Gaming Forums => General Gaming => Topic started by: Stogi on November 10, 2011, 04:27:35 PM
Title: MW3
Post by: Stogi on November 10, 2011, 04:27:35 PM
Gotta say, I'm pretty disappointed overall. Besides a few rays of light in the form of Spec Ops and Survival Mode, the game is exactly like MW2 with minor tweaks. But what's worse is that they wouldn't take the lessons that worked in Blops from Treyarch (the better of the two teams) and apply in their own game.
I've played about 4 or so hours online and I can't tell the difference. Other than new maps, everything from the graphics to the maneuvering and even the strategy (every man for himself) is exactly the same. Some tweaks like perks for your guns and double scopes make it seem different, but it's really not. The Kill Streaks are pretty much the same as well except with a few greater additions (robot arsenal? awesome).
It's the same game. Me, going from corner to corner, either shooting anyone I face off against or trying to throwing knife them to death.
At least Survival mode is dope. Not quite as quirky and as awesome as Zombie mode in Blops, but still fun and engaging. It's really hard not to make Coop fun though. And it's a damn shame it only allows for two people. A team of four would have been a lot of fun.
I guess i'll end it with how I started and say that I'm pretty disappointed.
Title: Re: MW3
Post by: Chozo Ghost on November 10, 2011, 05:07:35 PM
Yeah, I see no need to spend $50/$60 on this, and its disappointing that this game broke Black Ops record last year for first day sales. I guess that's how it goes though... every year the COD fanatics are going to increase in numbers, so each year's COD game is going to sell better than the last. But this MW3 game doesn't deserve it. Based on the comments and reviews I've read, its nothing more than a glorified map pack for MW2. It uses the same engine, and everything it does differently could have been done with just an expansion pack DLC to MW2. Oh well...
I don't even like MW2 because its horribly unbalanced and everyone cheats or does cheap stuff to get easy kills, so I'm not really much interested. I'll just wait until I can get it like $20 or something, which probably won't be until a year from now when MW4 comes out...
Treyarch is the better studio and Black Ops is a superior game, and those who would disagree with me are probably the very same 14 year old noobtubing camping quickscoping boosters that have wrecked the series. Of course these players would hate Black Ops, because Black Ops is balanced and makes it difficult for them to do their cheap bullshit. MW3 on the other hand is going to be heaven to them.
Title: Re: MW3
Post by: S-U-P-E-R on November 10, 2011, 05:52:12 PM
(http://i.imgur.com/OrWH5.jpg)
Title: Re: MW3
Post by: Shaymin on November 10, 2011, 06:11:36 PM
wat
Title: Re: MW3
Post by: Stogi on November 10, 2011, 06:31:04 PM
That kids hat on the left is awesome.
Title: Re: MW3
Post by: Dasmos on November 10, 2011, 06:50:24 PM
I disagree. I can't think of one thing is in blops that I would like to see return in mw3. Survival mode is better than Zombies if only because it has a more varied enemy-type, of course the aesthetic isn't as cool, but the enemy and level variety is better.
I guess it's because I never really liked blops, I just found it too bland and boring.
Title: Re: MW3
Post by: Chozo Ghost on November 10, 2011, 07:07:34 PM
I guess it's because I never really liked blops, I just found it too bland and boring.
Because they took the game winning nukes out? What you call bland and boring I call fair and balanced. Black Ops is a game where I can use a gun and not have to worry about someone commando knifing me through my hail of bullets from 12ft away, even when I have a hitmarker on them. Black Ops is a game where I don't have to worry about being an MVP and yet still losing because someone boosted a nuke. Black Ops is a game where killstreaks have to be earned as opposed to using an infinite number of noobtubes and then using the kills from killstreak rewards as stepping stones to higher ones. That's bland and boring to you? Well, maybe so, but if that's the case I prefer bland and boring.
Title: Re: MW3
Post by: Dasmos on November 10, 2011, 08:08:14 PM
Yeah, that's bland and boring. Maybe I just played different game modes, but I never got nuked my someone who hadn't earned it. I've encountered boosters (in blops too btw), but I can't recall ever being nuked by one. And I've earned more kills killing boosters than dying at the result of boosting. Also nerfing launchers and shotguns (and sniper riples, to an extent) to the point that they're virtually unusable isn't fun either, that's why everyone in blops uses assault rifles or SMGs, everything else is useless. The killstreaks in blops were bland too, the blackbird was cool but overpowered, not to mention the attack dogs. MW3 has a lot of different variety in the point streaks.
Title: Re: MW3
Post by: broodwars on November 10, 2011, 08:53:58 PM
I'm currently undecided about whether I'm going to get this game, as all I'm interested in with this new Modern Warfare is the campaign. I'm sure it's not as good as Black Ops', but I had some fun with the Modern Warfare 2 campaign. But as I only have interest in the SP campaign, I think I can wait until I can find the game cheaper used. At the moment, Skyrim and possibly GoldenEye HD look more inviting to me.
Title: Re: MW3
Post by: ThePerm on November 10, 2011, 08:59:02 PM
I was telling my friend "didn't a modern warfare game come out like last year?" and he was like "nah it was 3 years ago", but really it was 2 years ago. IDK , when games come out too close together they start to suck.
Title: Re: MW3
Post by: broodwars on November 10, 2011, 09:03:10 PM
I was telling my friend "didn't a modern warfare game come out like last year?" and he was like "nah it was 3 years ago", but really it was 2 years ago. IDK , when games come out too close together they start to suck.
Yeah, I'm really starting to wonder how long Ubisoft thinks it can keep this yearly pace up with Assassin's Creed as well. That series desperately needs to take a break, and yet Ubisoft's already confirmed that we're getting another Assassin's Creed next year. Given that it's the same studio every time, Ubisoft's inevitably destroying their franchise even worse than Activision, and that's saying something.
Title: Re: MW3
Post by: ThePerm on November 10, 2011, 09:40:50 PM
on one hand, im not a fan of fps games on consoles so much, so the excitement for MW3 seems comical, but Assassins Creed looks interesting, I haven't played any of them for more than an hour, so having a novice feel to them makes them refreshing at least to me. Though, I thought the controls were too complicated, and i hate tutorials...so theres that. There is always an audience of people new to a series.
Title: Re: MW3
Post by: broodwars on November 10, 2011, 09:45:28 PM
on one hand, im not a fan of fps games on consoles so much, so the excitement for MW3 seems comical, but Assassins Creed looks interesting, I haven't played any of them for more than an hour, so having a novice feel to them makes them refreshing at least to me. Though, I thought the controls were too complicated, and i hate tutorials...so theres that. There is always an audience of people new to a series.
Well, if you get into the series, start with Assassin's Creed 2. There is no reason anyone should be subjected to the original Assassin's Creed. Anything plot-related from AC1 that is truly worth knowing is recapped at the beginning of each game. Brotherhood's a better game than AC2, but Brotherhood's not a good first game to try to jump into the mythology as the series has increasingly become more obsessed with it.
Title: Re: MW3
Post by: Chozo Ghost on November 10, 2011, 11:48:37 PM
Also nerfing launchers and shotguns (and sniper riples, to an extent) to the point that they're virtually unusable isn't fun either, that's why everyone in blops uses assault rifles or SMGs, everything else is useless.
Shotguns should have a bit longer range in my opinion. There should be an option to customize your shotgun to use slugs instead of buckshot, and that should give it a one-shot kill capability across a much larger range. I remember in Battlefield BC2 you could do that. Other than that I think they are fine the way they are.
Launchers are nerfed? Well, they should be, otherwise everyone would use that for cheap kills and nothing else. I love that you only get two noobtubes in black ops and scavenger doesn't allow you to resupply more. There's been so many times where I see an enemy and I'm like, "alright this is going to be an epic gun battle like in the old west" but then the douchebag hits me with a rifle grenade and I get killed by the splash damage. Wow, that took some real skill and accuracy.
That's pretty much why my perk of choice is Flak Jacket and I seldom use anything else. Now when some cheapass tries to kill me with a noobtube it will only work if they hit me with it directly. Splash damage alone won't cut it (unless I'm already injured).
If anything, I would have nerfed noobtubes even further than Treyarch did. I would have changed it so that any kills you get from a rifle grenade does not count towards killstreak rewards. So let's say you get 3 cheapass easy cowardly kills with a grenade launcher? Fine, but you aren't going to get an RC car or spy plane from that. You did it the cheap noob way so you don't deserve a reward for it.
I wouldn't mind seeing a COD game that's set in an era of history BEFORE grenade launchers were invented. A lot of people would probably hate it because their favorite weapon is absent, but I would love it. It would force people to fight honorably and skillfully instead of like a cowardly douchebag.
Title: Re: MW3
Post by: BranDonk Kong on November 11, 2011, 12:04:19 AM
BLOPS is awesome, and MW3 is awesome. Everyone will complain about something though. There were 983,000+ people online last night (just on the 360 version) when I was playing...so obviously there are a couple people that enjoy it.
Title: Re: MW3
Post by: Enner on November 11, 2011, 01:01:57 AM
Given that it's the same studio every time, Ubisoft's inevitably destroying their franchise even worse than Activision, and that's saying something.
Studios, you mean. From what I hear, the credits for Assassin's Creed games are massive. Having played through two of them, I can imagine it is only getting bigger. Already there are five studios (http://www.giantbomb.com/assassins-creed-revelations/61-34975/) attached to Revelations. I don't quite agree with there being another Assassin's Creed game this year but Brotherhood seemed to have been received well and perhaps Ubisoft will be able to maintain quality through sheer man power.
Don't know about 2012, though. Apparently, that's supposed to be Assasssin's Creed 3. This is in opposition to this year's Assassin's Creed: Constantinople and last year's Assassin's Creed: Rome. Hey, the GTA 3, GTA 3-2 (vice city), and GTA 3-3 (San Andreas) turned out alright so maybe Assassin's Creed will too.
Launchers are nerfed? Well, they should be, otherwise everyone would use that for cheap kills and nothing else. I love that you only get two noobtubes in black ops and scavenger doesn't allow you to resupply more. There's been so many times where I see an enemy and I'm like, "alright this is going to be an epic gun battle like in the old west" but then the douchebag hits me with a rifle grenade and I get killed by the splash damage. Wow, that took some real skill and accuracy.
That's pretty much why my perk of choice is Flak Jacket and I seldom use anything else. Now when some cheapass tries to kill me with a noobtube it will only work if they hit me with it directly. Splash damage alone won't cut it (unless I'm already injured).
If anything, I would have nerfed noobtubes even further than Treyarch did. I would have changed it so that any kills you get from a rifle grenade does not count towards killstreak rewards. So let's say you get 3 cheapass easy cowardly kills with a grenade launcher? Fine, but you aren't going to get an RC car or spy plane from that. You did it the cheap noob way so you don't deserve a reward for it.
I wouldn't mind seeing a COD game that's set in an era of history BEFORE grenade launchers were invented. A lot of people would probably hate it because their favorite weapon is absent, but I would love it. It would force people to fight honorably and skillfully instead of like a cowardly douchebag.
To be crass, it sounds like you need to learn to play; find the ways to counter the grenade launcher. Now that I got that bad impulse out of my system, I have only heard of the many complaints of the under slung grenade launcher in the various Call of Duty games and never experienced them for myself.
I've only played around in Battlefield: Bad Company 2, Section 8: Prejudice, and Battlefield 3. In Battlefield 3's case, I'm only being troubled by being shot at unexpected angles or an enemy that went prone behind some object I didn't check. Well, there's also the tanks, helicopters, and other vehicles. Lately, there have been a lot of complaints on the mortar and tactical light. Oh, and finally the map design of all the maps is suspect to being poor.
Title: Re: MW3
Post by: Chozo Ghost on November 11, 2011, 01:12:49 AM
To be crass, it sounds like you need to learn to play; find the ways to counter the grenade launcher.
I have. Did you miss the part of my post where I said Flak Jacket is my preferred perk? I get a laugh when noob tubing retards waste both their noobtubes trying to kill me when it only injures me, and then they are forced to switch to their regular gun and fight fair, but by then I've already killed them.
BUT when I am playing on any mode other than Free for all I have random people on my team, and odds are they aren't using flak jacket and therefore don't have an effective counter. This ends up becoming my problem though, because when you have some idiots on your team who die like 30 times it ends up giving the enemy team killstreaks, and that does effect me. So even though I can personally deal with noobtubers, as far as my team goes that's still an issue that effects me, and I think you'd be hard pressed to find any player out there who is good enough to carry an entire team to victory. I know I can't, though I can make a difference as long as it isn't a rape fest.
You aren't talking to some blithering idiot here. I've been playing COD games for a few years and I am good at it. I am not the best by any means, but I'm definitely better than average. But you are falsely assuming everything has a counter, but that's not true. You said yourself you've never played COD so you probably don't understand. If you join a game where your team is spawn trapped and getting ass raped repeatedly by killstreaks what are you going to do about it? At best you can survive through the game with a decent K/D ratio, but you will not be able to win under those circumstances. I don't care how good you are as an individual player, if the rest of your team is **** then victory is impossible. One person alone cannot do it. It takes team work.
Title: Re: MW3
Post by: NeoStar9X on November 11, 2011, 01:29:06 AM
Bah. Nevermind. Was commenting on the picture above.
Title: Re: MW3
Post by: Enner on November 11, 2011, 05:47:58 AM
To be crass, it sounds like you need to learn to play; find the ways to counter the grenade launcher.
I have. Did you miss the part of my post where I said Flak Jacket is my preferred perk? I get a laugh when noob tubing retards waste both their noobtubes trying to kill me when it only injures me, and then they are forced to switch to their regular gun and fight fair, but by then I've already killed them.
I was thinking more along the lines of map memorization, common player traffic, opponent reading, and weapon ranging. The cool things that are beyond what effort I'm willing to put in a multiplayer game :p
You aren't talking to some blithering idiot here. I've been playing COD games for a few years and I am good at it. I am not the best by any means, but I'm definitely better than average. But you are falsely assuming everything has a counter, but that's not true. You said yourself you've never played COD so you probably don't understand. If you join a game where your team is spawn trapped and getting ass raped repeatedly by killstreaks what are you going to do about it? At best you can survive through the game with a decent K/D ratio, but you will not be able to win under those circumstances. I don't care how good you are as an individual player, if the rest of your team is **** then victory is impossible. One person alone cannot do it. It takes team work.
I didn't mean to presuppose that you were an idiot. Sorry. Though I did think, from the language used, that you have invested much care and passion (too much for me) that clearly passes the point where I would stop and walk away.
Everything has a counter! It's just a matter if it is reasonably attainable. If there wasn't a counter, that goes beyond poor or bad design and in to nether territories.
As for team stacking, that's the sad lack of clever matchmaking that pools players of nearly equal skills. From casual observation, it is usually the one-four players that carry the winning team in a lopsided match. Lord help anyone who happens upon a match opposite a full clan showing.
Title: Re: MW3
Post by: Chozo Ghost on November 11, 2011, 06:04:35 AM
I was thinking more along the lines of map memorization, common player traffic, opponent reading, and weapon ranging. The cool things that are beyond what effort I'm willing to put in a multiplayer game :p
I do that. Unlike Battlefield, the COD games have predictable spawn points. I try to capitalize that, and I also try to flank the enemy and hit them from behind where they are most vulnerable. Because they don't see you coming and don't expect it.
But that's not really the issue... no matter what strategy you employ, there will be times where you will run into someone who will also see you and a 1 vs 1 battle will ensue. When this happens, is it fair if one of those players happens to have a grenade launcher attachment primed and readied? Unlike grenades, the grenade launches explode on impact so there is no cooking required. Its just an instant death the moment the enemy pulls the trigger, unless you happen to be using Flak Jacket. A one hit kill would be fine if we were talking about a shotgun blast at close range or a sniper rifle bullet, but one does not need to be accurate with a grenade launcher at all. It has an explosive radius and will kill any non-flak jacket player within that radius. A grenade launcher versus a normal player is kinda like a machine gun versus an ancient swordsman, or something like that. Its just not fair and there's no honor in it.
I don't object to grenade launchers being in the game because they do exist in real life so their presence is accurate. But what I do object to is people using them as their primary weapon and using a perk like scavenger to infinitely resupply new grenades. That's not right. If someone was using them to flush out dug in defenders I'd say that's fair enough, but that's not generally how they are employed. If the game developers gave players the chance many of them would use nothing but grenade launchers, and that would ruin things and make using any other weapon pointless. So there has to be limits.
Title: Re: MW3
Post by: Enner on November 11, 2011, 02:43:36 PM
From my experience, Battlefield has pretty predictable spawn areas. Hell, there's a big flag or box that says "spawn area". Granted, it's an area and not an exact point. I've played Black Ops multiplayer and have seen footage of other Call of Duty multiplayer and it seems the game does a fair job in spawning you in places where there are no enemies.
Title: Re: MW3
Post by: broodwars on November 11, 2011, 02:58:33 PM
I think you would like how Resistance 3 handles the whole "Noob Tube" thing, Chozo. The weapon all players start with at Level 1 is the Carbine Rifle, which as an Alt-Fire can shoot grenades. The maximum capacity of that alt-fire, though, is a single grenade. You get one shot per spawn, unless you can somehow find another grenade from looting a dead body (which you have to have a specific perk to do, and I've never looted a Carbine grenade).
The downside of that, of course, that is pretty much your only way of getting kills early on as you're thrown up against Level 15+ opponents is to kill them with a direct hit from a Carbine Grenade. Still, the Carbine as a whole sucks so badly as a weapon that you very quickly move on to the Marksman Rifle, Bullseye, or Rossmore Shotgun as soon as they unlock. It's nowhere near as bad as I've heard it is in Call of Duty multiplayer.
Title: Re: MW3
Post by: Chozo Ghost on November 11, 2011, 05:14:14 PM
From my experience, Battlefield has pretty predictable spawn areas. Hell, there's a big flag or box that says "spawn area". Granted, it's an area and not an exact point. I've played Black Ops multiplayer and have seen footage of other Call of Duty multiplayer and it seems the game does a fair job in spawning you in places where there are no enemies.
I've spawned to an instant death where I would spawn right into burning Napalm or a random grenade is laying nearby or an enemy has a line of sight. You have a choice where you spawn in Battlefield, but you don't have that in COD. The game tries to put you in a spot that's clear of enemies, but this is not always the case, especially because its a common strategy for enemies to try to rape and raid the other team's spawn areas. So that's a likely spot to be targetted by Napalm or claymores or whatever, and unless you have Flak Jacket (Pro) you will spawn into an instant death through no fault of your own.
Title: Re: MW3
Post by: Stogi on November 11, 2011, 07:59:19 PM
I didn't read the whole thread, but I did read Broodwars say that Shotguns in BLOPS are nerfed. And I guess in normal modes, yeah..they are. However, in Hardcore modes, they are devastating. My favorite kit is a Silenced SPAS and a Magnum with an ACOG scope. Silent footsteps, ghost, and Slieght of Hand as my perks.
It sounds ridiculous, but try and master it and you'll see how frustrated you can make your opponents.
Title: Re: MW3
Post by: broodwars on November 11, 2011, 08:28:17 PM
I didn't read the whole thread, but I did read Broodwars say that Shotguns in BLOPS are nerfed.
No, I didn't. I said that the Carbine in Resistance 3 is nearly useless, and that new players are heavily encouraged to upgrade to the Rossmore Shotgun, Bullseye, or Marksman Rifle as soon as possible in that game. I never played Black Ops multiplayer.
Title: Re: MW3
Post by: BranDonk Kong on November 11, 2011, 09:45:12 PM
From my experience, Battlefield has pretty predictable spawn areas. Hell, there's a big flag or box that says "spawn area". Granted, it's an area and not an exact point. I've played Black Ops multiplayer and have seen footage of other Call of Duty multiplayer and it seems the game does a fair job in spawning you in places where there are no enemies.
I've spawned to an instant death where I would spawn right into burning Napalm or a random grenade is laying nearby or an enemy has a line of sight. You have a choice where you spawn in Battlefield, but you don't have that in COD. The game tries to put you in a spot that's clear of enemies, but this is not always the case, especially because its a common strategy for enemies to try to rape and raid the other team's spawn areas. So that's a likely spot to be targetted by Napalm or claymores or whatever, and unless you have Flak Jacket (Pro) you will spawn into an instant death through no fault of your own.
You can use the Tactical Insertion Perk to choose your spawning point.
Title: Re: MW3
Post by: Chozo Ghost on November 12, 2011, 12:32:24 AM
I didn't read the whole thread, but I did read Broodwars say that Shotguns in BLOPS are nerfed. And I guess in normal modes, yeah..they are. However, in Hardcore modes, they are devastating. My favorite kit is a Silenced SPAS and a Magnum with an ACOG scope. Silent footsteps, ghost, and Slieght of Hand as my perks.
It sounds ridiculous, but try and master it and you'll see how frustrated you can make your opponents.
Do you use a Jammer? I'm just wondering what your policy is for dealing with claymores, because if you aren't using Hacker you may not always see them.
I find Ninja to be a really weak perk, because the chief benefit of silent movement isn't really all that important, especially because the sounds of gunfire and explosions and so on often make listening for approaching enemies difficult anyway, and even if you do determining which direction they are coming from isn't always easy. Plus if you move while crouched you will move silently (albeit slowly), so why tie up a perk slot with Ninja when you can just move crouched to sneak up on an enemy?
And Hacker Pro is a more useful stealth perk anyway because it will keep you from showing up on the motion sensor. I think it would have made more sense if that stealth ability were given to Ninja instead, but that's not how they set it up (for whatever reason).
Title: Re: MW3
Post by: Chozo Ghost on November 12, 2011, 12:35:14 AM
From my experience, Battlefield has pretty predictable spawn areas. Hell, there's a big flag or box that says "spawn area". Granted, it's an area and not an exact point. I've played Black Ops multiplayer and have seen footage of other Call of Duty multiplayer and it seems the game does a fair job in spawning you in places where there are no enemies.
I've spawned to an instant death where I would spawn right into burning Napalm or a random grenade is laying nearby or an enemy has a line of sight. You have a choice where you spawn in Battlefield, but you don't have that in COD. The game tries to put you in a spot that's clear of enemies, but this is not always the case, especially because its a common strategy for enemies to try to rape and raid the other team's spawn areas. So that's a likely spot to be targetted by Napalm or claymores or whatever, and unless you have Flak Jacket (Pro) you will spawn into an instant death through no fault of your own.
You can use the Tactical Insertion Perk to choose your spawning point.
Well, yeah, but its a hassle to set it up, and you set yourself up for embarrassment if an enemy discovers your insertion and waits to kill you when you show up there. At least you do have the option of cancelling it now, which I don't think you had in MW2. But still, its surprising how many times I kill someone near their insertion and then kill them again a few seconds later when they pop up like again like a jack in the box.
That's another thing I have to give credit to Treyarch for, because even without Hacker the enemy's tactical insertions are easier to find now and they emit a soft noise which can alert you to one being nearby. This makes it much harder for players to boost now.
Title: Re: MW3
Post by: BranDonk Kong on November 12, 2011, 12:01:34 PM
Jesus Fucking Christ! (http://news.yahoo.com/call-duty-blows-away-sales-records-144855625.html) Should be no surprise, really, but damn, $400 million in a day...6.5 million sales in a day...not bad.
Title: Re: MW3
Post by: broodwars on November 12, 2011, 12:10:45 PM
Jesus Fucking Christ! (http://news.yahoo.com/call-duty-blows-away-sales-records-144855625.html) Should be no surprise, really, but damn, $400 million in a day...6.5 million sales in a day...not bad.
On the one hand, it's apparently a good game, and good games deserve to sell well. On the other hand, that's 6.5 million sales and probably 10-12 million by the end of the holidays all going towards one game when there's so much good stuff out this year. I wonder how many games in the coming months are going to have artificially bad sales because of all that money sucked out of the market.
On the upside, maybe this will lead to the latest Assassin's Creed game having bad sales, causing Ubisoft to finally give that franchise a much-needed creative break.
Title: Re: MW3
Post by: Stogi on November 12, 2011, 01:49:17 PM
I didn't read the whole thread, but I did read Broodwars say that Shotguns in BLOPS are nerfed. And I guess in normal modes, yeah..they are. However, in Hardcore modes, they are devastating. My favorite kit is a Silenced SPAS and a Magnum with an ACOG scope. Silent footsteps, ghost, and Slieght of Hand as my perks.
It sounds ridiculous, but try and master it and you'll see how frustrated you can make your opponents.
Do you use a Jammer? I'm just wondering what your policy is for dealing with claymores, because if you aren't using Hacker you may not always see them.
I find Ninja to be a really weak perk, because the chief benefit of silent movement isn't really all that important, especially because the sounds of gunfire and explosions and so on often make listening for approaching enemies difficult anyway, and even if you do determining which direction they are coming from isn't always easy. Plus if you move while crouched you will move silently (albeit slowly), so why tie up a perk slot with Ninja when you can just move crouched to sneak up on an enemy?
And Hacker Pro is a more useful stealth perk anyway because it will keep you from showing up on the motion sensor. I think it would have made more sense if that stealth ability were given to Ninja instead, but that's not how they set it up (for whatever reason).
I need to move quick. Lots of diving, sprinting, climbing...etc. And I don't like mine enemies hearing me. Claymores will get me from time to time if I don't check my corners correctly or move too quick, but overall they are not a big deal. I'm like the God Damn Ghost and The Darkness.
Anyway, I played a bit more of Survival with my brother and we love it. Again, not as quirky and as awesome as Zombie mode in Blops (especially with the new perk they added...I miss my ThunderGun, Ballistic Knife, RPK combo...), but still really fun. I do and don't like how if your teammate dies, you both lose. Sometimes we are spread far enough apart that I simply can't make it to him because of all the enemies between us. I also really really hate Juggernauts. How many explosives does it take? It always seems to change.
I've been playing HC modes and it reconfirmed to me that this game is exactly the same apart from me not being able to have my favorite kit (SCAR and SPAS combo).
Title: Re: MW3
Post by: Morari on November 12, 2011, 06:47:35 PM
On the upside, maybe this will lead to the latest Assassin's Creed game having bad sales, causing Ubisoft to finally give that franchise a much-needed creative break.
Do you really think Ubisoft should let Assassin's Creed rest while we continue to get a yearly installment of Call of Duty and Battlefield? I'd rather see the military shooters go away, personally. :P
Title: Re: MW3
Post by: Chozo Ghost on November 12, 2011, 06:48:36 PM
You should try the Jammer, though. If you are moving into a building where you know or strongly expect an enemy to be located placing a Jammer nearby will disable the enemy's claymores and motion sensors and everything. The best map to do this on is Array in that big building at the center of the map. If you place the Jammer in a good spot it will envelope the entire building and both floors of it. If you are using a Shotgun on Array there's no better place to patrol then that center building, because anywhere else will leave you vulnerable to snipers.
I also love using it on Jungle. There's that rocky cliff on one end of the map where snipers love to camp. If you put a Jammer near that you can sneak up behind and knife them in the back if you want to. Snipers tend to have tunnel vision because they spend a lot of time looking down their scope, so if you can just get past their claymores then there's nothing to stop you from killing them any way you want and even taking your time in doing it.
Title: Re: MW3
Post by: Chozo Ghost on November 12, 2011, 06:54:38 PM
On the one hand, it's apparently a good game, and good games deserve to sell well.
I'm sure its a good game. But does it deserve to set a record? I'm not sure about that. I've been seeing a lot of reviews and comments from people saying its just a glorified expansion pack for MW2.
The fact this game sold well is because of the COD brand name attached to it. Anything named "Call of Duty" will have strong sales (at least initially) because there are just so many people out there who will buy it just on the name alone. When all these people bought it on day one of release is it because they played it before or because their friends told them it was awesome? No, because that was the first day so how could they? They had no idea whether it was good or not, they just bought it. And if you go on Amazon and read customer reviews you can see many people are disappointed. They expected too much, and didn't get it. Black Ops set the bar way too high, and this overpriced MW2 expansion pack couldn't meet it.
Title: Re: MW3
Post by: KDR_11k on November 13, 2011, 05:02:35 AM
I really like the sound of all that customization for guns and stuff in MW3 MP but I don't like the core gameplay, the damage balance in MW2 was so that it hardly mattered what weapon you used (unless you used one of the crappy 20 damage ones) because it was all just point, click, dead in 3-4 bullets and winning a fight was more about being the first to spot the other guy (which promoted hiding in hard to see spots) than what you did once you saw the guy.
For comparison in something like Space Marine the combat has actual tactics to it, battles aren't over so fast that you can't change plans in mid-fight and a sufficiently skilled player can fight back even when surprised (which prompted whining from ASM players who got kicked around by devastators that simply played better). Duels in Section 8 were even tougher since everybody had options to alter the engagement range quickly and your weapon was only advantageous in certain ranges, if the enemy could get outside of that and counter with a different weapon you'd lose.
Launchers are nerfed? Well, they should be, otherwise everyone would use that for cheap kills and nothing else. I love that you only get two noobtubes in black ops and scavenger doesn't allow you to resupply more. There's been so many times where I see an enemy and I'm like, "alright this is going to be an epic gun battle like in the old west" but then the douchebag hits me with a rifle grenade and I get killed by the splash damage. Wow, that took some real skill and accuracy.
Fighting with explosives gets extremely tactical when everybody does it, there are a lot of tricks to the things that not everybody can perform such as well timed shots at doors when you know that an enemy is moving towards them even before you can see him. I pulled some crazy **** with the semtex and scavenger in MW2 (though my favourite was a throw over a building on Favella that landed right on a dude taking a capture point, sheer luck but hilarious all the same). Also unlike the hitscan bonanza that every weapon is these days it takes timing to hit a moving target with a grenade at long range, not just clicking on them. Nukes, on the other hand, are just lame. They might fit into Deathmatch but they're absolutely out of place in objective based game modes. Hell, the only good thing about kill streak rewards is that they give you something to use your Stinger on, everything else about them is just absolutely lame.
If you want to balance grenades make them smaller ammo, i.e. deal less damage per shot but let people shoot them a lot more. That's how the classic FPSes were balanced regarding explosives, it usually took two hits to kill a player and delivering those two could get quite tricky depending on range and environment. They could get away with that because rocket launchers came with 10 shots and you could pick up more so you weren't restricted to two shots per life or silly things like that. Of course the things get cheesed if you only get two per life, they have to be strong then and if they're that strong people will use them.
Title: Re: MW3
Post by: Chozo Ghost on November 13, 2011, 05:30:44 AM
I really like the sound of all that customization for guns and stuff in MW3 MP but I don't like the core gameplay, the damage balance in MW2 was so that it hardly mattered what weapon you used (unless you used one of the crappy 20 damage ones) because it was all just point, click, dead in 3-4 bullets and winning a fight was more about being the first to spot the other guy (which promoted hiding in hard to see spots) than what you did once you saw the guy.
Thankfully the Stopping Power perk was removed in Black Ops and has not returned in MW3. That was a perk which made that problem even worse, and it was something everyone felt obligated to use, because if they didn't they would be outgunned if they ran into an opponent who did have it.
Title: Re: MW3
Post by: BranDonk Kong on November 13, 2011, 08:57:24 AM
Of course it deserves to set a record. 6.5 million people bought the game on it's first day - mostly (if not wholly) based on their experience with the previous iterations.
Title: Re: MW3
Post by: Chozo Ghost on November 13, 2011, 09:32:28 AM
Of course it deserves to set a record. 6.5 million people bought the game on it's first day - mostly (if not wholly) based on their experience with the previous iterations.
But the others did the hard work. All MW3 did is reap the fruits of that just on its name alone. The franchise as a whole may have deserved to set that record, but MW3 as an individual game certainly did not.
Title: Re: MW3
Post by: BranDonk Kong on November 13, 2011, 10:56:27 AM
That is exactly why it deserves the record that it set. MW3 is no slouch - best game ever? Certainly not. Best Call of Duty game ever? Probably. It's just so hard to keep raising the bar when it comes to FPS games - especially "realistic" current-setting war-based FPS games.
Title: Re: MW3
Post by: Mop it up on November 13, 2011, 10:51:56 PM
If Call of Duty Black Ops were actually balanced, half of the people I run into wouldn't be using a FAMAS. An AK-47u with Rapid Fire is another common one. Anything with a fast rate of fire will win out every time, and the only way to stand a chance (assuming the players are competent) is to use the same thing.
Title: Re: MW3
Post by: Chozo Ghost on November 13, 2011, 11:07:00 PM
If Call of Duty Black Ops were actually balanced, half of the people I run into wouldn't be using a FAMAS. An AK-47u with Rapid Fire is another common one. Anything with a fast rate of fire will win out every time, and the only way to stand a chance (assuming the players are competent) is to use the same thing.
They patched the FAMAS to give it slow aiming time and poorer hip fire accuracy than other guns. Its also weaker and takes more bullets to kill, although with the high rate of fire that's not much of an issue. Alot of players consider it a Noobish weapon, but its not necessarily superior to other guns.
I think the AK74U is superior to all the other SMGs, though. So I do agree with you on that. It has the same damage and rate of fire as the MP5K but unlike the MP5K it has the Grip, dual mag, and even grenade launcher attachments. I also think it has a bit less recoil and better reload times also. The only thing the MP5K has going for it is its available immediately, but once you unlock the AK74U there's probably not much reason to use the MP5K ever again. So I agree its not very well balanced in that respect.
But when I said Black Ops is balanced I was mainly referring to the perks and stuff like that. Some guns might be a tiny bit better than others, but its not severely unbalanced. A player with an MP5K isn't at a huge disadvantage against a player with an AK74u, even though the latter gun has more attachment options available. Both guns do the same damage and similar in almost all respects.
And Rapid Fire is not necessarily the best attachment choice. It increases rate of fire, but it comes at the cost of increasing recoil and you will deplete your magazine much quicker and need to reload more often. It makes it more powerful at close range, but you will find at medium or long range it makes it harder to keep your shots on target. So you do get some advantage, but it comes at a cost. So I think it is fairly balanced. You can also put rapid fire on the MP5K and any other SMG if you want to, so its not exclusive to the AK74u.
Maybe you are playing the Wii version of the game and maybe that hasn't been patched... I dunno, but on the other systems Treyarch did nerf those guns somewhat, so they aren't as unbalanced as they once were.
Title: Re: MW3
Post by: Mop it up on November 13, 2011, 11:14:28 PM
Speaking of, Rapid Fire doesn't seem to work on some of the weapons for which is it available. Is the difference just not noticeable, or is there some glitch involved here?
Title: Re: MW3
Post by: Chozo Ghost on November 13, 2011, 11:17:00 PM
Speaking of, Rapid Fire doesn't seem to work on some of the weapons for which is it available. Is the difference just not noticeable, or is there some glitch involved here?
If you are playing the Wii version it might be a bug. Has Activision released any patches for the Wii version? I know they said they were going to release the map packs on the Wii, but they never actually did for whatever reason.
Title: Re: MW3
Post by: Mop it up on November 13, 2011, 11:23:30 PM
Yes it's the Wii version, and it has been patched several times. The only significant change I recall is the one where shooting a player who is in Last Stand mode counts as an assist instead of a kill. I didn't try the Rapid Fire after the first time with those specific weapons, so I don't know if that was fixed or not, plus it's been months since I've played it, period. I'm sure I can find a list of patches somewhere, though, if I really want to find out. Just thought you might know since you seem to follow these things.
As for the maps, if that still hasn't happened, my guess on that would be that they couldn't fit the maps into the file size limit. I haven't seen a Wii game that uses more than 128 blocks of memory, so that could be the limit to the space that one game is allowed to use. This is just a total guess though, I don't know if that's actually the case or what the real reason is.
Title: Re: MW3
Post by: Chozo Ghost on November 13, 2011, 11:30:48 PM
There are some SMGs like the MPL and Spectre and so on which already shoot extremely fast anyway. Are these the ones which don't work with rapid fire on the Wii? My guess would be that when their already fast rate of fire is combined with rapid fire it makes them shoot faster than the Wii is able to process, so maybe that's something they can't patch because the Wii just can't handle it.
But I wouldn't recommend rapid fire with those fast firing guns anyway, because they are already good in that respect. When you are looking for attachments my advice is to look for ones which address any weaknesses the gun may have. That said, something like extended mags is never a bad choice, especially when you have a gun with only 20 rounds and shoots at 937RPM.
Title: Re: MW3
Post by: Mop it up on November 13, 2011, 11:51:49 PM
If that were the case then the Rapid Fire wouldn't be an option, either initially or through an update.
I usually use Sleight of Hand since none of the other perks in that slot suit my style, so Extended Mag is a little unnecessary. So instead I opt for the Grip since I find using the aim button to be a little clunky, and only use it if I'm trying something long range. The MAC11 seems to work best with this setup, though if I don't use Scavenger I have to start picking up enemy weapon drops because those few starting clips don't last long.
Title: Re: MW3
Post by: Chozo Ghost on November 14, 2011, 12:52:02 AM
I like the MAC11. I think it has the fastest reload speed of any gun in the game. Its only 2 seconds, and with sleight of hand its only 1 second. You just can't beat it in that respect. The Skorpion is also cool. The Skorpion is actually a 2 hit kill at close range, but that damage drops off very fast so anything beyond close range goes to a 5 hit kill which sucks. But the Skorpion also has the lowest recoil of any gun in the game, and if you use the grip on it then it has no recoil at all. So you can hold the trigger button down, and as long as your aim is on target every bullet will stay on target (unless that target is moving, which makes it more difficult obviously).
Title: Re: MW3
Post by: Chozo Ghost on November 20, 2011, 08:53:48 AM
I was watching some gameplay videos of MW3 on youtube and there was someone with a sniper rifle killing 5 people in quick succession just as fast as they could aim down the scope at close range as if it was an SMG or something, and I sighed. People think its "cool" to do that, but its not realistic at all and it ruins the game. Treyarch fixed that in Black Ops, but apparently Infinity Ward doesn't give a **** and brought that quickscoping bullshit back.
Quickscopign actually doesn't take much skill either, because there is something called aim assist which causes the aim to snap onto targets automatically. It doesn't you are a pro or anything, its just something the computer assists you with automatically. But when you are doing that with a sniper rifle at close range and killing someone with an SMG then something is wrong with the game if it lets you do that. That's not how sniper rifles are used in real life, and any soldier who tried that probably wouldn't be alive very long. Sniper rifles are strictly long range weapons, and a true sniper tries to evade close range engagements at all costs, but if a close range engagement does happen the proper thing for a sniper to do is pull out their pistol or secondary weapon. They should not attempt to use a sniper rifle at close range.
That's one reason why I'm holding off on this game. Its not impossible that Infinity Ward will patch this eventually. I'm holding out hope...
Title: Re: MW3
Post by: Enner on November 20, 2011, 03:05:26 PM
Not sure if you should be crying out for realism here. There's ARMA and the Project Reality modification for Battlefield 2 for that. The apt thing to say is that it's stupid and looks dumb.
I would like to see the sniper rifle damage reduced to not kill in one body shot. Make their users work a bit more. Oh, and maybe add the option to take the scope off. Just for giggles, turn any aim assistance off and watch how much more frustrating playing the game is.
Title: Re: MW3
Post by: KDR_11k on November 20, 2011, 04:02:07 PM
Making the scoping instantly snap you to a target does sound like a fucking stupid idea that only console FPS designers could come up with, especially combined with the common demand that the first shot is always accurate. Previously I thought quickscoping was just for weapons that have seriously gimped accuracy when you aren't using the scope and you want to use your full FOV.
Before you argue realism keep in mind that the damage and accuracy balance in games is completely weird. Sniper rifles that couldn't hit a barn at ten paces until you click the right mouse button, SMGs that need half a clip to kill anything, etc. In real life a sniper stuck a scope on a fucking Browning machine gun and set a record for long range kills with that thing, no game would allow you to pull that off.
My guess would be that when their already fast rate of fire is combined with rapid fire it makes them shoot faster than the Wii is able to process, so maybe that's something they can't patch because the Wii just can't handle it.
More like stupid code then. If the code isn't set up for non-integral-frame fire intervals (or even worse, more than one shot per frame) you get inaccurate rates of fire. Maybe there's a rounding error or something (e.g. a weapon with 900 RPM fires every 4 frames, if you were to give that a 20% ROF increase that would still be one shot every 4 frames if you round it).
The Wii may not be cutting edge but I'm really sick of people acting like N64-level issues are acceptable because of that. Especially third parties.
Title: Re: MW3
Post by: Chozo Ghost on November 20, 2011, 05:43:20 PM
I would like to see the sniper rifle damage reduced to not kill in one body shot.
But if that were the case there would be no point in even using sniper rifles. If it takes two or more hits to kill then why not just use something else instead? A one shot kill with a sniper rifle is fair, but you should get no aim assist with it, or at least no aim assist at close range anyway. It should also take at least 1/3 of a second to scope in on targets, which I think it does by default, but in MW3 there is a perk called Quickdraw which halves the time it takes to aim, so instead of it taking 1/3 of a second to aim with a sniper rifle, now you can do it in 1/5 or a second or 1/6 of a second, which is as fast as an SMG, and that's just ridiculous.
Title: Re: MW3
Post by: NWR_insanolord on November 20, 2011, 09:18:18 PM
I think he's saying it should only be a one shot kill with a head shot.
Title: Re: MW3
Post by: BranDonk Kong on November 20, 2011, 09:52:03 PM
It shouldn't be though - unless they go full on with precise hit detection. A shot to the heart would be an instant kill too, or the neck, possibly stomach, etc.
Title: Re: MW3
Post by: Enner on November 21, 2011, 01:09:41 AM
I would like to see the sniper rifle damage reduced to not kill in one body shot.
But if that were the case there would be no point in even using sniper rifles. If it takes two or more hits to kill then why not just use something else instead?
That's the point :) Reliable one-shot snipers ruin everything. Even in Quake Live, the Railgun doesn't kill unarmored players in one hit. Previous Quake games had the railgun at 100 damage but it wasn't too hard to find armor pick ups.
Anyway, it isn't too difficult to switch to the sidearm if the body shot doesn't do it. Then again, you'll be leveling up your pistol rather than your sniper rifle.
Title: Re: MW3
Post by: Stogi on November 21, 2011, 01:24:47 AM
It shouldn't be though - unless they go full on with precise hit detection. A shot to the heart would be an instant kill too, or the neck, possibly stomach, etc.
Other than the head, shooting a person dead center of the chest is the same as shooting them in the foot. Ballistic and throwing knives can kill by stabbing enemies in their hands. I enjoyed FPS this generation, but I think one of them should have included precision hit detection.
If I shoot you in the face, even with a pistol from 30 yards away, you should be dead. If I shoot you in the arm, then you can't look down your main weapon's sights. If I shoot you in the leg, you are either hobbling or on the ground. If I shoot you in the liver, your vision should become blurry due to loss of blood. If I shoot you dead center of your chest, depending on the caliber of the bullet and if it can rip through bullet-proof vests, one shot kill but still allows the enemy a second or two to retaliate before dying, two shots and theirs no room for retaliation.
Title: Re: MW3
Post by: Chozo Ghost on November 21, 2011, 05:25:29 AM
I don't know about MW3, but in Black Ops there are different multipliers to the neck and upper torso versus the stomach and limbs. With most guns only the head makes a difference versus a hit anywhere else, but with the sniper rifles in particular a hit to the neck or upper torso might also be as deadly as to the head. All sniper rifles are a one shot kill to the head by default, but some especially the L96A1 are a one shot kill to I think anywhere on the body except the limbs... and that is why the L96A1 is probably the most popular sniper rifle you will encounter in Black Ops. It is a bolt action rifle and therefore has the slowest rate of fire of any gun, but it is the easiest sniper rifle to get a one hit kill with because you pretty much only just have to hit the enemy anywhere and you will kill him (unless its to the limbs, through cover, or if they have second chance).
