Modern Warfare 2

[Brad]

Perks? Or Killstreaks?

Both actually but mainly killstreaks. If I go into a random free-for-all I can guarantee the whole game will last 2 minutes when someone drops a nuclear bomb on the map. How is that fun? Also how is it fun that when I get shot I die but when someone who has played more online matches than me gets to drop a grenade when they die? That sort of thing doesn't make me think "Oooh, I can't wait to get that perk", I just think "Well, that's totally unfair".

Hope BF3 doesn't fall into this trap. If I get killed by a helicopter in BF I know it's because there's a player out there flying a helicopter who saw me and managed to shoot me. Not a bit of code:

if(player->location == outside)
{
player->status = dead;
}

[dvdx2]

never understood why you dont start off with the perks and then lose them the better you get.....

would certainly balance things out a bit

or rather than give up more 'power ups' to make you even more invincible, give you score boosters or medals which show the world how good you are.

[Brad]

Yeah, I realise they wanted RPG elements in there but in online RPGs like WoW it's you vs the environment, or in PVP you would go up against someone of similar level. IN this though it's Level 7 me with a choice of a red dot scope OR a silencer and able to run longer OR do more damage against level 60 bloke with acog scope, silencer, RPG launcher attachment, 8 grenades, the ability to not be seen on radar, a heart beat monitor etc. (please, I know some of those perks are mutually exclusive) AND more experience playing the game. That just = frustration. Getting the 'person who killed most people of a higher level' award at the end is no compensation for a k/d ratio of 5/20 either.

Still, I'll be playing it tonight if anyone want to join me ;-) My steam ID is FullSpecWarrior.

[charlesr]

You can play without killstreaks in some lobbies. Well worth it.

[Brad]

I'll look out for those then. Cheers.

[charlesr]

http://callofduty.wikia.com/wiki/Obj..._Barebones_Pro << That's the one and the other barebones one.

[Finsbury Girl]

Just finished the single player on Hard. Not bad, but those respawning enenmies, forcing you to move to a certain place (often sprinting past enemies) is effing annoying and extremely bad game design. General shooty bits were fun,liked the different guns, story was just wack - really, really ****.

I liked it, but really as with COD4, I cannot see what the fuss is about. Slightly above average. Will give Spec Ops a nudge - a pity you cannot play with randoms online.

For me Medal of Honor (sic) is far superior, the single player campaign was tighter and I enjoyed it a lot more.

[rmoxon]

Medal of honor was just a poor copy of the modern warfare games, it wasn't even as good as Bad Company 2, never mind this series.

It was about 2 hours long as well which didn't help, at least modern warfare 2 took about 3 hours to complete!

[Neon Ignition]

I though MOH sucked

[Brad]

Been playing this multiplayer to get used to WASD + Mouse after years of being away. Got to the point where I can average a 1:1 k/d ratio last night which I'm pretty happy with considering I'm an old git. Can't seem to find any barebones games to get into so I just go and hide when the crap goes down until it passes over. Got cocky last night and decide to knife a guy in the back and hit the reload button by mistake. A circle strafe standoff ensued and I scraped the kill but I was kicking myself for being a n00b! I thought the Single player was ok on this. Played again recently and it was over all-too-quick though.

[EDDIE M0NS00N]

Elpres is lovin this at the mo :

[Finsbury Girl]

Medal of honor was just a poor copy of the modern warfare games, it wasn't even as good as Bad Company 2, never mind this series.

It was about 2 hours long as well which didn't help, at least modern warfare 2 took about 3 hours to complete!

Nope they took the good bits, got rid of the **** bits. Single player for me in MOH was a lot tighter, story was more realistic, AI squadmates were better and for me I enjoyed it a lot more - especially the Tier 1 more as it is a real challenge.

I'm not even going to play multi on this, after all the reports about cheating etc.

To each their own. As I say, I can't see the reason for the big boners for MW2. I'll pick up MW3 in about a year when it's cheap.

[rmoxon]

Nope they took the good bits, got rid of the **** bits. Single player for me in MOH was a lot tighter, story was more realistic, AI squadmates were better and for me I enjoyed it a lot more - especially the Tier 1 more as it is a real challenge.

I'm not even going to play multi on this, after all the reports about cheating etc.

To each their own. As I say, I can't see the reason for the big boners for MW2. I'll pick up MW3 in about a year when it's cheap.

If by taking the goods bits you actually mean poorly copying the entire game then yes you are right. Medal of honor was actually a pretty poorly made game, it was full of bugs had zero innovation. The reason the first modern warfare is so highly regarded is because not only did it have innovative multiplayer but it also featured an original single player experience that was full of spectacular moments.

In comparison to that Medal of Honor was incredibly by the numbers, none of the levels were very memorable and it pales in comparison to all the exciting moments in the MW games, the first MW in particular has some of the most inventive and exciting moments in a FPS ever made. The sniper level is a section of unrivalled atmosphere for instance. It also helps that it has some of the best core gameplay around too. Where as medal of honor had relatively boring gameplay that never felt that exciting to play.

[Finsbury Girl]

If by taking the goods bits you actually mean poorly copying the entire game then yes you are right. Medal of honor was actually a pretty poorly made game, it was full of bugs had zero innovation. The reason the first modern warfare is so highly regarded is because not only did it have innovative multiplayer but it also featured an original single player experience that was full of spectacular moments.In comparison to that Medal of Honor was incredibly by the numbers, none of the levels were very memorable and it pales in comparison to all the exciting moments in the MW games, the first MW in particular has some of the most inventive and exciting moments in a FPS ever made. The sniper level is a section of unrivalled atmosphere for instance. It also helps that it has some of the best core gameplay around too. Where as medal of honor had relatively boring gameplay that never felt that exciting to play.

I'm wondering where that game was in the one I've been playing the last few days. As I said to each their own. This has some of the worst game design I've ever come across, from unbelievable checkpoints that spawn you in the line of fire, respawing enemies when you don't go where the game demands and dumb squad AI.

[rmoxon]

The enemies only respawn until you have killed a set amount despite what people will tell you.

I'm not sure what you are on about with the checkpoints at all, they are slightly random I remember so maybe you just had bad luck, I was nnever placed in the line of fire.

Infact even on veteran I found MW2 to be slightly too easy, that was my only real problem with it.