MW3 no different than MW2....(some MW3 gameplay)


New member
Mar 15, 2010
MetallicaRulez0 said:
psychodynamica said:
I feel sorry for you COD fans, I really do. Atleast black-ops made an effort. I'm not saying it won't be fun, i'm just saying that you are all going to spend full price for what amounts to an unusually large mappack, with a new campaign and added killstreaks. Oh i forgot the MW1 perks they added back too my bad. ima just stick to BF3.
I would gladly pay $60 for 15 new maps, new weapons, and a ton of balance improvements. Hell, I'd pay $60 if they would just remove Grenade Launchers and Commando from MW2 and repackage it.

... maybe I shouldn't say that in a public forum. Activision might be watching.
High-fave to that post man! And to that avatar.


Winter is coming
Jun 13, 2009
the spud said:
It will still sell ,like, 20 million copies. On launch.

People just don't like change, simple as that.
Come see the awesome power of the steadily increasing number!!
This is why all those Madden NFL games keep selling.
And people complain about a lack of ideas when something gets remade.


New member
Aug 13, 2010
RazielXT said:
for any cod fans:
it doesnt matter if it still looks fun, the important point is activision is charging for this mappack 60 dollars
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!

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


New member
Mar 24, 2011
MW3 has the same gameplay as MW2?
You're surprised?
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.

Hamster at Dawn

It's Hazard Time!
Mar 19, 2008
GameMaNiAC said:
It does its formula well. As a person who likes the CoD series, I don't care about innovation as long as CoD still has the satisfying feel of letting me shoot people in the face.
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.


New member
May 1, 2011
If that isn't sped up footage and it really plays that fast, fuck that. Some of those weapons look freaking cheap. I can't say I'll be playing this online if it's like that.


New member
Jul 5, 2009
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?
Jun 11, 2008
cgmetallica1981 said:
Oh, and yes I am disappointed there's nothing new, but what are you going to do, it's the 8th game in a series in 2011. How much has Final Fantasy changed over more than 10 games (besides the online ones)?
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.

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.


New member
Aug 27, 2008
mrc390 said:
It's not MW2.1 It's MW1.15
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.


Look at me, I'm burning.
Nov 30, 2009
Iron Mal said:
Shakaar9267 said:
Sorry to single you out (it was the Silent Hill movie avatar, serously, if you liked that film then it kinda makes this a 'pot calling the kettle black' situation here).

You don't think this is anything more than a repackaged MW2 most likely because you aren't a CoD fan, it's understandable if you didn't give the video more than a surface glance and elected that because it looks graphically similar that it must be similar.

It's fine if you aren't interested in MW3 (no-one's saying you have to be) but it would be unfair to say that the Modern Warfare series hasn't had anything in the way of innovation over time. Just look at CoD4 and MW2, both look very similar (both use the same engine I believe) and have very similar gameplay but you'd be outright in denial if you tried to claim that there had been no change or advancements between the two (MW2 added more choices, variety and flexability to the game, it also changed the levelling up system slightly to increase the speed at which you level so that it's less of an uphill battle to unlock the fancier weapons, a problem I frequently had with World at War).

So based on that is it fair to say that MW3 (a game neither of us have played) will be exactly the same as MW2 just because there are some recurring weapons in it?

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 (overall, you're essentially making the same judgement).
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.

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.


New member
Apr 5, 2010
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!


New member
Apr 25, 2011
There's a MW3 Gameplay trailer out, it looks awesome exactly the same as MW2 with some minor UI changes. I will probably give it a miss. Maybe get the next Treyarch one.

Reman Khaar

New member
May 26, 2011
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. -_-


New member
Aug 14, 2008
The Unworthy Gentleman said:
Don't fix what isn't broken. For the most part MW2 wasn't broken, sure the map design was poor and there were some balancing issues, but they were easy to get past if you stopped whining and applied yourself.

I did my share of bitching about MW2, but if you take a step back it wasn't a bad game, it just wasn't as good as anyone claimed it was.
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.


New member
Aug 14, 2008
drosalion said:
Anyone actually expected mw3 to be any different from mw2?
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".
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.


New member
Aug 10, 2011
Psychotic-ishSOB said:
JoesshittyOs said:
Psychotic-ishSOB said:
As much as I believe you have the right to like both, Battlefield 3 will be better than Modern Warfare 3.
No, it will fail because you are comparing to a Call of Duty game instead of just judging it by it's own standards.

Your comment says you aren't expecting anything other than it to just be a step up from CoD. Assuming you play on Console, you will be solely disappointed (Dice is very good at advertising their games. A little bit too good).

OT:In all honesty, I was tremendously disappointed with this gameplay footage.

I'm a fan of the game. I find it fun. But I'm quite sure I'm not going to reach the five day mark in hours played for this one.

This may be the one that puts CoD in the ground.
They're both modern-day FPSs, and I've played both; I have the right to compare them. Also, I disagree about the console thing. I think Bad company 2 on 360 is way better than MW2 and Black Ops because it's not about graphics, it's about fun.
I honestly thought that Bad Company looked better than CoD did.

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.


Doctorate in Danger
May 29, 2010
Radeonx said: is using the same engine (I believe), so it being MW2 with different guns and different settings makes sense. Still looks fun to me.
It still looks dull to me. However, your point is 100% more valid because of an awesome profile pic.