Five years in the future when the Russians magically decide to begin using the (by then) 71 year old AK-47 again. As I've stated, this is perfectly reasonable logic. :awesome

Oh, I feel so castigated. No, really...

If accepting substandard games is your thing, more power to you. I'm not here to judge you and you can't really attack me as I don't give a shit.

I was hoping — in vain it seems — to engender a more critical discussion about the game. This is also amusing however, as it is wonderfully ironic to see you iconoclasts putting on your fanboy hats. Do continue.

 

I'm going to go out on a limb and say that the game has already been discussed. Single player was ... alright, I guess. Multiplayer is where the fun is at, as long as you know how to mute people and are able to adapt to the type of game play it presents; a quick playing run-and-gun-ish.

Oh yeah, and spec ops is a pain in the ass.

Considering it's 2010 and it's still in use today ... why the hell not?

 

It is one of the most rugged weapons ever developed. Other than a revolver, the AK-47 and the Mosin Nagant are some of the most prolific firearms in existence.

Its role in modern combat is strained, paradoxically, by the same factors that have contributed to its longevity. I won't go into specifics, but "loose tolerances" is the 47's blessing and curse.

There aren't many weapons that could be stored in mud for thirty years and still fire the same as the day they were made. The 47 is that weapon; though whether it is because the weapon is just that durable or because it shot like it'd been a piece of junk for years is always debatable.

EDIT: Personally, I like some of the Spec Ops missions more than the Campaign.

 

Prestige 3 or 4. Level 50

Primary

Scar-H Silenced
Scavenger Pro
Stopping Power Pro
Commando Pro

Claymore
2x Flash

Killstreaks

Harrier/Predator
Pave low
Chopper gunner/Nuke

Setup depends on the game type I am playing though.

 

If it ain't broke, don't fix it as the saying goes.

 

The AN-94 Abakan. AK series is dead and gone now...

 

Nah. The problem is you got everything wrong though. MW2's the most realistic game ever made. The Russian's still use the AK-47 and RPD, and the story could easily happen today. That's why the game's so scary.

Edit: Damn. Baited too hard?

 

Prestige 6 Level 70

Primary:
Intervention Thermal

Secondary:
Model 1887 Akimbo

Perks:
Slight of Hand Pro
Stopping Power Pro
Ninja Pro

Other:
Claymore
2x Stun

Killstreaks:
UAV
Care Package
Predator

This is my Search and Destroy class.

 

Shit, sorry. My bad.

 

*nods* The surreal elements of gaming were originally in place because, in my mind, they just did not have the technology to make a realistic and challenging game. AI scripts were virtually non-existent in those days, and no hardware could handle them regardless. Now that we have the tech, the surreal elements have in some ways become even more exaggerated. Personally, I think it's a step in the wrong direction. We should be bringing games closer to reality and giving more immersion to the player.

Again, just my opinion.

 

This is why I prefer hardcore modes which it's more "realistic" shooting. If I shoot someone with a sniper rifle, they go down instantly.

 

Reason sniper rifles aren't as powerful as they are in real life is because that would fucking burn the multi down. No one would do anything else, and if you tried, you'd just die constantly. It's not really that much fun.

 

HERP DERP, alright then, whats your stance on a "surreal game" that incorporates "realism" and all that jazz? Oh you mean a game that you get shot once and bleed out? Or maybe a game with modern weapons and realistic sounds with realistic physics? Oh wait its been done, (Operation Flashpoint etc) and guess what? They were boring as shit just like everything you described.

Also it seems you like to think the AI is lacking, i can help you out. Oh wait its called multiplayerm nvm then.

 

The problem here is that just about every weapon should be as lethal as a sniper rifle. Snipers should only have an advantage in long expanses or open spaces.

EDIT: The SCAR-H, the FAL, the "MG4", the M14... they all shoot 7.62x51mm, which makes them all pack the exact same punch. Damage, in my mind should be according to cartridge; accuracy, ROF, etc. according to weapon.

 

But again. It'd just be everyone instadies. Comes down to who sees the other guy first. Call me old-school, but I like a game where I can charge someone and not get shot down instantly. It's not realistic, but I'll be glad when this realistic shit trend is over. There's a point where you can balance realism and fun, and I like that point.

 

... This is why not as many people use the FAL and the MG4 compared to weapons such as the SCAR-H. It has the "jump" on all of the weapons you listed.

EDIT: Unless you fire from the hip, and then it's all HURR DURR.

 

I do see where you're coming from and I'm (very) oldschool gaming myself. Honestly though, I don't see how it's much different than what is already in place. 9 out of 10 times, the guy who sights the other in first is going to get the kill. The classic way just takes a lot more ammo, making it so the other guy has a chance (albeit slim) to come out on top, especially if he has a better gun. The classic deathmatch, to me, is essentially a game of "whose is bigger?". To me, perfectly ambushing someone only to have them turn around post headshot and noob-cannon me to death really takes the fun out of a game — fast.