The Armor Games website will be down for maintenance on Monday 10/7/2024
starting at 10:00 AM Pacific time. We apologize for the inconvenience.
Forums → Games → [Main Thread] CoD? Put it here!
| 3990 | 839488 |
Apparently the effort of cleaning up the forums has been biased, so the CoD group get their own thread for discussing as well.
Enjoy.
- 3,990 Replies
THEY SET HIM ON FREAKING FIRE
Yeah, he's defiantly dead
PS:Anyone with MW3-Is it worth the $60?
Just came on here to say that MW3 has a 2.7 out of 10 score on Metacritic on Xbox 360, and it's even worse on PC.
Not, it has a 2.7 userscore, and how many of those people do you think played the game? Pretty much all of them are from battle field fanboys, people who didn't play the game, or people who think it's too much like MW2. If a game is a copy of another game, it deserves the exact same rating as it, it's should just be considered an unoriginal waste of money.
Pretty much all of them are from battle field fanboys,
Unlikely. There are Battlefield players who are that shallow and haven't played it or even seen it, but a lot of them could be intelligent or bored CoD players or ones who don't even care.
People who think it's too much like MW2? Entirely valid point I hope you know.
If a game is a copy of another game, it deserves the exact same rating as it,
So, you wouldn't mind spending £60 on a SEQUEL, that is supposed to have some new things, upgrade on the old ones and throw out the bad traits when really it is just the same thing?
So, you wouldn't mind the complete and utter lack of innovation in what began as a good series but delved into retardism with MW2 and plunged further down the depths of idiocy with MW3, where the graphics style is the complete same and the gameplay is equally imbalanced by most chances?
it's should just be considered an unoriginal waste of money.
For EVERYONE but the developers because the CoD fanbase would buy it anyway.
I'm shocked that you think a game exactly the same like the other deserves an equal rating. Or even that ratings matter - they're artbitrary numbers that do not allocate a proper score to a game, because I could put Dragonball Z Budaokai 3 as a 10/10 but that doesn't make it better than Starcraft II who someone may put an 8.5/10 because it's "too competitive".
Take it for what it is - and MW3 is a sore copy that would've been terrible even if it were "original" of its previous game that sadly has been known as the most successful one.
This is what the Gaming Industry is represented by.
This is what the Gaming Industry is INFLUENCED BY.
At least Homefront 2 is being developed by CryTek.
- H
Pretty much all of them are from battle field fanboys,
That was only one category i listed. Majority of them fall into the other two. When the critics, who i would trust much more considering it's their job to analyze games, give a game a 9 and users give it a 2.7, there's something to be said.
I'm shocked that you think a game exactly the same like the other deserves an equal rating
Think of it like this
A=MW2
B=MW3
C=a rating of 9/10
If A=B
and A=C
then B=C
I wouldn't want to keep buying or playing games if they don't start to innovate more (hence why i said "unoriginal waste of money", but by logic the game's rating should be the same.
to those kids saying Ghost won't come back:
They said there's a flashback mission in MW3 in which you play as Ghost(I think it's true).
He is dead,it's just another flashback mission like the one in MW1 (Cpt.Macmillan,remember).I guess i'm buying MW3 today.
That was only one category i listed.
What's your point? The other two are perfectly viable candidates for judging MW3.
I haven't played it, and I think it's too much like MW2 -- and I think it's a terrible game. You want to dispute that?
When the critics, who i would trust much more considering it's their job to analyze games,
That's a big mistake. The rating SYSTEM is an arbritrary number that I've already said is very unreliable. The reviewers themselves may huge hold bias from their own views or the views of the company as a bad review would disallow a future review of a sequel -- getting a heads up on one of the biggest games around means a lot to them.
Too much bias in that case, and that is why only Totalbiscuit is the "reviewer" I trust, despite the fact that his videos on games are based more on first impressions, and he hasn't actually done a review. Why? Because of the way he looks at things and furthermore the honesty of that.
give a game a 9 and users give it a 2.7, there's something to be said.
That the reviewers are hyping up a game in order to get eyes on the insides for the next one and of course so they don't stand out like nubs to a large playerbase in the world that plays CoD.
Think of it like this
A=MW2
B=MW3
C=a rating of 9/10
If A=B
and A=C
then B=C
That... is pathetically stupid, sorry, but REALLY.
Here's why:
but by logic the game's rating should be the same.
By logic the sequel should clean up the bad parts and add new / better / good parts in. If you want to include algebra then it works like this:
A = First Game
B = A - F + P = Second Game
F = Faults
P = Pros (or something innovative that doesn't suck)
But you can't even look at it like that either, it's more accurate sure but nonetheless a poor perspective.
MW3 Lacks proper Dedicated Servers - none of them are allowed to be ranked. What the hell? That's a step BACK from Call of Duty 4 and even Black Ops.
MW3 Lacks Mod Tools - a step BACK from Call of Duty 4.
MW3 By most chances lacks any form of real balance - a step BACK from Call of Duty 4 -- although that did have its own balance issues that ultimately diminish with the introduction of ProMod.
to those kids saying Ghost won't come back:
They said there's a flashback mission in MW3 in which you play as Ghost(I think it's true).
He is dead,it's just another flashback mission like the one in MW1 (Cpt.Macmillan,remember)
In which case, he isn't coming back... but you guys are going back.
I guess i'm buying MW3 today.
I wouldn't suggest it but hey -- what power do I have?
- H
Sorry, it appears I.... done the image wrong. Never been good at doing it :P
- H
don't wanna talk bout online, because I am not online till christmas, but I can say that Campaing mode is very good on Modern Warfare 2 and less so on Black Ops and COD4. Love headshots, love the Russian Invasion on American soil, that was new and innovative. I liked the airport massacre. Killin innocent civilians is good, but there's no kids which is unrealistic. Killin then police was good. It has great graphics and gameplay. Modern Warfare 2 is my fave.
This is an opinion based comment, not factual. Don't take this to heart. Also nothing to contribute. Just opinionated bias. Sorry...
The other two are perfectly viable candidates for judging MW3.
I explained why the other two are invalid.
That's a big mistake. The rating SYSTEM is an arbritrary number that I've already said is very unreliable. The reviewers themselves may huge hold bias from their own views or the views of the company as a bad review would disallow a future review of a sequel -- getting a heads up on one of the biggest games around means a lot to them.
I'm not really sure what you're saying, why would giving a bad review not allow them to play another game of the series in the future?
That the reviewers are hyping up a game in order to get eyes on the insides for the next one and of course so they don't stand out like nubs to a large playerbase in the world that plays CoD.
I highly doubt most reviewers think they have a chance of getting any inside info. If they give games, that deserve bad ratings, good ratings, then when people buy the game based off their review, they will get angry at the reviewer for lying to them and probably won't want to check their reviews if they do this consistently.
By logic the sequel should clean up the bad parts
Should, but they don't necessarily. All I'm saying is that if two things are the same, they should be treated the same. I probably won't keep buying the game if they don't start innovating, but the games deserve identical ratings. If people want something new, they should buy a game with something new. They should know when they're buying this game that it is exactly the same.
B = A - F + P = Second Game
That's saying what the second game should be, not what rating it deserves.
But you can't even look at it like that either, it's more accurate sure but nonetheless a poor perspective.
MW3 Lacks proper Dedicated Servers - none of them are allowed to be ranked. What the hell? That's a step BACK from Call of Duty 4 and even Black Ops.
MW3 Lacks Mod Tools - a step BACK from Call of Duty 4.
MW3 By most chances lacks any form of real balance - a step BACK from Call of Duty 4 -- although that did have its own balance issues that ultimately diminish with the introduction of ProMod.
If it's a step back it deserves a worse rating, but the argument is currently that it's exactly the same.
I haven't played it
I think you should play it before arguing how good it is.
I explained why the other two are invalid.
Well then - enlighten me on where you explained that. ^^
I'm not really sure what you're saying, why would giving a bad review not allow them to play another game of the series in the future?
To preview, I meant.
This was the case with Duke Nukem if you remember correctly. Plus popularity is a matter for big heads like IGN and Eurogamer when the large CoDbase sees that they dislike it.
I highly doubt most reviewers think they have a chance of getting any inside info.
So... I learnt the MW3 storyline before it was even out, and they don't have a chance of getting inside info?
they will get angry at the reviewer for lying to them and probably won't want to check their reviews if they do this consistently.
Yep... because once you've adopted the seemingly advanced mindset of a reviewer most people then certainly decide to think for themselves.
They will construe the game the reviewer set it as... which is a bad thing to do -- as it makes you vulnerable.
Should, but they don't necessarily.
The sequel should be judged on how much it did clean up -- furthermore this should be disregarded if there wasn't anything to actually clean up.
All I'm saying is that if two things are the same, they should be treated the same.
You look at it way too simply though. They're NOT the same. One is a sequel to the other -- and thus should be treated as such, and you just agreed with me that it should clean up the poor parts.
I probably won't keep buying the game if they don't start innovating, but the games deserve identical ratings.
I think it is a simple matter of interpretation. You say they're identical and thus they deserve the same.
They are identical - but the positions they're in aren't. One is the first, and thus should have lower ratings for unforeseen mistakes. The second is a sequel - that should be expected to have fixed those mistakes and brought at least some innovation -- otherwise it is as much worth as a patch.
They should know when they're buying this game that it is exactly the same.
But you're saying that the numbers have any accurate meaning -- they really don't, and anyone who misconstrues them for accurate terribly need to learn that that is not the case.
The reviewer
Their bias
Their experience
Their company's standpoint
Other company's standpoints
Their information
Their mindset
All of these come to influence their final opinion of the game -- and the majority of them are unfair traits to change it.
That's saying what the second game should be, not what rating it deserves.
So you would rate a game based on what it apparently deserves? How do you work out what it deserves? Rate it for what it should be, but take into considerations flaws with what it is. Battlefield 3 Singleplayer -- interactive movie, not much else.
For what it was... ****ing mind-blowing.
For what it could've been? A beautiful prelude to the Multiplayer and a truly immersive story with core mechanics being the use? Actually terrible.
If it's a step back it deserves a worse rating, but the argument is currently that it's exactly the same.
It is a SEQUEL and has taken a step back -- this shows a piss poor analysis by the developers, and a rediculous track back that simply should not have happened.
I think you should play it before arguing how good it is.
I think the developers have already unjustly siphoned enough money from my pockets -- I'll judge the game as I darn well please, as I'm more than in a good enough position to even without playing it.
What you said was not a defense in any respect. In the case of CoD too little is required to know what it is. A new game? Sure, a sequel to age-old Battlefield 2? Sure. The game which promises mostly the same thing with ANNOUNCED stupidity in the game, and objective facts regarding it that are bad? Pshh. It's a triple A title, apparently, and it has that -- thanks, but I need not spend a minute to know.
- H
alright so i just play mw3 multiplayer and it was amazing. The new kill streak set up is great, alowing you to set kill streaks for each class. also their are three groups of differnet killstreaks. assault (your more destructive killstreaks that build on each other.) suport (you more team frendly kill streaks that DONT reset when you die) and the specialists (not much i know about it, other than you can set perks as kill streaks)
the new weapons are great. i am also liking how they divided up the sleight of hand from being the quick scoper perk of death. sadly their is no stopping power or hardened, but the guns have increased in power so it is not need too much. the quick scoping is still good though. they have a new perk, quick draw, that is sleight of hand pros ability of aiming down the sights faster. now sleight of hands pro is faster weapon swaps which is not bad at all. the maps are fun and unique. i am enjoying it so far. it has this cod 4 feel to the game which is pretty nice. i just feel like im playing a better version of cod 4, not one of mw2 or black ops. they took a few guns from all three of these games. shotguns are still primary weapons, new machine pistols, new snipers, brand new perks i cant even get started on, amazing maps and great cosomizeable kill streaks.
over all on a raiting of 10 i give it 8.5. this is just for multiplayer though i havent even started the story yet, im saving that for the weekend. i wanted an edge on everyone. turns out i didnt need it. i used my old mw2 friend the ump-45 to go 19 and 5 on my first match. no i know thats normally pretty bad, but for my first match with brand new unknown maps, thats pretty good.
Well then - enlighten me on where you explained that. ^^
My explanation is what we've been arguing this entire time.
So... I learnt the MW3 storyline before it was even out, and they don't have a chance of getting inside info?
Do you know how they got that data? Because one store accidentally sold a few copies before the release and at one point two truckloads of the game was stolen in europe.
Yep... because once you've adopted the seemingly advanced mindset of a reviewer most people then certainly decide to think for themselves.
People clearly aren't thinking in the same was a the critics.
They will construe the game the reviewer set it as... which is a bad thing to do -- as it makes you vulnerable.
You can't really say these are things most people will do, you obviously aren't getting someone's own opinion if they are doing this.
The sequel should be judged on how much it did clean up
That's one opinion.
I think it is a simple matter of interpretation. You say they're identical and thus they deserve the same.
They are identical - but the positions they're in aren't. One is the first, and thus should have lower ratings for unforeseen mistakes. The second is a sequel - that should be expected to have fixed those mistakes and brought at least some innovation -- otherwise it is as much worth as a patch.
Once again, this is how you see it. I guess this comes down to a matter of opinion as to what you are looking for in the sequel.
So you would rate a game based on what it apparently deserves? How do you work out what it deserves? Rate it for what it should be, but take into considerations flaws with what it is. Battlefield 3 Singleplayer -- interactive movie, not much else.
Actually i don't really know why i said that, i don't really know what i was talking about there. Just regard that as a mistake.
It is a SEQUEL and has taken a step back -- this shows a piss poor analysis by the developers, and a rediculous track back that simply should not have happened.
Not changing or fixing anything isn't a step back, it's just not a step, you're staying right where you just were.
Though on a slightly irrelevant note, I've gotten a bit into the campaign now, it's freaking awesome. It is pretty much the same gameplay as MW2, but MW2's gameplay was amazing. I was extremely disappointed that MW2's campaign was over so soon (and undebatable made no sense), but now I'm getting more of it. The campaign is also fairly difficult, I was failing a few times at the first part of the first level (on hardened).
My explanation is what we've been arguing this entire time.
Ah, so:
If a game is a copy of another game, it deserves the exact same rating as it, it's should just be considered an unoriginal waste of money.
Do you know how they got that data? Because one store accidentally sold a few copies before the release and at one point two truckloads of the game was stolen in europe.
That is some poor security they have :/ the truckloads in any case -- the shops are quite. Well, no comment.
Information of other games for example -- it doesn't necessarily stretch to one. This could limit any Activision product or even other ones through fear of poor reviews.
Plus -- the popularity factor. It's like Totalbiscuit who makes a living on his YouTube channel of 500,000 subscribers ripping into Starcraft II all of a sudden...
Incase you don't understand - he casts Starcraft II (generally with dApollo) as a passion job on the side.
People clearly aren't thinking in the same was a the critics.
The smart ones. The smarter ones aren't thinking in the same way as the smart ones either.
Smart ones would recognise there's little innovation.
Smarter ones would target the core problem of the fundamentals being wrong anyway. Why? Because they're... fundamental maybe?
You can't really say these are things most people will do, you obviously aren't getting someone's own opinion if they are doing this.
The last part in bold... what?
And yeah I can -- anyone who is willing to trust a critic like that is vulnerable. Or at all, even.
That's one opinion.
So you really want me to use the "Quality > Quantity" argument? Look at the REASON instead of swinging it aside because oh noes -- it's just me.
That you know of anyways. I'm pretty sure ChillzMaster would back me up on this... not that that should be necessarily.
Once again, this is how you see it. I guess this comes down to a matter of opinion as to what you are looking for in the sequel.
Are you saying that one should be determined on what it is, without any consideration for its position or the state of the game industry?
Why do you think people DISLIKE BF3'S CAMPAIGN?
I already gave a reason -- it could've been more useful AND better with immersion. Instead it had the feature every other game has now:
Linearity.
If you cannot regard the current state of the game industry then you sir are going against most smart business decisions made - they find a whole in the market and then they fill it in.
Not changing or fixing anything isn't a step back, it's just not a step, you're staying right where you just were.
Sequels have the expectancy of having them fixed -- hell, so do the games that gave birth to those mistakes to an extent. You can argue it's not a negative but a lack of a positive but that would be going against what the point of a sequel is and / or should be.
Though on a slightly irrelevant note, I've gotten a bit into the campaign now, it's freaking awesome.
Despite it's foundation being stupid.
It is pretty much the same gameplay as MW2,
Which is BAD. Oh, and "Gee, what a shock".
but MW2's gameplay was amazing.
Despite the horrendous balancing and poor maps?
Not all of them were poor, but you can't deny that some of them were just really... dull.
I was extremely disappointed that MW2's campaign was over so soon
It lost all plausibility when an Ultranationalist killed hundreds of Ultranationalists to start a war between Ultranationalists and Patriots.
I trust the YouTube comment saying that this is "America's Awesome: The Game" than what you're saying right now -- do you have a proper mindset for games? It does not appear so.
Opinions do not matter - the reason and logic behind them is what counts. Do not think that I am arrogant for the quality / quantity argument. Of how many people do you trust to sway you on moral or philosophical levels? Not a lot. And even if you do, there's a probability that they'll be family -- in which case that's more or less bias in most circumstances.
MW3 Is the sequel to MW2, sequel to MW1. MW3 is worse than MW2 because it had many the same a problem, again no balance and the same gameplay - nothing new really came.
Oh, survival mode. Yay >.>
Not that that matters -- because they don't have the fundamentals down so it's like all these game modes and the core gameplay (which is the Multiplayer -- make no mistake) is completely screwed over.
The others have balance issues but aren't necessarily focused on competitive or even balanced play anyway, so it's nowhere near a problem.
- H
MW3 Is the sequel to MW2, sequel to MW1. MW3 is worse than MW2 because it had many the same a problem, again no balance and the same gameplay - nothing new really came.
Oh, survival mode. Yay >.>
And u said opinion doesn't matter
I personally think it has improved even if u don't. So many people said oh I love cod 4 it was the best, so mw3 I think has a cod 4 feel to it. When it comes down to it, opinion is all that matters. In my opinion mw3 is great and just what I wanted. I also don't think BF or halo r good. I think infamous is great too. It's all opinion highfire
The last part in bold... what?
Huh? It's not in bold for me.
And yeah I can -- anyone who is willing to trust a critic like that is vulnerable. Or at all, even.
Can you elaborate on what you originally said then because i don't think i understood it.
"They will construe the game the reviewer set it as... which is a bad thing to do -- as it makes you vulnerable."
So you really want me to use the "Quality > Quantity" argument? Look at the REASON instead of swinging it aside because oh noes -- it's just me.
You're saying that "The sequel should be judged on how much it did clean up", that's not a given fact. I could say the sequel should be judged based on how much innovative it was, and that would be my opinion on this.
Are you saying that one should be determined on what it is, without any consideration for its position or the state of the game industry?
Why do you think people DISLIKE BF3'S CAMPAIGN?
I already gave a reason -- it could've been more useful AND better with immersion. Instead it had the feature every other game has now:
Linearity.
To be honest i seriously have no idea what you are saying
Sequels have the expectancy of having them fixed
Once again, that's what some people want to see in a sequel. Others may just want more gameplay or more features.
Despite it's foundation being stupid.
Which is BAD. Oh, and "Gee, what a shock".
Despite the horrendous balancing and poor maps?
All of those are your opinion, which (I may be wrong) aren't the general opinion. Also, how do you have terrible balancing in campaign...?
It lost all plausibility when an Ultranationalist killed hundreds of Ultranationalists to start a war between Ultranationalists and Patriots.
I already said the story didn't make sense.
I trust the YouTube comment saying that this is "America's Awesome: The Game" than what you're saying right now -- do you have a proper mindset for games? It does not appear so.
Once again i have no idea what you're saying.
o not think that I am arrogant for the quality / quantity argument.
I get angry fast when it comes to arrogant people, so if i thought you were arrogant (i don't)., you would know it.
nothing new really came
Not going to argue with that part, only petty little features.
You must be logged in to post a reply!