Final-Fan said:
IllegalPaladin said:
The issues you've listed along with the, from my experience, extreme annoyance of joining and playing in rounds because of the P2P only multiplayer are why I would want that kind of option. In fact, the P2P is one really good reason why I would have selected 'something else' no matter what.
I can see what you're saying, but in my opinion I was generally dissatisfied with the multiplayer experience so I don't think I can settle for just one issue being the worst. To me, they all add up.
|
I get you, but that's a different question than the poll asks.
As for P2P, CoD4 had a terrible, terrible setup that stopped the game anytime the host dropped/quit, and if it happened at the start of the game (which seemed to happen in about half the games) the resultant draw counted as a loss. Words fail me.
MW2 doesn't quit out when the host drops, which makes it indescribably better for me. Maybe my standards are low, but ignorance is bliss. Although I have noticed the connection bias mentioned in another post.
|
I'm aware of that. In my experience with Modern Warfare 2 on PS3 and PC, host migration usually isn't a very smooth transition. Most of the time there is a tremendous amount of lag (enough to make it unplayable in some cases) in the time prior to and after the migration and I have had to sit through a number of long waits only to get a 'migration failed' which boots everybody back to the lobby anyway.
It's a step in a better direction compared to Call of Duty 4 on the consoles. However, my gripe stems from the PC version where Call of Duty 4 uses dedicated servers and Modern Warfare 2 forces P2P on everybody where, in my opinion, there wasn't a problem that the P2P would be fixing.
