|QUOTE (GTAaLEX117 @ Friday, Jun 28 2013, 08:54)|
Wait, what? Since when does popularity = quality? MW2, along with all the other clones, are nothing more than casual games that appeal to the mainstream audience that likes nothing more than a little session of quick fun, where they can do good regardless of their actual skill and to get rewarded for it. It might have had good lag compensation, but is that your standard for judging games? How about the fact that the MP was completely and utterly unbalanced?
Yes, they track killstreaks in BoGT. Did you even play that episode online? They track your kills. You don't get packages or rewards for it, but they are tracking it (double kill, triple kill, such and such ended so and so's killstreak - that was all absent until BoGT, which also bit every weapon from MW2). Classic DM stuff there, and who is the king (and only) tactical mp competitive shooter on the market? Call of Duty.
For something to be a competitive tactical shooter, it has to respect certain rules.
It needs to switch spawn points around so both teams have the chance to approach the map in the same ways, not just one way or the other. It needs to not have damageable environment to any meaningful way (IE, BF3, while being a great CASUAL military sim, it is NOT a competitive tactical shooter in any way because the maps can be destroyed, no one ever switches positions, it has vehicles, mobile spawn choices - it breaks all the rules, so what you are left with is Not a tactical competitive (key word) shooter, but instead you have a casual sim, whose series falls short of ARMA consistently.)
The MP was NOT unbalanced in MW2. Everything had a counter. BO, MW3, BO2 are all broken in that regard. If you think MW2 is not balanced, than you don't even play it enough to know how to play because everything has a counter, everything has a cost, and everything has a benefit against another perk.
That is the most balanced, well polished call of duty ever made, man. I know I'm going off topic in my own thread about this, but you don't really think anyone can do good in MW2 do you?
Why, because you played some noobs and did okay? You wont get so much as a UAV against me on MW2 pc man. Because I know that ease of play does not mean ease of winning.
The easier the CONTROLS are (cod has it aced) the better noobs can do, yea, but they are still noobs, so sure, set a bunch of noobs free against each other, and they will all do okay. Put me in the lobby with them, and then you will see the difference between skill and tactics applied to easy to control smooth gameplay, vs noobs who don't have to fight the controls and can fight the enemy instead.
Most games you fight the controls more than the opponents. In MW2, you fight your opponent. It is not easy - difficulty is purely based upon the skill of your enemy.
Anyone down to play some MW2 on PC? I play, and win, in any country, anywhere, any ping, and usually defeat hackers as well, carrying my team as I build up 50 or so kills out of the 75 in a match - I'm one of the best in the world, and I am willing to prove it, cause I love that game (can you tell?
Did I leave anything out? I'd be glad to elaborate more.
Popularity does = Quality. See how fast other games die? See how fast Homefront died? Because it was not QUALITY. Quality = what makes people stay and play. If it wasn't quality, it would not be the biggest seller, year in and year out. Console players can't tell the difference between MW2 and the newer games - they are always fighting their joypad and NOT the enemy. Although the lag has gotten so bad they sense that. On PC, we've known it was broken since Black Ops. MW2 is the last true, balanced, polished, design-philosophy-following FPS that has ever been released. It's everything CSS should have been by 2008, let alone everything CS Go wishes it was.
Edited by brian., 28 June 2013 - 01:07 PM.