[Game] Modern Warfare 2
- Thread starter Ralfst3r
- Start date
As an outsider I find this funny.
But I also find it strange that some ISP have such strange restrictions. No p2p allowed? Why not? And assuming they have a reason for blocking p2p connections, how would you play console games that have used this system for some time now over this connection?
I can see someone shooting over a volume restriction, but some of the restrictions there are just ridiculous. Kind of makes me appreciate my ISP more.
Well, i belive the reason for this is that Consoles apparently use different ports, that have been flagged as "Consoles game here, it's not P2P piracy that could get us in trouble, so just ignore it", whereas IWnet on the PC uses ports that could just as easilly be used by a Bit-torrent app.
And apparently, a fair few ISP's offer cheaper connections with the stipulation "but you cannot use it to host a server, you have to buy a more expensive subscription for that!", and yeah, that'll get you in trouble plenty quick if you play MW2.
And yes, my own ISP is also looking slightly less garbage after having read this
Upvote
0
As an outsider I find this funny.
But I also find it strange that some ISP have such strange restrictions. No p2p allowed? Why not? And assuming they have a reason for blocking p2p connections, how would you play console games that have used this system for some time now over this connection?
I can see someone shooting over a volume restriction, but some of the restrictions there are just ridiculous. Kind of makes me appreciate my ISP more.
For sure.
These kind of restrictions would make me switch ISP.
I guess it just fuel for heating up the fires surrounding MW2's PC issues.
Upvote
0
Well, i belive the reason for this is that Consoles apparently use different ports, that have been flagged as "Consoles game here, it's not P2P piracy that could get us in trouble, so just ignore it", whereas IWnet on the PC uses ports that could just as easilly be used by a Bit-torrent app.
And apparently, a fair few ISP's offer cheaper connections with the stipulation "but you cannot use it to host a server, you have to buy a more expensive subscription for that!", and yeah, that'll get you in trouble plenty quick if you play MW2.
And yes, my own ISP is also looking slightly less garbage after having read this
i hope this puts an end to pc game developers trying to use console style servers once and for all. ISP's are not going to want to change their policies
Upvote
0
These issues won't make one iota of difference, IW/Activision just proved to themselves that they can screw PC users in the arse announcing their intention to do so ahead of time, and people will still buy their product.
If anything this just makes me facepalm even harder when I look at the sales figures.
If anything this just makes me facepalm even harder when I look at the sales figures.
Upvote
0
I noticed on metacritic PC Zone awarded the game 94%
They also followed the review up with this article.
Its been a building up over the years but now its the time to finally put PC Zone to rest.
They also followed the review up with this article.
Its been a building up over the years but now its the time to finally put PC Zone to rest.
Upvote
0
Yup, somebody take PCZone out back with a shotgun. It's the kindest way for it to go.
*BANG*
*BANG*
Upvote
0
I only read the article not the review but it seems like they aren't that far off. For the general Madden-dude public who makes up a vast majority of MW2's playerbase IWNet really isn't that bad.
Upvote
0
omg this guy is stupid. OF COURSE WE PREFER THE SERVER LIST. WE AREN'T LAZY RETARDS. WE WANT CHOICE AND VARIETY.
Upvote
0
How the hell does it matter when for you the game is crap anyways and you won't play it plus that site being known to you for giving ridiculous scores? That's like complaining about the price of a pack of raisins if you don't even like or eat them.
Upvote
0
The reason people here complain about CoD6 is not because they like it, but because everybody else do and sells much more than they deserve, and also that company is setting precedents in abusing their customers, precedents that may be applied to games that they may like in the future.
That, and going against the dumb majority makes us feel less dumb =P
Upvote
0
I was a long time reader of Zone. Since way back in '97 and what made the magazine stand out as something different was the writers attitudes and not being afraid of saying what they thought. They never handed out Classic awards to every single AAA title unless it was worthy.
Zones Modern Warfare 2 preview was not the first game written about the console version. The preview of Brink was a blatant Xbox showing, with talk about P2P networking and consoles and no mention of dedicated servers. Splash Damage have confirmed dedicated server support on the PC, so what the **** was all that about?
My complaints lie with Zone itself. I know sites like IGN and Gamespot will lap this kind of crap up which is why i don't read them, but Zone always spoke the truth and now their integrity has been lost, probably somewhere between MW2's dedicated servers and the executive hotels and free champaign.
Last edited:
Upvote
0
Well if you were a long-time reader and have a connection with it then that's something different of course. But I can sense some people bringing up new stuff only so they can hate it more instead of just not caring.
Upvote
0
The problem with PC gaming magazines is that they only scratch the surface of what PC gaming has to offer. It's very much mainstream-oriented, and "niche" genres generally get overlooked. This is somewhat understandable because the mainstream is where the big bucks are, and magazines only have a limited amount of pages. But it's entirely possible, important even, to cover less popular games as well. Even though I don't read it, PC Gamer does that pretty well. They even had a two-page special on ArmA 2 the other day. One of their editors played along in a TG session. Cool little article, the .PDF is on their website I think.
Considering the job of gaming magazine reviewers is to be critical of the games they review, you would think that IW would catch massive flak for releasing what is essentially a console port, and charging $60 for it. But take one look at the Metacritic page of MW2 and you'll see that the opposite is true. Look at the scores they give that game. 100, 95, 90, 80... Everyone seems to have been brainwashed into thinking that a console port is actually one of the best games ever. Almost every magazine and website is caught up in the hype.
Of course, money has a lot to do with it. Magazines who give the game a 70 or less probably won't be given future exclusives.
If there's one thing that Metacritic teaches me, it's that videogame reviewers can't be trusted.
Considering the job of gaming magazine reviewers is to be critical of the games they review, you would think that IW would catch massive flak for releasing what is essentially a console port, and charging $60 for it. But take one look at the Metacritic page of MW2 and you'll see that the opposite is true. Look at the scores they give that game. 100, 95, 90, 80... Everyone seems to have been brainwashed into thinking that a console port is actually one of the best games ever. Almost every magazine and website is caught up in the hype.
Of course, money has a lot to do with it. Magazines who give the game a 70 or less probably won't be given future exclusives.
If there's one thing that Metacritic teaches me, it's that videogame reviewers can't be trusted.
Upvote
0
The 7.5 was the overall score for the game, including graphics, single player, and audio in addition the multiplayer.
Upvote
0
