Like the title suggests, that is what we are all waiting for. In my end of the world, the first PC-multiplayer specific reviews are coming out - and they aren't exactly glowing... http://www.gameplanet.co.nz/pc/games/158267.Call-of-Duty-Modern-Warfare-2/reviews/134131.Call-of-Duty-Modern-Warfare-2 http://www.gamearena.com.au/pc/games/title/modern-warfare-2/reviews.php?id=5033868 Not to be overly dramatic, but let's think of the bigger picture: the future of PC gaming. If PC multiplayer *technically* fails to deliver, I'm tipping other devs won't go matchmaking. If it *sort of* works, PC gaming is in heaps... fail, fail, fail, fail... Come on Bit-Tech - don't let us down...
I wouldn't worry about it to be honest. Of course MW2 is a massive game, there's been sod all of note on the Xbox since GTA4, even the new Halo barely rippled the pond, so this had to be massive. It could have been a rhythm game or box of military themed Top Trumps and it would have been the biggest gaming story of the year if it carried the Call of Duty name. Get past that though and the lack of competitive MP means it's going to blow over faster than an inflatable Eiffel Tower. The only reason CoD MW is even remembered is the multiplayer. To be honest I'm starting to be slightly grateful for consoles bringing a level of developmental discipline with them. Without them gamers would be in a full-tilt arms race with the developers to keep their systems on the bleeding edge. Remember Crysis? Fantastic game but showed just what can happen when a developer presumes the gamer will simply upgrade their game to a playable level, rather than making it such to begin with.
If you forget about the negatives (dedi servers, no console and basically a console port with tiny extras) its not that bad a game, I actually enjoyed playing 3 hours of MP last night..., But is it better than COD4? only time will tell..
We'll be doing a review of both aspects tomorrow - me doing Singleplayer, Harry doing Multiplayer. It would have gone up today but, as people know, the PC version is gimped. It took me three hours just to start installing the game. I can't speak for Harry, but my experience of IWNet has been that it's utterly ****. Can't customise matches to last more than one round and only voice chat in lobbies? GTFO.
i played a couple of hours single player and thought it was good but compared to the first mw there just seems to be something missing and cant really put my finger on it, multi player seemed ok to me
The game play itself is great, it's just the lack of dedicated servers. Sometimes the lags is just stupid, And it acctually had to find a new host at one point! WTF seriously 2009 come on..
Personally i think it's a really good PUBLIC multiplayer, but the lack of ways to customise means that it won't be suitable for clans/competition. It's a great multiplayer game.... for consoles.
few of my clan friends have been on and they say ping is fine. connection dropped a couple of times but overall decent ping. suppose it depends on where you connect as to wether you get a good experience.
Playing last night, nobody spoke on mic so I guess no ingame voice chat, Saying that not many people said anything in the textbox either not even a "Good game" at the end of rounds..
cant you start a private match ? and let your friends join ? then at least your playing with alot of people you know rather than some 10 year old shouting NOOB at me
You CAN voice chat in games and you CAN text chat in game too. You CAN voice chat in lobbies, but you CAN'T text chat in lobbies.
thanks joe, decided to make the purchase now was worried the multi was gunna be a complete flop seems its not.
Some have, some haven't. It'd be hard to make the case that GTA4 was dumbed down for example. People talk about dumbed down FPS games, but were they ever that clever to start with? The original Call of Duty was hardly Psychonauts and they all hark back to Doom and Wolfenstein, both games firmly grounded in the idea of near constant frenetic combat. I mean something like Ghost Recon 2 on the console or PC isn't exactly simplistic. It's not very good, sure, but it'd be unfair to accuse it of being dumb. For my money the one thing that console FPS games have taken from PC games and not replaced is pace. That'd be the main thing. A fresh off the console FPS game is slow, really slow, because you need to be able to engage, hit and kill targets using a wigglystick before they kill you. So you tend to be self-healing and tough, not to mention the baddies will move slow and aim slow. A balls out PC shooter like Stalker or the original FEAR has no problem will melting your face in a couple of seconds if you're slow to react. That's what I miss, but there are still plenty of shooters for the purist that have that.
