MW3 Changed Too Much, In My Opinion; Or, It's kinda crap!

[Beat14]

Possible lag fix... I read some where, that you can turn off the theater recording mode in the options, this will stop you from making clips, watching previous matches and making your "elite montages" but it helps with the lag. I haven't actually played the game, but I read this elsewhere and the feedback seemed positive so may as well share. Sorry if I wasted your time.

 

[leady129]

Try this: Dont play online.

Play the story, which is why I loved MW2, get some achievements/trohpies, and spare yourself the headache of competing against that asshole who's been playing non-stop since midnight and is already level 50. I dont see the fascination of multiplayer....

*sniff* I'm not the only one after all.

COD for me has always been the game that I borrow from my multiplayer nut mate for a weekend, blast through the campaign enjoying all the implausible escapes and massive explosions that ensue, and then give it back, never to give the disk a second sideways look again.

 

[F4LL3N]

Simply saying "The Maps and Spawns SUCK!" without any rhyme or reason just seems a little childish. Now say something like, "I don't care for the maps as they allow continuous flanking positions and are not very friendly to new players, nor are they very imaginative" and I may actually care for your opinion. Now it just seems like you are ratting on a game with no basis other than the fact that YOU die a lot.

This is just my opinion and how I played the game, however I always play with a few buddies of mine and we go in and destroy shit with other teams. It is fun, we have giant battles and we continously try to outflank another person. The reason for the constant flank positions is so that the other team has a chance to rooting out a deeply dug position.

To be honest, you just sound like you are raging because you are continuously dieing by, most likely, people who are a better player than you are. Outflank their flank, work with a team of friends and the game becomes immeasurably more fun.

I said why I don't like the maps in my very first point in the original post.

1. There are NO large or open maps. NONE (from what I've observed). They're ALL tiny, closed up, flank-ridden piles of sh*t as far as I'm conserned. There is not one map that really stands out as being good. They all play EXACTLY the same with near bar identical layouts. I want to ask a question: Did ANYONE in the world EVER ask for all large/open/sniper maps to be removed? No? Than why the f*ck is there not even one? This is really my biggest concern. The maps f*cking suck.

Now, if there was 2-3 larger, more open maps, maybe I wouldn't have even been bothered by the current maps. I said I've played the last four Call of Duty's, so let's face it, they've never been able to make a decent spawning system. Well that there may be a problem for me too. What's this, number 7? And they still can't get basic things like this right. A decent spawning system has always been on my top list of things they need to do, yet they never do. I always say, "Build the maps based around the spawn points; don't build the maps than place spawn points where ever you please!"

So don't bother trying to insult me; I used to defend Call of Duty before anyone else here did, other than a few who did so with me. It seems I'm one of the few here who actually LIKED Call of Duty before it became uncool to hate, ironically. So I have a right to point out what I think they've did wrong.

You keep trying to push this idea that I'm not very good, and why would you suggest I'm a "new player". In the first two paragraphs of this thread I clearly pointed out I'm quite a "veteran". Did you read my post? ...You know what? If I look back through your posts excluding the last few months, I bet I'd see you calling Call of Duty a crappy, overdone, grey and brown shooter. It honestly wouldn't surprise me.

One final point, I have had a few games of Headquarters Pro with a decent party, and although we kick ass every game, it's STILL pure randomness. I still get all the problems I've pointed out. Which quite frankly, isn't 100% my fault. Sure, if I choose to keep playing it, I will get used to how it's played and all these problems will probably disappear. But I don't see why I should have to. While some random noob can buy the game and get a better score than me simply because they play with only half their mind in the game. No, they're not better than me so don't suggest it. I get killed constantly by people who don't even understand the concept of running, taking cover, you know... the basics. They just happen to be in the right place at the right time. Thanks to things like poor map layout and spawns.

Oh, actually... One more thing. I'm not here saying Call of Duty's shit because it's brown and grey or because they release a new title every year. I honestly don't care about that. I'm expressing relatively genuine points, so stop trying to dismiss them as if you're some sort of Justice Knight of Righteousness and Peace.

I really don't know what to say here or how to start but the only thing that comes to mind is why do you honestly think BO is anyway balanced? I haven't even played MW2 but from looking at various player builds and glitches it is also far from balanced to(not that you said it was). I would even go as far to say that BO is probably one of the least balanced CoDs ever and I am not including MW 3 in this as I have no info about it what so ever.

There have been no large of open maps since CoD 4 and even then in CoD 4 there wasn't much to scream about in terms of open maps or at least nothing on the scale of the couple in games before that and BO was a complete and utter joke in this department so I don't see how this should be a complaint in relation to previous games. Unless they made every map Killhouse, Shipment and Nuketown. Anyway for all I know the maps could be the fucking size of Brecourt or El Alamein.

Spawns have always been shit in CoD games and don't pretend they've been different in any game.

Also I am just going to say this now the game has been out what like about a week? Do you really expect everyone to know how everything works, play coherently and have a functioning meta?

Black Ops was balanced, in my opinion. What was unbalanced about it? Modern Warfare 2 wasn't as unbalanced as people think either. There were bits and pieces, but ulimately everything came together quite nicely. OMA and nootubes were by far one of the biggest f*cks ups in MW2. Commando/knifers weren't a big problem like people wanted to believe. There was quickscoping, but there was actually ways to counter it. There were ways to counter most things. I'll admit, they have fixed some things in MW3, specifically the noobtubes. But as I said in the original post, the balance isn't really that big of a problem. Most of it comes down to either the maps or the spawns. Maybe I'd like the maps if the spawns weren't so terrible or there was atleast one or two open maps I could use to unwind.

The killstreaks, perks, attachments, etc., are all actually quite balanced. I have yet to mention the killstreaks or perks, so obviously I haven't found a single problem with them yet. Which is a great thing (even though I grew to love the overpoweredness of MW2 killstreaks and perks).

As I've said multiple times, it's the maps and a lot of the weapons seem to be "off". The rest of the game isn't all that bad. But unfortunitely, maps and weapons are the two biggest things for me in a FPS. Which is why I am coming off as a little butthurt.

Killhouse, Shipment and Nuketown were all great, classic Call of Duty maps. The spawns were quite often f*cked... But the difference is there was VARIETY in previous titles.

Op, your mom doesn't read your posts. Don't say "f*ck" say fuck. If you don't want to swear, then don't swear. Just don't bleep out your own swear words.

Okay? Why is that a big deal? Sometimes I need to swear, but I acknowledge not everyone likes to see certain words.

You've been bashing on the maps a lot, but that is a phase man. You said you hated Modern Warfare 2 at first too right? I'm pretty sure that was for the same reasons you are hating Modern Warfare 3 for. Stick around for a while, and get to learn the maps (Play Domination, fastest way to get to know them).

Honestly, what kind of genius do you take yourself to be to think you can get to know every map and play effectively on them having owned the game for less than 24 hours?

I know the maps. Knowing the maps plays very little into the equation when spawns are random and camping is random.

I am not liking the sound of this, being someone who played MW2 a lot and was never any good this game is sounding like a very bad Multiplayer experience for noobs like me. If all this stuff I'm hearing about constant flanking, and quick scopers everywhere is true I might just stick with MW2 and BO. Not to mention I don't like what I'm hearing about gun damage.

I'm only one person, and my opinion really isn't shared by many. You have to be careful what you read, especially on Call of Duty. A lot of people will bash the game without even playing it. Although don't blame me if you buy it and don't like it.

I like it so far, but if there's one thing I can't stand it's the running animation. Fucking hell, I feel seasick whenever my character sprints, and God help me when he's carrying a rocket launcher, it looks like he's duck waddling.

I think the running is some of the smoothness movement in any game ever, just like every other Call of Duty title. I really love the engine. I wish more developers would use it.

That actually reminds me of something. Anyone who's played the singleplayer... Do you remember the sandstorm level? I instantly thought of how great the next Fallout would be if it used MW3's engine... God damn the atmosphere would be awesome if you could get that sort of detail into the world of Fallout.

Possible lag fix... I read some where, that you can turn off the theater recording mode in the options, this will stop you from making clips, watching previous matches and making your "elite montages" but it helps with the lag. I haven't actually played the game, but I read this elsewhere and the feedback seemed positive so may as well share. Sorry if I wasted your time.

Thanks. I might actually try that. Because I'm getting some real subtle, but almost game ruining lag.

p.s. Sorry if I don't reply to you, I read all the posts but I don't always know what to reply with.

 

[Ironic Pirate]

Op, your mom doesn't read your posts. Don't say "f*ck" say fuck. If you don't want to swear, then don't swear. Just don't bleep out your own swear words.

Okay? Why is that a big deal? Sometimes I need to swear, but I acknowledge not everyone likes to see certain words.

Because it's annoying? Everyone here is over 13 or lying, so there's no children to corrupt. And anyone who is offended by the word fuck would probably be similarly affected by "f*ck". It's only marginally less annoying than the pseudo-swears used by Ned Flanders, and at least that's a joke.

If you need to swear, but don't want to offend those who don't like swear words, then don't swear. Half-assing it is kind of annoying.

 

[F4LL3N]

Because it's annoying? Everyone here is over 13 or lying, so there's no children to corrupt. And anyone who is offended by the word fuck would probably be similarly affected by "f*ck". It's only marginally less annoying than the pseudo-swears used by Ned Flanders, and at least that's a joke.

If you need to swear, but don't want to offend those who don't like swear words, then don't swear. Half-assing it is kind of annoying.

My spellings pretty decent, I use punctuation, paragraphs, etc. I ramble a bit, but you're really being nit picky here.

 

[FFHAuthor]

1. I agree, things are tight, very tight and there's no sense of openness, and the levels themselves feel cluttered with very messy sight lines.

2. I'd say that there are balance issues, but they stem from the -lack- of realism with weapons and the level design. The levels feature few distance shots, but full auto with stopping power is what you need to run on in regular (too many hit markers, to few kill shots) and an SMG lacks the stopping power. On hardcore, you need something that will hit reliably and with something aproaching accuracy, so 2 of my 5 presets use assault rifles. One is an SMG close quarters (not very useful), one's a sniper (that has seen no use), and one is my LMG support (which does get some use for AA)

I'd also like to point out the grievous inaccuracy of hip firing in this game. Don't get me wrong, I understand that 'hip firing' is less accurate than shoulder firing down the sights, I know. But I've hip fired my AR in RL and I can put a mag into a man sized figure at 100 yards, why can't a trained soldier hit a guy two foot away with an SMG when firing from the hip? Soldiers do understand point shooting and they do get SOME feel of what their weapon will do. Plus these aren't infantry grunts, these are elite special forces, SAS, Spetznaz and yes, Delta force, Delta Force are the guys who have to fire 100% accuracy at 800 yards every time just to get into the unit.

(Also, I highly doubt that you're actually firing from the hip, given the nature of keeping a combat ready stance you'd be firing from a low guard position, you'd have the weapon profile to work off of, but you wouldn't be using iron sights, again, in RL it's much more accurate than the weapons fire in the game and I am not military trained.)

3. Yes, unaccounted lag is an issue. I have cable internet and for some reason I can be in a match with one bar for no apparent reason, the next match I'll have 4 and so on. Matchmaking is also an issue, and a very familiar one considering how big the issue was in MW2, the problems with it made me simply stop playing multiplayer.

4. Yes, concur. Spawns are broken, and map layout makes for very poor 'front lines' and they lack any kind of direction. The combat situation is very random, to the point that moving a few feet from a spawn can sometimes make the game consider the spawn to be hostile and you have enemy units behind you. I have run into multiple situations where I'm in a position and a friendly comes through a door, followed a moment later by a hostile.

5. I'd disagree when it comes to single player, it's much better than BF3 and it's got a good story and characters with depth. As for the Multiplayer, it does have a hint of game by committee...but that seems strange that they would leave anything to chance with their MP, the thing that defined Modern Warfare.

6. Concur. I find it unusual to be in a lobby with another person who has a mic let alone an entire team that wants to work together. Even the 'tactical' games like domination and headquarters are decided by the best individual players together, not a team effort. So no, there is no tactical situation and there's no teamwork.

7. Yes, play regular it's run and gun, play hardcore it's hide and wait.

I'd also like to point out that after playing MW3 and Battlefield 3, I have to say that Modern Warfare did a much better single player campaign...but Battlefield, despite my own issues with it, has a superior multiplayer for what I enjoy, and that's actual battles, not FPS shoot outs. It's interesting that after playing both, my hopes were dashed for Battlefield, but playing Modern Warfare gave me some perspective and I realized that while Battlefield did a very shitty single player campaign, the mistakes with their Multiplayer weren't as massive as I had first thought.

But both games feel like they'll be better down the road. Battlefield better with more polishing and smoothing out bugs, Modern Warfare better with more maps suited to a larger variety of play styles.

 

[thunderbug]

lets be honest, most of the COD games since MW1 have been the same, most of the game constitute an expansion pack at most. The story is always dreadful, and full of cliche, the graphics are around the same and the the only think people buy it for (multiplayer) is no different from any other COD game. I don't see why people pay full AAA price to play MW1 online again when they probably have MW1 on a shelf. I borrowed the game from a friend(idiot) to give it a run and honestly i would rather burn the money. But next year will be another COD black ops 2 or some shit but hey, idiots buy it every year so power to the developers for exploiting these idiots.

 

[F4LL3N]

5. I'd disagree when it comes to single player, it's much better than BF3 and it's got a good story and characters with depth. As for the Multiplayer, it does have a hint of game by committee...but that seems strange that they would leave anything to chance with their MP, the thing that defined Modern Warfare.

...

I'd also like to point out that after playing MW3 and Battlefield 3, I have to say that Modern Warfare did a much better single player campaign...but Battlefield, despite my own issues with it, has a superior multiplayer for what I enjoy, and that's actual battles, not FPS shoot outs. It's interesting that after playing both, my hopes were dashed for Battlefield, but playing Modern Warfare gave me some perspective and I realized that while Battlefield did a very shitty single player campaign, the mistakes with their Multiplayer weren't as massive as I had first thought.

But both games feel like they'll be better down the road. Battlefield better with more polishing and smoothing out bugs, Modern Warfare better with more maps suited to a larger variety of play styles.

I actually didn't mind the campaign. Sure, it was fairly Hollywood (I like AAA movies anyway), and there was a fair bit of "Press A", "Press RT... Press LT"... Some would call it an "interactive movie". But the storyline, characters, emotions, etc., were all pretty decent. I don't care about cliche, so along as it's done right.

MW3 wins with singleplayer and spec ops; Battlefield 3 wins with multiplayer. In my opinion. Battlefield 3 multplayer is absolutely awesome. I haven't encountered any glitches yet, although some of the animations are unsmooth to say the least. It's actually quite funny; I wasn't even going to get Battlefield, but I ended up loving it.

I think it's time Call of Duty takes the Battlefield approach. Vehicles, extremely large maps, bullet drop, destructable buildings... That's not to say it can't still have simple arcade action too. It is possible to do both. Although Battlefield 3 loses in regards to any type of "arcade action" it attempted, i.e. Team Deathmatch.

They had tanks in World at War, and I thought Treyarch did them wonderfully. I don't know why it's the only one with vehicles (after 4, didn't play the older ones)... I never saw anyone complain about them.

 

[Ironic Pirate]

Because it's annoying? Everyone here is over 13 or lying, so there's no children to corrupt. And anyone who is offended by the word fuck would probably be similarly affected by "f*ck". It's only marginally less annoying than the pseudo-swears used by Ned Flanders, and at least that's a joke.

If you need to swear, but don't want to offend those who don't like swear words, then don't swear. Half-assing it is kind of annoying.

My spellings pretty decent, I use punctuation, paragraphs, etc. I ramble a bit, but you're really being nit picky here.

The hell are you talking about? I never critiqued those aspects of your writing, it's fine. I'm just annoyed with "f*ck" and similar. And it's not just you, it's people doing that in general.

 

[FFHAuthor]

I actually didn't mind the campaign. Sure, it was fairly Hollywood (I like AAA movies anyway), and there was a fair bit of "Press A", "Press RT... Press LT"... Some would call it an "interactive movie". But the storyline, characters, emotions, etc., were all pretty decent. I don't care about cliche, so along as it's done right.

MW3 wins with singleplayer and spec ops; Battlefield 3 wins with multiplayer. In my opinion. Battlefield 3 multplayer is absolutely awesome. I haven't encountered any glitches yet, although some of the animations are unsmooth to say the least. It's actually quite funny; I wasn't even going to get Battlefield, but I ended up loving it.

I think it's time Call of Duty takes the Battlefield approach. Vehicles, extremely large maps, bullet drop, destructable buildings... That's not to say it can't still have simple arcade action too. It is possible to do both. Although Battlefield 3 loses in regards to any type of "arcade action" it attempted, i.e. Team Deathmatch.

They had tanks in World at War, and I thought Treyarch did them wonderfully. I don't know why it's the only one with vehicles (after 4, didn't play the older ones)... I never saw anyone complain about them.

I agree for the most part. I still feel that the Battlefield 3 single player story just fell wanting. It didn't really engross me or make me feel any connection to the characters. At the end there wasn't any king of accomplishment in my mind, it just...missed I guess. But compare the climax of both games, at their heart, they are the exact same thing mechanics and story wise. Yet to me MW3's was much better than BF3's, based upon character development alone.

I do believe that Battlefield has a superior multiplayer, and Modern Warfare has the superior single player. I know that DICE can do Single player campaigns, I loved Bad Company 1&2's single player, the characters felt real. But they just missed on this one in my opinion, there were too many plot holes at times and too many missed moments. I have often toyed with the fantasy game created by the union of Modern Warfare and Battlefield (With some Killzone cover mechanics thrown in), something that really creates something immense and magnificent, all the way back to Modern Warfare 1 I contemplated it. But sadly, it's a fevered dream.

Kick ass game it would be though.

 

[CD-R]

Well I OP I think it's time for you to make the switch to Battlefield.

1. The maps are massive. Hell one of them has a cliff you base jump off of to get to the objectives.

2. Guns have to actually be aimed. Running and gunning won't get you very far. I'm sure there's some weapons that might be overpowered but DICE has usually been pretty good about patching. Shotguns also have an effective range of more than 5 feet in front of you.

3. Dedicated servers even on consoles. Consoles now have a server browser so you should be able to find a server with low ping. Assuming it lets you arrange them by it since I've never actually seen the console versions server browser in action.

4. You can spawn on your squad mates, onto control points you control, into jet cockpits, on to mobile spawn points the recon class lays down.

5. Actually the singleplayer campaign isn't really any better in Battlefield 3. Then again Battlefield games were traditionally multiplayer only so I don't know. Battlefield Bad Company 1 had a good single player campaign though.

6. Squads and teams that communicate and use tactics will win most of the time. Downside is you do have to rely on your team and if they're comprised of idiots and lone wolves that can kind of sucked. But it is possible for one good squad to lead an entire team of retards to victory.

7. They've added a lot of weapon customization and unlocks into Battlefield 3.

So I don't know it seems like you might like it. If you don't want to spend the money on BAttlefield 3 you can rent or pick up a brand new copy of Bad Company 2 for pretty cheap.

 

[F4LL3N]

My spellings pretty decent, I use punctuation, paragraphs, etc. I ramble a bit, but you're really being nit picky here.

The hell are you talking about? I never critiqued those aspects of your writing, it's fine. I'm just annoyed with "f*ck" and similar. And it's not just you, it's people doing that in general.[/quote]

Exactly. I don't create walls of text with terrible spelling and no punctuation. So I don't see why censoring a swear word is such an annoyance for you.

I have often toyed with the fantasy game created by the union of Modern Warfare and Battlefield (With some Killzone cover mechanics thrown in), something that really creates something immense and magnificent, all the way back to Modern Warfare 1 I contemplated it. But sadly, it's a fevered dream.

Kick ass game it would be though.

Me too, if I understand you correctly.

SNIP

You're preeching to the choir here. I own Battlefield 3 and love it's multiplayer. I think it's great how you can spawn on a captured control point, at one of your squads positions, in a jet/helicopter or at the very worst, your HQ where enemies are not aloud to go.

The BEST spawning system I have ever seen, and I think anyone who's played it would agree with me. The only downfall to it is if the other team is steamrolling you, you can sometimes get spawn trapped. But there's normally always the possibility to sneak out and capture a control point, while allowing your squad to spawn with you. Not to mention it can allow for some pretty awesome gun battles when you spawn trap/get spawn trapped at your base.

EDIT: I really messed that first quote up.

 

[FFHAuthor]

I have often toyed with the fantasy game created by the union of Modern Warfare and Battlefield (With some Killzone cover mechanics thrown in), something that really creates something immense and magnificent, all the way back to Modern Warfare 1 I contemplated it. But sadly, it's a fevered dream.

Kick ass game it would be though.

Me too, if I understand you correctly.

Yeah, my dream FPS is a mix and match.

Battlefield's destruction physics and graphics, combined with map size, realistic weapons physics, vehicles, and combat direction (Rush gameplay)

Modern Warfare's 'character' customization and weapons customization.

Killzone 2's fairly 'realistic' cover mechanic, to a degree. Or maybe a Gears of War Cover mechanic. (It's got pros and cons, but mainly, I want to blind fire.)

Halo's do it yourself gameplay and forge mode.

Hell, even throw in the option to make your own maps and battlefields like in FarCry 2.

Enough cross game/developer/producer/intellectual property designs there to give a copyright attorney a heart attack, but damn...that would be one hell of a game.

 

[SamFancyPants252]

OP I hate whingers like you who take their own faults and blame them on a game being bad.
In Black Ops, I did the same as you. Whined and complained and until I slowed down, changed my play style and realised that turning around and shooting the guy following me instead of blindly following some other dude was a far better tactic. I started enjoying the game after that, and did the same in MW2; considering that maybe thinking like other players instead of just mindlessly shooting at anything that moved. Now maybe you have to think up a strategy for MW3?

And before you have a go at me, yes I own MW3. Yes I love it. Have I played multiplayer yet? no, I haven't due to issues with my router. I'm not going to directly say you're wrong because I too hate when people make comments about things they've never experienced, but if I know COD then I know you can always find something to make you win.

On the final note, this game was worth the asking price simply for the silly but fun campaign, fun and short spec ops missions and, moreso, the intensely engaging survival mode.

So before you judge this entire game based on one or two things, take a step back and take a good look at the rest of it, and appreciate all its good bits.

 

[cryogeist]

Well I need to know. Is the FAMAS still in the game? Also shame that it is worse. Glad I am getting it for the Campaign.

it's the Type 95 knock-off now.
OT: i agree pretty much with everything this man says.

 

[Glademaster_v1legacy]

I really don't know what to say here or how to start but the only thing that comes to mind is why do you honestly think BO is anyway balanced? I haven't even played MW2 but from looking at various player builds and glitches it is also far from balanced to(not that you said it was). I would even go as far to say that BO is probably one of the least balanced CoDs ever and I am not including MW 3 in this as I have no info about it what so ever.

There have been no large of open maps since CoD 4 and even then in CoD 4 there wasn't much to scream about in terms of open maps or at least nothing on the scale of the couple in games before that and BO was a complete and utter joke in this department so I don't see how this should be a complaint in relation to previous games. Unless they made every map Killhouse, Shipment and Nuketown. Anyway for all I know the maps could be the fucking size of Brecourt or El Alamein.

Spawns have always been shit in CoD games and don't pretend they've been different in any game.

Also I am just going to say this now the game has been out what like about a week? Do you really expect everyone to know how everything works, play coherently and have a functioning meta?

Black Ops was balanced, in my opinion. What was unbalanced about it? Modern Warfare 2 wasn't as unbalanced as people think either. There were bits and pieces, but ulimately everything came together quite nicely. OMA and nootubes were by far one of the biggest f*cks ups in MW2. Commando/knifers weren't a big problem like people wanted to believe. There was quickscoping, but there was actually ways to counter it. There were ways to counter most things. I'll admit, they have fixed some things in MW3, specifically the noobtubes. But as I said in the original post, the balance isn't really that big of a problem. Most of it comes down to either the maps or the spawns. Maybe I'd like the maps if the spawns weren't so terrible or there was atleast one or two open maps I could use to unwind.

The killstreaks, perks, attachments, etc., are all actually quite balanced. I have yet to mention the killstreaks or perks, so obviously I haven't found a single problem with them yet. Which is a great thing (even though I grew to love the overpoweredness of MW2 killstreaks and perks).

As I've said multiple times, it's the maps and a lot of the weapons seem to be "off". The rest of the game isn't all that bad. But unfortunitely, maps and weapons are the two biggest things for me in a FPS. Which is why I am coming off as a little butthurt.

Killhouse, Shipment and Nuketown were all great, classic Call of Duty maps. The spawns were quite often f*cked... But the difference is there was VARIETY in previous titles.

Ok just to let you know I am going to address paragraphs from the bottom up as it easier for me to do when writing a post.

Anyway if you like those maps that is fine but there is nothing Classic CoD about any of those 3 maps as this type of "map" and I use that term loosely only came about in CoD 4. Before that the maps had some sort of scale to them and were not just a small box with a couple of house smacked around some badly placed spawns. I won't even get into why Shipment and Nuketown are bad in relation to killstreaks that should be obvious. The only oldish CoD map I can even think of that is close to the scale of those maps is Burgundy in CoD 2 even then at least Burgundy was well made. The same cannot be said for those other maps. They honestly look like they were made by someone new to making maps and didn't know how to work the programme so they just did some simplistic small badly made maps. Although just to say this again you can still have fun on them and like them.

Ok well actually you have stated you dislike other things as well but to properly to poke at that would be pedantic and arsehole like of me so I won't.

Your next two I will address together as they do go together.

Ok really you say MW 2 is balanced and then go to point why it isn't balanced and later go on to say the killstriks are overpowered(which makes them imbalanced by the way). It doesn't matter if the Commando was not that bad by the end a tertiary or final resort attack in a FPS game should be able to change to a primary attack. At least in Halo where they have stuff like that it is more than possible to dodge nor does the sword self correct unlike CoD.

The AKu(smg AK) with the grip rapid fire and I think steady aim. I should not be able to pick up one of these and literally change the game for my team. 1 person using 1 weapon can't do this in a balanced setting. The weapon is far from anything I would like to call balanced in fact I would say it is worse than the P90 and PPsH put together as at least the PPsH was only on some maps in CoD 2 that were openish and the P90 was pants at range. Here we have a very damaging, very fast firing and accurate weapon with a fast reload.

The Spas a silenced shotgun now suspension of disbelief aside but a silenced semi auto shotgun is not something I would even entertain as being a balanced weapon especially since CoD maps are so close. While it can be out class by stuff like the AKu it still doesn't make it balanced.

To be honest I am going to say that pretty much all of the LMGs in that game are imbalanced as compared to previous iterations they have kept their alright rate of fire, high damage but have been given relatively amazing accuracy and a shorter reload removing some of the major drawbacks with using the weapons. Yes the mag has been decreased but most people barely manage to get off more than 2 mags in a game anyway and it doesn't do enough to address the buffs in other areas.

I think I've already talked about how I feel about melee being made a valid first choice in games like this but I will say BO takes it a step further and really decreases the weapon cooldown a lot to the point where it is nearly none existent further increasing the power with such weapons. Then there is the China Lake a secondary grenade launcher like we needed more nade launchers.

 

[bl4ckh4wk64]

Well, my biggest problem with MW3 is this

Two fucking Desert Eagles, safeties on, hammers forward. The fucking Remmington MSR, and a fucking riot shield. Goddamn it.

Not trying to troll, but isn't CoD sold on its realism? It's enough of a struggle to fire ONE Desert Eagle accurately with BOTH hands. Let alone one in each hand! The MSR wasn't cleared for actual military duty, and a plastic riot shield doesn't stop bullets! I haven't even played the game and I'm already criticizing its lack of realism. (that was my main problem with MW2)

 

[Ixal]

Not trying to troll, but isn't CoD sold on its realism?

CoD? Realism? Thats got to be the biggest joke of the decade. CoD is about as far as you can get from realism without adding white elephants shooting bubblegum spears at you.

 

[bl4ckh4wk64]

Not trying to troll, but isn't CoD sold on its realism?

CoD? Realism? Thats got to be the biggest joke of the decade. CoD is about as far as you can get from realism without adding white elephants shooting bubblegum spears at you.

Oh yea, I know that. But talk to any one of the fanboys and they'll think it's the closest thing to actual warfare ever created. Go on any firearms forums and you'll see people that get all of their knowledge of guns from CoD as well. People really do believe that CoD is the embodiment of realism. It's really rather sad.