JaggedSac said: psychoBrew said: JaggedSac said: Squilliam said: I like the changes... I agree.  More than 16 and things are more likely to get chaotic and unorganized, unless you are in a clan match, and especially in a game like CoD where the maps are not really open, and there isn't any squad based support(aka, Battlefield).  Tribes, Battlefield, UT2004(for some modes), those games need large numbers of players to fill up the battlefields and not seem empty.  They were designed for large numbers.  People seem to forget that having more players does not make a game better.  In fact, that is just silly.  Pong would be much better with 30 people playing at once.  ZOMG.  Player count should revolve around a game's design, not a platform's capabilities. Player count should revolve around the number of players people want to play with.  Don't like 32v32?  Make your own game or join one with a player limmit you like. The problem with 9v9 multiplayer limmit is it's going to feel so ameture on the PC.  The game was obviously designed for consoles due to all the limmitations they put on it, which means it will be a below average PC FPS. I disagree, player count should revolve around the game's mechanics and maps.  If IW makes a really taut small squad combat game, I don't think they should be forced to provide mechanics to organize a large 32v32 game. A 32v32 CoD match is a spawn and grenade spam fest.  A 32v32 Battlefield game is a completely different story.

The point is let the players decide.  You do think people have brains and are capable of making decisions for something as simple as what is fun, don't you?  If a group of people feel like goofing off with 32v32 on a map designed for 9v9, who is that hurting?  These restrictions are typical console bs and don't belong on the PC.  I can't believe you support IW for thinking they know how to make someone have fun better than the individual can figure it out on their own.

In any case, maps designed for 9v9 are not very good for PC standards.

Some people don't seem to understand how major this is, I'll try to make a different analogy:

Imagine if Warcraft 3 did not allow custom games. Instead, you are forced to play on their ladder system - their maps, their game. No custom maps, no DotA, no 12 player games (ladder caps at 8). This is essentially what IW is pushing for.

Warcraft 3 would have not done nearly as well as it has. And for what cause?

Is Infinity Ward having a 'How can we fuck PC gamers off the most?' competition right now?

Because if so, I think they're doing a good job.


Next up: PC version doesn't have a single player campaign, they didn't feel it was necessary.

i'm pretty disapointed in this....

I just got done changing my pre orderering a few weeks ago and now im even thinking about dropping.
I might pick it up on a steam deal a few years later or something, but at full price hell no. No PC game should be asking me to up the ante with its price point and drop out features that have been standard for years.

That's one expensive cake.  $60 bucks?

IW: Please don't buy the PC version of our game.

It's just another example of piracy killing PC gaming. I can't blame Infinity Ward.

Nah, next the resolution will be capped at 1280x720, and the frame rate will be capped at 60fps.

So what?

Will I buy the MW2 for it's singleplayer 4 hour long campaign? No

Do I want to play the greatest multiplayer shooter? Ofcourse > So I start my STEAM and play COUNTER STRIKE like a millions of people for the past 10 years.

The only reason for me to buy MW2 would be if I had console only and grew bored of Halo 3 / Killzone 2.

funny how they want you buy your game on 360/ps3 lol

libellule, waiting for CoD4 price drop ...