So yesterday I bought Lead and Gold and after playing it during the first weekend of it's release I can say 2 things with upmost certainty:
 
1) Lead and Gold is a bad game.
 
2) Lead and Gold, while still being bad, got screwed over hard by MW2.
 
Now to address number 1, Lead and Gold is bad game because of some pretty confusing game design decisions. The main thing being how experience works in this game. You see lead and gold, like every other multiplayer game to be released after modern warfare 1, has an experience system. The problem is that this is one of the most poorly handled experience systems this side of a modern final fantasy game. 
 
Yes, you rack up levels, but you only gain levels for your current match. So why even have levels to begin with? Well lead and gold also has a buff system in place to where you emit energy around your fellow team mates that gives them better stats and bonuses. Buffs depend on class and their effectiveness depends on the level you gain in a multiplayer match. 
 
In theory this is all very interesting. The problem is when you actually sit down and play the game you realize that buffs don't mean jack which makes the entire leveling system completely pointless.  Add to the fact that the default controls just felt too twitchy and you have a multiplayer game with some serious problems.
 
Now to be fair, Lead and Gold does have some good game modes that can prove to be fun. You have powderkeg (in which one team tries to defend points on the map while the other tries to destroy them), then you have greed (each team tries to steal a sack of gold from the middle of the map and bring it to their base), battlefield (it isn't called that in the game, but come on it's freaking battlefield), team death match, and a game mode that david jaffe would love: robbery (a combination of powderkeg and greed). After playing the game for a while I can say that robbery, and greed seem to be the two game modes that are the most fun and the two modes that fit the wild west theme the best. However I didn't get that much of a chance to play those modes that often because of point number 2.
 
MW2 screwed this game over. Now if you're reading this at a later date let me explain what's going on as I'm typing this. Lead and Gold was just released for PC's via digital distribution for 15 bucks during the weekend of April 9th 2010. Obviously steam was their major source for distributing the game. So what does steam do during this weekend that lead and gold needed to succeed? They make one of the most popular video games of all time free for the weekend causing all the potential buyers of Lead and Gold to play that instead. 
 
This lead to Lead and Gold being an empty game during the time that it needed to be full the most. I just got done trying to play quick matches and the only games I could find had 2 people in them. I couldn't even find games in some of the game modes that I thought would be interesting. I still haven't played Lead and Gold's team deathmatch. Yet when I look on my steam friends list I see why, everyone is playing Modern Warfare 2. 
 
Now I don't think valve meant for this to happen, infact when you load up steam now you'll see Lead and Gold front and center.... but to the side you'll see modern warfare 2 for free. What I think happened is that activision knew that during the week of Lead and Gold's release nothing was coming out so they went to valve and asked them to do a promotion for Modern Warfare 2. They did, and now a game that had a chance to succeed may be in jeopardy because of it.
 
But, Lead and Gold still wasn't that good to begin with. I'm not going to give it a pass because it's an indie game that doesn't have a major publisher behind it. That's the wrong thing to do. However seeing an indie developer not have a chance to succeed isn't good too. 
 
Lead and Gold is a bad game, but it's a bad game that should have had a chance.

So yesterday I bought Lead and Gold and after playing it during the first weekend of it's release I can say 2 things with upmost certainty:
 
1) Lead and Gold is a bad game.
 
2) Lead and Gold, while still being bad, got screwed over hard by MW2.
 
Now to address number 1, Lead and Gold is bad game because of some pretty confusing game design decisions. The main thing being how experience works in this game. You see lead and gold, like every other multiplayer game to be released after modern warfare 1, has an experience system. The problem is that this is one of the most poorly handled experience systems this side of a modern final fantasy game. 
 
Yes, you rack up levels, but you only gain levels for your current match. So why even have levels to begin with? Well lead and gold also has a buff system in place to where you emit energy around your fellow team mates that gives them better stats and bonuses. Buffs depend on class and their effectiveness depends on the level you gain in a multiplayer match. 
 
In theory this is all very interesting. The problem is when you actually sit down and play the game you realize that buffs don't mean jack which makes the entire leveling system completely pointless.  Add to the fact that the default controls just felt too twitchy and you have a multiplayer game with some serious problems.
 
Now to be fair, Lead and Gold does have some good game modes that can prove to be fun. You have powderkeg (in which one team tries to defend points on the map while the other tries to destroy them), then you have greed (each team tries to steal a sack of gold from the middle of the map and bring it to their base), battlefield (it isn't called that in the game, but come on it's freaking battlefield), team death match, and a game mode that david jaffe would love: robbery (a combination of powderkeg and greed). After playing the game for a while I can say that robbery, and greed seem to be the two game modes that are the most fun and the two modes that fit the wild west theme the best. However I didn't get that much of a chance to play those modes that often because of point number 2.
 
MW2 screwed this game over. Now if you're reading this at a later date let me explain what's going on as I'm typing this. Lead and Gold was just released for PC's via digital distribution for 15 bucks during the weekend of April 9th 2010. Obviously steam was their major source for distributing the game. So what does steam do during this weekend that lead and gold needed to succeed? They make one of the most popular video games of all time free for the weekend causing all the potential buyers of Lead and Gold to play that instead. 
 
This lead to Lead and Gold being an empty game during the time that it needed to be full the most. I just got done trying to play quick matches and the only games I could find had 2 people in them. I couldn't even find games in some of the game modes that I thought would be interesting. I still haven't played Lead and Gold's team deathmatch. Yet when I look on my steam friends list I see why, everyone is playing Modern Warfare 2. 
 
Now I don't think valve meant for this to happen, infact when you load up steam now you'll see Lead and Gold front and center.... but to the side you'll see modern warfare 2 for free. What I think happened is that activision knew that during the week of Lead and Gold's release nothing was coming out so they went to valve and asked them to do a promotion for Modern Warfare 2. They did, and now a game that had a chance to succeed may be in jeopardy because of it.
 
But, Lead and Gold still wasn't that good to begin with. I'm not going to give it a pass because it's an indie game that doesn't have a major publisher behind it. That's the wrong thing to do. However seeing an indie developer not have a chance to succeed isn't good too. 
 
Lead and Gold is a bad game, but it's a bad game that should have had a chance.

Well, they still have a chance to make money from the console versions. Interesting thoughts, though.

Thanks for your impressions. That sounds like a pretty dismal situation for Lead and Gold, it really looked quite interesting. 

You're doing it wrong.  The game may have its share of problems, but there's nothing bad about it.  You're just missing the point.
 
Leveling, if nothing else, is not useless because it improves your accuracy (every level you gain decreases your spread).  And saying buffs don't mean jack is ridiculous when I can think of numerous times during the beta where I was in trouble because I was taking on people who still had the Blaster's armor buff; unless they've significantly nerfed the buffs since the beta (and I don't believe they did), it sounds to me like you just keep getting out of range for your team's buffs to work and getting screwed because of it.
 
Friend you got to back up your statements if you're going to say something as meaningless as "they don't mean jack."

 
Also, what the flying fuck does Lead & Gold have to do with Modern Warfare 2?  A levelling system which exists in both games doesn't mean it's the same or even used in the same method as the other.   Now, be a good boy and take your head out of your arse for just a minute. 

" @SeriouslyNow said:

 
Also, what the flying fuck does Lead & Gold have to do with Modern Warfare 2?  A levelling system which exists in both games doesn't mean it's the same or even used in the same method as the other.   Now, be a good boy and take your head out of your arse for just a minute. 

Whoa, you need to re-read what he wrote. "

" @emkeighcameron said:

" @SeriouslyNow said:

 
Also, what the flying fuck does Lead & Gold have to do with Modern Warfare 2?  A levelling system which exists in both games doesn't mean it's the same or even used in the same method as the other.   Now, be a good boy and take your head out of your arse for just a minute. 

Whoa, you need to re-read what he wrote. "

No I don't, you need to reread what he wrote because he claims that the XP levelling is useless because it gets reset at the end of a match. "

" ...
 
Now to address number 1, Lead and Gold is bad game because of some pretty confusing game design decisions. The main thing being how experience works in this game. You see lead and gold, like every other multiplayer game to be released after modern warfare 1, has an experience system. The problem is that this is one of the most poorly handled experience systems this side of a modern final fantasy game. 
 
Yes, you rack up levels, but you only gain levels for your current match. So why even have levels to begin with? Well lead and gold also has a buff system in place to where you emit energy around your fellow team mates that gives them better stats and bonuses. Buffs depend on class and their effectiveness depends on the level you gain in a multiplayer match. 
 
..."

" @Geno:  He says it's a bad game by using its levelling system's lack of traction between plays as an example which is bullshit.  It's not a bad game and his requirement that the game keep XP between plays shows that he misses the point of the game on the whole. "

I fail to see how it is a "bad game." It is $14.99 on Steam right now, and it a decent-looking, decent-playing third-person shooter with interesting gameplay mechanics. Maybe I'm being nitpicky, but, to me, there's a difference between a "bad game" and a "game that I don't like." I think that, for $14.99, you are getting a rather good game for your money. 
 
But yes, you are right, they sure did get screwed by Activision... but I'm not quite sure it was intentional. What kind of threat do they pose to one of the highest-selling games of all time? :\

Well it seems like this little blog started a flame war.
 
I think I should take this time and back up myself instead of having other people do it. 
 
@iAmJohn said:

" You're doing it wrong.  The game may have its share of problems, but there's nothing bad about it.  You're just missing the point. Leveling, if nothing else, is not useless because it improves your accuracy (every level you gain decreases your spread).  And saying buffs don't mean jack is ridiculous when I can think of numerous times during the beta where I was in trouble because I was taking on people who still had the Blaster's armor buff; unless they've significantly nerfed the buffs since the beta (and I don't believe they did), it sounds to me like you just keep getting out of range for your team's buffs to work and getting screwed because of it. Friend you got to back up your statements if you're going to say something as meaningless as "they don't mean jack." "

" @Geno:  He says it's a bad game by using its levelling system's lack of traction between plays as an example which is bullshit.  It's not a bad game and his requirement that the game keep XP between plays shows that he misses the point of the game on the whole. "

• The Trapper is a badly designed class. Now The Trapper is a sniper class so it would be better for her to be far away from the action so that she could be used effectively. The problem is that her special ability is a bear trap which can only be used effectively right in the middle of where the action is taking place. Her special ability goes directly against what the class is good at. To make matters worse, the animation on her special ability takes so long that it makes her extremely vulnerable. Playing as her just made me think, "what the hell were the game designers thinking by giving her a bear trap?"
• The default controls were too twitchy. I actually said this in the blog post but I admit I just added it in at the last minute and didn't go into too much depth. Basically I felt that the sensitivity for the game was too high on the default settings and I also didn't like using the alt key for my character's special ability. Now thankfully the game designers did make it to where I could fix these issues but this did bother me.

• I don't see a point to keep playing this game. After playing the game on the first day and not having fun I just felt that this was a game that I didn't need to spend anymore time with. The game overall just felt hollow and like an unreal tournament 2004 mod. It didn't feel like a game I should spend more time with.

" I fail to see how it is a "bad game." It is $14.99 on Steam right now, and it a decent-looking, decent-playing third-person shooter with interesting gameplay mechanics. Maybe I'm being nitpicky, but, to me, there's a difference between a "bad game" and a "game that I don't like." I think that, for $14.99, you are getting a rather good game for your money."

I... I think it's a fun game :(

Interesting blog, but I think it's just a coincidence.  I don't think Activision would see L&G as being a real threat to their game.  I'm thinking it might be a way to try to drag people back in who have migrated over to Bad Company, since now it's not very new, and some people may be a bit tired of the Battlefield formula.

Lead and gold sucks because the PC version doesn't have a fucking windowed mode because the devs said it's "pointless" Yeah fuck you Fatshark.

• The default controls were too twitchy. I actually said this in the blog post but I admit I just added it in at the last minute and didn't go into too much depth. Basically I felt that the sensitivity for the game was too high on the default settings and I also didn't like using the alt key for my character's special ability. Now thankfully the game designers did make it to where I could fix these issues but this did bother me.

Lead & Gold's good stuff.  I think you're playing it wrong or something.

Well, it was made by the guys from Grin who made Bionic Commando, Wanted and Terminator salvation. There weren't any compelling reasons i could see to presume it would be good.

I love how Lead & Gold being bad is in some way represented as fact on the part of the poster. It's like "this game doesn't work like every other game I play, thus, it is no good to anyone". Love it. Amazing. Fantastic.

" @canucks23: Good for you. This is just my opinion that's all. Don't let it deter you from you're enjoyment of the game. 
 
@Fragstoff: I bought the game, I played it for a couple of hours, and I didn't like it. How does that make me unqualified to talk about the game? Should I have spent more time earning 40 more achievements so I could have the proper expertise like you? Sorry but I happen to have other games that I want to play. "

 @killlllly:  I did!  Yes I know it's kind of a petty complaint, but it did bother me a bit much. I'd still say my key complaints with the game are it's leveling up system, my feeling that the game feels hollow, and that I feel that battlefield heroes is a better game by comparison.
 
 @sofacitysweetheart:  It doesn't have to work like every other game I play, I just have to find enjoyment in it. Plus I'm not saying that no one should enjoy it. Hell read my response to canucks23, who did like the game, and tell me that I'm forcing opinions on people. I honestly don't mind if you enjoy the game, but if you're going to call me an asshole because I didn't enjoy the game then you better back it up in an intelligent manner.

lol@ saying all games after MW have an experience system. 
 
uh I guess you never played BF2.