MW3 will again not offer dedicated servers

[Mike Gayner]

The bigger question is will MW3 be another console port to the PC?

None of the past COD games have been a port, so I doubt it. I don't think you know what a console port is.

 

[Bill Brasky]

None of the past COD games have been a port, so I doubt it. I don't think you know what a console port is.

 

[gorcorps]

None of the past COD games have been a port, so I doubt it. I don't think you know what a console port is.

From what I gather the general (and ignorant) consensus in this PC gaming forum is that if that if the game developer has had any connection to consoles ever, then the game is a filthy, bug ridden console port and should never be purchased by anybody ever regardless of if you may actually find it fun or not.

 

[Mike Gayner]

From what I gather the general (and ignorant) consensus in this PC gaming forum is that if that if the game developer has had any connection to consoles ever, then the game is a filthy, bug ridden console port and should never be purchased by anybody ever regardless of if you may actually find it fun or not.

Yeah apparently this is true. There's no accounting for ignorant morons.

 

[pontifex]

BF3?

Nope, MW3. BF3 was like 7th or 8th

 

[Chaotic42]

I actually found a Black Ops server that seems decent, so I might start playing it more since it's almost impossible to find a Modern Warfare 2 game anymore.

It's still nowhere near as good as MW2, though. It feels sluggish and chunky. Not the graphics, mind you, just the movement. MW2 is much more fluid.

 

[Bateluer]

The reason is simple, people bought MW2 en mass. For all the complaining and bitching that happened, they still sold like hot cokes.

Same thing will happen with MW3, people will complain, but in the end, run out and buy the game for whatever price tag attached to it. And everyone who does, will be paying the inevitable monthly fee for multiplayer.

And why I've been saying that the large publishers need to implode, let the industry reboot.

 

[DirkGently1]

Dedicated servers tend to be a little over-rated, there's a lot of stuff I don't miss about dedicated servers, even though matchmaking has plenty of caveats as well -

I don't miss hunting through endless server lists trying to find one that doesn't have a bunch of silly mods which I'm forced to download before I can even get into the match.

I don't miss looking at server lists where half the choices only play the same map over and over (2Fort 24/7).

I don't miss servers that spoof the number of active players to attract people to an otherwise empty server (TF2)

I definitely don't miss servers that show open spots available except that they're reserved so you end up getting kicked, but only AFTER you've loaded the map. (Valve FPS games)

I don't miss getting kicked from a server to make room for some clanmate.

Don't miss getting auto-switched to the other team because the losing team all quit and therefore I get credited with a loss even though I was on the winning side the entire round.

I don't miss joining a server with several friends only to have some of them getting assigned to a different team and you can't switch because the server's full.

And I don't miss the admins which abuse their power and kick people because they happen to be having a really good round (must be a hacker!).

And many, many more reasons. Dedicated servers aren't all bad, and some games implement them quite nicely... a recent example is Brink. It's all in the implementation I guess, and whether you're looking for a heavily modded experience or just the core gameplay the game shipped with. I guess at this point I'm definitely the latter.

Me too. I agree with everything you said.

 

[M0oG0oGaiPan]

Matchmaking servers is OK if you want to do a quick game or if you want to play with friends but lack of dedicated server support is something that kept me from purchasing MW2.

1. Listen server means host has an advantage.
2. Means the games are going to be limited in size. I like the small games but I also like the huge games. Even in quakeworld they had 32 player servers. Sometimes I just like the chaos. I'm not asking for 32 players but 10v10 or 12v12 would be nice. Usually on 8v8 if you lose a few people the game gets real small really quick. Anyway, this is a minor issue and mostly a nonfactor.
3. With a dedicated server you can be part of a community. You can play on the same servers and play with the same people. You can play on a server with active admins who proactively kb! cheaters/griefers.
4. Once the community gets smaller, it's harder to fill a game up. Look at Warhammer 40,000: The Last Standalone. That game requires 3 players to start a game, and it only has matchmaking. Everyone has to click start games for the matchmaking to work and it takes forever to find an active game because the player count is so small. You get the same issues for L4D2. Try finding people to play a survival game. Some nights it takes forever.

 

[dpodblood]

I'm glad. The whole Black Ops "Nuketown Only - No running, no walking, standing only" thing is kind of annoying.

As much as this stuff annoys me I still prefer it to the MW2 method. I hated sitting there for 5 minutes waiting to be put into a game. I doubt very much that MW3 will be a day 1 purchase for me. Dedicated servers or not they simply aren't doing anything to innovate the multiplayer experience. And this "COD elite" isn't doing anything for Activision's money grubbing image.

 

[Red Storm]

Dedicated servers tend to be a little over-rated, there's a lot of stuff I don't miss about dedicated servers, even though matchmaking has plenty of caveats as well -

I don't miss hunting through endless server lists trying to find one that doesn't have a bunch of silly mods which I'm forced to download before I can even get into the match.

I don't miss looking at server lists where half the choices only play the same map over and over (2Fort 24/7).

I don't miss servers that spoof the number of active players to attract people to an otherwise empty server (TF2)

I definitely don't miss servers that show open spots available except that they're reserved so you end up getting kicked, but only AFTER you've loaded the map. (Valve FPS games)

I don't miss getting kicked from a server to make room for some clanmate.

Don't miss getting auto-switched to the other team because the losing team all quit and therefore I get credited with a loss even though I was on the winning side the entire round.

I don't miss joining a server with several friends only to have some of them getting assigned to a different team and you can't switch because the server's full.

And I don't miss the admins which abuse their power and kick people because they happen to be having a really good round (must be a hacker!).

And many, many more reasons. Dedicated servers aren't all bad, and some games implement them quite nicely... a recent example is Brink. It's all in the implementation I guess, and whether you're looking for a heavily modded experience or just the core gameplay the game shipped with. I guess at this point I'm definitely the latter.

Most of these issues can be resolved (using TF2 as an example). You can filter by map names, ping, location, player count. You can blacklist unwanted servers so they never show up again. You can pick your specific server tailored to how you want to play (rotations, a single map/mode, etc.).

The benefits heavily outweigh the downsides. Being able to find a good group of players and play with them night after night without having to add 50 people to your friends list is huge. Dedicated servers give you some level of control over the skill level of your opponents (favorite servers with good players, "competitive" servers, etc.).

 

[Avalon]

Didn't buy MW2 or BLOPS, not buying MW3. I was already bored out of my mind with the little exposure I had to MW2 on my buddy's X360. I can't imagine it actually being worse. The last good game they did was COD4. I'll still take COD/COD2 any day over any of them.

BF:BC2 is where it's at now for me. Eagerly awaiting BF3 and Skyrim.

 

[Ichigo]

Dedicated servers tend to be a little over-rated, there's a lot of stuff I don't miss about dedicated servers, even though matchmaking has plenty of caveats as well -

I don't miss hunting through endless server lists trying to find one that doesn't have a bunch of silly mods which I'm forced to download before I can even get into the match.

I don't miss looking at server lists where half the choices only play the same map over and over (2Fort 24/7).

I don't miss servers that spoof the number of active players to attract people to an otherwise empty server (TF2)

I definitely don't miss servers that show open spots available except that they're reserved so you end up getting kicked, but only AFTER you've loaded the map. (Valve FPS games)

I don't miss getting kicked from a server to make room for some clanmate.

Don't miss getting auto-switched to the other team because the losing team all quit and therefore I get credited with a loss even though I was on the winning side the entire round.

I don't miss joining a server with several friends only to have some of them getting assigned to a different team and you can't switch because the server's full.

And I don't miss the admins which abuse their power and kick people because they happen to be having a really good round (must be a hacker!).

And many, many more reasons. Dedicated servers aren't all bad, and some games implement them quite nicely... a recent example is Brink. It's all in the implementation I guess, and whether you're looking for a heavily modded experience or just the core gameplay the game shipped with. I guess at this point I'm definitely the latter.

And once you find the 2-3 servers with the right mods, admins, and gametypes that you'll frequent for the rest of the time that you'll play the game, everything on that list is moot.

 

[Sureshot324]

And once you find the 2-3 servers with the right mods, admins, and gametypes that you'll frequent for the rest of the time that you'll play the game, everything on that list is moot.

Not to mention half that list doesn't even apply to COD.

 

[NoSoup4You]

Guys, there's plenty of issues with the CoD server browser as well. 5 of the top 7 results being 24/7 Nuketown. All the servers are 9 vs 9, which means the maps are jam packed with players while console is 6 vs 6 except in Ground War.

I don't play enough to find "the community aspect" of dedicated servers all that helpful. Steam says I have 18 hours in CoD Blops, and while that's not an insignificant amount of time, I'm sure there are some people that are over 1000 hours in the game. I'm usually too busy concentrating in an online competitive FPS that I don't notice the other players names anyway.

Don't get me wrong, I'm really just arguing that dedicated servers are over-rated, it's not like I think they should be removed from all games. The one point someone in this thread made which I totally agree with though is - when a game starts to lose players and fade away, matchmaking becomes a massive hinderance. So much so that it can ruin the game. Dedicated servers in that situation can, and do, make all the difference. Brink is a great example of this - while it's still a new game there just isn't the same level of interest in it that other games get. But the dedicated servers mean it doesn't matter one bit - just find one server with enough players and it no longer matters how popular the game is... you'll have just as much fun regardless.

 

[vrait]

From what I gather the general (and ignorant) consensus in this PC gaming forum is that if that if the game developer has had any connection to consoles ever, then the game is a filthy, bug ridden console port and should never be purchased by anybody ever regardless of if you may actually find it fun or not.

The games are console ports. It's been PROVEN. PC is a second class system to them. They couldn't care less.