CoD: World at War
- Thread starter RobertR1
- Start date
Does this translate to MP too? Cos if it does, I really lost respect for all you console COD fans out there. You guys are playing a casual watered down COD.!
There is some degree of auto aim in MP and yes, COD is the most casual FPS you can play on consoles. They had to make that way so kids would not cry for the lack of auto aim like they did with Killzone 2.
Making it better than MW2 is not very hard. For all the criticism Treyarch gets I find their products generally better. If they drop the super crappy P2P code and have real servers on the console versions I might give it a go.
Actually Killzone 2 MP has aim assist as well & its very noticeable when you use Pistols or Shotgun, it even had "tap L1 to snap" if you used STA52...however this was patch after the 1.21 update.
I don't remember any aim assist in MP. There probably is some, but it isn't really noticeable to me (360 version). Go play online MP a bit before you talk that kind of smack.I really lost respect for all you console COD fans out there. You guys are playing a casual watered down COD.
I agree with NRP. There is no snap auto targetting in MW2. MW2 has a small bit of adhesion, less than most FPS. If an enemy runs in your foreground while aimed at someone in the background your crosshairs will sometimes slightly track the foreground target--but you have to have a keen eye and reason (ahem) to notice this. If it has magnetism it is very, very small. It probably has none; I cannot think of a gun in MP that has any auto-aim (the game is brutal about near misses being misses). The game is as close as you get to PC on the consoles--they have very few aids in the actual mechanical control model and the gameplay is fast with few user assets in MP.
I got this game free with my gfx card over a year ago. Played straight through it in one sitting and uninstalled it. It was probably one of the most basic and generic shooters I've ever played. I'm guessing the MP must have been amazing otherwise I have no idea how this game did so well.
Are you sure about that? I've managed to get headshots across the map with the ACR many many times and it behaves very different from BF:BC2 or Killzone 2. I find it way easier to get a long shot with an assault rifle in MW2 than in any of the other FPSs I've played on the PS3. Could be the zero recoil but even with other weapons I still find it easier.
Unfortunately lags is what kills the COD MP experience for me but it can still be a lot of fun.
I played the SP demo of MW2 on my ps3 and I was shocked
I am completely disillusioned ! I am a avid fan of COD ever since the first game shook us with sound of ammo ringing while running around, but I had played all the CODs on my PC. I was happy to see the console crowd loving my favourite series too, but if this is how it was presented to the console crowd, then I am aghast ! The game has pretty pretty campaigns, intense and rewarding(it has infinite respawns,but still) but playing it on my ps3 is a completely washed out experience. Its as if the game just wants me to go through set pieces, no skill, no aiming, no tension required. Does this translate to MP too? Cos if it does, I really lost respect for all you console COD fans out there. You guys are playing a casual watered down COD.
Which demo did you download? Is it the cliffhanger one? AFAIK, not even the single player campaign offered any substantial auto-aim - definately not to the degree you're describing it anyway. Maybe something they did with the demo? (I thought it was strange anyway to put a demo of MW2 online 2 months before the release of CoD7 and about a year after MW2 came out).
As others have mentioned, there is some minor tracking in MP (and SP I believe) but this will only extend to a few milimeters of movement and happens, as Josh described, when you are aiming down your sights and a target runs past at a distance. This minor sort of tracking is only for a very short split of a second. It's annoying and can't be deactivated, but it also doesn't really impact the game in any way.
You are being far too naive, the aim assist in COD games are certainly more than what you find in other games, the sniper is a perfect example of heavy aim assist. Here's something which I want you to experiment, strafe sideways & have a guy run across in front of you so that he gets into the crosshair and notice how your aim automatically follows him for a moment.
I can understand how its not much noticeable to you as its done in a very subtle manner but if someone plays the PC version first & then plays the console version then he's gonna notice the obvious aim assist. There is this aim assist called slowdown where your crosshair's movement slows down considerably once its on a target, its perfectly noticeable when you take long range shots with your assault rifle like mmendez stated.
Nah...there's a heavy aim assist in SP.
The game even tells you to use the snap to target feature specifically in Single Player training mission.
Last edited by a moderator:
upnorthsox
Veteran
Yep, it's part of the training at the beginning.
Naive? First you didn't really read what I wrote (see below and my quote about adhesion) but this is straight up trolling. Since you know so much about the game's input model answer some questions for me:
What is the X:Y right stick input ratio in MW2?
What is the dead zone shape? Tolerance?
What acceleration model does the game have on the right stick X plane?
I have personally modeled *all* of these in MW2 using tools to analyze the Xbox 360 version. I cannot say squat for the PS3 version but I played a ton out of MW1 on the PC and over 50 hours on the 360. I am pretty confident in regards to knowing what the game does, and doesn't do, in regards to various aim assists as I have had to design input interfaces to specifically adjust for these issues.
I have also designed models for Halo 3, ODST, Reach, Gears of War 2, BFBC, BFBC2, BF1943, etc. so I am in a position to give some comparisons to how the game mechanics actually work and have hard numbers regarding the models.
MW2 in MP ... has no effective auto-aim on most guns ... has a small amount of adhesion ... has no magnetism.
What most of you are seeing at distance is how IW scaled hit boxes (which are fairly generous to begin with) at a distance. The game is sub-HD is the pixels aren't super small; enemy hit boxes are fairly large at distance, especially the head.
But those of us recording game-play to look at hit boxes and dissecting the input models are naive
It is called adhesion and I specifically mentioned that in my post.
me said:
It not only slows you down (as you are adhered to the object) but it will actually stick to and move with an enemy that moves across the foreground. So it isn't simply "slowdown." You are actually stuck to a target. This effect is most prominent to near objects (iirc the game sorts front to back) which makes sense as the closest objects moved the fastest and are the hardest to track smoothly with a gamepad thumbstick.
And yet it is a subtle effect and simple enough to break off of. Tracking is very light. Having personally compared the effect to some other shooters it is surprisinh just how strong the magnetism and adhesion are in other games.
And here is to tossing down the gauntlet: MW1, followed by MW2, are the two console games *closest* to PC controls of any major console shooter. For the guys using alternative input measures and trying to clone the PC experience they would be *giddy* if every console game was designed just like MW--that is how significant the gamepad assist and gameplay assist are in other console games. And there are hard numbers to back that up, but you can ask them yourself if you want if you don't believe my naive opinion
wait wait wait....no one here said auto aim.
I said aim assist.
And that's aim assist
Last edited by a moderator:
RenegadeRocks
Legend
Guy guys, no need to get all worked up here. I tried the SP demo, it automatically snapped to enemies on pressing L1. COD lover inside me got dissappointed. I asked if the same happens in MP too as that would mean a whimper of a game to play, you guys said it doesn't. So, everything is fine ! !
!DonaldDuck
Newcomer
I just want to add the fact that multiplayer in WaW it´s really entertaining to me and that, being casual or not, it´s played even today. And I suspect that, taking into account that all the publishers have dropped the ball of WW2 warfare, it´ll be played for some time.
The big, massive trick of CoD games in multiplayer in order to steal people´s love is the fact that even in your first play you feel you´re dangerous. The weapons are really deadly, all of them, and it´s really strange ending a match without killing some enemies. Other games have fewer casualties per match and you can end one round without knowing what´s killing; it never happens in CoD. Killing doesn´t need long spreads that expert players will avoid easily; just and instant in the right direction pressing the trigger and that´s it, even if you spend literally all your ammo and only a tiny part of the bullets hit the target.
That´s satisfying. Obviously you´ll be far away of the leaders in the match, but your count will be in the 1-5 level and not a lame, embarrasing zero. That could be trivial, but I believe that is really important.
Greetings.
The big, massive trick of CoD games in multiplayer in order to steal people´s love is the fact that even in your first play you feel you´re dangerous. The weapons are really deadly, all of them, and it´s really strange ending a match without killing some enemies. Other games have fewer casualties per match and you can end one round without knowing what´s killing; it never happens in CoD. Killing doesn´t need long spreads that expert players will avoid easily; just and instant in the right direction pressing the trigger and that´s it, even if you spend literally all your ammo and only a tiny part of the bullets hit the target.
That´s satisfying. Obviously you´ll be far away of the leaders in the match, but your count will be in the 1-5 level and not a lame, embarrasing zero. That could be trivial, but I believe that is really important.
Greetings.
Last edited by a moderator:
1. AIM assist in singleplayer is easy to turn off..
2. Aim assist in multiplayer is worthless, unless you completely suck, it will not help you get kills. Its not the lock on feature from SP.
3. People saying that headshots etc are easier, this is partly due to two things:
- you can get no recoil guns in mp with perks.
- Netcode: as long as YOU hit somebody in the head on your screen, he will get hit in the head, no matter where he is on his screen. Lag does not factor in your aiming, except for who gets killed first.
- BFBC2 has bullet drop, meaning you have to adjust for range. In CoD bullets go straight until you hit something. Also, where you point your ironsight, you allways hit. Unlike most console shooters.
2. Aim assist in multiplayer is worthless, unless you completely suck, it will not help you get kills. Its not the lock on feature from SP.
3. People saying that headshots etc are easier, this is partly due to two things:
- you can get no recoil guns in mp with perks.
- Netcode: as long as YOU hit somebody in the head on your screen, he will get hit in the head, no matter where he is on his screen. Lag does not factor in your aiming, except for who gets killed first.
- BFBC2 has bullet drop, meaning you have to adjust for range. In CoD bullets go straight until you hit something. Also, where you point your ironsight, you allways hit. Unlike most console shooters.
From the very beginning, CoD always had a very good feel when it came to shooting and moving. While I think it's gotten a bit long in the tooth now in terms of realism, it still makes you feel both badass and like a good shot. Personally I'd like the series to revert back to CoD1's more random shot cone that factor movement and stance much more into the accuracy. It's become way to easy but that's the appeal. I would love to see a ballistics system too, though that would undermine that core appeal for casual audiences. Lastly I would take away the hit confirmation "x". It's another part of the addictive appeal of the games though, as you get quite a bit of satisfaction out of knowing you hit something when you hear that sound and see the "x". Especially with unrealistic bullet penetration in many ways, it's easy to just spray into a wall, and point where you get your "x" hit confirmation.
Basically I would do away with everything that makes CoD very appealing to much of the audience, but would still keep that great movement and aiming feel, while greatly bumping up the realism. PC gamers would love it, and many a console gamer I thing would too. Hell I see such a mode as a very welcome addition to the current package.
They could easily do that, just make hardcore modes a bit more hardcore and you're set. I don't think a 100% realistic game would be a lot of fun for most people, but I'd really appreciate a game mode with less BS physics (commando I'm looking at you) and weapon behavior: no more no scopes, zero recoil ARs or dual wielding shotguns. Getting rid of the killstreaks with the addition of "Objetctive Barebones Pro" mode was a nice move for me as well.
