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 | 839478 |
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
i am a bit suprised about the hate that is being put onto MW3 by the AG community.
... Aside from me -- and maybe ChillzMaster, who's really been hatin'?
Is it only because of the size and popularity of the franchise,
That's one of the reasons, and one of the primary ones -- although I think the lack of fundamentals is bad for any game of any scale (indie all the way to triple A) and really isn't something I would trust a CoD4-8 as an Indie Title if I knew it lacked that.
If I wanted to kick back I would play Magicka
or just because you don't think it is that great?
Both, really. I can't really think of me liking the game judging from its general game idea -- for what it is -- sure, it's awesome (if they fixed the fundamental problems as I've mentioned), but the idea of it is genuinely unappealing.
The campaign actually is better than what I thought it would be and I like the added killstreaks
These are two features I've already explained why they're kind of poor additions to the game :<
I also like the addition of the MOAB, but I might miss the tactical nuke. =P
MOAB?
Unless you're talking about the Mother of all Bombs... I have no idea what you're talking about. :P
That's BS. It's the ongoing joke that MW3 is nothing more than MW2.5 and he's just playing along.
So are a lot of people who buy the games -- I'd say half the entertainment (almost definitely much more) is based on talking about it and playing it with friends.
That... and there isn't too much to actually make it to a full 3 :P
However, there are a lot of mechanics that have been changed, such as how perks work, how kill streaks work, and so on.
The way you gained pretty much everything changed with Black Ops... it honestly didn't mean much -- same here?
There have also been many changes to the perks and weapons have been rebalanced.
And so they bring in Quick Scope No Scope and allow Snipers to be the only dominant weapons.
Good logic
And no -- I don't mean they're the only actually dominant weapons -- if you want full view of game balance concerning weapons then I already posted about it
Anyone who says MW3 could have been a MW2 patch isn't using their head.
*Implement Balance Patch(es)*
*Major Content Patch (or knowing how CoD works, a DLC*
Done, a better game.
The graphics don't really have all that much room for improvement.
Go with improving animations, especially in buildings.
The game I hear plays the same, which is what everyone wanted, right?
The CoD fans (no, not "fanboys" -- I said fans) don't particularly care and will buy the game anyway. The CoD haters are either people like me (annoying, persistent, arrogant) or Battlefield fans (arrogant in a different way, ignorant, childish) generally.
Now we have a game like MW2 but with all the fixes everyone wanted and now people are still complaining!
There are still horrendous balance issues as far as I know. That... and what on earth do you expect? No offense but anyone who wanted anything like Modern Warfare 2 isn't bound to be all that reasonable.
I don't think it's fair to expect CoD to become a completely different game.
It's a Triple A FPS that is THE lead of the game industry and represents pretty much all game(r)s on the market. They cover their laziness (for the lack of a better word) with hype and obscure trailers. It's too easy to change the entire game with one simple thing -- because of the influence on the metagame. Being as they can't safely incorporate all the stuff they have now without having one thing objectively stand on top of the other, any additions they make is all for naught.
In you guys honest opinions is MW3 worth it.
Honestly? No :P
and the only FPS I have is Crysis 2 (Which was pretty epic)
CoD is much more simplistic in comparison -- and you're not as mobile. I would recommend you stick with what you have, but if you're gonna go ahead anyway I would say pick the one that's out now and enjoy having full servers in half a second.
I'm kind of sad that I finally have to get a COD game because almost everyone at school has it.
You don't have to get it -- hell, just do something more productive if you want.
Haven't you got Uncharted?
Try Battlefield 1943 on the PS3, if I remember correctly, it's free... that, and it isn't that poor of a representation of Battlefield 3 - just think about having more vehicles, more maps and more teamwork.
And no infinite ammo on a cooldown.
Good luck in your decision... I'd prefer you stick with Crysis 2 but hey... your choice.
- H
CoD is child's play. Pick up a real game like Battlefield or Halo. Atleast those are challenging.
Battlefield is just as easy -- just sayin'.
Halo? Meh, not much of an Xbox player and I can only recall one time when I actually played it online. :P
If you would like to include reasons in your posts, please feel free to do so.
If you want a truely challenging game, then the hardest ones I can think of, through sheer psychology or pure skill respectively:
1) Frozen Synapse -- turn based strategy game. Here's the "WTF Is ?" video of it so you can get an idea of it.
2) Starcraft II -- national eSport in Korea, brilliant balance and astonishing gameplay style in it. Here's a showmatch between what is called in the video (and quite frankly I agree) the two greatest foreign players right now (foreigners in Starcraft means non-Korean, basically).
Now for the sake of staying on topic -- what would you like to see in CoD's Multiplayer that can be balanced -- perhaps you want to draw a map, perhaps add a piece of equipment with a lot of depth... perhaps you just want to add any balance changes you want?
Maybe you just want Nazi Survival Ops Training.
I honestly don't know.
- H
The one thing I want is CHEAPER MAP PACKS.
It's $30 here for a map pack and it looks like a complete ripoff. Maybe $10 or something. Are you kidding me? The game cost $100 and I'm paying 1/3 of that for some maps? Is 1/3 of the game 4 maps? Of course not. So why am I paying $30 for it?
I don't even have the game and I can still rage about map packs.
Also I'm still looking for opinions on whether I should get mw3. As I said the only FPS I have played is crysis 2. I find reviews biast and here I get an even apread of haters, fans and the casual people.
to much blood so mum doesn't find it pleasant blah blah blah so i sneak playing it
It's $30 here for a map pack and it looks like a complete ripoff. Maybe $10 or something. Are you kidding me? The game cost $100 and I'm paying 1/3 of that for some maps? Is 1/3 of the game 4 maps? Of course not. So why am I paying $30 for it?Ummm... the game costs $60, and the map packs are $15...
ain't got MW3 till christmas, but i do got mw2 is the best so far 'cept probly MW2, yah? Defo is better than Black Ops and COD4. Can't wait to get MW3...
Ummm... the game costs $60, and the map packs are $15.
That's why he said "here" after "$30", and according to his profile he's from Australia.
Call of Duty MW3 Looks pretty disappointing from the previews shown in advertisements. Besides new maps and news guns, there really isn't anything new.
Call of Duty MW3 Looks pretty disappointing from the previews shown in advertisements. Besides new maps and news guns, there really isn't anything new.
Thats exactly what I thought until I actually played the game and there are major differences. Strike packages, Gun Proficiency, and at long last, Balence to name a few.
Ummm... the game costs $60, and the map packs are $15...
He's an Aussie. Differnt currencies you know.
You must be logged in to post a reply!