spirited away Posted November 16, 2011 Posted November 16, 2011 (edited) (Referring to multiplayer). Correct me if i'm wrong Oxigen Waste but weren't you a keen MW2 player? (Only gauging this from activity in the old MW2 thread). I'm really confused as to where all the contempt for this game comes from. Obviously it's very similar to MW2, but that was a enjoyable game - a flawed but enjoyable game. Regardless, there are some neat touches that help to balance the game and expand the breadth of scenarios on the battlefield. It's not as balanced as Blops, but in a way that sacrifice lends itself to greater 'highs'. I mean, when Halo Reach came out, no one complained. It plays the same as 3 with elites (I played several thousand games on reach so I think I can judge that fairly). What do people expect from sequels within a generation? Justify to me how Gears of War 1, 2 and 3 show major changes and innovation from game to game. I can understand why people don't like MW2 but I can't understand when people say they enjoyed MW2 but don't enjoy MW3, when it's a better game. I'm genuinely interested in the responses. I'm open to enlightenment :P. (Apologies for lack of coherency - tiredness and booze). Edited November 16, 2011 by spirited away
The Peeps Posted November 16, 2011 Posted November 16, 2011 I mean, when Halo Reach came out, no one complained. It plays the same as 3 with elites (I played several thousand games on reach so I think I can judge that fairly). Sorry for potential derailment here but the armour abilities in halo reach make a hell of a difference. It's a whole new level to deal with. Bungie somehow managed to keep the base gameplay feeling the same while at the same time adding a new depth to the game. In my opinion it's very different from Halo 3.
spirited away Posted November 16, 2011 Posted November 16, 2011 Sorry for potential derailment here but the armour abilities in halo reach make a hell of a difference. It's a whole new level to deal with. Bungie somehow managed to keep the base gameplay feeling the same while at the same time adding a new depth to the game. In my opinion it's very different from Halo 3. The more I think about it, the more I realise I made a pretty bad comparison there. My GOW comment still stands though, haha.
Oxigen_Waste Posted November 16, 2011 Posted November 16, 2011 (Referring to multiplayer). Correct me if i'm wrong Oxigen Waste but weren't you a keen MW2 player? (Only gauging this from activity in the old MW2 thread). I'm really confused as to where all the contempt for this game comes from. Obviously it's very similar to MW2, but that was a enjoyable game - a flawed but enjoyable game. Regardless, there are some neat touches that help to balance the game and expand the breadth of scenarios on the battlefield. It's not as balanced as Blops, but in a way that sacrifice lends itself to greater 'highs'. I mean, when Halo Reach came out, no one complained. It plays the same as 3 with elites (I played several thousand games on reach so I think I can judge that fairly). What do people expect from sequels within a generation? Justify to me how Gears of War 1, 2 and 3 show major changes and innovation from game to game. I can understand why people don't like MW2 but I can't understand when people say they enjoyed MW2 but don't enjoy MW3, when it's a better game. I'm genuinely interested in the responses. I'm open to enlightenment :P. (Apologies for lack of coherency - tiredness and booze). I was indeed... I played the hell out of that game. Well, to be honest, I play the hell out of every single CoD game except 3. And I loved MW2's multiplayer (dindn't really care at all for the campaign, it was sort of "just there"). But every single class I had was using cold blooded (except for one, which was mainly used with burst weapons)... see I do love the game, but ever since the first day I started playing it, a lot of things got on my nerves, mainly the absurdly easy and explotable killstreak reward system, which pretty much meant the match was constantly crowded with air support and the fact that in every single mode, people always played like it was Team Deathmatch. I didn't stop loving the game, but it was just too easy to exploit. Then... along comes Black Ops, which personally is my absolute favourite online FPS multiplayer game, what with it's mostly balanced arsenal, wiser distribution of perks and excellent implementation of killstreak rewards, as well as some very welcome new game types and a community that actually played the various game types accordingly (and wouldn't you know it... sniping actually required you to play like a sniper!). So by now I'm spoiled, and whilst I'm definitely going to get this game, it's a shame to see that all the improvements that Blops brought the formula are being ignored and the game's returning to MW2's absurdist mayhem... which I still enjoy, but that's because I know how to play around the game's faults... I can imagine it's very unsatisfying for someone who's just trying to get into the game and actually play it normally. As for GOW, it's not really a series I'd ever use as a standard of brilliance... It started out great, but it failed to improve significantly, to the point were most people have just grown tired of it. Anyway, if you ask me, for 3rd person action, Uncharted is where it's at!
The Peeps Posted November 16, 2011 Posted November 16, 2011 In my opinion, any treyarch game before Black Ops was poor. Infinity Ward always made the better CoD games but Black Ops is definitely better than MW2 and 3.
Choze Posted November 16, 2011 Posted November 16, 2011 (Referring to multiplayer). Correct me if i'm wrong Oxigen Waste but weren't you a keen MW2 player? (Only gauging this from activity in the old MW2 thread). I'm really confused as to where all the contempt for this game comes from. Obviously it's very similar to MW2, but that was a enjoyable game - a flawed but enjoyable game. Regardless, there are some neat touches that help to balance the game and expand the breadth of scenarios on the battlefield. It's not as balanced as Blops, but in a way that sacrifice lends itself to greater 'highs'. I mean, when Halo Reach came out, no one complained. It plays the same as 3 with elites (I played several thousand games on reach so I think I can judge that fairly). What do people expect from sequels within a generation? Justify to me how Gears of War 1, 2 and 3 show major changes and innovation from game to game. I can understand why people don't like MW2 but I can't understand when people say they enjoyed MW2 but don't enjoy MW3, when it's a better game. I'm genuinely interested in the responses. I'm open to enlightenment :P. (Apologies for lack of coherency - tiredness and booze). Gears and Halo arent EXACTLY like hundreds of fps games before it. They are unique to their own style and how they play. Even MW1 was 'been here done that' for many people like me. That didn't stop me from enjoying it as I thought it was an excellent game. If I had to do it over again I would take MW1 over Crysis anyday when they came out the same time. I am looking forward to Respawn's (IW team that left) project.
spirited away Posted November 16, 2011 Posted November 16, 2011 Some good points raised. The 1-a-year business model must seriously stifle creativity. If the next COD game is another WWII shooter, I'll probably give up on the franchise.
Oxigen_Waste Posted November 16, 2011 Posted November 16, 2011 In my opinion, any treyarch game before Black Ops was poor. Infinity Ward always made the better CoD games but Black Ops is definitely better than MW2 and 3. 3 was a pile of shit. But World at War was actually pretty damn good. Better than MW2, imo!
spirited away Posted November 16, 2011 Posted November 16, 2011 3 was a pile of shit. But World at War was actually pretty damn good. Better than MW2, imo! World at War has the best maps of any COD game! Castle, Dome, Cliffside to name a few. In a way I think the latest COD games are getting too complicated. 3 killstreaks was fine.
Oxigen_Waste Posted November 16, 2011 Posted November 16, 2011 I just needed 1 thing to be absolutely happy. A barebones playlist... that allowed for attachments and perks, that's it. As it is, I divide my time between barebones and tdm, mostly. Ocasional ffa.
Charlie Posted November 16, 2011 Posted November 16, 2011 Just had the absolute worst game of sabotage of my life. I'm a person who always goes for the objective. In nearly all my games I'm the only one going for the bomb. Usually it's ok as my team have a bit of a clue and at least help me get there or defend when I've planted. This game, the whole other team were only interested in kills. They camped the whole game. I planted the bomb maybe 3 times, each time on a complete solo run. My team sat in our own spawn playing with their toes. So frustrating to be the only one in the server playing the game. If you just want kills, play team deathmatch. This is why I'm so frustrated! They've made a conscious decision to play sabotage but they're only interested in their own kill counts to get a larger e-penis. Fucking dickheads. Needed to vent. That happened to me quite alot in MW2, why do they select a game mode they can't understand? I actually played a game of TDM at my mates, ended up 16-2, the amount of retards on this game makes it piss easy. That always happens in objective games in FPSs. It's incredibly frustrating. I only ever play them with a friend or 2 though which means that we can work together and take the objective which is really good. I find that players are generally better at the game in objective than they are in TDM which means that on the rare occasion we go into TDM we're far, far better than everyone else. Haven't played this all that much recently as my bro is working in Manchester during the week with no Xbox. Tried playing on Sunday morning but it wouldn't let us join each others game! Apparently a lot of people had the same problem...
Beast Posted December 4, 2011 Posted December 4, 2011 (edited) I've played the campaign for Modern Warfare 3 and, as much as I enjoyed it, I didn't enjoy the fact that it was piss-easy on Veteran. Is it me or does anybody else think that, as every COD game comes out, the Veteran campaign gets easier. The only exception of this was COD4 and COD:WAW. COD4 was easy on Veteran and then COD:WAW was one of the most frustrating and challenging gaming experiences ever and I really enjoyed it (except for the grenade spamming). COD:WAW on Veteran was that hard to me, it's taken me two years to actually complete the Veteran campaign and get all of the achievements for it. Very rewarding and good-looking game. Modern Warfare 3 is a great game and I'm totally in love with Survival. One of the best aspects of the game if you ask me. I'm on the last tier now and I need a bit of help with it, does anybody want to do this with me? If you do, just add my X360 gamertag "AnimalOfAnarchy" and message me. Edited December 4, 2011 by Animal
LegoMan1031 Posted December 4, 2011 Posted December 4, 2011 Modern Warfare 3 is a great game and I'm totally in love with Survival. One of the best aspects of the game if you ask me. I'm on the last tier now and I need a bit of help with it, does anybody want to do this with me? If you do, just add my X360 gamertag "AnimalOfAnarchy" and message me. Man up and do the survivals solo like me! I would help but when ever I play with you it's one big lag fest yet when I played with others it's fine... We could try it again sometime though?
Beast Posted December 5, 2011 Posted December 5, 2011 Man up and do the survivals solo like me! I would help but when ever I play with you it's one big lag fest yet when I played with others it's fine... We could try it again sometime though? I prefer doing it with others, I find it more fun but I suppose I'll have to if nobody wanted to do it. I got on okay with one of my other mates but he decided to quit for some reason. We could try it again if you're on tonight or whenever. I should be on at around 10pm or earlier than that so it'd be cool.
Recommended Posts