CoD:MW2...no public beta

[SubZero.it]

Maybe the game sucks and they do not wanna make you try before buying??

http://www.fudzilla.com/content/view/15153/1/

[Mic]

Doubt it will suck, but yeah a bit strange there won't be a beta for such a big title.

[kromosto]

i think the opposite. game will be more then expected and they dont want to much people see and talk about it before it is out.

[Nightcover]

there's nothing to test, it's just MW with more features and better gfx. Nothing to worry about.

[SubZero.it]

there's nothing to test, it's just MW with more features and better gfx. Nothing to worry about.

So you're saying that it gonna suck

[koc]

There is no beta , no problem at all

There is youtube

[labs23]

So you're saying that it gonna suck

I hope not.

No beta is just okay, playing MW is like playing beta anyway, IMO.

[Xoulz]

So you're saying that it gonna suck

I think all of the COD games have sucked!! Their game-play has always been behind what DICE has offered. Call of Duty is marketed on glitz and cut-scene animation in their trailers.

ARMA or Operation Flashpoint.. even the outdated Battlefield 2 & 2142 have more in-depth gaming and tactics, physics, etc.


Though, just like Crysis, COD franchise does have awesome graphics... for those that get off on it.

[MpG]

Considering that it's largely a refinement of the first CoD:MW, it likely wasn't as crucial that they do a public beta. Maybe they're hoping to reduce the number of day-zero copies available on the pirate market. Or perhaps they're just (over?)confident that it won't be necessary.

[Dragy2k]

the amount of money that will be generated by the sales on MW 2 id rather see a better anti cheat developed with some of that cash.....thou i think once the game is on the streets the developers hardly give a damn.....and when interest starts to drop they just bang out a few maps here and there..
sad times .

[villa1n]

I think all of the COD games have sucked!! Their game-play has always been behind what DICE has offered. Call of Duty is marketed on glitz and cut-scene animation in their trailers.

ARMA or Operation Flashpoint.. even the outdated Battlefield 2 & 2142 have more in-depth gaming and tactics, physics, etc.



Though, just like Crysis, COD franchise does have awesome graphics... for those that get off on it.

LoL! Their gameplay is why people play it... unless your talking about single player... I wouldn't know, never played OF or Battlefield single player. but as multiplayer goes... top dog right now in fps.

*Unless you like the crawling for half hour realism, or spawn spamming of BF

[Particle]

COD offers the right combination of good gameplay (when playing HC), good graphics, and good framerate.

Compared to:
ArmA II - Good gameplay, mediocre graphics, and terrible framerate
CS:S - Good gameplay, decent graphics, and good framerate
OFP - Good gameplay, dated/bad graphics, and good framerate

[Xoulz]

LoL! Their gameplay is why people play it... unless your talking about single player... I wouldn't know, never played OF or Battlefield single player. but as multiplayer goes... top dog right now in fps.

*Unless you like the crawling for half hour realism, or spawn spamming of BF

And....


If you place Battlefield 2 in front of the "lesser knowledgeable" (ie:ignorant) FPS players, they always go bonkers.


I've seen this several times over the last 2~3 years.

My Cousin and friends played COD heavily, they came over and saw BF and thought it was a newer game. They had no idea that it was 5 years old and was astonished with the superior gameplay.

Call of Duty is about glitz. It's multi-player is pathetic compared to the Battlefield Franchise. Of coarse COD is trying to make their game more in-depth, but the fake helicopters and game worlds have alot to be desired.


Call of Duty's theatre of conflict is so myopic and arcadish..



The reason you play Call of Duty is for the single player narrative story. Multi-player has always been a joke!

Here: Demo... yeahhh..

[Sparky]

I think all of the COD games have sucked!! Their game-play has always been behind what DICE has offered. Call of Duty is marketed on glitz and cut-scene animation in their trailers.

ARMA or Operation Flashpoint.. even the outdated Battlefield 2 & 2142 have more in-depth gaming and tactics, physics, etc.


Though, just like Crysis, COD franchise does have awesome graphics... for those that get off on it.

Meh. I love CoD and really am not a big fan of battlefield.

And I play CoD mostly for the multiplayer.

[SoulsCollective]

CoD multiplayer and Battlefield multiplayer are in different classes, not comparable at all. Apples to the proverbial. You mentioned "arcadish" - and that's probably a fair assessment. CoD is not like BF, with the larger more intricate maps, larger teams, larger potential, instead it forces smaller teams on smaller maps, and rewards a more tactical rather than strategic style of play. You mention "fake helicopters", which again is a fair assessment, but is actually IMHO a strength - no vehicles forces an even playing field, as all combats are between (potential) equals, and noone can lame or grief in the same ways as are possible in BF.

I play BF as an investment of time, I play CoD at LANs and with small groups of friends when I just want to have some fun. Doesn't mean one is better than the other, just a different style of game.

[Motiv]

exactly SoulsCollective. I prefer the css/cod style of game. I may not be a big of a fan of the Modern Warfare games, from the old school vcod/cod2 but it still holds it's own. The public play is a lot of fun and the match play is good with the gimmicks taken out.

To say one of the games is better than the other is nothing but a narrow view on either game. They each have a huge fanbase, each held with high regard by competitive and casual gamers alike.

Horses for courses as they say.

[Nautilius]

I think all of the COD games have sucked!! Their game-play has always been behind what DICE has offered. Call of Duty is marketed on glitz and cut-scene animation in their trailers.

ARMA or Operation Flashpoint.. even the outdated Battlefield 2 & 2142 have more in-depth gaming and tactics, physics, etc.


Though, just like Crysis, COD franchise does have awesome graphics... for those that get off on it.

And I think you should stop the crack.

[Xoulz]

CoD multiplayer and Battlefield multiplayer are in different classes, not comparable at all. Apples to the proverbial. You mentioned "arcadish" - and that's probably a fair assessment. CoD is not like BF, with the larger more intricate maps, larger teams, larger potential, instead it forces smaller teams on smaller maps, and rewards a more tactical rather than strategic style of play. You mention "fake helicopters", which again is a fair assessment, but is actually IMHO a strength - no vehicles forces an even playing field, as all combats are between (potential) equals, and noone can lame or grief in the same ways as are possible in BF.

I play BF as an investment of time, I play CoD at LANs and with small groups of friends when I just want to have some fun. Doesn't mean one is better than the other, just a different style of game.

Why play COD at all..?

If you going to play something so dumbed down, constrictive, why not just play (for free) Battlefield Heroes or team fortress ..?

At least those two games poke fun at what they are all about, mindless, senseless fragging!

[metachronos]

DICE isn't always consistent. BF:V was bad and so was 2142, the games often suffer from balance issues and every successive patch makes things worse. CoD isn't trying to be hardcore. It's an arcade shooter in a modern setting, that's it.

The point of the CoD4 beta was to drum up hype for the game, a game that would be going against Halo and Gears of War. Everyone's already pumped about MW2 so there's no need for a beta because tons of people are already going to buy it day one.

[Hell Hound]

Raven Shield Anyone ?

[SquiZZ]

wasn't BF:V and 2142 both made by DICE: Canada? While BF1942 and BF2 were both DICE: Sweden. It's been years since I've been around anything battlefield. I'm probably completely wrong.

[zerazax]

Milk milk milk...

$$

[Xoulz]

DICE isn't always consistent. BF:V was bad and so was 2142, the games often suffer from balance issues and every successive patch makes things worse. CoD isn't trying to be hardcore. It's an arcade shooter in a modern setting, that's it.

The point of the CoD4 beta was to drum up hype for the game, a game that would be going against Halo and Gears of War. Everyone's already pumped about MW2 so there's no need for a beta because tons of people are already going to buy it day one.

Whats unbalancing about 2142?


Anyways, those were just my opinions and only chiding those who play, I don't care either way. I just think $60 is outrageous, because of all the development went into making a story, not a full fledged modern game. (see ARMA2/Flashpoint/BF)

[Zaskar]

By not releasing a public beta you gain the ability to selectively choose the review sites/magazines that get a copy to release previews.

Previews have a much bigger impact on sales then post release reviews.

All it means is that the previews cant be trusted, if you don't wanna waste 60 bucks, wait till the post release reviews are out.

[AndrewZorn]

why would they spend more time and money doing this, its not like this game is going to bring in more money than all the other games that its normal to have no pub beta

oh

wait