News - Why Did People Still Buy Warzone 2
Okay, I too have become the most vile version of myself over this, game-sniping like a little [__] look at you, I'm dead. Yeah, you, are that's so stupid? You [__] suck. Too knock so I feel like I know as well as an next guy what the issues with multiplayer are first and foremost is balance certain guns Just decimate others and despite having a multitude of attachments to choose from on each gun each category will only have two or three options a player will consider then we can look at guns all of which feel pretty good but only a few are considered viable because the broken ones are Beyond broken and this is exacerbated, in war zone to a ridiculous degree balance patches take forever to come out and if a gun is broken typically it takes multiple patches for it to be fixed cheating is a common occurrence and while Ricochet the anti-che, has been effective in reducing the number of cheaters it is still common enough that I run into at least one a day but you'd think someone was cheating if you saw how a assist functions, a assist in this game is borderline Aimbot and this is coming from a lifelong controller player granted there's a lot of ego surrounding this discussion as nobody wants to feel as though the only reason they win is because of training wheels on their controller but anecdotally.
I played on a controller in Modern Warfare 2019, and I felt that the keyboard and mouse were better. I swapped with them and started consistently winning more games once I adjusted. Now after 4 years of using nothing but keyboard and mouse for every FPS game I play I have swapped back to controller because a assist is that good I had to sweat my ass off to get a win on keyboard and mouse but since swapping to controller I with significantly, less effort win way more games a assist should not be removed but it needs to be reworked because the two input modes are not on equal playing field we'll never be able to keep a perfect balance but we've been closer in previous entries and that's what matters with all of that said multiplayer is still a damn fun time and this is the first game in years where I've done the camel grind just because I enjoyed the core gameplay, there are other issues that I would place under the content category like the bundles in the store being overpriced or the black cell battle pass that cost $40.
But those are nothing compared to the fact that this is a Modern Warfare 3 remake with no Modern Warfare 3 maps. Couple this with the admittedly great choice to have all Modern Warfare 2 guns and operators carry over to this game, and we have a sentiment that this is what Modern Warfare 2 should have been from the start, had it been called something like MW2.
Plus, or MW 2.0. I think the reception to this would have been much better , part three reviews.
Reviews
There's this funny thing that happens on the internet where any journalist Outlet or even independent Reviewer is seen as unskilled Schmucks that have no credibility, or understanding of the games they review I know you've seen the comments about journalists being bad at games or IGN complaining about too much water but when IG posts a review that people agree with suddenly that review is shared around as if they've always been this highly respected Outlet now personally I've always respected IGN because most of their reviews are pretty solid but as we established with the beginning section, we only see the times that they mess up you can't make a headline about IGN putting out a normal review because nobody cares but when you suddenly start praising them because the review supports your preconceived notion.
Well, we can tell. Now there are two types of reviews. I want to talk about the journalistic ones, ones coming from outlets like Gamespot, IGN, and so on, and then the independent reviews. Also, I'm going to speak broadly about reviewers because I don't want to hate on anyone in particular. People are allowed to have their opinions, and I don't want to personally attack anyone.
The journalistic reviews have a few shortcomings that make them a bit unreliable. The first is that they're on a schedule Outlets often get review codes early but not early enough meaning there's a lot of rushing that can happen behind the scenes and meaning a gamer only has so much time to not only familiarize, themselves with the game's mechanics but then make a judgment on it before the games release certain Outlets like IGN have separated their reviews into campaign and multiplayer Focus articles which alleviates some of the issue here but there is still a time crunch, then there are the depent reviewers people like myself we don't necessarily have to follow the same time restrictions and when we have the luxury of time we also have the luxury of depth we can spend as much time as we want diving into whatever topics we want but it also means that our articles need to appeal to the algorithm more we don't have large Outlets to fund and promote our efforts so we have to give into the sensationalized.
Titles and thumbnails are needed in order to pay the bills. The problem with reviews like these is that it takes more time for our reviews to come out, meaning those deciding if they should buy the game or not are left waiting for a while if they choose to wait for them at all. But something important to note about reviews is that many people don't really listen to them personally.
When I watch a review, I listen to what the reviewer is saying, sort of, but I'm mostly there to see the footage of the game so I can decide for myself if it's what I want. Something to also note specifically for Call of Duty is the open beta, which is essentially a demo for the game and for MW3. The open beta is what convinced me to buy the game once it went on sale.
The last issue with the reviews of Cod is that they end up reviewing the games as a product now. That sounds insane, and that's because obviously this game should be reviewed as a product, and it's good the reviews are doing so, but what gets lost when looking at Cod as a product is that many aren't buying it for that; they buy it for the experience.
When all your friends are playing the new CoD game, you will too, and when said game functions well, which I believe MW3 does in spite of how little new it provides, you're more likely to crack. This is where I fall. I know that the added content in MW3 is minimal. I know that its campaign is awful.
I know that all the maps are rehashed. But when I see a CoD game with good movement and good progression, even if old, especially compared to the abysmal maps of MW2, and my friends are all playing it, I end up being sold. I know that this is likely the case for others as well, because, as mentioned with the trophy data, more people are presed in multiplayer than they are finishing a campaign, and that goes for the games that many would say have good or great campaigns.
My own theory
Part 4: Why it's sold in spite of it all: the biggest reason Call of Duty is in the state it is in and the biggest reason it still sells in spite of all of its shittiness. Is there nothing else like it? Cod games will slowly start becoming the next FIFA or Madden, where every year the assets are at times quite literally reused, the monetization becomes more and more abhorent, and what once made the series Great Is Lost.
PREVIOUS Page
