Comments on: Wot I Think: Modern Warfare 2

By: justin123

justin123 — Mon, 20 Jun 2011 04:23:56 +0000

Loved the idea of this initiative. Keep it coming future posts.
wholesale jewelry

By: deljohn

deljohn — Mon, 11 Apr 2011 08:05:52 +0000

Thanks for the wonderful source. I am designing a 3D model for my bro’s game they really look great

link building services

By: steve123

steve123 — Mon, 04 Apr 2011 22:17:56 +0000

I just wanted to add that it is an AWESOME game. Just love it so much. what is pewter

By: herme bags

herme bags — Mon, 29 Nov 2010 11:51:51 +0000

if i were u i wouldnt play online to start off. i would get to know the maps first by playing with some buddies.

By: sanejenny

sanejenny — Fri, 30 Jul 2010 05:09:06 +0000

Thank you for the advices. It is kind of smart step to listen to others who have gone through it before. Steam showers

By: GK

GK — Mon, 23 Nov 2009 06:15:33 +0000

You know, the airport scene probably would’ve been way more interesting if you played as an unarmed civilian. You could be one of the beloved characters from MW1 caught with his pants down in a russian airport, but instead of going all John McClaine, you just try to survive and not trip over the other victims.

You could confront the CIA mole later in the mission to ask what the hell was going on, only to be executed w/ him later.

By: Okami

Okami — Fri, 20 Nov 2009 15:30:28 +0000

@Metalfish: I guess I need to clarify this a bit. The single player mode was entertaining. There’s more to a game than just good design, the presentation is just as important and MW2 really hast it’s glorious moments in this regard – storming the White House for example (at least the first two tries – the other five tries it took me to find out what exactly the game wanted me to do were a chore).

But there’s no denying that the game’s level design is average at best. And frustrating at it’s worst. It is short though and the levels are short and the frustrating parts are thankfully short as well, and there’s always something new to do – even if this often just results in more frustration. So it still managed to suck me in for quite some time and over all I was entertained by it for the short while it lasted.

And if I was only a consumer, I’d leave it at that and would move on to other things. But I’m a developer and so I have the need to analyze what it was that I enjoyed and what I didn’t enjoy. And after replaying parts of the game and then thinking about it and talking to my coworkers and thinking about it some more I arrived at the conclusion, that it’s not a very good game from a designer’s point of view. It entertained me for a few hours, but not because it featured good level design or good game design or anything like that.

I hope this clarifies things a bit.

By: PleasingFungus

PleasingFungus — Fri, 20 Nov 2009 00:30:55 +0000

Gorgeras, TeeJay: Thank you! That is exactly the kind of response I was looking for. I am now content.

By: Wisq

Wisq — Thu, 19 Nov 2009 21:25:44 +0000

It’s not that they jump out to get shot. It’s that they move as a team and cover each other as they move. If a threat appears and you’re alert like you should be, then at least someone is going to have their gun raised and ready to fire, and you shouldn’t get pinned down in the first place.

If you do, then you need to work as a team to get un-pinned, such as suppression and movement, popping a smoke, pulling out, calling for backup, etc. What you don’t do is just pop your head around a corner and start shooting, because that’s exactly where they expect you to be, and you’ll get yourself shot.

You complain that Hollywood thinks guns are “ultra-accurate”. I’d argue the exact opposite. Yes, they do have those unbelievable (in the literal sense) scenes where someone shoots a gun out of someone else’s hand. But for every one of those, there’s a hundred scenes where people run around with minimal cover while under fire and never take a single bullet — or they spend hours hiding behind cover and popping up to shoot now and then.

Think about it: If you’ve got a half-dozen people aiming at you and you pop yourself out, you’re going to get over a dozen bullets coming at whatever part of you that you decide to expose. Leaning around a corner means exposing your head and upper torso, which is exactly what they want to hit anyway. It doesn’t take “ultra accuracy” for one of a dozen bullets from modern, fairly accurate weapons to find and kill you. This is why suppression fire works in the first place.

And yes, shooting guns out of people’s heads is insanely stupid. I’ve seen all the arguments and evidence, and agree 100%.

By: Adam Whitehead

Adam Whitehead — Thu, 19 Nov 2009 20:33:40 +0000

What the heck? 24 is an SF show. To start with it takes place in an alterante history where George W. Bush never become President of the United States and presidential elections are all two years off from the real ones, and by Season 6 the show had moved into the future and that season was set in 2012.

By: Railick

Railick — Thu, 19 Nov 2009 17:38:59 +0000

Wisq are you saying that real soliders don’t lean out of cover to fire, then jump out their entire body to be shot at instead? Modern weapon aren’t nearly as ultra-accurate as people in movies ect seem to think they are to the point where it makes no difference if you expose your entire body or just your head : P
We often hear the argument “Why didn’t you just shoot the gun out of his hand or just shoot him in the leg” when a cop kills someone in the line of duty. Most agree they aren’t in a movie and can’t shoot a gun out of someones hands on command so instead shoot for the largest body of the body the torso in hopes of getting a hit and yes, sadly that can often lead to death (not to mention cops seem to shoot a whole lot too just to make sure :P I don’t blame them mind they are just human and they don’t want to die because some criminal doesn’t have the common sense not to attack a police officer)

Shadowcat “It hammers at my retinas like an evil woodpecker of pure energy”

By: Wisq

Wisq — Thu, 19 Nov 2009 17:29:32 +0000

As has been pointed out in previous topics where the lack of lean in modern “realistic” FPSes has come up: Apparently, lack of leaning is more realistic, not less, because real soldiers don’t do that. Or so I hear, anyway.

It makes sense, too. In WW2 and the like, I imagine average accuracy was such that you had something to gain by not exposing parts of yourself that didn’t need exposing. But in a highly-accurate modern scenario, all that really matters is your head and upper torso, since that’s where everyone’s going to be shooting. So lean out from cover? Congratulations, you’re exposing all the parts the enemy is shooting at anyway, while reducing your own accuracy due to the awkwardness. And don’t forget how unbalanced you’ll be with a ton of armour on your upper body, too.