****Official Call of Duty Modern Warfare 3 thread****

I have no idea then if they have nerfed it to the point a point blank shot is not a one shot kill its a little silly, maybe it will be addressed in a patch or they are trying to force a change in the play style i dont know.

I do know that the UMP45 is not the weopon it was in MW2, i can only assume they have done this and other changes to force new guns to beadopted as the main choice as to force a differant feel to the game in comparison to MW2
 
pretty shocking recycling portions of older games but it isnt soley down to 'derps' as you so eloquently put it :rolleyes: its down to lack of choice.

People bye call of duty because it is an arcade shooter, it is infact the only arcade shooter worth buying. Bf3 doesnt do what cod does so shouldnt be sentanced together, if a developer steps foreward with a title that is fast paced, close quarted and hectic, free flowing and takes no time to jump in and play cod would be either forced to step up or close down for good. lack of choice is why cod thrives.

EDIT++++
Theres a reason quake III was so successful, infact all the ones listed above. you think its coincidence the whole franchise iS engineered around that very same engine?
 
Last edited:
Played for around an hour last night and they have left it almost the same with a few changes but the smgs are still too OP if you ask me.

Also no SLI, not that it needs it but come on.

So far I regret buying it.
 
Kanifee said:
its down to lack of choice.

People bye call of duty because it is an arcade shooter, it is infact the only arcade shooter worth buying. Bf3 doesnt do what cod does so shouldnt be sentanced together, if a developer steps foreward with a title that is fast paced, close quarted and hectic, f4ree flowing and takes no time to jump in and play cod would be either forced to step up or close down for good. lack of choice is why cod thrives.
Click to expand...


I disagree. The lack of choice exists because the "derps" ie mainstream gamers who don't know seem to know any better buy into this crap year after year and present developers with an easy cash cow for minimum effort. People will whine that COD is recycled but these same people are the ones shelling out for it every year. Why should developers innovate and develop decent games when the massess just fork out for the same garbage every year?
 
Kanifee said:
Theres a reason quake III was so successful, infact all the ones listed above. you think its coincidence the whole franchise iS engineered around that very same engine?
Click to expand...

The quake 3 engine was used because most of the Devs were from 2015 and their first actual game was MOH:AA, so they had experience with that engine and already had licensing to use it.
 
Last edited:
Okatsu said:
I disagree. The lack of choice exists because the "derps" ie mainstream gamers who don't know seem to know any better buy into this crap year after year and present developers with an easy cash cow for minimum effort. People will whine that COD is recycled but these same people are the ones shelling out for it every year. Why should developers innovate and develop decent games when the massess just fork out for recycled garbage every year?
Click to expand...
I honestly don't see how this is any different to people that shell out £10 every month to play WOW or whatever other online wizard game. Just seems it is 'fashionable' to hate COD/COD players. Just as it was fashionable to hate "Micro$oft" and iPhone owners. Are WOW players not doing exactly the same if not worse by paying £120 a year, year in year out for the same game?
 
Last edited:
If there was a viable alternative it would sell. saying that developers shouldn't innovate and develop decent games because theres a franchise churning out recycled titles is a cop out, thats exactly why they should innovate, if they are not then no one can complain that the cash cow is selling shed loads.

Christ competition is now a reason not to operate a business
 
Hating on CoD is actually quite justified these days tbh. We've witnessed several years of decline in gaming , both in quality and quantity and the Call of Duty franchise has been at the very forefront of this descent into total mediocrity. The article i linked to above illustrated just how much this crappy derpy franchise has hurt innovative game development. It has nothing to do with a "fashion" to hate on COD, it's fully deserving and justified. And just because WoW players do the same thing doesn't take away the fact that COD is the bane of the gaming world these days.
 
Metallifux said:
MW3 is more fun? Purely your opinion I understand, if you enjoy quick scoping kiddies on tiny maps that shouldn't even have sniper rifles then that's your bag.
Click to expand...

At least quickscoping takes some skill rather than just the blast and pray rpg style of BF3. Plus the map designs or control points rather in BF is truly awful. Open maps they say? 60% of the maps are just wasted space and its only that big to accomodate the totally weak jets.
 
I disagree about quickscoping being skillful; you just need to put a tiny blob of something that won't harm your screen where your crosshairs would normally meet and it's literally the easiest thing in the world.

Back to the game: so is this new IWNET 'better' that MW2's? Have you players had lots of the usual migration/host/connections problems etc?
 
Okatsu said:
Speaking of Quake - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W1ZtBCpo0eU

This video sums up it up quite well.
Click to expand...

seriously, no one has stated the game is ground breaking, gloriously beautiful or dynamic and new it is what it is and thats why people buy it. the melodrama of your cod hate is quite funny, 'forefront of this descent into total mediocrity.' Choice or lack of, poor gamesand other usual crap is to blame for cods singular grasp on the arcade fps market.

Gaming is in a good state of affairs and by no means descending into total mediocrity. plenty of titles that are innovative, ground breaking and new.

rage
BM AA
Crysis
Portal
Metro 2033
BF3

these are recent ones off the top of my head, strong titles all bringing there own innovation, ive struggled to think of a arcade shooter, i cant bar the cod series think of one decent one, theres a whole in the market but no one wants to plug it.
 
peterattheboro said:
At least quickscoping takes some skill rather than just the blast and pray rpg style of BF3. Plus the map designs or control points rather in BF is truly awful. Open maps they say? 60% of the maps are just wasted space and its only that big to accomodate the totally weak jets.
Click to expand...

Funnily enough I have no issue with getting sniped from the "wasted space" or the battlefield as it is otherwise known, I do however have an issue getting shot point blank with a sniper rifle when running around a corner. After dumping black ops because of this and getting BFBC2 in the steam Xmas sale last year I just can't go back to the run and gun of COD. Which is a shame as I truly loved COD 2 and MW1.
 
Gerard said:
The quake 3 engine was used because most of the Devs were from 2015 and their first actual game was MOH:AA, so they had experience with that engine and already had licensing to use it.
Click to expand...
i wasnt implying they used the engine because they new it would be this successful or was there cherry pick of a bunch, im saying that cod is successful because it has the same attributes that made quake III so successful, thats down to the engine. and no other fps offers those attributes.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom