[NSR] COD6: Modern Warfare 2

jfrost2 · Post by **jfrost2** » Fri Nov 20, 2009 4:57 am

Anyone play this game yet? I have it for PC and it's amazing, but very short for the story mode.

I'll share this screenshot.

cmac · Post by **cmac** » Fri Nov 20, 2009 5:22 am

Played it at a friend's house awhile ago.
It's le merde!

pyrocpu · Post by **pyrocpu** » Fri Nov 20, 2009 5:23 am

Been playing LOTS, on PS3.

Enjoyable, though I'm starting to get annoyed at people (even on my own team) who steal the airdrops.

Haven't played much single-player yet; figured I'd save that for those days where the cable modem doesn't want to work...

jfrost2 · Post by **jfrost2** » Fri Nov 20, 2009 5:35 am

pyrocpu wrote:Been playing LOTS, on PS3.

Enjoyable, though I'm starting to get annoyed at people (even on my own team) who steal the airdrops.

Haven't played much single-player yet; figured I'd save that for those days where the cable modem doesn't want to work...

Prepare to toss your controller at your TV mid game and end.

It's a great story line, but it just seems so disappointingly short to me. If it was as long as COD4 was I'd be happy. Play till the end and beat the game, you'll unlock a museum level with all the characters and scenes and every gun. You can kill or shoot the dummies on display, they respawn when you walk out of the room and back in.

Also, I prefer not to be rushed while I order food at Burger Town...

Anachronism · Post by **Anachronism** » Fri Nov 20, 2009 7:11 am

The plot of COD-4 was cool, the actual combat, less so.

Realistic shooters these days feel very dated without a cover system. Ditto for the endless respawns until you cross an invisible line, which really throws out a lot of strategy and makes you constantly rush stuff.

The level up system in multiplayer is awesome, but I still think the game series is falling behind what is expected of shooters these days.

Lostmycage · Post by **Lostmycage** » Fri Nov 20, 2009 3:01 pm

I think this is a bit more to my liking. I just can't see forking out $60 for another shooter that looks like all the rest, but with better resolution.

Anachronism · Post by **Anachronism** » Fri Nov 20, 2009 3:27 pm

Lostmycage wrote:I think this is a bit more to my liking. I just can't see forking out $60 for another shooter that looks like all the rest, but with better resolution.

I bought this for my brother for christmas. I just picked up the first one about 2 months ago. Good game. Its just a ton of fun playing the horde.

Lostmycage · Post by **Lostmycage** » Fri Nov 20, 2009 3:47 pm

Anachronism wrote:
I bought this for my brother for christmas. I just picked up the first one about 2 months ago. Good game. Its just a ton of fun playing the horde.

Splitting the 4-pack with some friends when it was 10% off helped make that decision for me. Came out to $34 or just a touch over half of COD4-2.

I play COD4 with friends on a pretty regular basis, but I just can't see myself forking out the cash for it anytime soon. It does look gorgeous, but you can't snipe anyone with your tongue, or tackle them from a rooftop.

drekati · Post by **drekati** » Fri Nov 20, 2009 3:57 pm

Upset that the PC has no dedicated server, because I am still enjoying this game online now that the one player is over. Its an awesome experience to start a party with some friends and do some team deathmatch.

Quo Vadimus · Post by **Quo Vadimus** » Fri Nov 20, 2009 5:30 pm

Whatever happened to the superbness of Ghost Recon? I can't believe not a single developer thought they'd try to build on the more realistic, strategic, team-centric, and interesting model that was way back then. Yes, I'm that old.

Unless I missed something. Any suggestions?

drekati · Post by **drekati** » Sat Nov 21, 2009 4:38 pm

Seems like games are getting dumbed down for the masses. Plus its all about consoles and the more complex pc games are getting pushed on the back burner.

MW2 is a console port. If they were serious about multiplayer they would have had dedicated servers.

cmac · Post by **cmac** » Sat Nov 21, 2009 5:03 pm

drekati wrote:Seems like games are getting dumbed down for the masses. Plus its all about consoles and the more complex pc games are getting pushed on the back burner.

Thats because you need a decent computer to play any good pc game now a days and people can't / don't want to spend 800 dollars (pc) to play the same game that they can play for only 200 dollars (xbox).

Pc > console anyday though

jfrost2 · Post by **jfrost2** » Sat Nov 21, 2009 5:24 pm

Actually you dont need a $800 computer to play games just as well as a console. It's true the PS3/xbox will play them at amazing graphics for only 200-300 dollars though. I was looking into building a new PC for gaming.

Specs:

AMD Phenom II 2.8Ghz 95w AM3
4GB DDR3 1333
500GB HDD
ATI sapphire 5770

Every part from the case, power supply, CPU, GPU, etc, cost only $650 for what I was looking to build. A slightly weaker CPU and graphics card would really bring the cost down to maybe 500-550 and still play games at high settings.

babblefish · Post by **babblefish** » Mon Nov 23, 2009 7:25 am

jfrost2 wrote:Actually you dont need a $800 computer to play games just as well as a console. It's true the PS3/xbox will play them at amazing graphics for only 200-300 dollars though. I was looking into building a new PC for gaming.

Specs:

AMD Phenom II 2.8Ghz 95w AM3
4GB DDR3 1333
500GB HDD
ATI sapphire 5770

Every part from the case, power supply, CPU, GPU, etc, cost only $650 for what I was looking to build. A slightly weaker CPU and graphics card would really bring the cost down to maybe 500-550 and still play games at high settings.

Not Crysis

I have a Core 2 Quad running at 3.2gHz and a Nvidia GTX285 video card with 1 Meg and I still can't run Crysis at max settings (on a 24" LCD).

I think it's time to build an i7 box with SLI GTX285's! (I've always built by own computers).

Lostmycage · Post by **Lostmycage** » Mon Nov 23, 2009 3:19 pm

babblefish wrote:
Not Crysis

I have a Core 2 Quad running at 3.2gHz and a Nvidia GTX285 video card with 1 Meg and I still can't run Crysis at max settings (on a 24" LCD).

I think it's time to build an i7 box with SLI GTX285's! (I've always built by own computers).

I think I see your problem. You got the 1 meg version of your video card.

jfrost2 · Post by **jfrost2** » Mon Nov 23, 2009 3:29 pm

babblefish wrote:
jfrost2 wrote:Actually you dont need a $800 computer to play games just as well as a console. It's true the PS3/xbox will play them at amazing graphics for only 200-300 dollars though. I was looking into building a new PC for gaming.

Specs:

AMD Phenom II 2.8Ghz 95w AM3
4GB DDR3 1333
500GB HDD
ATI sapphire 5770

Every part from the case, power supply, CPU, GPU, etc, cost only $650 for what I was looking to build. A slightly weaker CPU and graphics card would really bring the cost down to maybe 500-550 and still play games at high settings.
Not Crysis

I have a Core 2 Quad running at 3.2gHz and a Nvidia GTX285 video card with 1 Meg and I still can't run Crysis at max settings (on a 24" LCD).

I think it's time to build an i7 box with SLI GTX285's! (I've always built by own computers).

I've never cared for crysis, so it doesnt matter if I can run it at high fps or not. I'm just concerned about the mainstream of games being able to run at the highest settings just fine.

babblefish · Post by **babblefish** » Mon Nov 23, 2009 7:24 pm

Lostmycage wrote:
babblefish wrote:
Not Crysis

I have a Core 2 Quad running at 3.2gHz and a Nvidia GTX285 video card with 1 Meg and I still can't run Crysis at max settings (on a 24" LCD).

I think it's time to build an i7 box with SLI GTX285's! (I've always built by own computers).
I think I see your problem. You got the 1 meg version of your video card.

OK, OK - my bad! I meant 1 Gig! There, happy now?

babblefish · Post by **babblefish** » Mon Nov 23, 2009 7:32 pm

jfrost2 wrote:
babblefish wrote:
jfrost2 wrote:Actually you dont need a $800 computer to play games just as well as a console. It's true the PS3/xbox will play them at amazing graphics for only 200-300 dollars though. I was looking into building a new PC for gaming.

Specs:

AMD Phenom II 2.8Ghz 95w AM3
4GB DDR3 1333
500GB HDD
ATI sapphire 5770

Every part from the case, power supply, CPU, GPU, etc, cost only $650 for what I was looking to build. A slightly weaker CPU and graphics card would really bring the cost down to maybe 500-550 and still play games at high settings.
Not Crysis

I have a Core 2 Quad running at 3.2gHz and a Nvidia GTX285 video card with 1 Meg and I still can't run Crysis at max settings (on a 24" LCD).

I think it's time to build an i7 box with SLI GTX285's! (I've always built by own computers).
I've never cared for crysis, so it doesnt matter if I can run it at high fps or not. I'm just concerned about the mainstream of games being able to run at the highest settings just fine.

Well, we were talking about COD which is a FPS type game and Crysis is a FPS so they're related. The thing about Crysis that blows me away is the realisim and detail. I don't know how many times I've been killed because I was paying more attention to the scenery than to the enemy.

Ahh, nothing better than sitting on a virtual hill admiring a virtual sunset and then getting shot by a virtual enemy. All I need now is smell-O-vision! BTW: I would say Crysis is pretty mainstream even though it is now several years old. Others are still trying to catch-up to it.

Drumwoulf · Post by **Drumwoulf** » Mon Nov 23, 2009 7:58 pm

All these "shooter" games creeps me out...!!

Training our kids as to how much fun it is to go around shooting people?
You'd think that after Columbine, Viginia Tech, and now Ft. Hood, people would be sick and tired
already of this kind of murderous 'playing'?

You wanna find out what's it's really like? -Go join the Army then!
I was in the service way back when and even tho I didn't get into any shooting scrapes,
I gotta tell'ya, AFAIC being a grunt in the military was scary and sucked BIG TIME!

I never, ever, want to have to buy anything like these killing games for any of my grandkids,
or for any children I care about!

jfrost2 · Post by **jfrost2** » Mon Nov 23, 2009 8:43 pm

Drumwoulf wrote:All these "shooter" games creeps me out...!!
Training our kids as to how much fun it is to go around shooting people?
You'd think that after Columbine, Viginia Tech, and now Ft. Hood, people would be sick and tired
already of this kind of murderous 'playing'?

You wanna find out what's it's really like? -Go join the Army then!
I was in the service way back when and even tho I didn't get into any shooting scrapes,
I gotta tell'ya, AFAIC being a grunt in the military was scary and sucked BIG TIME!

I never, ever, want to have to buy anything like these killing games for any of my grandkids,
or for any children I care about!

Counter-Strike 1.6 German Authority. Several cases.

drekati · Post by **drekati** » Mon Nov 23, 2009 10:29 pm

Are you serious??

Kids have been playing war since Cowboys and Indians, and long before that. For the most part we turn out alright don't you think?

Video games and music do not kill people. Stupid kids with stupid parents kill people. Stupid people that cant differentiate between a video game or a heavy metal song from reality. Stupid parents who don't raise their kids correctly with a solid foundation.

Everyone wants to blame someone or something for their mistakes. People just need to take more personal accountability and look inside of themselves instead of pointing the finger.

I doubt Hitler played any Call of Duty or listened to Marilyn Manson before he decided to gas little children.

Turn off your TV and eliminate that fear you are getting spoon fed. (Or just don't buy into it).

KRUSTYburger · Post by **KRUSTYburger** » Mon Nov 23, 2009 10:51 pm

I am going to gravitate slightly off subject just because I don't like where this is going...

Anyways, a friend of mine has Xbox360 and he says it's the "best" gaming system out there. I of course assume this a subjective opinion rather than fact. I am also told Xbox Live is a better (or at least larger) online community as opposed to PSN. So I had sort of decided on getting a PS3 despite what he said and I'm wondering who all uses PSNetwork and what do you think of it? It is free after all right? Any input would be awesome. I'm thinking you could PM me so not to thread-jack, but other people might have similar questions.

Drumwoulf · Post by **Drumwoulf** » Mon Nov 23, 2009 11:20 pm

drekati wrote:Are you serious??
Kids have been playing war since Cowboys and Indians, and long before that. For the most parts we turn out alright don't you think?
Video games and music do not kill people. Stupid kids with stupid parents kill people. Stupid people that cant differentiate between a video game or a heavy metal song from reality. Stupid parents who don't raise their kids correctly with a solid foundation.
Everyone wants to blame someone or something for their mistakes. People just need to take more personal accountability and look inside of themselves instead of pointing the finger.
I doubt Hitler played any Call of Duty or listened to Marilyn Manson before he decided to gas little children.

Turn off your TV and eliminate that fear you are getting spoon fed. (Or just don't buy into it).

Interesting...
You are willing to think that I am being 'spoon fed' fear by my TV and it affects me, a grown, adult, non-stupid man..
Yet in the same breath you also write that impressionable children wouldn't be affected by all the violent dreck they're
constantly being spoon fed, unless they're 'stupid'?
-Talk about wanting to have it both ways? -Sheeesh!

But one thing you are right about; human beings have been teaching their children about the 'nobility' of violence for eons...
-And look where it's gotten us? The 20th century alone was one long century of war, murder, hatred and horror!

I can pretty much promise you that if someone teaches their children (or allows them to be taught by others) that violence is the big way to success and fun in this world, they will not in the long run be as important to the world and it's people as those children who are taught compassion and non-violent ways! (-Nor, I suspect, will they ever be as content or happy..)

It's what all the great philosophers, from Buddha to Jesus to Dr. King, have tried to teach us! And there were many parents in the 60's and 70's who, reacting to the insanity of Vietnam, refused to buy their kids war toys or toy guns because they agreed with those teachings!

But when one looks honestly at our childrens' current "playthings" and "games", it's easy to see how difficult a thing that has become now, to teach children compassion in a violence-loving culture! So many of us have been so expensively, consistently, and continuously indoctrinated to the ways of violence for such a long time we can't even see it anymore!!

Namaste,

jfrost2 · Post by **jfrost2** » Tue Nov 24, 2009 12:27 am

KRUSTYburger wrote:I am going to gravitate slightly off subject just because I don't like where this is going...

Anyways, a friend of mine has Xbox360 and he says it's the "best" gaming system out there. I of course assume this a subjective opinion rather than fact. I am also told Xbox Live is a better (or at least larger) online community as opposed to PSN. So I had sort of decided on getting a PS3 despite what he said and I'm wondering who all uses PSNetwork and what do you think of it? It is free after all right? Any input would be awesome. I'm thinking you could PM me so not to thread-jack, but other people might have similar questions.

It's free, community wise I think the xbox is better. But on average I'd say after using both, I prefer PSN and PS3. Both online features are too similar even though some slight differences do exist. I think though free online play is a huge factor. I really dont want to pay money to play online when all it would do is route me from xbox live servers to the game's developer servers.

pyrocpu · Post by **pyrocpu** » Tue Nov 24, 2009 5:38 am

Xbox vs. PS3... I have the PS3, and I must admit, the Xbox interface is just plain better. The PS3 is trying to catch up and just doesn't work quite as well. Having said that, I'm not into it for any multimedia goodness; just online gaming. The other caveat is that for the "good stuff" for Xbox Live, you gotta shell out that $50/yr for the Gold account. Netflix is now available on the PS3 as well, so the two consoles are on parity on that front.

Now, on the other topic of how "bad" video games are...

beeporama · Post by **beeporama** » Tue Nov 24, 2009 9:32 pm

KRUSTYburger wrote:Anyways, a friend of mine has Xbox360 and he says it's the "best" gaming system out there. I of course assume this a subjective opinion rather than fact. I am also told Xbox Live is a better (or at least larger) online community as opposed to PSN. So I had sort of decided on getting a PS3 despite what he said and I'm wondering who all uses PSNetwork and what do you think of it? It is free after all right?

There was another thread where those of us with 360's were posting our avatars etc., and I'm sure something similar for PS3 would be welcomed too, although the 360 one got little response.

Me, I'm a pretty serious console gamer: I have all three major platforms of this console generation, and the previous one, and many "classic" consoles too.

I don't play multiplayer generally, so my opinion is second-hand, but I do frequent enough gaming sites (and have enough gaming friends) to say that the general wisdom is that far more people play online multiplayer on XBox Live than on PSN. On the other hand, the "Gold" service level allowing multiplayer costs ~$50/year for XBox Live; it is free for PSN. Conventional wisdom also holds that people are largely immature jerks on both, so you should get whichever platform your friends have, because you mostly want to play with them.

Multiplayer aside there are good things about both consoles. The 360 is cheaper, usually (but not always!) multi-platform games are better on the 360, and most people prefer the 360 controller. The PS3 has a Blu-Ray player, the hardware is more reliable, and (in my subjective opinion) it has more compelling exclusives.

jfrost2 · Post by **jfrost2** » Tue Nov 24, 2009 10:17 pm

beeporama wrote:
KRUSTYburger wrote:Anyways, a friend of mine has Xbox360 and he says it's the "best" gaming system out there. I of course assume this a subjective opinion rather than fact. I am also told Xbox Live is a better (or at least larger) online community as opposed to PSN. So I had sort of decided on getting a PS3 despite what he said and I'm wondering who all uses PSNetwork and what do you think of it? It is free after all right?
There was another thread where those of us with 360's were posting our avatars etc., and I'm sure something similar for PS3 would be welcomed too, although the 360 one got little response.

Me, I'm a pretty serious console gamer: I have all three major platforms of this console generation, and the previous one, and many "classic" consoles too.

I don't play multiplayer generally, so my opinion is second-hand, but I do frequent enough gaming sites (and have enough gaming friends) to say that the general wisdom is that far more people play online multiplayer on XBox Live than on PSN. On the other hand, the "Gold" service level allowing multiplayer costs ~$50/year for XBox Live; it is free for PSN. Conventional wisdom also holds that people are largely immature jerks on both, so you should get whichever platform your friends have, because you mostly want to play with them.

Multiplayer aside there are good things about both consoles. The 360 is cheaper, usually (but not always!) multi-platform games are better on the 360, and most people prefer the 360 controller. The PS3 has a Blu-Ray player, the hardware is more reliable, and (in my subjective opinion) it has more compelling exclusives.

Microsoft released a report 6 months ago claiming 55% of all xbox's ever sold have had been sent in for RROD or some warranty work. Xbox lacks wifi adapter, which is a separate purchase. Using last generation's media with a 8GB limit for games.

beeporama · Post by **beeporama** » Wed Nov 25, 2009 7:07 pm

jfrost2 wrote:Microsoft released a report 6 months ago claiming 55% of all xbox's ever sold have had been sent in for RROD or some warranty work. Xbox lacks wifi adapter, which is a separate purchase. Using last generation's media with a 8GB limit for games.

Yes, the reliability for 360's was terrible (I had to send mine in too) but they did extend the warranty for the problem in question and have since become better.

I don't think the 8GB limit is a huge deal for anyone who is just now deciding between the consoles... if you want to get into technical nitty-gritty we can also talk about specs like the memory (and how it is used), processors, disc read speed, and even what the development SDK's make possible. Like I said, for multi-platform games, somehow developers usually get the 360 to look better even though it is inferior on paper in several ways; but the PS3 exclusives, in my opinion, sure do look better.

You are absolutely right that the wi-fi might be an issue for people. I have my router under the TV right next to the consoles so it isn't an issue for me, but it is a big additional expense if you need to connect wirelessly. (As an aside, I bought one of the first-generation 20GB PS3's, the only model without wireless included... so I don't have it anyway.)