MW3 DETAILS LEAKED (possible spoilers within)
- Thread starter AGD
- Start date
Soldato
- Joined
- 24 Sep 2005
- Posts
- 20,189
- Location
- Middlesbrough
Haters are gonna hate.
Believe it or not but people actually enjoy COD games and will buy them because they are fun to play.
I'm totally not bothered about it being on an old engine. So many games in the past have been ruined because they've used new engines and they've just changed the characteristics of the game and ruined the fun.
UT i'm talking about. Epic Games tried to make it better with UT2003 and actually made it worse. It looked shiny though
Believe it or not but people actually enjoy COD games and will buy them because they are fun to play.
I'm totally not bothered about it being on an old engine. So many games in the past have been ruined because they've used new engines and they've just changed the characteristics of the game and ruined the fun.
UT i'm talking about. Epic Games tried to make it better with UT2003 and actually made it worse. It looked shiny though
Soldato
- Joined
- 17 Apr 2007
- Posts
- 23,162
- Location
- stat city
I can't believe the amount pc gamers hate this game. I thought mw1 and 2 were excellent.
Seriously though, what other FPS game matched MW2 in terms of intense gameplay in 2009/2010 on the pc?
Seriously though, what other FPS game matched MW2 in terms of intense gameplay in 2009/2010 on the pc?
Haters are gonna hate.
Believe it or not but people actually enjoy COD games and will buy them because they are fun to play.
I'm totally not bothered about it being on an old engine. So many games in the past have been ruined because they've used new engines and they've just changed the characteristics of the game and ruined the fun.
UT i'm talking about. Epic Games tried to make it better with UT2003 and actually made it worse. It looked shiny though
Then went on to make UT2004 with the same engine which is considered one of the best unreal s from a competitive standpoint. People can enjoy COD, i have no issue with that. The issue I have is how this game has effected the rest of the industry, I would like to see developers be creative or push technology.
Developers currently have no incentive to be creative when millions buy the same old re-hashed product. This is not just a crack at COD but also FIFA and other franchises that come out every year with little to no innovation and people blindly buy them.
They also went on to make UT3, which kinda makes your point muted.
Soldato
- Joined
- 24 Sep 2005
- Posts
- 20,189
- Location
- Middlesbrough
I think more people still play UT'99 than UT2004/UT3 combined though.
I can't believe the amount of pc gamers who actually care what this franchise is doing now.
Haters are gonna hate.
Believe it or not but people actually enjoy COD games and will buy them because they are fun to play.
I'm totally not bothered about it being on an old engine. So many games in the past have been ruined because they've used new engines and they've just changed the characteristics of the game and ruined the fun.
UT i'm talking about. Epic Games tried to make it better with UT2003 and actually made it worse. It looked shiny though
Baaaaa *cough* sorry something stuck in my throat.
Yes CoD4 was fun to play... its also pretty much exactly the same as MW2 and BO. But hey, sheep just can't wait to pay out £40 so they can be playing the same game everyone else is despite the fact theres very difference from the last game.
The problem is Deific... even if people couldn't give a damn about CoD anymore, other developers and publishers seem to care and attempt to mimic it which just leads to other game sucking too. You always know you're in trouble when a game dev mentions CoD as something to aspire to.
We all know it will be full of slowmotion sequences, on rails vehicle shooting, shopping trolley movement, laser eye surgery levels of weapon accuracy, dated engine, while all the time trying to hide the fact that its the same game. Before someone calls me a hater who likes to hate I played COD from the start up until and including COD4.
Last edited:
So you haven't played MW2 or Black ops so yeah, not much of a valid opinion then really. Atleast base it on fact instead of assumption.
Sorry. Who are you to decide whose opinion is valid or not? It's an OPINION. I believe it's more of the same.
Last edited:
I've already played mw2 and blops, because I've played cod4. Playing cod4 reskinned doesn't make it a new game you knows? lolol
Yeah because the single player from COD4 was used in both MW2 and Black ops....
Sigh at the anti-cod kid crowd lately on here.
No, those mere 5 hours of ridiculous incoherent gameplay were different. But the other side of the game, the multiplayer, which the cod franchise has relied and been built upon, are copy & pasted reskins which you buy time and time again and bend over, opening wide in the process.
However reading the plot of MW3, in which you skip all over the world, playing a variety of people in a multitude of blockbuster, action-packed scenarios, suggests the story in this is going to be equally over the top, cringeworthy and laughable as the last two games.
Last edited:
Sorry but the fact that the player base of even the last 2 games is truly massive and the reviews of both where pretty good, plus being two of the better console ports in recent times, mean your probably being naive in your assessment of what you actually want in a game to be honest.
If you have a problem with "over the top blockbuster storylines" why don't you go and play a simulation then? You do realise that in the first COD games you took out half of nazi germany single handedly right? Oh no sorry I forgot that people's memories don't stretch that far back anymore when it comes to story telling and "realism".
I see no problem with buying the game if it provides what its meant to do, aka ENJOYMENT. If the game is genuinely crap when its realised, I'll be the first one to slate it for what it actually is, yet I doubt it'll be garbage due to the sheer amount of funding and public spotlight centred on the franchise.
COD multi-player including BLOP's are enjoyable and offer a good challenge imo, people criticise the CODs for being arcadey and run and gun, just sounds like a bunch of old men moaning 'cos the game is too quick for their rapidly deteriorating reactions. If you want to **** off behind a bush with your sniper rifle for 5 hours then go and play BFBC2.
Last edited:
Soldato
- Joined
- 22 Feb 2010
- Posts
- 5,263
- Location
- Southampton
cod4 was excellent at the time
mw2 and black ops were, for me, a massive waste of money
unless mw3 is really really darn good then they will have to prise my money out of my cold dead hand
mw2 and black ops were, for me, a massive waste of money
unless mw3 is really really darn good then they will have to prise my money out of my cold dead hand
I have played all 3 of the modern day titles and have to say I thoroughly enjoyed playing all of them for the 90% of the time.
I really enjoyed the singleplayer storylines (except the endings) massively, though cod4 mw2 are "continuations" as such... the new items to the storyline n different scenes do fully it make it like a new game entirely and is brilliant. Same with BLOPS just incredible storyline and this has to be favorited SP story.
The multiplayer? Well I am growing to like it more. cod4 this for me was flawless just great all round multiplayer wise and the best gameplay and nicest maps etc... mw2 MP - simply for me HATE IT just maps chosen in that title are rubbish. Blackops is somewhere inbetween I thinnk for me personally, The new system of how upgrades and such are with then COD points is a a nice new system though takes away from the old weopan challenges. Some great maps and weopans and attachments great to add such personal diversity.
Though I feel takes away slightly from the particular player experience. Saying this though I am a BF fan I must admit, but even Bad company 2 sometimes seems good and bad! One thing I love about the BF titles are the map sizes, if COD games had maps bigger like Battlefield then it would be epic! For pure enjoyment multiplayer wise and such I always go back to BF2 which is one of the oldest games and first of modern combat FPS but just seems better than what both BC2 and COD games offer.
I hope BF3 will excel even further!
I really enjoyed the singleplayer storylines (except the endings) massively, though cod4 mw2 are "continuations" as such... the new items to the storyline n different scenes do fully it make it like a new game entirely and is brilliant. Same with BLOPS just incredible storyline and this has to be favorited SP story.
The multiplayer? Well I am growing to like it more. cod4 this for me was flawless just great all round multiplayer wise and the best gameplay and nicest maps etc... mw2 MP - simply for me HATE IT just maps chosen in that title are rubbish. Blackops is somewhere inbetween I thinnk for me personally, The new system of how upgrades and such are with then COD points is a a nice new system though takes away from the old weopan challenges. Some great maps and weopans and attachments great to add such personal diversity.
Though I feel takes away slightly from the particular player experience. Saying this though I am a BF fan I must admit, but even Bad company 2 sometimes seems good and bad! One thing I love about the BF titles are the map sizes, if COD games had maps bigger like Battlefield then it would be epic! For pure enjoyment multiplayer wise and such I always go back to BF2 which is one of the oldest games and first of modern combat FPS but just seems better than what both BC2 and COD games offer.
I hope BF3 will excel even further!
I've played them all (I own all of the recent titles on both the PC and the 360) because I'm an FPS junkie, and I have to say that the COD titles, from a creative perspective, are quite possibly the worst thing to have happened to the FPS genre.
Don't get me wrong, COD 4 was good, but I remember a time when skill at arms, teamwork and initiative were far more important than perks, builds, prestige and killstreaks. The latter having invaded most multiplayer FPS games these days. One only has to look at the likes of Homefront, etc to see the attack of the clones. There's no need to drive the genre forward, because the COD formula sells millions.
It has been mentioned by some that those of us who fondly remember the originals are looking at it through rose tinted spectacles, and that they contained equal quantities of ridiculousness. That simply isn't true. I don't remember driving around Sainte-Mère-Église with a remote control car bomb, I don't remember killing Hitler in slow motion with a ballistic knife. If COD were given a "Modern Warfare" makeover, this type of stuff would no doubt be in there.
The originals were obviously as action packed as the new ones, but they had one thing that the current games lack. Pacing! Without pacing, deadly machine gun fire isn't deadly machine gun fire, it's just "noise". In terms of multiplayer, each side had appropriate loadouts and classes: German infantrymen with K98ks, MP40s, etc. MW multiplayer is full of stupid immersion breaking crap like US Rangers with akimbo shotguns, Spetznatz teams manned entirely with 100 meter dash world record holders, who happen to have really long arms, etc.
I'm not saying that there's no place for a ridiculous, bombastic gaming experience, but there are those of us who buy COD every year simply because there is no middle ground between cheesy, ridiculous, over-the top nonsense and something like ARMA.
Of course I doubt we'll see any variation in the status quo, since, like the Sims, the masses eat this **** up.