing it. Arguing that MW2 is successful because it's a great game is like arguing that McDonald's is successful because their food is gourmet. Its just not the reason. Also, pointing to the fact that its the best out on the market right now is not good supporting evidence for it being a great game. All you've proved is that its the king of crappy games, at a minimum.

PC Gamer gave the game an 80%, which might be the fairest review I've seen for the game from a PC perspective. Certainly not a paid advertisement like Ars Technica is suggesting happened with most of the media community. The review basically said it was a fun fps that recreated the experience of the first MW while adding a bit of polish, and knocked it for its failings on the PC and feeling too much like an expansion pack or DLC for the first game.

 

[WaitingForNehalem]

I enjoy TF2 but it is not the same experience it is a different game type. The game is casual, from the goofy models, to the no aim classes (pyro, medic, soldier, heavy, engineer.)

CS:S in my opinion isn't better. If you want to play and do well you are rather limited in your gun selection and play style. The models feel stiff and limited, no interaction with your environment is possible, maps are bilinear.

I did enjoy CS 1.6 for a short time, but CS:S never did anything for me. The recipe was there (single life rounds, modern weapons, goal) but I never got into it. Honestly considering the player base size from 1.6 and the size of Source: I am not the only one thinking they did something wrong with the game.

Current Players Peak Today
58,284 130,775 Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 2 - Multiplayer
37,343 98,127 Counter-Strike: Source
35,329 78,985 Counter-Strike
4,357 9,465 Counter-Strike: Condition Zero
204 360 Call of Duty 4: Modern Warfare

http://store.steampowered.com/stats/

CS:S is almost 6 years old, CS:CZ is 6 years old, and CS 1.6 is almost 7 years old. Counter-Strike came out 11 years ago. That shows you how good Counter-Strike is.

 

[Skurge]

Current Players Peak Today
58,284 130,775 Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 2 - Multiplayer
37,343 98,127 Counter-Strike: Source
35,329 78,985 Counter-Strike
4,357 9,465 Counter-Strike: Condition Zero
204 360 Call of Duty 4: Modern Warfare

http://store.steampowered.com/stats/

CS:S is almost 6 years old, CS:CZ is 6 years old, and CS 1.6 is almost 7 years old. Counter-Strike came out 11 years ago. That shows you how good Counter-Strike is.

+1

CS:S is awesome. theirs this sense of satisfaction when you AS A TEAM win the round. COD is just simple deathmatch really, little place for tactics.
COD does require some skill (who sees who 1st), it much to simplistic though

PS: kills arnt satisfying as the ragdolls suck

 

[pontifex]

I wasn't impressed with the first one, the second doesn't seem to have much more to offer, certainly not anything I'd want to pay $60 to get.

In my opinion, the game isn't wildly successful because its a fantastic game. It's successful because its a decent, safe sequel to a wildly popular game, and has a massive marketing engine pushing it. Arguing that MW2 is successful because it's a great game is like arguing that McDonald's is successful because their food is gourmet. Its just not the reason. Also, pointing to the fact that its the best out on the market right now is not good supporting evidence for it being a great game. All you've proved is that its the king of crappy games, at a minimum.

PC Gamer gave the game an 80%, which might be the fairest review I've seen for the game from a PC perspective. Certainly not a paid advertisement like Ars Technica is suggesting happened with most of the media community. The review basically said it was a fun fps that recreated the experience of the first MW while adding a bit of polish, and knocked it for its failings on the PC and feeling too much like an expansion pack or DLC for the first game.

I love how people trot out the McDonald's argument when it suits their purposes.

 

[zerocool84]

I recall NES games costing 20-30 bucks, and being SHOCKED when N64 games went up to 40 bucks for certain titles.

I'm guessing you didn't buy many games back in the cartridge days. There were many games that went all the way up to almost $100 cus cartridges were expensive to make.

 

[ScorcherDarkly]

I love how people trot out the McDonald's argument when it suits their purposes.

Why would I "trot out" an argument that DIDN'T suit my purpose? That wouldn't make much sense, now, would it.

 

[ShawnD1]

I recall NES games costing 20-30 bucks, and being SHOCKED when N64 games went up to 40 bucks for certain titles.

Most NES games were $70. N64 continued with ridiculously overpriced games while PS1 games were only $50. This is why everyone, including myself, owned a PS1 instead of N64.
The number of $70 is even quoted in one of the earlier Simpsons episodes where Bart steals a Nintendo game. video

 

[pontifex]

Why would I "trot out" an argument that DIDN'T suit my purpose? That wouldn't make much sense, now, would it.

its funny because it only seems to work on games that the person who made the comment hates. when someone tries to to use it against a game you like, it will suddenly become invalid or ridiculous.

 

[AyashiKaibutsu]

Most NES games were $70. N64 continued with ridiculously overpriced games while PS1 games were only $50. This is why everyone, including myself, owned a PS1 instead of N64.
The number of $70 is even quoted in one of the earlier Simpsons episodes where Bart steals a Nintendo game. video

To my knowledge, only very few NES games cost that much. All the games I can remember getting cost 40-50.

 

[zerogear]

Why would I "trot out" an argument that DIDN'T suit my purpose? That wouldn't make much sense, now, would it.

lulz.