# Modern Warfare 3



## Scar Symmetry (Jan 4, 2011)

It's no secret that this game is coming, whether under the title MW3 or not.

Just saw this...

Rumour: Call of Duty 4: Modern Warfare Prequel | News

Considering the source, I'm going to take this as confirmed


----------



## orb451 (Jan 4, 2011)

Sorry but after the last MW2 debacle, IW can suck my nuts. As far as design and gameplay goes, I like their ideas more than IW's but at least IW *listens* to the players and actually tweaks the game in a timely fashion.

I also wonder how much of the core *talent* has left IW and gone to form their own group - the name of which escapes me at the moment. That might explain why they're not using a new game engine, the core developers that could pull it off are probably gone, so they've got to try to rehash what they already own IP-wise.


----------



## synrgy (Jan 4, 2011)

I've got the perfect title:

Call of Duty: Dead Horse Beating


----------



## Scar Symmetry (Jan 4, 2011)

orb451 said:


> Sorry but after the last MW2 debacle, IW can suck my nuts. As far as design and gameplay goes, I like their ideas more than IW's but at least IW *listens* to the players and actually tweaks the game in a timely fashion.
> 
> I also wonder how much of the core *talent* has left IW and gone to form their own group - the name of which escapes me at the moment. That might explain why they're not using a new game engine, the core developers that could pull it off are probably gone, so they've got to try to rehash what they already own IP-wise.



Black Ops actually made me realise how fucking good MW2 is 

Agreed though, a good 2/3 of the dev team for MW2 has gone to Respawn Entertainment, along with the 2 bosses.

It might also explain why the game probably won't be released this year as hinted at in the article...


----------



## orb451 (Jan 4, 2011)

Scar Symmetry said:


> Black Ops actually made me realise how fucking good MW2 is



Yeah I took away the opposite, MW2 was good, but IW severely dropped the ball as far as patches and fixes go. Not to mention maps. Overall it *could* have been great, but wasn't to me anyway... Black Ops started kinda rough but it has smoothed out and at least as far as Hardcore TDM and CTF go, I like it more than MW2 or [email protected] Not as much COD4, but close... 

Should be interesting to see how the franchise shakes out this time around.


----------



## Scar Symmetry (Jan 4, 2011)

orb451 said:


> Yeah I took away the opposite, MW2 was good, but IW severely dropped the ball as far as patches and fixes go. Not to mention maps. Overall it *could* have been great, but wasn't to me anyway... Black Ops started kinda rough but it has smoothed out and at least as far as Hardcore TDM and CTF go, I like it more than MW2 or [email protected] Not as much COD4, but close...
> 
> Should be interesting to see how the franchise shakes out this time around.



For me, Black Ops definitely listened to the community, though the multiplayer is very, very unrefined. The single player is awesome, kicks MW2 campaign in the nuts, but the MW2 multiplayer is VERY fluid, it's the bigger, better looking brother of Black Ops IMO. I now prefer it to COD4!


----------



## Customisbetter (Jan 4, 2011)

They should call it, "Call of Duty 4: Modern Warfare Forever: Episode 3".


----------



## C2Aye (Jan 4, 2011)

My reasons why Call of Duty 4 is the definitive 'Modern Warfare' series game (and in my opinion why it should have been the only one).

- A storyline you could actually believe to have happened in this day and age with the war in the Middle East (cough, cough NOT IRAQ cough cough) and the underhand, post Cold War dealings all out of the public eye. Also, I appreciated the slight, if unintentional, satire of the US going in and fucking everything with the Brits going in fixing everything  The distinct lack of 100 foot snow mobile jumps and firefights in Brazil give COD4 +1000 plot points.

- The pacing of the campaign was far better. And unlike Black Ops which was shoot until your eyes bleed, there actually were decent stealthy-esque sections and the option to stay hidden. It was short, admittedly but good short. You felt that everything that could be wrapped up was wrapped up (they still manage to vampire a sequel out though and from the looks of things, a second one  ) The shortest FPS game in history however goes to the new Medal of Honor which actually takes negative time to complete. After you finish, you're actually back in the shop before you've bought it.

- Multiplayer was more balanced. None of this "IMMA GOIN FOR NUKES LOL!!!11XD" crap. Everybody had the same killstreaks so the better players had more room to shine. Admittedly, it wasn't ideal with people shooting across the map at the beginning of hardcore S&D games, juggernaut and the inevitable 'glitching' but no matter how you played (rusher, camper, crazy no scoping/quick scoping sniper person thing) it felt balanced.

- Lack of hype. With all the hype surrounding Black Ops and MW2, it was incredibly easy to be disappointed. And disappointed I was. My brother loves them both for some reason, but I give him a game with a health bar and he doesn't know what to do 

So there you go. COD4 should be the only MW in existence but as soon as IW caught a whiff of money, then you know what happened.

Then again, I'd take Half-Life 2 over any COD game though


----------



## vampiregenocide (Jan 4, 2011)

I have basically stopped playing Black Ops, got bored of it already. Sure they patched things up quick, but you can't fix a whole game. It just wasn't as gripping as MW2. 

But PREQUEL? PREQUEL?! No sir, I want to find out what happens AFTER MW2. Damn hoes.


----------



## Scar Symmetry (Jan 4, 2011)

C2Aye said:


> My reasons why Call of Duty 4 is the definitive 'Modern Warfare' series game (and in my opinion why it should have been the only one).
> 
> - A storyline you could actually believe to have happened in this day and age with the war in the Middle East (cough, cough NOT IRAQ cough cough) and the underhand, post Cold War dealings all out of the public eye. Also, I appreciated the slight, if unintentional, satire of the US going in and fucking everything with the Brits going in fixing everything  The distinct lack of 100 foot snow mobile jumps and firefights in Brazil give COD4 +1000 plot points.
> 
> ...



Great post man 

With MW2 it was obvious they would make it bigger and badder and put more hollywood shit in it, with the amount of online players for 4 they pretty much had their hands tied.

I now think after getting a good taste of Black Ops that MW2 is the best game in the series. Better graphics, better maps, better weapon system... I've been converted! It does have it's flaws, but for me it stands out as the best.

We are on exactly the same page on "hardcore S&D games, juggernaut and the inevitable 'glitching'", but being a COD4 veteran I am able to counter all 3 problems.


----------



## Taylor2 (Jan 4, 2011)

orb451 said:


> Sorry but after the last MW2 debacle, IW can suck my nuts. As far as design and gameplay goes, I like their ideas more than IW's but at least IW *listens* to the players and actually tweaks the game in a timely fashion.
> 
> I also wonder how much of the core *talent* has left IW and gone to form their own group - the name of which escapes me at the moment. That might explain why they're not using a new game engine, the core developers that could pull it off are probably gone, so they've got to try to rehash what they already own IP-wise.


 
There is a common misconception that IW didn't listen or care to the players and just left it forgotten, but IW had fixes for all the major problems such as the OMA infinite grenade, Marathon + Lightweight + Ninja, Commando, etc. 
The problem was, that all patches had to be approved by Activision, and because of the lawsuit, they wouldn't allow it to go through. So IW had their hands pretty well tied and were forced to drop any association with MW2.

So really, the problem with Modern Warfare 2 was Activision. Who are also responsible for the latest debacle Black Ops, since they pushed TreyArch to put it out too soon.

You can praise TA all you want for keeping up with updates, but a lot of what they're updating should have been fixed during development stages.

And besides -Personal Opinion time- I personally think that TreyArch aren't as good as IW at making games. They just released a patch today that was supposed to just fix dark spots in corners and whatnot. It also made the movement half speed and TreyArch can't figure out why. That's quite an amateur move if I do say so myself.


/nerd.


----------



## C2Aye (Jan 4, 2011)

Scar Symmetry said:


> Great post man
> 
> With MW2 it was obvious they would make it bigger and badder and put more hollywood shit in it, with the amount of online players for 4 they pretty much had their hands tied.
> 
> ...



The clincher for me is that I'm one of those strange, weird people that never really got into online gaming. I mean, I played COD4 until I prestiged and then I got bored. It just doesn't do it for me, really, hence why I need the single player to really stand out. If I do play online, fair enough but generally a game needs to stand on single player alone for me, hence why you can guess why MW2 was a disappointment for me and to a certain degree, Black Ops as well. Then again, it seems most Modern Warfare type games like your Bad Company 2 and your Medal of Honor disappoint in this department (there are only so many bad guys to pick on and Russia seems to get the shortest bad guy straw!).

What I will say is that Bad Company 2 has one of the most visceral online experiences ever and I feel it's far more immersive than MW2. The graphics IMO are better, there are no perks/ridiculous killstreaks and my god, IT SOUNDS SO GOOD. Being a music forum, I think the aural aspect of a game would go appreciated. With the 'woofers on, every round, every explosion kicks you in the face. You can hear sniper rounds wizz by, having barely missing you and when you fire a gun inside a building, the game sure as hell lets you know about it!

In regards to Taylor's comments, COD is heading towards Fifa (Fifa Soccer for you North Americans!) territory, releasing a game every year. They might as well stamp the year on the end of it, COD '12, COD '13 and so on. The result is a buggy shooter with a rushed campaign, rushed multiplayer and very little time for real innovation. And the sad thing is, every COD game will sell millions and make billions, which Activision is banking on. To be honest, I'd prefer if there was more time spent on developing the game, making a plausible and immersive plotline and ironing out the kinks. I mean, you can spend too long on a game (HALF-LIFE 2: EPISODE 3 WHEN THE FUCK ARE YOU GOING TO BE FINISHED??!!) but I think with games like Assassin's Creed, Uncharted, Mass Effect and GTA, the right amount of time is being spent developing the games. And I know the three games I mentioned are 3rd person action/adventure games but IMO there hasn't really been a FPS of note that I've played. (Fingers crossed for Crysis 2 though! The first game was pretty good, if a nightmare for the old PC to run).

So yeah, MW3 will probably come out (I'm guessing November release for all the kiddies to get for Christmas along with Uncharted 3 and Mass Effect 3. And 3 seems to be a good number for chest high walls/cover based shooters, with Gears of War 3 coming out too) and I won't be buying it. My little brother will though, and I'll probably be saying the same thing in a year's time about all the fuss about what in my opinion is a fun but only passable shooter. Call me a cynic but I do want my games to go above and beyond the call of duty (TROLOLOLOL ) and deliver something really special. And I'm probably going to send hatemail to Valve now about HL2:E3. Oh wait, is that...Portal 2...?


----------



## leandroab (Jan 5, 2011)




----------



## ittoa666 (Jan 5, 2011)

orb451 said:


> Yeah I took away the opposite, MW2 was good, but IW severely dropped the ball as far as patches and fixes go. Not to mention maps. Overall it *could* have been great, but wasn't to me anyway... Black Ops started kinda rough but it has smoothed out and at least as far as Hardcore TDM and CTF go, I like it more than MW2 or [email protected] Not as much COD4, but close...
> 
> Should be interesting to see how the franchise shakes out this time around.



 Same opinion here.

Also, I think we need a new franchise. Personally, I would like to see more good open world games, which is why TES 5 looks so good (as long as it's better than Oblivion). Saints Row 3 should be good despite it not being new, and the next GTA will be sweet.

Call of Duty is just getting old. Black Ops is fun, and I love it, but I have played so much of it before that I'm just sick of it. Unless they can make a NEW game instead of a re-skinned and re-perked CoD4, I won't be buying next time around.


----------



## vampiregenocide (Jan 5, 2011)

Well a Call Of Duty Future/Avanced Warfare is being made, so that could bring a fresh look to the series.


----------



## Mn3mic (Jan 5, 2011)

orb451 said:


> Sorry but after the last MW2 debacle, IW can suck my nuts. As far as design and gameplay goes, I like their ideas more than IW's but at least IW *listens* to the players and actually tweaks the game in a timely fashion.
> 
> I also wonder how much of the core *talent* has left IW and gone to form their own group - the name of which escapes me at the moment. That might explain why they're not using a new game engine, the core developers that could pull it off are probably gone, so they've got to try to rehash what they already own IP-wise.



Yeah - I guess you had the same mental beat down after you got the game and hoped to play the shit out of it - in the end you just played shit...
I still regret paying for it...back to Counter Strike Source for me


----------



## Customisbetter (Jan 5, 2011)

vampiregenocide said:


> Well a Call Of Duty Future/Avanced Warfare is being made, so that could bring a fresh look to the series.



Hmm... Maybe the players will wear body armor and have regenerating sheilds... OH WAIT!


----------



## clouds (Jan 5, 2011)

ittoa666 said:


> Call of Duty is just getting old. Black Ops is fun, and I love it, but I have played so much of it before that I'm just sick of it. Unless they can make a NEW game instead of a re-skinned and re-perked CoD4, I won't be buying next time around.



I do agree with this. Correct me if I'm wrong but every game since CoD4 has had the same engine and they're all too similar for my taste.

It would appear I'm the black sheep here, however, as WaW was my favourite installment in the series.


----------



## Prydogga (Jan 5, 2011)

FUUUUCK YEAHHHHH.

Hater's gunna hate. 

Black Ops online sucks dick. 

Infinity Ward owns at FPS. Track recrod proves this. Original MOH crew, hello?)

I am excited!

Edit:

Although, seeing as most of IW split, I'd like to see what they're doing, hopefully there's still some good guys left with Infinity Ward, and they didn't take too many of the Treyarch crew


----------



## Prydogga (Jan 5, 2011)

Customisbetter said:


> Hmm... Maybe the players will wear body armor and have regenerating sheilds... OH WAIT!



Not that far in the future. Think the newest Ghost Recon future-like.



C2Aye said:


> The result is a buggy shooter with a rushed campaign, rushed multiplayer and very little time for real innovation



With the exception of Black Op's fail at closed beta bug fixing, none of this has any relation to the COD series.



Taylor said:


> They just released a patch today that was supposed to just fix dark spots in corners and whatnot. It also made the movement half speed and TreyArch can't figure out why. That's quite an amateur move if I do say so myself.



Not to mention accidentally getting rid of the mute option in lobbies, which fortunately is now back, but stuff like that is pretty amateur, and the fact that it went at least a week without being fixed is pretty bad.


----------



## ittoa666 (Jan 5, 2011)

IW was a good company until they got a taste of the big money and started making the same game over and again.

Also, now that I think about it, whatever happened to rainbow six? Vegas 1 and 2 kicked ass, and there hasn't been a new one since.


----------



## Prydogga (Jan 5, 2011)

Same game over and over again? You mean a sequel to one game?

MW2 had alot more than COD4, and was a storyline sequel. Name the definitive differences between Halo's 1 and 2...


----------



## C2Aye (Jan 5, 2011)

Prydogga said:


> With the exception of Black Op's fail at closed beta bug fixing, none of this has any relation to the COD series.





Prydogga said:


> Same game over and over again? You mean a sequel to one game?
> 
> MW2 had alot more than COD4, and was a storyline sequel. Name the definitive differences between Halo's 1 and 2...



My point was that because the time frame between the games is becoming increasingly shorter, there isn't really any innovation between the games. Black Ops was a step backwards in terms of graphics, not to metion glitchy, Modern Warfare 2 was a million step backwards in terms of plot and the Call of Duty games have absolutely nothing on Bad Company and Medal of Honor in the sound department, as both those games sound absolutely fantastic.

And yes, pretty much the same game over and over, in my opinion anyway. The way I see it (from one of my previous posts), COD4 didn't need a sequel storywise. It was nicely capped off with a sort of 'a day in the life of an SAS squaddie' vibe and that was that. MW2 had plot holes bigger than _*that*_ snow mobile jump. But I guess I'm banging my head against a brick wall here since I'm guessing most people bought it for the multiplayer which did have additional features from MW to MW2, but in my opinion, really annoying ones like gazillions of killstreaks.

Also, let's not even consider starting a Halo vs COD argument because those are pointless and no one ever gets their point across without accusations of fanboyism, you're gay, yo momma, you're worse that Hitler, etc etc. And the way I see it, both Halo and COD are fun and competent FPS's but distinctly average as games go as a whole.


----------



## vampiregenocide (Jan 5, 2011)

I think COD and Halo are extremely good FPSs, but the high expectations you have of them can often be their downfall.


----------



## tacotiklah (Jan 5, 2011)

Prydogga said:


> Same game over and over again? You mean a sequel to one game?
> 
> MW2 had alot more than COD4, and was a storyline sequel. Name the definitive differences between Halo's 1 and 2...





I'll bite.


Halo2's graphics were TREMENDOUSLY better. Things weren't so pixel-looking and the story itself was actually a big improvement. You also had new aliens to shoot (instead of it being strictly grunts, elites, and flood) and the use of dual-wielding was a definite plus. Also the new weapons like the brute's grenade launcher (with the massive scythe on it) was pretty sick. I also liked the improved covenant version of the rocket launcher (that big green shooting thing) compared to the one in the first. The ghost was much easier to drive, and the ability to kick people out of one was a great game-balancer.

Now the differences between halo 2 and 3 were marginal at best.



As for the MW series:
Personally I hate the "calling in choppers, predators, etc" that these games have. I see it as a cheap ass way to get free kills. All a person really has to do is get lucky and shoot 3 people, hide in a corner, call in some help, and now that 3-4 person kill streak suddenly becomes much, much higher with minimal skill on the player's part. It's lame, cheap, and voids all possibility of a challenging game.

In the first MW game, with just a chopper and an airstrike, it wasn't so bad in some levels. (like killhouse, because the building you're in absorbs most of those attacks) However, when I played MW2, it was just bad. I mean come on.....kill 25 people, get a nuke and the map is over with 1/2 the time left? Weak ass shit right there. Have a harrier follow you everywhere, hide just over a mountain ridge and pin you down inside a cave, while the one who called it in sits on their ass getting free kills? Yeah because that's a lot of fun....
When it comes to MW2 online, I just can't stand it. What ever happened to having actual skill in online shooters where you had to be quick and nimble in order to kill and not be killed, using only the weapons (re: rifles/pistols/grenades) you have?

Maybe they'll ditch those "perks" with the advanced combat franchise, and make things more like an actual FPS that takes skill to play...

/rant


----------



## ittoa666 (Jan 5, 2011)

Prydogga said:


> Same game over and over again? You mean a sequel to one game?
> 
> MW2 had alot more than COD4, and was a storyline sequel. Name the definitive differences between Halo's 1 and 2...



Same game meaning that the game doesn't change much. Halo 1 and 2 were different graphically, while adding more vehicles, a ton of new gameplay, and one of the first great online console gaming experiences. 

CoD these days is just the same game with slightly better graphics, a new gun or two, and maybe a new perk. To narrow this argument down more, comparing IW the 3arc, we can say that 3arc is trying to add more value to the series by adding zombies, an infinitely playable arcade easter egg, and a fun, engaging campaign. IW, on the other hand, spent little time on the campaign, focused on multiplayer and marketing, and released a game with little to no choice of how to play or what to use. 

I must admit that I'm a bit biased, with 3arc being my preferred developer, but I can say that black ops needs major work, not unlike MW2, but b ops just doesn't have as many game breaking problems and glitches like MW2 did. There's no over-powered dual weilding shotguns, no commando (despite people complaining about long knife range), no tactical knives, no one man army, AND NO STOPPING POWER. The last thing is the most important, obviously, because that perk alone forced you to use it, unless you like losing firefights. 

Overall, Call of Duty has lost my attention, and I await TES 5 anxiously.


----------



## Scar Symmetry (Jan 5, 2011)

I've never understood Nazi Zombies. I find it annoying.

I know that the game is only modified slightly each time, but if something ain't broke don't fix it, only fix what needs fixing 

As the games go on, we may end up with the perfect Call of Duty one day.

What's that? 4 already happened


----------



## vampiregenocide (Jan 5, 2011)

Nazi zombies was good, but they could've done more with it. Instead they just made it exactly the same but new maps.

I think MW is great, if they can get the beauty and quality of the first one, with the expanded arsenal and gameplay of the second, but more frequent updates, I reckon it'd be a sick game.


----------



## ittoa666 (Jan 5, 2011)

Nothing beats CoD4.


----------



## Prydogga (Jan 5, 2011)

ittoa666 said:


> IW, on the other hand, spent little time on the campaign, focused on multiplayer and marketing, and released a game with little to no choice of how to play or what to use.
> 
> There's no over-powered dual weilding shotguns, no commando
> 
> Overall, Call of Duty has lost my attention, and I await TES 5 anxiously.


Dual HS-10s 


I can see people being lost by the CoD franchise, and that's fine, but really:

MW2 added Spec Ops which was Co Op online, and had some really challenging levels, while they didn't build all new levels to do this, the gameplay was still fun and every level had some new element, rather than Black Ops putting the same Zombie game with basically unchanged gameplay (Yeah gas zombies etc are new but meh,) and the same zombie models and sounds.

I've finished the campaign in most of the games I've ever played, and most I can stand to play to the end. Cod3, WaW and Black Ops were a struggle to keep interested, WaW especially. 

Same goes for online, when WaW was out I played COD4 after prestiging once on WaW, and now that's happening with BO and MW2.

I just think people hate IW for going a bit overboard with perks and killstreaks etc, when really, they are among the most experienced FPS team around, being the original makers of Medal Of Honour, and the original WWII shooter, they have years of experience of great games. 
They have everything in them to make another great game, but whether that's MW3, I don't know, seeing as most of the team are gone.


Edit: I think it would be cool for them to strip multiplayer back a bit and get killstreaks back to things that mostly help your team (UAV,Ammo etc) and maybe a few 'hard to get to' rewards like choppers, while mostly focusing on furthering customization, Cod4 was perfect, except lack of certain attachments for guns, customization (not like the face paint and easy to get camo in BO) if probably what drives me to play games alot.


----------



## Stealthdjentstic (Jan 5, 2011)

MW2 was a steaming shitpile. Any newbie could rape shit with an AA-12.


----------



## tacotiklah (Jan 6, 2011)

Stealthtastic said:


> MW2 was a steaming shitpile. Any newbie could rape shit with an AA-12.



That was the point of my tirade. It went from being a FPS to a complete fucking madhouse, and not in a good way....


----------



## Customisbetter (Jan 6, 2011)

Stealthtastic said:


> MW2 was a steaming shitpile. Any newbie could rape shit with an AA-12.



WHAT!?!?
COD2 was the best game in the series by far. Fuck I'm gonna play some right now.

EDIT: Wow I'm a dumbass.


----------



## espman (Jan 6, 2011)

In all seriousness, I actually have fairly high hopes for this one, then again, I had nothing to complain about with mw2 or black ops. Guess it's just hard for me to any faults with games that actually make a difference to me


----------



## ittoa666 (Jan 6, 2011)

Stealthtastic said:


> MW2 was a steaming shitpile. Any newbie could rape shit with an AA-12.



Exactly. There was no learning curve. I personally think that a good game requires attention, and dare I say, practice, to be "good" at.


----------



## Taylor2 (Jan 6, 2011)

I really hope IW can make MW3 like the last Modern Warfare titles.

The only real problems with MW2 were little things. The perk things, quickscoping, OMA noob tube, a couple glitches here and there, but those were just _annoyances_. You could still play the game normally because the MECHANICS of the game worked properly. Not to mention, the maps were better, and the game was far more exciting.
Black Ops may be more balanced, which it only kinda is, but the mechanics of the game don't work well, and to be honest, I find the game rather...boring.
I miss spending all the time going for achievements and getting titles. 

Not to mention COD 4, which is the best by far.

If MW3 is like MW2 without perk mismatches and noob tubes, I'll be happy.


----------



## Prydogga (Jan 6, 2011)

^ Very true.

Once you play MW2 enough the annoyances just become part of the game, basically every nooby thing in the game has a counter. try the AA-12 on wasteland, or the UMP against a bunch of noob tubers, or noob tubing against campers, campers against people that understand the use of flashes, etc.

For the record, I can't stand 3arc's level design, or their control of the map, there are alot of places that you should be able to jump on, over or walk around, that you can't, and it really limits the game.


----------



## Taylor2 (Jan 6, 2011)

Just tried to play Black Ops again....

Had more people spawn behind me than I could count.

Popped back in MW2, had a great time and only got noob tubed twice.


----------



## Prydogga (Jan 6, 2011)

The Modern Warfare 3 is now the Black Ops thread 

Seriously, who thought it would be fair to put a grenade launcher on the AK74u? It's already the most overpowered gun ever.


----------



## Taylor2 (Jan 6, 2011)

Woops.
I actually though it WAS the BO thread.

My baddd. 



You know, it's funny. 
I don't really like the AK74 at all.


You want an awesome SMG? Try the Spectre with extended mags and/or a suppressor.
Almost no recoil and shoots fast.


----------



## Marv Attaxx (Jan 7, 2011)

I hate playing first person shooters where the player doesn't have a body and you're maneuvering a simple camera through the game 
You look down and there are no feet, no legs ,nothing.
That's what killed MW2 for me!
I can't identify myself with a bodyless avatar, it already bothered me back in the days when Half Life was released.
I think I'll stick with Killzone


----------



## GATA4 (Jan 7, 2011)

Marv Attaxx said:


> I hate playing first person shooters where the player doesn't have a body and you're maneuvering a simple camera through the game
> You look down and there are no feet, no legs ,nothing.
> That's what killed MW2 for me!
> I can't identify myself with a bodyless avatar, it already bothered me back in the days when Half Life was released.
> I think I'll stick with Killzone



Killzone is the shit.

I played that game for a long time


----------



## Tomo009 (Jan 7, 2011)

Marv Attaxx said:


> I hate playing first person shooters where the player doesn't have a body and you're maneuvering a simple camera through the game
> You look down and there are no feet, no legs ,nothing.
> That's what killed MW2 for me!
> I can't identify myself with a bodyless avatar, it already bothered me back in the days when Half Life was released.
> I think I'll stick with Killzone


You don't like half life 2?

Anyway, Call of Duty 4:4, I am pretty apathetic. 4 was good, but modern realistic shooters have been done to death now and the call of duty dead horse has been being beaten for far far too long.


----------



## Prydogga (Jan 8, 2011)

People say that, but really, besides CoD, Rainbow 6 and I suppose Battlefield what good modern shooter series' are there? I think there's still alot of room in the genre, I still don't think futuristic shooters are anywhere near as good as they could be, there's Halo. And that's got a very specific feel, it doesn't really feel like a war, just Spartan rape, we need a futuristic CoD style shooter.


----------



## Tomo009 (Jan 8, 2011)

Prydogga said:


> People say that, but really, besides CoD, Rainbow 6 and I suppose Battlefield what good modern shooter series' are there? I think there's still alot of room in the genre, I still don't think futuristic shooters are anywhere near as good as they could be, there's Halo. And that's got a very specific feel, it doesn't really feel like a war, just Spartan rape, we need a futuristic CoD style shooter.



I think you mean arena shooters, Halo has been sitting on the edge between Arena and CoD style since 3. Battlefield I absolutely love, except Bad Company which just feels like an attempt to steal CoD's market. Though to be honest, I'd rather play BBC2 than MW2 or black ops.

Personally I guess I just prefer arena shooters but they are a dying breed, going the way of my other favorite genre, 3D platformers.

One thing I will say about black ops, the map design was signifigantly improved over MW2 and WaW's absolutely abysmal efforts in that area. If MW3 can improve that and add something unexpected/interesting, then I will give it a chance.


----------



## The Reverend (Jan 8, 2011)

Call Of Duty: American Revolution

Flintlock pistols, anyone? 10-Pace Duel mode? I smell raging success

/sarcasm

I jumped on the MW2 bandwagon to see what all the hype was about. I found the campaign to be far too short, and the online play brief, at best. It might just be me sucking or something, but constantly dying just isn't fun.


----------



## ittoa666 (Jan 8, 2011)

The Reverend said:


> Call Of Duty: American Revolution
> 
> Flintlock pistols, anyone? 10-Pace Duel mode? I smell raging success
> 
> ...



Call of Duty Civil War

They can have Antietam, Stonewall Jackson, and Gettysburg DLC.


----------



## Prydogga (Jan 8, 2011)

Tomo009 said:


> I think you mean arena shooters, Halo has been sitting on the edge between Arena and CoD style since 3. Battlefield I absolutely love, except Bad Company which just feels like an attempt to steal CoD's market. Though to be honest, I'd rather play BBC2 than MW2 or black ops.
> 
> Personally I guess I just prefer arena shooters but they are a dying breed, going the way of my other favorite genre, 3D platformers.
> 
> One thing I will say about black ops, the map design was signifigantly improved over MW2 and WaW's absolutely abysmal efforts in that area. If MW3 can improve that and add something unexpected/interesting, then I will give it a chance.



Nah I mean, Halo's have always had potential to fill out a huge battle experience (think the first Russian level of CoD 1, hundreds of soldiers dying around you) instead they make the biggest battle experiences cut scenes, and then you end up away from the battle with a couple of other guys, surely they'd have the technical capabilities to get an immersible battle level going.


----------



## Tomo009 (Jan 8, 2011)

Prydogga said:


> Nah I mean, Halo's have always had potential to fill out a huge battle experience (think the first Russian level of CoD 1, hundreds of soldiers dying around you) instead they make the biggest battle experiences cut scenes, and then you end up away from the battle with a couple of other guys, surely they'd have the technical capabilities to get an immersible battle level going.



Ah single player, I find 95% of multiplayer fps' have absolutely abysmal single player modes anyway. And most of that 5% is made up of time splitters, though only really because of the humor.

Every halo and CoD single player lasted about 5 hours and was really uninteresting to me.


EDIT: Subjective of course, after reading it I realised how much I sounded like I was stating it as fact. But still, even the best CoD or Halo single player has nothing on a crysis, far cry or half life.


----------



## vampiregenocide (Jan 8, 2011)

I agree with you there Pry. Halo has always lacked a human element. It always plays like invincible super soldiers going going around winning everything by themselves. I think thats something they missed out on in Reach especially. Should've been a lot more human interaction, real driven dialogue. I still loved it though.

I think thats what the genre needs. A fast, modern feeling FPS with a human storyline in a sci-fi setting. Doesn't even need to be that far in the future, maybe a hundred years or so.


----------



## Tomo009 (Jan 8, 2011)

vampiregenocide said:


> I agree with you there Pry. Halo has always lacked a human element. It always plays like invincible super soldiers going going around winning everything by themselves. I think thats something they missed out on in Reach especially. Should've been a lot more human interaction, real driven dialogue. I still loved it though.
> 
> I think thats what the genre needs. A fast, modern feeling FPS with a human storyline in a sci-fi setting. Doesn't even need to be that far in the future, maybe a hundred years or so.



I think that is what is coming actually, Brink and Bulletstorm(?) Of course half life 3 would be nice as well XD


----------



## tacotiklah (Jan 8, 2011)

Whatever happened to games like Quake or Unreal? Those were pretty fun to play online.......

I think that FPS games should focus on making the single player version fun and exciting first, then worry about online stuff. Then again I'm biased because I'm mainly a single player type gamer. Despite it being "just a game", I somehow walk away with a sense of accomplishment when I can say that I beat a tough game's ass on single player. It's more entertaining to me than spending 5 hours getting shot from every which corner or having some asshat with a bunch of trainers running, hovering around and getting instant kills on me....


----------



## Prydogga (Jan 9, 2011)

The last Quake kinda sucked, and Unreal looked really good, but it didn't have enough press for a good release, and I don't think many people ended up playing it, which is what sucks about alot of online driven games, they flop, and even if you buy it, you can't enjoy playing it, cos there's no one to play with.

Also, Bulletstorm does not look look like a modern, driven feeling FPS, it's like GOW in first person, mixed with Duke Nukem, and Brink I don't think even has a singleplayer, yes the missions are all story driven, but who really cares about story in multiplayer?


----------



## Tomo009 (Jan 9, 2011)

Prydogga said:


> The last Quake kinda sucked, and Unreal looked really good, but it didn't have enough press for a good release, and I don't think many people ended up playing it, which is what sucks about alot of online driven games, they flop, and even if you buy it, you can't enjoy playing it, cos there's no one to play with.
> 
> Also, Bulletstorm does not look look like a modern, driven feeling FPS, it's like GOW in first person, mixed with Duke Nukem, and Brink I don't think even has a singleplayer, yes the missions are all story driven, but who really cares about story in multiplayer?


I dunno about bulletstorm obviously just because there is so little info on it, brink is multiplayer but entirely story based and very personal, the whole thing is about working in squads. You can play single player, its the same thing, its more like taking the multiplayer aspect and merging into the single.

And unreal/quake used to be amazing, those are THE arena shooters, but they didn't evolve with the times and now EPIC is too caught up in gears of war to worry about unreal anyway.....

This has gone way off topic now, hopefully MW3 will bring something amazing to refresh it's tired series, but I really doubt it.


----------

