LAN is dead, ever since Blizzard decided it should die in SC2. I wouldn't be surprised if many other games followed in their footsteps -_-

i don't think so. LAN modes may be dead, but not LAN play! (at least not for me)

internet connections nowadays are good enough for multiple online connections.

i don't mind blizzard removing the LAN mode if it helps with piracy. i know i'll host lan parties with friends where each of use will log into our battle.net accounts from my place and play as a "virtual lan".

edit:

well, it might be a problem with ping-dependent shooters with 20+ players, but i if we want to play a good shooter the new ones wouldn't be our choice anyway...

"virtual lan" will never be as good, battlenet has a set latency that will never be able to compete with true lan. I guess if all your buddies are in the same room you'll be fine, but the second one of your friends bails on the lan party and says "I'll play at home" everything is f*cked, unless you have some nice fiber optic connections. Same if you have 4 buddies on LAN and want to play a public game with 4 other randoms. You could eliminate problems like that before with programs like Listchecker for WC3. Now SC2 will have the same problems console FPS haz, host advantage =P.

I agree, the consoles ruined the shooter genre in many many ways. I made a huge list in another thread, so I will repost what I said:

"-DLC

-Regenerating health

-Matchmaking

-Limited guns being able to be carried

-Following from the previous, shitty gun concepts and not much variation

-Slow ass games, way slow, I grow a 5 o'clock shadow any time I try to turn 180 degress in Halo 3, GoW, CoD, etc.

-Repetative gameplay, seriously look at how varied HL2 is then look at Gears of War

-Decline of skill based games, and an astounding rise of luck based games. At least back in 2000 CS players knew heir places behind Quake/UT players, now people are actually arguing with me how Halo 3, CoD4, MW2, etc. take more skill than Quake and UT.

-Leveling systems in multiplayer. I realize BF2 did i first and I hated it for it, but now it's just getting rediculous.

-Zero modding tools and SDKs. Epic releases the entire UE engine for everyone who buys the game. You know the one that is used in lke 20% of all current games? Yeah that one. You get literally the whole thing and you can make amazing games without a hitch as long as youdon't charge for it.

-Shitty models. Look at the variety of models HL, TF, Quake, UT, etc. had, and now look at the variety of models, which conosist of Marine 1, and at best Soldier 1. Then you can add little bells and whistles to "customize" them which make no fucking difference in the middle of the action.



I feel that's a nice list, I am sure I have more greviances but I just can't come up with them. I will end this with a very nice thing that I do like about console shooters:

-Local multiplayer, it's fucking awesome, and while it's nowhere near as awesome and badass as a LAN party, it's very fast and it doesn't have to be premedited. A shooter on a console is absolutely worthless without local multiplayer."

There.

Halo was a poor port that was released years later and it still got good reviews.

next.

83 on metacritic are not good reviews.

And it wasn't really a poor port.  The game played perfectly fine, graphics were improved, controls were improved (for PC players), and it had online multiplayer.  In almost every measurable sense, the PC version is superior to the console version. 

So either the game aged horribly over those 2 years, or it wasn't that good to begin with.

Anyway, that's Halo for you.  But this thread was more about MW2 and how console development is actually hurting the PC community now.

Nope you're wrong.

83 is good.

A 75 is already good, so the PC version of Halo is actually closer to awesome.

The port wasn't as bad as the port from the 2nd game, but far from perfect.

The graphical updates were minor, but the high hardware requirements made it worse.

Nothing regarding the controls were improved.

You can also enjoy 16 player multiplayer on the Xbox, but the 4-player splitscreen and especially the co-op mode (obviously one of the key features) was removed on the PC.

75 is already good?  83 is closer to awesome?
Do you guys pay attention to game reviews?  83 is mediocre at best.  83 is the 99th best game on XBox360 right now. 
83 was the 124th best game of 2009. (Both on metacritic)

83 doesn't belong to be in the same breath as "Top 10" anything.

I think this is a pretty good summary of Halo
http://www.penny-arcade.com/comic/2001/11/28/

Same stupid level, over and over again.  Intruders would become bored and leave.  That's Halo :D
(I also like the original XBox controllers in the comic)

No Barozi is right 83 is a good score...70 is an average game, and anything below I count as a "B" game similar to sci-fi "B" movies, and just like sci-fi "B" movies once in a while I'll enjoy a under 70 meta game.