Modern Warfare 3

stevenmu

If you compare games to books, then MW is a rollercoaster. It doesn't have the intellectual engagement of a third level physics textbook, it doesn't even have the intellectual engagement of 'Spot the dog'. It's not even a book. But it's still a hell of a ride and lots of fun.

Black Ops didn't really do it for me, but I loved MW and MW2 and I'm looking forward to this a lot.

Edit: and I don't really care about the engine, MW/MW2 looked more than good enough. Besides I thought the motto of the games forum was "we don't care about graphics" ?

Dcully

Magill wrote: »

Probably why its the smoothest shooter for the consoles.


I dont get the hate that people give CoD. Obviously a lot of people love it or else it wouldn't be so popular. Instead of giving CoD **** you should be directing it towards the other shooters out there... its the other studios job to come up with something better... and so far none has (For consoles obviously)

People always come out with the same old ****.... "OH ITS SUCH AN EASY GAME!" and that it requires no skill. Yet, they're probably the same guys that get 10 kills in a game of dom.

You see some of us loved COD the way it was and thats our downfall and poison in our food.
Personally i probably slate it more than the game deserves, as a multiplayer game its ok fun for a quick bash every now and then but as a veteran cod player its hard to stomach what they have done to the series.
If i never played COD 1 or 2 i wouldnt know any better and most likely take the game on its own merit therefore i dont blame the new crop of players for loving the game, if they enjoy it fair play to them.
Personally I view what the series today as a new cod, todays games and yesterdays games only share a name "call of duty" i dont see them as the same series anymore, its easier to stomach this way lol

Seriously though,I still pop in and out of mw2 every now and then on pc mostly if i see a friend on steam playing, its a great looking game and can be fun if played with the right people.
I also play with my son on 360, we have two 360s and two live accounts but hes begging me for my old pc since i got my new rig so i dunno how long the 360 buts will last
I just tell myself "this is not cod as you know it old man, just enjoy it for what it is" which helps a lot until some guy knifes me from 10 feet away while im pumping him full of lead and my illusion is shattered lol.

IMO MW2 is still the superior game compared to BLOPS, if mw2 had dedicated servers id probably play it more, i cant stand waiting in lobbies etc, i usually just say screw this and boot up another fps with dedicated servers.

Potential-Monke

stevenmu wrote: »

If you compare games to books, then MW is a rollercoaster. It doesn't have the intellectual engagement of a third level physics textbook, it doesn't even have the intellectual engagement of 'Spot the dog'. It's not even a book. But it's still a hell of a ride and lots of fun.

Black Ops didn't really do it for me, but I loved MW and MW2 and I'm looking forward to this a lot.

Edit: and I don't really care about the engine, MW/MW2 looked more than good enough. Besides I thought the motto of the games forum was "we don't care about graphics" ?

This. Everyone gives out about MW, but it has a strong following of people who are looking for a fun shooter, not necessarily a realistic physics bullet shooter, but a fun game. Thats what MW is, and i'll be getting it.

Magill

Dcully wrote: »

You see some of us loved COD the way it was and thats our downfall and poison in our food.
Personally i probably slate it more than the game deserves, as a multiplayer game its ok fun for a quick bash every now and then but as a veteran cod player its hard to stomach what they have done to the series.
If i never played COD 1 or 2 i wouldnt know any better and most likely take the game on its own merit therefore i dont blame the new crop of players for loving the game, if they enjoy it fair play to them.
Personally I view what the series today as a new cod, todays games and yesterdays games only share a name "call of duty" i dont see them as the same series anymore, its easier to stomach this way lol

I also play with my son on 360, we have two 360s and two live accounts but hes begging me for my old pc since i got my new rig so i dunno how long the 360 buts will last
I just tell myself "this is not cod as you know it old man, just enjoy it for what it is" which helps a lot until some guy knifes me from 10 feet away while im pumping him full of lead and my illusion is shattered lol.

IMO MW2 is still the superior game compared to BLOPS, if mw2 had dedicated servers id probably play it more, i cant stand waiting in lobbies etc, i usually just say screw this and boot up another fps with dedicated servers.

Some people just don't like change, its the same with a lot of games (CS 1.6 players still give CSS a hard time ! I used to aswel before I actually gave it a chance). Now I dont really have a choice as I cant PC game anymore soooo i take the next best thing, which happens to be cod... trust me if something awesome like CS came to console (A proper version... not that old xbox ****e ) i'd be dropping cod in an instant as i've never really been a CoD fan until about this time last year.

Seriously though,I still pop in and out of mw2 every now and then on pc mostly if i see a friend on steam playing, its a great looking game and can be fun if played with the right people.

Thats just it tho, COD is all about who your playing with, if your playing with friends it can be a great laugh. Unfortunately without the dedicated servers there isn't much of a community so it can feel a bit empty playing on your own.

krudler

Potential-Monke wrote: »

This. Everyone gives out about MW, but it has a strong following of people who are looking for a fun shooter, not necessarily a realistic physics bullet shooter, but a fun game. Thats what MW is, and i'll be getting it.

COD is an arcade shooter, its not realistic in any way, if it was you wouldnt have perks thats allow you to run for an infinite amount of time or not show your body head on a thermal scope. Its a laugh to play when you're playing with friends and we've had some absolutely hilarious nights playing it on the COD forum with the regulars. I mostly play hardcore these days, team killing on, no hud, no uav map, no scores popping up when you kill someone, very little noobtubing or commando knifing, its the way to go if you want old school COD.

Kiith

krudler wrote: »

COD is an arcade shooter, its not realistic in any way, if it was you wouldnt have perks thats allow you to run for an infinite amount of time or not show your body head on a thermal scope. Its a laugh to play when you're playing with friends and we've had some absolutely hilarious nights playing it on the COD forum with the regulars. I mostly play hardcore these days, team killing on, no hud, no uav map, no scores popping up when you kill someone, very little noobtubing or commando knifing, its the way to go if you want old school COD.

To be fair, Battlefield isnt exactly real either. It's more realistic, but that's mnot saying much. If you want realistic, play Arma2.

boiledeggs

People who complain about COD and Battlefield for not being too realistic should check out the ARMA series on PC and the Operation Flashpoint games.

Games like COD and Battlefield are designed as entertainment set in a realistic setting.

Anyway MW3 looks fun and seems like will be entertaining.

Burgo

boiledeggs wrote: »

People who complain about COD and Battlefield for not being too realistic should check out the ARMA series on PC and the Operation Flashpoint games.

To add to that Red Orchestra is another realistic game along the same lines as those you mentioned.

irish_whiskey

I think COD will always be my first choice of game for an FPS. Arma and Red Orchestra, worth a buy or are they even possible to find now?

merc.ie

There has been nothing fresh from this series since COD4 and MW3 doesn't look to be bringing anything new to the table either - it's just the same game with new maps. But that's what their fans seem to enjoy, a familiar engine and gameplay system from the get go and a new game in which to rank up and unlock stuff (and camp for killstreaks )
I doubt that there will be any new innovation from Call of Duty before the next generation of consoles are released. Bring on Red Orchestra 2, Battlefield 3 and eventually Arma 3 I say.

funky penguin

Think I'll rent it out and play the single-player, it's all I'm interested in.

krudler

merc.ie wrote: »

There has been nothing fresh from this series since COD4 and MW3 doesn't look to be bringing anything new to the table either - it's just the same game with new maps. But that's what their fans seem to enjoy, a familiar engine and gameplay system from the get go and a new game in which to rank up and unlock stuff (and camp for killstreaks )
I doubt that there will be any new innovation from Call of Duty before the next generation of consoles are released. Bring on Red Orchestra 2, Battlefield 3 and eventually Arma 3 I say.

so essentially the same as any sequel ever then, hell nintendo have basically been making the same Zelda game since Ocarina Of Time with different settings but its almost identical, I bet the first boss on Skyward Sword is a plant you kill with a boomerang :pac:

Potential-Monke

krudler wrote: »

so essentially the same as any sequel ever then, hell nintendo have basically been making the same Zelda game since Ocarina Of Time with different settings but its almost identical, I bet the first boss on Skyward Sword is a plant you kill with a boomerang :pac:

x2 What more innovation can CoD bring? If they bring destructible buildings, etc and vehicles they'll just be copying Battlefield. If they introduce forcefields they're copying Halo. I can't see what more can be introduced tbh, and it's working great as an arcade shooter. If it's more MW with some tweaks to help alleviate non-sniper camping, with decent maps and killstreaks that don't count towards your killstreak, i'll be a happy happy man. Oh, and no subscription or preorder only ****e. But thats just hoping too much.

Darragh McD

The fact that battlefield is coming out a week or two before mw3 means that most people who think both look great will probably only be able to afford one which will probably be battlefield as it's out first.

problems with battlefield are:
There will be DLC from day one which is a bit cheap in fairness they could have just put it on the disk. Plus the fact that the DLC and some editions of the Games have more weapons mean that online multiplayer may be ruined and kinda unfair if everyone is using really powerful stuff that only some people have which will frustrate players with no special editions or DLC

Usually infitity ward is bad at supporting games but they do make a good game no doubt MW2 was fun and no1 can deny they liked it and it does boast good fair equal online with equal weapons for all which makes the game more interesting as you see nice/weird weapon combo's.

I personally will be holding out for MW3 battlefield is just a little slow paced for me

Spear

Darragh McD wrote: »

problems with battlefield are:
There will be DLC from day one which is a bit cheap in fairness they could have just put it on the disk. Plus the fact that the DLC and some editions of the Games have more weapons mean that online multiplayer may be ruined and kinda unfair if everyone is using really powerful stuff that only some people have which will frustrate players with no special editions or DLC

The Back to Karkand DLC is at least free to everyone who pre-orders, plus there are no versions with extra weapons now. Those with the Physical Warfare Pack just get them earlier then others.

Kiith

Darragh McD wrote: »

...but they do make a good game no doubt MW2 was fun and no1 can deny they liked it...

Eh, I can.

Dave_The_Sheep

Kiith wrote: »

Eh, I can.

Likewise.

A few good moments in single player - but generally more of the same done with less style and more shock value than CoD4. It's a far inferior single player game than it's predecessors and in multiplayer the lack of dedicated servers means you're waiting for multiplayer all the time, the maps aren't as well designed.

I really didn't like it. Admittedly, I went into it with a negative outlook, but it did nothing to dispel that bar the one or two good points of the single player campaign.

Needless to say I won't be getting MW3, unless I see it for less than €5.

the_big_shmoke

saw the recent trailers.... it looks exactly the same as mw2,
i think the title mw3 is a bit generous, mw2.5 at best.

Whats happening man

the_big_shmoke wrote: »

saw the recent trailers.... it looks exactly the same as mw2,
i think the title mw3 is a bit generous, mw2.5 at best.

isn't MW3 just a continue of MW2 when the Russians invaded the USA--The game is always going to look the same until better hardware comes out.720 maybe a year or two still away from hitting the stores.

Twilightning

Whats happening man wrote: »

isn't MW3 just a continue of MW2 when the Russians invaded the USA--The game is always going to look the same until better hardware comes out.720 maybe a year or two still away from hitting the stores.

There are games out on this generation's current hardware that look a lot better than Modern Warfare so it's no excuse. It's laziness.

marco_polo

Whats happening man wrote: »

isn't MW3 just a continue of MW2 when the Russians invaded the USA--The game is always going to look the same until better hardware comes out.720 maybe a year or two still away from hitting the stores.

Which may be a valid arguement if the PC version of MW3 didn't look the exact same as MW2, and Battlefield 3 wasn't getting a major graphical overhaul across all three platforms (And this from someone who doesn't play and won't be getting either game)

krudler

marco_polo wrote: »

Which may be a valid arguement if the PC version of MW3 didn't look the exact same as MW2, and Battlefield 3 wasn't getting a major graphical overhaul across all three platforms (And this from someone who doesn't play and won't be getting either game)

yeah but Battlefield is a sequel to a game that came out 6 years ago, MW2 isnt 2 years old yet. Does Arkham City look that different to Asylum? nope, same engine. Gears 3 doesnt look all that different to Gears 1, and thats 5 years old now, just more polished looking but same engine again. Same with Assassins Creed, Uncharted 3, and a half dozen other sequels coming out this year. the IW engine works and I dont mind having the three Modern Warfare games all looking similar as they're direct sequels. if this ends the Makarov storyline then and it begins a new franchise or they go in a different direction for the next one then yeah a new engine would be cool.

Thing about MW though, its still one of the slickest looking MP games on console, hell it probably is the slickest looking, because it runs at 60fps instead of 30fps and it makes a massive difference, its why its so fast paced. MW games are arcadey, fast paced and not to be taken seriously, its not the same type of fps as Battlefield, I'll be buying and hopefully loving both of them.

gizmo

Judging from the info in this preview it looks like they've at least listened to fan feedback regarding some of the more annoying perks in the multiplayer. I'm especially interested to see how they deal with the gun handling which was far too samey in MW2.

Twilightning wrote: »

There are games out on this generation's current hardware that look a lot better than Modern Warfare so it's no excuse. It's laziness.

Name some that run at 60fps please.

Magill

krudler wrote: »

yeah but Battlefield is a sequel to a game that came out 6 years ago, MW2 isnt 2 years old yet. Does Arkham City look that different to Asylum? nope, same engine. Gears 3 doesnt look all that different to Gears 1, and thats 5 years old now, just more polished looking but same engine again. Same with Assassins Creed, Uncharted 3, and a half dozen other sequels coming out this year. the IW engine works and I dont mind having the three Modern Warfare games all looking similar as they're direct sequels. if this ends the Makarov storyline then and it begins a new franchise or they go in a different direction for the next one then yeah a new engine would be cool.

Thing about MW though, its still one of the slickest looking MP games on console, hell it probably is the slickest looking, because it runs at 60fps instead of 30fps and it makes a massive difference, its why its so fast paced. MW games are arcadey, fast paced and not to be taken seriously, its not the same type of fps as Battlefield, I'll be buying and hopefully loving both of them.

I give up arguing with the haters krudler, like talking to a brick wall. They'll simply ignore any good arguments against their points and slabber on about something completely different.

ShadowHearth

krudler wrote: »

yeah but Battlefield is a sequel to a game that came out 6 years ago, MW2 isnt 2 years old yet. Does Arkham City look that different to Asylum? nope, same engine. Gears 3 doesnt look all that different to Gears 1, and thats 5 years old now, just more polished looking but same engine again. Same with Assassins Creed, Uncharted 3, and a half dozen other sequels coming out this year. the IW engine works and I dont mind having the three Modern Warfare games all looking similar as they're direct sequels. if this ends the Makarov storyline then and it begins a new franchise or they go in a different direction for the next one then yeah a new engine would be cool.

Thing about MW though, its still one of the slickest looking MP games on console, hell it probably is the slickest looking, because it runs at 60fps instead of 30fps and it makes a massive difference, its why its so fast paced. MW games are arcadey, fast paced and not to be taken seriously, its not the same type of fps as Battlefield, I'll be buying and hopefully loving both of them.

Right. Let's be civil here.

Mw3 uses same engine with no improvements since mw2. It's upgraded quake 3 engine for gods sake!

Gow is a perfect example for what tactics cod franchise is using. Minimal spending on design, but great advertising campaign.

Why uncharted 3 and batman arkham city getting away with it? Well maybe, because they domt look like a relic from last century.

I still had some faith in mw3, as sp videos looked prety cool. I will admit it, and I have no problem with doing it so. I will even put it up. I personally think that mw3 sp might be better then bf3 sp.

Multiplayer is a different story now. It's a mw2 with new map pack, but it's a shame how blind fans are. If they expect me to pay 60eu for game plus 60eu sub for a year, for mw2 worh new skins, then they can go feck themselves.


It's not haters, it's blindness. If you will be happy playing mw3, then "good luck to ya", like Dara Obriain says.

gizmo

ShadowHearth wrote: »

Mw3 uses same engine with no improvements since mw2. It's upgraded quake 3 engine for gods sake!

It's an upgraded Quake 3 engine in the same way that Half Life ran on an upgraded Quake engine. Basically, there may be some legacy code in there for handling low level, backend stuff but everything else has been rewritten over the years.

This is also ignoring the improvements, however minor, the engine will have gotten between iterations. This is also, of course, based on viewing the released trailers so far.

ShadowHearth wrote: »

Gow is a perfect example for what tactics cod franchise is using. Minimal spending on design, but great advertising campaign.

Most fans wouldn't want a drastically new design for the third installment in a trilogy. Hell even when it does happen, it'll either piss a bunch of people off, see Mass Effect 2, or simply make the game worse, see Dragon Age 2.

ShadowHearth wrote: »

Multiplayer is a different story now. It's a mw2 with new map pack, but it's a shame how blind fans are. If they expect me to pay 60eu for game plus 60eu sub for a year, for mw2 worh new skins, then they can go feck themselves.

But it's clearly not just a new map pack from both the previews and the footage shown at XP over the weekend. The game may look the same as MW2 from the footage shown so far (I even commented the same way when I watched the trailer) but from what I've read since, there's a whole host of new stuff in there from new killstreaks/perks/strike packages, guns, maps and game modes which should provide able entertainment for those purchasing it.

ShadowHearth wrote: »

It's not haters, it's blindness. If you will be happy playing mw3, then "good luck to ya", like Dara Obriain says.

A whole lot of it is though. There aren't many games out there which get as much flak as Call Of Duty, the only other one I can think of is Halo. I'd chalk this up to one of three things:

• The series has reached a critical mass of popularity which means everyone has an opinion of it. Those who aren't fans will often resent its popularity and rip it into whenever they can.
  
• The game itself has changed dramatically over the years, in ways which fans of the original installments will more than likely dislike. As a result you have a large number of people who will be happy to rip into it.
  
• The series gets an annual release which is generally only an iteration on the previous version. This will always rile some people up. One need only look at the EA Sports series to see a similar thing happen.

Don't get me wrong, I have serious reservations about the series as it is and there are plenty of valid complaints to be made about it, but an extremely large amount of hate I read about is just that, hate with little to no substance or reasoning behind it.

Whats happening man

marco_polo wrote: »

Which may be a valid arguement if the PC version of MW3 didn't look the exact same as MW2, and Battlefield 3 wasn't getting a major graphical overhaul across all three platforms (And this from someone who doesn't play and won't be getting either game)

Yes, I see your point in a way. But the fact is, and it is a fact MW2 and MW3 nowadays are been marketed to the needs of the console gamer. Years ago way back games were developed for the PC gamer.

Plus, radically changing the Call of Duty game could do more harm then good in the long run. The fact is Call of duty's are made because there is a market there for this game! People who love this game no want their getting, but millions, still go and buy the game online and elsewhere year after year.

Honestly a Gaming company like Activision will never overhaul the Call of Duty franchise when its selling as it is and bringing inwards loads of cash for their shareholders and their employees.

Whats happening man

Magill wrote: »

I give up arguing with the haters krudler, like talking to a brick wall. They'll simply ignore any good arguments against their points and slabber on about something completely different.

Gears games are much harder to play online anyways then most other shooters.

The call of duty' games involves your character doing a marathon around the map in a circle to get kills. Silly really,

Magill

Whats happening man wrote: »

Gears games are much harder to play online anyways then most other shooters.

The call of duty' games involves your character doing a marathon around the map in a circle to get kills. Silly really,

What has gears of war got to do with anything.... and its pretty ****ing simple aswel...

Whats happening man

Magill wrote: »

What has gears of war got to do with anything.... and its pretty ****ing simple aswel...

Slow down there now Rambo. I was just pointing out something.

The Gears of War multiplayer requires the player to have lot more gaming skills to be successful.

An obvious example of this and there is many like this_ but how is easy it to get a kill with the Sniper playing Call of Duty?

From what I see you just aim and shoot player dead) With Gears you have to steady your shoot and get a head shot to kill the gears character. Body shots can injure and will bring the character to the ground.

If you want realistic sniping Gears has it buddy.