Modern Warefare 2 Multiplayer

It's time to discuss the multiplayer in MW2. I am, of course, discussing the PC version here, as I refuse to play first person shooters on a console, so take that into consideration.

Loved

• More and better. If you played the first Modern Warfare to any degree, you'll be right at home in the second. It has levels, experience, challenges, and even a lot of the same weapons. That's a good thing. The first game was a blast. In the second though, they've really ratcheted everything up a notch. There are now a LOT more weapon attachments: heartbeat sensors, holographic sights, extended magazines, full metal jacket ammunition, akimbo pistols/smgs (dual wielding) as well as just more options per gun. On top of that, they seem to have done a pretty decent job of getting rid of perks from the first game that were worthless (Eavesdrop anyone?). While not all perks in the second game are created equal (I still don't see the value in SitRep), generally speaking they all have their points. Finally, there are now a ton more death streak options (and kill streaks!) that you can even customize to your liking. It's literally like they took the first game and tried to improve upon it in every way.
  
  
• Steam/Partying. I really like Steam for grouping with my friends. It works in game, I can chat with them, and pretty much everyone uses it. Since MW2 just uses Steam for grouping, it makes life really easy. I start up a MP game, invite my friends, then select the game mode we want to play. We all end up on the same team and get to play together. While this mode does not work perfectly by any stretch of the imagination (some of us connect and others don't some times), it really is a great idea and works better than it would if we all tried to get on the same team in on a dedicated server.
  
  
• Maps. Despite what Draenoth may tell you about Wasteland or Estate, there really aren't any duds in the map rotation here. I think each of them has something to offer and they are all remarkably well balanced. It is very common in domination games to control one side of the map for the half the game and then control the other side for the second half. I do find myself wishing for more at times, but the ones that exist are actually quite good.

Hated

• No dedicated servers. This has to be said in any PC review. While the match making system works okay, it just isn't amazing by any stretch of the imagination. We've had countless times where it chooses hosts in what seems like a completely arbitrary fashion (Draenoth makes a terrible host apparently, but it seems to love him for some reason). The host migration sucks (your host quits and it has to select a new one). The lack of mode types is annoying (why can't I play Hardcore Free For All?). We can't even all play Free For All on the same server. My final complaint is that they even locked down private matches which means that we can't even play our 1v1v1 games that we used to love in the first game and still get experience. While any of you fools playing on the console are used to all of these things, they each represent a significant step backwards in the world of PC gaming.
  
  
• Only 5 characters slots. This is definitely a minor quibble, but due to the ridiculously high number of weapon/attachment/perk attachments that this game sports, only have 5 slots is completely unacceptable. It's my understanding that each level of prestige unlocks another one, but to have to spend 50-100 hours to unlock a single character slot (not to mention the other annoyances of starting over), is just unacceptable.
  

I'm not going to belabor this point too much: this game is absolutely brilliant. Despite my complaints about dedicated servers (which would make the game even better than it is), it is still just an absolute blast to play. Infinity Ward really outdid themselves here. While I couldn't recommend buying the game at full price for the single player campaign alone, I could do that for the multiplayer. There are dozens to hundreds of hours worth of play time here and they are nearly all guaranteed to be a blast.

Modern Warfare 2 Single Player Review

I've been playing Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 2 pretty solidly for the last week and a half and have pretty much experienced everything the game has to offer at this point. Let me spoil the whole review for you right now: this game is good. Really good. If you played MW1 and liked it, buy this game. That's all you need to know.

As the game has 3 pretty distinct pieces (single player, special ops (co-op), and multi-player), I'll be reviewing them separately. Today: single player (expect some minor spoilers below).

Loved

• Familiar Yet Different. I was quite pleased to see some of my favorite characters return in this game: Soap, Ghost and even Price. They all have unique, interesting personalities and it was great to have them along for the ride again. MW2 definitely feels like a sequel to the first (something new for the CoD franchise), which is a good thing. I very immediately felt at home with the characters and weapons while at the same time was quite pleased with what was new.
  
  
• No Russian. I'm pretty sure everyone on the internet has commented on this controversial level by now, quite honestly I'm tired of it. This level worked for me. It made me angry. It made me hate terrorism and Mahkarov in particular. It evoked emotions and was "good" the same way Schindler's List did those things. I still don't understand quite why people are so upset about it; it's like it fully incenses some people. Here are two links to articles that I felt did a great job of expressing my point of view.
  
• http://www.destructoid.com/blogs/covah/why-no-russian-was-necessary-in-mw2-spoilers--154852.phtml
• http://www.deseretnews.com/blog/31/10007201/First-person-shooter-Video-game-blog-Over-the-line.html
  
  
• Interesting Locales. I was a little surprised by all the places I ended up in this game: an airport, an Afghan desert, some time in the frozen wilderness, Brazil, American suberbia, even The Mall/The Whitehouse. They did a great job in each of the various locations; the "set pieces" were truly great. There were few if any levels that felt like duds to me. All of them had superb art and solid level design. Kudos to Infinity Ward on that one.
  
  
• Weapons. This is probably more true about the multi-player, but the single player campaign has some new and interesting weapons. The stealthy snow levels in particular had some of my favorites: a silenced sniper rifle and a gun with a heart beat sensor on it. While lots of the guns aren't all that new, the game does a great job of giving the player a pretty wide variety of great weapons. It definitely adds to the fun of the game.
  

Hated

• What the hell is going on? When I finished the single player, I had absolutely no idea what or why various things had happened. The story is WAY too disjointed and convoluted. I literally had to go read the plot review on the Wikipedia page for the game to get an satisfactory insight into the story. I heard somebody else comment that it was like they came up with all these interesting places to have you fight in then spent the rest of their time trying to bend the story into those locations... quite honestly it felt a little true. The story was Mission Impossible ridiculous; it made no sense at all.

Other than the crazy story, there is very little to say wrong about the single player. It's fun, it's action packed, and it's solidly better than the first game. It was definitely short (<6 hours on Hardened), but if it had gone on any longer, it probably would have been too long. While I'm not sure I could recommend the $60 sticker price for the single player only, it is without a doubt a solid experience. Luckily, the single player is the weakest part of this brilliant game. Expect my other two reviews to follow soon.

Nazi Zombies Review

I've put in quite a bit of time in the Nazi Zombie mode in Call of Duty: World at War over the last week or so and have decided to write up a full, proper review. So without further ado, here it is.

Loved

• Co-op. I have a complete love affair with anything and everything co-op. Not only should all games have it, but in today's age of behind-router internet connections, they need something that allows to people to directly connect to each other without jumping through hoops. I know I already mentioned this, but the co-op in this game is fun. I also think they did the friends list/invite to game feature quite well. It just "works" and doesn't require any port forwarding or Hamachi hijinks.
  
• Mystery Box. I'm definitely a gambler at heart and really like any opportunity I have to gamble for weapons. 1200 points for the Thompson or 950 for the mystery box? It was quite honestly never even a question. Five bolt action rifles later always seems to find me buying the Thompson anyway. It's probably because I got the ray gun the first time I ever opened the box.
• Fun. This mode is just a blast anyway you look at it. I definitely have a soft spot for zombies, and this mode doesn't disappoint. The maps have basically gotten progressively better as they've come out (can't wait for the 4th one to hit the PC) while the first is still quite a bit of fun. It's just a blast to spend time trying to figure out the perfect combination of doors to open and the best choke points.

Hated

• Worthless Melee. Your knife is useful for anywhere between 1 and 2 rounds. After that, it is more of a liability than an asset. In my mind, if a zombie is in my face and I stab him in the head, it should do SOMETHING. Half a dozen rounds in and the thing it does is make you ridiculously vulnerable. If you are going to give me a knife, make it worth my time.
• Worthless Traps. Perhaps I haven't seen the vision behind these, but I've yet to find any situations where they are really useful. I can see that they added them in the later maps for more diversity, but in my experience, if you are to the point where you are activating traps, it's probably because you bit off more than you can chew and are going to die anyway.
• Inability to Manually Start Rounds. At the end of each wave, you have perhaps 30 seconds before the next wave comes. In later rounds, especially when the maps are really opened up, those 30 seconds just aren't enough to allow you to prepare for the next round. As a result, many people try to grenade one of the last zombies in the round, blow its legs off and then take care of business while it pathetically scoots around. I don't think you should have to rely on a workaround when they very easily could have just provided a feature to manually start the next round. Perhaps that would have made things too easy, but I really think there could have been a better solution.
• Weapons. This whole game suffers from a lack of excellent weapons. Just like in single and multiplayer, automatic weapons dominate and rifles are basically worthless in everything but the earliest levels. Unless you can pull some serious machine guns out of the mystery box (hopefully something with the word "deployable" in the title) things are just a lot harder. Don't even get me started on how pathetic the flame thrower is. Just hope you pull the ray gun out of the mystery box. There is NOTHING bad about that thing.
  

Didn't Mind

• Maps. The maps are just okay. There aren't any of them that I'm amazingly impressed with. I've heard good things about the newest one, so hopefully it's a solid step up from Shi No Numa.
• Colas. The second and third maps provide colas that you can purchase that will provide you with a perk. Unfortunately, the way the difficulty ramps up, it basically requires you buy them. Also, you lose them if you die, and the revive perk is relatively worthless. Although I must admit that I never drank a Speed Cola and wasn't immediately happy afterward. I'm just going to throw the whole lot of them into a category I call "a mixed bag."
• Dialog. Every 3rd or 4th thing that the survivors say is clever and/or funny (I like the comment the Russian makes about capitalism when picking up the 2x point boost), while all the rest of them sound like something that was thought up by 4 guys sitting around at 2am with 3 beers in each of them. The American after hitting a bomb: "Ka-fucking boom!" Really?
  

Without a doubt, the Nazi Zombie mode is a very solid addition to World at War. Is it worth buying the game for? No. Is it a good piece of a fun and a solid add-on? Without a doubt.

Call of Duty: World at War Co-op Review

While it is perhaps a little early to be writing a review of World at War, especially as I haven't played the multiplayer much yet, I'm going to do so anyway. So far, my experience has mostly been in the competitive co-op mode, which is essentially the single player campaigned played with 1-3 other people. I've played through the all the co-op missions with a friend and also played a bit of the Nazi zombie mode.

Without further ado, I present to you my thoughts:

Loved

• Co-op Mode. I like co-op mode in games. A lot. I don't know how many times I've sat down with a friend, or even my brother, and tried to find a game that supported some sort of co-op play so that we could play together. While it is fun to play against your friends, I really enjoy the camaraderie that comes from playing and fighting together. While co-op is often something hastily tacked on late in a dev cycle, in World at War, it actually feels like thought was put into it. Additionally, co-op has its own set of challenges that you can play through to improve your multiplayer profile. I especially like the competitiveness of it as I fight to get more head shots, more kills, and more points than my teammate. All in all, it's a good feature and done well.
• Zombies. It's hard not to love a good zombie mode, and the one in World at War is good. The game play is pretty basic: you get points for killing zombies that you can use to buy new weapons and even unlock new places of the map. The zombies start out really slow and sparse, but very soon become quite fast and dense. We only did a couple of rounds, but I definitely found myself wanting more when I was done. While it's certainly no Left 4 Dead, as far as added content goes, it's great.
• Cheat "Cards." In both the single and co-op campaigns, there are "cards" you can find that are used to unlock cheats in co-op play. Instead of regular cheats (unlimited health/ammo, etc), these don't generally give you an edge. Some are purely cosmetic, like one that makes enemies explode when you score a head shot on them (my favorite), while others actually make the game harder, like the one that limits you to a knife and rocks. I really enjoy unlockable cheats in games (I earned EVERY cheat in GoldenEye on the N64), and these are just a lot of fun as they add a little bit more replayability to the game.

Hated

• Lack of polish. World at War was created with the same engine that was used by Infinity Ward for Call of Duty 4... and it shows. However, it was NOT made by Infinity Ward (it was made by Treyarch)... and it shows. It really just seems to be missing something when it comes to polish. Despite 2 gigs of patches, the game still feels slightly unfinished. Since I have started playing, I've seen: a black screen upon starting the game that doesn't go away, constant timeouts when trying to start/join a co-op game, my friends list mysteriously clear itself, and some in-game fonts (like the player names above heads) that are completely unreadable at my settings. While none of these things have been full game stoppers, they have definitely been annoying and have tarnished what would have otherwise been a great experience.
• Weapons/setting. While this isn't really a critique against World at War, the weapons just aren't all that interesting compared to Call of Duty 4. I suppose that is more to blame on the fact that World War II was 60 years ago than anything. Which brings me to another point: I think we should be done with WWII games about now.
  
• Story. I should probably do a full single player play through before dogging on this too much, but the story was just really blah. It split between an American fighting in the Pacific and a Russian trying to repel the Germans and eventually take the Reichstag (didn't they already do that in the first CoD?). I also didn't really like the way it jumped back and forth between the Russian and American campaigns. I think it was better in the first game where you played all of one campaign before moving on to another. The story in general just seemed to lack cohesion to me.

I'll probably write up a proper multiplayer review after I spend some more time in it.

As a final note, I must say that it really is a very respectable game and a must have for any Call of Duty fan. Probably a must have for any shooter fan. Even after you finish all the single player and co-op content, there are still dozens/hundreds of hours of multiplayer modes to play and enjoy. I know I'll be enjoying regular play sessions for quite a while.

Call of Duty: World at War First Impressions

Last Tuesday, I was sitting at work watching the tweets pop up like always, when I saw that Direct2Drive was about to have a trivia contest. The first five people to answer correctly would get a free game of their choice from the D2D catalog. I decided to go to the Twitter website directly to get a better chance. As soon as I got there, I saw the question... it had been posted only 10 seconds previous. A quick Google search allowed me to reply with an answer not 30 seconds after the question had been posted. I was so convinced I was going to win, I actually started looking through their catalog. Well, 10-15 minutes later, I got a message congratulating me and asking me what game I wanted. I decided on Call of Duty: World at War for a couple of reasons:

• I didn't care if I had a boxed copy or not
• It was still $50 in store and was unlikely to drop in price soon
• I knew it had some really good co-op play

At this point, let me provide a mini-review of the Direct 2 Drive experience.

The short version: it sucked.

I've purchased a handful of games on Steam, mostly when they were cheap and on sale, and each time the experience was exceptionally painless. I start it downloading, can pause it, and just wait for it to finish. When it gets done, it's ready to play and fully patched.

But with D2D, you have to go to their website, login, then find the my account link (it was a bit hidden in my opinion). After that, you can download your game. While they seem to have a download manager that may ease the process (I generally HATE 3rd party download managers), it didn't just "work" in Firefox for some reason and I found myself downloading the game manually. 15+ hours later, I had all 7 GBs downloaded. The file I downloaded was a .zip file, which I then tried to extract. Just using the Windows 7 zip tools, I was absolutely unable to extract the zip file; the last file in the pack just wouldn't extract properly. If I was an "average" computer user, I would have given up right then and there. I, however, quickly pulled up 7-zip and was able to extract the last file. The install process was simple enough, but I was absolutely shocked when I discovered I was installing what was basically version 1.0 of the game. In a digital format like that, I saw no reason I couldn't have just downloaded a complete and final version. I quickly discovered that it would take 3 patches and 2 MORE GBs of downloading to get up to date. One more day elapsed, and I finally had the game downloaded and up to date. While I didn't mind jumping through hoops for a free game, it didn't exactly make me want to go buy a bunch more from their store.

With the game finally working, my friend and I started up a co-op game. The game actually does this pretty well as it has an integrated friends list and you can use that to invite each other to games. We didn't have to monkey with port forwarding or Hamachi or anything crazy like that. In today's age of NATs and shared internet connections, it's good to see somebody get something like that right.

In co-op play, both you and your friends play the role of the same character (even sharing the same viewpoint during cutscenes). In combat, the game plays basically exactly as it would in single player, but with two (or more of you). In short, it works really well. In addition, the game has a unique set of challenges for the co-op mode. This means that you can actually level up your multiplayer profile in co-op play, something I think is a REALLY nice touch. At the end of each chapter, we were able to compare kill counts, headshots, deaths, etc. This was fun as it allowed us to play and work together, while still maintaining a bit of competitiveness to the game. At the end of our three-hour play session, I knew one thing: ALL GAMES NEED CO-OP.

As for the actual game play, it was familiar and more or less exactly what I was expecting. For better or worse (in my opinion: for better), the game is basically Call of Duty 4 (same engine, etc) set during World War II. While the WWII market is already pretty saturated, they manage to make it fresh, mostly by focusing on some less played scenarios like the Americans fighting the Japanese in the Pacific. The game hasn't had many surprises so far, playing more or less exactly as I'd expect. All told, it's been a lot of fun, and I can't wait to finish the rest of the missions in co-op mode.

In conclusion: Direct 2 Drive = not great. World at War = a blast in co-op. Free games = AWESOME.

Somebody call a waaaambulance

As I mentioned previously, I've been playing quite a bit of the Call of Duty 4 Multiplayer lately. While it's been a lot of fun, and I have actually found some pretty decent servers to play on, there are a couple of things about the game that are driving me nuts. Interestingly enough, neither of them have anything to do with the game itself, but rather the people who play it.

First of all, the VAST majority of the public servers out there have a ridiculously high maximum number of players. In my opinion, there are very few maps in the game that can adequately accommodate more than 12 or so players. However, the average max number is usually two to three times that. I absolutely fail to understand how that is fun. It honestly seems like it would get to the point where you couldn't even move without seeing somebody and potentially getting shot. On hardcore mode or similar, it seems like it would be nothing more than spawning with a nearly instantaneous death. I've seen 30+ people playing both killhouse and shipment -- two microscopically sized maps. I just don't see the entertainment value there.

Secondly, and more annoying, is the way people cry ALL the time. It is a rare occurrence when I'm not on a server that has a guy who seems to want to complain about everything every time he dies... as if I'm somehow doing something unfair. Case in point: Last Stand.

Last Stand is one of the perks in the game that you can choose from. Basically, when you get killed, instead of instantly dying you drop into prone with a pistol. A single shot with pretty much anything can you kill (even a flashbang), but you get a few precious seconds to get some kills in. For some reason I don't understand, this seems to be the most hated perk. I find myself using it fairly frequently because I'm often ridiculously effective with it... yet every time I use it and get a kill, I instantly look to the chat area to see the complaint.

In a single play session (an hour or so), I had two different people basically go off on me for using it. In the first instance, I had my sniper rifle out and was looking out a small hole. The next thing I knew, I dropped into Last Stand due to a shot in the back. My reflexes kicked in and I quickly shot the fool in the face. Immediately I see (or something similar):

LameD00D: OMG, last stand is for noobs

He was pissed because, in his words, he shot me in the neck and I should have died. I replied:

Morinar: If it wasn't so effective, I wouldn't use it

I felt like my point was made.

The next map began soon afterwards and I very early on found myself with a tidy Last Stand kill on an obviously veteran player (Rank 55). This guy began by calling me a noob for using Last Stand, added that I shouldn't use Martyrdom either, and finished by telling me that I shouldn't be using the M16 anymore because it was a "noob" weapon and I was in my late teens. My reply:

Morinar: Why is it so important to you to dictate how to play the game to me?

I even explained to him that if he didn't like me using the mechanics that are BUILT INTO THE GAME, he was welcome to go play a different game. He "politely" declined my invitation.

I just don't understand why these people freak out so much... perhaps they are all 10 years old or something (likely) or have the maturity of a 10-year-old (more likely). I mean, I HATE claymores in that damn game. I think they are way cheaper than any perk the game has. But I don't complain every time a claymore takes me out. I respawn and go find somebody else to kill.

Perhaps someday everyone will be more mature, although I know I'm certainly not going to be holding my breath.

Eff Pee Ess

Filling the gaps between my various single player escapes lately has a been a variety of FPSes. I've found a new-found (re-found?) love of the multiplayer shooters lately.

Topping the list has been Call of Duty 4. I've had the game since last October (birthday present) and blasted through the single player campaign (real masochists play on Veteran), but never touched the multiplayer. Whilst looking for another game to play together, Plisskin (Rhaenoth? He's going through an identity crisis), and I decided to give it a try as we both had it installed. He had pretty much played it to death and told me what a blast it was. Boy oh boy, was he right.

The multiplayer in CoD 4 has an almost RPG element to it. You get experience points for killing enemies, completing objectives, completing rounds, and completing challenges (achievements). Get enough experience and you level up (55 levels in all... all the way to 5 star general). As you level up, you unlock new weapons and new perks. The perks are really cool and let you do things like shoot a little harder, run a little farther, and even pull out a pistol right before you die for some last ditch killing. I don't quite know what it is, but for me, there is something absolutely compelling about the system. I find myself doing "just one more round" so I can get the last 3 headshots I need with a specific weapon so I can complete a challenge. The system sort of always pushes me to want to play a little bit more; it's definitely awesome. I think the best thing about the whole system is that while you are definitely at an advantage at higher levels, you can still be VERY competitive early on. I've even topped the leaderboard a few times.

I was a huge fan of CoD 1 and 2, so the play here was instantly familiar, right down to the kill cams. Infinity Ward did a great job of bringing their WWII shooters into modern times. I'm definitely a fan. I also foisted the game onto my cousin this last weekend who instantly fell in love with it. If any of you all want to play, be sure to hit me up.

Second on the list of multiplayer-ing has been the always venerable Team Fortress 2. TF2 is a game that I have played off and on since it was first released back in 2007. I've always liked the idea of the game, but something about it never quite grasped me. As I've been playing it more lately, I'm really starting to have fun with a couple of the classes.

Tonight, I played 7 or 8 rounds as a Heavy with some deadly results. At one point, Rhaenoth got on me as a Medic and charged up his Kritzkreig; the bloodbath that followed was absolutely redonkulous. I think it'd be fun to video tape me when I play a Heavy; I constantly find myself holding down both mouse buttons (the right button spins up the gun) with my mouth fully open in some sort of twisted, silent war cry. Good times.

Last and probably least is Left 4 Dead. I'm still a huge fan of this game, but the AI companions really leave me wanting. I still really want to find a couple more buddies that we can play through with. This week, we tried out the first completed user-created campaign Death Aboard. The campaign has you travel from a prison across a sinking barge with a decent finale at a lighthouse. While it lacked the polish of a proper campaign (the pacing/pathfinding in the finale event was pretty poor), over all, it was excellent. The highlight for me was definitely the sinking barge where the whole level was tilted at 20 degrees; it was a VERY nice touch and something I haven't seen done a lot in games.

We're always looking for more people to join us in our multiplayer matches. We hop on Skype (so we can make fun of each other) and let it rip. Be sure to hit me up if you have any of the games (or others!) and want to join in.