Modern Warfare 2

I've come to the conclusion that Modern Warfare 2 is better than Black Ops. For a couple reasons.

MW2 doesn't feel like I'm playing 'just another shooter' like Black Ops. In Black Ops it feels like Treyarch came up with this great story and developed it and then just ditched it in multiplayer for random maps. Now the reason that bothers me is that what helped make the multiplayer of World at War and Modern Warfare 2 attractive was that, first with World at War, they really captured World War II and carried that into the multiplayer. The same can be said for MW2. They built this world of their own and they were able to capture that experience in their multiplayer which as I previously stated makes it more 'attractive' but also I think it helps to make it more fun.

The second thing that really gets me is the multiplayer itself. During MW2 i really hated it because I thought it was very unbalanced. After playing both for so many months I've realized that Black Ops, though more balanced, gives you the worst of the 2 experiences. How do you explain shooting a guy 6-7 times to have him turn around and rape you? It just takes a bit too long to kill an enemy. To be honest, I think Infinity Ward hit the nail on the head. You don't die instantly but you die fairly quick meaning when I get you 4-5 times your ass is mine. The whole MW2 multiplayer experience seems to make a bit more sense. Although shotguns need to be primary and commando needs to be removed it's still great.

......





OK, go a year back and what were people saying about MW2? "It's terrible - nowhere near as good as CoD 5"
Now go a year beyond that, and what did they say? "It's terrible - nowhere near as good as CoD 4"
and unsurprisingly once again it happens with black ops....


well the point is that it's not terrible at all.

In fact every game is considerably better than its predeccessor; just the only reason why people complain is that the improvements from one game to another is NOWHERE NEAR the improvement from CoD 3 to CoD 4 - hence why CoD 4 seemed to extraordinary.

CoD 4 was an excellent game, and from there, despite having solid improvements in balance, features, graphics, and physics in each game, the fact of the matter is that there was very little to be significantly improved from the last - they simply made CoD 4 too good, so any later improvements will seem totally insignificant in comparison to the monumental improvements from CoD 3 to CoD 4.....

kempo does have a good point. in retrospect everything is "the good ole days" however i agree with heavey. mw2 just feels right. it has its downsides, like commando and overpowered weapons, but it is still enjoyable to play. remember mario? the graphics weren't perfect and the story was "go save a princess." but it was a great game because its fun. im sure somebody has fun with black ops, aside from zombies, but unless it is a zombie game, they shouldnt be the best part. ive hung my hat to black ops and if i ever need the money for another game, will be returning it. for the time being, i have it in case bloodi or kempo (who, God forbid, would actually get mw2) want to play.

Well I don't see it as that. I think Black Ops needed to either play like WaW or MW2. It plays right down the middle. Right down the middle is no good. WaW gameplay was superb, MW2's was in its' own way. Right down the middle gives you absolutely noobs beating you. We used to think that was the case in MW2 when really you have to be the better guy 9/10 times because you've GOT to be quicker than your opponent.

I love certain features of BLOPS, including the money/xp system, the combat training and the use of more dual weilded weapons, interesting perks and good challenges in the form of contracts. If MW3 could include all that with the physics machine of BF3 then I think we would have pretty much the perfect shooter

its got to be fun like mw2 was though. blops was fun at first, but faded quickly.

i still have loads of fun with mw2, as i did when i first got it.

i also dont like how for some of the perks you have to play objective games to get. like planting the bomb ten times to get ninja pro. i dont play s&d so i cant get ninja pro easily at all. keep it like mw2 where you have to do something like 100 close range kills with the perk or whatever.

Gnu:I would prefer CoD and BF not to mix, BC2 was almost perfect except for a Few flaws. But if you'd mix CoD and BF you'll get a mediocre CoD's Arcade Feel and BF Realism doesn't mix. Now CoD's Lobbies would be Great in BF and BF spotting would be Awesome in CoD but that's as far as I would want it to mix.

one thing i really dont like about bad company 2 is the recoil. using a rifle is like a seven year old shooting his first gun. if he doesn't correct after his first shot he's looking up at the sky.

what do you mean spotting top?

Jt you seriously have no idea what spotting is, Spotting is when you spot an enemy with the Select button, which in turn makes a giant red arrow pop over their head on everyones hud. It's very useful especially when they have tank rolling in. Plus BF recoil is realistic, you try shooting XM8 full auto without any rise, or any gun for that reason. MY main complaint is gun selection, I wish they included M40, and an AK-74 or whatever is now standard in Russia.

huh, never noticed that goomh. hah.

yes, gun's have recoil, probably more than in cod, but nothing that you couldn't control better than that. little kid with an m16, select firing it, but nonetheless, look how well he controls it. someone in the military would be able to control it even better.

Yeah Battlefield and CoD don't mix haha

how about....COD AND CHIPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPSSSSSSSS!!!!

:-)

JT: I agree that it is a little too much but hey that's for balance. Anyway who knows if those are store bought civ 5.56(Most likely), NATO grade which have much more punch, self loaded with lower grains(not likely). '

Anyway like I already said it's all for balancing reasons and other BS.

...cod and chips, wrapped up with a wrapper of BF3....mmmmm

Both MW3 and BF3 will be great I reckon.

Sounds Delicious, and tasty. If MW3 is like MW2 but with no Commando and No One Man Mortar Teams

ya, i could live without commando...but it is strange, they NEVER seem to make fucking changes that everyone wants...i dont know who they ask...

Fty|Topgun09 wrote:

Sounds Delicious, and tasty. If MW3 is like MW2 but with no Commando and No One Man Mortar Teams

Totally agree TG!!

exactly lookin, then fucking changes they do make piss people off. i want quickscoping back. i understand that its unfair, but how many people are good enough to kill someone using a rifle farther than three feet anyway?

QS is actually disadvantaging fucking User, unless your Grizz and your just fucking Beast at it. Now RG's are completely OP in MW2 and so is Commando.

my point exactly. there are a few monsters that can do it and personally, i dont mind dying to them, least its impressive.

blops is a good place for rg's to be, not too strong, but good enough if you know where fucking person is.

commando should be gone, yes.

i will say, that either stopping power should be back, or guns should be stronger by default. but smgs should be as strong as rifles or lmgs unless you're two feet away.

and no hitmarkers for any sniper.

Akimbo G18's for sure!!!!!! or M93's

adding to the list of things to take out i see.

How about no akimbo SMG's unless they make it like the skorpion

i think the akimbo idea is stupid as is. one gun in hand at a time is plenty.

Akimbo snipers!!!!!

Now that's an idea, imagine two interventions and no aim what so ever. No scoping heaven

how would you cycle the bolt?

the same way you pull a knife out with akimbo weapons i suppose.

I re-vamped but semi-watered down MW2 would be epic. And it appears MW3 is being announced through playstation magazine (yeah fuck you, Kemp.)

http://gamerant.com/opmuk-modern-warfare-3-reveal-confirmed-seb-83280/

it's gonna be announced through PS3 magazine, huh?


Well I'll expect the announcement some time about 4 months after the game's actual release date then.....