Trailers: Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 3 - Weapon Proficiencies

[5t3v0]

Those reasons you listed are actually why I despise Black Ops. There are definately some gun balance issues in that game, hence why I prefer MW2. But correct me if I'm wrong, Treyarch were the ones who made Black ops while Infinity Ward made MW2. Seeing as how MW3 is Infinity Ward at the helm once again, it leaves me optimistic that the gun balance won't be completely screwed up like it was before.

Uh, actually, the infinity ward you see is not the infinity ward you know and love. Half of the company is gone and we seem to be hearing more from this "Sledgehammer games" from a development point. Time should tell if they do well or not, but I'm a PC elitist who has been spending time on his much more preferred game BF3 /Flame on.

Edit for decreased douchebaggery: Though I may pick it up to cap off the storyline somewhere down the line, might I add.

 

[NitehawkFury]

Those reasons you listed are actually why I despise Black Ops. There are definately some gun balance issues in that game, hence why I prefer MW2. But correct me if I'm wrong, Treyarch were the ones who made Black ops while Infinity Ward made MW2. Seeing as how MW3 is Infinity Ward at the helm once again, it leaves me optimistic that the gun balance won't be completely screwed up like it was before.

Uh, actually, the infinity ward you see is not the infinity ward you know and love. Half of the company is gone and we seem to be hearing more from this "Sledgehammer games" from a development point. Time should tell if they do well or not, but I'm a PC elitist who has been spending time on his much more preferred game BF3 /Flame on.

Edit for decreased douchebaggery: Though I may pick it up to cap off the storyline somewhere down the line, might I add.

You beat me to it. Honestly, the more that I see of this game, the more that it seems to look like Black Ops, and less like Modern Warfare 2. To me, MW2 was a much more polished and cleaned-up game, while Black Ops was just an inferior attempt to be as good as the original. Now we've got a gutted Infinity Ward and a studio that is run by the guys who made Dead Space (Which is a great game, but it's not exactly known for its well-balanced and/or robust multiplayer).

I'm hoping that the Single-Player is awesome, but just like with Black Ops, I'll probably be skipping the Multiplayer stuff.

 

[Kinguendo]

Those reasons you listed are actually why I despise Black Ops. There are definately some gun balance issues in that game, hence why I prefer MW2. But correct me if I'm wrong, Treyarch were the ones who made Black ops while Infinity Ward made MW2. Seeing as how MW3 is Infinity Ward at the helm once again, it leaves me optimistic that the gun balance won't be completely screwed up like it was before.

MW2 still has problems... quick scoping, tele-knifing, barely any kick on guns. I could list more if I had played it more recently than a year ago.

 

[Still Life]

Well done Escapist, noone has whined about MW3 being a glorified map pack... yet

OT: Im a bit worried about the Recoil option, you could get a high recoil but high damage gun then get the proficiency for recoil that gun will be one of the most powerful guns and will probably make people whine that it's OP.

Reaction time and being in the right spot at the right time will trump a gun's OP nature every time.

Yeah, that sounds good on paper.

If Modern Warfare 2 was anything to go by, you could be a decently skilled player, have great positioning and tactical foresight, but options became limited as there were all manner of death machines in the air at any given time. Sometimes this meant that you could simply be unlucky and get stuck into spawn traps. Some of the weapons became pretty much bullet hoses in conjunction with the right perks. And the perks? Everyone knows about commando.

The game really did become less about skill and proficiency and more about who had the right class combo.

Whether or not MW3 is a balanced game remains to be seen.

 

[Aeonknight]

Well done Escapist, noone has whined about MW3 being a glorified map pack... yet

OT: Im a bit worried about the Recoil option, you could get a high recoil but high damage gun then get the proficiency for recoil that gun will be one of the most powerful guns and will probably make people whine that it's OP.

Reaction time and being in the right spot at the right time will trump a gun's OP nature every time.

Yeah, that sounds good on paper.

If Modern Warfare 2 was anything to go by, you could be a decently skilled player, have great positioning and tactical foresight, but options became limited as there were all manner of death machines in the air at any given time. Sometimes this meant that you could simply be unlucky and get stuck into spawn traps. Some of the weapons became pretty much bullet hoses in conjunction with the right perks. And the perks? Everyone knows about commando.

The game really did become less about skill and proficiency and more about who had the right class combo.

Whether or not MW3 is a balanced game remains to be seen.

Tbh, I'm not seeing these death machines from the sky that is a common criticism of MW2. Cold Blooded nullifies just about any automated form of racking up kills (Harrier, Attack Chopper, Pavelow, Sentry Turrets, UAV, and to lesser extent: Chopper Gunner/AC130)

About the only thing that is near impossible to survive is Predator Missiles when there's no building/tunnels nearby.

Although I'm sure we could go back and forth discussing strategies/ways to counteract them that both of us know like the back of our hands, I'd rather discuss what all of those "overpowered" killstreaks actually accomplish.

Chances are if the enemy team has acquired a killstreak reward like a chopper gunner, then someone is already dominating your team. Not necessarily yourself specifically, but either way they've gone over 10 kills unanswered, which means your team is doin' it wrong. Whether it's because no one bothered to shoot down the harrier that's murdering people without Cold Blooded (in which case, your team deserves every bit of what's coming to you), or the enemy guy/gal is just that good, either way: you're more than likely going to lose this match. And you probably would've lost it anyway, due to just being outmatched (I say probably, because there's always a chance, no matter how slim.) All the Chopper Gunner killstreak does is expedite the process, so you can get back to the lobby and hopefully get teams re-shuffled in a much more balanced manner.

 

[Still Life]

Tbh, I'm not seeing these death machines from the sky that is a common criticism of MW2. Cold Blooded nullifies just about any automated form of racking up kills (Harrier, Attack Chopper, Pavelow, Sentry Turrets, UAV, and to lesser extent: Chopper Gunner/AC130)

Cold Blooded prevents automated air support from targeting you, yes. In my own experience, it did little to prevent a chopper gunner from targeting those players.

Chances are if the enemy team has acquired a killstreak reward like a chopper gunner, then someone is already dominating your team. Not necessarily yourself specifically, but either way they've gone over 10 kills unanswered, which means your team is doin' it wrong.

Yes. Yet, how many players play COD as a team, even in the team based modes? I actually really like how IW have revamped the points system from one of killstreaks to point streaks and have developed strike packages correspondingly. Hopefully this encourages players to be more team conscious because I agree: players suffered if they were grouped with an incoherent team.

MW2 emphasized player-centric abilities a bit too much and was reflected in the disproportionate game scores at the end of a match. Certain perks and killstreak combos were just too easy to exploit I feel. I think BO did a good job of balancing things, such as providing more options for anti air, restricting the number of air units at a given time to one and eliminating and refining certain perks which gave a bit too much of an advantage. In BO class composition mattered, but there was much more nuance behind it and more emphasis on raw skill.

I never said that things were overpowered. Not necessarily. However, balance was an issue. Skilled players will generally perform well regardless, yet I don't see the need to amplify their scores to ridiculous levels and inversely, those of bad players who take advantage of certain combos.

I had a lot of fun with MW2, but for such a fast paced and twitch-centric game the pace was too often disrupted by entire teams camping either to get that certain killstreak combo, or hiding in an attempt to escape the rain of death called in by players hidden out of site on the other side of the map.

Such were my experiences.

 

[Aeonknight]

Tbh, I'm not seeing these death machines from the sky that is a common criticism of MW2. Cold Blooded nullifies just about any automated form of racking up kills (Harrier, Attack Chopper, Pavelow, Sentry Turrets, UAV, and to lesser extent: Chopper Gunner/AC130)

Cold Blooded prevents automated air support from targeting you, yes. In my own experience, it did little to prevent a chopper gunner from targeting those players.

Chances are if the enemy team has acquired a killstreak reward like a chopper gunner, then someone is already dominating your team. Not necessarily yourself specifically, but either way they've gone over 10 kills unanswered, which means your team is doin' it wrong.

Yes. Yet, how many players play COD as a team, even in the team based modes? I actually really like how IW have revamped the points system from one of killstreaks to point streaks and have developed strike packages correspondingly. Hopefully this encourages players to be more team conscious because I agree: players suffered if they were grouped with an incoherent team.

MW2 emphasized player-centric abilities a bit too much and was reflected in the disproportionate game scores at the end of a match. Certain perks and killstreak combos were just too easy to exploit I feel. I think BO did a good job of balancing things, such as providing more options for anti air, restricting the number of air units at a given time to one and eliminating and refining certain perks which gave a bit too much of an advantage. In BO class composition mattered, but there was much more nuance behind it and more emphasis on raw skill.

I never said that things were overpowered. Not necessarily. However, balance was an issue. Skilled players will generally perform well regardless, yet I don't see the need to amplify their scores to ridiculous levels and inversely, those of bad players who take advantage of certain combos.

I had a lot of fun with MW2, but for such a fast paced and twitch-centric game the pace was too often disrupted by entire teams camping either to get that certain killstreak combo, or hiding in an attempt to escape the rain of death called in by players hidden out of site on the other side of the map.

Such were my experiences.

My experiences weren't much different than yours, but I didn't mind it that much personally. Having to seek cover from an AC130 did bring a change of pace to gameplay, that I personally welcomed. It's the same reason I enjoy playing Battlefield 3. It's not nearly as prevalent in MW2 as it is in the BF series of course, but I see it as only an improvement if the 2 series share some of the more positive aspects of their gameplay with one another.

Something with BO didn't "click" with me like it did with MW2 though. It's hard to narrow it down to any single aspect, but either way I attribute it to Treyarch's different handling of gameplay mechanics. So with IW back in charge (even if it's a different group of developers as others mentioned earlier, it's the same studio at least) I'm still relatively optimistic about MW3's multiplayer. It won't be perfect, nothing ever is, but hopefully it'll be an improvement over BO. If it does only that, that's reason enough for me to drop some money on it.

 

[Wicky_42]

Hey, cod 4's gotten another expansion! *sigh*

at least BF series has a little more going on than just reiterating last years' game with a handful of new guns and a reorganisation of the same perks -_-

Have you played battlefield 3? Its just bad company 2 with a couple changes. Hell I am pretty sure I even saw some of the buildings straight up copied into the game. Im not saying its a bad game but if you think they changed a whole lot your just being delusional. Both series make about the same amount of changes in between each game.

Nope, not played it yet, should be arriving next week. However, I understand that there are now pilotable jets, prone (though admittedly both of these have featured in BF2), LMGs with bipods (a first for the series, I believe), laser sights and flashlights with gameplay repercussions, a cover mechanic that take into account suppression fire (the only game to implement such a feature bar the Project Reality mod for BF2, as far as I know), and, of course, the new Frostbite 2 engine.

Now lets compare that to the lastest CoD: according to the lasted video I've seen for it, it features a new SMG, deployable turrets, and "weapon experience bars", allowing you to "level up your weapons" - though what this entails is somewhat of a mystery. Also the developers promise that the engine has been refurbished behind the scenes, though honestly all the footage looks identical to what I saw in CoD4. Maybe that's because they got the formula perfect with that game and the engine was so awesome that it's needed only a little spit and shine since, but I don't know about that.

It's a shame that there aren't many other similar series to compare to to see what scale of innovation we should be expecting, but there are some: the most recent Halo introduced new game modes, some new weapons, had a substantial and arguably well crafted single player campaign, and changed some of the established game mechanics to reflect on the series' original game whilst emphasising some of the most recent ideas of armour equipment to vary up the series' strong run-and-gun multiplayer gameplay. Even that is more than what the new CoD brings to the franchise, so I think I'm well supported in insulting CoD for being stagnant.

 

[Still Life]

Having to seek cover from an AC130 did bring a change of pace to gameplay, that I personally welcomed.

Introducing variables which make players re-think their strategies/tactics and shift the pace can definitely be a good thing. However, in MW2 when the game hit around the 60 sec mark the killstreaks start coming up; two or three minutes into a game, you could have multiple air units and preds raining down some rage and that was a bit too much for my tastes. It felt less like a macho FPS and more like a hide and seek game and that's not COD.

That is where BO hit the mark with balance by limiting air units whilst still giving them a tangible sense of power. Killstreaks could be very effective, but it required a player to time and premeditate their usage; killstreaks were also balanced better because they couldn't be spammed/stacked. Further still, BO had anti-camping tools and the maps in general discouraged camp tactics that became de rigueur in MW2.

Something with BO didn't "click" with me like it did with MW2 though. It's hard to narrow it down to any single aspect, but either way I attribute it to Treyarch's different handling of gameplay mechanics.

I played a fair amount of BO and while I appreciated the more balanced gameplay, it felt too run of the mill. COD is seeing too many iterations for me to stay interested in the series. Each 'game' feels like an expansion pack of sorts. Maybe this isn't fair, but for me it's a case of 'too much of a good thing'. I'm following news for MW3, but unless it's the best thing since sliced bread: I won't be getting it. That said, I do hope it is good and that people enjoy it.

I have my eye on CS:GO (because the formula still kicks ass) and it doesn't help that BF3 is the most fun I've had online since COD4 and BF2.

 

[bjj hero]

Im more hoping Valve dont screw up the new counterstrike for the consoles but Ill give this a spin until then.

The anti explosives turret sounds like a campers wet dream. Anything that makes camping easier is a shit idea for me.

 

[sooperman]

Has someone convinced Infinity Ward that they are not permitted to innovate or invent? The defensive turret is the only thing in this trailer that isn't pulled directly from some other game.

Good luck, CoD fans; I wish you all strength in your suffering.

 

[NightHawk21]

Well done Escapist, noone has whined about MW3 being a glorified map pack... yet

OT: Im a bit worried about the Recoil option, you could get a high recoil but high damage gun then get the proficiency for recoil that gun will be one of the most powerful guns and will probably make people whine that it's OP.

That's likely gonna be a problem. Another thing I'm worried about is the fact that explosive weapons might get them and become even more fukin annoying.

 

[Discord]

IDK I still look forward to the game I mean guns and proficiency be dammed. When it comes down to any of these games, rate of fire is where it's at. The faster bullets shoot the more kills you'll get, I mean that's why everyone uses FAMAS or the AK-74u Rapid fire (Maybe the AUG) in BlackOPS from what I've seen.

But if you ask me MW3 is going to do a lot to make a more fun game, balanced is up for opinion when I play the thing. Yeah I'll play and of course there is going to be somethings that'll get people raging and cussing, but it's all about the pattern. You play enough shooters you know where the players Frag Spam, where the snipers love to camp and what to avoid, ya know identifying the patterns and stuff.

 

[Duffeknol]

So this will happen: everyone will get the same SMG, level it up to the max so that it doesn't have any kickback whatsoever, and everyone will kill each other will a never-faltering, perfectly accurate laser gun. No thanks.

 

[SnakeoilSage]

Is it just me, or am I getting real Michael Bay vibes off of these guys and their game..?

Oh no...

 

[LGC Pominator]

You know what, I have tried really damn hard to want nothing to do with this game, to dislike it for everything it stands for and all that jazz, but I really can't do it, whatever IW/sledgehammer games' problems are, they make their games look good, and they make me want them, even when every fibre of my being is screaming at me that I shouldn't like this, it is an annual rerelease, it is a primarily multiplayer game, guaranteed to be packed full of servers with shouty 13 year olds, it is the game that the non-gamer idiots next door but one will buy claiming to be "hardcore", but I just think "meh, it looks good, maybe i will pick it up".

But of course I won't, cant afford it, Halo CEA is coming out in 2 weeks and I needs me some master chief action... not sure if I can afford that either.

 

[angry_flashlight]

So weapon proficiencies will just make the inevitable OP guns more OP? Heh.
"O hai 2 shot kill massive recoil gun, now you have little recoil but still keep ur damage. im t3h 1337est!"
Free gun increases without drawbacks will cause problems, if they have drawbacks then it may work out, but it seems from the video that they don't. Everyone will just unlock the low-recoil one and have MW2 laser guns.

I have a question: Why does the Assault class get the sniper perk? Isn't that the exact opposite of what an Assault should be using?