I don't know if anybody has mentioned this but something that is really pissing me off is teammates who cannot get a kill streak of their own so they sit around waiting for your kill streak perk to be dropped and take it. A$$holes!
Lol I've been gaming for about 16 years now. Been playing online or some form of multiplayer since the days of Quake. Computer Science was some damn fun back in high school! In any case, to each his own... but imho, the Halo online multiplayer system is second to none... the lobby makes it easy to find a game and to find players matched to your skill. When I jumped into MW for the first time, and Gears as well, I felt completely and utterly overmatched by players who had spent every waking moment learning the nuances of every map since the very second the games had become available. I've said this plenty of times to different people, and I've heard all the explanations but I still don't buy it, but the biggest mistake in Halo 3 was giving you the assault rifle as the starting weapon...that's the biggest pos weapon in the whole game, aside from the Needler in Halo 1. The second biggest mistake was creating the whole duel battle for the Covenant sword.
Don't like ignoring questions directed at me, so just ignore this post if you just want to read about MW2, and not some meaningless discussion. I'll spoiler tag it to help. Spoiler Possibly. I got PoP, DMC, NBA 2K, Assassin's Creed, etc., on PC, and I don't even use a M&KB for those games (unlike games like Fallout, BioShock, etc.). As long as it is cheaper, is released simultaneously, and performs better, I'd probably always lean towards the PC version. Mods would tip the favor definitely, although I wouldn't expect Square-Enix to support that (but the community might still be able to make some nice tweaks). Depends on the circumstances. If it was just a bad port due to a small and/or inexperienced team, probably not. Doesn't hurt that SE doesn't have any history of putting out PC games, let alone good PC games (Infinity Ward has had a pretty loyal PC fanbase long before they were successful on consoles AFAIK). If they put FF13 on PC, and it was $50, and supported mods among other things...and then released Versus 13 on PC, priced it at $60, and took out mods (and other similar features) just so they could do better at selling their own DLC...then I might protest it. Of course, this is absolutely horrible example given that FF is nothing like COD (maybe FF MMOs are, but I couldn't care less about those games for the most part). And as I'll mention more later in the post, I don't think this has anything to do with the PC version having fewer options/features compared to the console version...so why ask about what I'd do if the PS3 version was better? No doubt that they prioritized the console versions. And there's nothing wrong with that...at least IMO (some might have issues with that). But this clearly isn't what's going on. MW2 wasn't delayed for PC, and most of the complaints haven't been about it being a bad port AFAIK. That's generally the problem you see in other situations. In fact, MW2 for PC probably isn't even inferior to the console versions (no idea?). The complaints tend to be about the PC version being "dumbed down" like the console versions. And some of the changes they've made were done simply to allow for greater control of the PC market, allowing them to sell DLC much easier among other things (don't want to have any awesome free mods out there when we're selling some of our own content). That has nothing to do with prioritizing the console versions, and everything to do with greed. And on the topic of greed, there's the $10 increase (my biggest complaint). Again, that has nothing to do with deadlines or anything along those lines. Then again, clearly Infinity Ward works harder than every other developer out there, so they definitely deserve $10 above the normal MSRP.
First time playing MW series...I can say this...its a blast...you cant just run around and shoot shoot...thats always what made alot of games suck...least here you have to be smart and find a great place to pick people off
Anyone playing this game on veteran? Damn, Im not good enough to beat this game on that level...Im freaking stuck at a certain check point and I really dont see any way of beating it. Freaking brutal. Spent maybe an hour and a half trying to move past it, but I havent even come close. Its near the end of the level too (The only easy day...was yesterday), which makes it that much more difficult to do it on normal mode.
Since I am posting in this thread, I guess I might as well stay somewhat relevant and (sort of) positive... For the few of you that actually play the single-player campaign, I appreciate the comments (and any more you have). I'm mostly curious to see how it compares to the first game. I think I read that it was more of the same, which is either a good thing or a bad thing. It is probably a bad thing for me since I wasn't the biggest fan of the SP campaign in MW1. Not that the gameplay was bad per se, but the fact that I was done in one evening (this really killed the game for me), and that there wasn't really anything to take away from the game IMO (innovative gameplay, interesting narrative, etc.) meant that it didn't really make much of an impact on me. In another ~6 months or so, when it is clear that the boycott did nothing, I might consider giving the game a shot if there is enough positive impressions from the SP (of course, I'd rent it or buy it used). Especially if it compares well with other SP games I enjoy or might enjoy (Uncharted, HL, Resistance, KZ, Halo, etc.).
Yeah, not quite sure this would be a game that you would thoroughly enjoy. Not much of a story to it and the strength is really more online than campaign. Having said that, the SP is awesome and entertaining, but as you stated, not very long. Of course, the way Im going about it on Veteran, it will take me a long, long time. Graphics are stunningly beautiful as well. Havent had a chance to check out the special ops part of the game, but I think that has quite a bit of potential too.
That's what I figured. I generally like to play everything that gets enough praise (actually why I played MW1, along with several others), but I just don't see myself thinking all that highly about it when I'm done. I actually think there were some good things in MW1, but it just didn't work out in that game for me. If IW could put out a slightly different type of game (stronger narrative, 10+ hrs, etc.), I think I would actually really enjoy the game (could maybe even be one of my favorite FPS games). I think they're a talented studio, and I definitely would be quick to check out a non-MW game by them (or a future MW game if they change things a bit). IIRC, they are making another game, so maybe that will be my opportunity. Hmm...maybe when FF13 comes out, I can buy MW2 and tinman can buy FF13.
What difficulty do you play on? Because there is no way you beat the expert campaign in a single evening
Normal I think? Or the corresponding name that goes with that in MW. I just did the little course at the beginning and stuck with what difficulty it recommended. I screwed up on some part, so I think it gave me a lower difficulty than I probably should have played it at. My playtime didn't seem to differ much from what I read online, so I don't think it had much to do with how I played it. Granted, I'm sure if I played it on the hardest difficulty level, it would have been longer. But that wouldn't have changed my mind on the game.
