MW3 no different than MW2....(some MW3 gameplay)
- Thread starter yuval152
- Start date
so just maps huh? ok what about new game modes, an new storyline, new weapons, new kill streaks, new perks, a new spec ops, and better balancing than MW2? but for get that it just maps right? ok then sign me up!RazielXT said:
oh and try-arch released 4 map packs for BlOPs. 4 at 15 a pop. they doubled their retail price now THAT'S a problem not MW3
MW3 has the same gameplay as MW2?
You're surprised?
Seriously?
I never expected MW3 to be any different. At all. I mean a new campaign and maybe a new weapon. That's it.
Sorry again for not reading the comments before mine, but again - 9 pages, 11pm. Y'know.
You're surprised?
Seriously?
I never expected MW3 to be any different. At all. I mean a new campaign and maybe a new weapon. That's it.
Sorry again for not reading the comments before mine, but again - 9 pages, 11pm. Y'know.
As much as I agree with you, there's no point in buying a new CoD game if it's going to be more or less the same as the last one. Why not just play MW2 again? Maybe you get some new maps to play on and a couple of tweaks here and there but is it really worth the full price of the game? There are also plenty of other games that let you shoot people in the face but would give you a more unique experience which would make it more worth your money.GameMaNiAC said:
I hated MW2, So I'll probably hate this one too as it's pretty goddamn alike.
And it looks exactly the same, with other maps and other guns. Why is this not just dlc?
And it looks exactly the same, with other maps and other guns. Why is this not just dlc?
Quite a lot. Although it helps that they spend more than 2 years making a game and don't have 2 different Devs working on the one series. Changes include job system, Esper magicite, materia, junction, Sphere Grid/Licence Board/Crystarium(vastly similar systems). Vastly different settings and styles from Steampunk to Fantasy to Sci Fi. Changes from Random Encounters to set encounters and even an option of no encounters in 1 game.cgmetallica1981 said:
CoD changes have been WWII and Contemporary times. Just to say I am not counting a new SMG or something as a new thing. Various new weapon types, Perk system, Killstreaks, a few new game types and some old ones re-added, some different spins on the 1 level system, attachments. So until MW3 CoD has not really changed since CoD 4 so new mechanics at all bar death streaks, some new weapon and game types and a different spin on level system. Everything else was just expansions on what was already there. This is fine but there needs to be some new spin or gimmick in the games. So that is what 3 smallish changes and 2 big changes(level system and Death streaks). So until MW3 that is 2 big changes in 3 games 1 of which was scraped because it was a shit idea(which is ok at least it was an idea).
While FF is only marginally better with nearly a game per every 2(actually 1.7...) years CoD has been over saturating itself self lately(only including main universe games in both series) and has gone with 1 game every 1.125 years.
So while there have been quite a lot of changes in both game series overall FF games have usually vastly different ways of playing between games compare 12-13 or 10-12(not including MMOs but you can if you want). While compare CoD 4 to BO the most recent we have some new weapon types(various launchers, ballistic knife, semtex), some more customisation options, slightly different level system and some expanded on mechanics(attachments, killstreaks). I suppose to put it short which I probably should have CoD plays it too safe with its core mechanics and never tries to shake it up every now and then.
As an aside if you are wondering why I don't count stuff like new campaign, the new weapons(unless it is a new weapon type like throwing knives or riot shields), the new maps, the new killstreaks is that this kind of stuff is expected in expansions. New games in a series require a bit more than this.
Considering the engine is from MW2, most of the mechanics in the game are ripped directly from MW2, and it uses many of the same weapons as MW2, I think it's more fair to call it MW2.5.mrc390 said:
1st thing; My avatar has less to do with the movie, then it has for my love of the games. The best 'Silent Hill avatar' I could find was from the movie, so that's what I went with. I would have preferred one from SH3, but the movie one looked cooler as a avatar so you know.Iron Mal said:
2nd thing; I am a CoD fan and watch this video closely, along with a few others on 'youtube'. I own CoD Modern Warfare, Modern Warfare 2 & Black Ops.
"it would be unfair to say that the Modern Warfare series hasn't had anything in the way of innovation over time"
What? I didn't say anything about the Modern Warfare series as a whole. You may be right about the advancements between Cod4 & MW2 regarding choices, variety and flexibility. Plus the leveling system you mentioned. But that is not what I was talking about. This thread is about MW2 vs MW3 and the differences between the two (or lack thereof).
"That'd be like saying games like Silent Hill and Bioshock are instantly boring and not worth paying attention to because they don't involve terrorists or space marines"
Anybody saying that will most likely hate horror themed games. While most of the people on this thread love Cod and FPS genres in general, they just don't like how little has changed from MW2 to MW3. So no, I really don't think it's making the same judgement.
Anyways, the bottom line is this;
I love Modern Warfare, however based on what I have seen 'so far' I'm not prepared to pay $60 for this game. If it turns out to be badass I gladly admit I was wrong and will pick it up.
But, as for right now I will pass.
About sequels:
Just as a comparison, ME1 and ME2 have very different setups in terms of how you level up, what abilities are available, what guns you can use and how you upgrade them, how abilities are managed, etc. It's a sequel and yet makes the game feel a lot different from the original Mass Effect. They are still the same setting, but their gameplay mechanics and pacing are different.
Hell, even with KOTOR and KOTOR 2, KOTOR 2 didn't change the gameplay too much, but they added a bunch of stuff like influence meters, lightsaber forms, new force powers, and a very different style of story.
Or to do an example for FPS games, Halo 1 and Halo 2. Halo 2 introduced dual wielding, a new race to play as for people who care about cosmetics, different weapons like the energy sword, brute shot, battle rifle, a different health system, and maps that aren't reskins of the original. And the weapons weren't just the same weapons as before but their stats modified, but actually different. You didn't even HAVE a melee weapon in the original Halo. Although Halo 3 didn't introduce too many unique weapons with different purposes, they did introduce equipment. Halo: Reach probably impacted the gameplay more with permanent equipment like jetpacks and the like.
So no one should be saying that you can't change too much of a shooter; if the development team or the publisher really cared, the game would experiment with completely different mechanics and try to push the medium forward. The game is gonna sell millions regardless of whether they make those changes or not, so really they would have nothing to lose other than the fact that it would take more work. It could be something as simple as just adding vehicles!
Just as a comparison, ME1 and ME2 have very different setups in terms of how you level up, what abilities are available, what guns you can use and how you upgrade them, how abilities are managed, etc. It's a sequel and yet makes the game feel a lot different from the original Mass Effect. They are still the same setting, but their gameplay mechanics and pacing are different.
Hell, even with KOTOR and KOTOR 2, KOTOR 2 didn't change the gameplay too much, but they added a bunch of stuff like influence meters, lightsaber forms, new force powers, and a very different style of story.
Or to do an example for FPS games, Halo 1 and Halo 2. Halo 2 introduced dual wielding, a new race to play as for people who care about cosmetics, different weapons like the energy sword, brute shot, battle rifle, a different health system, and maps that aren't reskins of the original. And the weapons weren't just the same weapons as before but their stats modified, but actually different. You didn't even HAVE a melee weapon in the original Halo. Although Halo 3 didn't introduce too many unique weapons with different purposes, they did introduce equipment. Halo: Reach probably impacted the gameplay more with permanent equipment like jetpacks and the like.
So no one should be saying that you can't change too much of a shooter; if the development team or the publisher really cared, the game would experiment with completely different mechanics and try to push the medium forward. The game is gonna sell millions regardless of whether they make those changes or not, so really they would have nothing to lose other than the fact that it would take more work. It could be something as simple as just adding vehicles!
Of course it's just MW2 with one or two tiny additions. That is the exact same difference between MW2 and Black Ops, the same between Black Ops and MW1.. They're all the same damned game every year, just like Madden NFL 05, 06, 07, 08, 09, 10, 11, 12...
I hate the gaming industry. -_-
I hate the gaming industry. -_-
Balance and map design are pretty much the two most important things a multiplayer game can have. If there's no balance, the game is a wreck. If the maps are terrible, all the balance in the world won't make the game fun to play. Being crap at both *should* be a death sentence, but Call of Duty is one of those rare cases where the train wreck of terrible levels and unbalanced weaponry collide and make something vaguely playable. My one hit kill sniper kills you with your drop-shot loadout, which counters the corner camping shotgun guy who stops all the sprinting commando guys who stab me while I quickscope. I absolutely abhor the game, but when I "take a step back" I can understand on some level why people like it.The Unworthy Gentleman said:
I'll be honest: No I did not. However, it would be highly ignorant of me to dismiss the series just because the last 3 games have been absolutely awful. My younger brother will buy the game like the diligent little tool that he is, and when he does I will play the campaign and maybe a few rounds of multiplayer. If it meets my expectations, it's interactive fecal matter unworthy of the plastic and shiny bits that compose it's disc. If it exceeds my expectations, it may be upgraded to "Meh" or perhaps even "It's okay, I guess I don't hate it".drosalion said:
Activision won't see a dime of my money, and neither will EA until I've tried Battlefield 3 at my friend's house. If BF3 can prove it's not just Call of Duty 4 with destruction physics, I *may* purchase it once there is a sale on Steam.
I play everything. I give all games an equal chance to surprise me. Do I buy terrible sequels to series that I hate? No.
I honestly thought that Bad Company looked better than CoD did.Psychotic-ishSOB said:
If you managed to get passed the ridiculously clunkly controls and servers filled up with about six people, then maybe you did genuinely enjoy the game.
The game will fail because not once will you say "Battlefield 3 is going to be great", you kids always tend to say "Battlefield 3 is going to be better than Modern Warfare 3", as if that's going to be a fact.
A game that is literally nothing like it in terms of gameplay. So yes, Battlefield 3 will fail because you aren't buying it for Battlefield. You're buying it because of MW3.
And how have you played both? Neither of them have come out yet.
