Modern Warfare 2 Blows Away Launch Records

heatlesssun said:
Which is a shame. Great fun game on the PC despite the whining. Proudly bought in on launch and was happy to. $60? I've spent A LOT more than $60 on games I never played. MW2 already isn't one of those.

The sad thing is that PC gamers are just looking for an excuse to kill PC gaming and pirate this title. Sad, sad, sad. Sure I don't like what IW did. It folks, PC gaming isn't just for hardcore types. I play a lot of games but I'm NOT hardcore and this is just a fun game to jump into and play.
Click to expand...

I agree. I got the 360 version last Thursday and really enjoyed it. I picked up the PC version because why not, the multiplayer is fun but I'll always be better with a mouse and keyboard, it actually works really well, and I really enjoy the system of unlocking weapons, attachments, perks, gaining XP, kill streak rewards, etc. Its very unique to online shooters and IMHO much better implemented than the XP/loot system Valve have been trying to figure out in TF2.

Its funny, nearly everyone that has picked it up on the PC and played multi is reporting that the game plays great online, no crap lag or anything they were expecting. IMHO the only real downside to no dedicated servers is that communities can't build around specific servers (my regular BF2 servers were heavily moderated and had great regulars). Now you have to depend on your friends list more.

Sure, its a bummer that dedicated servers aren't in there, but by no means does it ruin the game and its playability, it surprisingly plays great.

If you don't like CoD games then pass on it; the whack-a-mole on-rails style of single player gameplay is still there, and you might hate having to unlock weapons, kill streak rewards, perks, etc etc. But if you do enjoy IW's games, then you are doing yourself a huge disservice by passing because of some silly "boycott", it is hands down the best game that they have produced.
 
kilroy67 said:
For $60 I'll take a pass on this pile of crap, 5-6 hours of single player and a multi-player aspect that a retarded monkey could play. Infinity Ward sold their sole so they could rake in the money from all the brain dead console fanboys.:p;)
Click to expand...

I watched my friend play it on his 360. I talked to him and asked him about how much play time he will get out of story mode and he said tons. An hour later it was done. I was disappointed it was that short. Seemed like a really abrupt ending. Could have went a lot further with it.
 
xBanzai89 said:
I watched my friend play it on his 360. I talked to him and asked him about how much play time he will get out of story mode and he said tons. An hour later it was done. I was disappointed it was that short. Seemed like a really abrupt ending. Could have went a lot further with it.
Click to expand...

You guys should have played special-ops next, co-op missions that are insanely fun.
 
how long is it taking people to play though? actually 5 hours?
 
Bman123 said:
awww boo hoo so many whiney pc users here. i wont buy the game til its 20bux. have fun with that cod 4 is still more then 20bux.
i think u guys are just mad that u continue to get shafted with games. gta4 was trash on pc and now cod mw2 dont have dedicated servers and a player cap. cry me a river guys either get it on console or quit crying. pc gaming is nothing compared to consoles.
Click to expand...

Of course were made were getting shafted. Wouldn't you be pissed if they started to gank away from console games? Consoles have nothing on PC gaming.
 
ekuest said:
how long is it taking people to play though? actually 5 hours?
Click to expand...

5 hours for sprinters, average is closer to 6-7 hours. Its about the same length as MW1, the difference is that there are more locations and settings but the levels within them are shorter. Its like a "best of" with the crazy action setpieces, there isn't really any filler to speak of.
 
Bman123 said:
awww boo hoo so many whiney pc users here. i wont buy the game til its 20bux. have fun with that cod 4 is still more then 20bux.
i think u guys are just mad that u continue to get shafted with games. gta4 was trash on pc and now cod mw2 dont have dedicated servers and a player cap. cry me a river guys either get it on console or quit crying. pc gaming is nothing compared to consoles.
Click to expand...

Console crap...mindless button mashing "fun". GTA was trash on a PC because the game itself is trash. This isn't a good place to spew ignorant console "toy" smack.
 
xnorthx said:
specifically



... YES???? It bums me out that dumbed down games get released and people like you lap this shit up. Call of Duty is the new halo and it caters to mouth breathers. OH COOL A POPUP IN THE MIDDLE OF THE SCREEN TELLING ME I SHOT SOMEONE IN THE HEAD, RAD.

Does it bum me out that we as PC Gamers might not have a dedicated next-gen quality game as great as Deus Ex? Yes. Does it bum you out? Probably not. :rolleyes:
Click to expand...

It's always funny seeing people bitch about a game being "dumbed down" simply because it exists on both PC and consoles. Both consoles and PC have had their share of good, long games - but both also have their short, crappy games. You can't say "OMG this game would have been waaaaay better if it were out exclusively for PC" because, no, it wouldn't have. The only thing that would have been better is the graphics. The core game, though, would largely be whatever their vision for it was in the first place.
 
Bman123 said:
awww boo hoo so many whiney pc users here. i wont buy the game til its 20bux. have fun with that cod 4 is still more then 20bux.
i think u guys are just mad that u continue to get shafted with games. gta4 was trash on pc and now cod mw2 dont have dedicated servers and a player cap. cry me a river guys either get it on console or quit crying. pc gaming is nothing compared to consoles.
Click to expand...

You make my IQ drop. as a competitive gamer over the last 7 years, I can tell you now that i could not be PAID, to play on any "serious" fps's on console. i'd like to note that games like CSS, have probably made their companies more money over long term then you think. Why is that? Competitive gaming, and if you seriously think consoles are better for competitive gaming then PC, you have seriously sir, got issues with your brain. Sheer logic alone tells you otherwise, fi you know anything about high end mice(And I'm not talking about trashy 1st/2nd or even 3rd gen laser mice either, ANY of them) Then you'd know what I'm saying. The sheer input speed difference and the sheer speed of them puts it in a league of it's own. One day I hope KB+Mouse is laid next to a console controller so that this argument will finally die.

Mind you I loved my original Xbox, think the controller S was one of the best ever made, and much better then the new Xbox360 trash concussion maker that plagues xbox now. But does it hold a candle to a kb and mouse when it comes to actual precision required games? No, CS, will never be on console, they could make billions, why don't they? Would utterly destroy everything the game stands for, talent. End of discussion.
 
I bought the MW2 xbox combo. My old launch 360's optical drive was starting to mess up. I was also out of hd space. I was going to grab a standard elite but figured for the price difference the cod combo was the way to go. Got an extra controller(not that I needed it but now I have some extras) and a 250 gig hd instead of a 120. I haven't used the 250 gig drive yet though. Need to get the transfer cable from a friend. Using my old 20gig right now.

I will say I don't like the logos and crap on the 360 but it doesn't really matter.

As far as MW2 goes I haven't played much of it but it doesn't seem that bad. Really wish you could snap to walls for cover. Something like GTA4 or GOW. Also I've had issues jumping over things. This is an issue in most FPS games though.
 
stop!theradio said:
It's always funny seeing people bitch about a game being "dumbed down" simply because it exists on both PC and consoles. Both consoles and PC have had their share of good, long games - but both also have their short, crappy games. You can't say "OMG this game would have been waaaaay better if it were out exclusively for PC" because, no, it wouldn't have. The only thing that would have been better is the graphics. The core game, though, would largely be whatever their vision for it was in the first place.
Click to expand...

Platform fanboys are so annoying. The whining you see over this is hilarious, especially in the face of such overwhelming popularity and success. Oh, and the fact that the game is actually fun. The PC is my preferred platform but no way do I want to be associated with such a shitty attitude.

If it bothers you so much then go play Torchlight or something, that's also an amazing game. And if you already don't like CoD games to begin with, then have a nice cup of shut the fuck up, you're wasting your own time. :)
 
Vercinaigh said:
You make my IQ drop. as a competitive gamer over the last 7 years, I can tell you now that i could not be PAID, to play on any "serious" fps's on console. i'd like to note that games like CSS, have probably made their companies more money over long term then you think. Why is that? Competitive gaming, and if you seriously think consoles are better for competitive gaming then PC, you have seriously sir, got issues with your brain. Sheer logic alone tells you otherwise, fi you know anything about high end mice(And I'm not talking about trashy 1st/2nd or even 3rd gen laser mice either, ANY of them) Then you'd know what I'm saying. The sheer input speed difference and the sheer speed of them puts it in a league of it's own. One day I hope KB+Mouse is laid next to a console controller so that this argument will finally die.

Mind you I loved my original Xbox, think the controller S was one of the best ever made, and much better then the new Xbox360 trash concussion maker that plagues xbox now. But does it hold a candle to a kb and mouse when it comes to actual precision required games? No, CS, will never be on console, they could make billions, why don't they? Would utterly destroy everything the game stands for, talent. End of discussion.
Click to expand...

I agree that kb/m controls are much better for first person shooters. Playing an fps on a console is agonizing. But, that doesn't automatically make a game "better" just because it's for PC. Have you ever tried playing a racing game on a keyboard? It's fucking lame. I'd much rather use a controller for racing than kb/m.
 
swatbat said:
As far as MW2 goes I haven't played much of it but it doesn't seem that bad. Really wish you could snap to walls for cover. Something like GTA4 or GOW.
Click to expand...

Funny you mention this, I'm so used to snap to cover now that I was really missing it in MW2. Yeah, it isn't a third person game like GoW or Uncharted 2 (GOTY btw), but its just one of those things I almost expect when playing with a gamepad these days.
 
stop!theradio said:
I agree that kb/m controls are much better for first person shooters. Playing an fps on a console is agonizing. But, that doesn't automatically make a game "better" just because it's for PC. Have you ever tried playing a racing game on a keyboard? It's fucking lame. I'd much rather use a controller for racing than kb/m.
Click to expand...

A well balanced viewpoint on these forums, amazing!

Yeah, different games work better with different interfaces. Some games work better on PC, some work better on consoles, and some actually work great on both.
 
stop!theradio said:
It's always funny seeing people bitch about a game being "dumbed down" simply because it exists on both PC and consoles. Both consoles and PC have had their share of good, long games - but both also have their short, crappy games. You can't say "OMG this game would have been waaaaay better if it were out exclusively for PC" because, no, it wouldn't have. The only thing that would have been better is the graphics. The core game, though, would largely be whatever their vision for it was in the first place.
Click to expand...

I respect you're argument but I have to disagree. A developer's vision for a console game, especially after the garbage Bobby Kotick was spewing about taking the joy out of the development process for developers, is probably not what it used to be as far as creativity and fun go. With a game like MW2, you're guaranteed big bucks if you continue to make it easy for casual gamers to pick the game up and have a blast so the objective is to keep it simple stupid and dumb and not change the mold and to get rid of features that your majority audience doesn't need (dedicated servers, mod support, "leaning" :p). There's not exactly a ton of innovation in MW2 from what it seems.

If MW2 had been made a PC exclusive and had tons of features that would have been difficult to implement on consoles for whatever reason, I do not think it would have been the same "core game" than it is now, based on the seemingly exclusive design for console gamers' benefit.

Sorry if that was rambling, I can try to reexplain if anyone cares.
 
Does this one have the edlessly spawning enemies liek the first one? Scripted A.I.?

I played the first MW and these 2 things made me not want to go back through sp experience, well except for the Ac-130 gunship =P.

I tried the multiplayer part out on the second day it was out and there were people on there that had all the guns unlocked and I felt like I was handicapped for it. My best bet was to look for a dropped .50cal, and when I die race back to where I dropped it. The other part that sucked ass was all the bs perks. Perks for people who are already owning me, like they needed more help making it easier?

I ended up uninstalling it and mailing it to my brother. 5/10 game.

I have a feeling, a gut feeling we will never see the likes of a multiplayer game so pure and so ballanced as the original CS. I personally enjoyed Beta 0.8.

I am not boycotting it per se, but reading all the whining about lack of pc support, and I get erked by this as well, I will pass.

If you guys want to know their reasoning behind lack of support I would argue that it is the mod scene that will kill their ability to sell the next one. Just look at BF2. How old is that game? Still going strong with all the mods/ what not.

I do not buy the whole piracy argument either. I once pirated a game and only because no demo was availiable. Once I saw how good it was I uninstalled and went and bought it. So was that really piracy? They would have actually lost my $60 had there not been a pre-release hacked version out to try.

Locks on your car only keep honest people honest.
 
Half-Life 2 must be the best linear FPS ever going by some of you guys.

Unless you count the speedrun that did it in an hour and a half, making it one of the worst linear FPS games ever.

(Sucks that it hasn't got arcade mode as a NewGame+ option, I must say)
 
stop!theradio said:
It's always funny seeing people bitch about a game being "dumbed down" simply because it exists on both PC and consoles. Both consoles and PC have had their share of good, long games - but both also have their short, crappy games. You can't say "OMG this game would have been waaaaay better if it were out exclusively for PC" because, no, it wouldn't have. The only thing that would have been better is the graphics. The core game, though, would largely be whatever their vision for it was in the first place.
Click to expand...

I don't agree. many times the core game really ends up being the devs, "vision for the game while limited to a 360/PS3 controller and hardware". Dumbing down does not always refer to just graphics. It often refers to controls schemes, AI, physics, difficulty settings, type and layout of puzzles, as well as the obvious graphics levels.

You do not see ridiculous things like the: timed button mash, shoot this part then hit that part then repeat to kill boss, go this way overlays, or jumping puzzles, nearly as often in PC only FPS titles as you do in console titles or PC ports of console titles.
 
Can't see the point paying more (US$60 instead of US$50) for less Modern Warfare (18 players and zero competitive gaming). I guess I'd stick with the first and not bother with the second MW.

Seen quite a few gamers canceling their preorders and bought Borderlands/DA:O/Torchlight instead. Good for IW, after the multitude of PR fiascos and crap they can do with less of the profits they don't deserve.
 
Serpico said:
A well balanced viewpoint on these forums, amazing!

Yeah, different games work better with different interfaces. Some games work better on PC, some work better on consoles, and some actually work great on both.
Click to expand...

Ha ha, thanks. Yeah it just bugs me when people have an elitist attitude about "their" platform. All platforms have their ups and downs. One platform is NOT superior to another simply due to its nature - it's all about the developer and what they want to do. People can't blame a crappy game on the fact that it's not solely released on PC.

Say a developer put out a crappy game with mediocre graphics for both consoles and PC - PC fanatics would blame the game's mediocrity on the fact that the game is available for consoles as well as PC's. But I say this - if the game were only released for PC - then instead of a crappy game with mediocre graphics, you'd have a crappy game with excellent graphics.

I don't care how many coats of wax they apply - a shitty game is still a shitty game.
 
GORANKAR said:
I don't agree. many times the core game really ends up being the devs, "vision for the game while limited to a 360/PS3 controller and hardware". Dumbing down does not always refer to just graphics. It often refers to controls schemes, AI, physics, difficulty settings, type and layout of puzzles, as well as the obvious graphics levels.

You do not see ridiculous things like the: timed button mash, shoot this part then hit that part then repeat to kill boss, go this way overlays, or jumping puzzles, nearly as often in PC only FPS titles as you do in console titles or PC ports of console titles.
Click to expand...

The stuff you mentioned depends on the game. If you're playing some sort of action-adventure-platform-shooter, then expect to "shoot this part then hit that part then repeat to kill the boss". If the PC were a gaming platform as marketable as consoles, then you can bet your ass you'd see all types of games for it - including "hit that part, repeat" type of gameplay. It's not a console limitation - it's a type of gameplay.

When I'm playing an fps on my PC, I have buttons for the following: walk forward, left, right, back, aim, shoot, throw grenade, jump, use, cycle weapons, pause.

....and when I'm playing an fps on a console I have button for the following: walk forward, left, right, back, aim, shoot, throw grenade, jump, use, cycle weapons, pause.

zomg I do the same things, just with a different control medium.
 
stop!theradio said:
Ha ha, thanks. Yeah it just bugs me when people have an elitist attitude about "their" platform. All platforms have their ups and downs. One platform is NOT superior to another simply due to its nature - it's all about the developer and what they want to do. People can't blame a crappy game on the fact that it's not solely released on PC.

Say a developer put out a crappy game with mediocre graphics for both consoles and PC - PC fanatics would blame the game's mediocrity on the fact that the game is available for consoles as well as PC's. But I say this - if the game were only released for PC - then instead of a crappy game with mediocre graphics, you'd have a crappy game with excellent graphics.

I don't care how many coats of wax they apply - a shitty game is still a shitty game.
Click to expand...

I think its par for the course around here since the prevailing attitude (at least among the loudest and most obnoxious posters) is PC elitism, and that everything else is garbage. I suppose it makes sense since this is a "hardcore" PC hardware site, but its annoying as hell for those of us that love fast PC hardware as well as other kinds of hardware out there.

Its a ridiculous attitude that completely closes you off to the positive things that other platforms have to offer, and it applies to fanboys on any side.
 
stop!theradio said:
The stuff you mentioned depends on the game. If you're playing some sort of action-adventure-platform-shooter, then expect to "shoot this part then hit that part then repeat to kill the boss". If the PC were a gaming platform as marketable as consoles, then you can bet your ass you'd see all types of games for it - including "hit that part, repeat" type of gameplay. It's not a console limitation - it's a type of gameplay.

When I'm playing an fps on my PC, I have buttons for the following: walk forward, left, right, back, aim, shoot, throw grenade, jump, use, cycle weapons, pause.

....and when I'm playing an fps on a console I have button for the following: walk forward, left, right, back, aim, shoot, throw grenade, jump, use, cycle weapons, pause.

zomg I do the same things, just with a different control medium.
Click to expand...

Haha, QFT
 
Ive been a hardcore PC Gamer since the days of the original Doom on a 486/66 running Windows 3.1...........it is sad to see PC gaming taking a back seat to console gaming. After watching all these years the progress of CPU's, GPU's, Memory, PSU's, Motherboards, the progress of Operating systems from the days of DOS, watching games develop over time from Dos based to Windows, the development of DirectX, the introduction of Anti-Aliasing on Voodoo cards, ETC....ETC only to have it succumb to consoles and the all mighty dollar. What a waste!!
 
kilroy67 said:
Ive been a hardcore PC Gamer since the days of the original Doom on a 486/66 running Windows 3.1...........it is sad to see PC gaming taking a back seat to console gaming. After watching all these years the progress of CPU's, GPU's, Memory, PSU's, Motherboards, the progress of Operating systems from the days of DOS, watching games develop over time from Dos based to Windows, the development of DirectX, the introduction of Anti-Aliasing on Voodoo cards, ETC....ETC only to have it succumb to consoles and the all mighty dollar. What a waste!!
Click to expand...

All of that technology has become affordable enough to cram into a $300 console. Throw internet connectivity on top of that and all of those things that made the PC unique are easily put into a device that costs less than the last video card I bought.

Pretty simple. :)
 
thing that drives me nuts is this:

they compare a $60 game's total dollar sales to.... wait for it...

a $10 movie going evening? (depending on where you live.. could be a couple bucks more or less)

does the concept of comparing apples to apples even enter their minds? trying to do that to me is 100% insane. I have no issues with a direct compare to say GTA4 but to batman? come on :/
 
The only reason the console is $300 is because of the high price of accessories and games associated with it. Wasn't the PS3 costing Sony like $700 to build originally?

You can easily build a computer for $400-500 that surpasses the Xbox in performance. Especially at 1280 x 720 (which is what those games are rendered at). Not to mention do a lot more than the Xbox can without modding (which now gets you banned from Xbox Live).

After you buy 4 controllers, pay for Xbox Live, get a decent HDTV (32" 720p if you're cheap), and buy the games you want, you're already surpassed what it would cost you to play on the PC... for a lesser experience... but that's my opinion and it's why I don't own a console...
 
stop!theradio said:
The stuff you mentioned depends on the game. If you're playing some sort of action-adventure-platform-shooter, then expect to "shoot this part then hit that part then repeat to kill the boss". If the PC were a gaming platform as marketable as consoles, then you can bet your ass you'd see all types of games for it - including "hit that part, repeat" type of gameplay. It's not a console limitation - it's a type of gameplay.

When I'm playing an fps on my PC, I have buttons for the following: walk forward, left, right, back, aim, shoot, throw grenade, jump, use, cycle weapons, pause.

....and when I'm playing an fps on a console I have button for the following: walk forward, left, right, back, aim, shoot, throw grenade, jump, use, cycle weapons, pause.

zomg I do the same things, just with a different control medium.
Click to expand...

So you have a button dedicated for lean, another dedicated to map, another dedicated to your flash light, another dedicated to inventory, yet another dedicated to melee or etc? Or instead, do the devs decide to lighten the game and get rid of the flash light, leave out lean, maybe leave out melee altogether or sacrifice another function for it, and have you scroll through various menus with another button to find map and inventory or etc?

Zomg!, in an FPS title, like I mentioned in my first post already, you are prolly not controlling the game in the same fashion with the same ease as one would on a similar game that was PC only.

ZOMG!, I used ZOMG! I feel dirty now.
 
Serpico said:
Funny you mention this, I'm so used to snap to cover now that I was really missing it in MW2. Yeah, it isn't a third person game like GoW or Uncharted 2 (GOTY btw), but its just one of those things I almost expect when playing with a gamepad these days.
Click to expand...

You want to see games add features. When you are fighting in an urban area a snap to cover feature would be nice so you can peak around turns.

I really wish these games had a real go anywhere type of setup to them. I remember when games first started showing this. Still hasn't really been done. I should be able to climb through pretty much any window in this game. Should also be able to run through a bush...

Also I miss the ability to open a door just a tiny bit to peak in. Splinter cell had this. Also think I remember the rainbow 6 games having it(or was it swat).

Mind you reading reviews of these games shows why you don't see features like this added. From what I've played so far I'd give MW2 a 7 or 8 out of 10. Most of the reviews I've seen are like OMMFG! Isn't as bad as the GTA4 reviews though. In that game they removed a fuck ton of features and it seems the general belief was how it was a 10 out of 10 game. Sure the working out to stay in shape from SA was kinda lame but come out, they remove most of the character customization, took out the idea of buying a lot of property, etc and yet it is a 10 out of 10? How the hell does that work? In MW2's case there are working examples of ways this game could have been a lot better. Hell I really want at least 32 vs 32 player game support for any war FPS. Really the wish of having even more players in a battle field would be even better. When I think of a war going on I do not think of 9v9 in a city.
 
I bought 4 copies of COD4. A 360 version and a PC version for myself and 2 friends.
I'm waiting for the price to drop to consider getting MW2.

$60 dollars for a DX9 sequel...
 
Blazestorm said:
The only reason the console is $300 is because of the high price of accessories and games associated with it. Wasn't the PS3 costing Sony like $700 to build originally?

You can easily build a computer for $400-500 that surpasses the Xbox in performance. Especially at 1280 x 720 (which is what those games are rendered at). Not to mention do a lot more than the Xbox can without modding (which now gets you banned from Xbox Live).

After you buy 4 controllers, pay for Xbox Live, get a decent HDTV (32" 720p if you're cheap), and buy the games you want, you're already surpassed what it would cost you to play on the PC... for a lesser experience... but that's my opinion and it's why I don't own a console...
Click to expand...

I understand the "why", that software and overpriced accessories are what subsidize the console, but the end result for the consumer is all that matters. Most people already have a TV, I think that's a foregone conclusion and shouldn't even matter in the argument.

Listen, the PC is my platform of choice. That said, there are a lot of good console games out there, and I also understand that most people aren't even wired to think to plug a PC into their television. All they want is a box that works, plug it in and go. They pick it up from Best Buy or wherever, plug it in, and they're done, good to go. It is very compelling and the sales numbers only prove it.
 
I plug my laptop into my tv using HDMI and game on it, it's kind of fun but there is a noticeable delay in what happens onscreen and what I do on my laptop as far as FPS games go

it's not ultranoticeable, but it's noticeable when it's noticeable

it's still very playable though, i wouldn't do any competitive gaming on it though

my TV is a Samsung 42" widescreen

my laptop is a Gateway 7811-FX
 
Good for IW - I have no problem with their making a product a lot of people want.

I bought Borderlands.
 
I just don't get why people like this game. I tried and sucks major ass. The gameplay is boring as hell and the graphics look outdated.
 
I'm going to hold off buying MW2 for a while. $60 for any game is too much for me, and even then, my next game purchase will be Forza Motorsport 3. I played MW on the PC and it's pretty decent, though I wish I have the ability to select & customize weapons before each level (like Ghost Recon/Rainbow Six /MGS4). I understand it's a more arcade/action game than those three, but at least let me have some latitude on equipment so that I can adjust my tactics on the fly.

$20+tax is the most I'll be willing to pay for MW2 PC.. I think it'll give me that much worth of entertainment.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top