Modern Warfare 2, Prestige edition, -or- hey, blow your wad on this!

[tgr]

Maybe the favela map, although even there I didn't really get the "I'm one guy in a squad trying to fight my way through here" feeling

Did you pay attention to ANY of the story / scenario developments taking place in that level? Shit.

Just to be perfectly clear, the level I was talking about was "takedown". We began with a few (4? 5? something like that) guys, and we had to fight our way through a lot of people in close quarters. Fine. I saw them once in a while, but suddenly I was left all by myself to fight through the exact same number of enemies, while "cutting off a guy". So I keep chasing someone, sometimes seeing him for a few seconds, and SUDDENLY the rest of the team is in the right place, throwing themselves out a window and landing on a car. It just feels off, and not really something I would expect from professional soldiers. If a BOPA (or whatever it is they're called, I forget exactly what country this was in, but it was some documentary about a police force in a very violent country) soldier ran off into the favela alone, 9 times out of 10 he got raped. You don't do that, and I don't want to do that in a game, it breaks the believability for me, and that gets me cranky.

Dude, all these haters don't like it because it's so popular. There's no point in arguing with them, they're just saying it sucks without backing it up.

Excuse me? What the hell have I been typing lately? Have I been saying "it sucks because it's popular"? Is that really all you're getting from my posts?

Edit: oh, and while I remember it, I had to go back to see just which level it was I thought of when I said "the favela" and "going rambo". I kept throwing grenades and knifing the walls the first 5 minutes because I tried to lean. I DEMAND LEAN IN MY FPSes, god damnit.

[LK]

OK, what you described was a much better breakdown of the level and your thoughts than the overarching analysis from the quote; something I can respect and comment on.

If you progress through the level at a slow and careful pace (required on Veteran), the adrenaline and intensity of what the designers were trying to relate does fall to the wayside. The illusion of what's going on is easily dispelled on multiple playthroughs as well. You're seeing the "game" part of the game. If you removed the storyline context, it's just you, a bunch of narrow corridors, and lots of ambush points and unusual vectors of attacks for your assailants to take advantage of. I think they did the best job they could with that type of level design to deliver the story (the "invincible NPCs important to the story having perfect timing" is one of those movie magic things). A lot of storyline and sense of urgency they wanted to relate took place through comm chatter where you couldn't see the action taking place. I AM interested in hearing your thoughts on how they could have improved the level.

Edit: I imagine it has something to do with you physically taking down the guy; I was pretty happy doing the leg shot on the first one though. What struck me as funny about that level is I played it on Hardened and Veteran and didn't die to the first guy shooting at us in the car, but on Recruit (Easiest), I was killed because I didn't duck.

[tgr]

Edit: I imagine it has something to do with you physically taking down the guy; I was pretty happy doing the leg shot on the first one though.

Actually, I'm not sure if that would be sufficient. It would bring a very satisfying end to the level, to be sure, but it doesn't help with my feeling of abandonment that I felt which was just aggravated by the sudden reappearance of my teammembers.

I understand that urban warfare is chaotic, but when we're 4-5 people in a squad, we shouldn't really separate and run around randomly around in the first part of the mission (where end up just seeing them occasionally). Also, 4 of them shouldn't run off to cut off the guy while I go it alone to chase him into the trap (which isn't predefined in any way shape or form). If I'd gotten at least 1 guy to accompany me, that would've removed a fair bit of the disbelief I felt.

Although, to be honest, I didn't really like this particular type of mission in MW1 either (the one where we had to chase the son down), but at least I felt that I had my squad with me at that time, and they didn't just suddenly disappear on me.

The second part of the mission (I can't be arsed to start MW2 up again just to find the name) where you end up running for your life to jump onto the ladder hanging off of the chopper, in comparison, was a lot more fun in my view because we stayed together as a group, and we were *focused*. Although the last bit of that mission did grate a bit, because it felt a bit like it was thrown in there because someone had an idea.

Edit: meh, keep forgetting things. Anyhow, another thing that would've made that level better would be able to lean around corners. Last I checked, urban warfare was about utilizing the environment better than just running behind a corner. The no lean deal just makes it so much harder to fight effectively, and when it's a feature I expect in ALL the previous CoD games, and it's not there, I get cranky.

...And this is just pulling the SP game apart, I haven't even begun on the MP part, and given the comments from the developers, I don't really feel like it either.

[LK]

I understand that urban warfare is chaotic, but when we're 4-5 people in a squad, we shouldn't really separate and run around randomly around in the first part of the mission (where end up just seeing them occasionally). Also, 4 of them shouldn't run off to cut off the guy while I go it alone to chase him into the trap (which isn't predefined in any way shape or form). If I'd gotten at least 1 guy to accompany me, that would've removed a fair bit of the disbelief I felt.

Just to say specifically what happened: You start out with 5 people (Ghost, Soap, Roach, Meat, and the fifth guy I forget). Your driver is killed when you get Rojas's #2 cornered and he shoots at the car. All five of you run after Rojas's #2. You can stay with the group or you can run ahead after him. The point is you're all running to try and keep up with a fleeing person (this is before you know what your opposition, the local Militia, will be) in a downtown urban area. Whenever you round that corner, the script starts, and you're given the opportunity to take the shot. You do, next phase.

Next phase starts with Soap and Ghost doing some creative interrogation. Meat, Roach, and #5 head to the Favellas to track down Rojas, the main target. During the encounter in the shacks, Meat and #5 are gunned down; you're the sole person to make it through the Militia onslaught. You end up in a crowded, twisting area of back alleys with Ghost and Soap assisting you from locations you aren't able to access. It's one giant hill but due to its design (in canon), but you can cut him off and drive him up to the top of the hill.

That crowded, twisted area would probably be hell to have a second, AI partner with, and also would work against what they wanted to have here: a bunch of ambush points and unusual vectors of attack. If you had an AI buddy, he'd be able to point out these locations before you got to them.

Though there are more members to your task force (evidenced by the next mission's start, Exodus), you only start with the five.

[AcidCat]

Your knowledge of the scenario is comprehensive. You should do a similar write up for each level in the game! 

[LK]

I played through the campaign three times. First for the experience on Hardened, second for the achievements on Veteran, and third on Recruit for the Intelligence. I paid attention cause I care. 

[Ookii]

Is this argument done now? That way we can post the hidden 'Get the nuclear bomb' multiplayer mode.

[schild]

Is this argument done now? That way we can post the hidden 'Get the nuclear bomb' multiplayer mode.

There is no way any armed force would ever only have 9 people guarding a nuclear device.

[LK]

 

[NowhereMan]

Dude, budget cuts. It's a savage political commentary on the effects of Obama's fiscal policy.

[WayAbvPar]

Is this argument done now? That way we can post the hidden 'Get the nuclear bomb' multiplayer mode.

There is no way any armed force would ever only have 9 people guarding a nuclear device.

[Kovacs]

There is no way any armed force would ever only have 9 people guarding a nuclear device.

All evidence to the contrary notwithstanding.

http://www.bu.edu/globalbeat/pubs/ib45.html
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/12/01/AR2008120102710.html

And a little bit closer to home

http://www.airforcetimes.com/news/2008/06/airforce_moseleywynne_060508w/

So while technically 0 is Not 9, it's scarily not all that far fetched.

[Hoax]

Shit like the last page of this thread is my irrational reason for why I hate this game.  Say what you will but the community back in the Quake1-2, Tribes1-2, HL1DM, TFC days seemed so much less internet armyman bullshit.  Admittedly I was much younger so rose colored specs and all that but it started going downhill with CS and then took a major turn for the worse when the WW2 bullshit started.

[jakonovski]

Shit like the last page of this thread is my irrational reason for why I hate this game.  Say what you will but the community back in the Quake1-2, Tribes1-2, HL1DM, TFC days seemed so much less internet armyman bullshit.  Admittedly I was much younger so rose colored specs and all that but it started going downhill with CS and then took a major turn for the worse when the WW2 bullshit started.

[Venkman]

I've skimmed the thread (don't want spoilers and not getting this except maybe as gift), so apologies if this was mentioned: PC version is 3% of overall retail unit sales*, and in week one, the number of units outpaced MW1, according to an official post on their forums:

Yes, PC is the smallest percentage in terms of how much sold on each platform but that hardly means anything other than the PC is just the smallest market.

The PC version of Modern Warfare 2 has actually outsold the PC version of Call of Duty 4: Modern Warfare in it's first week. Making it the most successful PC version.

Essentially, all this percentage proves is that the console versions sold great, not that the PC version sold poorly, because that's actually not the case. The PC version has done tremendous in it's first week, better than our previous game.

* Retail sales do not include digital download. I'd guess more units were sold on Steam et al than at brick & mortar.

[Mosesandstick]

I don't think that's a good argument. A better one would probably be whether PC growth outpaces or is lesser than the growth in console games. I'd be inclined to say it's growing slower for obvious reasons.

[Venkman]

Oh, yes, on that I totally agree. But I don't think they were arguing as much as clarifying what could be misinterpreted as MW2 PC doing worse than MW1 PC. If that were true, their forums would implode into a black hole faster than the LHC. But they sold more retail SKUs in week 1 of MW2 than week 1 of MW1. That's before accounting for digital download (which they aren't reporting).

[Mosesandstick]

Oh ai, I hear ya. How many people really care about the issues of MW2? The more interesting question will be how MW3 fares.

[tgr]

Actually, I think we should care about the issues of MW2, because I think this is just the way things are headed. No FPS game is ever going to come close to playing the way it would do on the PC, because the controllers are just way more limiting on the consoles. So we have issues such as autoaim, larger hitboxes, "lean is hard, so the game won't be 'balanced' for it", etc etc etc, in at least most of the consoles games, to pander to the controller's weaknesses. Add to that the gamer mentality, and things are just going to get worse.

Speaking of gamer mentality, just to put it into perspective, I absolutely demand leaning in FPS games these days. I went back to CoD2 just to remind me what the series used to be, and every time I've had to go back to MW2 I've been throwing handgrenades and knifing the wall infront of me instead of leaning. This is because I expect leaning to be there. Compare that to a console fan I was talking to about MW2, who basically said "Lean? I never use that, it's just silly". Same goes for the length of the SP, and value for money.

And if that's what IW and the rest of the game developers/publishers are going to listen to, then MW3 will just be more of the same, and we'll all end up just paying more for less.

[Venkman]

"Care" implies our opinion beyond our dollars is going to matter. High end PC gaming continues to die. Fewer people are willing to pay the price of a console just for a video card. The next console generation has not arrived, and if and when it does, it most likely will be defined by graphics alone. Because PCs haven't continued incremently pushing the boundaries that consoles need to leap to every few years. Because people aren't willing to pay that price for the video card, and therefore developers aren't willing to develop for it.

Then you add in the universal belief of piracy first/sales a distant second. Then you add the complexity comparison between one/two consoles versus every-PC-is-unique.

FPS games don't need to be solved for PCs. They need to be solved for consoles. And console controllers need to that solution until either keyboards/mouse become ubiquitous on consoles or the only market that matters adopts controllers. The former is not likely to happen and the latter pretty much already has.

So yes, the games will be gimped to support the LCD that is controllers. But this is how the market works.

[tgr]

Speaking of keyboard for consoles, there is at least an officially supported keyboard for the 360:



I believe it's just prohibited by policy by Microsoft in anything remotely resembling a game etc. MSN Live, fine, games, boo hiss.

That's the thing that annoys me the most actually, it's prohibited for policy reasons, not technical reasons. "It would make the console too much like a computer" I believe it was. That right there is going to fuck the consoles over for FPS/RTS games (at least in my view) for years to come.

[Azazel]

High end PC gaming continues to die. Fewer people are willing to pay the price of a console just for a video card.

This is a huge point.

Especially these days when PC is really only superior for FPS, Strategy games and MMOs. Everything else either plays just as well, or better on consoles.

[LK]

Y'all are looking at graphics and PC's greater capabilities while seeming to ignore the user accessibility and conformity that consoles provide.

[Rishathra]

I don't think anyone here is unaware of the strengths of the console, or doesn't understand why it is dominant.  Personally, I still prefer to game on PC, for I find it perfectly accessible, and enjoy being able to customize my experience.  I'm bummed out that the market is steadily marginalizing the PC, but I know why it's happening.

[tgr]

Personally I couldn't care less about the graphics. I'm happy with CoD2's graphics, and you can't say the consoles haven't passed that by miles years ago. Although the one thing I liked about my last upgrade was how I've suddenly been able to run 3 games windowed at the same time without any slowdown. But I digress.

If only they would get their thumbs out of their asses and give us proper controllers for the games, I would so be on a console. I am so sick and tired of developers/publishers whining about pirates, and going for copy protection systems which are inconveniencing legitimate users more than illegitimate users, online activations etc etc etc. So much so I'd happily tell the PC to go fuck itself. But they won't, so I won't.

Actually, there's another issue which I saw with mass effect when I played through that, and that was the problem with not being allowed to install the game to the HD, so I was constantly having to stop to allow the game to load textures etc in, and the elevators in the spaceship was GODAWFUL slow. And the noise from the DVD drive ...

So while yes, consoles do have conformity going for it, there are a ton of artificial restrictions which just end up annoying me and making the experience a less pleasant experience than what I would've wished.

[Hoax]

High end PC gaming continues to die. Fewer people are willing to pay the price of a console just for a video card.

This is a huge point.

Especially these days when PC is really only superior for FPS, Strategy games and MMOs. Everything else either plays just as well, or better on consoles.

I'd like to see the list of what plays so much better on a console.

Sports games
Racing games?
RPG's with console menus
Platformers

Am I missing a bunch?

[tgr]

Am I missing a bunch?

Don't forget Guitar Hero and similar.

Whatever that genre is. Party games?

[schild]

High end PC gaming continues to die. Fewer people are willing to pay the price of a console just for a video card.

This is a huge point.

Especially these days when PC is really only superior for FPS, Strategy games and MMOs. Everything else either plays just as well, or better on consoles.

I'd like to see the list of what plays so much better on a console.

Sports games
Racing games?
RPG's with console menus
Platformers

Am I missing a bunch?

Everything except RTS and FPS and Diku with 50,000 skills play better on a console.

Period.

[caladein]

High end PC gaming continues to die. Fewer people are willing to pay the price of a console just for a video card.

I don't see why we should compare what it costs to natively run a game at ~1080p and above with 4-8x AA to what it costs to run it at ~600p 2x AA.

[Malakili]

Everything except RTS and FPS and Diku with 50,000 skills play better on a console.

Period.

Sims?  I don't me The Sims, I mean, Simulators (like Flight sims).  I guess thats not exactly a huge market though.  I like being able to hook up a legitimate joystick to my computer. 

I also find a mouse better for navigating a UI than a controller every will, even something like the wii remote where you literally point and click its a bit more finicky. 

Maybe my years of computer use have made controllers just feel odd in my hands period, especially since I've never owned an xbox or playstation system at all.  Anyway, a keyboard is always going to be my preference because generally if a game has few enough buttons to fit on a controller, the game probably isn't complex enough to hold my interest (with very few exceptions) past "this is fun to play with my girlfriend every so often" which is why we own a wii in the first place.

But I digress.

I know I'm in the minority if gamers who want something like that.  The fact of the matter is that the money lies with the games like MW2, so thats what we will continue to see.  People don't want complex, they don't want depth, and they certainly don't want the sorts of games I like to play.    Hyperbole to a degree.

[schild]

Simulators are too split. For every one on the PC, there's a counterexample on the console.

More than that, sims are easy to convert to console just by making the controller jump to everything clickable (hold down R trigger and move analog stick to jump to items, hold down L trigger to jump to housing - walls, etc). I'm SHOCKED Sims 3 wasn't on consoles - trivial conversion (but I suppose content generation and such would be near impossible).

[Venkman]

Sims. That's a big market. 

High end PC gaming continues to die. Fewer people are willing to pay the price of a console just for a video card.

I don't see why we should compare what it costs to natively run a game at ~1080p and above with 4-8x AA to what it costs to run it at ~600p 2x AA.

Who's comparing at that level of depth? To get an FPS to look and play great on a PC is going to cost you more money than it would on a console. Unless your components fall off the back of a truck. Most people instead just make the compromise (a PC that is "good enough" for certain types of games, or their favorite games played with "good enough" levels"). These same people have consoles.

I'd like to see the list of what plays so much better on a console.

Sports games
Racing games?
RPG's with console menus
Platformers

Am I missing a bunch?

I agree with schild here, but I don't think this actually the point. It's not what's played better in side by side comparison. That way lies too much personal bias. Rather, it's what changes companies have been willing to make to established tenets in order to radically increase the number of units they can sell at retail and to reduce the overhead of porting to a zillion PC configurations. It doesn't matter what genre you point to. Any one of them can be gimped/LCD'd/side-proved to the console in some way.

That's why I said elsewhere that about the only genre that's PC exclusive is MMO. But even those don't require top end PCs to run (the non-misguided successful ones, anyway). And this won't last forever.

Only PC enthusiasts will know the different. And we're a dying breed. The rest will just accept the games they get at face value. Any feature you can think of can be designed around for the purposes of more unit sales. And if not, the entire convention gets tossed out the window. The most recent example is dedicated servers, lean, and small maps. And the amount of PC people bought it anyway

tl;dr: it's not about what genres work on consoles. It's about what changes those genres will get to work on the consoles.

[LK]

Frankly I could care lately about what players better on what platform. I'd like to be able to toss in a game without much theatrics and get right to the meat with an experience that is tailored to the medium rather than so varied based on individual setup as to create a headache.

But some of you prefer to have the customization, the accessibility, the options to know how to take your game above and beyond what can be provided by conformity.

Either way is fine with its own pros and cons, but we're moving towards which is the minority and which is the majority, and that brings out the supporters / haters for each side to try and make their side look better.

Like politics!

[Nightblade]

Frankly I could care lately about what players better on what platform. I'd like to be able to toss in a game without much theatrics and get right to the meat with an experience that is tailored to the medium rather than so varied based on individual setup as to create a headache.

But some of you prefer to have the customization, the accessibility, the options to know how to take your game above and beyond what can be provided by conformity.

Either way is fine with its own pros and cons, but we're moving towards which is the minority and which is the majority, and that brings out the supporters / haters for each side to try and make their side look better.

Like politics!

Nonsense, all of it. There is absolutely no reason you can't have both accessibility and customization. Left 4 Dead (and many other older titles) have an option called "quick game". I doubt I have to explain what it is.

[Azazel]

I'd like to see the list of what plays so much better on a console.

Sports games
Racing games?
RPG's with console menus
Platformers

Am I missing a bunch?

I agree with schild here, but I don't think this actually the point. It's not what's played better in side by side comparison. That way lies too much personal bias. Rather, it's what changes companies have been willing to make to established tenets in order to radically increase the number of units they can sell at retail and to reduce the overhead of porting to a zillion PC configurations. It doesn't matter what genre you point to. Any one of them can be gimped/LCD'd/side-proved to the console in some way.

tl;dr: it's not about what genres work on consoles. It's about what changes those genres will get to work on the consoles.

See, it's not that - I am a PC enthusiast, and I hate what IW/Activision did to CoD6, but the simple fact is that the genres that Hoax listed above were superior on computers a long time ago. And that computer was the Amiga, (or the Spectrum) - not the PC, and it had joysticks. While PCs can run a lot of stuff Just Fine and now use a 360 pad, it requires a whole lot more than the simple plug and play, and a lot more $$ to get a PC to the same spec as a console.

I'd add one more to the list of PC>Console games, and that'd be western RPGs - though that gap appears to be closing.

But yeah, it's a personal anecdote, but I'm playing Borderlands on the 360 because I wanted to co-op with my wife, and when her PC couldn't run it, a fuck it and 2 copies of it for the 360 cost a hell of a lot less than a PC upgrade or new rig. I'll get L4D1 and 2 on 360 soon, for the same reason.