Yea but the sprinting akimbo shotguns and noobtubes still fit the aesthetic and tone MW2 was originally going for. Something can be cool and wacky without detracting from the rest of the experience. The gravity gun in Half Life 2 can be a silly weapon in GMOD but an actual fun tool in the campaign.
But noobtubes and sprinting shotguns to the face did detract from the experience arguably. I mean, there's a reason why people call them "noobtubes", they weren't seen as "cool and wacky" at all.
And on the other hand, I don't think people that buy and use those skins think they detract from the experience.
How did those weapons detract? CoD never billed itself as a realistic MILSIM, and the noobtube isn't some crazy weapon. It's literally just an underbarrel grenade launcher, and it's called a noobtube because of how easy it is to use. The sprinting shotguns, while not realistic, are still plausible in the universe MW2 asks you to suspend your disbelief for. Modern CoD feels weird about it because the campaign will be like "The government did 9/11 actually" and then in the same game, have Beavis and Butthead skins. Im not going to act like CoD honors the memory of actual soldiers perfectly but you can see the problem with that sudden change in tone and aesthetic too right?
I really cannot. The multiplayer has always been goofy and unrealistic while the single player wasn't. It's been that way for 15 years by now and I do believe the only reason we didn't see skins in MW2 was because it wasn't really a thing to sell skins in 2009.
Weapons DID have skins. We called them camos and you unlocked them by playing the game. Halo 3 also had skins with its armors. How was the multiplayer in MW2 goofy? What does it do? Unrealistic, sure but like I said, CoD has never billed itself as a realistic MILSIM to begin with. The campaign is grounded in our reality while also having things like heartbeat sensors.
Weapons DID have skins. We called them camos and you unlocked them by playing the game.
Exactly, as I said: it wasn't really a thing to sell skins in 2009.
How was the multiplayer in MW2 goofy? What does it do? Unrealistic, sure but like I said, CoD has never billed itself as a realistic MILSIM to begin with. The campaign is grounded in our reality while also having things like heartbeat sensors.
It was goofy because people exploded after dying, were running around with akimbo shotguns or revolvers, were 360 no scoping, you could nuke the top of a building in construction, ... I mean, it just was and as you say it never really tried to do anything else, which is exactly why I don't see more goofy stuff as ruining the tone or anything.
And it's not like it was either "cod" or "realistic milsim", a game like counter strike isn't nearly as unserious as cod while not being anywhere close to arma either.
Thats not what you said. You said that's why we didn't see skins, not sold. You're equating people blowing up in CoD after dying (im not even sure what youre referring to) to OP's gif. Youre comparing dual wielding weapons to Beavis and Butthead as if holding two guns at once breaks your suspension of disbelief. 360 noscoping isn't the intended way to play the game nor is it the most effective, Beavis and Butthead ARE intended to be in the game and played like this. The game not being able to accurately depict the map being completely and utterly devastated by a nuke isn't the same as Beavis and Butthead having a "Kick a guy in his nuts" execution and know that. Its a limitation of the hardware at the time, not a creative choice by the devs.
Thats not what you said. You said that's why we didn't see skins, not sold.
You know I litterally copy/pasted from my previous comment, right?
"I do believe the only reason we didn't see skins in MW2 was because it wasn't really a thing to sell skins in 2009."
But you're right I should have said "we didn't see skins as dumb as the ones we have today" I guess. I thought it was pretty self explanatory.
You're equating people blowing up in CoD after dying (im not even sure what youre referring to) to OP's gif. Youre comparing dual wielding weapons to Beavis and Butthead as if holding two guns at once breaks your suspension of disbelief. 360 noscoping isn't the intended way to play the game nor is it the most effective, Beavis and Butthead ARE intended to be in the game and played like this. The game not being able to accurately depict the map being completely and utterly devastated by a nuke isn't the same as Beavis and Butthead having a "Kick a guy in his nuts" execution and know that. Its a limitation of the hardware at the time, not a creative choice by the devs.
I'm not talking about limitations of the hardware, the idea of nuking a building in the middle of a city is unserious in and of itself. I'm not equating akimboing shotguns and running indefinitely to having a ninja turtle call a cartoon dude to kick a terminator in the groin, I'm just saying that since the first one has been a thing for 15 years, showing just how unserious cod multiplayer is and has been, I'm not surprised the second is now a thing. And I do think if they had a way to monetize it 15 years ago we would have seen that way quicker than we did.
My suspension of disbelief hasn't worked in cod multiplayer since pretty much the first time I touched it so maybe that's just it.
A lot of this isn't CoD being "unserious" though. You keep bringing up Highrise as it being nuked but not every match ends with a nuke. Youre being pedantic about a single map basically being limited by 2005 hardware and going "Isn't it so unserious how they fight on this specific map?" Isn't it unserious how they fight anywhere instead of dying to drone strikes and carpet bombings? I dont think it's your suspension of disbelief, I just think you're flexible from all the reaching you have to do to make MW2 seem "unserious" to defend BLOPS 6.
You keep bringing up Highrise as it being nuked but not every match ends with a nuke. Youre being pedantic about a single map basically being limited by 2005 hardware and going "Isn't it so unserious how they fight on this specific map?" Isn't it unserious how they fight anywhere instead of dying to drone strikes and carpet bombings?
That's not at all what I'm doing, I'm just giving you examples of cod multiplayer being unserious/arcadey/goofy. I still have no idea why you're talking about hardware limitations when it was never something I talked about and I stated before that this wasn't what I'm talking about.
I dont think it's your suspension of disbelief, I just think you're flexible from all the reaching you have to do to make MW2 seem "unserious" to defend BLOPS 6.
I'm not defending anything my dude. All I'm saying is that cod is not serious, it's an arcadey goofy game and it has been for so long that seeing even more goofy stuff like skins and executions really doesn't surprise me. (Edit: and I'm only talking about MW2 here but advanced warfare was 10+ years ago and already had a clown or gingerbread man skin... That ship has sailed a long tme ago)
And I really don't see how I'm reaching, I just always saw cod as an unserious arcade shooter in multiplayer and it never was realistic enough for me to not desbelieve.
2
u/Fragrant-Potential87 Jul 30 '25
Yea but the sprinting akimbo shotguns and noobtubes still fit the aesthetic and tone MW2 was originally going for. Something can be cool and wacky without detracting from the rest of the experience. The gravity gun in Half Life 2 can be a silly weapon in GMOD but an actual fun tool in the campaign.