BF2S Forums [MW2]Official Multiplayer Gameplay

But they haven't been nearly as prevalent until now, and they haven't had nearly the effect.

When consoles and PCs were seperate, with the PS2 and such, there wasn't nearly the problem there is now that microsoft has put loads of money into making gaming mean X360.

Poseidon wrote:

Miggle wrote:

But they haven't been nearly as prevalent until now, and they haven't had nearly the effect.

When consoles and PCs were seperate, with the PS2 and such, there wasn't nearly the problem there is now that microsoft has put loads of money into making gaming mean X360.

Or could it be that you're just noticing it more now that you're older. Not exactly far fetched, my friend.

but the older "good" games were far less simplified, dumbed down, and casual than our current "good" games. I've noticed that because I've played both the new and the old recently. Sure there were dumb casual games back then, but they remained on the consoles where people were willing to buy them.

cod gameplay is about 5v5/6v6 s&d, not 32-man conquest or capture the flag.

it wouldnt work.

Ioan92 wrote:

Uzique wrote:

cod gameplay is about 5v5/6v6 s&d, not 32-man conquest or capture the flag.

it wouldnt work.

You're sure? I mean, would the hit registration and movement be impossible to implement?

The reason BF2 has bad hitreg has everything to do with the fact that it's 32v32 conquest.

Am looking forward to it, I have a 50 slot server on pre-order for the game, got a nice discount, I insist you bastards who are getting it for the PC (people still have those right?) get your arse onto it on launch day

Ioan92 wrote:

AussieReaper wrote:

Doctor Strangelove wrote:

The reason BF2 has bad hitreg has everything to do with the fact that it's 32v32 conquest.

+ bad netcode. Our internets are a lot faster than when bf2 first came out but there's been no change in hitreg.

I'm willing to blame the bad net code, because cod4 does have 64 slot servers.

People willing to play on those servers deserve to be shot.

I can't stand cod4 with more than 3v3.

Uzique wrote:

cod gameplay is about 5v5/6v6 s&d, not 32-man conquest or capture the flag.

it wouldnt work.

CoD gameplay is whatever the fuck people want to play. There are a variety of servers for you to play.

CoD 1 + 2 had shitty multiplayer, outclassed by much better WW2 shooters like BF1942, Red Orchestra, Day of Defeat + Source, etc.

I don't understand why you are crying so much. If you are a 'purist' go play 6v6 HC S&D games, there's nothing wrong with that. Let people play CTF Domination Sabotage TDM FFA whatever the fuck they want with 50 players, because guess what, there are servers of all types for people who want to fuck around and have some variety instead of being massive cockeaters.

Then again, you're defending CoD 1 + 2 as being amazing shooters so lmao you play shitty shooters

killaer wrote:

Uzique wrote:

cod gameplay is about 5v5/6v6 s&d, not 32-man conquest or capture the flag.

it wouldnt work.

CoD gameplay is whatever the fuck people want to play. There are a variety of servers for you to play.

CoD 1 + 2 had shitty multiplayer, outclassed by much better WW2 shooters like BF1942, Red Orchestra, Day of Defeat + Source, etc.

I don't understand why you are crying so much. If you are a 'purist' go play 6v6 HC S&D games, there's nothing wrong with that. Let people play CTF Domination Sabotage TDM FFA whatever the fuck they want with 50 players, because guess what, there are servers of all types for people who want to fuck around and have some variety instead of being massive cockeaters.

Then again, you're defending CoD 1 + 2 as being amazing shooters so lmao you play shitty shooters

I don't get why setting makes a difference, all 4 of those games far outclass CoD4.

If VCoD and CoD2 are "shitty shooters" then what does that make CoD4, because its multiplayer lacks all of the depth that they had. Its tiny maps, recoilless weapons, helicopters, airstrikes, perks, grenade launchers, grenades, etc make it a far less enjoyable experience than it's predecessors.

killaer wrote:

Huh? Are you trolling me or something? All of the CoD games have small linear maps. You're saying it has less depth, where as perks give multiplayer SO much more depth by allowing you to customize your playstyle and tailor it to counter the enemy in new ways. CoD 1 + 2 was a deathmatch game with a handful of weapons and rifles. CoD 4 is just that...except with more weapons, with perks, with customization options, and with different game modes? So...No clue what you're talking about

you dont have a clue what you're talking about, to be honest

cod1/cod2 had far from linear maps, far from small. some of the most classic maps of the series stem from the genesis of vCoD. the massive open field maps and maps with multiple-routes and paths were prevalent in cod1/cod2 but sorely missing in cod4 (and will no doubt be axed from mw2 as well). the depth in the originals came from the difficulty and skill-curves of each weapon, each map and each attack/defense strategy- in cod4 this 'depth' is completely gone and is instead replaced by recoil-less guns with barely any difference in lethality, straight-forward tunnel maps and then hence very predictable and routine attack/defense strategies. the fact that you find 'depth' in perks shows that you're easily entertained by gimmicks. you can't really value the 'depth' of dropping a grenade when you die or the gimmick of double-tap over the tact and refinement of mastering the BAR or Mp44, or the quick-reflexes of the beautifully balanced rifles. incomparable games, imo. cod4 comes from a generation of console-based games that gives each and every player the full range of uppers, downers, doohickies and big explosions and then lets them rip shit up effortlessly, whereas cod1/cod2 actually had a learning-curve... and they felt a damn load more rewarding as a result.

Uzique wrote:

cod1/cod2 had far from linear maps, far from small. some of the most classic maps of the series stem from the genesis of vCoD. the massive open field maps and maps with multiple-routes and paths were prevalent in cod1/cod2 but sorely missing in cod4 (and will no doubt be axed from mw2 as well). the depth in the originals came from the difficulty and skill-curves of each weapon, each map and each attack/defense strategy- in cod4 this 'depth' is completely gone and is instead replaced by recoil-less guns with barely any difference in lethality, straight-forward tunnel maps and then hence very predictable and routine attack/defense strategies. the fact that you find 'depth' in perks shows that you're easily entertained by gimmicks. you can't really value the 'depth' of dropping a grenade when you die or the gimmick of double-tap over the tact and refinement of mastering the BAR or Mp44, or the quick-reflexes of the beautifully balanced rifles. incomparable games, imo. cod4 comes from a generation of console-based games that gives each and every player the full range of uppers, downers, doohickies and big explosions and then lets them rip shit up effortlessly, whereas cod1/cod2 actually had a learning-curve... and they felt a damn load more rewarding as a result.

Do you play console or PC?

CoD2 was made for PC, hence large maps, whereas CoD4 was a compromise (ha) of small maps for the consoles and medium (read: larger small) for the PC. Although it sucks, its just where games are heading these days.

And I agree with killaer, though mastering a beautifully balanced rifle? I laughed out loud at that.

the fact that you find 'depth' in perks shows that you're easily entertained by gimmicks.

Apart from you, who doesnt?

Arc wrote:

killaer wrote:

Uzique wrote:

refinement of mastering the BAR or Mp44, or the quick-reflexes of the beautifully balanced rifles.

Bro, they're just guns, you're getting a bit over-enthusastic about them. The guns in CoD were like...uh..guns in any other game? There's not that much depth in mastering a SMG/rifle in a video game. It's not some sort of holy act.

Sounds like you've never mastered a weapon in vCoD. Every gun feels unique and requires a different approach to using it effectively. You can pick up essentially any gun in CoD4 and be a master at it with no change in your playstyle.

this is mainly what im referring to

those of you from the console generation of cod4 and similar titles wont really be able to relate

I think the main point that yoozeegoo is trying to make is that despite the large number of weapons in CoD4, they all handle the same. An MP5 doesn't shoot much differently from an M4, neither have substantial recoil, both have good accuracy. In CoD1 though each team had only a few weapons, they were all completely their own, and they all required specific skill to be used. There were bolt action rifles, which required accuracy and response time, I spent quite some time in rifles only servers learning them. There were sniper rifles, which had small scope views and you couldn't just hold your breath to keep them still, they were difficult to use, they took experience to be any good with them. There was the thompson, which iirc I never used much because I couldn't hit shit with them, they were fast but not particularly accurate. All of the weapons had to be learned, there was depth to them, each had their uses and each was very different, but none were better than the others.

As far as the maps go, there's a reason they've used carentan in all of their games, and it isn't the only VCoD map to be reused, quite a few were. There isn't a map in cod4 as open as pavlov or brecourt, they're all small, linear, and bland, not even fit for a 6v6.

Gimmicks are "features that distinguishes a product or service without adding any obvious function or value." perks have no value, nor do kill streak awards. They do the work for you, be it by killing an enemy with a grenade automatically dropped, or by increasing the damage of your bullets, or silencing your footsteps. They take challenge and skill out of the picture, so the game practically plays itself, and where's the fun in that?

Last edited by Miggle (2009-09-05 18:18:34)