If you have MW3 so much, why not forget that game and talk about a game you really like?
I believe you mean hate.
The point of this thread is to talk what's bad about MW3. And if people who think this game is bad,(Me and various others) and just ignore it, it completely defeats the purpose of this thread.
1.) No big changes since MW1
2.) Players are generally douchebag fanboys with a low level of intelligence.
3.) Weapons are unbalanced
4.) The bad kind of unrealistic
5.) Story is not very interesting
- COD has been releasing the same game since 2008 with new paint jobs
- Gameplay is based on the rich get richer and poorer get poorer
- Modern Warefare 3 has flaws that were actually corrected or fixed in Blops such as dedicated ranked servers unlike ranked P2P system in MW3 (PC)
- COD in general is not in anyways competive gaming due to the top two facts.
My own opinions
- Gameplay is redundant and as said before just has little balance within the game it self.
- Modern warfare 2 that I bought and played was the first real sign to me that Activision doesn't give a damn about their players and just want money so they rushed and released the same game each year, At least COD 2 and COD 4 had new aspects in them and decent user interface and tools within the game for all sides of the community.
- I never noticed trolls even in MW2 I could just leave and find a new game. A few people can ruin the game but they can only ruin it if YOU let them. Although MW2 trolls were a lot more common then COD4 due to the absence of moderators/admins
@x3Dakie
Ok I need to say this. In almost every way I kind find something to hate you for. What games you hate, what games you like (actually, Fallout is ok), your SIG, your reasoning, ect. BUT, you're Malaysian, so by definition you're cool. (:
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
"I'm learning real skills that I can apply throughout the rest of my life ... Procrastinating and rationalizing.
I understand my tests are popular reading in the teachers' lounge." -Watterson
- COD has been releasing the same game since 2008 with new paint jobs
- Gameplay is based on the rich get richer and poorer get poorer
- Modern Warefare 3 has flaws that were actually corrected or fixed in Blops such as dedicated ranked servers unlike ranked P2P system in MW3 (PC)
- COD in general is not in anyways competive gaming due to the top two facts.
Whoah, whoah, whoah, hold up. These are not facts, much less true facts (what other kinds of facts are there?)
1. Objectively, Call of Duty: Black Ops is a different game than Modern Warfare 3. That is a fact. You may think that Black Ops is very similar to Modern Warfare 3, and I'd agree with you, but that's an opinion, not a fact.
2. Elaborate. Do you mean to say, those who are good at the game are rewarded, and those who are bad at the game are punished? Again, that is an opinion, not a fact ("rewards" and "punishments" are subjective).
3. An opinion, again. You cannot objectively say that the lack of dedicated servers is a "flaw", even if most people would agree. However, I do agree with you.
4. Not a fact in any way whatsoever. In fact, at some level, that may be objectively wrong. Look at the definition of "competition": "To seek or strive for the same thing , position, or reward (in Call of Duty's case- experience and unlocks) for which another is striving"
@x3Dakie
Ok I need to say this. In almost every way I kind find something to hate you for. What games you hate, what games you like (actually, Fallout is ok), your SIG, your reasoning, ect. BUT, you're Malaysian, so by definition you're cool. (:
What is that even supposed to mean lol.
Actually, no, I don't wanna hear why. You don't even know me. You don't know what games I like and what games I hate. I also hate your signature, but guess what? I keep it to myself and not judge someone by their sig. From the looks of it, you're just another fanboy.
I don't hate the game, but to be honest it's really bad. Before anyone asks me why I think the game is bad.
1) Unbalanced guns. (see noobtube)
2) Bad player base. (Fanboys, 12 years old screaming "fag" or "gay")
3) Repetitive. (All you do is the same thing(run around and shoot), you don't need to use tactics whatsoever.)
4) Unrealistic. (Seriously guys, dual wielding shotgun?)
1.) Fair enough. I've never noticed the guns being too unbalanced, but apparently they are.
2.) Never been a problem for me.
3.) Oh god, more over-simplifications... no, you don't just "run around and shoot" in Call of Duty, and it does require a certain amount of strategy, but why does that matter? Super Mario World isn't a strategic game, Uncharted isn't particularly strategic, Grand Theft Auto isn't strategic, etc. Would you consider all of these games to be as bad as Call of Duty?
4.) Call of Duty does not try to simulate real-life war, and if you are trying to play it that way, it's no wonder why you don't like the game. I hope you don't try playing Quake like a war simulator, because Quake and Call of Duty have more in common than Battlefield and Call of Duty.
3.) Oh god, more over-simplifications... no, you don't just "run around and shoot" in Call of Duty, and it does require a certain amount of strategy, but why does that matter? Super Mario World isn't a strategic game, Uncharted isn't particularly strategic, Grand Theft Auto isn't strategic, etc. Would you consider all of these games to be as bad as Call of Duty?
4.) Call of Duty does not try to simulate real-life war, and if you are trying to play it that way, it's no wonder why you don't like the game. I hope you don't try playing Quake like a war simulator, because Quake and Call of Duty have more in common than Battlefield and Call of Duty.
3)Yes, it does requires a certain amount of strategy, but most of the time you don't have to help your team or trying to get the objective.(Not comparing to BF3, serious) I actually like those games, CoD just turned me off because of number 2. Yes, just number 2. In my opinion the game itself isn't really bad, but the community ruined it.
4)I'm not talking about the plot or storyline, I'm talking about the gameplay. I'd like to see you fire two shotguns at the same time without breaking your arm.
3)Yes, it does requires a certain amount of strategy, but most of the time you don't have to help your team or trying to get the objective.(Not comparing to BF3, serious) I actually like those games, CoD just turned me off because of number 2. Yes, just number 2. In my opinion the game itself isn't really bad, but the community ruined it.
4)I'm not talking about the plot or storyline, I'm talking about the gameplay. I'd like to see you fire two shotguns at the same time without breaking your arm.
3) Mute the annoying people? Really, what's the worst the community can do? Call you names? Play bad music? Desperately try to get good shots for a montage? All you need to do is quit out and find another match, or mute the annoying people. If such an insignificant inconvenience is bothering you so much, I cannot fathom how you manage to enjoy Battlefield 3, a game where community really matters.
4.) I'm not sure if you understand. I never referenced story in any way, so I'm not sure where you got that idea. I cannot name a single game in my entire game collection, save for Gran Turismo 5, that I can call "realistic". Yeah, Call of Duty isn't realistic, but have you ever thought that maybe the game is better off for it? Quake isn't realistic. Unreal Tournament isn't realistic. Halo isn't realistic. Batman isn't realistic. The list goes on.
Also, I'm not sure where people get the idea that Battlefield 3 is in any way a "realistic" game. Mind you, I much prefer Battlefield 3 to Modern Warfare 3, but it's not in the slightest bit realistic.
3) Mute the annoying people? Really, what's the worst the community can do? Call you names? Play bad music? Desperately try to get good shots for a montage? All you need to do is quit out and find another match, or mute the annoying people. If such an insignificant inconvenience is bothering you so much, I cannot fathom how you manage to enjoy Battlefield 3, a game where community really matters.
4.) I'm not sure if you understand. I never referenced story in any way, so I'm not sure where you got that idea. I cannot name a single game in my entire game collection, save for Gran Turismo 5, that I can call "realistic". Yeah, Call of Duty isn't realistic, but have you ever thought that maybe the game is better off for it? Quake isn't realistic. Unreal Tournament isn't realistic. Halo isn't realistic. Batman isn't realistic. The list goes on.
Also, I'm not sure where people get the idea that Battlefield 3 is in any way a "realistic" game. Mind you, I much prefer Battlefield 3 to Modern Warfare 3, but it's not in the slightest bit realistic.
3) In-game 12 years old isn't a problem for me. The problem is that these fanboys are everywhere. 5/10 BF3 videos I've seen on YouTube will have people ***** about "BF3 sucks! Get MW3! It's so much better!". See where I'm getting at? In BF3 I never heard 12 years old call me a fag for killing him. In CoD I always get "Omg this guy is so gay! He keep killing me!".
4) Well, sorry if I misunderstand you. Sci-Fi games isn't really realistic, but I like FPS games to be realistic(see below). But to each his own.
BF3 is realistic if you think about it. Bullet drop, no instant knife stab and etc. It imitates real life of how gun works and such.
Now I'm sounding like a fanboy. This is probably my last post on this thread, I only get flamed by fanboys.(Not talking about you.)
3) In-game 12 years old isn't a problem for me. The problem is that these fanboys are everywhere. 5/10 BF3 videos I've seen on YouTube will have people ***** about "BF3 sucks! Get MW3! It's so much better!". See where I'm getting at? In BF3 I never heard 12 years old call me a fag for killing him. In CoD I always get "Omg this guy is so gay! He keep killing me!".
4) Well, sorry if I misunderstand you. Sci-Fi games isn't really realistic, but I like FPS games to be realistic(see below). But to each his own.
BF3 is realistic if you think about it. Bullet drop, no instant knife stab and etc. It imitates real life of how gun works and such.
Now I'm sounding like a fanboy. This is probably my last post on this thread, I only get flamed by fanboys.(Not talking about you.)
3.) Huh, I've seen quite the opposite.
4.) I don't think you do, if you enjoy Battlefield 3 so much.
Battlefield 3 is absolutely nothing like real war, not even in the slightest. DICE producer Patrick Bach has said himself that the game is not meant to be realistic, but instead authentic, which is accurate. I compiled a small list of things in Battlefield 3 that aren't particularly realistic:
Soldiers don't simply spawn out of nowhere, defibrillators don't revive people instantly on the battlefield, ammo/med packs aren't realistic at all, jets and tanks spawning out of nowhere, entering and exiting vehicles in half a second, three-four bullets to kill, "spawn beacons", being able to swim with two guns on your back, having infinite parachutes that can be deployed instantaneously, your soldier somehow knows how to pilot every vehicle, your soldier somehow knows how to work every single gun at a ridiculous speed, capturing "flags" to earn points, etc. The list goes on.
After reading this, can you honestly say Battlefield 3 is a "realistic" game? I hope you don't, but these are the things that make Battlefield 3 so much fun. If DICE tried to make Battlefield 3 be more realistic, trust me, you would not enjoy the game. You need to have a good balance of realism and arcade, and in my opinion, DICE nails it. So does Infinity Ward.
Whoah, whoah, whoah, hold up. These are not facts, much less true facts (what other kinds of facts are there?)
1. Objectively, Call of Duty: Black Ops is a different game than Modern Warfare 3. That is a fact. You may think that Black Ops is very similar to Modern Warfare 3, and I'd agree with you, but that's an opinion, not a fact.
2. Elaborate. Do you mean to say, those who are good at the game are rewarded, and those who are bad at the game are punished? Again, that is an opinion, not a fact ("rewards" and "punishments" are subjective).
3. An opinion, again. You cannot objectively say that the lack of dedicated servers is a "flaw", even if most people would agree. However, I do agree with you.
4. Not a fact in any way whatsoever. In fact, at some level, that may be objectively wrong. Look at the definition of "competition": "To seek or strive for the same thing , position, or reward (in Call of Duty's case- experience and unlocks) for which another is striving"
1. Please name 10 different things from MW2 to MW3 that are not included in textures(including location of world) Story, Killstreaks, Weapons, and game modes. But game mechanics changes within the game that are "new" to the series.
2. Kill streak system ruins the balance of the game, you get 3 kills you can get more kills easily you get even more kills due to your previous kill streak reward you can get more. Die in the process you can just continue it. Little has to do with the skill of said player mostly the KS he has slotted.
3. I can name several technical things that has been the same since COD1 including the engine itself which has ONLY been retextured nothing more has been added the limited and scripted destruction within the game is the same you can find in COD1 and 2 etc.
All in all truth is that COD no matter who likes it or not is just same overpriced game rolling out each year by Activision and selling it on PR alone not innovation of any kind. One year is simply not enough time to release a ground breaking game that doesn't feel exactly like it predesesor for any developer let alone a developer(s) that are being rushed by the Publisher that they are owned by and can be thrown out at any time if they do not complete said game.
MW3 is hated because not only it proves what haters always stated about the series in general - it ALSO proves that there are fans (including you, OP), who are still too dumb to realise it.
MW3 is nothing but a MAPPACK! Seriously, there are only MINOR changes to the game. 95% of the models and animations are copy-pasted from MW2 (Which in return copied a lot from MW1). 90% of all balacing-issues were not only not fixed, they were partly made even worse.
Then of course the big PC-issue "No dedicated servers", which was one of the biggest complains in MW2. Not only that was not changed, they also screwed up the net-code making the gameplay basicly broken.
Then of course the thing with "no modifing of basic settings" like the FOV. In MW1, you could do it. In MW2, you needed mods, but you still could do it. MW3? BAN HAMMER!
Then there is the SP. It's only 3 hours long (Even the at least decent - not good, but decent - SP in MW2 was twice as long! And MW1 had basicly the FOCUS on it!), the story has more plotholes than swiss cheese and said plotholes are large enough to fit a BATTLESHIP through.
The only thing, which COULD have saved MW3 would be the Spec Ops mode but... too short, too buggy, only 2 players and - if they didn't change anything from MW2 - not even public gameplay.
Yes, there are tons of reasons why haters hate MW3. And there is no justification, why those reasons are there. Nor is there any reason why anyone should LIKE the game. Or spend 60 bucks on this mappack. Unless you love wasting money, of course.
No matter what you say, I and others will still like the game.It doesn't matter if the changes are small or nonexistent, game is still fun.That's because there was no need to change something that is good. I personally think that COD is the of the most-balanced Fps-s I've seen, even though there are some OP stuff(face it, every game has them). Also , dedicated servers are there and who cares about fov and other stupid ****? People just wanna sit on the chair and play the game.Yes the campaign is short and is criticized for that but that wasn't the focus of the game(I also don't like when a FPS game has a long campaign). And what plotholes?I played the story just fine and didn't notice anything.You'd have to be a real lurker or a strict critic to find fault with those.
And like I said in the beginning the justification for not changing much is because people like it the way it is(read: MW3 breaks sale records). Oh and before calling someone dumb for liking a game that you HATE, take into account that people have different opinions than you.Not to mention the people who never played any cods before mw3 and like the game nonetheless.
I don't like Call of Duty all together. I don't know how many people told me that they want to be in the army because of this game. I don't believe that if you think war is cool, that it actually is cool. You don't get shot in real life and keep going with no pain. You don't get killed and come back a few seconds later. It's the entire fan boy factor that ruins the entire series of games.
That's what I said - they didn't change anything. There is NO JUSTIFICIATION, why MW3 is is sold as a full-priced sequel when it's exactly the same as MW2. And no "it's fun" is NOT a justification - that's an idiots-statement.
I don't know if you are talking about moral or legal justification, but they modded the engine a bit, added new guns, perks, poinstreaks, maps and stuff.Made a few changes here and there and they got themselves a game they can sell at full price.
And no, dedicated servers are NOT there because nobody set them up. Because they don't support anything. No fixing, nothing. Not even EXP can be earned there.
Same for the setting - they aren't there. But they are BASIC SETTINGS ANY PC-GAME SHOULD ALLOW TO CHANGE RIGHT AWAY. Why people care? Because it SHOULD BE THERE WITHOUT ASKING!
I'm pretty sure there are dedis:
The reason for restriction to mod the game and gain experience is hacking.Imagine getting on a server, getting a kill and instantly becoming level 80, 10 prestige.There's nothing to stop someone from doing that.And what basic settings? If you are talking about fov, not many games can change that without using console commands (except Minecraft :biggrin.gif:)
And here are some plotholes:
Why is the Russian Federation invading Europe, when they send their own president to them for peace-talk?
HOW could they invade Europe within less than one week? ALL AT ONCE? SUCCESSFULLY?
And how could they do that after a horrible fail trying to invade the US less than a week before?
Why are characters, who survived the previous game now suddenly gone? (Ramirez)
Why are characters, who survived a previous MISSION suddenly gone? (Frost - the rest of Team Metal is there in a later mission, only Frost is not. For no reason.)
How can Soap survive a car-crash at fullspeed (MW1) and getting stabbed into the chest after a boat-crash (MW2) but NOT falling out of the second floor of a building?
I didn't say there weren't plot holes, I'm just saying that they won't ruin your gaming experience because they are not easy to notice unless you take a closer look.
I could go on a while... fact is, MW3 is nothing but MW2 with a different name and a nearly-non-existing logic-missing SP. Anyone with more than one working braincell avoid that game and - if he really NEEDS an unbalaced, broken game - can play MW2. It's cheaper, but otherwise 100% the same game (you said it yourself), only lacking some of the balancing-issues.
It's your opinion that the game is "broken and unbalanced". Mine is quite the opposite though.
To simply ask a question - why should I buy MW3 in the first place, when even YOU admit that it's the exact same game as MW2 when I already have MW2 or can get it for less than half the price? Name me ONE thing, what justifactes spending almost twice as much on the same thing.
New features(a lot of them),balancing and fixes, getting bored of MW2.Don't know if these reasons could appeal a guy like you but they are enough for me.Also according to your statement you haven't played MW3 at all or at least long enough to bash the game with such passion.
1. Please name 10 different things from MW2 to MW3 that are not included in textures(including location of world) Story, Killstreaks, Weapons, and game modes. But game mechanics changes within the game that are "new" to the series.
2. Kill streak system ruins the balance of the game, you get 3 kills you can get more kills easily you get even more kills due to your previous kill streak reward you can get more. Die in the process you can just continue it. Little has to do with the skill of said player mostly the KS he has slotted.
3. I can name several technical things that has been the same since COD1 including the engine itself which has ONLY been retextured nothing more has been added the limited and scripted destruction within the game is the same you can find in COD1 and 2 etc.
All in all truth is that COD no matter who likes it or not is just same overpriced game rolling out each year by Activision and selling it on PR alone not innovation of any kind. One year is simply not enough time to release a ground breaking game that doesn't feel exactly like it predesesor for any developer let alone a developer(s) that are being rushed by the Publisher that they are owned by and can be thrown out at any time if they do not complete said game.
1. I never said that Modern Warfare 3 wasn't incredibly similar to Modern Warfare 2. You claimed that, as a fact, Modern Warfare 3 was the same exact game as Modern Warfare 2, but with a new paintjob. Objectively, that is false. I'm just being nitpicky, since you compiled a list of "facts" that were all opinions.
2. Once again, an opinion. I'm not arguing against your points themselves, I'm arguing over the matter that you call your opinions facts.
3. That is completely false in every single way. It's not even in the slightest bit true.
Listen, I am somebody who was disappointed with Modern Warfare 3. I also think the Call of Duty formula is growing stale. However, people are going to speak with their wallets. If people enjoy Call of Duty, they are going to keep on buying it until they do not enjoy it any more, and that day will come. When that day comes, Call of Duty will die, just like all other franchises, and a new game will take its place. Just because you don't care for a game, doesn't mean you should criticize people who do.
Can you please stop flaming him? He said the reasons the game is a little bit "realistic", but not a war simulator.
But I agree with you with the "fun" part.
Flaming? If I recall, we were having a pretty mature debate, no personal attacks were made. Not sure where you fit into all this.
EDIT: Okay, I'm definitely done in this thread. These sorts of discussions always make me feel like a huge asshole.
I believe you mean hate.
The point of this thread is to talk what's bad about MW3. And if people who think this game is bad,(Me and various others) and just ignore it, it completely defeats the purpose of this thread.
1.) No big changes since MW1
2.) Players are generally douchebag fanboys with a low level of intelligence.
3.) Weapons are unbalanced
4.) The bad kind of unrealistic
5.) Story is not very interesting
Haters gonna hate.
- COD has been releasing the same game since 2008 with new paint jobs
- Gameplay is based on the rich get richer and poorer get poorer
- Modern Warefare 3 has flaws that were actually corrected or fixed in Blops such as dedicated ranked servers unlike ranked P2P system in MW3 (PC)
- COD in general is not in anyways competive gaming due to the top two facts.
My own opinions
- Gameplay is redundant and as said before just has little balance within the game it self.
- Modern warfare 2 that I bought and played was the first real sign to me that Activision doesn't give a damn about their players and just want money so they rushed and released the same game each year, At least COD 2 and COD 4 had new aspects in them and decent user interface and tools within the game for all sides of the community.
- I never noticed trolls even in MW2 I could just leave and find a new game. A few people can ruin the game but they can only ruin it if YOU let them. Although MW2 trolls were a lot more common then COD4 due to the absence of moderators/admins
Ok I need to say this. In almost every way I kind find something to hate you for. What games you hate, what games you like (actually, Fallout is ok), your SIG, your reasoning, ect. BUT, you're Malaysian, so by definition you're cool. (:
I understand my tests are popular reading in the teachers' lounge." -Watterson
Whoah, whoah, whoah, hold up. These are not facts, much less true facts (what other kinds of facts are there?)
1. Objectively, Call of Duty: Black Ops is a different game than Modern Warfare 3. That is a fact. You may think that Black Ops is very similar to Modern Warfare 3, and I'd agree with you, but that's an opinion, not a fact.
2. Elaborate. Do you mean to say, those who are good at the game are rewarded, and those who are bad at the game are punished? Again, that is an opinion, not a fact ("rewards" and "punishments" are subjective).
3. An opinion, again. You cannot objectively say that the lack of dedicated servers is a "flaw", even if most people would agree. However, I do agree with you.
4. Not a fact in any way whatsoever. In fact, at some level, that may be objectively wrong. Look at the definition of "competition": "To seek or strive for the same thing , position, or reward (in Call of Duty's case- experience and unlocks) for which another is striving"
What is that even supposed to mean lol.
Actually, no, I don't wanna hear why. You don't even know me. You don't know what games I like and what games I hate. I also hate your signature, but guess what? I keep it to myself and not judge someone by their sig. From the looks of it, you're just another fanboy.
1.) Fair enough. I've never noticed the guns being too unbalanced, but apparently they are.
2.) Never been a problem for me.
3.) Oh god, more over-simplifications... no, you don't just "run around and shoot" in Call of Duty, and it does require a certain amount of strategy, but why does that matter? Super Mario World isn't a strategic game, Uncharted isn't particularly strategic, Grand Theft Auto isn't strategic, etc. Would you consider all of these games to be as bad as Call of Duty?
4.) Call of Duty does not try to simulate real-life war, and if you are trying to play it that way, it's no wonder why you don't like the game. I hope you don't try playing Quake like a war simulator, because Quake and Call of Duty have more in common than Battlefield and Call of Duty.
3)Yes, it does requires a certain amount of strategy, but most of the time you don't have to help your team or trying to get the objective.(Not comparing to BF3, serious) I actually like those games, CoD just turned me off because of number 2. Yes, just number 2. In my opinion the game itself isn't really bad, but the community ruined it.
4)I'm not talking about the plot or storyline, I'm talking about the gameplay. I'd like to see you fire two shotguns at the same time without breaking your arm.
3) Mute the annoying people? Really, what's the worst the community can do? Call you names? Play bad music? Desperately try to get good shots for a montage? All you need to do is quit out and find another match, or mute the annoying people. If such an insignificant inconvenience is bothering you so much, I cannot fathom how you manage to enjoy Battlefield 3, a game where community really matters.
4.) I'm not sure if you understand. I never referenced story in any way, so I'm not sure where you got that idea. I cannot name a single game in my entire game collection, save for Gran Turismo 5, that I can call "realistic". Yeah, Call of Duty isn't realistic, but have you ever thought that maybe the game is better off for it? Quake isn't realistic. Unreal Tournament isn't realistic. Halo isn't realistic. Batman isn't realistic. The list goes on.
Also, I'm not sure where people get the idea that Battlefield 3 is in any way a "realistic" game. Mind you, I much prefer Battlefield 3 to Modern Warfare 3, but it's not in the slightest bit realistic.
3) In-game 12 years old isn't a problem for me. The problem is that these fanboys are everywhere. 5/10 BF3 videos I've seen on YouTube will have people ***** about "BF3 sucks! Get MW3! It's so much better!". See where I'm getting at? In BF3 I never heard 12 years old call me a fag for killing him. In CoD I always get "Omg this guy is so gay! He keep killing me!".
4) Well, sorry if I misunderstand you. Sci-Fi games isn't really realistic, but I like FPS games to be realistic(see below). But to each his own.
BF3 is realistic if you think about it. Bullet drop, no instant knife stab and etc. It imitates real life of how gun works and such.
Now I'm sounding like a fanboy. This is probably my last post on this thread, I only get flamed by fanboys.(Not talking about you.)
3.) Huh, I've seen quite the opposite.
4.) I don't think you do, if you enjoy Battlefield 3 so much.
Battlefield 3 is absolutely nothing like real war, not even in the slightest. DICE producer Patrick Bach has said himself that the game is not meant to be realistic, but instead authentic, which is accurate. I compiled a small list of things in Battlefield 3 that aren't particularly realistic:
After reading this, can you honestly say Battlefield 3 is a "realistic" game? I hope you don't, but these are the things that make Battlefield 3 so much fun. If DICE tried to make Battlefield 3 be more realistic, trust me, you would not enjoy the game. You need to have a good balance of realism and arcade, and in my opinion, DICE nails it. So does Infinity Ward.
1. Please name 10 different things from MW2 to MW3 that are not included in textures(including location of world) Story, Killstreaks, Weapons, and game modes. But game mechanics changes within the game that are "new" to the series.
2. Kill streak system ruins the balance of the game, you get 3 kills you can get more kills easily you get even more kills due to your previous kill streak reward you can get more. Die in the process you can just continue it. Little has to do with the skill of said player mostly the KS he has slotted.
3. I can name several technical things that has been the same since COD1 including the engine itself which has ONLY been retextured nothing more has been added the limited and scripted destruction within the game is the same you can find in COD1 and 2 etc.
All in all truth is that COD no matter who likes it or not is just same overpriced game rolling out each year by Activision and selling it on PR alone not innovation of any kind. One year is simply not enough time to release a ground breaking game that doesn't feel exactly like it predesesor for any developer let alone a developer(s) that are being rushed by the Publisher that they are owned by and can be thrown out at any time if they do not complete said game.
No matter what you say, I and others will still like the game.It doesn't matter if the changes are small or nonexistent, game is still fun.That's because there was no need to change something that is good. I personally think that COD is the of the most-balanced Fps-s I've seen, even though there are some OP stuff(face it, every game has them). Also , dedicated servers are there and who cares about fov and other stupid ****? People just wanna sit on the chair and play the game.Yes the campaign is short and is criticized for that but that wasn't the focus of the game(I also don't like when a FPS game has a long campaign). And what plotholes?I played the story just fine and didn't notice anything.You'd have to be a real lurker or a strict critic to find fault with those.
And like I said in the beginning the justification for not changing much is because people like it the way it is(read: MW3 breaks sale records). Oh and before calling someone dumb for liking a game that you HATE, take into account that people have different opinions than you.Not to mention the people who never played any cods before mw3 and like the game nonetheless.
I don't know if you are talking about moral or legal justification, but they modded the engine a bit, added new guns, perks, poinstreaks, maps and stuff.Made a few changes here and there and they got themselves a game they can sell at full price.
I'm pretty sure there are dedis:
The reason for restriction to mod the game and gain experience is hacking.Imagine getting on a server, getting a kill and instantly becoming level 80, 10 prestige.There's nothing to stop someone from doing that.And what basic settings? If you are talking about fov, not many games can change that without using console commands (except Minecraft :biggrin.gif:)
I didn't say there weren't plot holes, I'm just saying that they won't ruin your gaming experience because they are not easy to notice unless you take a closer look.
It's your opinion that the game is "broken and unbalanced". Mine is quite the opposite though.
New features(a lot of them),balancing and fixes, getting bored of MW2.Don't know if these reasons could appeal a guy like you but they are enough for me.Also according to your statement you haven't played MW3 at all or at least long enough to bash the game with such passion.
You give them too much credit... More like MW1.2.
2. Once again, an opinion. I'm not arguing against your points themselves, I'm arguing over the matter that you call your opinions facts.
3. That is completely false in every single way. It's not even in the slightest bit true.
Listen, I am somebody who was disappointed with Modern Warfare 3. I also think the Call of Duty formula is growing stale. However, people are going to speak with their wallets. If people enjoy Call of Duty, they are going to keep on buying it until they do not enjoy it any more, and that day will come. When that day comes, Call of Duty will die, just like all other franchises, and a new game will take its place. Just because you don't care for a game, doesn't mean you should criticize people who do.
Flaming? If I recall, we were having a pretty mature debate, no personal attacks were made. Not sure where you fit into all this.
EDIT: Okay, I'm definitely done in this thread. These sorts of discussions always make me feel like a huge asshole.