Modern Warfare 2

[Maniacal]

did you get them right first time, or did you have to adapt your tactics through trial and error? did you change your weapons and use the variety that was available to you? Im not going to argue that battling ten enemies that randomly spawn in a fixed map isnt linear, but it certainly requires some thought and an expansion on the standard cover and shoot strategy.

I don't see how there was any expansion upon shoot the enemy and don't die. The one mission I did take a different route (than my roommate as I saw him play through it first) was the one where you take out the Russian base in the snowstorm. There was no real change in tactics or much thinking for most of the missions, I may have adjusted my cover or been lucky and found a useful gun (like the dual-akimbo in the Brazil mission where you are "chasing" (not that I think he can even actually get away afaik) which I found to really help when I needed to reload my main weapon and an enemy popped up and for running and gunning) but that is hardly more than a small thought if I even gave it more than a second's thought.

 

[Snotty]

I think we must be talking about different things. The campaign is linear, and on regular difficulty you can pretty much run and gun your way through it. The checkpoint and quick reload system lets you blast through it if you come unstuck. The sub base mission (contingency) was a mare to get through in veteran due to a timed section. I thoroughly enjoyed the single player campaign. I thought it was well paced and had a variety of locations and action sequences.

Im referring to spec ops co-op mode, which is a series of set piece challenges which can be quite taxing, especially on higher difficulty or later levels. Theres no reload for a start, if you fail you start from the beginning. Theres also a variety of weapons laid out for you so you can choose your prefered approach. I think its a real gamers challenge to get through them all, and some of them are far from straightforward

 

[Maniacal]

You should have been specific in your earlier post then, and we havn't even touched the Spec Ops yet (unless they did it while I was asleep but there's only one computer with it installed here so I doubt it)).

 

[remake20]

Anyone mind voting on this: http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=343282 BTW I might get MW2 this weekend will anyone do MP with me?

 

[Snotty]

Princescamp, My post you quoted was reply to the post immediately preceding it so I didnt feel the need to include a quote box. You really should try special ops though. Im not sure how well it would work on PC, but consoles are perfect for local multiplayer madness and it works beautifully

Remake , Im around on saturday playing MW2 on xbox if you want to hook up. Not really sure what we could do but you are welcome add me as Snotty128

 

[remake20]

How do you do Spec-Ops on PC?! There is only one mouse.

 

[azzaman333]

Did we play the same game? Because the last three levels are pretty damn linear, actually so are all of them. Even defending the safe house while downloading data was pretty simplistic.

Linear gameplay is not a bad thing.

How do you do Spec-Ops on PC?! There is only one mouse.

LAN/Online.

 

[Maniacal]

I never said linear gameplay was a bad thing. @Snotty: I thought you were making general statement about the game.

Spec-Ops, as azza said, would be through online/LAN.

Apparently Overlord has split-screen co-op, no idea how that would work though.

 

[remake20]

LAN/Online.

Okay, I forgot you could do it online.

 

[remake20]

Overlord, had that. Weird, doesn't seem possible. BTW cool that we had 2 posts in the same minute. I didn't read yours until mine was posted.

 

[Rub'Rum]

Zero Punctuation'd

http://www.escapistmagazine.com/videos/view/zero-punctuation/1118-Call-of-Duty-Modern-Warfare-2

 

[Harbringer]

The campaign kinda sucked this time around....and the multiplayer is.....well....COD4 multiplayer....it wasnt bad by any means...it just wasnt worth sixty bucks:/

 

[bob rulz]

Disappointed by this game so far. Call of Duty 4 was a much better overall package with the exception of spec ops.

Single-player was still fun but it was a step down imo. Multiplayer is still fun too but it seems a bit too...busy and overly complex this time around. And is it just me or are there only like 6 - 8 maps to choose from?

Spec Ops is a great addition though.

I don't mind the lack of dedicated servers on PC. In fact, I think the matchmaking is a HUGE improvement. As someone who never cared about being in a clan, it was excessively frustrating to find servers that suited your tastes. Now it does all the work for you.

I also much prefer the lower limits. Call of Duty 4 games tended to get far too chaotic. 40-player frag fests were not any fun on those maps. Even over 20 tended to be too many people, although I wish the limit was just a little higher (FFA's limit is only 8, I wish it was closer to 12-15 or so).

 

[Kozmos]

I don't mind the lack of dedicated servers on PC. In fact, I think the matchmaking is a HUGE improvement. As someone who never cared about being in a clan, it was excessively frustrating to find servers that suited your tastes. Now it does all the work for you.

There were like a bazzilion servers to choose from...all it took was one sweep with a game monitor and simply add favourites. Christ the incompetence of some people.

 

[Maniacal]

I don't care about being in a clan either, I try different servers until I find enough that I like that I don't need to keep looking and can just check my favourites tab.


Although in the case of CoD4 I realized that the game, especially the small map size, was more and more less interesting rather than finding a good server.

They should have included both dedicated servers and the matchmaking system. The matchmaking system is nice to get a game going quickly but still relies on the host's internet connection and lacks being able to kick a player or auto-balance.

It is however, harder to play with e-friends and e-buddies with the matchmaking system, unless you create a party but;
1. There isn't a chance to create any sense of community or even get friendly with other players because there is no reliable meeting point. So you won't be making very many (if any) new buddies.
2. They'd have to be on your steam friend's list or in a similar steam group in order to invite them, and there IS a limit on how many friends you can have on steam nor would I add my entire clan and every regular in TF2 that I play with in TF2.

 

[Harbringer]

The new matchmaking is nice though becuase you ALWAYS get a full server.

 

[Maniacal]

It was easy enough to click the heading for # of people in a server in CoD4 and have it all lined up for you. And while it may start as a full server, people sometimes drop out and not many join in.

 

[Rub'Rum]

It's really simple. You have a choice between:

1) Less options (matchmaking)
2) More options (dedicated servers).

For me, there is only one acceptable choice.

 

[Maniacal]

3. Both is entirely possible (Left 4 Dead uses dedicated servers and has a matchmaking/lobby system).

 

[Harbringer]

It was easy enough to click the heading for # of people in a server in CoD4 and have it all lined up for you. And while it may start as a full server, people sometimes drop out and not many join in.

Yes but COD4 was dwindling so there were harly any full servers that werent the super chaotic 40 plus people servers. This way, even when the game starts to slow down youl always be getting full matches.