now that we've all ******* and moaned about certain aspects of this game...

#1donkeypunch1116Posted 7/3/2010 9:00:56 PM
are any of you coming to a feeling of "acceptance"? i kinda feel like im starting to. when i first saw the new footage and saw that lock-on had reared its ugly head again, i was baffled (and pissed). i was sure that HVS wouldnt possibly include this feature in the sequel, yet there it is. however...

i got to thinking about how much fun i had with the first game, despite its issues. i actually miss the game to the point that i want to pick up a cheap copy of it this week and hop back into it. even with lock-on, the game was still a blast, so maybe im coming around to the idea of it being in the sequel.

anyone else feel the same way, or are there still things you absolutely hate about this game?



---
Modern Warfare Reflex: 3426 0715 8657 tag: PUNCH
***pizza and colt 45: the unofficial meal of conduit 2***
#2DarkZV2BetaPosted 7/3/2010 9:08:48 PM
Nope. Like I said before, if lock-on is forced into the multiplayer like the first game, I will not be buying it. That was enough to ruin the online on it's own.
---
2% of GameFAQs users have this in their signature. If you're one of the 98% that doesn't, copy and paste this into your signature.
#3N64FTWxDPosted 7/3/2010 9:36:05 PM
[This message was deleted at the request of a moderator or administrator]
#4CHAINMAILLEKIDPosted 7/3/2010 10:59:59 PM
Online isn't really competitive in the first place.
Its ruined by lag bias. and just lag in general

If there is any competitive community that exists at a level where there are local tournies being run regularly... Online becomes insignificant.
Being good online is given as much validity as being good against bots.

With good local options, and especially if we get WAN...
I think Con2 has a good chance of obsolescing online competitive play.

Secondly, Online Competitive play isn't run on public games anyway. Its all private. where we are supposed to have options this time around. ( and IMO that's the way it should be, Competitive play being controlled by the competitive community, and not by the online leader boards. )

I think we have everything we need.
#5DarkZV2BetaPosted 7/3/2010 11:32:26 PM
You don't need constant tournaments to have a fun and competitive game, and you can always look for a decently lag-free game. Pubs are never considered to be highly competitive in that sense, but that's no reason to make it completely stupid. You can still have some very close and competitive matches in public games in any FPS, and you don't always have a tournament to go to, or people to practice against available at all times. That's what pubs are for.
On top of that, no, sadly, local tournaments hold almost no real competitive value. To quote street fighter, "there are guys like you all over the whirr". You won't have the best players in the world to compete against locally unless it's a huge tournament that those players are going to fly around the world to compete in, and even then, there are no rematches in a tournament, and nothing to judge the average skills of the players. Just how well they did in those matches, which is influenced by luck, health, comfortability, even how hard the wind is blowing, or any crap like that. Any distraction can make the difference between a win and a loss, no matter how minor.

the convenience of online competition, lag or no(which is more dependant on the connection of the players themselves) makes it a far more competitive environment than local multiplayer can realistically provide. The lag-free environment is great, but it's impossible to leave the game open to everyone while still cramming it into a couple of buildings in a single city. There's simply a larger competitive playerbase online, and that makes all the difference in the world.
---
2% of GameFAQs users have this in their signature. If you're one of the 98% that doesn't, copy and paste this into your signature.
#6Majora006Posted 7/4/2010 12:19:15 AM
Your know what Dark Beta? TBH I HOPE that lock-on is like it was in the first game, not option to turn it off, but you dont have to use it unless you push the freaking button. Anyways I want it to be like in the first one so I dont have to see your cheating and glitching *** online.
---
Don't Wind my Waker or I might have a Sykward Sword
#7DarkZV2BetaPosted 7/4/2010 1:01:48 AM
I stopped playing before cheats were out, and still don't even know how to do any of the glitches.
Lol fanboy.
---
2% of GameFAQs users have this in their signature. If you're one of the 98% that doesn't, copy and paste this into your signature.
#8Majora006Posted 7/4/2010 1:09:15 AM
Fanboy? Is that the best you got? That's not even remotely related to what I said.
---
Don't Wind my Waker or I might have a Sykward Sword
#9Majora006Posted 7/4/2010 2:25:01 AM
anyways, it was shadow I was thinking of, not you :\ I humbly apologies.
---
Don't Wind my Waker or I might have a Sykward Sword
#10DarkZV2BetaPosted 7/4/2010 3:53:39 AM
Wanting enforced lock-on in the game in any way is nothing short of blatant fanboyism, especially when justified with "then don't use it".
---
2% of GameFAQs users have this in their signature. If you're one of the 98% that doesn't, copy and paste this into your signature.