CoD:MW2 Impressions

Glad people are enjoying this game. A lot of people jumped on the hate-bandwagon for no real reason. The game might not be an improvement on the multiplayer capabilities, but they were right that the bulk of users tend to like simplicity and matchmaking helps a lot in that regard.

I will still skip this game, but I always thought that some people just overreacted on the whole issue. If it is not you cup of tea, don't buy it.

 

It's the first day still. Give it a couple of weeks I'm sure you'll have no trouble finding people to play with.

 

How would everyone compare it with l4d2? I pre ordered it and im pretty sure I made the right choice, its like 1/2 the price and 2x the game since you get DLC and an awesome online community.

 

i got ripped off, they must have just resold me MW1 by mistake, oh wait...

 

I'm just curious. How old are you, exactly? Because from what I have read, you seem extremely immature. Though I respect your opinion, you seem to need to take a few deep breaths.

 

I'm starting to think he hasn't even played the game.
I got my copy last night and the multiplayer is fine. Host migration is fast and I've never had a single ping problem. Matchmaking is easy to find what you want (Select team deathmatch playlist, ctf, domination, ect.

 

I have to say, it was actually tough for me to watch my roommate play the airport level.

 

Has anyone played it in a dorm? I'm worried that my dorm's internet connection might not be up to snuff. My roommate's ps3 version gets full bars for connection.

 

single player is yes awesome.

multiplayer is messed up. seriously! 8v8 max? thats like a weak game, 15v15 is the way to go. 4v4 is soooo tiny man! the weak multiplay really killed it for me

 

You could have skipped that level as its asked in the first but it was like a new experience in FPS for me, so I did it. Anyway, you got shot in the last of the map as a result.

 

random question: can a person on PC do the co-op mode with someone playing the 360 version? it sounds great for my girlfriend and i to play but she doesnt have a gaming pc, and i dont have a 360.

is the multiplayer mixed also?

 

Nope. Not possible.

 

If only. That would be amazingly cool. I think the PC owners would have a significant advantage.

 

That was some random fun...

 

The smaller amount of players will definitely separate the contenders from the pretenders. I like it personally. Not so much more of a challenge, but it basically makes it where nade spamming is moot.

 

I can't understand why they changed the scoring. Did they just multiply everything by ten so the bad players feel like less losers?

 

I've replayed the airport level 10-times already! It's awesome! And just a video game.

If you find the airport level disturbing then maybe you should lay-off the video games for a while...I'd say your having problems distinguishing fantasy from reality.

If anyone wants to have a good laugh, check out my thread over at overclock.net.

 

You make no sense whats so ever, can we say hypocrite? You "bash" the game here then you speak so "highly" of it here. Make up your mind and quit being a hypocrite.

You also bash it in this thread.

 

If you see my opinions of the game have changed since I purchased it yesterday. Can someone not have a change of heart after trying something out rather than being labeled a hypocrite?

Honestly, enough already, I hated the game till I was able to try it out. Now I love it. I'm not trying to hide that fact.

 

Brought my smaller laptop with me to work today and played a few online matches. Had a blast playing multiplayer and had no issues at all. Game runs great even on a 9600m gt overclocked to 9700m gt clocks.

 

When the host leaves the game, how many seconds until it's back up again?

 

About five seconds, it's only happened once to me since I started playing yesterday.

 

I, personally, may have skipped it. But since it was him playing, I didn't really have much of a choice.

 

Why? Yes, there is a difference between fantasy and reality, and I realize that. But doesn't taking part in the massacre of hundreds of innocent civilians make you feel a little guilty? If it doesn't, YOU may want to take a break from video games. You're becoming too desensitized.

 

I thought you weren't buying the game? Hyopcrite...

 

He got converted, because he had weird unknown low expectations for the game for some reason. When he got the game, he saw that 90% of his idea of the game was wrong, and that it was actually good.

So now he is a supporter of MW2

Some users believe he was abducted and changed with IW staff to destroy all who oppose their game though!

 

Its a very real game, with very real situations. If you cannot handle it maybe you should lay off a bit. Its rated M for a reason.

 

So I'm going to be able to play this game in the upcoming CEVO/CEGL season? No? I will be disappointed then.

 

It should make you wonder whether it's appropriate material for a video game, but then again you can broaden the question for the entire genre. For example, a game is being released in the US that depicts the battle of Fallujah (most Americans don't know anything about it or the battle) in a very realistic manner; is that appropriate? These are questions worth considering.

As for feeling guilty, of course there is no reason to feel in that way.

 

That's quite a valid view point. The same controversy arose when Saving Private Ryan depicted an intimate death of an American Ranger at the hands of a German soldier.

 

So ultimately, it seems some can't handle reality. That's to be expected.

Approrpriate, inappropriate doesn't apply since there's no universal consensus on what constitutes it. It's cultural and individual.

That's why there's such a thing a fair warning ahead of time. And when you start the game up, it does just that.

 

you see, that would be the fantasy part.

 

Lay off Cobra, people change their minds. He's got every right to do that. If you'd like to give your impressions of MW2 I'm sure everyone would be happy to hear them, but if you're going to attack people personally take it elsewhere.

 

So many haters on the forums these days.......

 

I don't think it's a matter of who can stomach the realism, I think it's a matter of, "is this subject matter appropriate, given the context in which it is presented?"

In Saving Private Ryan (my favorite war movie ever), surfasb mentioned the scene in which an American Ranger is killed in hand-to-hand combat with a German soldier; yet in the context of a war film, it is entirely appropriate. Even before the movie was released, it was understood to be an intense film about realism. In the first 10 minutes of the movie, this is made abundantly clear when Spielberg takes the audience through an extremely intense Omaha beach landing on D-day. The violence and gore seen in the film is expected because of what the film is about (WWII in the case of Saving Private Ryan) and because it serves a purpose, namely to educate the viewer that war is terrible by showing it in it's full raw, graphic nature.

In the case of MW2, I think the depiction of a massacre is entirely inappropriate as it is placed in the context of a video game that is meant to entertain and provide the user with amusement. It serves no historical or educational purpose, and it is naive to the point of insult to think that by playing through such a massacre, one suddenly has some idea of what a similar experience is like. It is disrespectful to people who have seen and experienced such things to have it presented in such a context.

Activision is effectively cheapening such a powerful idea (mass murder) by presenting it in a medium that isn't meant to be taken seriously. There are those that believe the video games can be serious, but this is simply not the case. Case in point, there never has been, or will be, a game to match the educational, historical, or emotional power of a film like Saving Private Ryan. Games are meant for entertainment; if a game is developed in order to be serious about a sensitive issue, then it should be serious to the bone.

Modern Warefare 2 clearly isn't even trying to be taken seriously, yet it presents the mass-murdering of civilians in terrorist scenarios as a mere 5-minute footnote.

Now, you may be inclined to say that my position is entirely a matter of opinion, subjective in nature and therefore not representative of the whole. But I have enough confidence in my opinion to believe that others will be compelled by the strong reasoning that it presents.

 

tl dr
)))

 

Your argument has "strong" reasoning in as much as it tries to reason from an a priori justification of "inappropriateness." However, what you deem to be a priori, is in fact wholly subjective or a posteriori.

What's more, the problem with your argument is that you claim that the COD series is for entertainment. Yet, the series is about war, killing humans, and wantonly damaging property. In war or armed conflict, as a fact, innocent civilians get maimed and or killed for a variety of reasons.

So by adding an "innocent civilian" aspect to the game, it crosses what arbitrary line exactly?

The first line of supposed decency crossed was making a game in which you kill fellow humans without real consequence... as a form of entertainment.

Like I said in a post prior, there is no universal sentiment as to what constitutes appropriateness. To argue it is to argue your own sensibility and that's all. There are no inherently "logical" grounds to do so.

Which is fine. As long as we honestly denote that it is in fact our own personal opinion. Obviously some will have differing opinions since the subject has no universality.

I mean, someone disparagingly mentioned that if anyone didn't take objection to it, then they have been desensitized. It's an uneven point of view to take since someone can come along and consider that that said person is desensitized for even playing a first person shooter in the first place.

Think about it.

So if you don't like it or find it distasteful, simply state it. No need to justify it, attempt to disenfranchise or cast disparagement on those who perhaps have a differing constitution for seeming reality and the possibilities thereof.

 

wow ppl needa realize teh difference between being a hypocrite and changing a viewpoint -_-

hypocrite is when u ACTIVELY say something not to do, then you do it yourself. usapatriot said, BEFORE it was released, that he didnt want to waste his money on the game. now it's released, and he prolly looked it up and thought it wasnt as bad as it sounds, so HE bought it. now that he owns it, he recommends the game cuz it doesnt have that many problems, ie he isnt actively saying not to buy it while he owns the game, and is enjoying it.

 

Lets search this "review" for anything with substance... .... nothing.

 

You can knock off the Latin phrases, we're not running a formal debate here. Not only that, I already pointed out that my opinion would be seen as just that; the problem with the reasoning behind your dismissal of my opinion is that you somehow deem all opinions to be equal and can therefore dismiss them on that basis. In fact, I'm sure you'll find that some opinions are a great deal more robust and well-supported than others.

It's my turn to use a Latin phrase; your oversimplification of my argument is what's called a reductio ad absurdum.

It is war as a medium of entertainment, not as a medium for education, historical documentation, or emotional experience. I made this distinction between a film like Saving Private Ryan and Call of Duty. It's a darn computer game, for Christ's sake, and that's exactly my point. The massacre is thrown in like it's trying to make a serious statement about war to the player, but it merely serves to cheapen the experience because the game is about entertainment, period. If you want to present a something seriously, presenting it along with a Rambo style game that is clearly meant for entertainment isn't the way to do it. It's inappropriate.

It's not about precisely what it portrays, it's about the message it sends to people. Read my previous post to understand more about why adding a serious message in the midst of an otherwise purely entertaining experience makes the lesson redundant and lost on players. Quite frankly I cannot make myself any clearer on what is wrong with adding such a sensitive scenario to an otherwise insensitive game.

OK, I have written earlier that you should either make it a serious game or not serious at all. I'm glad we agree on this point at least.

It is ridiculous to categorize all arguments as mere opinions and then dismiss them as such. I provided ample and clear justification to explain why the massacre is inappropriate in the context of it's presentation.

Also, we don't care about universality. This isn't a philosophical debate, it is a debate centered around reaching a consensus, which is all that we should care about reaching.

I have other reasons to not buy the game, but the civilian massacre is perhaps one of them. Attempting to provide the player with some emotional experience in war is one thing, but switching back to the "guns blazing" attitude about war is another.

My intention isn't to disenfranchise or cast disparagement; my aim is merely to criticize the developers for putting a tasteless segment into the game. Behind all your convoluted argument, I'm sure you'll agree that I at least have that right.

 

To know the definition of hypocrite requires you to have a middle school education. That can't be guaranteed on the Internet.

 

If you can say that killing civilians is wrong but not military personel then you yourself are need of inspection. You are implicitly saying that you're okay with killing soldiers.

Just because they're occupation isn't that of a waiter, fire man, or office worker, doesn't make them any less innocent.

 

Quote me if I said that.

 

I'm saying that for everyone. You can't say that all of a sudden because one element is added into the game that it's inhumane.

You're participating in a war! How much more inhumane can you get? Do you think the cities you enter are actually unpopulated? All that rubble used to hold up a building someone slept in.

So if anyone is going to say something is unacceptable, it's war games in general.

note: I'm not against war games but I felt the need to make it known that you're either against or for something. No double dipping no either or. This or that.

 

I'm going to skip a blow by blow critique of your response because it's unnecessary and because you missed a crucial point and proceeded from there.

I never said all opinions are equal (they can't be for many valid reasons) nor have I dismissed any opinions.

I just called attention to the fact that it is an opinion based on subjective criteria - which is what it is. Appropriate or inappropriate is by definition subjective. It defines the suitability of something for someone or some other thing. You're trying to make it something more than that and that's the problem. The absurdity of your argument is that you fail to realize that since there can be no meanigful consensus on what constitutes "inappropriateness" other than by those of similar dispositions due to personal worldviews, experiences, cultures, and constitutions, you can't but state your feelings on the matter.

You should be satisfied with just stating your feelings without arbitrary and arguable justification. I can argue how your analogies fail at their core. So what? Who cares? Why unnecessarily derail the thread with that?

A simple, "I don't like what they warned about in the game and what others have said is in the game so I won't be buying it" or something to that effect would have sufficed.

And you know what? That's OK. Others might feel the same way and chime in with a somewhat similar if not exact sentiment. Would that not be a satisfying "consensus of thought?"

Hey, I don't like the fact that you can't turn the crosshairs off. If others like the crosshairs, do I have to make an arbitrary though seemingly rational argument that the crosshairs detract from reality and are inappropriate as far a reality is concerned to try to build a consensus? Or will it be enough that I state that I don't like the crosshairs and hope others might chime in with the same sentiment?

 

***WARNING: CUTE PUPPIES FROLICKING IN THE SNOW!!!***


width='425' height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/xa5d3UhTmAg&color1=0xb1b1b1&color2=0xcfcfcf&feature=player_embedded&fs=1"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowScriptAccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/xa5d3UhTmAg&color1=0xb1b1b1&color2=0xcfcfcf&feature=player_embedded&fs=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowfullscreen="true" allowScriptAccess="always" width='425' height="344"></embed></object>

 

USAPatriot,

If you would, please edit your post with a warning about what the scene is about so folks can choose to watch or not.

Thanks.

 

No. ......

 

Fair enough. well played.

Sort of makes the point about Activision at least warning players about graphic content and giving them the option to skip the level(s) that may offend.

 

You mean Activision?

edit: I won't lie, I was waiting for the airport level, but only for sole purpose that the F.S.B. is involved (I'm a stickler when I can get anything that's part of my heritage). I wish we could've played as them though, not against them. But all the same.

I also find it strange that the F.S.B. would be using HK5's, TAR-21's and FN2000's in this game. That's not correct, and for me, it detracts from my experience.