By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close
coolestguyever on 29 December 2009
dharh said:
coolestguyever said:
dharh said:
coolestguyever said:
What's with all the Modern Warfare 2 hate in this thread anyways?

Okay I get its kind of a noob game (noob tube, rocket launchers, etc) and campers run rampant but you can't blame IW for that; you can only blame the people playing.

IW did there best to make good maps, tons of new killstreak bonuses, some new guns, new attachments for guns, new camos, titles/emblems, prestige rewards, etc. I admit its sort of Modern Warfare 1.5 but it is a lot improved over CoD4.

I most certainly can and will blame IW for the campers. Two simple fixes would make camping useless, but i'm beginning to wonder if they are going to do it. 

Just for interests sake what are the 2 fixes? You can't just say there are 2 and then not name them. Lol

 

I'll try and think of some ideas, I have none now.

Dynamic spawn points and limited invulnerability after spawn.

What do you mean by dynamic spawn points?

I like the idea of limited invulnerability after spawn but that will just mean people camp a little further back from the spawn so it really makes minimal difference. Also spawn camping isn't the only type of camping; there's a huge problem with people hiding in random corners or going prone in tall grass so "dynamic spawn points" and limited invulnerability only help you for one type of camping.

 

My ideas would be:

1. I kinda stole this from a video I saw on youtube but if you stay within one small radius (like a 20 foot area) for too long (and you're not reloading, waiting for your health to recover or using a sniper rifle) then you slowly lose health so it makes it easier for other people to kill you if you try to camp.

2. If you get killed by a camper (which they would actually make a solid definition for - like someone who stays within a small radius for extended periods of time) you immediately spawn directly behind them for an easy revenge kill

3. Punish campers:

          3a. If during the game you spent too much time staying still or in certain small areas you get no match bonus

          3b. Kills you get while camping count towards your score/teams score; but; they don't count towards your killstreaks. i.e. You can't earn a nuke by sitting in a corner for 25 kills

 

That's all I've got.



Around the Network
wholikeswood on 29 December 2009
Squilliam said:
wholikeswood said:
Squilliam said:

Killzone 2 is flawed. It sacrifices gameplay for graphics and thats a nono for me. MW2 is the opposite in that they sacrafice graphics for gameplay and they crush Killzone 2 where it counts this generation and thats with multiplayer on account of the smooth controls alone.

If you want a game which looks good buy Killzone 2.

If you want a game which plays amongst the best buy Modern Warfare 2.

preferences aside the multiplayer in MW2 is objectively better.

You talk as if KZ2's multiplayer is all graphics and no gameplay, when in fact both components are excellent - indeed, subjectively speaking since it's opinion that counts to someone, not trying to distill it all in the forms of hard "facts", I rate Killzone 2's multiplayer as the superior experience. MW2 is full of glitchers and bastards (campers, spawn-rapists, etc) whereas KZ2 is fresher and has a really compelling experience/progress system.

I talk as if MW2 has measureably better framerate, latency and fan engagement. I talk as if both series released on the PS3 but only one of them had legs simply due to the qualities which cannot be metered out on a low quality 24-30FPS internet video but can be conveyed if you show your friend what an awesome game MW1 is.

Again, I question how much of the two you've played. KZ2's framerate online isn't 60fps but it's never been an issue for me - and I was beta-testing it 8 months before launch. Equally, the lag in MW2 is no better than that of KZ2.

You talk about "legs" but we both know that KZ2 was effectively a new IP insofar as it was an attempt to reboot the franchise after KZ1 received mediocre critical response, and it's doing this on the HD console that sells shooters far less successfully. In contrast, MW2 is much like Halo or Mario - a software phenomenon.

I appreciate there are a variety of things that MW2 does better than KZ2. I only picked you up in this thread because of your lack of recognition of what KZ2 does well and, just so we're clear, it's more than just a pretty face of a game...



makingmusic476 on 29 December 2009
Squilliam said:

Killzone 2 is flawed. It sacrifices gameplay for graphics and thats a nono for me. MW2 is the opposite in that they sacrafice graphics for gameplay and they crush Killzone 2 where it counts this generation and thats with multiplayer on account of the smooth controls alone.

If you want a game which looks good buy Killzone 2.

If you want a game which plays amongst the best buy Modern Warfare 2.

preferences aside the multiplayer in MW2 is objectively better.

Objectively better?  Please don't state an opinion as fact, and least of all an opinion with which many disagree.  For example, GameSpot, who gave Killzone 2 their competitive multiplayer game of the year award:

When you first dive into Killzone 2's competitive warzone, you don't have much in the way of options. Limited weapons, ammo, and grenades make you feel like a new recruit, and the battlefield can be a deadly place. Gloomy lighting, thick smoke, and harsh industrial environments create an oppressive atmosphere, and the sound of battle often grows to a cacophony that few other shooters can match. This intensity is further heightened by Killzone 2's innovative match structure. You don't choose Team Deathmatch, Capture the Flag, or Assault and Defend before going to war (though you can, if you want). Instead, each match seamlessly transitions between game types, creating an ever-shifting battlefield that demands awareness, adaptability, and aggressiveness.

Embrace these virtues, and you are rewarded. As you kill enemies and complete objectives, you advance in rank and unlock new weapons and new badges. These badges function like classes, giving you strategically powerful skills, such as the ability to revive teammates, to place turrets, or to disguise yourself as an enemy. You can also earn ribbons and medals for commendable battlefield actions. This feat-based stream of rewards bestows valuable bonuses, the most powerful of which actually improve the potency of your badges by granting you another ability. You can then earn the power to mix and match these abilities and create custom classes that will make you more unpredictable and more deadly. The two reward systems make you feel like you are constantly achieving something on the battlefield, and together, they offer a uniquely engaging array of powerful combinations.

With these strategic abilities constantly in play, there is a lot more happening on the battlefield than just soldiers shooting each other. Skirmishes can play out in virtually any part of Killzone's superbly designed multiplayer maps, each of which can accommodate up to 32 players at a time. The sheer scope of these conflicts, the strategic clash of different abilities, the dynamic shifting of battlefield objectives, and the flat-out satisfying movement and shooting mechanics make Killzone 2 the best competitive multiplayer game of 2009.

Also, please don't use sales as a barometer for quality.  Brand name plays a heavy hand in all of this, which is why titles like Okami and Forza never come close to franchises like Zelda and Gran Turismo in sales, despite the quality of the former.  I'd much rather look at the opinions of relatively informed gamers, including my own, to judge which game is better than another. And even then, as is the case with those titles I just mentioned, it is highly debatable which games ARE the better games.

In the case of Killzone 2, it is hardly out of the ordinary to believe it is a better game than Modern Warfare 2.  It actually seems that that is the more common opinion amongst enthusiast, hardcore gamers like us. Numerous sites like Gamesreactor, GameSpot, and IGN (both US and AU) have been giving Killzone the nod over Modern Warfare 2.  The collective body of neogaf seems to prefer Killzone as well, since the game has a lead of over 100 points over Modern Warfare 2 in gaf's 2009 Game of the Year voting thread. 

 

 



SpartanFX on 29 December 2009
Skeeuk said:
both are good but mw2 maps are shit, kz2 maps are far better, i will give nod to kz2 the multiplayer was really good.

exactly my feelings,,,the maps in MW2 are shitttt.it's got 3 maps i like in total while there were 1 map that i didn't like in KZ2.

 

KZ2 all the wayyy.I love class based multiplayers and objective changes every 4 minutes so you won't get bored.



 

 

 

1337 Gamer on 29 December 2009

i agree KZ2 walks all over MW2



Long Live SHIO!

Around the Network
makingmusic476 on 29 December 2009

You do realize you can express an opinion without saying, "lol _____ is shit," right?

I've seen numerous people come in here and rip on some aspect of one game or the other in a similar manner. It degrades the quality of actual discussion and turns things into a bitch fest. >_>

Edit:

This was directed at spartan, akuseru and a few others lol.



Xigmund on 29 December 2009

To end this;

COD4 craps all over KZ2 and MW2. MW2 is just a bunch of camping and the spawning is pretty dumb. KZ2 you can get spawn camped easy only if you let the whole team ransack you into it and if you have pretty good a Tactician(s), you'll be in business everytime.



can't wait for Track Season 2009/2010, guna beast out!

Travis Touchdown ERECTION CONFIRMED!

-Newcloud- on 29 December 2009

i HATE spec ops if your not going to do co-op right then just dont it resistance 2 was the same

any ho killzone 2 > MW2 IMO



Squilliam on 29 December 2009
wholikeswood said:
Squilliam said:

I talk as if MW2 has measureably better framerate, latency and fan engagement. I talk as if both series released on the PS3 but only one of them had legs simply due to the qualities which cannot be metered out on a low quality 24-30FPS internet video but can be conveyed if you show your friend what an awesome game MW1 is.

Again, I question how much of the two you've played. KZ2's framerate online isn't 60fps but it's never been an issue for me - and I was beta-testing it 8 months before launch. Equally, the lag in MW2 is no better than that of KZ2.

You talk about "legs" but we both know that KZ2 was effectively a new IP insofar as it was an attempt to reboot the franchise after KZ1 received mediocre critical response, and it's doing this on the HD console that sells shooters far less successfully. In contrast, MW2 is much like Halo or Mario - a software phenomenon.

I appreciate there are a variety of things that MW2 does better than KZ2. I only picked you up in this thread because of your lack of recognition of what KZ2 does well and, just so we're clear, it's more than just a pretty face of a game...

Actually Call of Duty 4 was in essence in the same boat as Killzone 2 was to their previous titles. They were both had middling prequels, they were both reboots of their respective series and I was comparing strictly their PS3 performance which makes the Xbox 360 performance irrelevant. As Modern Warfare 1 is most comparable it was the basis for my belief here. MW2 built on the success of MW1, but the base reason for that success is in both games.

Killzone 2 is flawed because whilst it can make the critics wet with excitement and hardcore gamers cum in their pants over it. It doesn't translate that success to widespread appeal. Modern Warfare sales shot up because once the general public had it in their hands they realised what an incredible game it was and word of mouth sold the title. Killzone 2 is the opposite, with better initial sales but word of mouth killed the sales. How in that case can I not conclude that in comparison to the merits of Modern Warfare Killzone 2 is flawed?

It does not make it bad in its own right, it just means that one has to be seen as superior to the other and by objective standards between sales, public reception, critical reception and equally intense subjective opinions on both sides you have to draw the line somewhere. In all objective conditions Modern Warfare 2 is a better title. So Killzone 2 is a little further away from a perfect FPS than Modern Warfare 1/2.

 



Tease.

SpartanFX on 29 December 2009
makingmusic476 said:

You do realize you can express an opinion without saying, "lol _____ is shit," right?

I've seen numerous people come in here and rip on some aspect of one game or the other in a similar manner. It degrades the quality of actual discussion and turns things into a bitch fest. >_>

Edit:

This was directed at spartan, akuseru and a few others lol.

i m sorry but it is shit.you go into a map it's fukin hugeee and there are only 8 people in the map,,,you decide to sit in a corner to snip someone.3 min goes by and you don't see anyone.Then you decide to get up and go find some one cause it's getting boring.all of a sudden a camper snipes you from god knows where.then you have to rinse and repeat.

most of the maps are way too big for number of players.except for the 3 that i like(air port,,,the one with the pit in the middle and one or 2 others