Do not buy mw3

myke

The game Really sucks, dont even think it's part 2 OR whatever......it doesn't even live up to COD1!!

The graphics suck and so does the game play, consider regressing in life and that's what it feels like!

Wish i never pre-ordered it (and i gave it a week almost).

Way to ruin a franchise.....!!!!! Luckily re-spawn is alive!

inspiredsports

Many seem to be saying the exact opposite. My son and all of his buddies are happy with it and played prior versions non-stop.

MacLeod

I had a feeling the graphics were gonna suck. HardOCP, a PC enthusiast site I frequent, did a performance review on BF3 and it really pushes your rig pretty good. They were gonna do one on MW3 but they were getting like a million frames per second with it so there was no point. Apparently theyre still using the same 4 year old graphics engine they used in the first games.

Besides, Im a single player kinda guy. Dont care to put up with a bunch of 14 year olds acting like 10 year olds. The single player game on these MW games is barely 5 hours. Pathetic. Ill catch it when it hits the $5 bin on Steam and play it thru once like I did with the other 2 but thatll be it.

jbooker82

MacLeod wrote: »

Dont care to put up with a bunch of 14 year olds acting like 10 year olds.

They also have a mouth of a Sailor.

kuntasensei

http://www.gamerankings.com/xbox360/995751-call-of-duty-modern-warfare-3/index.html
http://www.metacritic.com/game/xbox-360/call-of-duty-modern-warfare-3
http://kotaku.com/5857400/call-of-duty-modern-warfare-3-shatters-all-sales-records-surprises-no-one
Yeah... it's horrible.

And you don't have to deal with trash-talking kids on the 360, 'cause you can use party chat with your own team. Problem solved.

AsSiMiLaTeD

I've been playing on the 360 and I'm loving it. IIRC, they're using a heavily modified Queke 2 engine, so yeah it's old tech. Instead of complaining, I'm actually very impressed with how much they're able to squeeze out of a graphics engine that old. It's probably time for a rework. but it's not like these games look BAD, they're quite good actually. CoD has always been more about the gameplay than the graphics anyway, so their approach here is not surprising.

tommyboy

AsSiMiLaTeD wrote: »

CoD has always been more about the gameplay than the graphics anyway.

Even if the engine is what makes the game feel the same every year?... Destructable environments is where this franchise needs to go. The gameplay requires you to use killstreaks like AC130 but they are useless in maps with buildings cause you can't do any damage to them. Or the countless times where a person wasn't hurt from grenade/launcher cause of the magical indestructable barrier half a foot in front of them.

Maybe a design of a new engine will be my requirement to buy the next COD

kuntasensei

Yeah, but asking for CoD to have destructible environments because other games have done that isn't really fair. Call Of Duty has always been about the directed experience. Asking them to change what CoD has historically been is like asking to change the rules of basketball to make it more like football.

It's a sequel... so naturally, it treads familiar ground. Sequels typically just take what worked previously and iterate upon it. In this case, they've changed the killstreaks to make it easier for support-oriented players to contribute in team games, they've added specialist killstreaks for the hardcore player, they've implemented weapon leveling to modify recoil, flinching, etc. They've also added social features such as clans for competitive play, the ability to search for players with common interests (i.e. favorite sports team, locale, etc.), and given a direct path for highlight clips to go straight to Youtube and potentially be featured on their site. Essentially, they've taken what many see almost as a sport and made it more so. Plus, I'm glad to see some new Spec Ops action for when me and a buddy just want to do a little co-op.

If you don't like MW3, you just don't like it. For me, no other game gives that over-the-top Michael Bay type of intense directed experience like this, especially on a 100" screen with the 9.1 surround crankin'. Sure, the graphics engine may be showing its age compared to some other titles... but there have been improvements, and the advantage of still running 60fps while some other better-looking console shooters have been forced to drop to 30fps can not be overemphasized. Honestly, while I want to see them step up their game... I think this is the best they can do with the current generation of consoles and still keep it feeling like a Call Of Duty game. And first and foremost, that's what it should be.

SolidSqual

inspiredsports wrote: »

Many seem to be saying the exact opposite. My son and all of his buddies are happy with it and played prior versions non-stop.

Yeah, I agree. In fact, I have been playing the game for a few days now and I can't believe how good the graphics are. There have definitely been some tweaks since COD predecessors. Not to mention, the SP storyline is just over the top and awesome fun. I haven't played MP yet, but I am totally diggin' the game in general.

myke

Still, the graphics are too smooth, less gritty, and stale. The color seems to bleed throughout the game making all colors seem shaded gray. I guess I was hoping for more.....and I'm sure the kids don't notice or care since cussing and acting tougher than they ever would in person is so appealing (simple minds). I'd be more inclined to go the BF3 direction but hate people that just sit around looking to snipe someone from across the map who actually wants to move around and play the game.

Ever since the dev team split (re-spawn) the game has gone down hill, ..........using old processes while lacking creativity & ingenuity all to make a quick buck!

tommyboy

kuntasensei wrote: »

Yeah, but asking for CoD to have destructible environments because other games have done that isn't really fair. Call Of Duty has always been about the directed experience. Asking them to change what CoD has historically been is like asking to change the rules of basketball to make it more like football.

I'm not comparing it to battlefield and not saying it should be more like it, and having destructable enviroments won't make it feel any more like battlefield. I'm just saying most of your killstreaks require your enemy to be in open areas. Yet when the maps are full of buildings, a lot of the good killstreaks you earn are useless

kuntasensei wrote: »

If you don't like MW3, you just don't like it. For me, no other game gives that over-the-top Michael Bay type of intense directed experience like this, especially on a 100" screen with the 9.1 surround crankin'.

Now this is where we disagree. Hands down, BC2 and BF3 surround sound effects are ten times better than MW2 and BO. I've haven't played mw3 yet but I can guess its similar

I'm not a COD hater BTW, I enjoyed every COD i played since COD2. I'm just sick of the gameplay and need a break from buying another one every year. Maybe when it drops in price next year I'll pick it up.

B Run

I've played every call of duty since the original and i think this is the best one yet. Yes the graphics don't blow me away, and I think the sound effects are better on BF3, but I like the gameplay so much better. It seems like a cleaner, crisper version of the last one and I like a lot of the new features. Everyone has their own opinion though

kuntasensei

tommyboy wrote: »

I'm not comparing it to battlefield and not saying it should be more like it, and having destructable enviroments won't make it feel any more like battlefield. I'm just saying most of your killstreaks require your enemy to be in open areas. Yet when the maps are full of buildings, a lot of the good killstreaks you earn are useless

But that's necessary for balance. You have to have somewhere to run when someone gets one of those killstreaks going or the multiplayer would just be painfully awful. If you could just level every building someone could hide in, that would SUCK.

tommyboy wrote: »

Now this is where we disagree. Hands down, BC2 and BF3 surround sound effects are ten times better than MW2 and BO. I've haven't played mw3 yet but I can guess its similar

I wasn't even talking about the surround sound. I'm talking about the directed setpiece moments in the campaign. The Battlefield games just don't have that. Hell, Black Ops didn't really have that either (though I enjoyed the change in pace with that particular story, and I still think Black Ops' story is better than any of the MW games). But again, I'm not saying one style is better than the other, any more than I'm saying a Michael Bay action flick is better than one directed by Kenneth Branagh. They're just DIFFERENT.

tommyboy wrote: »

I'm not a COD hater BTW, I enjoyed every COD i played since COD2. I'm just sick of the gameplay and need a break from buying another one every year. Maybe when it drops in price next year I'll pick it up.

I definitely understand this. Activision putting out one a year is creating a backlash of gamer fatigue. I think that's where the former IW heads had it right, because they didn't want to keep cranking out one a year the way Activision wanted them to. Hopefully now that they're creating their own company with full control, they'll put out something brilliant.

HTguru1982

I liked the game at first but now it just feels broken. For example, in a 1v1, if your opponent gets off that first shot, you're pretty much done. The game just doesn't want to respond to anything. I try to aim down my sights or start firing and the game says "nope". Even if I'm able to ADS and start firing with perfect aim, the game doesn't register my shots. I know it may seem like I'm making excuses but before the first patch, I did consistently well and nearly always finished in the top 2 on my team. Now I'm lucky if I finish the game with something like 5-10. It feels like Black Ops all over again. F*** MW3.

kuntasensei

Wow... I haven't experienced any of that so far.

ohskigod

If I get MW3 for my Birthday I'll play it (and usually just the Multiplayer). If not i wont be in a rush to buy it. The fact they dont have destructible environments pains me. I'm not asking for much, but if the new MW# was as good destructible environment wise as just BBC2 was I'd be happy. basically if a person is standing behind a fence.....I feel a rocket through the fence should kill them.

If I am raining destruction from an ac130 gun ship, hiding in a garden shed should not give you immunity.

If I am blasting you in the checst with an assault rifle, running 15 feet up to me and knifing me should not be possible.

These shortcomings is what led me to the battlefield franchise. I am having a pretty good time playing Batttlefield 3 even with some of the issues it has (Tac lights bright as the sun, sometimes take a whole clip of a handgun to kill someone, there is no scenario where a helicopter on the ground should still be in one piece after 2 rocket hits [even BC2 did that right])

+1 to BF3 sounding BRILLIANT in surround. TL3 blackstone based surround system plus sub = holy crap!!

kuntasensei

Call Of Duty, like most sports, has set rules... and destructible environments would break the existing balance of the game. Is it realistic? Hell no. But then, I don't expect Call Of Duty to be realistic... and I guarantee that EVERYONE would hate the game if there was no counter to the heavy artillery killstreak rewards.

It works in a game like Bad Company 2, because you're not busting out an AC130 when you're on a streak. If you were able to just level half the damn map in MW3, the first person to get that streak would essentially win every time. To balance it with destructible environments, you would essentially have to remove killstreaks... at which point, you might as well be playing Battlefield.

My point is: They're two different experiences and you have the option. But some of the things that people say they want in MW3 would absolutely break the balance, which they have carefully tweaked with each iteration. They may seem like logical choices in the world, because of course a bomb will go through a building and of course shooting an RPG at a fence would kill the person on the other side of the fence... but as game design choices, they would basically necessitate a whole mess of design changes that would effectively make it NOT a Call Of Duty game.

This whole argument is like saying, "Basketball is bull$#!t, because in real life you can just run with the ball instead of dribbling." Them's the rules, man!

codyc1ark

I got my copy the day it came out, and also played it most of the day yesterday. Long story short, I think the game rocks. Buy it.

Sherardp

kuntasensei wrote: »

If you don't like MW3, you just don't like it. For me, no other game gives that over-the-top Michael Bay type of intense directed experience like this, especially on a 100" screen with the 9.1 surround crankin'. Sure, the graphics engine may be showing its age compared to some other titles... but there have been improvements, and the advantage of still running 60fps while some other better-looking console shooters have been forced to drop to 30fps can not be overemphasized. Honestly, while I want to see them step up their game... I think this is the best they can do with the current generation of consoles and still keep it feeling like a Call Of Duty game. And first and foremost, that's what it should be.

I would have to agree with this. I was a little skeptical at first but the game does look pretty darn good. I'm loving it, and the sound of the explosions, weapon firing is nothing short of amazing on my setup. I would buy again for sure.

tommyboy

kuntasensei wrote: »

It works in a game like Bad Company 2, because you're not busting out an AC130 when you're on a streak. If you were able to just level half the damn map in MW3, the first person to get that streak would essentially win every time. To balance it with destructible environments, you would essentially have to remove killstreaks... at which point, you might as well be playing Battlefield.

My point is: They're two different experiences and you have the option. But some of the things that people say they want in MW3 would absolutely break the balance, which they have carefully tweaked with each iteration. They may seem like logical choices in the world, because of course a bomb will go through a building and of course shooting an RPG at a fence would kill the person on the other side of the fence... but as game design choices, they would basically necessitate a whole mess of design changes that would effectively make it NOT a Call Of Duty game.

I see where you're getting at, but there are many maps that pop in my head (ex. wasteland and jungle) that have no place to hide, and I wouldn't say at all that team would win everytime... The counter for killstreaks aren't really the buildings, its launchers and cold-blooded/ghost. I can almost guarantee the reason there is no destructable enviroments is not because of balance, its that activision doesn't want to pay for a new engine (and are probably too afraid to cause who wants to change when they still get 9 million pre-oders right?)

PrazVT

I've been playing BF3 for a few weeks (after playing COD Black Ops for the last year)..and they're just 2 different games. COD is more run and gun and especially on the consoles, it's just more fluid - and it needs to be. I have yet to pick up MW3 (just a bad idea w/ work, class, and BF3 already in the mix) ..but I understand these games are just different.

Frankly once you're playing, graphics tend to fall by the wayside somewhat. I'll be picking up MW3 just because I'm missing that kind of multiplayer experience (and I don't look fwd to being rusty for the first week lol). I don't think any of the last few CODs had bad graphics per say. It's fine - if you look at how slow BF3 is on the 360, I'd much rather have slighty less graphical prowess. And I don't know that destructive envs really lend much to the COD series - however I haven't play MW3, so not sure how multiplayer differs from the previous versions.

badger

I have black opps and now bought Modern Warfare III and I like it. Never played any of the old ones but this is def good game

Shizelbs

I rented MW3 and although I expected it was still surprised at how similar it was to the last game.

myke

Still thinking its a terrible game, I tried it again and for 2 weeks and even though I'm supposedly a 1 ratio on average I still think the game SUCKS, its made for campers and the colors are all a shade of gray to make it more difficult instead of actual colors to differentiate pieces. The same engine at work just as bad as World at war which really sucked and looked **** stupid. PLEASE RESPAWN MAKE A COMPETING GAME (which I hear they are).

AsSiMiLaTeD

It's not a terrible game, you just don't like it, two completely different things. I'm always surprised at people's inability to differentiate between the two with music, movies, games etc...

Sherardp

myke wrote: »

Still thinking its a terrible game, I tried it again and for 2 weeks and even though I'm supposedly a 1 ratio on average I still think the game SUCKS, its made for campers and the colors are all a shade of gray to make it more difficult instead of actual colors to differentiate pieces. The same engine at work just as bad as World at war which really sucked and looked **** stupid. PLEASE RESPAWN MAKE A COMPETING GAME (which I hear they are).

I like playing against people like you. You'd probably throw your Xbox 360 or PS3 into the wall. HAHAHA!!! Cheer up bro, it's not that bad.

kuntasensei

I like the recent changes, especially Hardcore Ricochet. Drop Zone was a nice little addition, but since there's no hardcore variant, I probably won't play it much. Can't wait for the map pack next month!

And myke, you can camp in just about any FPS. The difference is whether the game gives you options to take out campers. No one I know seems to be having problems with campers in MW3 for more than maybe 2 kills, because there are so many ways to blow them out of their hiding spots.

And it's funny to me that people whine about the engine (which I think looks pretty fantastic on my 100" screen). You know why they use that engine? Because it runs at 60fps and has the least input lag of ANY first person shooter on the market... more than half of the input lag of Battlefield 3. They've gone to great lengths to optimize it to do so, and I'm fine with that tradeoff. Considering that, I doubt they will do much as far as a new engine until we're on the next generation of hardware so that they can keep the 60fps and responsive input.

SolidSqual

I like how you can just jump into this game and play. It suits my lifestyle right now. I gotta start playing some battlefield. The atmospheric sound of battlefield is unreal.

dfretwell

Battlefield is where it's at!

kuntasensei

New MW3 map pack January 24th. Between this and the new maps for Gears Of War 3 dropping on the 17th, it's gonna be a good January!