COD: MW3

MW2 and Black Ops were both in development for two years.

Third page get in a row, beeyatches.

COD games are generally evolutions from the previous.

I genuinely like Enternius so i'm sorry to do this to him lol.

Hey guys the only things they have in common are the game engine... all those guns, killstreaks, perks and everything have been changed...

changed....

as in... revamped... expanded...

Everything Enternius rattled off as being changed erratically made me giggle inside because change is never "new content". But on the flip side... if anyone here is to play call of duty for the RIGHT reason... Enternius also provided a legit reasoning and excuse for playing it... which to his credit.. is very fair.

You've got your flak jacket DW or shotgun goonies running about too. I just feel (as a run/gun person) that the movement and action seems much closer ranged and faster paced in BO than it does in MW2. MW2 movement seems about what it should for a soldier with 60lb in gear on. BO seems like someone with track shoes grabbed a gun and a couple of clips and took off running.

Did he just rag on the last 3 iterations of COD, and fail to play any of the last 2? Wow...

MW2 took two years to make? I've played that game, and if that ***took two years to make then I'm honestly not surprised that Kotick fired most of IW after that.

All of these points are from the perspective of Blops.

* No Shotgun secondaries
* No Stopping Power Shotguns/Snipers weaker than in MW2.
* Dual Mags attachment, which is realllly strong
* Flak Jacket for great resistance to explosives
* Worse hit detection
* Guns feel more similar
* Guns have slightly more recoil
* Killstreaks do not stack
* No Commando :D
* Gameplay slightly slower due to the Ghost perk
* Inclusion of the Blackbird; IMO most overpowered killstreak CoD has seen
* Maps generally not as sniper-friendly as MW2's
* Quickscoping more difficult due to an initial aim offset
* Tactical Insertion can be cancelled while dead

There are other things too, but this is just the start.

I will have to agree with earlier posts about COD lacking team work. COD from its core promotes camping and self preservation over all else. With kill streaks being the main objective every match there is no reason to risk running a map with a team and losing to other campers waiting for you near objectives. I played MW1, Black Ops, and MW2; there is something to be said about team work and how it helps to keep you alive. The best example for this is your squad camps while you let the other noobs run into fire and give away the other teams positions. Then you know where to fire or send your Streak bonus's toward to get more kills. Now THAT is the best example of team play and strategy used in all three of the last COD games. My group of online friends me and my brother played with where ranked in the top 10 for the first 3 weeks on both MW1 and MW2 because we used the other players to give us the enemies positions and build kill streaks. My brother and I get tired of camping though so we are usually the pushers in our groups that try and force the other team into our parties cross fire. I will always say that Battlefield has more strategy and team play then any MW has or probably ever will. But MW is more like Unreal but with modern weapons, while Battlefield is more like a Halo minus the shields. As for me I just buy all the games and play them til I get bored just like FFXI and FFXIV, play for awhile try something new. Verity is the spice of life. Oh and as far as story modes on both games I love the MW story line.

What

This is Modern Warfare 2 we're talking about.

The general concensus around a lot of FPS forums is that if you took MW2, and took out all the BS like Commando, Grenade Launchers/One Man Army, Painkiller, and Last Stand, it would have been one of the best, if not the best FPSs ever created. It got some of the highest aggregate ratings of any FPS, even (substantially) higher than BF3 is getting now. Only difference is that the community completely ruined the game.

i seen the bf3 gameplay , the graphics look so good, that it requires a powerful video card if you going to play it on pc

Winning isn't reason enough?

The team who camps the most normally loses.

I'm not an FPS aficionado but...there just wasn't alot there. I shot through the campaign, which was average, not bad, but not mind-blowing, then played a few hours of multiplayer and was done.

Actually, they technically dissolved not too much after that. If I recall correctly, Activision kind of stabbed them in the back, taking employees and making a mess with the development and launch of MW2. It was sabotaged before it ever left IW studios. This is the largest reason for the huge change of employment, the 'dissolution' of IW for a short time, the bid of Treyarch for BO, and the reason IW and Treyarch had to work somewhat hand in hand on parts of MW3.

I suspect MW3 to ascend the failures of MW2, whilst not being plagued by the terrible matchmaking programming of Treyarch.

Okay Winning is the main reason. But DON'T play Team Objective and then try to win with a Tactical Nuke.

And no the Team that camps in one position and never moves to camp another Loses. But sitting still and waiting for players to come to you instead of actively seeking to move to the objective is still camping.

Someone also mentioned that server versus p2p. Halo did P2P and never had as many hackers or connection errors as MW2 did, so it can be done right if you have a community and developer that cares.

The other issue is downloadable content. Seriously they have 3 scheduled downloads planed and ready to be released within the next 3 months. Just put them in the game to start with or give them free for people that took a chance and bought your game the first week. But wait you can save $50 by buying a Halo Waypoint type software to track your achievements and get the maps for less then $25 per down load.

Also if anyone wanted a great story line for a FPS, should have tried Medal Of Honor from last year. First time in a FPS I actually felt something for a character other then hatred.

As I stated earlier, I don't hate MW3 I already have my presale and I will play it. I just think that everyone that is comparing it to other games should understand that it isn't supposed to be Team Friendly or Realistic by any means.

Probably has something to do with the era of "we're actively seeking people playing with the connections or hacking, and they are permabanned" that came at the height of Halo 2

Soon this will turn into a convo about what matters more, K/D or W/L. I dont camp, but I don't rly care about W/L. I have no problem backing out of a extremely one-sided game and taking the loss.

Edit- Backing out =/= dashboarding. People that dashboard are annoying.

K/D obv!

Score per minute is all that matters now ; )

I didn't read everything in this thread, but felt like I needed to comment on someone saying BF3 was slow. I'm not going to disagree completely because it depends on how you play. Snipers/campers, jets, etc. will make it slower paced, but if you grab really any kit and go charging after the objective you're almost always going to be in a gun fight with someone. Jump in a tank and you almost always have people popping rpgs at you or have aircraft trying to shoot at you.

On topic about CoD though, I've played every one except CoD2 for ps2. I've always enjoyed the campaign and will probably be the main reason I pick up this one. I've never thought the multiplayer was bad in itself, but comparatively it's never been great.

One thing I've always fancied since MoH way back on ps1 was offline multiplayer. Packing a few friends in the same room and playing on the crappy 4-way split screen was always fun and I like that CoD still offers that, along with the zombie mini-game. I mean c'mon, who doesn't want to kill Nazi zombies?

I'm sure I'll end up maxing out my rank(*edit: excusing prestige; *** that ***XD) on CoD, but it all depends on how long BF3 and Skyrim keep me busy. Not to mention I've been thinking about playing XI again.

IT'S A TRAP!


This will probably be my least played COD as Skyrim launching so close is going to eat up a lot all of my gaming time.

A very well set trap at that. :(

Fortunately, in my most recent return, it did not feel anywhere near the same. Being disappointed playing it was the only way to break the cycle. Those memories will all but be replaced by Skyrim and Skyward Sword I hope.

I've actually never played an Elder Scrolls game. My friend and a few trailers just recently got me interested. The amount of possible game play seems insane for a single player game though.

Well, as far as what I said earlier and x being marketed as bad or not...for me it comes from the following perspective:

I used to play CPL for CS and stopped at 1.5, but I also really liked playing Americas Army before they came out with the actual SF patch (1.8-2.0? Somewhere in there) This was at the same time BF2 was getting a little bit old and BF Vietnam and 2142 were lulzy. AA never went CPL so it was only CAL for that, but my team won plenty of local and US tournaments to include one that the US Army never paid us for (It was their money put up, lol).

I then went to COD and then COD4. COD4 on the PC was a nightmare, basically just grenades everywhere, super fast paced death fest - then I got it on 360 and as far as HC S&D - I really liked it. Same goes for any COD game, HCS&D is a really really fun game mode and requires strategy but I can't really get behind any other game mode in COD. After Blackops and its continued use of the same spawn system for other game modes (CTF, HQ) as WAW used I quit COD altogether and went back to BFBC2. I'm not a camper by any means and I've dropped as many nukes or more than anyone here. I don't mind run and gun but I dislike no strategy and I dislike easily out thinking opponents simply because there aren't enough ways to strategically beat a certain defense or playstyle.

Might torrent COD8 for the story, was surprised by BF3's story though. It wasn't too shabby and had an interesting way to tell it.

Not unheard of to put a good 300hrs + into it.

Look at some of the gameplay (which is everywhere now), I think it would be well worth it's price in entertainment value.

Q4E

Coming from someone who rapes pretty much any lobby I am in, I will admit that a team of 5+ people that actually work together can walk all over me. You just can't beat the efforts of 5+ people who are collaborating to cover flanks, lure traps, and fire from multiple angles at all times.

COD: MW3 Truck Raided in Armed Robbery

Again, this, I dont care how good you are, you cannot beat 5 x the firepower :)

reminded me of the summer olympics for basketball.
a team of NBA all stars working individually couldn't win.

then next olympics they won gold I think?