Page 2 of 18 FirstFirst 1 2 3 4 12 ... LastLast
Results 16 to 30 of 270
  1. #16
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Akron, OH
    Posts
    9,065
    Ehh I'm sick of CoD games, Black Flops doesn't look like anything special. Guess I'll just get wait for Crysis 2 and Killzone 3.

  2. #17
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    Virginia
    Posts
    756
    Quote Originally Posted by Den615 View Post
    I'm getting sick of these rapid release sequels. Three COD games in 3 years? Two Left 4 Deads in a year and a half...two Halo's (not upset though cuz Reach looks sick!).

    I'm sure it will be awesome, but I think they need to spread out the release dates a little more and work on the game.
    They're actually two different developers that interchange every other year. So, each developer is working on a new CoD for about two years before it's released.

  3. #18
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Location
    Kansas
    Posts
    37
    I can't wait for this game. I love the fast pace action of COD and now that they have replay, this game is a must have.
    [SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]

  4. #19
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Lusby, Maryland
    Posts
    4,349
    this will pale in comparison to modern warfare 3......

  5. #20
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Posts
    831
    Quote Originally Posted by MNBroncs85 View Post
    Its one of the best games of all time imo!!!
    Not a fan of the world at war type, The infinity ward series are ten times better I wish infinity ward and treyarch would just team up or treyarch to quit making cod.
    Ummm MW2 is considered one of the worst COD games ever

  6. #21
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    PA
    Posts
    1,995
    Quote Originally Posted by TheQBGuru View Post
    Ummm MW2 is considered one of the worst COD games ever
    Can i have what your smoking?

  7. #22
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Akron, OH
    Posts
    9,065
    Wow do people seriously believe MW2 was a good game?

  8. #23
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    Glasgow, Scotland.
    Posts
    3,794
    CoD:WaW was one of the worst games (period) I have ever played. Won't be picking up this game.

  9. #24
    Join Date
    Sep 2003
    Location
    Boise, ID
    Posts
    9,264
    Quote Originally Posted by TheQBGuru View Post
    Ummm MW2 is considered one of the worst COD games ever
    looks like your video game analyzing skills are as good as your QB analyzing skills.

    Quote Originally Posted by Amari24 View Post
    Wow do people seriously believe MW2 was a good game?
    how is this a serious question? it wouldn't have been a best seller if people didn't think that.

    if your beef is that the campaign was too short...then you have to have an issue with just about every game that has come out in the passed 5+ years. we're beyond the days of 60+ levels and no graphics. it's the opposite now.

    also most developers realize online is where everyone wants to be at so they focus more on that...hence the short campaign (which really isn't short if you combine the two games since they continue the same story from the first).

    did you play on xbox? graphics are worse on that anyway. maybe that's why.

    but i don't see why you are asking this question... unless you've been out of contact with the modern world for over a year.

    if it isn't your style or genre of video game fine... but it is by no means a terrible game.

    also if you're gonna go the "it's just a carbon copy" route then that's a weak approach. most games are carbons of some other game or even themselves (i.e. everything EA makes).


    DISCLAIMER: MY REVIEWS OFTEN CONTAIN SPOILERS. READ AT YOUR OWN RISK.

  10. #25
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Lusby, Maryland
    Posts
    4,349
    call me when modern warfare 3 arrives.....for now medal of honor it is.....

  11. #26
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Akron, OH
    Posts
    9,065
    Quote Originally Posted by RealBronco View Post
    looks like your video game analyzing skills are as good as your QB analyzing skills.



    how is this a serious question? it wouldn't have been a best seller if people didn't think that.

    if your beef is that the campaign was too short...then you have to have an issue with just about every game that has come out in the passed 5+ years. we're beyond the days of 60+ levels and no graphics. it's the opposite now.

    also most developers realize online is where everyone wants to be at so they focus more on that...hence the short campaign (which really isn't short if you combine the two games since they continue the same story from the first).

    did you play on xbox? graphics are worse on that anyway. maybe that's why.

    but i don't see why you are asking this question... unless you've been out of contact with the modern world for over a year.

    if it isn't your style or genre of video game fine... but it is by no means a terrible game.

    also if you're gonna go the "it's just a carbon copy" route then that's a weak approach. most games are carbons of some other game or even themselves (i.e. everything EA makes).

    Lol E.T. on the Atari 2600 sold amazingly as well, and that's considered one of the worst games, if not the worst game ever made, by most gamers. Sales don't mean anything, period.

    And I have played both versions on MW2, aside from PC version, and it's just not a good game at all. The online isn't all that either... and I really don't see what so great about the franchise in general.

    "also most developers realize online is where everyone wants to be at"
    No, it's just where everyone is FORCED to be at, due to the lack of companies not being able to produce a Single Player campaign longer than 5 hours.. Basically meaning you have no choice but to play online, to get your money's worth. Next.

    we're beyond the days of 60+ levels and no graphics. it's the opposite now.
    If you were alive in the early 2000s, when the Dreamcast introduced online gaming, you would know, NO ONE, and I mean NO ONE, gave a crap about playing games online... And back then, the graphics were cutting edge at the time, and we still had 60+ levels worth of gameplay. I think it's more like "we're beyond the days of 60+ levels and no online multiplayer." Case in point, graphics never had anything to do with it.
    Last edited by Amari24; 10-01-2010 at 11:24 PM.

  12. #27
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    Virginia
    Posts
    756
    Quote Originally Posted by Amari24 View Post
    Lol E.T. on the Atari 2600 sold amazingly as well, and that's considered one of the worst games, if not the worst game ever made, by most gamers. Sales don't mean anything, period.

    And I have played both versions on MW2, aside from PC version, and it's just not a good game at all. The online isn't all that either... and I really don't see what so great about the franchise in general.

    Games like Killzone and Halo bring out 10x better multiplayer's and 10x better campaign's. They're more balanced as well. They're just milking the series at this point, they could release a CoD game tomorrow and it would sale well, no matter how bad the game is. Also the excuse about them caring about multiplayer more as to why their campaign is short and crappy is too funny to put into words.
    I liked the MW2 campaign, and I can't stand Halo. I guess there is an argument either way.

  13. #28
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Akron, OH
    Posts
    9,065
    Quote Originally Posted by UrbanBounca View Post
    I liked the MW2 campaign, and I can't stand Halo. I guess there is an argument either way.
    To be perfectley honest, I don't even know the storyline to Modern Warfare, which is why I don't give a FRA about it. But seeing as they only release 4 hour campaign's (Yes I beat MW2 in 4-5 hours) there really is no point in making a detailed story. Not to mention MW2 offers no replay value (neither did MW1) it's hilarious, how they could release a game so bent on multiplayer.

    Even Crysis put out a better, more balanced, and team tactical multiplayer than MW2, and the game revolved around Single Player campaign.

    Simply put, MW2 was a HORRIBLE game, and I die laughing everytime I see it has 9.5/10 ratings..
    Last edited by Amari24; 10-01-2010 at 10:53 PM.

  14. #29
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Posts
    7,120
    Quote Originally Posted by Amari24 View Post

    No, it's just where everyone is FORCED to be at, due to the lack of companies not being able to produce a Single Player campaign longer than 5 hours.. Basically meaning you have no choice but to play online, to get your money's worth. Next.
    No. The majority of people playing games these days would rather kill other Spartans online than kill Elites and Grunts in campaign.

    Halo is just an example but you get the point.

    Wow. Just cause you think MW2's campaign was too short and because of this means it's HORRIBLE doesn't mean everyone else has to. I liked MW2 before I got back into Oblivion.

  15. #30
    Join Date
    Sep 2003
    Location
    Boise, ID
    Posts
    9,264
    Quote Originally Posted by Amari24 View Post
    Lol E.T. on the Atari 2600 sold amazingly as well, and that's considered one of the worst games, if not the worst game ever made, by most gamers. Sales don't mean anything, period.

    And I have played both versions on MW2, aside from PC version, and it's just not a good game at all. The online isn't all that either... and I really don't see what so great about the franchise in general.



    No, it's just where everyone is FORCED to be at, due to the lack of companies not being able to produce a Single Player campaign longer than 5 hours.. Basically meaning you have no choice but to play online, to get your money's worth. Unfortunately that's just how it is in this generation.

    Games like Killzone and Halo bring out 10x better multiplayer's and 10x better campaign's. They're more balanced as well. They're just milking the series at this point, they could release a CoD game tomorrow and it would sale well, no matter how bad the game is. Also the excuse about them caring about multiplayer more as to why their campaign is short and crappy is too funny to put into words.
    just like movies and anything else in the entertainment industry, it's all opinion. you say Halo rules, i say it is terrible.

    however to say that video game companies aren't focusing on multiplayer and online gaming is naive. we're not just talking about CoD anymore on this topic. you said it yourself... Halo, Killzone etc. we can throw Brothers In Arms in as well.

    there are plenty of companies that can make a decent campaign mode. but with shooter games they're not really compelled to focus on any sort of storyline like the developers of a game like God of War for example.

    you can also probably blame Halo for the rise in this multiplayer focus as well.

    but again, to say that companies are not focusing on online game play is absurd. interviews from game developers left and right talk about how they really try to cater to the online gameplay demand (i.e. the Medal of Honor reboot). people like to play online against other humans. it's that simple.

    these aren't the days of four players in the living room playing GoldenEye where everyone has their own corner of the screen to look at.

    i don't really think it would be all that difficult for a company like Infinity Ward, who has the capacity to bring in Hollywood voice talent (recognizable people too) and put in the amount of realistic graphics that they do to then go ahead and make a more epic campaign mode if they chose to. it's simply not the case with this franchise.

    i think they know too, that most people who buy their games are going to completely skip campaign mode and go for the online play (like most of my friends did). if there were a bigger interest/demand for campaign mode then that would be their focus.

    regarding milking the series: tell that to EA Sports too... and the makers of Halo. it's no different. but at least the latter (and Infinity Ward) make noticeable changes in their games whereas shelling out $60 a year for an updated roster and the new year on the cover is a waste of money.

    Quote Originally Posted by Amari24 View Post
    To be perfectley honest, I don't even know the storyline to Modern Warfare, which is why I don't give a FRA about it. But seeing as they only release 4 hour campaign's (Yes I beat MW2 in 4-5 hours) there really is no point in making a detailed story. Not to mention MW2 offers no replay value (neither did MW1) it's hilarious, how they could release a game so bent on multiplayer.

    Even Crysis put out a better, more balanced, and team tactical multiplayer than MW2, and the game revolved around Single Player campaign.

    Simply put, MW2 was a HORRIBLE game, and I die laughing everytime I see it has 9.5/10 ratings..
    again it's a matter of opinion. you and the select few in this thread are the only bad reviews i've heard from about this game. there's a reason you keep seeing a 9.5/10 rating. people like it. that's fine if you don't, but to say it's a terrible game is nothing but your opinion.

    i also happen to find replay value in it as well. you may not. that's fine. but lately i've been playing campaign levels more than i have online.

    the reason they would release a game so bent on multiplayer is because that's the focus of Modern Warfare. like i said before, no one buys Modern Warfare (or any CoD game) for the campaign and story line. they buy them to shoot and blow stuff up.


    DISCLAIMER: MY REVIEWS OFTEN CONTAIN SPOILERS. READ AT YOUR OWN RISK.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •