martinist Posted November 11, 2011 Posted November 11, 2011 yup, they stack like they did in the first game
Oxigen_Waste Posted November 11, 2011 Posted November 11, 2011 Idiots... Anyway, is there anyplace online selling that bundle like tesco did? The one with the live subscription? Shipping abroad, too... Or does tesco sell abroad too?
spirited away Posted November 12, 2011 Posted November 12, 2011 Played it today. It's as shit as i thought. Bland, boring, over the top, and just generally shit. How does it get such good reviews? Bore off. Idiots... AC 130 has been nerfed, as have the standard helicopters. Coupled with the removal of the harriers it feels more balanced even with the stacked killstreaks. Also the support class is a brilliant leveller, in that your killstreak carries on through death.
MadDog Posted November 12, 2011 Posted November 12, 2011 Bore off. AC 130 has been nerfed, as have the standard helicopters. Coupled with the removal of the harriers it feels more balanced even with the stacked killstreaks. Also the support class is a brilliant leveller, in that your killstreak carries on through death. What? Are you not allowed to talk about negatives?
spirited away Posted November 12, 2011 Posted November 12, 2011 What? Are you not allowed to talk about negatives? You make me laugh. Cheers for your well thought out, debate-provoking critique.
MadDog Posted November 12, 2011 Posted November 12, 2011 Ok. It plays exactly the same as MW2. The graphics are average at best. The maps are as usual poor, and hardly differ. The story is rubbish, with pointless bits in which they try to immerse you, but totally fail. The ending is crap, and made me laugh. There's no new anything, no innovation, just the same game with a expensive map pack added on. The survival mode is the same as zombies, but seems to be even worse. The online system is crap, as are the little kids that hold the majority of players who play it.
spirited away Posted November 12, 2011 Posted November 12, 2011 Ok. It plays exactly the same as MW2. The graphics are average at best. The maps are as usual poor, and hardly differ. The story is rubbish, with pointless bits in which they try to immerse you, but totally fail. The ending is crap, and made me laugh. There's no new anything, no innovation, just the same game with a expensive map pack added on. The survival mode is the same as zombies, but seems to be even worse. The online system is crap, as are the little kids that hold the majority of players who play it. I'll save time and not argue back on some of those points (some are acceptable, some are bullshit). You don't like it, fair enough. It's still one of the best shooters out there.
MadDog Posted November 12, 2011 Posted November 12, 2011 Cool, i don't want an argument. Call of Duty just makes me angry. :p
spirited away Posted November 12, 2011 Posted November 12, 2011 Cool, i don't want an argument. Call of Duty just makes me angry. :p It makes me very angry! If you're doing shit, it's the most unbalanced, broken game of them all; if you're playing well consistently its the best thing since sliced bread. I can understand why some people do not enjoy it. :P
Caris Posted November 14, 2011 Posted November 14, 2011 Finished the campaign today, one of the most pathetic excuses for a sequel I've ever seen. It was exactly the same as 2. Edit: Just seen MadDogs post, great minds.
The fish Posted November 14, 2011 Posted November 14, 2011 Given that a majority of the decent elements of Infinity Ward left, it's hardly a surprise. A great name in the industry got destroyed by it's own brilliance. And Activision being dickheads. If you're looking for what made Call of Duty, 2, and Modern Warfare so great, keep an eye on Respawn Entertainment (it was founded by IW leads West and Zampella).
Oxigen_Waste Posted November 14, 2011 Posted November 14, 2011 Finished the campaign today, one of the most pathetic excuses for a sequel I've ever seen. It was exactly the same as 2. Edit: Just seen MadDogs post, great minds. The same as 2? Jesus, they can't even emulate the right game? I could understand copying Modern Warfare 1, as it's amazing, but MW2's campaign is so mediocre... Fuck it, either way, I stopped caring about single player in CoD games.
The Peeps 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.
MadDog 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.
The Peeps Posted November 16, 2011 Posted November 16, 2011 It's so retarded. They only care about their combat records. NO ONE CHECKS! You don't look at some random player's account and think oh wow they have lots of kills. If anything you'd see their wins/losses ratio and think they're shit! Black Ops had it so right. Domination mode you had a record of how many base captures and defends you had. Kills weren't prominent on the scoreboard. You had your score, and that was made up of kills + relevant objective score. I don't remember but I assume it was similar for bomb gametypes too. In this game it's all about kills no matter what gametype you pick. It's so backwards and it's why Battlefield 3 is the better game. There's just no real 'reward' for winning the game. People/common retards are happier playing out the full 20 minutes and seeing who wins in sudden death. FUCKING PLAY DEATHMATCH AND LEAVE ME TO MY SIMPLE PLEASURES!
Oxigen_Waste Posted November 16, 2011 Posted November 16, 2011 Hmmm, sad to see it's MW2 all over again, then... a shame.
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.
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.
Recommended Posts