<div class="IPBDescription">Matchmaking uuuughhh.</div>I recently got Modern Warfare 2, any of you buy it aswell? Hit me up on steam for some multiplayer pub-smashing of sorts, or some of that co-op fun.
<!--quoteo(post=1740959:date=Nov 27 2009, 12:28 PM:name=esuna)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(esuna @ Nov 27 2009, 12:28 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1740959"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->i did not buy this game as it apparently only takes 4 hours to beat, and gamestation and game both sell it for £40
i'm not paying £10 an hour for a game i'll likely never replay terrible game iw are rip-off merchant$<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
equating a game's length to its relative quality, eh? heaven forbid you read actual <a href="http://www.metacritic.com/games/platforms/xbox360/modernwarfare2" target="_blank">concise reviews</a> rather than listen to hearsay. just for reference, it's the 5th and 7th highest rated game for the ps3 and 360 respectively if it's your preference to skip a majority of a game's features and modes and only run through its single player once, that's understandable. though, that's as ridiculous as someone saying since you can beat almost every fighting game's story in under 30 minutes, you're paying 2$ a minute.
also, given their <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Infinity_Ward#Games" target="_blank">track record</a>, im curious to know the sheer amount of developers you'd consider 'rip-off merchant$'.
What I seem to read out of the reviews is that it's a "stay for the multiplayer" game. I enjoyed CoD4's singleplayer, but found the multiplayer to be bland and lackluster. By my reckoning I just about broke even on CoD4, a game I have gotten maybe ten hours of entertainment out of in total. Compare that to the hundreds of hours I've poured into TF2, L4D or (I can hear them already) WoW and CoD's cost-effectiveness really begins to suffer. I might have considered MW2 if I had the slightest interest in the multiplayer, but I didn't. All in all, I can fully understand if people say this game isn't worth the price if they don't care about the multiplayer. Or maybe just don't like getting strawberry jam in their eyes all the time. Seriously, what the hell is up with that?
<!--quoteo(post=1741418:date=Nov 29 2009, 09:24 AM:name=Panigg)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Panigg @ Nov 29 2009, 09:24 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1741418"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->It really is simple with MW2:
Don't like the Multiplayer: Don't buy it. Like the Multiplayer: Buy it.
Really it's rather simple. I for one enjoy the MP.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->The other part is that if you were only bothered about the single-player, it's worth knowing the SP in MW2 is not as good as MW1.
<!--quoteo(post=1741365:date=Nov 29 2009, 12:11 AM:name=JediYoshi)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(JediYoshi @ Nov 29 2009, 12:11 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1741365"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->equating a game's length to its relative quality, eh? heaven forbid you read actual <a href="http://www.metacritic.com/games/platforms/xbox360/modernwarfare2" target="_blank">concise reviews</a> rather than listen to hearsay. just for reference, it's the 5th and 7th highest rated game for the ps3 and 360 respectively if it's your preference to skip a majority of a game's features and modes and only run through its single player once, that's understandable. though, that's as ridiculous as someone saying since you can beat almost every fighting game's story in under 30 minutes, you're paying 2$ a minute.
also, given their <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Infinity_Ward#Games" target="_blank">track record</a>, im curious to know the sheer amount of developers you'd consider 'rip-off merchant$'.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
COD4 was a great single player game, but it lacks any replayability, MW2 is, apparently, more of the same, which is in no way a bad thing. But the single player campaign is embarassingly short for a big name series that's always provided good, fair length single player campaigns.
At 4 hours long, it deserves a price tag closer to other episodic games, say £20, the only reason for the £40 price point is to milk people for all they're worth.
And i don't play multiplayer, i've had no internet connection at home for about 6 months now, and to play with the godawful fps multiplayer community they should be paying me for the experience.
Excuse me for wanting a single player experience akin to the rest of the games in the series by the same developer, it seems to be too much to ask when they can just fleece people. Less single player, more price, i think i'll pass, thanks.
<!--quoteo(post=1741365:date=Nov 29 2009, 12:11 AM:name=JediYoshi)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(JediYoshi @ Nov 29 2009, 12:11 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1741365"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->equating a game's length to its relative quality, eh? heaven forbid you read actual <a href="http://www.metacritic.com/games/platforms/xbox360/modernwarfare2" target="_blank">concise reviews</a> rather than listen to hearsay. just for reference, it's the 5th and 7th highest rated game for the ps3 and 360 respectively.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> Credibility = gone.
How can anyone take ANY reviews seriously anymore, least of all for CONSOLES.
Do you realize how many times even 'professional reviews' have called a game the 'best ever'? IGNs review for MW2 sounds like a massive three-page ad. Any reviewer who uses the word 'epic' more than once deserves to be dragged in the street and shot.
Why is it that movie critics know it's their job to rip apart even supposedly good movies, but game reviewers simply drool over anything with enough hype and popular appeal surrounding it? Why is it seemingly impossible on the review side to make a 'bad' game these days? Even Halo: ODST got glowing reviews.
<!--quoteo(post=1741365:date=Nov 29 2009, 02:11 AM:name=JediYoshi)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(JediYoshi @ Nov 29 2009, 02:11 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1741365"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->equating a game's length to its relative quality, eh? heaven forbid you read actual <a href="http://www.metacritic.com/games/platforms/xbox360/modernwarfare2" target="_blank">concise reviews</a> rather than listen to hearsay. just for reference, it's the 5th and 7th highest rated game for the ps3 and 360 respectively<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Metacritic is a joke, just look how many reviews rated it 100/100. No game is perfect, that cumulative score only shows that the majority of reviewing sites falls for even the slightest hype. Even well known websites fail over and over. Take IGN, they gave Spore a graphics rating of 8.5/10 (UK) and 9.5/10 (US). Spore! What the hell?
Turns out game the popular game reviewers are completely full of crap and only play about 10 hours.
Proven by FarCry2 where it got near perfects for its single-player awesomeness, but anyone who actually played through it realized how stupidly repetitive it got.
I typically use the user reviews after about 30-50 reviews to give a quasi feel and then bug people I trust for their opinions. If I doubt its worth, I simply don't buy it.
That being said, I splurged on Borderlands and Dragon Age based on reviews from several of my friends. Haven't played them yet though.
It's funny that user reviews are usually more accurate. I guess it's because for every ######bag giving it a 10 because they also think Transformers 2 is the best movie ever made, there's just as many ######bags giving it 1s because they don't like the box. Leaving all the sane reviews in the middle :p
<!--quoteo(post=1741679:date=Nov 30 2009, 04:41 AM:name=Temphage)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Temphage @ Nov 30 2009, 04:41 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1741679"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->It's funny that user reviews are usually more accurate. I guess it's because for every ######bag giving it a 10 because they also think Transformers 2 is the best movie ever made, there's just as many ######bags giving it 1s because they don't like the box. Leaving all the sane reviews in the middle :p<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Key word usually.
For Modern Warfare 2, the PC version, a whole bunch of whiners gave it 1 and 2 for the no dedicated server thing. While I admit it was kinda shafting the PC gamer a bit, I don't think that merits dropping it to a 1.
Comments
For me, 1/3 games are fine, but 2/3 are horribly bad. I stopped playing it pretty early on, wasted my money! >_<
i'm not paying £10 an hour for a game i'll likely never replay
terrible game iw are rip-off merchant$
Kinda related.
i'm not paying £10 an hour for a game i'll likely never replay
terrible game iw are rip-off merchant$<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
equating a game's length to its relative quality, eh? heaven forbid you read actual <a href="http://www.metacritic.com/games/platforms/xbox360/modernwarfare2" target="_blank">concise reviews</a> rather than listen to hearsay. just for reference, it's the 5th and 7th highest rated game for the ps3 and 360 respectively
if it's your preference to skip a majority of a game's features and modes and only run through its single player once, that's understandable. though, that's as ridiculous as someone saying since you can beat almost every fighting game's story in under 30 minutes, you're paying 2$ a minute.
also, given their <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Infinity_Ward#Games" target="_blank">track record</a>, im curious to know the sheer amount of developers you'd consider 'rip-off merchant$'.
I might have considered MW2 if I had the slightest interest in the multiplayer, but I didn't. All in all, I can fully understand if people say this game isn't worth the price if they don't care about the multiplayer. Or maybe just don't like getting strawberry jam in their eyes all the time. Seriously, what the hell is up with that?
Don't like the Multiplayer: Don't buy it.
Like the Multiplayer: Buy it.
Really it's rather simple. I for one enjoy the MP.
Don't like the Multiplayer: Don't buy it.
Like the Multiplayer: Buy it.
Really it's rather simple. I for one enjoy the MP.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->The other part is that if you were only bothered about the single-player, it's worth knowing the SP in MW2 is not as good as MW1.
C4
Claymores
RPGs
Thumpers
On veteran, is a paaaaain.
if it's your preference to skip a majority of a game's features and modes and only run through its single player once, that's understandable. though, that's as ridiculous as someone saying since you can beat almost every fighting game's story in under 30 minutes, you're paying 2$ a minute.
also, given their <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Infinity_Ward#Games" target="_blank">track record</a>, im curious to know the sheer amount of developers you'd consider 'rip-off merchant$'.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
COD4 was a great single player game, but it lacks any replayability, MW2 is, apparently, more of the same, which is in no way a bad thing. But the single player campaign is embarassingly short for a big name series that's always provided good, fair length single player campaigns.
At 4 hours long, it deserves a price tag closer to other episodic games, say £20, the only reason for the £40 price point is to milk people for all they're worth.
And i don't play multiplayer, i've had no internet connection at home for about 6 months now, and to play with the godawful fps multiplayer community they should be paying me for the experience.
Excuse me for wanting a single player experience akin to the rest of the games in the series by the same developer, it seems to be too much to ask when they can just fleece people. Less single player, more price, i think i'll pass, thanks.
Credibility = gone.
How can anyone take ANY reviews seriously anymore, least of all for CONSOLES.
Do you realize how many times even 'professional reviews' have called a game the 'best ever'? IGNs review for MW2 sounds like a massive three-page ad. Any reviewer who uses the word 'epic' more than once deserves to be dragged in the street and shot.
Why is it that movie critics know it's their job to rip apart even supposedly good movies, but game reviewers simply drool over anything with enough hype and popular appeal surrounding it? Why is it seemingly impossible on the review side to make a 'bad' game these days? Even Halo: ODST got glowing reviews.
Metacritic is a joke, just look how many reviews rated it 100/100.
No game is perfect, that cumulative score only shows that the majority of reviewing sites falls for even the slightest hype.
Even well known websites fail over and over. Take IGN, they gave Spore a graphics rating of 8.5/10 (UK) and 9.5/10 (US). Spore! What the hell?
Proven by FarCry2 where it got near perfects for its single-player awesomeness, but anyone who actually played through it realized how stupidly repetitive it got.
I typically use the user reviews after about 30-50 reviews to give a quasi feel and then bug people I trust for their opinions. If I doubt its worth, I simply don't buy it.
That being said, I splurged on Borderlands and Dragon Age based on reviews from several of my friends. Haven't played them yet though.
Key word usually.
For Modern Warfare 2, the PC version, a whole bunch of whiners gave it 1 and 2 for the no dedicated server thing. While I admit it was kinda shafting the PC gamer a bit, I don't think that merits dropping it to a 1.
truth