Wow the list of lame things about MW2 keep growing.

Lets not forget IW's new quote "It's better this way"

Errrr... matchmaking for co-op? Is it that hard to find someone to play with online?... People are getting lazier...

--- Replying to severe_009 -----

Depends on how big your friend list is (in both real life and on 360) and whether you find awesome places like co-optimus to meet up with people.

Just because you don't have/know about those things doesn't make you lazy.

I don't really understand what your saying but, I'm saying is in the MP mode where 9v9, matchmaking is applicable, but in Spec-Ops, where you'll have to find "one" person or friend, is it that hard to find that one person, gamer you want to play with... That's my point.

--- Replying to severe_009 -----

And my point is - that in some cases, yes it is.

I agree with Zonf it is stupid to leave it out, some people don't have a huge friends list, nor do they post on here and meet people.

The fact of the matter is people like matchmaking to meet new people, other games have it why not MW2?

Thats the point.

In some cases, It seems we will not make anything out of this argument, and by the looks of it you own Xbox360 and my standpoint is PC, where you just have to browse/search for a host that you like and click to join, or just host a game, or search and type a friends name or something similar to that, is so simple to do. Maybe in consoles they do different, maybe that's why your saying in some cases its difficult... Oh well.

--- Replying to severe_009 -----

Well with no dedicated servers for MW2 this is impossible to just search out someone unless you know them.

Although I am not sure how Spec-ops works on PC.

"Although I am not sure how Spec-ops works on PC."

Its the same on the console version, so I guess we will experience this "In some cases it is difficult" thing you're saying.

Spec-Ops runs off the campaign engine, not multiplayer. I'm assuming it's the same deal as ODST.

Which means Hobo, developers need to start adding matchmaking for campaign and non-Competitive MP modes.

Their engines just have to support that because that's people's expectations.

I'm not surprised nor particularly too upset about this, but it's pretty dumb to have a "quick play" or "instant action" type mode and not have matchmaking of some sort. Operation Flashpoint 2 has a server browser AND matchmaking on both its multiplayer and co-op modes...no "campaign engine issues" there... Not to mention that World at War -- built with the same engine as MW2 -- has matchmaking for ALL of its modes, including co-op Nazi Zombies and co-op campaign missions.

--- Replying to txshurricane -----

Hehe was about to bring up WaW.

--- Replying to Biohzrd451 -----
For all of its setbacks, World at War seems to be the new Call of Duty standard for co-op accessibility.

Give me Treyarch's inventiveness on Infinity Ward's tech any day. The only reason I don't play it more than the Modern Warfare games is because of the WWII setting.

--- Replying to txshurricane -----

Yea Treyarch has always gotten a bad rap, I thought WaW was a decent enough game although like you I didn't care for the WW2 setting it has been done to death, however like you say the mulitplayer was accessible on all levels from campaign to competetive mp.

It's not a game-breaker for me, I appreciate the campaign mode and competitive multiplayer enough. However, simply from a design standpoint, what's unacceptably incompetent is that the Spec Ops mode has some scenarios that explicitly require two players and yet there is no public matchmaking. Thanks to my job I'm already on a work schedule that varies from day to day anywhere from different shifts to multiple shifts in one day. So because Infinity Ward was lazy I have to go to incredible lengths of arrangements and planning just to play a part of the game? I don't mind unlocking sections of the game but if a design flaw prevents me from easy access to content that I paid for in the first place that is entirely the company's wrongdoing and it's not at all unreasonable that the company be held accountable.

As for the World War 2 games... well we'll be getting reminded of how much better than us the WW2 generation was until the day we die.

Does anyone remember gears of war coop, you COULD play with strangers, but it was pointless as they would either quit or be loud mouth n00bs, or in one case, to drunk to work the controls. Personally, I don't find it a problem.

You run that risk on any public game, be it co-op or competitive. For people like me who don't know anyone with a compatible system in my normal day-to-day dealings, the only way to build up my online contact list is to just play with people through public matchmaking and hope for the best. So when there's a mode that is "co-op" but has no matchmaking that simply takes away options. I'd rather make my own choice not to deal with quitters or n00bs than have that choice made for me, you see.

I don't see -too- much of a problem with this, opposed to Firefight. One person, compared to three. . .

Then again, I'm looking at it from the opinion that I've always had my friend Nick to play Call of Duty with, and to watch my back. But one person isn't as hard to find as three that will stick with you, I think.

Kind of a bummer, I think, but given the "small"er nature of the mode, I don't find it too big a deal.

txs. you make a great point. If World at War was able to provide the type/amount of co-op game play they did there is no reason the new CoD does not.Im a pc gamer with a fairly good rig so I hosted most of my WaW co-op and meet lots of great ppl. Im new to pc gaming though so I dont have a big friend list and because of steam I had to use a different tag for my account, total P.I.A. Anyway my steam cod tag is railbender if anyone ever wants to play some co-op.

I believe the reason why they leave match making out of all these games is mainly business related

When there is no matchmaking and you want to play those coop modes, you may ask some of your own friends to buy the game. I know I have had many of my friends to buy coop games just to have someone to play with. I think the marketing staff of those companies are well aware of this - the game sells itself when people start to ask their friends to buy them.

I think that is also big part of the reason why game companies nowadays have more interest in coop; those games sell better, when all the players need also their friends to buy the same games. Money is also the reason why system link and splitscreen are less frequently implemented.

--- Replying to severe_009 -----

like Zonf said, YES. side note-- I've had borderlands for awhile now, even joined the BL cooptimus list. I can't find a single person who's playing when I'm able to play.

Yeah I am against that lazy statement too. I have a number of friends I play games with, but not surprisingly, we don't all play at the same time ALL the time and we don't all like the same game ALL of the time.

--- Replying to Deriaz -----

Agreed. It wouldve been cool to have matchmaking for it, but its only for one other person which kinda seems unecessary. WaW on the other hand had four player co-op through matchmaking which made it easier, but thats four players.