| Off Topic > Games |
| Modern stuffware 2 |
| << < (11/19) > >> |
| Ladios:
--- Quote from: Snick0rz on August 12, 2010, 06:54:50 PM ---I play Counterstrike: Source instead. Actually pretty good balanced, no "I HAZ THIZ WEAPONZ AND KILLZ YOUZ ALLZ NAOWZ" --- End quote --- Awp, M4, AK47, etc notwithstanding eh? |
| yuki:
--- Quote from: Snick0rz on August 13, 2010, 06:11:58 AM ---It's technically MW2. Like World at War is technically CoD5. --- End quote --- That's not accurate in either direction, you're a moron. The game title is Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 2. Not Call of Duty 6 Modern Warfare 2, because it's not part of the series, it's just part of the franchise, the same as WaW is not Call of Duty 5. That's like calling McDonalds, McDonalds 3543: French Fries Ahoy. You don't refer to a number because there ISN'T one, it's part of a franchise, not a series. CoD4: MW however had the number in the title so it is accurate to call it CoD4. |
| SkullCandy:
Coll of d00dy: mawdrn waffer 2 |
| Shadow Eye25:
If it had a better game base and more balancing, it would increase my likings of it quite a lot. The campaign is the better part of the game in my opinion. Online, is frankly just horrible. Servers crash while migrating hosts constantly, you catch boosters in almost every free for all that you see, and no-one enjoys being spawnraped every two or three seconds by a chopper gunner/ac130. And honestly, One Man Army and M203s? I certainly hope that Activision has cleaned up its act by the next game or couple of games. For their sake. There, there's your valid reason. |
| Qwepir:
--- Quote from: yuki on August 13, 2010, 12:34:13 AM ---Agreed. 1942 was the best game and will always be the best game. BF2 sucked in comparison. 1943 was decent but not the same as 1942. I want them to remake 1942 and to stop richardING AROUND with "modern" warfare stuff. --- End quote --- What made BF2 so bad? |
| Navigation |
| Message Index |
| Next page |
| Previous page |