Page 3 of 18 FirstFirst 1 2 3 4 5 13 ... LastLast
Results 31 to 45 of 270
  1. #31
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Location
    Kansas
    Posts
    37
    [SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]

  2. #32
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    Virginia
    Posts
    756
    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..
    I like your honestly. Either way, I finished the campaign twice on normal, and once on veteran. I thought about throwing it in last night, but never got around to it.

  3. #33
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    Virginia
    Posts
    756
    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..
    I like your honestly. Either way, I finished the campaign twice on normal, and once on veteran. I thought about throwing it in last night, but never got around to it.

  4. #34
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Akron, OH
    Posts
    9,065
    Quote Originally Posted by Bernie24 View Post
    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.
    It wasn't just about the campaign, the Online itself is a joke. Who wants to play a game where people just camp at the same spot, the entire game with a sniper rifle and claymores, covering their blind side? That's no fun, it's just completely cheap and unfair at points. Killzone is probably the most balanced online FPS game to date, if not MAG.
    Last edited by Amari24; 10-02-2010 at 10:01 AM.

  5. #35
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Akron, OH
    Posts
    9,065
    Quote Originally Posted by RealBronco View Post
    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.



    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.
    just like movies and anything else in the entertainment industry, it's all opinion. you say Halo rules, i say it is terrible.
    I never said Halo was the best or anything like that. My point was, Halo can bring out a good campaign longer than 5 hours, on top of having a great multiplayer experience. I'd rather spend $60 on that, then just to have a great multiplayer experience. Which I don't even consider CoD's multiplayer great anyways.

    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.
    I don't consider campaign or storyline to have any connection whatsoever. They can release the worst storyline of all, but all I'm asking for is a great campaign, I could care less about CoD's storyline, seeing as it's been done a million times before. Which is also why I like games such as Halo and Killzone better, because they can have a decent storyline, great campaign, and great multiplayer, all thrown into one. While Modern Warfare is all multiplayer nothing else.

    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.
    Actually I'm talking opposite here. My whole rant was about companies focusing too much on Online, and not nearly enough on the single player. Just look at Assassin's Creed Brotherhood. And now even Batman Arkham City is confirmed to have multiplayer. There has to be a point where developers realize multiplayer doesn't work for everything, even if it is the big thing in gaming today.

    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
    So you're basically saying, people are spending $60 just to get different weapons and maps? Because that's all MW2's multiplayer is. It's exactly the same as MW1, just with new maps. That's like paying $60 for DLC..
    Last edited by Amari24; 10-02-2010 at 09:58 AM.

  6. #36
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    Virginia
    Posts
    756
    Quote Originally Posted by Amari24 View Post
    I never said Halo was the best or anything like that. My point was, Halo can bring out a good campaign longer than 5 hours, on top of having a great multiplayer experience. I'd rather spend $60 on that, then just to have a great multiplayer experience. Which I don't even consider CoD's multiplayer great anyways.
    You are one of the very few that don't consider CoD's MP top notch. It's been quite a selling point in recent years.

    So you're basically saying, people are spending $60 just to get different weapons and maps? Because that's all MW2's multiplayer is. It's exactly the same as MW1, just with new maps. That's like paying $60 for DLC..
    MW2 is a continuation of the CoD4 storyline. It has different weapons, maps, and storyline. That's a completely new game.

    They have changed the MP playability. They add new types of gaming each year, aside from "Team Domination" and so on. People continue buying it because while it doesn't change the style of game play, they change the features. I'm like the rest of the CoD community, in that I don't want them to change the style. It's a shooter. You go in, shoot a few people, and you're done. People love it, and will continue purchasing it for that reason.

  7. #37
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Akron, OH
    Posts
    9,065
    Quote Originally Posted by UrbanBounca View Post
    You are one of the very few that don't consider CoD's MP top notch. It's been quite a selling point in recent years.



    MW2 is a continuation of the CoD4 storyline. It has different weapons, maps, and storyline. That's a completely new game.

    They have changed the MP playability. They add new types of gaming each year, aside from "Team Domination" and so on. People continue buying it because while it doesn't change the style of game play, they change the features. I'm like the rest of the CoD community, in that I don't want them to change the style. It's a shooter. You go in, shoot a few people, and you're done. People love it, and will continue purchasing it for that reason.
    It is top notch, but it's also poorly executed, with tons of flaws. It's far from THE BEST multiplayer. Also different weapons in maps don't mean it's a new game... That's like saying Halo 3 with all it's DLC is a new game, becuase it has new weapons, and maps. FPS just don't work like that, essentially all of them are the same game in a way. CoD is no different.

    And we could argue all they about the multiplayer, well just have to agree to disagree on that.

  8. #38
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    Virginia
    Posts
    756
    Quote Originally Posted by Amari24 View Post
    It is top notch, but it's also poorly executed, with tons of flaws. It's far from THE BEST multiplayer. Also different weapons in maps don't mean it's a new game... That's like saying Halo 3 with all it's DLC is a new game, becuase it has new weapons, and maps. FPS just don't work like that, essentially all of them are the same game in a way. CoD is no different.

    And we could argue all they about the multiplayer, well just have to agree to disagree on that.
    MW2 is a different storyline. How is that not a new game?

  9. #39
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Akron, OH
    Posts
    9,065
    Quote Originally Posted by UrbanBounca View Post
    MW2 is a different storyline. How is that not a new game?
    I'm just saying, new weapons and maps don't mean it's a new game. If that was the case, then Halo has about 100 sequels.

  10. #40
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Posts
    831
    Quote Originally Posted by Bernie24 View Post
    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.
    MW2's campaign was horrible because it didn't make any sense

  11. #41
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    Virginia
    Posts
    756
    Quote Originally Posted by TheQBGuru View Post
    MW2's campaign was horrible because it didn't make any sense
    Yes, it did. Go play CoD4, followed by MW2. It makes sense, YOU just don't understand it.

  12. #42
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Akron, OH
    Posts
    9,065
    Quote Originally Posted by TheQBGuru View Post
    MW2's campaign was horrible because it didn't make any sense
    It's basically us against the world on this one. I really just don't think it was that good...

  13. #43
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Posts
    7,120
    I don't give a crap about the plot.

    The GAME is sweet and the multiplayer is legit. CoD 4 will likely always be my favorite but MW2 was good as well.

  14. #44
    Join Date
    Sep 2003
    Location
    Boise, ID
    Posts
    9,264
    Quote Originally Posted by Amari24 View Post
    It wasn't just about the campaign, the Online itself is a joke. Who wants to play a game where people just camp at the same spot, the entire game with a sniper rifle and claymores, covering their blind side? That's no fun, it's just completely cheap and unfair at points. Killzone is probably the most balanced online FPS game to date, if not MAG.
    camping has been around since GoldenEye. it's nothing new. in fact Halo was full of them.

    you're not going to be able to stop people from camping in ANY multiplayer FPS... unless you're better than they are and know where all the camping spots are etc.... which also defines the other half of those who play it.

    the easiest way to stop camping: kill the guy camping.

    anyway... i think you've got valid points, but it still doesn't mean MW2 was a bad game. like i said, every game is a copy of a previous game in some form. every sequel is just as you said: new maps and slight variations. even Halo. in all honesty i don't think Halo's multiplayer has changed much over the years... again, just like you said just new maps and weapons.

    but the thing about CoD that you are overlooking is that MULTIPLAYER is the reason people buy them. that is why the developer focuses on that aspect. they aren't buying Call of Duty games for story or campaign replayability because the replay value, for them, lies in the online play.

    and whether you're a fan of change and forward progress or not won't stop a major shift and focus on online gameplay and content. developers realize that the only consoles available ALL have wireless capabilities and people, as i said before love to interact (relatively) with other people instead of playing against CPU's all day.

    the aspect of video games that has always suffered with progress is the focus on longevity. in the days of NES games had 60 levels or more, and they were extremely difficult games. developers didn't have the technology available to make it realistic, but they did spend tons of time on difficulty and level "design"

    it's a progression/regression vicious cycle. when technology advanced for developers to increase graphics, level numbers dropped and gameplay difficulty dropped and that continues to happen even now. that's why we have so many 5 hour games. even the carefully designed God of War trilogy doesn't take very long to get through. with the second and third one i came away highly disappointed that the game was over already. and why? because they spent countless hours making it LOOK amazing...i mean they spent so much time and effort on Poseidon in the third installment that the rest of the bosses were kind of a letdown.

    so that brings us to the next step of the video game evolution. with consoles that are basically computers ready-made to connect to the internet, you're going to have almost every title include some sort of online content.

    the writers of The Cable Guy were prophets. Jim Carrey's character crazily proclaims standing on a giant satellite dish that "...one day you will be able to play Mortal Kombat with your buddy in China..." (probably not the exact quote)...

    but guess what: coming March of 2011 that prophecy comes true.

    trying to say that people don't want multiplayer or that isn't the direction of gaming is absurd still. you need only look as far as WoW for the answer to that question.

    i know you've said that is what you are trying to say; that developers force us to play online content and don't focus on campaigns. but that is why. it's in demand at this point and there's probably not going to be a slowing down of that demand anytime soon.

    if you do not have a console that allows you to connect and play with other people at this point than you need not be in this discussion.

    and that's only half of what you're trying to get at. you want campaign quality. well first of all i'm not sure why you are looking for that in a first person shooter game. as i've said and others have agreed, the entire CoD franchise is focused on you being a killing machine, going in, shooting people up and then game over. otherwise there would be no nazi zombie mode in WaW.

    as long as you are looking for a campaign that you can return to over and over like say maybe Red Dead Redemption or some such... then you aren't going to find it in the majority of these new generation FPS.

    again it's all about preference. i for one really enjoyed the campaign modes of MW1 and 2. also if you don't care about story then there's no real point in playing a campaign mode of any game lol.

    another aspect is realism. i would say that MW2 is the most realistic FPS as far as the graphics and sound and all of that (being a movie guy, that's a plus). you may not prefer that kind of thing but to each his own. when i have this game turned up on surround sound i feel like i'm in a warzone. you don't get that feeling from Army of Two or Halo. I'm not even sure Brothers in Arms or Battlefield is as realistic in those respects.

    that does not mean i'm saying it's realistic in that if you get shot once you die etc. no... that's not going to happen in very many games.

    and finally:

    @TheQBGuru: you would have to play the campaign of Modern Warfare in order to understand what is happening during the campaign in Modern Warfare TWO. it's called a sequel for a reason.


    i dunno. it's really kind of pointless to argue over entertainment. but i always will with movies, so why not be the same with video games


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

  15. #45
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Akron, OH
    Posts
    9,065
    again it's all about preference. i for one really enjoyed the campaign modes of MW1 and 2. also if you don't care about story then there's no real point in playing a campaign mode of any game lol.
    I'm just talking FPS here.

    You said yourself that the story in these generation FPS aren't it's strong points. I thought the same thing years ago about Halo. I didn't care about the story but the single player was amazing, same thing with Halo 2. I tried to play Halo 3 and I didn't understand anything, so I had to go back and replay and read about Halo 1-2 again. So in a way your point is invalid. FPS can produce good storyline's and Halo is one of them. I'll admit, with Killzone 2, I understood everything perfectley, without playing Killzone 1 (PS2). So that means it's probably not as story driven.

    CoD's storyline has been done a million times before, so why should I care about it while I'm enjoying the game?

    Now if I'm playing a game like Mass Effect, or Uncharted, then absolutley, I care about the storyline. But when you play a FPS it's not the same thing anymore.


    if you do not have a console that allows you to connect and play with other people at this point than you need not be in this discussion.
    Just for future reference, I'll list all the consoles I own. 360, PS3, Dreamcast, Atari, Genesis, and a PSP. More than half the consoles I own are able to connect online, And those are the PSP, Dreamcast, 360, and PS3.

    Also about the Warzone feeling, you can get high off of that by playing Killzone with the volume all the way up on surround sound.

    I agree Halo isn't as warbased driven as those games, but it does things differentley, since you are fighting aliens and not human beings. Also Crysis's graphics and sound, puts MW2's to shame. You should play that before you say MW2 is the most realistic in graphics and sound.

    Playing games on hard is also a way to get a realistic feel. Play Halo on legendary and you'll be dead in a few shots, much like real life. Depending on where you get shot, one bullet isn't enough to kill a human being, sometimes it takes 2-3 shots like in CoD/Halo on their Hard difficulties.

    But to get back to the topic at hand. It's all just personal taste really. I grew up in the times where we didn't have online, and we played in our rooms with cousins in firends on 2-4 players. Which makes me primarily an offline gamer, I really don't play online unless I feel I have to, in order to enjoy the game. War for Cybertron is one of them. Playing that game alone is pointless, your AI buddies don't do jack, so that's one game that I always do 3 player co op.

    As for Black ops, I'm going to pass and wait for Killzone and Crysis, which won't be here for a while. I think Black ops will be just like WaW, doesn't look that impressive to me.

    Hey, people argue over Pepsi and Coke, so why can't we argue over entertainment?
    Last edited by Amari24; 10-03-2010 at 08:40 AM.

Posting Permissions

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