LiquidSolstice said:
RexoftheFord said:
Bit late on this post, but I'll leave my input anyway. Maybe the reason everyone hates MW3 isn't cause it's popular or just a rehash. Maybe they hate it, because it's genuinely a shitty game. And considering the titles that've been released this year, it has very little shine to prominently display itself with pride. Let me explain.
Oh boy. This should be good.
Oh yes it should.
Single Player: Short, incoherent mess of story, AI that will kill everything for you, straight lines, slapped together.
Oh, it's an incoherent story because you couldn't understand it. I see.[/quote]
Not only because he couldn't understand it, but for how little sense it ends up making other than in an alternate universe where the US has 9/10ths of the worlds military all under its command, and the other 1/10th belongs to the enemy. There have been numerous posts in numerous threads pointing out the flaws in MW3's story, I'll leave you to find them.
To be honest, at the end of the campaign, I was wondering why I was in the areas I was in. Why was I in Africa? How about that large mansion? Wait, why did they capture the Russian President? Who is Yuri? Who is Frost? Where did Frost go? I've forgotten the game. Then again, easy to forget a 3-4 hour game on its hardest difficulty.
Did you try playing it a second time and not skipping all the cutscenes? Because the story made perfect sense (albeit a bit unrealistic). If you've got that little of an attention span, I don't know how you enjoy games like Skyrim or Deus Ex.
The CoD stories are stories that some don't feel like playing a second time due to how ridiculous they are, but maybe it would have made more sense if he did. And its not necessarily a matter of skipping cut-scenes, to put it in Yahtzee's terms, they games are hooked up to IV drips full of poprocks. In between all the explosions and other random stuff, it becomes hard to comprehend what is going on for those more accustomed to being given time to think on what has happened. Play Skyrim, Mass Effect, Dragon Age, Bioshock, ect. and you have plenty of time to wonder about what is actually going on, and to digest the individual occurrences. There are some people that prefer taking time to think about things, and then understand them as opposed to just accepting what is said and moving on. To the former, lots of information in s short time can become overwhelming. I am lucky that I can easily switch between the two, but I know others that can't. Some of the people I know can't comprehend faster paced stories as they were thinking about what happened 2 scenes ago, when something else happens and they've missed a lot of relevant information. Then there are those I know who can't think about things, and instead just pick up the info and move on. In the slower paced movies, like Inception (Which really wasn't that hard to understand), they are following each individual event, but not thinking about how that affects all 3 dreams at once. They then become confused when something in one dream happens due to an event in the other as they weren't told 'Oh gee, this will make X happen in dream Y'. Its not down to attention spans, but how individuals process information.
Graphics: Brown brown brown. SNES games have less capabilities but better aesthetic. This game looks like Morrowind, but without the fantastical whimsy of a RPG setting.
Yes, because WW3 is supposed to be full of unicorns, skittles, and fucking rainbows. What kind of logic is that? It's supposed to be gritty. If you wanted to be visually raped by color, buy any of the Katamari games instead. I don't understand why properly set lighting and color is a bad point of the game.
Crysis 2. BAM! (XD, always wanted to do that). Crysis 2 is set in a city. Those places that are usually only grey and black. In Crysis 2, it has colour. Why not have more plants in MW3 that have richer shades of green. Have some flowers with varied shades of varying intensity of varying colours in someone's garden. Have paintings with rich colours in interiors of places. Hell, for something simple, have some of the buildings have differently tinted windows, like the ones on that building near my house that are a blackish blue, like polarised lenses are. There are plenty of ways to add colour to a battlefield. Its all in details though. What I notice when playing CoD games is that often when there are things like trees and paintings and such, they will have very little colour to them. It will be one light shade of green with low intensity. Adding a strong colour pallet to the game would help to alleviate its other graphical issues with a better aesthetic.
As to why bad lighting and colour is a bad point in a game: Go back and play the original dooms. They are nice and fun games, they are shooters. Other than how bad the controls are, the main problem with the games is their bad graphics. Now, you could say 'CoD isn't as bad as that!', but then look at the other far better graphical games on the market: Most modern titles. BF3 being the big one at the moment. Get full PC BF3 graphics vs MW3 graphics, and MW3 looks horrible. Bad graphics as being bad for a game applies to all games in a sense of comparison. If you look at 8 bit games past the graphics, they are fun games. Many just see them and go 'They have crap graphics'. If it is ok to complain about some graphics being crap in comparison to others, it is fair to complain about any graphics being crap compared to others as obviously graphics matter.
They can even influence gameplay sometimes, in how recognisable each thing is from each other.
Is it necessary for a game to have good graphics to be good? No. Is a game worse because it has worse graphics? Yes. (Consider two identical games in all bar 1 aspect: Graphics. 1 game has better graphics than the other. Which is the better game? Obviously the one with the better graphics. Therefore, having worse graphics makes a game worse. How much worse depends on how much emphasis you put on graphics).
Video comparison: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4cCvA86ZxXc (I'm not sure what his settings for graphics were on but it looks like my game does on medium. Take that as you will).
Sounds: Guns sounds like you're shooting BBs.
If you're listening to them on the headphones that come with iPods, maybe. Care to show me a BB-gun that sounds like a MW3 gun?
The point is they sound plastic compared to guns in other games and RL. Play BF3. That is a well designed sound engine that delivers amazing sound, but the guns sound real, and the grenades and the tanks. The reason for this isn't actually the sound engine, though it makes it sound that much more amazing by applying echo effects to small rooms and such, but due to the fact that they went out and recorded the gun sounds from actual weapons fire at military bases, at numerous distances and in numerous different areas. Here is a video comparison:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nYXqXm_LLHg
MW3 guns sound like plastic models compared to BF3 ones, and thereby close enough to real ones.
Voice acting is stale, boring.
Really?!? Come on, now you're just fishing for things to hate. [/quote]
Its a complaint often made about a lot of games, and is true to an extent in a lot of titles these days. MW3 wasn't bad by any means, but it wasn't good either. Same goes for most games.
Story: See single player above.
Yes, the story that you didn't pay attention to. (Don't know why this didn't go with your "Single Player" section, it's not like any other part of the game has a story.
See above.
Multiplayer: You'd think a game that prides itself on its multiplayer would have had more work put into this. Maybe some dedicated servers.
So that what? People could make Wal-Mart maps with M60s that shoot out grenades? Break the ranking system? Otherwise cheat/boost their way through the game?
You know, you could do something along different lines. Any dedicated servers are unranked, non-dedicated servers are ranked.
There is nothing wrong with people wanting a dedicated server where they can do fun things. If handled correctly it can work. I.E: BF3 (Sorry I keep bringing this up) has servers that people rent out. If they run Punkbuster (The anti-cheat client for BF3) on the server, the server is allowed to be ranked. If they don't, the server is unranked. It allows for people to customise the way the play the game's multiplayer and have more fun because of it.
Besides, cheating does happen, even without dedicated servers, and rank systems do get broken. Removing dedicated servers is like DRM: It barely helps solve the problem, and takes away from the overall experience for some.
[quote
Fine tuning the spawn system. Working on coherent and workable map design.
I hear this so much about any game's spawn system. It makes me wonder if you realize this revolutionary idea; did you know that your enemies don't stay in the same place after they kill you? GASP. I'd ask you what part of the map design was "incoherent and unworkable", but then, I doubt you actually know yourself.[/quote]
BF3 I'm going to have to bring up again. The spawns in BF3, the main ones for each team that is, are non-enter-able for enemy soldiers. Any that try to will be killed in 10 seconds. Yes, this has led to some exploits with mortars, but that can be fixed. It is a nice way to ensure you can enter the battle without being insta-killed, unless your team is doing crap and the entire enemy team is standing just outside that barrier to your spawn, but then you wouldn't be having much fun anyway running out into battle and dying with no kills for 5 lives.
Honestly, a lot of your complaints just sound like the product of you getting annihilated in Multiplayer and deciding you wanted to blame it all on the game. I don't consider myself a "hardcore" player, but the map design certainly flows just fine. All the maps are built for tight and hectic gunfights to put the focus back on the guns and less on the killstreaks.
To an extent. Spawns are however terrible. Here is my first match online:
-Log in
-Spawn
-Die to someone who happened to be behind me when I spawned
-Wait
-Spawn
-Same guy has come back and kills me the second I spawn again
-Wait
-Spawn
-Walk outside the building I spawned in and get killed by person camping
-Wait
-Spawn
-Get killed by person hacking and spinning in circles with machine gun
-After about 8 incidents of the last point, rage quit
That mix of bad spawning and a hacker made my first game a literal wait, spawn, die.
And I will reiterate that focus is still on killstreaks, the building cover makes gunfights a bit more focused, but using a good killstreak you just got will come second to running around shooting everyone with the potential to lose that killstreak.
But, this is not the case. Maps are large, but are so cluttered with buildings, they seem tiny. In a word, claustrophobic.
Yes, people actually wanted cover from the killstreak-infested maps of MW2 where killstreak kills stacked and people had chopper gunners within 30 seconds of spawning.
A somewhat poor excuse, but typical of CoD and dependant on how people like to play. CoD maps have always been small, both in size and outside area, compared to BF maps. BF maps measure in Kms, CoD maps in meters. In BF3, people are in helicopters within 3 seconds of spawning, and are up in the air shooting things. How does everyone not get killed? They aren't highlighted for the chopper to kill, unless spotted by an enemy. Was it not thought of to remove that ability from the chopper instead of making each map more claustrophobic than the previous ones?
Dedicated servers? Nowhere to be seen on consoles. Same P2P system, which presents a problem. Lag lag lag. People complained about being shot around walls in BO, but this game has that problem ten fold.
Not in my experience, but then again, you seem to be determined to find reasons to dislike the game, so I guess that's not something I can argue with you about.
You will find this is actually a quite common complaint. Many people have complained about being shot around walls. On their screen, they move behind a wall for about 3 seconds then die. On the killcam, they wait outside the wall, then turn and move as they get shot then die. It was also the topic of one of the Critical Miss comics. The game has lag issues for some. Not all, but those that get them get them bad.
Connection is everything in this game, and it reminds me of GoW2 where host wins. Oh another problem with P2P. Dashboarding. Everyone takes a loss with this. Hitboxes are off. Blast shield perk is broken. Doesn't protect from any type of explosive. Considering a person without it can tank grenades and rockets, it seems unnecessary. Oh, commando's also built into the game. The spawn system is atrocious. You will be spawned behind immediately after you've killed someone, more often than not.
I haven't found any issues with knifing or the blast shield, or even hitboxes. (Keeping in mind I had major issues with their equivalents in Black Ops). But again, you're probably not going to change your mind.
Blast shield I've heard a few complaints about it, so there are some getting the issue. Knifing I've not heard much about, but I think it might go hand in hand with the lag and hitbox issues many do seem to be having. Hitbox issues might also be being confused for lag.
Overall, game's just shit. And that's why people hate it.
No,
you think it's shit, and that's why p
you hate it.
Can't argue there. Its why I almost always include my 'Include an 'In my opinion' please' line at the end of so many posts about CoD, whether hating it or loving it.
And considering much better games like Arkham City, Skyrim, or even older games like Deus Ex have been released this year, why waste your money on this one? Or if you've already bought it, why not go trade it in immediately for a better game?
It's strange to me you start off your post claiming you're going to factually explain why people dislike it, and then your actual content just turns out to be you mainly bitching about your internet connection and how you were incapable of understanding the storyline.
Lag is an issue in game. Hell, a few posts up from this one there is a link or quote from a 'How X system works' thing on one of MW3s systems, which will simulate lag for powerful PCs. Now, I doubt this is the issue being experienced by many, but there is a lag issue with MW3 for a great many people, both those who love and hate the game.
I mean seriously? How difficult could a Call of Duty game's storyline be to understand? It's ridiculously simple, it's not exactly a Dan Brown novel. I suppose if you found the Magic School Bus books to be complicated when you were a kid, you would understand.
Already covered above. Some may find a Dan Brown novel easier to understand than a CoD story line due to how they analyse each.
The thing is, I own and love Battlefield 3, I greatly enjoyed both Batman games, and I've beaten Deus Ex. But I was genuinely hoping to see someone constructively criticize the game rather than the usual mainstream bullshit that basically just comes down to "it's the same game". Nope, nothing out of the ordinary.
Yeah, other than the technical issues that the games have around launch day and for a bit afterwords, like the lag problems, and the occasional balance issues, there isn't a ton to hate CoD for. Most of it comes down to preference. The only way you can actually pit CoD against other games for a comparison of which is 'better' is in systems analysis, and compare the graphics and sound engines, the numbers of bugs, the optimisation, ect. In this regard, CoD will fall short in some aspects compared to some games (Glitches when compared to Valve games, Graphics compared to BF3), yet be equal in other aspects and to other games (Engine optimisation, or glitches vs Skyrim or BF3). All in all, this is why I always call the game 'Average'. It is not good, it is not bad. It falls flat in some areas, it doesn't in others.
Its not really my type of game, and I get that, but I hate it when both people hate it saying its the worst game ever, or people blindly love it, heralding it as basically the second coming of Christ.
