COD Hackers

[Linx_is_me]

Hey I had a quick question , I am getting COD MW 2 for the ps3 . But I am starting to get discouraged by the amounts of supposed hackers online now a days . Weather you have the game on the ps3 or not . Do you often run into hackers on this game . Or am I getting worried for no reason . I hear they have cheats to make themselves invincible and stuff . If they overrun online that will suck . So whats the real truth .

[Jokersvirus]

There is no hackers on a game. a more proper term would be people who use exploits. But they have fixed them all from my understanding, and according to articles I read they can find out quickly if someone was using an exploit in game and ban them.

but to answer your question, no there is no hackers and those who use exploits are all gone on to Black ops.

[Ilyich Valken]

Why would you get MW2 now..? But yeah.. there are some modders, but most of the time dealt with swiftly, and any exploits tend to be taken care of.

[EpsilonX]

Why would you get MW2 now..? But yeah.. there are some modders, but most of the time dealt with swiftly, and any exploits tend to be taken care of.

So much cheaper.

Call of Duty is becoming like Guitar hero. A new installment every year that's basically the same as the last. I might just pick em up all used.

[W1CKEDTW1STED]

Why would you get MW2 now..? But yeah.. there are some modders, but most of the time dealt with swiftly, and any exploits tend to be taken care of.

+1. There were a group of "hackers" as you will call them playing MW2 for XBOX 360 and PC some time ago. Needless to say, their a$$es were grass, and Microsoft / Infinity Ward were the lawn-mowers. If you want more info, it's pretty easy to find on Google. But if you really want to read more I will see if I can dig up the links for you.

[Ilyich Valken]

So much cheaper.

Call of Duty is becoming like Guitar hero. A new installment every year that's basically the same as the last. I might just pick em up all used.

Not really... unlike Guitar Hero, CoD is still playable. And if you didn't notice, as I'm sure you haven't and are just going blind as always, yes, there is a CoD out every year, however, up until last year there was only one game out from one company every two years.

Now theres only one developer, and I'm willing to bet Bobby isn't going to be dumb enough to force Treyarch to spit out a new game every year, and if they do I'd imagine a good amount of them would back out.

[EpsilonX]

"going blind as always" whats that supposed to mean? I know there's 2 developers. Why do you keep criticizing me on this? I don't make opinions of the gameplay of games. I pointed out the fact that whatever company they are makes a new call of duty game every year and sells it. The masses give up on the previous call of duty and flock to the new one. The same thing happens for guitar hero. They could hire a different development team for all i care, it doesn't change the fact that they're basically milking the call of duty franchise, which was all I was pointing out, and you don't seem to understand that. You don't need to have played the game to figure that one out.

(But even if i'm wrong, and each call of duty has massive improvements over the last one, the fact that i said "is like" (as in, is similar to) instead of "is the same as" makes it still true, because the fact that they're making one every year for massive profit and everbody buys the newest one and gives up on the older ones is still similar to guitar hero and madden)

[Linx_is_me]

So much cheaper.

Call of Duty is becoming like Guitar hero. A new installment every year that's basically the same as the last. I might just pick em up all used.

No, MW2 is not cheaper by much . At gamestop Used it is 45.00 New its 50.00
I am getting MW2 Becuase I want a game that I can use my new blu tooth on . A friend of mine is selling it to me for 30. Which is a ok price . I have played it before I think it is fun and all . For personal reason's I am not getting black ops . Atleast not right now . But maybe some time in the future after another COD has come out I may get it . I have always been the type to get the best stuff after it has been out for a while . I just got a ps3 and sony is just now retiring the ps2 .

[EpsilonX]

Try warhawk, that game's mad fun. Idk if people still play it or not

[Linx_is_me]

I may have to look into that .

[WobbleSock]

I hate it how people think "CoD" straight away when there are so many other FPS games that actually WORK online, if you know what I mean. Not only that, but you would get a better experience with them than in CoD because unlike CoD, you need to talk to your team and use tactics whereas in CoD all you need to do is cuss and call everyone a noob.

Games like M.A.G, Bad Company 2, Medal of Honor, Killzone 2, Team Fortress 2, Counter Strike Source etc. are much better options, but of course if you do enjoy running into the open with dual P90's screaming obscenities through your mike at children then CoD is definitely your choice.

[jango]

.. but of course if you do enjoy running into the open with dual P90's screaming obscenities through your mike at children then CoD is definitely your choice.

lmao .. epic and true .. +rep

[Linx_is_me]

I hate it how people think "CoD" straight away when there are so many other FPS games that actually WORK online, if you know what I mean. Not only that, but you would get a better experience with them than in CoD because unlike CoD, you need to talk to your team and use tactics whereas in CoD all you need to do is cuss and call everyone a noob.

Games like M.A.G, Bad Company 2, Medal of Honor, Killzone 2, Team Fortress 2, Counter Strike Source etc. are much better options, but of course if you do enjoy running into the open with dual P90's screaming obscenities through your mike at children then CoD is definitely your choice.
No ..... its just that I want to get it . ...... I have been playing Resistance 2 online for some time now . Also Team fortress just is not for me . Killzone 2 was not my thing either . M.A.G I am going to check out , I was before this post . Medal of honor .... Meh , maybe . but dont think that I relive the only FPS out there is COD . I just played it on my friends PlayStation a while pack I loved it .

[WobbleSock]

If you want to get it, then go for it. I wont try to stop you, but in my opinion with all the other FPS games which are actually not broken choosing Modern Warfare 2 is like buying a dead goose for the same price as a healthy one.

I just don't see the logic in it.

[Ilyich Valken]

Games like M.A.G, Bad Company 2, Medal of Honor, Killzone 2, Team Fortress 2, Counter Strike Source etc. are much better options, but of course if you do enjoy running into the open with dual P90's screaming obscenities through your mike at children then CoD is definitely your choice.

(Bold) That makes me laugh. There's no team work or any semblance of it on that game.

(Italic) This.. also is another lulzworthy statement. Anyone who is good at the game knows that the P90s suck when being dual wielded, almost any gun does. Second, assuming that the majority of the CoD community does do this proves you have no knowledge of the community or how the online is not taking into account the 15% of the time the above scenario actually does take place.


"going blind as always" whats that supposed to mean? I know there's 2 developers. Why do you keep criticizing me on this? I don't make opinions of the gameplay of games. I pointed out the fact that whatever company they are makes a new call of duty game every year and sells it. The masses give up on the previous call of duty and flock to the new one. The same thing happens for guitar hero. They could hire a different development team for all i care, it doesn't change the fact that they're basically milking the call of duty franchise, which was all I was pointing out, and you don't seem to understand that. You don't need to have played the game to figure that one out.

(But even if i'm wrong, and each call of duty has massive improvements over the last one, the fact that i said "is like" (as in, is similar to) instead of "is the same as" makes it still true, because the fact that they're making one every year for massive profit and everbody buys the newest one and gives up on the older ones is still similar to guitar hero and madden)
By admitting that you realize that there's two different companies makes your point rather moot. The SAME company is making each Guitar Hero and each Madden. After the new one comes out, there isn't much reason to play the past ones.

EACH Call of Duty games gets two+ years of development. There's no debating that. That alone discredits most of your argument, as people are still playing CoD4, WaW, and MW2. Sure, there may be a new one each year, I never disputed that fact. However, you can't really compare those games because there's nothing similar between them other than having Activision (EA in Madden's case) and Bobby I-love-dick Kotick at the helm.

[EpsilonX]

(Bold) That makes me laugh. There's no team work or any semblance of it on that game.

(Italic) This.. also is another lulzworthy statement. Anyone who is good at the game knows that the P90s suck when being dual wielded, almost any gun does. Second, assuming that the majority of the CoD community does not do this proves you have no knowledge of the community or how the online is not taking into account the 15% of the time the above scenario actually does take place.


By admitting that you realize that there's two different companies makes your point rather moot. The SAME company is making each Guitar Hero and each Madden. After the new one comes out, there isn't much reason to play the past ones.

EACH Call of Duty games gets two+ years of development. There's no debating that. That alone discredits most of your argument, as people are still playing CoD4, WaW, and MW2. Sure, there may be a new one each year, I never disputed that fact. However, you can't really compare those games because there's nothing similar between them other than having Activision (EA in Madden's case) and Bobby I-love-dick Kotick at the helm.

My point is this: there is a new game every year, around holiday season, and it's usually the most anticipated game of the year. They do it because it's profitable. And everybody talks about it, everybody flocks to it when they new one comes out. When you release a new game in the same series every year, it's called milking it, and my point was only that. They are milking Call of Duty just like they're milking band simulation games and sports games. Number of developers are irrelevant. They could have a different team make every single call of duty game and spend like 20 years on the stupid thing, they're still milking the series like crazy because it brings in massive profit and they know it.

[Ilyich Valken]

My point is this: there is a new game every year, around holiday season, and it's usually the most anticipated game of the year. They do it because it's profitable. And everybody talks about it, everybody flocks to it when they new one comes out. When you release a new game in the same series every year, it's called milking it, and my point was only that. They are milking Call of Duty just like they're milking band simulation games and sports games. Number of developers are irrelevant. They could have a different team make every single call of duty game and spend like 20 years on the stupid thing, they're still milking the series like crazy because it brings in massive profit and they know it.

So coming out with several action movies ever month or ever two months isn't milking it? Making new cars every year isn't milking it?

Number of developers has EVERYTHING to do with it. If it was one developer, that would be less than one year of development each game, and by now the games would have flopped and stopped being profitable. Them taking a normal dev time to be made is what makes the games sell so well, because they aren't utter crap.

You need to learn how to make an... acceptable argument. Blatantly throwing your opinion around reply after reply without stating anything more than what you said originally and completely ignoring any other points in an opposing argument that has EVERYTHING to do with it is just.. a poor thought process.

I can almost guarantee that the next Call of Duty won't be out for at least a year, because Activision was retarded enough to gut Infinity Ward.

[EpsilonX]

Let me say this one more time. If the games weren't so profitable, we wouldn't be seeing one every year for the past at least four years.

I'm not arguing it, i'm just saying it. I don't really care if you agree, but you're not going to change the fact that I see them as simply milking it. Stop trying.

[Ilyich Valken]

Let me say this one more time. If the games weren't so profitable, we wouldn't be seeing one every year for the past at least four years.

I'm not arguing it, i'm just saying it. I don't really care if you agree, but you're not going to change the fact that I see them as simply milking it. Stop trying.

If you want to continue with your largely flawed way of thinking, go ahead. I never said you were wrong with them being profitable. And yeah... you are... an argument doesn't mean fighting in this circumstance.

[EpsilonX]

In this case, and in other cases where we've had similar headbutts, I was simply stating the general impression I got, and then you attacked it saying no you're wrong that's stupid. And i'm simply trying to get a "i guess that could make sense even though I disagree" response.

For example, and maybe this is the wrong place to discuss such a thing, but I don't care, when we were talking about Kingdom Hearts, all I was saying was that I think putting Disney and Final Fantasy characters in the same game is silly. I didn't say that made it a bad game, I said that one particular aspect of what I know about the game is silly. From what I could tell, you thought I was basing my entire opinion of the game on that one small thing. My actual opinion of the game is that it looks like it could be fun but i'm not really interested in playing it.

In this case, i'm saying that making a new call of duty game every year seems a bit like overkill and like they're milking it, especially since a good deal of the reviews I read of Black Ops said that it was inferior to Modern Warfare 2. But now with Infinity Ward gone as you said, if this trend continues I will take back what I said. But I wasn't trying to prove that they are indeed milking it, I was just stating what gave me that impression in the first place so you'd stop attacking it. Do you get what i'm going for? I'm not actually trying to say "they are milking it, this is why. Youre wrong for thinking otherwise" I'm saying "this is the impression that i'm getting for these reasons, whether or not it is actually the case is a different matter" The true deciding factor of whether they are milking the cash cow that is Call of Duty or not will be if they continue this yearly trend from now on with only 1 team making games in the series

[Ilyich Valken]

They're really not making a game every year though.. 2 years is almost an industry standard for games to be developed unless there's major setbacks. They aren't releasing them every year simply to put out a new one every year, sure they did set up the development cycle of the two companies to maximize profit once Activision acquired both companies, but.. yeah..

Honestly, Black Ops and MW2 are actually different, unlike WaW and CoD4. The gameplay's still very similar to MW2, but they changed up the way unlocks work, and anyone who says Black Ops is inferior in graphics is an idiot.. seeing as it's the same engine, just tweaked.

[EpsilonX]

Well, i want to play black ops, so we'll see when that happens. But having 2 teams making games in the same series actually could make it easier to make. It's like having 2 groups of people making friday the 13th movies at the same time. You get more movies out in a shorter period of time, if you get what i'm saying?

Mostly this is coming from the fact that i'm sick of seeing so many call of duty games, they're everywhere lol. but Black Ops has managed to interest me, i'm going to at least rent it.

TO GO BACK TO THE ORIGINAL TOPIC, like Ilyich said I doubt there'll be hackers on MW2 because they'll have moved on to black ops mostly.

[WobbleSock]

That makes me laugh. There's no team work or any semblance of it on that game.

I'd like to see you try to rush all objectives lone-wolf against at least a semi-decent team. You do need Teamwork; one person alone cannot arm/defuse/defend an objective. Perhaps they could arm an objective if they somehow manage to sneak past without anyone knowing, but the opposing team would have to be really thick.


(Italic) This.. also is another lulzworthy statement. Anyone who is good at the game knows that the P90s suck when being dual wielded, almost any gun does. Second, assuming that the majority of the CoD community does not do this proves you have no knowledge of the community or how the online is not taking into account the 15% of the time the above scenario actually does take place.

I was using the Dual P90's as an example of how utterly ridiculous the game is itself; I did not imply that everyone does it. I fail to see where they got the idea of dual wielding a 50 round SMG, its ludicrous. Dual wielding the pistols and I guess a couple of the Machine Pistols is fine, but a P90/UMP?

I have a fair amount of knowledge about Modern Warfare 2, thank you very much. I have spent days of gametime on it and I can easily say that the game is one of the most appalling FPS games in at least 5 years time.

[Linx_is_me]

Yeah Modernwar fair takes Team work trust me . In special ops mode it took forever until my friend and I finally worked together . There was a lot of epic team moments that I will not forget.

[crapdesign]

Am i still the onlyone that thinks cod4 is better than cod6??... i HATE cod6-.-

[thekawasakiboy]

One tips to all hackers;)... DONT HACK, it makes you noob on 2 ways, first, other peoples will hate you, And after a while, you will try without hacking, and get VERY negative stats;)