Modern Warfare 2 is so terrible! But... Thread

I think there could bemuch more to FPS than just firing your gun. The gameplay is usually just reduced to its minimal working version, in order to reduce the necessary elements to the lowest common denominator. FPS reduce shooting to the visceral part, as always in games: to action without consequence. If anything, you get the highscore for shooting as many enemies as possible. Not a good idea, actually.

As games become more wholesome they should try to become more multi-faceted, too. All that's happening now however is that actions are being chained up to achieve even bigger kills and top that off with a perks and achievements and you have the equivalent to a prescription drug. All that developers want is to chain us to their games, and that's what I have been annoyed by for quite a while now. If at least they did it in style, but no - luring us with achievements and superfluous stuff; works on some...

It is okay that you want to sell your project, but crawling up the industries' arse and repeating old mistakes, doesn't seem like the future of gaming to me.

Gamers are clever, in fact we get better through practice; we need challenges. So the only thing that can distinguish Game A from Game B is the bit about how you feel when pulling the trigger. Do you slaughter 1000s without regret, or are you praying for a way out of this mess, but the story won't let you? I actually thought about writing a game that isn't propelled by the achievements of the player. Make him a running man, instead, pitched against potential allies and enemies alike. Why should the player always be the hero about to change the world? That's greek myth, not modern writing. It works, but basically this type of storytelling omits 2000 years of writing since and holds only the most basic setup for plot and character.

Someone wrote: It is okay that you want to sell your project, but crawling up the industries' arse and repeating old mistakes, doesn't seem like the future of gaming to me.

Agreed!

Someone wrote: Why should the player always be the hero about to change the world? That's greek myth, not modern writing. It works, but basically this type of storytelling omits 2000 years of writing since and holds only the most basic setup for plot and character.

It really all depends though, Epics can still be as entertaining as ever- the classic hero character "can" work, but you have to avoid cliches where ever possible. I think homer pretty much figured that bit out back then and that was more than 2000 years ago. Since then they still haven't figured it out.

To be honest I think the future of gaming relies in self expression within a game- presently some games allow it, but its always linearized to the point where we still don't feel we have enough freedom to express ourselves. In the end, building games in the future will be less about the developer's story, and more about the players. The developer will be the one that facilitates it, they will provide the examples and the templates, and then let the player loose- whilst I'm not saying "total freedom" I'm saying close to it.

Games should evolve to a point where they start to become more dynamic as time goes on- NOT more linear like the way its going now.

That's just how I feel though.

There's hope out there still - in (ex) Soviet Russia, you play games

Gibberstein wrote: There's hope out there still - in (ex) Soviet Russia, you play games

Don't you mean games play you..

oh, I see what you did thar.. lol

SinKing wrote: Well, how is the Bad Company 2 community? Isn't that a better alternative to MW2 anyway?
I wonder what the next big thing in gaming will be? Is there anything comparably brainless to FPS (run, fire, duck, reload...)? We explored all the options, and I haven't seen any games yet that could deliver the same action without using the same old mechanisms. It's always fun for a while, but don't we all wish there was some genius gameplay, from time to time? - Last time I had that was with Portal, but I don't want my average FPS to feel like Portal... I want something new; not a recombination.

Actually there is a game with a gameplay mechanic which revitalizes the FPS genre and it's called Shattered Horizon

Shattered Horizon isn't really anything special either.

I'm curious what you guys want to see in a shooter then.

ambershee wrote: Shattered Horizon isn't really anything special either.

Actually, I find the zero-G combat refreshing; it's definitely a breath of fresh air despite the cliche weapons. It is more reliant on user thinking and tactics rather than "ZOMG I GOTZ A NAOW ALL OF YOUZ DIEEE!!!"

Cryrid wrote: I'm curious what you guys want to see in a shooter then.

most likely boobs
i prefer destruction (think red faction) but thats just me :p

i can't say much about MW 2
you know when someone says: don't take it seriously, it's just a fuc**** game!
i bought MW 2, but i don't download any of those crappy dlcs "made" by actvision, btw it's very fun, with lots of cut stuff and surrealism
i just play it for fun, but i didn't liked it as much as i liked COD4
i still play it on multiplayer, incredible is that, is has twice as much servers, even that it got 40% of the actions cut(and laggier cvars >:/)
mw 2 has more weapons, but has a crappy history, failed at copying the brazillian favelas, no leaning, no tatical, just grab a friggin' weapon and blast your way out!(and yet, it's actally stealing money from the players >:|)
cod 4 has a good history, no heroism, no surrealism(never saw someone carrying two double barrels at the same time ), nice levels, weapons, and no parodies in-game. leaning, better multiplayer, console, mods, and +
jeez, gonna play cod 4 now and forget about mw 2

[ªAUGdudeº wrote: ] nice levels, weapons, and no parodies in-game. leaning, better multiplayer, console, mods, and +
jeez, gonna play cod 4 now and forget about mw 2

Are you sure CoD 4 has leaning? I don't recall leaning being in the game.

no leaning in cod4
last cod i know that had leaning was 2

What i want to see in a fps is put simply a good campaign and that is the only reason i but the cod games on my xbox, lets face it you can bitch about the multiplayer all you want but its single player is fun and new. Unfortunatly the only bf bc2 was good for was its multiplayer. I thought about buying shattered horizons until i saw no single player.

Fanboy's gonna fan...

figalot wrote: but its single player is fun and new.

fun? it was ok
new? definitely not

Urh my words came out wrong.....um i ment that its some thing new to play instead of just play stalker all the time now i can waste a few more hours doing that...LOL as in redevining the Genre that would be Bullshit, IMHO the game is crap unbalanced and fagy but the fact that for me cod4 was probely one of the best games ever made forced me to buy this....i was dissapointed.

no leaning in cod4
last cod i know that had leaning was 2

I'm pretty sure I remember leaning in CoD4... and 5

Edited by: Cryrid

haven't played 5, can't remember 4 :p

I played a good amount of 6 on 360 with friends. I can't say I enjoyed it... I certainly liked Cod4 a lot more. Its just to much "everything goes boom"
Things like noob-tubes and shotgun side arms make every player ridiculous over powered. Its too easy to get the high-end kill streaks with them.
I'd prefer a game with a little more tact than some kid screaming at me how good he is at throwing a tube at me.

On a side note. Unless the game's gameplay revolves around explosives, they can ruin shooters. (For me atleast)

Bad Company 2! I think MW2 was good when it was released, and quickly kinda died off into the "omg, it's the EXACT same thing every match: run, shoot, get frustrated, die, REPEAT! No matter what type of match it was basically all the same.
There's where I liked BC2, you actually had a medic class that could help keep ur team from running out of respawns in certain matches and keep ur team alive in ur good ol' death match. There's variety and it felt good, but destructable environments FTW! Srsly those really help change things up. But with all FPS's, it gets old and I tire of it. So I just wanted to say "booo" for MW2 and "yay!" for BC2

mw2 single player was good so was coop i like coop allmost anyway. mp brainless shooting who you get bored by even more than by mw1 there you could at least control where the enemy spawned. hahahahaa

Its annoying when people call CoD Mw2 a bad game, It wasn't a bad game it just wasn't as good as the 1st MW.

Also I would like to see more strategy in fps, like merge Split Second with CoD. Shoot a crane thats holding a 2 ton bar and have it fall and kill some of your enemies (or a water tank and let them drown ).

Well personally, I dislike the multiplayer. The story for MW2 is alright. What I'd like to see, and not that my opinion matters at all... is some more versatile environments. I mean sure killing chickens is fun. But you know, I'd like to see a breaking table or something when someone hides behind it and you're still punching holes through that table when it's like wood or something. I don't know, the sheet metal laying around the ground... maybe they'd get used as a way to kill someone if a grenade blew up over it etc.

The only reason people still play MW2 is for 10th prestige and infections. Well 65% of them anyway then there are 25% who jtag and are making money off people and then there are the other and finale 10% who are scammers and the lowest form of sh*t on the net scamming people out of there money and msp.

TheHappyFriar wrote: you complain about Activision/IW's MW2 yet you have no happily support a company that told their main financier to F-Off, took away the right to sell old computer games, hasn't produced a product worth buying since 1998, and flat out lies about their produces in order to increase sales?

Every frikken valve fan is a stupid mindless zombie!

You just never stop to amuse me