Maybe the game sucks and they do not wanna make you try before buying??
Maybe the game sucks and they do not wanna make you try before buying??
Doubt it will suck, but yeah a bit strange there won't be a beta for such a big title.
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.
When i'm being paid i always do my job through.
there's nothing to test, it's just MW with more features and better gfx. Nothing to worry about.
There is no beta , no problem at all
There is youtube
i5-3570K @ 4.2Ghz (1.2v)
G.SKILL Ripjaws 16GB 2133 @2400MHz
Intel 520 240GB
HP ZR30w 30
Auzen X-Fi H.T. HD --> Yulong D100 MKII --> D-7100
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 even the outdated Battlefield 2 & 2142 have more in-depth gaming and tactics, physics, etc.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.
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.
i7 2600K | ASUS Maximus IV GENE-Z | GTX Titan | Corsair DDR3-2133
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 .
*Unless you like the crawling for half hour realism, or spawn spamming of BF
Last edited by villa1n; 08-21-2009 at 05:16 AM. Reason: qualify a statement! ^^
" Business is Binary, your either a 1 or a 0, alive or dead." - Gary Winston ^^
Asus rampage III formula,i7 980xm, H70, Silverstone Ft02, Gigabyte Windforce 580 GTX SLI, Corsair AX1200, intel x-25m 160gb, 2 x OCZ vertex 2 180gb, hp zr30w, 12gb corsair vengeance
i7 980x ,h70, Antec Lanboy Air, Samsung md230x3 ,Saphhire 6970 Xfired, Antec ax1200w, x-25m 160gb, 2 x OCZ vertex 2 180gb,12gb Corsair Vengence MSI Big Bang Xpower
COD offers the right combination of good gameplay (when playing HC), good graphics, and good framerate.
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
Particle's First Rule of Online Technical Discussion:
As a thread about any computer related subject has its length approach infinity, the likelihood and inevitability of a poorly constructed AMD vs. Intel fight also exponentially increases.
Likewise, the frequency of a car pseudoanalogy to explain a technical concept increases with thread length. This will make many people chuckle, as computer people are rarely knowledgeable about vehicular mechanics.
When confronted with a post that is contrary to what a poster likes, believes, or most often wants to be correct, the poster will pick out only minor details that are largely irrelevant in an attempt to shut out the conflicting idea. The core of the post will be left alone since it isn't easy to contradict what the person is actually saying.
When a poster cannot properly refute a post they do not like (as described above), the poster will most likely invent fictitious counter-points and/or begin to attack the other's credibility in feeble ways that are dramatic but irrelevant. Do not underestimate this tactic, as in the online world this will sway many observers. Do not forget: Correctness is decided only by what is said last, the most loudly, or with greatest repetition.
When it comes to computer news, 70% of Internet rumors are outright fabricated, 20% are inaccurate enough to simply be discarded, and about 10% are based in reality. Grains of salt--become familiar with them.
Remember: When debating online, everyone else is ALWAYS wrong if they do not agree with you!
Random Tip o' the Whatever
You just can't win. If your product offers feature A instead of B, people will moan how A is stupid and it didn't offer B. If your product offers B instead of A, they'll likewise complain and rant about how anyone's retarded cousin could figure out A is what the market wants.
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..
The Cardboard MasterCrunch with us, the XS WCG team
And put that GPU to work too! Fold for XS
Main PC: Intel Core-i7 2600k @ 4.5GHz, 8GB DDR3-1600, Radeon 7950 @ 1000/1250, Win 7 Pro x64, water - ONLINE
Office PC: Intel C2D e8400 @ 3.0GHz, 4GB DDR2-800, GeForce GTS 250, Win 7 Pro x64, air - ONLINE
Dedicated: DP Intel Xeon LV Sossaman @ 2GHz, 4GB DDR2-400 ECC, Win XP Pro, air - ONLINE
Family PC: Intel C2D e8500 @ 3.2GHz, 3GB DDR2-667, Radeon X1300, Win 7 Home x64, air - ONLINE
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.
CPU: i7 950 @ 4.2GHz Mobo: eVGA Classified 760 RAM: 3x2GB Corsair DDR3-2,000 Dominator GTs @ 2,000, 8-9-7-24
VGA: Crossfire Sapphire HD6970s SSD: OCZ Vertex 2 60GB HDD: 6x WD6400AAKS in RAID-6 powered by Highpoint RocketRaid 3520
SFX: Auzentech X-Fi Forte w. OP637AU PSU: Corsair HX-1000 Case: Silverstone TJ-09 modded for WC OS: Win7 Pro x64
-=- EK-Supreme HF -=- EK Classified FC -=- 2x MCR120 + MCR320, Scythe Gentle Typhoon 1850s -=-
2x MCP355 w. XSPC Dual-DDC Top -=- EK-Spin bay res -=- 7/16" black Pro-LRT w BP compressions -=- Aquaero w. Powerbooster
-=- 3x Dell U2311H (Eyefinity) -=- Audio Technica ATH-AD1000 -=- Razer Mamba -=- Microsoft "Natural Ergonomic 7000" keyboard -=-
Foundational Falsehoods of Creationism
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.
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.
Last edited by metachronos; 08-21-2009 at 10:57 AM.
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.
Milk milk milk...
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)
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.
EVGA X58 Classified
Intel i7 965
Corsair Dominator 1600mhz 3x2gb
Nvidia GTX 295
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
i7 2700k 4.60ghz -- Z68XP-UD4 F6F -- Ripjaws 2x4gb 1600mhz -- 560 Ti 448 stock!? -- Liquid Cooling Apogee XT -- Claro+ ATH-M50s -- U2711 2560x1440
Majestouch 87 Blue -- Choc Mini Brown -- Poker Red -- MX11900 -- G9