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

Monsieur E

New member
Jul 1, 2011
35
0
0
SilverJin02 said:
Call of Duty: Future Warfare(Far future.)
Yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yessssssssssss. That would be amazing. "Call of Duty 5: Future Combat" *seizure*

EDIT:OT: I could care less about the multiplayer. I will just borrow the game from my cousin when he gets bored with it so I can play the campaign. :p
 

k-ossuburb

New member
Jul 31, 2009
1,312
0
0
I don't play either the Battlefield games nor the COD games, so this is kind of an outside perspective but I can't actually tell the difference between this and MW2. Maybe because I don't play them but they look pretty much exactly the same to me, I don't know what I was expecting them to change since it's obviously a formula that's been working for them for some time but in all honesty I just can't see where the difference lies with my untrained eye.
 

pha kin su pah

New member
Mar 26, 2008
778
0
0
Because mw2 still plays better than pretty well all FPS available/being released by 2011. (maybe an exception to bf3)
 

cainx10a

New member
May 17, 2008
2,191
0
0
BlueSinbad said:
I'll stick to Dragon Ball Ultimate Tenkaichi thanks =P
And I'll stick to DB Budokai 3.

Personally, I enjoyed MW2's MP more than CoD4 and certainly way more than the crapfest that was BO's MP. Sure Treyarch did a decent job with their campaign's story, but it felt like a one time affair that you wouldn't even try to get into even if there was a bonus attached. I replayed CoD4/MW2's campaigns multiple times and I plan to go back for some more.

On the MP side of things, MW2 was an improvement over CoD4. Better respawn system, better maps (lol shipment) and a generally more interesting bonuses like Spec Ops which added a degree of co-op that stays true to the gameverse rather than gimmicks like Zombies (Hey Treyarch, I already have other zombie games that are way better ... like l4d).

Not to mention Treyarch use of CoD4's engine is amateurish, I mean if IW could fix the respawn system of CoD4 in MW2, why couldn't they do that in BO. And what excuse did they use again? It helps against camping? LOL.

Bottomline, while IW's talents might have fled from it a while back, I will give IW's MW3 a fair chance of winning me over any crap Treyarch might spew out of their innards. Though I must admit WaW MP and SP were great in comparaison to BO.

*Installs BO again to confirm what he just said*
 

Andy of Comix Inc

New member
Apr 2, 2010
2,234
0
0
Noceus said:
Why must people argue betwen Battlefield and Call of Duty, why can't people just post "I like that because of bla bla" instead of writing that the other one sucks and being a little fanboy. -.-
Because the sheer market dominance of Call of Duty calls for a NOT deft touch, and Battlefield 3 being its first realistic [market] competitor in, like, a million years, makes the stakes between "which is better" more than just a fanboy war - it's a market war. I mean, if MW3 does worse, maybe Activision will genuinely rethink their strategy and release something truly groundbreaking.

Competition forces innovation. Call of Duty hasn't had any fair competition in four years. Battlefield 3's status as challenger makes it a very real possibility that we'll have an arms war of sorts with constant 1up-ing - which is a good thing for both series.
 

Hugga_Bear

New member
May 13, 2010
532
0
0
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.
You don't fix things that work but you do improve on them. Horse riding was never broken, nor were carriages but damned if a car isn't better.

You actually have to do stuff, a new map isn't a new game unless Black Ops has put out 4 new games without me noticing? Same applies to continuation of story, was a time when expansions were made for that and cost a damn sight less.

I agree that it was an okay game, it was never truly terrible (looking at Damnation here) but it was never that good either. It was just kinda above average.

There's unanimous agreement from reviewers and players that BF3 is superior. MW3 will probably still sell more because of the friends playing thing, which really does suck because it further encourages rehashing good games to flog them for profit which is a very negative thing in the short and long run.
 

Triple AD

New member
Apr 1, 2009
311
0
0
Not big surprise.

Although I am glad that they included the FMG-9 a.k.a. the suitcase gun. Still not going to buy it of course but at they included such an odd weapon like that. Is it okay that for the first 10-20 seconds of gameplay footage on the first vid I actually thought that it was MW2.

Also Seananners is awesome!
 

eternal-chaplain

New member
Mar 17, 2010
384
0
0
I remember watching Modern Warfare 3's online multiplayer trailer that The Escapist posted and thinking the same thing. I'm going to say the same thing I said about Black Ops: 'Just give us the campaign as a $15 DLC Package and the online maps for another $7 or $10 and stop saying your new guns are worth more than $30.'
 

sephiroth1991

New member
Dec 3, 2009
2,319
0
0
I am the first person to slap someone who even hints that COD is the best game ever and I generally points out how bad the game is and I'm more less likely to buy the stupid game which I have avoided since the 4th one, however I'm in a good mood so I shall defend it.

The core gameplay will never change mainly due to it being a successful formula and also down to how much can you change in one year, if COD took breaks like most games and had a longer development cycle then you would most likely see changes however due to them having to have to release a new each year around the clock things such as a Engine Update and complete re-design would take too long.

Ok now I defended it can point what they need to change; spawn system, match-making, kill-streaks balance, weapon balance, more reason to complete objectives, more incentive to prestige, much more larger maps to relieve spawn killing, much more linear maps to avoid enemy's killing you from behind, much more useful handguns.
 

Ironic Pirate

New member
May 21, 2009
5,545
0
0
TheGoldenMan said:
AkaDad said:
So, different story and different setting means it's not different. I learn something new everyday.
The game is going to play, for the most part, the same.
So? Sometimes it's nice to have a series that stays the same. Other game series might do all sorts of crazy shit for there sequels, but there's the rather high chance of completely ruining it. CoD just takes the same basic formula and makes it better, every year.

If every series was like that, there'd be a problem. But there isn't. And 99% percent of the people bitching about this don't like it in the first place, which makes their bitching even more annoying and pointless.
 

Nazulu

They will not take our Fluids
Jun 5, 2008
6,242
0
0
b3nn3tt said:
I don't really understand why it's a bad thing if it plays the same way as the previous iteration, as long as the story is different. Really, how many sequels actually change that much of the gameplay from the previous game? I can think of very few, and the ones that do make changes tend to make fairly minor changes.

I seem to be saying this a lot recently, but I'll say it again anyway; nobody is forcing anyone to buy this game. Don't like that the game play hasn't changed? Don't buy it. Don't like the story? Don't buy it? Don't like the developers? Don't buy it? I don't understand why people develop such strong feelings about games that they claim to not be interested in, if you aren't interested just don't look at anything related to the game, that way you don't have to develop some irrational anger towards it.
People have the right to complain, and just like you tell people to avoid it, you can avoid them. The 'nobody is forcing you' defense is worth nothing, it won't stop anyone ever and that's because you probably don't understand how they feel about COD.

If you care at all, I'll tell you how I feel about this whole thing. I'm frankly sick of them having so much power just developing something similar every year or two without even trying to make something special out of it. Aren't they rolling in money now? Why can't they take things to the next level or try something different at least? I bet they could make a BIG COD and still get what they want, but I'm pretty sure it's because they enjoy the easy money.

I'm quite aware they aren't the only company over milking franchises, but that's no excuse. This also does effect the game industry in a negative way. We've all seen company's copy one another, playing it extra safe, and it's starting to become over kill. Realistic shooters dominate the market and a lot of people are sick of it, they want to see change, and what better way is there than letting those company's feel our wrath? I know you know and everyone else knows that voting with your wallet is meaningless because they are going to be popular no matter what.

I shouldn't assume such things but I've seen this before soooo many times.
 

Jezzascmezza

New member
Aug 18, 2009
2,500
0
0
This would be a really great multiplayer-focused DLC expansion for MW2, but alas, it's an entirely new game.
I've enjoyed various COD games over the past few years, but I'm going to skip MW2.5.
I can only buy the same game so many times...
 

someonehairy-ish

New member
Mar 15, 2009
1,949
0
0
Well the actual gameplay in COD doesn't really need to change. The controls are good, the graphics are great, the guns all feel like guns, the multiplayer is unbalanced as hell but still fairly good fun.
Why would they take a risk with something wildly different when the established formula is raking in so much cash?

As for it still having mostly the same guns as before... well the various world armies are probably still using the same weaponry as before.

I don't want to sound like a COD fanboy because I'm not'; I've seen friends waste months in front of it and rarely play it myself- but there genuinely isn't a massive problem with the games except how badly the franchise is milked by the developers.
 
Aug 17, 2009
1,019
0
0
Activision is going to run Call of Duty into the ground eventually. Guitar Hero was obscenely popular and profitable for a few years, but then they started flooding the market. The only thing that has given Call of Duty more longevity is the fact that it's less expensive and has a less finicky target audience.


I'm not in on the shooter debate, I have no inclination to anything more FPS-y than Fallout 3, that's just my observation.
 

Michael Hirst

New member
May 18, 2011
552
0
0
someonehairy-ish said:
Well the actual gameplay in COD doesn't really need to change. The controls are good, the graphics are great, the guns all feel like guns, the multiplayer is unbalanced as hell but still fairly good fun.
Why would they take a risk with something wildly different when the established formula is raking in so much cash?

As for it still having mostly the same guns as before... well the various world armies are probably still using the same weaponry as before.

I don't want to sound like a COD fanboy because I'm not'; I've seen friends waste months in front of it and rarely play it myself- but there genuinely isn't a massive problem with the games except how badly the franchise is milked by the developers.
The game isn't perfect and the point is that they won't invest anything in the series to improve it. Game balance is completely lost on the creators and with each instalment it feels like we're getting fewer maps and being asked for pay mroe for DLC while MORE DLC itself is released. There's also the price rise, why is a game that uses mostly similar coding, graphics etc (which in effect can't have cost as much) costing more than every other game on the market?

I liked COD 1,2 and 4. WaW felt pretty weak and MW2 just broke all sense of game balance over its knee.
 

Gorilla Gunk

New member
May 21, 2011
1,234
0
0
It's threads like these that make me ashamed to be a gamer.

The lack of basic logic and comprehension in 90% of these post is just... wow...

"New story, levels, characters, engine, guns, and gameplay elements? IT'S THE SAME GAME!"