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

[darksakul]

Just cut the BS, just call it COD MW 2011 because they release a new COD every 2 years

 

[mocruz1200]

in my head, this is how the creation of MW3 came about
employee 1: hey, we should probably patch MW2 and release some more maps for it
employee 2: no, WAIT! we can do that, but release it as a new game, and charge them full price again!
employee 1: GENIUS.

They used the same engine. Added new game modes. REWORKED spec ops. Continued what looked like an almost generic plot into an AMAZING one. Revamped perks. Made better maps. And than slapped in new guns. I think they did some good work.

the only good thing they have done is added OP chickens.

 

[Barry93]

In MW2, I would often get more kills with kill streaks then I would with actual guns during a match. I spent most of the match sitting in a corner while my harriers, Pave Low, and Chopper Gunner did all the work. Looks like nothing has changed. I'll probably get the game just to troll people with the most OP weapon, perk, kill streak, and attachment combination. Then spend 15 minutes after each game responding to mail by 12 year olds calling me a hacker (and it's surprisingly entertaining.) I wonder how long it will take people to hack the leaderboards and give themselves a billion kills.

Shows how much you actually looked at the changes.

Then again, most of the escapist don't even know the changes they just assume.

I watched the video, I saw him using the same BS kill streaks from previous CoD games. None of the other changes matter. Though I won't complain since I'm the one using them most of the time.

 

[mocruz1200]

in my head, this is how the creation of MW3 came about
employee 1: hey, we should probably patch MW2 and release some more maps for it
employee 2: no, WAIT! we can do that, but release it as a new game, and charge them full price again!
employee 1: GENIUS.

They used the same engine. Added new game modes. REWORKED spec ops. Continued what looked like an almost generic plot into an AMAZING one. Revamped perks. Made better maps. And than slapped in new guns. I think they did some good work.

the only good thing they have done is added OP chickens.

And where is your proof of this? Did you buy a physical copy of it? No, because you didn't even buy the game to be sure.

dont need to own it. im just going with CoD's record. slightly modify it, charge full price. like someone stated before, they may as well just start following the sport game title system, seeing as one gets released every year.

 

[Valiance]

Hi? Heard about Id? From your statement it doesn't sound like you have.

I agree with the statement you're trying to make. Doom AFAIK is the first game with it, Rise of the Triad pioneered lots of changes (CTF, voice macros/voice chat with microphone, deathmatch-specific maps, etc), and it really got prolific with quake and unreal.

However, BF1942 is the first real team-based objective based large scale vehicle-inclusive territory control multiplayer that I saw, and I guess he might be referring to that.

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 it's upsetting to see people buy a product that they feel is worse. Not just less fun from a subjective standpoint, but inferior from an inarguable technical standpoint, less innovative from an objective standpoint, etc...

 

[SovietSecrets]

...? It looks no different from MW 2? Why should it look any different gameplay wise? All that needs to be tweaked each game is killstreaks, perks, and guns. Core gameplay should stay the same. The things people find to complain about is insane.

 

[Tommeh Brownleh]

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. -.-

Okay, I've played both BFBC2 & Every COD including and after 4. I like COD for the (usually) decent gunplay, and the kill streak rewards. I think they actually set it apart from any other FPS series. I also genuinely enjoy the single player. The multiplayer is alright, and I admit it is heavily flawed, but that doesn't mean you can't have fun with it. Battlefield is simply not my favorite major FPS franchise, but then again I only played BC2.

 

[Aleol]

I will buy it, I will enjoy it, and none of you douchemonkeys who think they're creating hard-hitting journalism with this revelation will change my mind, opinion, or otherwise.

Also, WHAT? Those maps look entirely different! Sure, some of the weapons are the same, but who the hell cares? The variety of weapons in MW2 is insane! And they're probably going to add more! Do you really expect them to take Weapons AWAY from MW3? The sniper in MW2 was my favorite class, and was pretty much great, so why change it? That's hardly a point against it. And COD multi has been following it's own tactical weapons combat formula for a while, why the hell change what works?

 

[mocruz1200]

in my head, this is how the creation of MW3 came about
employee 1: hey, we should probably patch MW2 and release some more maps for it
employee 2: no, WAIT! we can do that, but release it as a new game, and charge them full price again!
employee 1: GENIUS.

They used the same engine. Added new game modes. REWORKED spec ops. Continued what looked like an almost generic plot into an AMAZING one. Revamped perks. Made better maps. And than slapped in new guns. I think they did some good work.

the only good thing they have done is added OP chickens.

And where is your proof of this? Did you buy a physical copy of it? No, because you didn't even buy the game to be sure.

dont need to own it. im just going with CoD's record. slightly modify it, charge full price. like someone stated before, they may as well just start following the sport game title system, seeing as one gets released every year.

Every two years if you exclude Treyarch. Really, if you get rid of COD 3, WaW, and Black Ops, you would actually feel a change in that "record".

starting with CoD4 they have been pumping one out EVERY year

 

[WouldYouKindly]

...? It looks no different from MW 2? Why should it look any different gameplay wise? All that needs to be tweaked each game is killstreaks, perks, and guns. Core gameplay should stay the same. The things people find to complain about is insane.

I really think if a game wants to have lasting play value for me, it needs to have varied gameplay. It's why I'll play games like Oblivion and the Fallout series, there are a few dozen ways to play the game and it's interesting to see how different playstyles go.

For major FPS titles, BF has the much more varied gameplay within a few modes. While MW is more varied in what the objective is, there's still only two ways to play the game, run and kill people or sit and kill people.

If I wanted to in BF, I could never fire a shot and still help my team win. Repairing vehicles, resupplying allies, spotting enemies, and healing allies all net you points. In MW, only capturing and killing get you points.

 

[Aleol]

...? It looks no different from MW 2? Why should it look any different gameplay wise? All that needs to be tweaked each game is killstreaks, perks, and guns. Core gameplay should stay the same. The things people find to complain about is insane.

I really think if a game wants to have lasting play value for me, it needs to have varied gameplay. It's why I'll play games like Oblivion and the Fallout series, there are a few dozen ways to play the game and it's interesting to see how different playstyles go.

For major FPS titles, BF has the much more varied gameplay within a few modes. While MW is more varied in what the objective is, there's still only two ways to play the game, run and kill people or sit and kill people.

If I wanted to in BF, I could never fire a shot and still help my team win. Repairing vehicles, resupplying allies, spotting enemies, and healing allies all net you points. In MW, only capturing and killing get you points.

Some people actually prefer that.

 

[mocruz1200]

in my head, this is how the creation of MW3 came about
employee 1: hey, we should probably patch MW2 and release some more maps for it
employee 2: no, WAIT! we can do that, but release it as a new game, and charge them full price again!
employee 1: GENIUS.

They used the same engine. Added new game modes. REWORKED spec ops. Continued what looked like an almost generic plot into an AMAZING one. Revamped perks. Made better maps. And than slapped in new guns. I think they did some good work.

the only good thing they have done is added OP chickens.

And where is your proof of this? Did you buy a physical copy of it? No, because you didn't even buy the game to be sure.

dont need to own it. im just going with CoD's record. slightly modify it, charge full price. like someone stated before, they may as well just start following the sport game title system, seeing as one gets released every year.

Every two years if you exclude Treyarch. Really, if you get rid of COD 3, WaW, and Black Ops, you would actually feel a change in that "record".

starting with CoD4 they have been pumping one out EVERY year

Exclude Treyarch's games. Now it's every TWO years since Call of Duty.

but why? they are still Call of Duty games. thats like saying to exclude Duke Nukem Forever because it was made by gearbox

 

[WouldYouKindly]

...? It looks no different from MW 2? Why should it look any different gameplay wise? All that needs to be tweaked each game is killstreaks, perks, and guns. Core gameplay should stay the same. The things people find to complain about is insane.

I really think if a game wants to have lasting play value for me, it needs to have varied gameplay. It's why I'll play games like Oblivion and the Fallout series, there are a few dozen ways to play the game and it's interesting to see how different playstyles go.

For major FPS titles, BF has the much more varied gameplay within a few modes. While MW is more varied in what the objective is, there's still only two ways to play the game, run and kill people or sit and kill people.

If I wanted to in BF, I could never fire a shot and still help my team win. Repairing vehicles, resupplying allies, spotting enemies, and healing allies all net you points. In MW, only capturing and killing get you points.

Some people actually prefer that.

And that's fine for them. I was merely explaining my own reasoning for preferring BF.

I did neglect to mention that the community is much less annoying than CoD.

 

[kebab4you]

Hi? Heard about Id? From your statement it doesn't sound like you have.

I agree with the statement you're trying to make. Doom AFAIK is the first game with it, Rise of the Triad pioneered lots of changes (CTF, voice macros/voice chat with microphone, deathmatch-specific maps, etc), and it really got prolific with quake and unreal.

However, BF1942 is the first real team-based objective based large scale vehicle-inclusive territory control multiplayer that I saw, and I guess he might be referring to that.

Ah that´s what you meant, then I would like to say CS, even if it didn't have any kind of vehicles to it(still had CTF,voice macros/voice chat/DM/specifc maps) bf pretty much built on that method.