Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 2

[RacingManiac]

LAME!!! WHY!?!?!?!?! Damnit, I already scheduled my vacation. I'll have to see if I can reschedule.. 2 weeks!

 

Ditto...that'll be a 4 week more wait for me...lol

 

[reaper16]

Wow....50 cent song on the trailer....

 

Also the DC part confuses me.....I thought this was going to be another anti-terror type deal, This makes it look more like a nation v nation conflict,

 

Oh the reality stretching done in video games.....

[Whan]

2 week delay. But I suppose if it means getting a relatively smooth running game port for PC (unlike NFS shift for PC), it's okay.

[Horsem4n]

i havnet heard that the PC version was being delayed but i can say with certainty that all versions of the game will be delayed in europe for 2 weeks.

[Kyrian_Zenda]

blah blah blah, unwarranted rant

You know, I think the reality-stretching comment was in relation to the fact that such a major event takes place in the game, according to the trailer, ie. the burning of Washington. A lot of games involving armed conflict and special forces take place in settings that could be believed, like a top-secret mission that your average joe on the street would never know about and only hear about the possible aftermath, if there is one. This, however, depicts something that, if it actually happened, would create an absolute up-roar.

 

So less of the history lesson next time, and more of appreciation of possible innarwebs sarcasm.

[MCXL]

Yea, and a *fruitcage* capital city of a middle eastern country going nuclear and killing a *albatross* load of civilians, and US marines wouldn't cause an international uproar? I didn't detect any sarcasm in what he was and is saying, and I STILL DON'T.

 

Here comes the wall of text.

 

"Oh the reality stretching done in video games..... "

 

If this were in relation to a game like NFS SHIFT where the physics are terrible and reality is warped then I would understand his lament. But Wht I don't get that somehow a game is automatically a less valid form of fictional exploration. How is DC being attacked by an armed force "reality stretching" I DON'T GET IT. THAT'S NOT SARCASM THAT'S MISGUIDED STATEMENTS. The thing is though now I am arguing with YOU Zenda. your trying to put intent in his words, why don't you let him speak as to his own intent instead of going, "blah blah blah, unwarranted rant"

 

That is *fruitcage* insulting man.

 

So here I'll refute your point about "A lot of games involving armed conflict and special forces take place in settings that could be believed, like a top-secret mission that your average joe on the street would never know about and only hear about the possible aftermath, if there is one." And I am gonna be just as cordial as I was before, even though you have INSULTED ME.

 

I don't have a clue as to what shooters your talking about. If we restrict ourselves to Fiction based shooters of our current generation (no WW2 here, or other "conflict stories") then we come up with a pretty hefty list, but I will stick to the good ones that I know well.

COD 4, Halo, GOW1&2, RS:V and V2, ghost-busters, Crackdown, Ghost Recon Advanced Warfighter, MASS EFFECT the list is HUGE, but im just gonna use these for now. Ill use 2 ratings, Classified, meaning your definition holds true, and Public meaning there is no way on gods green earth that this could ever be kept a secret.

 

COD 4, I covered this, with the whole capital of a (fictitious) country exploding in a nuclear blast killing a significant portion of a US marine invasion force. that alone earns it a PUBLIC

 

Halo: You play the Spec ops elite in these games, but weather your missions are secret or not is a bit of a question, in the end though, its pretty clear that the only reason everyone doesn't know what your doing is that its an intergalactic war, id put this somewhere in between the two ratings, but seeing as at the end they don't make any attempt to "cover up" the master chief's discovery's and in fact build a monument with him featuring a prominent spot, I am gonna go with: PUBLIC

 

GEARS OF WAR series (as 2 is basically a direct continuation of 1): The events unfolding in this game are seemingly as much a mystery to the people in your command as they are to the player, so you basically wander around with short sighted goals the whole time. In addition to this the world is basically falling apart for the surface dwelling humans so information proliferation among its people isn't a high priority. Again I am torn with my rating. Seeing, however, that the series isnt over yet and it will be up to how they treat the ending to show how public Marcus Phenoix's adventures end up being. Right now it looks like it will end up Public, but I cant say for sure, so its; CLASSIFIED (for now)

 

Rainbow Six Vegas and Vegas 2. The reality stretching of this and gears are pretty obvious, as the whole "WE ARE INVINCIBLE" thing comes into play in both games quite heavily. Rainbow Six Vegas starts off subtle in Mexico, but quickly devolves into a nationwide crisis mode (2nd mission). The story of 1 & 2 run side by side, in the same 1-2 day frame following two different man teams. All of the major Vegas casino's are taken over by terrorists and some sort of global conference is taken hostage, (they want some scientist or something, its been awhile since I played the story) At this point its clear that no matter what the government does, there is no keeping a lid on it, On air ransom notifications/terrorist demands, shooting a (Nuclear?) missile at Vegas, while the public won't know every detail of what happened, ultimately the people know that Vegas got taken over by armed terrorists, and that is enough to spur govt inquiry's into the rest. Verdict: PUBLIC

 

Ghost-Busters: I don't really know on this one, the ultimate fact is they are a private business that operates in mostly public places, noting they do is "secret" though some of the inventions they have are 'trade secrets' In the end everyone knows who to call; Ghost-Busters: PUBLIC, and I should note they have to be to make money

 

CRACKDOWN!: Your a cop with superpowers in like the coolest city ever, people see you, you kill like EVERY criminal in the city. While the agency's motives arent ideal its still not exactly a classified thing. If you have seen Robocop, its the same sort of thing going on, except in this Robocop is like The Incredible Hulk, and your fighting for right. Everyone knows what you do, they have to for the plot to work: PUBLIC

 

GRAW1: The American president gets Kidnapped in number one, I think thats enough to make all of this pretty rapid public knowledge. PLUS there is an attempted coup in Mexico. however seeing as the Ghosts are black ops (sorta) it's likely they would attribute this to some normal army unit, Its been so long I honestly cant remember how this is handled in the end, suffice to say, while the public might not know the daring feats of the great and invincible Capt. Mitchell himself, they will likely know the details of what he and his unit did. So really depending on how you look at it its both, one or the other. I will call this classified, as the whole stolen football (nuclear launch code thing) would probably never get told to the public and the ambiguity about the Ghosts, plus I wanna at leas appear that I am trying to be balanced 1:Classified (I cant really comment on GRAW 2 as i never played through the single player, although since (according to Wikipedia) it involves nukes on US soil and covering that *suitcase* up would be... Very difficult im gonna go with a tentative PUBLIC, but this wont be in final score.

 

MASS EFFECT: First human specter, and a giant attack on the Galactic Senate, er Citadel Council. Your a public figure involved in like the biggest battle ever, of all time. Sure people might not know about your banter with Wrex, or your alien sex parties, but they would probably know about all the people getting killed on planets, and a war against GIANT EVIL ALIEN ROBOTS, I think that clinches it right there, GIANT EVIL ALIEN ROBOTS=PUBLIC

 

CRySIS:On the one hand the whole game stars off all spec ops, fighting those pesky North korreans on an island somewhere, but then our old friends the GIANT EVIL ALIEN ROBOTS show up and ruin everything, then just as if to say "I want all of this o be public knowledge!" the general on your battle ship Nukes the island, to show em who is the boss. That doesn't work. That party turns south faster then an escaped convict and things do not get better. If aliens existed in way they do in this game in real life, it would go public really, really fast: PUBLIC (really there are 2 ratings here Pre jumped shark and post, but the game as a whole must be judged, hence my ruling)

 

BAD COMPANY: The events that the main characters of this game partake in are clearly of a public knowledge. A war with RUSSIA, Im pretty sure we would know about that. The game does eventually devolve into your guys becoming a bunch of criminal desertsers, but the idea here is about the conflicts, and I think that would all be pretty dang: PUBLIC

 

L4D: no one would ever know these heroes un sung tale, but that doesnt matter because in this world its been overrun by ANGRY ZOMBIES, and people tend to notice angry zombies:PUBLIC

 

UNREAL TOURNAMENT series:It is a blood sport, again, NEEDS to be: PUBLIC

 

so thats 10 Public, 2 Classified.

 

Please point out any errors you notice in my logic here.

 

 

Now back to my original point.

 

I think my earlier tyrade was completely a acceptable response to his statement, and was furthermore a completely valid point. It was an on topic point made at someone elses comments saying that they were unable to believe that the coastal capitol of the USA could be attacked, and that it was totally implausible. It wasn't an attack on them it was an attack on their point. I spent a lot of time lining up my points, just to try and show that small things can have huge consequences and someone decided that it wasn't valid.

 

It was on topic to this thread weather it was an overreaction or not.

I didn't insult anyone (except Hitler, but *fruitcage* that guy), I just made my point.

It was a well reasoned argument, even if it was a bit of a rant. I mean correct me if I'm wrong but I backed up my points with facts.

 

If you don't like what i say RESPOND to it, instead of just deleting it, this wasn't someone coming in this thread and going, "Oh hi guyz, CODMW2 is worstst game ever, lol u smoke butts" It was a response to another forum members, to me, false idea about how wars actually come about. But now no one will see that, as you have come in and laid down the law without the courage to step and say why.

 

So, to Whomever deleted it without a word, that was a low move. I spent a nice chunk of time on it and it was good, but you deemed it unfit for the OT section in all your great and holy power.

 

Of course now I have learned my lesson, I'm saving my posts so if after a WOT like this one you change your mind Anono-mod then I can re post, or you can re instate them.

 

EDIT: If you cant tell that silent deletion mad me MAD AS A HATTER!

[Chimpy]

Nice rant.

 

The idea that you shouldn't do something implausible in fiction is well... a bit odd to say the least. Sure it should be consistent but not implausible? Goodbye James Bond, Jason Bourne, every Chris Ryan/Andy McNab/Tom Clancy novel. With the crazy action movie aesthetic of Modern Warfare nuking a city doesn't seem that odd particularly as mentioned it happens in the bloody first one!

[Stealthbomber]

If you don't like what i say RESPOND to it, instead of just deleting it,

It wasn't on topic so I deleted it.

 

On topic, I really don't care if a game has me wandering about in the south american jungle in an invincible exo-suit or has me shuffling around the burning cities of Europe fighting terrorists as long as the game is immersive and handles the scenario in a believable way.

 

Beyond that...

 

[Kyrian_Zenda]

Please point out any errors you notice in my logic here.

Well, here goes

 

A. I never insulted you, just thought that you over-reacted to a throw-away comment. I can insult you if you really want me to though, I hear I can be pretty good at it

 

B. Your entire post/rant is an error in logic. The mere fact you felt you had to go on a rant over something as trivial as how badly a game can skew reality, and whilst you made some good points, again, you over-reacted. Get over yourself (was that an insult? Possibly. I see it as more advice though)

 

C. Lol wut? I'm never usually the guy to try and calm something down when someone else is in the wrong, but eh? Calm down, for cryin' out loud. It's not like reaper called you out specifically, telling you that everything you've ever learned is WRONG and BAD (ooo, capitals for emphasis, two can play that game, my good sir!), he just made a flippant comment that you blew WAAAAAAAAY out of proportion.

 

So, in conclusion, read this post. Then close your internet explorer. Go get a drink. Go to the loo if you need to. Then re-open your internet explorer and read it again. Hopefully that should avoid another knee-jerk reaction that will further embarrass yourself.

[Skarclaw]

Its a flipping video game.

[thewallhitme]

anyone here want to talk about cod:mw2?

 

i do.

 

probably a long shot, but i was thinking the other day that i wouldent mind some really basic form of squad control. nothing fancy, just a sort of point and click system where you could point at a NPC team mate and press a button, to make them move, or give cover fire or something. i then started thinking that it would be really cool if enemies were suppresable, rather than just bad at taking cover.

 

at the moment enemies just seem to go behind somehting, with their legs and parts of their heads sticking out etc, or jumping out to expose themselves completely, so that you can blat them. its kinda lame tbh because no way would they do that for real. just something simple, like they duck in further behind cover for a while if you put a burst close to them (or on them i suppose).

 

its probably way more than likely its too late for them to add that sort of thing (unless they have already done it) but i hope this post has steared the thread back on topic. can we please keep the bickering to PMs. i see a new post here and i think "oh something interesting and on topic!" then i read it and realise its some petty rant about other games...

[MCXL]

"A. I never insulted you, just thought that you over-reacted to a throw-away comment. I can insult you if you really want me to though, I hear I can be pretty good at it smile.gif"

Yes, please insult me more then you already have, because that will really help point out how im being illogical. /Sarcasm

 

"B. Your entire post/rant is an error in logic. The mere fact you felt you had to go on a rant over something as trivial as how badly a game can skew reality, and whilst you made some good points, again, you over-reacted."

 

Error in logic? Where? I specifically asked you and anyone else to point them out. you say my whole rant is an error in logic. But I'm not seeing it. If you could point out where in my post I made a incorrect point I would appreciate it, but the surest way to lose at an argument and look like an *albatross* (aside from godwins law) is to just insult the other party instead of actually arguing with their points. EXAMPLE: Fox news channel.

 

My rant was simply to prove my point about fiction in games. While it may seem that they are close secret stories, they are really pretty dang grand.

 

Reaper didn't call me out, so my initial post was just to try and show him that in real life, things can get out of hand quick, and that DC getting attacked by an organized force, isn't like a colossal stretch. You however did call me out with your insulting post.

 

P.S. "ooo, capitals for emphasis, two can play that game, my good sir!" It has to do with the way I speak. I have an entirely animated speech pattern and that translates into how I type. If you really want to "play at that game" maybe you should, instead of trying to demean me further.

 

 

The idea that you shouldn't do something implausible in fiction is well... a bit odd to say the least. Sure it should be consistent but not implausible? Goodbye James Bond, Jason Bourne, every Chris Ryan/Andy McNab/Tom Clancy novel. With the crazy action movie aesthetic of Modern Warfare nuking a city doesn't seem that odd particularly as mentioned it happens in the bloody first one!

 

You make a good point. Really in order for fiction to work the main charicter must be special in some way. In mdost modern franchises they are very Lucky. (James Bond not getting hit by bullets from a helicopter for example) Some things go way beyond that, but the best works are generally the Luck ones.

 

I wouldn't call (all of) Tom Clancy's books implausible. It seemed like right around the mid 90's he went from spy thrillers that are very possible to, "ZOMG SPACE WEAPON OF DEATH" Yes, I'm saying it, Tom Clancy jumped the shark.

 

-Big post about AI cover systems-

 

You make a good point man. I wonder if the next generation of cover systems wlll use one of those adaptive animation technologies (like the ones in GTA4, for example) So that if say a cover gets eaten away an AI can notice and shy away from the damage, or just simply the AI exposing the least of its body possible. I am sure we will eventually see something like this, but it is a long way off.

 

The thing that always bugs me about AI in cover is they do the wall press. Anyone who has done even a tiny amount of firearms training, knows that you don't press your back up against your cover almost ever. The wall press is an invention of holly wood to get those nice close ups of they guys face and his gun as he reloads. Id like to see AI foes who use real personnel tactics; identifying cover/concealment, waiting for you to pop out, and staying back from cover and leaning a little bit. The list of improvements goes on and on.

 

 

 

And finally, Stealth, I would like to thank you for stepping up and saying you did it and why. Thanks man. I'm still not happy that you deleted my post, but you are the main motorcycle in charge round here.... FOR NOW

 

Also, WHERE DID YOU GET THAT PICTURE OF ME?!!?

[xI Ace xI]

Wow....50 cent song on the trailer.....

What are you talking about?

[Whan]

anyone here want to talk about cod:mw2?

 

i do.

 

probably a long shot, but i was thinking the other day that i wouldent mind some really basic form of squad control. nothing fancy, just a sort of point and click system where you could point at a NPC team mate and press a button, to make them move, or give cover fire or something. i then started thinking that it would be really cool if enemies were suppresable, rather than just bad at taking cover.

 

at the moment enemies just seem to go behind somehting, with their legs and parts of their heads sticking out etc, or jumping out to expose themselves completely, so that you can blat them. its kinda lame tbh because no way would they do that for real. just something simple, like they duck in further behind cover for a while if you put a burst close to them (or on them i suppose).

 

its probably way more than likely its too late for them to add that sort of thing (unless they have already done it) but i hope this post has steared the thread back on topic. can we please keep the bickering to PMs. i see a new post here and i think "oh something interesting and on topic!" then i read it and realise its some petty rant about other games...

 

Personally, I DON'T want to see squad control in MW2. Some of us (including me) don't really want to have to manage a squad like is already done in R6V2, ARMA, GRAW, etc. Don't get me wrong, managing a squad is fun at times, but it's also great to be more immersed in a battle than have to micromanage. Also, because of the unrealistics (that make Cod4 fun), managing a squad would be somewhat ineffective.

 

That said, I agree with you on AI and cover. That would make for a much better game. If the AI could actually control the squad's concentration of fire better, there shouldn't be anything needed on the player's part. Better cover = more realistic and better gameplay (instead of enemies just standing there after having rounds sprayed all around)

[Stealthbomber]

I suppose it could be argued that the whole "squad command" thing is supposed to replicate the additional responsibility a squad leader would have during a battle.

In a real war you couldn't just charge about like John Woo if you also had 3 other guys waiting for you to give them orders.

 

I think the closest thing to perfect would be an R6 style command structure that also allowed you to set pre-emptive instructions.

For example, you'd be able to tell your squad "In a firefight, get to cover and then return fire" or "Defend me at all costs" or "As soon as enemy is sighted spread out and ambush" etc.

 

If you could issue commands like this to each member of your team you could actually build quite complex squad orders.

You could tell your SAW gunner to always find cover and then return fire while telling a couple of your team to head toward the objective and that'd leave you free to indulge in your Bruce Willis fantasies safe in the knowledge that your team aren't stood around like shags on a rock waiting for you to tell them who to shoot at.

[Whan]

That's true, although in COD4, you're never Squad leader. Assumably you probably won't be in MW2 too.

[bbondaloose]

Enough rant about OMFGYOUZWRONGIRITE.

 

I really regret watching that commercial. I mean, seeing DC under attack, and in *fruitcage* FLAMES, that was when my facial expression was stuck like :o for some time.

And then I realized they just showed the big surprise to the game, as was the nuke in COD4.

Goddamn it, I wanted everything to be a surprise.

 

[Horsem4n]

so stop watching *suitcase* about the game. the way i always thought about *suitcase* like this is that i dont care that i know what the major "oh *suitcase*" is but i care as to which way it happened.

 

how the hell did they get to fighting in DC? thats the most important thing.

 

 

[Stealthbomber]

I actually kinda like it when a game/movie/book has the guts to actually go ahead and do something "unthinkable".

 

Like with Tom Clancy's "The Sum Of All Fears", there was no wishy-washy "saved the world with 2 seconds left on the timer" nonsense.

The bomb went off. Lots of people died.

Same sort of thing with Doctor Who's christmas special where the baddies crashed a spaceship into London and knocked down Big Ben.

Nobody saved the day and it didn't turn out to be a hologram or whatever.

 

I don't mean to sound patronising but is there some big deal about the idea of Washington getting wrecked?

Is it that you guys are still pretty raw about the WTCs?

Or is it just that you feel the video showing it is spoiling the surprise in the game?

 

[J-Rock_14]

Personally, I suspected them to do something like that. Washington burning? I don't think I've ever played a game with that scenario, minus an old Super Nintendo game called "Commanche." I actually embrace the idea. It's a new scenario, one that I would find interesting. I'm tired of the standard terrorists doing the same thing all the time in video games. I give it a green light. :]

 

 

 

[RacingManiac]

remember the whole internet hoax with the Fallout 3 showing DC in ruin as somesort of terrorist plot.....

[davedawg123]

I don't mind the Washington burning scenario. I'd just as happily enjoy playing a game where Europe burns to *suitcase* (and I do in WWII games ).

 

MW2 looks badass. Can't wait to play it. IW makes damn enjoyable games.

[RacingManiac]

IW makes damn enjoyable games.

 

 

COD by IW are great experiences in themselves.....I remember watching Band of Brothers then playing the first COD.....

[Kyrian_Zenda]

Moar postings

Congratulations on completely missing the point.

 

Back OT

 

I'm with Stealth, I actually kinda like it when you get a game that throws the rules out of the window. Formulaic games where it's just "shoot everyone!" kinda annoy me. Whilst I'm excited about this game, it'll probably be the last FPS i get in a while; stealth and thinking games are becoming more my thing.

 

As for the squad combat thing, CoD isn't known for having you in command, it's more that you end up being either a new guy/regular GI that happens to be given some of the most dangerous assignments by both high command and your squad leader. So whilst I highly doubt it'll be included in there, it could be an interesting addition, and IW did say they listened to fans a lot whilst developing multi-player (ie. the inclusion of more than on attachment as a perk, being able to customise how you look, host migration, etc). So get enough people behind you and it might be included in the next installment.

 

Whilst I'm on the subject, who reckons it'll turn out to be a Final Fantasy-style ongoing game series? It's just occured to me...

[Misfit]

I don't understand all this "Washington could never get burned down!" stuff - is the fact that we burned down the White House a dirty little secret in America?