MW2 has a lot more features, but it also has a lot more things that make me rage. CoD4 only had the over-powered MP5, that can kill you at 25 feet without even aiming, and wetwork.
MW is better than MW2. Holy shit!
- Thread starter Blindswordmaster
- Start date
I didn't play Modern Warfare's multiplayer too much, but I thought its single player was better than MW2's. Not even sure why I like it better, I just do I guess.
Modern Warfare 2's multilayer is fun, but it has a ton of problems. Mainly balance issues, but there are a ton of little things that would have made the game sooo much better if they were included. Dedicated servers, Map filters, more game types, ect. ect.
Modern Warfare 2's multilayer is fun, but it has a ton of problems. Mainly balance issues, but there are a ton of little things that would have made the game sooo much better if they were included. Dedicated servers, Map filters, more game types, ect. ect.
The fact that its expansive enough for everyone to play their own styles while still keeping it relatively simple as to not make the game completely out of balance (like we see in MW2), ya, would make it much better. Also the maps were A LOT BETTER
i missed out on the cookies :| can i have some? cod4 was the awesome stuff ... so many LAN partys and so much cod4 and amusementpyrosaw said:
<color=purple> If you expected that to surprise somebody, you shall be disappointed. MW is better than MW2. Sure MW2 is new and shiny and something different to play, but in the long run, the first one was much better.
I prefer the original over the sequel mainly because it's more balanced. I experience my fair share of trash-talkers and disruptive players, but I have my reasons for sticking to the original:
1) MP5>UMP45
2) No infinite grenade launchers/claymores/etc.
3) Bomb Squad>Sitrep
4) Less campers/map glitches.
1) MP5>UMP45
2) No infinite grenade launchers/claymores/etc.
3) Bomb Squad>Sitrep
4) Less campers/map glitches.
* basically agreeing with was said above (MW>MW2) *
I agree that overall, MW was more balanced. MW2 might have Pro perks, different kill streaks, etc, but the glitches are pretty hard to ignore.
I'm not even going to start with the glitches; Unlimited Ammo, 10th prestige lobbies, etc.
:<
I agree that overall, MW was more balanced. MW2 might have Pro perks, different kill streaks, etc, but the glitches are pretty hard to ignore.
I'm not even going to start with the glitches; Unlimited Ammo, 10th prestige lobbies, etc.
:<
Add to that list: 5) The AK-47 not being the fucking last unlock!CrashTestZombie said:
6) No retarded killstreaks! Chopper gunner is stupidly effective.
7) No knives with the range of a god damn shot gun.
COD 4 is better on the single player since the story was far more realistic and contained. We only were fighting the Utranationalists and the population Somethingastan. It's moments of epiciness was breath taking and the
was truely shocking. MW2's story felt like they jumped the shark with a space shuttle. COD 4 was much more balanced, no weapon's attachment was a pure upgrade and all (but maybe the shotguns) had their roll. Perks were ok, though it is hard to mix and match in core with stopping power being almost required. MW2 did make mix and matching much easier perks, made shotguns viable weapons, and had some good ideas. However, with pure upgrades with some weapon attachments, giving to much power to air support, made some weapons extremely unbalanced.
Nuke