Modern Warfare 3 - Opinion and Fixes

Terminate421

New member
Jul 21, 2010
5,773
0
0
OP, obviously you didn't player older call of duty's enough to see the significant differences.

Also, Noobtubes are done with, they are used but ever so rarely, and even then they are NOT nearly effective as before.

Guns feel nice, though I feel its a little unfair that I am using Kick proficiency on the majority of them.

THe only gun I am kinda dissapointed on nerfing was the M16, thats only because I love the gun so much. The same reload animation as the M4 :( and the fire rate is so low but the only reason I used it is because it looks cool.
 

Terminate421

New member
Jul 21, 2010
5,773
0
0
Ldude893 said:
Just finished playing the Modern Warfare 3 campaign from start to finish, and all I have to say is this:

Damn.

I'm glad I finally finished this series but...damn.
The campaign had a VERY effective plot twist. I feel ALMOST like going back the other parts of the campaign and seeing if I can find the characters in those moments.
 

omega 616

New member
May 1, 2009
5,883
0
0
Hero in a half shell said:
Decided to watch the video at 1:00 onwards just as you said and found this particular kill quite interesting, managed to capture it using my 1337 Youtube and photoshop skills to bring you this:


Not that I'm weighing in for or against quickscoping, but that is some blatantly heavy aim-assist
Thank you sir! You are a true hero! It was actually the shot I had in mind as well.

Satsuki666 said:
Look at the post directly above your one to me, tell me that shot is on target, I dares ya! Unless a sudden and severe gust of wind corrected that bullets flight path, there is no way it would clock that guy in the head!

MetallicaRulez0 said:
It's about 20% luck/80% aim assist give or take a few percentage points.
Fixed that one up for you.

Not many people are into the whole masochistic gaming experiance, yet all I see on youtube is "epic snipin' montage" back by god awful music after "epic snipin' montage" back by god awful music (wordy, I know), which means ... quickscoping is easy and effective.
 

thedeathscythe

New member
Aug 6, 2010
754
0
0
I disagree with all your points except the one about joining the losing match. I do despise that.

I find quickscoping to be more of a skill. I've tried it and I did 5-12. I in no way helped my team and was no way overpowered. I remember in MW2 you could do knifing classes, and do 20-5 on your first try. THAT was OP. Quickscoping is just a talent of the user and you can't claim that that is OP.

Nube tubes are weaker now. In fact, I think ALL explosives are weaker now. The maps are a a lot smaller and you're more vulnerable but I think in my 10 hours+ of multiplayer, I have died maybe 4 times to nube tubes. Grenades, I think they're weaker now too, I don't get killed by and rarely kill with grenades. They can work well when you use them right, but random grenades just don't work anymore. You don't even have time to cook them, so you can't even get an early grenade off.

Akimbo weapons get defeated from a distance. Yes, I said the maps were smaller and faster, but they do have long lines of sight, and they need to have steady aim to make use of that. That takes up their Perk slot, they'll probably miss Sitrep, or more likely, dead silence (unless they run a specialist streak).

Assassin Pro so far seems pretty OP, but I've been finding people haven't been running it as often. If you go with a Support Streak, you will probably run Assassin Pro, but if you go with an Assault Class, you probably want Hardline Pro, so that you have a better chance of getting your streaks. I find all in all, there is a lot of balance in the game. Besides Assassin Pro, all the weapons seem balanced, maps, and pretty much the whole set up. MW2 was a mess in terms of balance, and it was never patched. Black Ops started unbalanced, but was patched frequently. Still, Ghost Pro was rampant and you could NEVER call in aerial support since every had anti-air as their secondary (since all the secondary weapons sucked).

I find there's like 80% new killstreaks, perks have maybe 25% of them new but they're more balanced. Overall, the multiplayer is solid. If anything, the maps lend themselves against sniping, so sniping is underpowered if anything.

As for story mode, I liked it. The game is about the start of a fictional world war three, did you expect it to be realistic? Why not make it big? I felt like I was in an action movie, it was super over the top, but it was exciting and awesome. The story line wasn't as good as the first and second, but this was meant to be the end of the war, not really the plot-twisting start of it like MW and MW2 were.
 

HappyPillz

New member
Apr 15, 2009
130
0
0
ohgodalex said:
uh, CoD is advertised as both. did you watch any live streams of the game? we weren't watching live streams of campaign. they streamed team deathmatch. Call of Duty fans (myself included) are basically going to buy the new game regardless of how much advertising they do for the multiplayer aspects. That said, there were multiple multiplayer feature trailers out prior to the game's release and I think you're being a bit silly if you suggest that MW3 was primarily advertised as a single-player experience. i'm pretty sure I even heard a member of infinity ward say that he knew fans stuck around for the multiplayer. they're under no delusions over there.

also, your camping fix is literally insane. if someone is camping with a silenced weapon, why should other players be notified of their location? if a player is camping, don't enter their lane after you've identified their strategy.
i also don't think that "noob tubes" are that much of an issue in mw3. personally, i don't use them, and i haven't encountered or been annoyed with too many players who have.
I never said that MW3 was advertised as a primarily single player game. I said it was time it was advertised as multiplayer only. There's a difference. They could probably save themselves a lot of time and staff if they just didn't bother with campaign and devoted all their time to the multiplayer.

And if they had a silenced weapon, then the red dot wouldn't show up at all, like normal. I waswriting from my experience that a lot of campers don't use silenced weapons.
 

HappyPillz

New member
Apr 15, 2009
130
0
0
Terminate421 said:
OP, obviously you didn't player older call of duty's enough to see the significant differences.

Also, Noobtubes are done with, they are used but ever so rarely, and even then they are NOT nearly effective as before.

Guns feel nice, though I feel its a little unfair that I am using Kick proficiency on the majority of them.

THe only gun I am kinda dissapointed on nerfing was the M16, thats only because I love the gun so much. The same reload animation as the M4 :( and the fire rate is so low but the only reason I used it is because it looks cool.
Are you kidding? I've spent so many hours on CoD since Modern Warfare 1, and every game has felt slightly different, except MW2 and MW3.

And I agree that the guns for the most part are well done, though I've kind of felt that they all feel the same. If I switch from an M4 to the SCAR or ACR, there is very little difference other than gun sounds.
 

HappyPillz

New member
Apr 15, 2009
130
0
0
Rarhnor said:
I personally loved the campaign. I think you're going a bit too form over function and content with it. The story and it's twists really immersed me, especially doing the chapter in France.
A russian ex-spetsnaz running alongside revolting french citizens as they storm an ultra-nationalist battalion with a mighty war-cry is just awe-inspiring. They were wearing skater helmets and sneakers, for gods sake, but were fighting with more glorified enthusiasm than I've seen anyone do the whole series through.

Videogames really are subjective...
Remember that moment when the Eiffel Tower came crashing down towards you, ending up just fifty meters away? Clearly supposed to be an awe inspiring sign as to what state the world is in. And nobody even notices? The EIFFEL TOWER, one of the Earths most iconic buildings practically falls on your squad, and nobody even says, "Damn" or anything. They just stand there. Things like that just jolted me out of any immersion I might have had.
 

HappyPillz

New member
Apr 15, 2009
130
0
0
thedeathscythe said:
I disagree with all your points except the one about joining the losing match. I do despise that.

I find quickscoping to be more of a skill. I've tried it and I did 5-12. I in no way helped my team and was no way overpowered. I remember in MW2 you could do knifing classes, and do 20-5 on your first try. THAT was OP. Quickscoping is just a talent of the user and you can't claim that that is OP.

Nube tubes are weaker now. In fact, I think ALL explosives are weaker now. The maps are a a lot smaller and you're more vulnerable but I think in my 10 hours+ of multiplayer, I have died maybe 4 times to nube tubes. Grenades, I think they're weaker now too, I don't get killed by and rarely kill with grenades. They can work well when you use them right, but random grenades just don't work anymore. You don't even have time to cook them, so you can't even get an early grenade off.

Akimbo weapons get defeated from a distance. Yes, I said the maps were smaller and faster, but they do have long lines of sight, and they need to have steady aim to make use of that. That takes up their Perk slot, they'll probably miss Sitrep, or more likely, dead silence (unless they run a specialist streak).

Assassin Pro so far seems pretty OP, but I've been finding people haven't been running it as often. If you go with a Support Streak, you will probably run Assassin Pro, but if you go with an Assault Class, you probably want Hardline Pro, so that you have a better chance of getting your streaks. I find all in all, there is a lot of balance in the game. Besides Assassin Pro, all the weapons seem balanced, maps, and pretty much the whole set up. MW2 was a mess in terms of balance, and it was never patched. Black Ops started unbalanced, but was patched frequently. Still, Ghost Pro was rampant and you could NEVER call in aerial support since every had anti-air as their secondary (since all the secondary weapons sucked).

I find there's like 80% new killstreaks, perks have maybe 25% of them new but they're more balanced. Overall, the multiplayer is solid. If anything, the maps lend themselves against sniping, so sniping is underpowered if anything.

As for story mode, I liked it. The game is about the start of a fictional world war three, did you expect it to be realistic? Why not make it big? I felt like I was in an action movie, it was super over the top, but it was exciting and awesome. The story line wasn't as good as the first and second, but this was meant to be the end of the war, not really the plot-twisting start of it like MW and MW2 were.
It could be that all of the problems I've had have just stemmed from the bad,
World at War/Black Ops type maps. I guess we will find out after the DLC if they add maps with a bit more breathing space.

After MW2 I can't say I expected it to be realistic at all, but the campaign was beyond just action movie. It was like Transformers mixed with GI Joe. And extremely repetitive. When you compare the amazing and immersive campaign from CoD4 to MW3, you can really see just how cartoony it is.
 

Bobic

New member
Nov 10, 2009
1,532
0
0
You say that you dislike camping, then come up with a solution to noob tubing that practically enforces camping.

I'm going to quote many a robot here and say 'Does not compute'.
 

HappyPillz

New member
Apr 15, 2009
130
0
0
Bobic said:
You say that you dislike camping, then come up with a solution to noob tubing that practically enforces camping.

I'm going to quote many a robot here and say 'Does not compute'.
It doesn't enforce camping because you only get two shots. My problem with noob tubing really is that people just equip their grenade launcher and run around with it as their primary, blasting whoever walks in front of them.

Though I've played a fair bit more and haven't had that much issue with noob tubes. Camping seems extra rampant in this one though, probably because the maps are such a mess.
 

SeeIn2D

New member
May 24, 2011
745
0
0
The gun's kill far too quickly. They are insta-kill. Taking out Stopping Power was one of the worst things they could have done, because now they turned the damage up all the way to the point that most guns kill in what appears to be like 2 shots. I don't know if the damage is way up, or if it's a combination of the damage being raised and the guns shooting quickly, but I do know they need to make them kill a bit slower. Maybe make them require one more bullet to kill across the board.
 

thedeathscythe

New member
Aug 6, 2010
754
0
0
HappyPillz said:
thedeathscythe said:
-snipped my stuff-
It could be that all of the problems I've had have just stemmed from the bad,
World at War/Black Ops type maps. I guess we will find out after the DLC if they add maps with a bit more breathing space.

After MW2 I can't say I expected it to be realistic at all, but the campaign was beyond just action movie. It was like Transformers mixed with GI Joe. And extremely repetitive. When you compare the amazing and immersive campaign from CoD4 to MW3, you can really see just how cartoony it is.
That's true, and I was playing some MW3 and a thought donned on me; what kind of clusterfuck will ground war be on these maps? I sort of wanted a party of 9 since there was conveniently 9 of our group online, but we split up 5 and 4 because we all feared how bad ground war could potentially be on these maps. The 4 of us played 4v4 team tactical, which is actually an excellent number of people for these maps, and the others played 6v6 team death match. As it stands, I think THIS is the game for team tactical, maps aren't too big for it, in fact they seem catered towards it.

I'm with you on what map packs they release, I'm really curious as to if they make the same sized maps, maybe even smaller ones like Shipment from CoD4/Rust from MW2, or if they go for bigger maps to mix things up, like Overgrown from CoD4 and such. It will be interesting to see what route they take. They could even take a couple routes just to add some mixture to the game.

I'll agree with you on that too though. I did like the campaign of MW3, but CoD4 was by far the most immersive. CoD4 was action packed without being too over the top, MW2 added to that, MW3 however is a little over the top. I would've liked it more if it was kind of turned down a notch. I still had a good time, but you're right on point about the immersion, and that's probably what is most memorable about CoD4 to me.
 

HappyPillz

New member
Apr 15, 2009
130
0
0
SeeIn2D said:
The gun's kill far too quickly. They are insta-kill. Taking out Stopping Power was one of the worst things they could have done, because now they turned the damage up all the way to the point that most guns kill in what appears to be like 2 shots. I don't know if the damage is way up, or if it's a combination of the damage being raised and the guns shooting quickly, but I do know they need to make them kill a bit slower. Maybe make them require one more bullet to kill across the board.
I only just noticed this after unlocking the Focus proficiency for my SCAR. I thought,"This might have been useful in Black Ops, where it was actually possible to survive a hit". Instead every gun is a one to three hit kill. I'd say two bullets more to kill across the board, other than snipers, which are beyond help.
 

Rarhnor

New member
Jun 2, 2010
840
0
0
HappyPillz said:
Rarhnor said:
I personally loved the campaign. I think you're going a bit too form over function and content with it. The story and it's twists really immersed me, especially doing the chapter in France.
A russian ex-spetsnaz running alongside revolting french citizens as they storm an ultra-nationalist battalion with a mighty war-cry is just awe-inspiring. They were wearing skater helmets and sneakers, for gods sake, but were fighting with more glorified enthusiasm than I've seen anyone do the whole series through.

Videogames really are subjective...
Remember that moment when the Eiffel Tower came crashing down towards you, ending up just fifty meters away? Clearly supposed to be an awe inspiring sign as to what state the world is in. And nobody even notices? The EIFFEL TOWER, one of the Earths most iconic buildings practically falls on your squad, and nobody even says, "Damn" or anything. They just stand there. Things like that just jolted me out of any immersion I might have had.
I sort of agree. But, many moments throughout the story highlights the fact that war is just plain cold, especially when civilians are involved.

I didn't expect any of the characters to honor the fall of the Eiffel tower, mostly because they are just glad to be alive, and keep focus on that thought.
The level you have in mind is about survival. They were fighting for their lives, with the different characters yelling: "Last clip!" and "If were gonna die, we'll take them with us" (or something like that). The fall of the Eiffel tower came across as a symbol of the sacrifices that are made in waging war. Weighing human life over Eiffel tower. (at least to me)

The fact that you feel bummed out about it is good, because it makes you feel distanced from war, BECAUSE it is as cold, as it is. They gave up something that defines, what they were fighting for, to stay alive. The short-term happiness.