Bored of MW2...


Recommended Posts

For me, I have to stick to hardcore, the softcore makes it feel way to arcadish...its all run around and spray and pray type kiddies...

Cant really say anything about mw2 getting boring as im currently 40 hours into multiplayer and its still fuuuuun. But as far as hardcore went - played few matches and then i finally got what ppl were saying about camping. It was so quiet it even wasnt funny anymore. I got my first kill and death afterward some minutes into the round.

So far mostly sticking to domination and ctf.

nothing beats the good old team fortress 2, I love the fact that you have to play as a team in that game, and not run around on your own.

There hasn't been a MP FPS game I've put more hours into than TF2.

Well I've probably played more TFC :p

I do agree, from what I've played of MW2 it seems very lone wolf.

yea. i guess my issue with it is the inconsistency of the multiplayer experience. victory isnt in the hands of a skilled player here. just the luck of the drop.

my favorite and all-time most played game is battlefield1942/BF2. thats what i call a team game.

So you don't think "I'm gonna boot up MW2 and have a night of fun", you think "Should I? Because it's either going to frustrate the hell out of me or give me a great experience" and personally, I don't want to make that choice when starting up a game.

I have the same line of thought when I think about booting up CS:S.. except I think to myself.. do I wanna boot up counter strike and get slaughtered by people who play it every day, and get frustrated that I can't turn a corner without being popped? Goes both ways :p

P.S. I do OK after a few days getting back into it, but I can't be bothered putting in the time anymore.

Aye, it does lose the appeal very quickly. This game has to be the most random, the most luck based piece of casual-crap in a very long time! Yes, it may be harsh words but that's how I feel. There's way too much focus on having the right setup for the right situation at the right time - Back in the day where the player's skills, reaction times and knowledge of the maps that gave you the advantage, meaning lots of training would get you ahead - Now the game is 100% focused on having the right class, perk or attachment at the right time, even the most blind and useless player in the world can suddenly get a great round because he created the right class and got a lucky killstreak.

It was bearable in Call of Duty 4, because it felt like a great first person shooter underneath with some variation sprinkled on top on the shape of perks. Now the game has been smothered in this game, one perk / Attachment more game changing than the other. So yes, it's fun for a week or two but the hype about games like Counter-strike was the sense, the game rewarded you for being good - MW2 rewards you for lucky choices, nothing else! So you don't think "I'm gonna boot up MW2 and have a night of fun", you think "Should I? Because it's either going to frustrate the hell out of me or give me a great experience" and personally, I don't want to make that choice when starting up a game.

Plus with all this host advantage and stuff going around, even being able to aim properly is out the window ... And the consoles have that casual-tard minded aim-assist, so even the retarded kid next door can get a kill.

So when the fun in trying out perks, weapons and attachments have been exhausted, the core of the game has nothing more to offer because it's being killed by the aforementioned.

Could'nt agree more. This is the first CoD game I dont feel like playing more than one time through.

Yea, I am in the same boat with MW2. Was hoping the campaign would of been longer since I love single player games. Not much of a MP player unless is co-op.

I picked up Borderlands the other day. If you like Fallout 3, you will like borderlands. Cool game so far...single player plus co-op option.

Hows the MP on that?

Thinking of picking it up soon :)

Don't expect it to be like CoD. Some people didn't like it because they wanted something like CoD. I like it, played MP A LOT. The levels are awesome specially the DLC ones. There is one with a nuclear explosion every 5 minutes or so. That one is my favorite.

Like I said in the other thread MW2 SP is nice but really short. I finished in a little more than 5-6 hours or something like that. Games I was playing before it Uncharted 2 and Ratchet and Clank I finished the game in 15+ hours. I wasn't expecting a 15 hours SP in MW2 but at least 8-10 hours. I finished it in Regular and Veteran in 16 hours, same time I spent playing Uncharted 2 the first time. :p

I really like the MP. Love the perks options and that you can customize the killstreak rewards but this one doesn't seem to have the golden paint for the weapons. I played a lot the first MW trying to unlock all the golden weapon. Got almost all of them.

The game itself is fun, and the maps are very detailed. but i beleave that MW2 is going to be short lived. The reason im saying this, well the no servers you can pick from, and i hate to say from my own and listening to people in game theres alot of slap tard players out there....but im waiting for Bf2 Bad Company to come out for Pc

Yes the single player was way too short in my opinion, as KoL mentions when you spend 15+ hours beating Uncharted 2 then come to this and blast through it in an afternoon, you are kinda left thinking 'is that it?'

Looks like I will be selling to a guy in work for what I paid for it so not all bad :)

I honestly don't see what the fuss was all about. Everyone at school thinks it's the best game ever, but I'm there with my 700 kills, 1,300 deaths getting killed by the n00bs who can't fire a gun and send me messages to f**k off when I get 30 deaths in a game of sabotage, when everyone else was just sat there camping with their fecking snipers.

It aggravates me, and in a way I wish I hadn't of spent ?32 on it.

i was going to get this game, but after i read it only has 5 to 6 hours of SP play time. i decided its not with the $60. maybe if i played online but i dont.

not to say that i dont think it would be a ton of fun. MW1 was a blast.

oh well. i instead bought assassins creed 2. and OMG did i make the right choice.

The SP campaign was way too short and why the hell are only a few of the maps available in free-for-all? I'm not sorry I bought it though. I seemed to be doing alright against other people for awhile, but now I'm getting creamed constantly since I'm so far behind in rank and practice.

Same here :laugh:

I'm actually thinking of going back to WAW multiplayer for a while, found that really fun, believe it or not.

Seriously.... this game was waaaay to short :(

I personally do not care about the multiplayer mode

I wish that game reviewers now add a game length score also... this was not worth the money and don't count on me to buy one of the CoD games again if the next one.

...at least if there was a co-op mode in SP that would make replayability a little better

SP was fairly average compared to MW1 but I'm loving the online play. People who don't like the online play because they're getting killed by "casual-tards" need to ring for a waaaahmbulance - it's a game, don't get so worked up about it :laugh: And there's no aim-assist in MP console version, is there? Only in SP.

I do agree about the spawn points though - it's annoying when you spawn next to a team mate who is miles away from the action.

SP was fairly average compared to MW1 but I'm loving the online play. People who don't like the online play because they're getting killed by "casual-tards" need to ring for a waaaahmbulance - it's a game, don't get so worked up about it :laugh: And there's no aim-assist in MP console version, is there? Only in SP.

I do agree about the spawn points though - it's annoying when you spawn next to a team mate who is miles away from the action.

Uhh there's pretty damn generous aim assist in MP.

You can see your crosshair physically move quite a bit at times.

This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
  • Posts

    • Maradona if hydration breaks had existed in Mexico 86.
    • The quantum search for Time's origin had an equally mind-boggling conclusion by Sayan Sen Image by Steve Johnson via Pexels A theoretical study from researchers at the University of Surrey suggested that the direction of time may not be fundamentally fixed in certain quantum systems. The work, published in Scientific Reports, examined how the “arrow of time” could emerge from microscopic physics and found that time-reversal symmetry can remain intact even in models used to describe processes such as energy loss and thermalisation. The arrow of time refers to the observed one-way direction from past to future in everyday life. In macroscopic processes, this is easy to see. Spilled milk spreads across a table and does not gather back into a glass, and heat flows from hotter objects to colder ones. These processes shape the common sense idea that time moves in a single direction. However, at the level of fundamental physics, many equations do not prefer a direction of time. Time-reversal symmetry means that the same physical laws can describe a system whether time moves forward or backward. This has made it difficult to explain why irreversible behaviour appears in the large-scale world even when the underlying rules do not require it. Dr Andrea Rocco, Associate Professor in Physics and Mathematical Biology at the University of Surrey, described this contrast: "One way to explain this is when you look at a process like spilt milk spreading across a table, it's clear that time is moving forward. But if you were to play that in reverse, like a movie, you'd immediately know something was wrong – it would be hard to believe milk could just gather back into a glass. However, there are processes, such as the motion of a pendulum, that look just as believable in reverse. The puzzle is that, at the most fundamental level, the laws of physics resemble the pendulum; they do not account for irreversible processes. Our findings suggest that while our common experience tells us that time only moves one way, we are just unaware that the opposite direction would have been equally possible." The study focused on open quantum systems, which are quantum systems that interact with a surrounding environment. This environment, often described as a heat bath, can exchange energy and information with the system. The researchers used this framework to study how a direction of time might appear even when the underlying physics does not enforce one. A key part of the analysis involved the Markov approximation. This is a simplification used in many models where the system is assumed not to retain memory of its past states. The idea is that changes depend only on the current state, not on earlier history. This is commonly used when studying thermalisation, which is the process where a system settles into equilibrium with its environment. The study also used concepts such as master equations, including the Lindblad and Pauli equations, which describe how probabilities of different quantum states change over time. Another related model discussed was quantum Brownian motion, which describes the random-like movement of a quantum particle interacting continuously with its environment. In these descriptions, a “memory kernel” can appear, which is a mathematical term that accounts for how past states influence current behaviour. The researchers found that applying the Markov approximation did not break time-reversal symmetry. Even when the system interacted with an effectively infinite heat bath, the resulting equations of motion remained symmetric in time. This meant that the same mathematical description could, in principle, run forward or backward in time without contradiction. The study further showed that standard frameworks used in open quantum systems, including quantum Brownian motion and master equations like the Lindblad and Pauli forms, could be written in a time-symmetric way. These equations are typically used to describe processes that look irreversible, such as dissipation and thermalisation, but the results suggested they can also be interpreted as allowing evolution in both time directions. Thomas Guff, Research Fellow in Quantum Thermodynamics, said: "The surprising part of this project was that even after making the standard simplifying assumption to our equations describing open quantum systems, the equations still behaved the same way whether the system was moving forwards or backwards in time. When we carefully worked through the maths, we found that this behaviour had to be the case because a key part of the equation, the "memory kernel," is symmetrical in time. We also found a small but important detail which is usually overlooked – a time discontinuous factor emerged that kept the time-symmetry property intact. It’s unusual to see such a mathematical mechanism in a physics equation because it's not continuous, and it was very surprising to see it appear so naturally." The researchers also noted that deriving a one-way arrow of time from time-reversal symmetric microscopic dynamics remains an open problem across fields such as thermodynamics, statistical mechanics, particle physics, and cosmology. Their results suggested that some standard descriptions of irreversible behaviour in open quantum systems may be better understood using a time-symmetric formulation of Markovianity. According to the study, processes such as thermalisation, which are usually treated as irreversible, could in theory be described in a way that allows evolution in either time direction under the same rules. This does not imply that time reversal occurs in everyday life, but rather that the underlying equations do not strictly enforce a single direction. Overall, the findings suggested that the perceived direction of time may emerge from how physical systems are modelled and approximated, rather than from a fundamental asymmetry in the laws themselves. The researchers noted that this perspective could have implications for ongoing work in quantum mechanics, thermodynamics, and cosmology on the origin of time’s arrow. Source: University of Surrey, Nature This article was generated with some help from AI and reviewed by an editor. Under Section 107 of the Copyright Act 1976, this material is used for the purpose of news reporting. Fair use is a use permitted by copyright statute that might otherwise be infringing
    • A bit premature... 100% Marketing. Bizarre.
  • Recent Achievements

    • Reacting Well
      BizSAR earned a badge
      Reacting Well
    • First Post
      AndreaB earned a badge
      First Post
    • Week One Done
      Huge Trailer earned a badge
      Week One Done
    • Week One Done
      Classifyskilleducation earned a badge
      Week One Done
    • One Month Later
      eurospharma62 earned a badge
      One Month Later
  • Popular Contributors

    1. 1
      +primortal
      581
    2. 2
      +Edouard
      182
    3. 3
      PsYcHoKiLLa
      75
    4. 4
      Michael Scrip
      73
    5. 5
      neufuse
      64
  • Tell a friend

    Love Neowin? Tell a friend!