SHould I get COD:MW2???

Page 6 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

Scouzer

Lifer
Jun 3, 2001
10,358
5
0
So really, what's the verdict on matchmaking? It seems most people who actually own the game say it works well enough... maybe I'll buy this after all.
 

AznAnarchy99

Lifer
Dec 6, 2004
14,695
117
106
So really, what's the verdict on matchmaking? It seems most people who actually own the game say it works well enough... maybe I'll buy this after all.

Matchmaking is ok. Not too bad. Cheaters and VAC banning them? Negative. Horrible.
 

VashHT

Diamond Member
Feb 1, 2007
3,352
1,433
136
So really, what's the verdict on matchmaking? It seems most people who actually own the game say it works well enough... maybe I'll buy this after all.

Matchmaking works "good enough" most of the time, but it's awful when you're playing with friends.

I was playing with a group of 4-5 people all weekend and the matchmaking would commonly kick a couple people out when the match started. Then all of us would have to quit, reform our group, then find another game. And when I say it commonly happened I don't mean once or twice the whole weekend, I mean like 1 out of every 3 or 4 games we played it happened, sometimes with us getting unlucky enough to happen to us more than one time in a row.

Also, The host migration seems to fail a lot, I have had a lot of games disconnect while it is trying to find a new host. And you know how IW said it only takes 5 seconds? Well that was pretty much a lie, it waits 5 seconds after it finds a new host and everyone connects to the new host, so its more like 30 seconds or so.

The game itself is awesome though, but the matchmaking sucks pretty hardcore, really sucks we have to put up with it to play this game.
 

ViviTheMage

Lifer
Dec 12, 2002
36,189
87
91
madgenius.com
1 in 5 games is unbearably laggy, host side for me. They should use MULTIPLE connections to host the game, not just one persons.

Either way, when it's working, I love it.
 

Regs

Lifer
Aug 9, 2002
16,666
21
81
Vash brought up some good points I experienced as well with matchmaking. It takes a little more patience than what should be required, but it's not game breaking in anyway.

Run and gunning is dead and the developers made that very obvious. Assault rifles are the new P90's and MP5's. The maps have too many camping locations, hiding places, avenues and back way paths to effectively run and gun. The animations and controls for run and gunning have also been gimped to make this less possible. They stress duck and cover and firing from a distance. If you do not camp, or at least rotate positions where you camp, you will find yourself dying in the hundreds of different variations of death the game now offers: car explosion, grenade, bullets, knife, projectile knife, falling, missile, air plane, jet, helicopter, nuke, noob tube, mine, claymore, sniped, thermal, heart beat sensered, javelined, rpg'ed, carpet bombed, bullet sprayed, C4, mini gun turrets,UAV, preditor missle.....

Is the multiplayer a complete wash? No. Though it still does not make sense why they eliminated dedicated servers . The people who prefer matchmaking and p2p over dedicated servers are more than likely to also enjoy sitting on a airplane in coach for 6 hours. Your essentially paying more for the same service, with much less the comfort.
 
Last edited:

Zargon

Lifer
Nov 3, 2009
12,218
2
76
Is the multiplayer a complete wash? No. Though it still does not make sense why they eliminated dedicated servers . The people who prefer matchmaking and p2p over dedicated servers are more than likely to also enjoy sitting on a airplane in coach for 6 hours.
hahahahahahahaahahahah
 

fffblackmage

Platinum Member
Dec 28, 2007
2,548
0
76
With all these problems with the matchmaking system, I can't see IW doing very well with MW2.... If they got rid of dedicated servers, the least they could have done was make matchmaking perfect. Oh well.
 

Regs

Lifer
Aug 9, 2002
16,666
21
81
Oh and there is lag. Watching kill cams for hours-on-end last night proved how even with all green bars means jack shit when it comes to host response and hit detection. To prove this I aimed 1 inch away from a character in flight, and some how shot him dead before he got to the corner for cover. 1 inch! That means the animations and images on my end said "hey, you missed this guy by an inch!" but then the host said "screw that bull shit, that guy is dead".

I can get use to it, maybe even forgive, but then again why was dedicated servers eliminated again? It's just so frustrating trying to figure out why they took a good system that worked and decided to chose this crap over it (and spent millions of dollars doing it).
 
Last edited:

CountZero

Golden Member
Jul 10, 2001
1,796
36
86
With all these problems with the matchmaking system, I can't see IW doing very well with MW2.... If they got rid of dedicated servers, the least they could have done was make matchmaking perfect. Oh well.

If the first days sales are any indication IW has already done very well with MW2. If PC gamers choose to ignore it or the popularity drops quickly then that's just an excuse to drop PC development all together next iteration.
 

Regs

Lifer
Aug 9, 2002
16,666
21
81
If the first days sales are any indication IW has already done very well with MW2. If PC gamers choose to ignore it or the popularity drops quickly then that's just an excuse to drop PC development all together next iteration.


This statement makes no sense. If there is a market where there are little barriers of entry and there is sustainable revenue (growth) then competitors will enter. It's just economics. Activision and IW have been in operation for over years and they have many mouths to feed and many places were they want to expand to feed more mouths or have a bigger helping for themselves. If there is a area in which they can extract profit, they simply won't ignore it. If all businesses shared this mentality, the would not survive for very long or not exist at all.
 

Fallengod

Diamond Member
Jul 2, 2001
5,908
19
81
As been discussed a billion times already...

Its obvious they did not really care about doing a "PC" version. They didnt want to invest anymore time or effort. The PC version is the just the console version, but you get to play it on your PC with keyboard and mouse.....

They figured most of their profit comes from consoles, so opted to focus on that only.

Matchmaking is bad in so many ways, its a shame this is the regular shit the console people always deal with.

I hope this is not a glimpse into the future of PC FPS gaming.......
 
Last edited:

VashHT

Diamond Member
Feb 1, 2007
3,352
1,433
136
If the first days sales are any indication IW has already done very well with MW2. If PC gamers choose to ignore it or the popularity drops quickly then that's just an excuse to drop PC development all together next iteration.

There were some interviews a while back with some publisher/dev talking about how long term sales don't really matter anymore, most of the sales occur within 2 weeks of release in this age of gaming.

Also, saying they actually develop anything for the PC is a joke, they develop for the console then port it to the PC with no changes for some extra cash. Personally I think they put in IWnet solely because they did not want to change anything from the console version, because all the reasons they say they went to IWnet are a bunch of BS in the first place.
 

CountZero

Golden Member
Jul 10, 2001
1,796
36
86
This statement makes no sense. If there is a market where there are little barriers of entry and there is sustainable revenue (growth) then competitors will enter. It's just economics. Activision and IW have been in operation for over years and they have many mouths to feed and many places were they want to expand to feed more mouths or have a bigger helping for themselves. If there is a area in which they can extract profit, they simply won't ignore it. If all businesses shared this mentality, the would not survive for very long or not exist at all.

If the cost to develop for the PC > the profit gained from selling on the PC they definitely won't do it again.

If the profit per development hour for the console >> profit per development hour for the PC they might not do it again.

It isn't just making some profit its how much profit they make for the effort. Large companies ignore markets with low returns all the time. I didn't say competition wouldn't move in, I didn't say PC gaming was dead. What I said was that if PC sales don't meet some critical mass they might not bother with the PC going forward because the time spent porting to the PC could be spent on something more profitable. They have a limited number of developers and they will use them for whatever maximizes profit.
 

Fallengod

Diamond Member
Jul 2, 2001
5,908
19
81
Yeah, its sometimes difficult to look at the business side of things like this for the consumer. Some people forget, they are in this for the money, they arnt here to better the world or improve the gaming community. Its all about the almighty dollar.


With that said, its still sad to see a company like IW go to the extreme on this concept with MW2.
 
Last edited:

VashHT

Diamond Member
Feb 1, 2007
3,352
1,433
136
Yeah, its sometimes difficult to look at the business side of things like this for the consumer. Some people forget, they are in this for the money, they arnt here to better the world or improve the gaming community. Its all about the almighty dollar.


With that said, its still sad to see a company like IW go to the extreme on this concept with MW2.

That's one way of looking at it, but I doubt the dev was sitting there thinking, "What can we add to this game so it makes more money?" That would be the publishers that are purely about the money, the dev is still in it to make a fun game for their fanbase. People tend to forget that as well, not many businesses are purely about the money, especially a business with creative design like video games.
 

CountZero

Golden Member
Jul 10, 2001
1,796
36
86
That's one way of looking at it, but I doubt the dev was sitting there thinking, "What can we add to this game so it makes more money?" That would be the publishers that are purely about the money, the dev is still in it to make a fun game for their fanbase. People tend to forget that as well, not many businesses are purely about the money, especially a business with creative design like video games.

That is true, it just depends on how much pull IW has with Activision.
 

Fallengod

Diamond Member
Jul 2, 2001
5,908
19
81
That could be arguable.

You dont think they think about what can be added to make it "better" IE more popular = more money? I suppose maybe a glimpse of that, but you dont think they are making all these COD's to make money?

Look at IW's ideas are for online expansion stuff for PC version.... They are looking into charging people money for maps, models, guns, content..... Yes, they clearly are doing gods work for the gaming community. :)

Can you imagine what would happen if for TF2, valve started charging for their "patches" of maps, hats, guns, etc? This is what IW is going to be doing.

Im just saying as an example. :p
 
Last edited:

ryan256

Platinum Member
Jul 22, 2005
2,514
0
71
I was on the fence as to whether or not to buy this game. I enjoyed CoD4 but all I played was the single player missions. I doubt I will buy CoD6 now.
 

Sniper82

Lifer
Feb 6, 2000
16,517
0
76
Played several online matches since I got it and have no complaints. Haven't noticed any lag. $33 well spent to me. Wouldn't have gave full price though.
 

MrMatt

Banned
Mar 3, 2009
3,905
7
0
wow it's getting trashed on newegg. At least the Multiplayer. No dedicated servers? Wtf are you people thinking?
 

duragezic

Lifer
Oct 11, 1999
11,234
4
81
wow it's getting trashed on newegg. At least the Multiplayer. No dedicated servers? Wtf are you people thinking?
Yes, like Amazon, Best Buy, Gamespot, and many other sites, it is getting thrashed by idiots who haven't even played the game. These people are obsessed with going to all kinds of forums and review sites spewing the same shit over and over, most of which is bullshit.

I can understand some discrepancy between console and PC version scores. I think Gamespot's was good: 9.5 for 360/PS3, 8.5 for PC.

It's certainly not a perfect game; having no dedicated servers being its biggest problem IMO, but overall still a great game.
 

shurato

Platinum Member
Sep 24, 2000
2,398
0
76
It's not a bad game. A console port for sure but being able to use the mouse and keyboard is crucial. Online matchmaking is quick and works pretty decent. I have a pretty fast and stable connection overall however.

Single player is pretty good but theres just too much going on and not much break in between to catch your breath.

I've been playing FPS' since Wolf3D and competitively back in the Quake 2 days. Its just the same ol same ol for me, just seems alot like the first MW to in a different setting.

I recommend it but its not a sure fire purchase for it's steep price of $60. The lack of dedicated servers was definitly a huge bummer but not a deal killer for me since I'm more of a casual gamer now and certainly not hardcore anymore.

My reflexes aren't what it used to be since the good ol Q2 CTF days.
 

MrMatt

Banned
Mar 3, 2009
3,905
7
0
so there's no clans or playing with your friends anymore thanks to the no dedicated server thing? Yeah I'll pass.