I think it’s a good game, but once completed boring. The multi-player for the PC is terrible, no dedicated servers leaving everyone to lag terribly. No dynamic weather, no dismemberment, very linear gameplay, and co-op is terrible (not a REAL co-op). To be honest, it’s perfect for a console gamer, but the PC gamers truly got the short end of the stick. On a brighter note, the campaign is great and it is fun. Otherwise, there was too much hype for it, and there were no major changes to the game compared to Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 1 – more guns, perks, and slightly better graphics are no major changes, my friends. I would give this game a 3.5/5.

A game to really look forward to is Battlefield Bad Company 2. Now that’s going to be a great modern style FPS game.

While the single player campaign is not infinitely repayable (unless one is going for the perfect score on hardest setting) I must disagree on multiplayer. I have experienced no lag whatsoever and the lack dedicated servers is more of a principle-based point of argument rather than one which affects gameplay.

As most everybody knows by now, Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 2 includes a controversial level in a Russian airport. The level has proven to be so inflammatory that Russia has recalled all copies of the game from stores, effectively banning the title. http://tinyurl.com/yhlwcz7

Yep. That’s Russia for you. Censorship above all else.

The fact that Mr. Teplitsky completely neglected to mention EVERY SINGLE NEGATIVE aspect of multiplayer in this game leads me to believe he A) never even played the multiplayer version B) was paid by Infinity Ward to give a good review or C) never played previous versions of Call of Duty, thus not knowing what MW2 was missing. Or a conglomeration of all 3! The only thing that comes close to being mentioned is the lack of dedicated servers when he states “there are no dedicated servers, but..” That’s the only thing negative mentioned about the multiplayer. I am completely amazed at the lack of substantial coverage the multiplayer aspect was given in this regard. Zero ping host advantage is a multiplayer game breaker right off the bat, and it’s not even mentioned once. Shame on Mr. Teplitsky for writing such a half …censored… review. For those interested in knowing what I’m talking about, please refer to the following chart that shows you the difference between Modern Warfare 2 and the previous versions. And judge for yourself if Mr. Teplitsky completely covered both the negatives and positives of this game. Seems to me he only spoke of the positives.

http://www.mapmodnews.com/article.php?story=CoD4-vs-MW2-PC-feature-comparison-chart

@ Kurt: “B) was paid by Infinity Ward to give a good review” – I’m not usually one to take bait, but I must state for the record, that the reviewers of this site are in no way compensated by any developer, publisher or PR agency for the quality, quantity or content of their reviews. In addition, reviews are by definition “someone’s opinion”. We welcome an open exchange of ideas and debate, and pride ourselves on the unbiased nature of our content, so pull up a chair and feel free to discuss the issue, just please do so respectfully.

My original comments still stand. Even if he wasn’t paid by Infinity Ward, something definitely smells of this review. A fair and unbiased review is supposed to cover both the negatives and positives of a game. This review clearly left out almost every single negative remark you could make about its multiplayer aspect, so the reviewer is either not very adept at his job, or is completely biased.

Hi Kurt – Thanks for posting your opinion on the MW2 review. Please keep in mind that the brevity of our reviews are by their very nature meant to be conducive to discussions with our readers. So what you are doing here is good and welcomed. I for one would love to hear your views about why MW2 multiplayer is broken. Thanks again.

Angel

Angel,

The link I posted pretty much sums up my major complaints with the game. In almost every single way, MW2 multiplayer is a step BACKWARDS in regards to CoD4.

In CoD4, there was a large multiplayer community. You could visit the same server day in and day out and talk with and play with the same people. That’s gotten a lot more difficult now. My major complaints are with the lag one can experience. IWNet uses a P2P framework which means I’m going to be using the bandwidth of the person hosting the game. What if the person who ends up hosting the game has a little sister who’s using her laptop downloading Barney videos? Lag. One of the largest disadvantages to using the P2P infrastructure that IWNet provides is host ping advantage. The host of the game will have no latency (since it’s being hosted on his computer), which gives him a huge reactionary advantage in game play. This gives him a large advantage over everybody else currently playing in the multiplayer game. Since we are forced to use IWNet’s P2P connection, there are no dedicated servers available which means we can no longer pick a low ping server to play on in order to assure a fast and responsive gaming experience. Now we just have to roll the dice and hope it works out. You better hope the person hosting the game doesn’t drop connection, cause then you’ll have to wait 10-15 seconds (if you’re lucky) for IWNet to pick another host. There is no console either, so if you would like to turn off or on certain aspects of the game to improve frame rate or game play, you CAN’T do that in MW2. No lean is included in MW2 either which means there’s a whole lot of running around corners and instantly dying because you can’t peer around before running. You used to be able to play with 64 players in CoD4 which had the potential of being a huge deal of fun. Guns blazing and players running everywhere killing eachother. Now we’re limited to 9v9, and that’s only in ONE multiplayer game play mode. If you want to play something other than deathmatch, you have to play with even less players.

Another excellent thing about CoD4 was the ability to play with mods and use mod tools. This increased the replayability of the game a thousand fold because you didn’t get tired of the same old maps over and over again. You can’t do that in MW2. Another great thing about CoD4 was the ability to instantly ban or kick hackers from destroying your gaming experience. With IWNet at the helm, that is impossible to do, and you have to trust that they themselves will take care of the hackers, eventually. So much for the current game you’re playing in where the hacker is killing everybody instantly, though.

Bad language filter was available in CoD4, it’s not with MW2. I personally don’t care about this, but it might be useful for parents who have children that are playing the game. CoD4 also provided a free demo so we could test out gameplay before buying..not so with MW2.

And after all these huge downgrades to the multiplayer experience, Activision decides to charge us an additional $10 for the game. CoD4 = $49.99, MW2 = $59.99.

I understand the price change was not Infinity Ward’s doing, but everything else was. If Activision chose to only charge $29.99 for the game because they admitted it was a huge multiplayer downgrade compared to CoD4, I would have no issues whatsoever.

This is why I submit that the reviewer did not evenly cover the positives and negatives of the game. It’s very clear to me that he purely concentrated on the positives and completely ignored all the above negatives.

Hi Kurt – I really appreciate your input. I think we should publish your views, I’ll speak to Michele. Would that be okay with you?

That’s perfectly fine by me, but I’m not in the minority by any means. A simple look at user reviews on metacritic, gamespot, amazon.com (for the pc version) will show even better written editorials on why MW2 multiplayer PC edition is a big slap in the face to PC players worldwide. After all, it was PC users that made the Call of Duty series so popular in the first place. But yes, you have permission to post my views.

Hmm, it appears the e-mail notifications do not work, as I only accidentally noticed that there is a conversation going on here. In any event, to address Kurt’s complaints let me once again restate my multiplayer experience:

1) Presently I have 13.3 hours logged in MW2 multiplayer, and since I play on Steam this is easily verifiable. My in-game level is 28, which is Sargent Major 2 if I am not mistaken.

2) There is no lag. Every single game I played was perfectly reasonable, usually under 70 milliseconds. If someone is experiencing lag, perhaps they should examine their own connection.

3) The desirability of various mutators, crazy game settings, player-made maps, etc. is entirely subjective. The reason to play a game is not a laundry list of features, but rather the amount of fun that it is providing. Personally I find MW2 multiplayer to have a higher entertainment value that MW or the likes of Unreal Tournament, where the players are in complete control. It appears that my bias is supported by empirical evidence, if the sales figures mean anything.

4) The bad language filter is a feature so minor and so unnecessary, I am surprised it was even mentioned. Parenting is not one of the jobs of game developers. If one feels that this game (or interactions with other human beings online) is not something their children should be exposed to, perhaps they should avoid letting their children play the game to begin with.

5) The idea that a match with 64 players is somehow *better* than a match with 18 players is simply ludicrous, and doesn’t warrant a response.

To end this, I’d like to remind everyone that a group of people has recently gotten dedicated servers going for MW2. Please watch this video of one of the games. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-rqLUDfl26Y This is exactly what I don’t want to see when I am playing.

I maintain that it is a marvelous idea to keep the game closed from people’s tinkering, since the majority of player-produced content (with some notable exceptions of course) is utter garbage. As long as a game provides fast matching (which it does) lag-free play (which it does) a number of well designed maps (which it does) and overall a consistent and fun experience, I am going to insist that such a game is excellent.

Oh, and as to the link posted by Kurt earlier, it is an opinion of a community of modders, who are as biased as they are angry. This is quite understandable, since their bread and butter was taken away from them in the name of improving game experience for others. Still, as vocal as they can be, they are a small minority that is acting out purely due to self-interest. Flooding metacritic and amazon with their spiteful “reviews” may be a curious instance of an online flash-mob but holds to real value or meaning.

Alaric – Thanks for your responses.

Alaric, OT, but, what’s wrong with the email notification?

And can you try the RSS feed for the comments?
http://www.avault.com/reviews/pc/call-duty-modern-warfare-2-pc-review/feed/

Thanks

Saulo, I’m not sure what is technically wrong with it. =) It just doesn’t arrive. For instance, this morning I had to go and specifically look here to see your post. There was nothing in my mailbox about it. =(

The feed does work though.

I’d like to respond with two things. First of all, the chart comparing CoD4 and MW2 was not made by that modding website that I linked to. That site is just using a chart that has been circulating around the web for quite a while. Secondly, while the modding community has every right to be outraged at what Infinity Ward has done to MW2, that in no way invalidates any of the negative points brought to light by the chart. Those “downgrades” from the previous Call of Duty are still downgrades. They are still negatives. They are still 100% factual. Whether the modding community is going to be more upset than your average gamer does not really matter.

And on the points you made, EVERYTHING is subjective. These are reviews. What is good for you is horrible for somebody else. You might not lag, but thousands of other people are lagging. And it’s not their Internet connection. And it tends to be an even worse problem for people in Australia and other overseas locations. Dedicated servers would fix this issue altogether. So just saying that you don’t lag doesn’t make things better. Maybe a parent wants to let their child play the game but doesn’t want their child hearing obscenities. Language filter is great for a situation such as this, and there’s really no excuse for them to leave out such a simple option. Saying that someone who thinks 64 players in one match is better than 18 players in one match is “ludicrous” shows that you’re completely forgetting the fact that reviews are subjective. This is a matter of opinion, and the second you start calling someone’s opinion ludicrous is the second you need to start examining your on biases and opinions. The fact alone that we don’t even have the OPTION to choose 64 players is what we’re complaining about. If you don’t like playing with 64 players, than fine, choose a server that has a lower maximum amount of players. That was the advantage of dedicated servers..flexibility, and the ability to choose what is best for YOU.

And the last comment you made is absolutely absurd. You said you think it’s a “marvelous idea” to keep the game code closed off from mods because most mods are garbage? How is this good logic at all? That’s like saying that letting people make app’s for the iPhone and sell it through Apple’s store is a horrible idea because most of the apps people make are garbage. Apple should just lock everything up and force us to use the apps they create for us. This idea is ludicrous in of itself! The majority of reviewers (cnet reviewers included) agree that the app store from Apple and the ability for regular users to create apps for the iPhone is what makes that platform so attractive and powerful! If you don’t like an app, you DON’T DOWNLOAD IT. Same goes for mods with MW2. If you don’t like a mod, DON’T DOWNLOAD IT. I can keep giving plenty of examples. Americans should not be able to have talk radio shows because most of the talk radio shows are garbage. The only talk radio shows that we should have in the United States should be government run and controlled. I mean the idea you’re proposing is completely retarded. The fact that we would have the option to mod in the first place is what people want. To sit there and justify the fact that there should be no modding in MW2 because you feel most of the user created content isn’t good is a horrible argument right from the get go. We want choices and options. If you don’t like the choices and options given to you, than YOU can choose on an individual basis if you want to keep the game in its original state.

Well, Kurt, from lack of dedicated servers to Orwelian government? A wee bit of a leap here, don’t you think? =)

Anyway, let’s take it one point at a time:

1) While the list may be factual (and note how I haven’t disputed it) your perception of those changes as “downgrades” is a matter of opinion. For example, a lot of the features that were removed, I haven’t used once. Others may have, granted that, but it appears that they were not used often enough to justify their inclusion this time around.

Moreover, some of the features that were listed as being “worse” are actually improvements. I fully support the idea that playing online should require the latest patch. Why? Because it is through unpatched older versions that exploits find their way into the game.

2) In principle I do tend to agree with you. Having more options is generally a better idea than having fewer options. However, let’s look at the costs as well. As a business strategist, would you dedicate funds to introduction or upkeep of features that only a fairly small fraction of your client base is interested in? Maybe. But if you didn’t, nobody would look at you funny. My car does not have bullet-proof windows, although I assure you, there are people who’d find such a feature invaluable. Especially here in Chicago.

3) I am not sure I follow your logic entirely. You claim that reviews are inherently subjective, and that I should not dismiss others’ opinions as “ludicrous” and yet in the same sentence you accuse me of bias. What happened to subjectivity? In the last paragraph you are using the word “ludicrous” yourself, to dismiss my opinions. That’s not very thorough. Either we are all entitled to believe something and so we do not berate each other, or one of our points of view is wrong. Possibly yours. =)

4) Regarding your Apple analogy, I find it more pleasant to play games, use applications, live in houses and drive cars that are developed, written, built and engineered by professionals. I concede it is purely a mater of taste. However, you too must understand that your logic of “if you don’t like it, don’t download it” goes both ways.

If I see a badly made mod, I simply ignore it as you suggest. I don’t start a boycott. I don’t pester the mod’s developer with what I think the mod should do. I just move on to the next one. Perhaps it would be fitting if you practiced what you preach and treated this particular game in the same manner. You obviously have an issue with it, so why not just move on to the next title that does fulfill your desires.

5) Lastly, I do firmly believe that a game (or anything) is to be judged for what it is, not what I wish it was. To me MW2 is a fun and exciting game. I said so much in my review. All of its features work well, it is pretty, it has a great story and its multiplayer is making me want to play more and more. Do you think I shouldn’t have praises it for that, instead condemning it for not having some features that I don’t even need?

In addition to not having dedicated servers. It also doesn’t come shipped with a bulldog puppy or a drum. Neither is it going to help me pay my property taxes. An outrage. An all out outrage, if you ask me.

That last part was obviously in jest, but I do hope that you would address my points regarding subjectivity, putting your money where your mouth is, and judging things based on their own merit.

Alaric.

Alaric, you’re right the ‘Subscribe to Comments’ it’s not working, going to fix it.
Thanks.

And amazing discussion here

First of all, it’s not my opinion that they are downgrades, it is a fact. Although requiring the latest patch to play might be disputable, all the other things listed are clearly downgrades, whether you enjoyed them or not. The fact that we had options previously, and we don’t have options now, underlines the fact that they are indeed downgrades since we don’t have the option anymore.

I would also disagree that there’s only a small fraction of people who think leaving these things out is a bad thing. Recently there was a petition signed by over 200,000 people that disagreed with the way Infinity Ward implemented the PC version of the game. After Infinity Ward decided to say that petition was completely invalid since it was started before the game was released, another petition was started which has been receiving thousands of signatures a day and might overpass the original. You can sit there and say it’s a small fraction all day long, but when you’re talking about just PC users and ignoring the console crowd, that many people seems like quite a large fraction.

And you’re joke about the game not coming shipped with a bulldog puppy or drum is way off the mark. If CoD4 had a bulldog puppy and drum included that tens of thousands of people came to expect and love, and it was removed from the sequel, you can bet that people would be complaining about it currently. However, no bulldog puppy or drum was included in CoD4, so your “funny” remark misses the point entirely.

If you don’t like it, don’t download it, doesn’t go both ways. If you only like to download Apple apps that are engineered by professionals, than steer clear of the user created apps. In fact, some of the most profitable and highly sought after apps are created by users, not Apple. Just because you like to only use apps created by “Apple professionals” doesn’t mean everybody else should be denied the right to download user created apps. Isn’t choice always better than no choice? I can’t possibly fathom how having no choice is a better option. In any circumstances, actually.

When I used the term “ludicrous”, I was referring to the option of Apple only allowing us to download apps created by the Apple team. I don’t think there’s one person in the world that could argue that having the ability to download user created apps is actually a BAD thing. If you want to argue that point, please go ahead, as I have yet to hear anybody think it’s actually bad to have the ability to download user created content.

And concerning your 5th point. It’s great that you liked the game. It’s great you gave it a lot of praise. But do you really think it’s fair to not even mention all the negatives that other people actually see as negatives? Sure, it’s entirely possible that you don’t see any of the things listed in the chart are negatives, but don’t you think you should have at least MENTIONED them? I thought a review was supposed to be a fair and balanced look at both the positive and negative aspects of something. To completely neglect to mention any part of the game that thousands of other users deem as negatives to the multiplayer aspect of MW2 seems blatantly ignorant. In any review you ever write, you should always cover both positives and negatives. I think it’s very clear that this review completely left out all the negatives that tens of thousands of others considered to be downgrades to the game.

And it’s never a good argument to sit there and say don’t complain, just play another game. As a Call of Duty fan, players expect to see improvements to gameplay in each sequel. When you’re used to playing with the ability to choose low ping servers, with the ability to mod maps, with the ability to lean, with the ability to turn off and on settings in the console menu, etc., you expect those features to be used and improved upon in the next version of the game. When the next version of the game completely eliminates many of the features that thousands of people have come to love and expect, it’s an obvious failure, on many levels.

Kurt, on the whole I agree with you about MW2, but I don’t agree with calling out a reviewer for not posting negatives that he never actually experienced. I don’t think that in his review he ever said he would be comparing MW and MW2.

Kurt,

No offense to you personally, but I think I a going to stick to my belief that the “downgrades” are a matter of opinion and not fact. Someone must have used those features, but I didn’t. Therefore their loss is unimportant to me. Whether they were good or not, I can’t possibly bemoan them because of that.

I am also sticking to my belief that “if you don’t like it, don’t download it” does indeed go both ways. Being a fan of something does not entitle one to a right to exert control over whatever that “something” is. For example I am a fan of Tarja Turunen but I really didn’t like her last album. So I didn’t buy it. Yes, I’m a fan, and yes, I came to expect quality music from her, and yes I was disappointed. Notice, however, how I didn’t berate her, nor started a boycott, nor demanded that she redo it. That is because she is an artist, and as a fan I only get to like or dislike. I don’t get to influence the creative process. No matter how much of a fan I am.

I understand that you don’t like what MW2 turned out to be. I, however, happened to like it and that is exactly what I wrote. The negative aspects that you think I should have mentioned… I simply did not experience. As such it would be unfair for me to mention them. What I was in California, I didn’t experience any earthquakes. According to you I should still always mention them when I tell people about my vacation. They didn’t happen to me, but they do happen overall so…

When a feature doesn’t work, it’s a negative. When a feature is not present, it is simply a lack of positive. I cannot and will not lower the score of a game for lacking a certain positive that may possibly be desired by someone. Overall I feel that the game is good. I enjoyed and continue to enjoy playing it. While it may be lacking in some aspects (nothing is perfect) it is a great, fun game. More features would be nice, but that’s always the case.

You think it’s a bad game and I think it’s a good game. This is clearly a conflict of opinions. I am writing about MY experiences and impressions though.

Alaric.

If you were reviewing the state of California and neglected to mention that one of the huge downsides of living there is always being in constant fear of an earthquake, I’d insist at that point that you didn’t do a complete and fair job of reviewing the state. Whether you “experienced” the earthquake first hand really does not matter from my point of view. The fact that tens of thousands of other people might experience it at one point in their lifetime in the future is reason enough to at least mention it.

If you disagree with this, than we just have to agree do disagree on how we think reviews should be written. At least in this argument, I do have the evidence on my side, as you’ll see the majority of high profile professional gaming sites at least do mention a few of the negatives I posted, gamespot.com being one of the more prominent ones.

@ Kurt: Actually on this point, our instructions are very explicit. Reviews are to be written based on an individual’s personal experience with the game over the review period. To do otherwise and include the experiences of others would be to include what is legally “hearsay”, and would not in fact be a review, but instead, a report. While there is nothing in writing to prohibit such remarks, it would be considered as an addition or an aside added to increase the color and texture of the article. Do other sites and publications do it, yes, but just because it’s done, doesn’t mean that it “should” be done.

In the same manner, when we receive a title that is “broken”, and are informed of a “patch” that is added after the writing process begins, we may refer to the patch’s existence, but just because there is a fix available, that doesn’t mean that it bears any effect on the reviewer’s experience, and is thus not reflected in the scores or recommendation. We review what we get, and how it plays when we get it.

I’d also like to say that while you and Alaric have chosen to disagree on the merits of this particular game, your comments have been and still are most appreciated, so please do consider yourself welcome to contribute to any and all of our material in the future.

I disagree with the instructions you give your reviewers. That’s like saying just because you’ve never experienced an earthquake in California, it’s O.K. to leave it out of the review because it would be hearsay to say they exist. A reviewer could easily say something to the effect of “I didn’t experience this myself, but thousands of others have reported that they can’t even connect to IWNet to play a multiplayer match, most of these individuals being from outside the continental U.S.” or “I don’t personally have a problem having the server hosted on players personal computers, but others have reported a decrease in competitive gameplay due to the fact that they can’t play with under a 200ms ping.” The more I think of it, the more I think those instructions are just terrible. A reviewer goes into Auschwitz for a day and comes back reporting it’s not as bad as people are reporting. Yes, there seems to be a few cases of malnutrition, but nobody was ever killed or tortured while he was present. He had to dig a couple of holes in the ground as manual labor, but nothing more inconvenient than doing some chores at your own house. Although he completely fails to mention that when he wasn’t present, the Nazi’s had been busy killing thousands of people.

Did he experience it himself? No. Was it worth mentioning? Hell yes. You can’t expect that a reviewer is going to be able to fully experience a game in the short time he has to review it. Even if said reviewer has spent a considerable amount of time in game, it’s tunnel vision to only report your personal experience. Hearsay is a legal term because it’s only used in the legal system. Thank goodness reviews aren’t part of the legal system, so we shouldn’t, and usually don’t, adhere to those legal restrictions.

Actually, I took your advice and consulted several reputable travel sites for reviews of California. Not once did I find a reference to “earthquakes”. Taking the argument a step further (I live to do research) – I searched for reviews of Walt Disney World. I’m heading there again this Spring, and it seemed like a good opportunity to see if there were any that included mentions of the dangers of pedophiles in the parks. Now in both instances I could find “reports” of both earthquakes and pedos, but not in any of the travel reviews. Do both exist, yes, but none of the reviewers seemed to experience either or felt the need to mention them.

You do have evidence that supports that some PC gamers are dissatisfied with the experience that MW2 provides. No one has argued that. I have evidence that supports that some people were dissatisfied with the experience that Borderlands provided at launch, but Andrew elected not to mention them. Why? Because those issues had already been brought to light in both the news and the forums, and he did not experience them. If reviewers addressed every negative charge against a game in their reviews, there would be no good reviews, and they’d all be 10 pages long, and most people don’t have that kind of time.

That said, I’d like to hear from the rest of our readers. How do you feel about the current review format?

I don’t think there’s really anybody else following our conversation..

And every high profile reputable review site I go to for my game reviews always gives both sides of the argument. That’s why I go there for reviews. If you choose to do things differently, that’s entirely up to you.

Oh, I’m definitely still following this. I find myself in agreement with both sides of this, and it’s just tearing my heart in two!

@Kurt

As an avid competitive gamer, I agree with you on all of your points. However, I see the side of the reviewer, and you have to realize that bashing one reviewer for not including negatives that have been posted around the internet, a countless number of times, is rather rude. While this discussion has been viewed as constructive,(surprisingly) it is inane for both sides to use incredibly satirical examples, including political censorship, in the review of a ‘game’.

Yes, the competitive community is hurt by the way IW has implemented the game in the PC community. And a lot of what has been said by IW and it’s staff has been a huge slap in the face to all of us. But the PC community is so small in comparison to the 360 and PS3 communities combined, that it didn’t warrant keeping the features we all so loved from MW. CoD is now a console franchise. It went down that road with CoD3, we saw remnants of that fact with CoD4(come on, they just FORGOT about fov in Consoles vs. PCs?), and now it’s a full-blown fact with MW2.

It sucks, I know.

@Alaric

P2P multiplayer hasn’t been successful for any PC gaming franchise to date, how is that not a negative? Custom computer hardware configuration and individual internet connection have a lot to do with it.

When asked the difference between the console and PC versions, IW staff had to say this, “PC has custom stuff like mouse support and in-game text chat.” That shows me just how seiously they took the PC community through all of this.

The thing is, why exclude a useful feature from a game when the code is ALREADY there. What was accomplished by the implementation of IW.net could have easily been accomplished by keeping dedicated server support. Lag free play, the ability to jump in to a MP game at any time in mere seconds, playing with your friends(which all of these examples were touted as upgrades to the franchises MP section of the game by IW), and playing competitively. All of that was already available to us with dedicated servers, so why spend money implementing an already proven-to-be-unsuccessful method of MP in which a large section of the PC community turned the noses up to?

*I base my opinion of “P2P being unsuccessful” off of playing a majority of games in which matchmaking was a large reason why games became less replayable. The big thing here, is consistency. Dedicated servers allow for users to play the game consistently.

I think another big reason is that the PC community has been big on proclaiming themselves as the best alternative to consoles. The customization is incomparable. A lot of newer games have started to slowly take away some of that freedom we have always had. We’re the biggest reason these game companies are still around. We pay the big bucks for the top of line hardware from companies who supply developers and publishers with sponsorships to use their technology. And now we’re not getting ‘any return on our investment’ so to speak. If the PC community can no longer use the features we’re accustomed to, why don’t we just buy a console.

I did, and I never use it. The PC platform is much more accesible to me(personal opinion, obviously), and now I feel like everything I hated about consoles is overtaking my PC.

But hey, at least I have mouse support and in-game chat.

Sorry if I started rambling, cause I did. Hope I made my point clear…:\

What’s the point of a FPS that you cant match on? I stopped pubbing years ago. I just dont know why you would play the game if you couldnt scrim and match on it. What a waste:(

I think IW screwed all of us by not releasing dedicated servers for what could have been the biggest FPS competition community ever. Now it will die in six months or so to get replaced by [insert other fps title here with a good mp system].

Unfortunate because i love the modern warfare series, but hey.. ignore the masses and you’ll have a computer game lots of people buy then drop when it gets boring.. which is about 5 hours if what im reading is correct.

Hi all, I am just fed up of complaints and arguements between console users and PC users for Modern Warfare 2. Especially Xbox users dont they understand that it is a downgraded dedicated PC, Ive seen all the boasting online from PS3 users as well saying their performance is best RUBBISH. PCs are flexible, adaptive and constantly upgradeable, and will still be going strong whaen the PS3 has past its time, I have played Modern Warfare 2 on the PC, and srry to contradict PC users who dont like it, sort out your PC, I have found the performance excellent getting a constant 60fps with graphics maxed out the game itself may seem short but you musnt forget it is designed for online play as well, OK so the manufacturers are taking their time to sort things out so what, I can wait. This is the best version of COD so far and I have found the gamplay thrilling especially on my 32″ TV it is immersive ingenious and addictive.