lol, sometimes you have to be outspoken. But I'm not bullshitting when I say that I still manage to amaze myself with rad play from time to time. That's really the only part I take pride in. ;)

I was complaining as I had decided to stop playing. I had admitted and accepted some of the faults before, but the whole thing is just absolutely pointless from a pure gameplay fun perspective, because the aforementioned in my post, it just wasn't fun any more, its not satisfying to simply score a KILL, you need to destroy in order to feel satisfied. I was only having meta-fun (which isn't as good), in the leveling and the EXP gaining. All I really wanted was the 5 extra classes, but I didn't even make it to the end of my 3rd prestige (so yes, i did the 1-70 thing 2 1/2 times over (6 days!), I didn't come to this opinion lightly)Only cus its shiney, and had excellent marketing. Halo 3 is also a broken game (and I say this as a huge Halo fan) but is older. Both Gears are older, and in my opinion, the multiplayer is frustrating on both. Horde is fun in Gears 2, but some inherent problems (no host migration, lack of variety, some super long games) limit its potential. Interestingly, when I played CoD4 for a bit, theres was barely 10,000 people on, at peak times, and thats still 5th apparently. Go figure.

Also, the false sense of reward like Viginti_Tres mentioned. I have to admit I was almost addicted to that for a while, but the whole thing just got frustrating. Its not like I was ever even doing badly, I was even getting better at the game, my k/d had been rising consistently over the last couple of months, getting juggernaught and (whatever that one is for highest k/d ratio) consistently, and getting massive bonuses from shooting down air support during the match.

Think I might go and get BC2, thanks Grift. Always been interested in Battlefield, never got around to playing it. :)

Who are you talking about? I can't choose who I'm matched with. A combination of the spawn system, map design, the power of some of the killstreak rewards, availabilty of long range explosives and the poor play of teammates can compound even a fair death into several unfair, unavoidable spawn kills. Regardless of whether or not I know what I doing, regardless of whether or not I know to scatter when an airstrike comes in, regardless of whether or not I know what cold-blooded is, regardless of whether or not I have it on, regardless of whether or not I know to duck my ass inside if I don't have a cold-blooded class on when some air-support comes in, regardless of whether or not I have a stinger. Result? I still die in an unavoidable fashion for something that wasn't my fault at all.

Oh, what I was just talking about wasn't even just in TDM.S&D? Really? I don't get the appeal of 1 life per round gametypes. I'm more of a domination and ground war type of guy.

TDM and equivalently 'Slayer' in Halo are popular because they're simple. One objective: kill those guys more than they kill you. They strip out any other higher level planning and tactics to just raw map movement and control and just killing ability.

Also, is it just me, or do all the ACOGs in MW2 ruin the accuracy of your weapon? (or at least seem to) While in CoD4, you're used to tempering your fire rate to get good accuracy, so the same being so for the ACOGs wasn't a problem, and the enhanced zoom was often useful.

I don't really get that at all. I only play TDM in MW2, and I also tend to gravitate mostly towards Team Slayer and its variants in Halo.I didn't find most of his complaints reasonable though. Sure, the spawning is terrible, and replenishable noobtubes is a horrible idea, but the other stuff sounded like the cries of someone who tried playing the game but couldn't adapt to it.I don't get that either. Adapting to the air support seems like it should be common sense. A friend of mine just recently started playing MW2, and he is baffled that so many of his teammates don't seek cover when enemy air support is called in.

That tends to be what I do when people complain about unavoidable deaths.

???

You're not going to sit there and tell me you like dying in a way you have no control over, are you?At a certain point, when someone who has put 150+ hours into this game, maintains a best-on-friendslist accuracy rating, maintains and is consistently improving a k/d ratio of above 1.6, says the same things as someone who 'couldn't adapt to it', maybe they're just right? Maybe the game is broken? And maybe those compounding broken elements wear on a person and make them quit.

Why the fuck do I have to defend my views so much? "oh, cearly you can't adapt" "oh you must just suck" Can any of you honestly say you've never encountered the problems I've mentioned (from either side of the coin)? Can you say you're completely happy with the balance in MW2? Can you say you're not a little upset that it managed to get out the door in the state it was in? Can you say this is a game you'll still play regularly in a year?

I mused to myself a few weeks ago, in the aftermath of a series of awful matches (no, I wasn't personally doing badly either) that MW2 plays like the Beta of a great game. And an early beta at that.

I'll never understand why someone thinks that you have to have a very high K/D ratio in order to be able to criticize a game fairly. That is just such poor logic. I don't think someone has to have the best reflexes or FPS experience to be able to point out aspects of a game that put a significant damper on their version of fun. Just b/c those gameplay design issues are NOT a problem for others doesn't mean that they still are not valid gripes about how the game plays. Does it make the game broken? well that's more a matter of opinion, but to say that someone doesn't like an aspect of the game simply b/c they aren't really good at the game seems like a pretty lazy defense.

It just really lets me down how often I see people using the excuse when defending certain games, especially shooters. I have my fair share of gripes about MW2 and I don't play the game very often at all b/c of those annoying design issues, but I also think that it has become a trend to bash the game maybe more than it deserves simply b/c so many had such high expectations/hopes for the game. There are many shooters out there in far worse shape than MW2 that didn't get as much shit as this game. I think that aspect of the whole MW2 fiasco often gets lost in the shuffle, imo at least.

Say what you will about all the different balance issues etc... I still stand by the game having some of the most fun and responsive control schemes in a shooter of it's type. To what degree the game is "hardcore" I could give a fuck as I find that notion of "gaming pride" almost sad and pathetic, but in terms of just having fun, the game does a lot of things really well, it just causes a lot of undue frustration for a VERY large amount of fans. Whether that gripe is "valid" due to skill level is a bullshit argument I don't care for, but either way it seems this game gets an unfair serving from both sides of the coin, defending or attacking the game. IMO of course

I agree completely.That's kind of exaggerating what I had said, but sure, I get that anybody has every right to critize a game for things they personally don't like. Fair enough. It'd be like me complaining that Starcraft is a shitty RTS because Zerg rushes can't be defended against and Carrier fleets are unavoidable. I mean, I guess I could learn to play in a way to nullify those issues, but it's easier to blame the game.Sure, out of what you listed, I'm not a fan of these.With respect to noobtubes, I don't like that their ammo can be replenished.You bet.No, I'm not going to sit here and tell you I keep dying unavoidable deaths to the point where it's an issue.

S&D its for me the best multiplayer mode that has ever put in game,that was the only thing I played in COD2,in COD4 I played some sabotage aswell I liked the chaotic mess it was.

Anyway carry one with your disscusion I just wanted to say I agree S&D FTW!!