You know, I miss that guy. Kamarov was an interesting character, even if a little bipolar. A russian-nationalist (I think?) campaign would be very interesting, in my opinion.Ldude893 said:-Kamarov back.
-A single player campaign set in Russia
You know, I miss that guy. Kamarov was an interesting character, even if a little bipolar. A russian-nationalist (I think?) campaign would be very interesting, in my opinion.Ldude893 said:-Kamarov back.
-A single player campaign set in Russia
Activision gave project MW3 to their new *****, Sledgehammer Games.AjimboB said:I'm going to venture a guess and say that there won't be a Modern Warfare 3, at least it won't be made by Infinity Ward. Infinity Ward's developers have been saying for a few months now that they want to steer away from Call of Duty, and considering that 4 of the design leads have left in order to form their own independent development company (because they were sick of Activision's bullshit).
Then again, since Activision still has the distribution rights, there's a pretty good chance that they'll continue to exploit the franchise, but I don't think the games will continue to be produced by Infinity Ward.
True. I suppose it justfeels more balanced than any of the others (other than UAV and Counter-UAV)Reg5879 said:Predator Missiles ain't really saints, it is more of a point at who you want to die killstreak.czarevilsam said:1) The ability to play through the campaign co-op.
2) Kill streak rewards that aren't quite so good. Predator missile - balanced. AC-130 - not so much.
3) Spawn protection (nothing like spawning outside under a harrier over and over again)
4) More Spec Ops would be awesome
EDIT: Dedicated servers and a more polished multiplayer lobby. Take the example of Battle.net
Well now I look stupid....MiracleOfSound said:Isn't the Intervention a 50 CAL?ShredHead said:No, in balance terms, the Intervention should be the most powerful sniper, simply because it's the most difficult to use, the fact that the Barrett is just as powerful just makes the Intervention redundant.MiracleOfSound said:Today I got a painkiller hitmarker with a Predator missile.
Yeah.
Also, I don't snipe but a 50 Cal bullet should be a one hit kill.
You're still holding the handle?Tharwen said:Also, why don't grenades explode when you get killed between removing the pin and throwing them?
Actually I think I was the one who was wrong, someone else pointed out that in fact it doesn't use 50 Cal rounds!ShredHead said:Well now I look stupid....MiracleOfSound said:Isn't the Intervention a 50 CAL?ShredHead said:No, in balance terms, the Intervention should be the most powerful sniper, simply because it's the most difficult to use, the fact that the Barrett is just as powerful just makes the Intervention redundant.MiracleOfSound said:Today I got a painkiller hitmarker with a Predator missile.
Yeah.
Also, I don't snipe but a 50 Cal bullet should be a one hit kill.
Alex, away!!!
Actually that sounds like a really good idea. Certainly would stop grenade spam. However I have a distinct feeling some people would start simply murdering civilians for the lulz which wouldnt end very well. Also if CNN got wind of the fact you can hold people hostage it would be very bad. Very bad indeedAnoctris said:People are gonna hate me for this, but what the hell.
[HEADING=2]Non-combatant bots[/HEADING]
-At the start of each round, 10-30 non-combatant bots spawn at various random locations around the map.
-They proceed to run/hide in various locations until they're killed or the round ends.
-Killing a non-combatant bot results in a points deducted from your score, possibly forcing you into career negative scores.
Now players will
- check targets before firing
- be penalized for random grenade throwing
- be penalized when area weapons (air strikes/gunship/artillery) kills non-combatants
- be penalized when a civilian walks into a mine
It would be interesting to see how players would adapt their tactics, like using the bots as shields to cross open areas, or sniping from a room where a group of bots are hiding.
Maybe it would be better as just a game mode, because I can see a lot of trigger-happy kids/adults will just get bored/annoyed because they can't go nuts.
Edit Note: Before you start flaming, bear in mind I once saw a thread here debating the artistic merit of being able to kill children in video-games (which I'm opposed to).
That would actually be a great idea, and I'm pretty sure they had this planned for MW2 but for whatever reason it didn't get put into the finished game.Anoctris said:[HEADING=2]Non-combatant bots[/HEADING]
.
Girls don't have much high voice frequency, they just have a gentler tone and no Adam's apple.Chrinik said:And all girls that might be playing the game....The Austin said:An in game mechanic that reads your microphone frequency. Any voice over 1840 λ/Per second gets booted out of the game. That 'aughta show those damn 12 year olds.