[CoD MW3] General News and Discussion

krudler

El LoCo Ade wrote: »

A film especially based around MW2 would be destined for him to direct it.

beat me to it, playing mw2 IS playing a Michael Bay movie. sure a load of scenes are taken directly from some of his films, the shower room shootout in the gulag is nearly identical to the look of the one in The Rock, and the using green flares to alert incoming friendly jets not to fire on your position is taken from it as well. if anyone should direct a MW2 movie it'd be him, it wouldnt make a lick of sense, probably be an hour too long but it'd look fooking gorgeous :pac:

krudler

AGB_Ghost wrote: »

I understand it fully, very good story. :pac:

its entertaining alright, I still dont get why a Russian terrorist needed an American bullet provided from a South American gun runner. guess it was just to send TF141 on a wild goose chase and get them killed in the favelas in the process.

MW2's campaign does have a ton of cool moments though, Price launching the nuke was a genuine "wtf?!" moment, and I loved the short space mission, was something a bit different

Battleflag

Just spotted this on youtube. Someone going through the menus of MW3

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D9IC-VunMy4

This content has been removed.

BASHIR

AGB_Ghost wrote: »

He detonated the nuke in space and the fall out caused the EMP, or it itself was an EMP missile, currently in real life the only way of causing a EMP is by setting off a nuke.

Thats not exactly true there are non-nuclear EMPs

I really enjoyed both MW1 and MW2 story campaigns WAW was decent but good god almighty Black Ops was feckin AWFUL. I'm am eagerly awaiting MW3 and by the looks of it it looks great but time will tell.

BASHIR

Battleflag wrote: »

Just spotted this on youtube. Someone going through the menus of MW3

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D9IC-VunMy4

Ha nice post man,

Just wish yer man would slow the feck down goin through it my eyes are sore had to end up pausin it a bunch a times

senordingdong

AGB_Ghost wrote: »

I understand it fully, very good story. :pac:

Took a few play throughs and was still riddled with holes.

sierra117x

krudler wrote: »

its entertaining alright, I still dont get why a Russian terrorist needed an American bullet provided from a South American gun runner. guess it was just to send TF141 on a wild goose chase and get them killed in the favelas in the process.

MW2's campaign does have a ton of cool moments though, Price launching the nuke was a genuine "wtf?!" moment, and I loved the short space mission, was something a bit different

it was an american bullet .... fired from an american/nato weopon. and then a cia agents body is left at the scene . not to mention they speak english throughout the mission. it was setting up the us to take the fall. it was just for the public eye though the ultranationalists in control of russia wanted payback for american and british intereference in their coup. this way they could justify an attack on the us. there's also an unsubstantiated story that the satelite containing the acs module didnt malfunction but was shot down. which would make sense considering its what allowed russian jets into american airspace undetected

Witcher

sierra117x wrote: »

it was an american bullet .... fired from an american/nato weopon. and then a cia agents body is left at the scene . not to mention they speak english throughout the mission. it was setting up the us to take the fall. it was just for the public eye though the ultranationalists in control of russia wanted payback for american and british intereference in their coup. this way they could justify an attack on the us. there's also an unsubstantiated story that the satelite containing the acs module didnt malfunction but was shot down. which would make sense considering its what allowed russian jets into american airspace undetected

I think what Krudler's getting at is that it's a bit unrealistic for a Russian terrorist to venture as far away as South America just to get American weapons and ammunition, surely there were some closer to home, if Rojas could get them in SA, then an international terrorist could get a few in Moscow.

senordingdong

sierra117x wrote: »

it was an american bullet .... fired from an american/nato weopon. and then a cia agents body is left at the scene . not to mention they speak english throughout the mission. it was setting up the us to take the fall.

Yeah but Russian authorities didn't notice the famous, highly wanted Russian terrorist in the security footage?

Vargulf

Sorry if repost. Leaked campaign gameplay:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=grWg2e6PAJc

Chefburns

sierra117x wrote: »

it was an american bullet .... fired from an american/nato weopon. and then a cia agents body is left at the scene . not to mention they speak english throughout the mission. it was setting up the us to take the fall. it was just for the public eye though the ultranationalists in control of russia wanted payback for american and british intereference in their coup. this way they could justify an attack on the us. there's also an unsubstantiated story that the satelite containing the acs module didnt malfunction but was shot down. which would make sense considering its what allowed russian jets into american airspace undetected

Pretty sure it was shot down and that's the ACS module Soap and Roach go after in one of the first few missions only they had already cracked it before you get there hence they had every key to every american lock.

This content has been removed.

gimli2112

Would the Russians really have started World War III over a bullet?
This is the biggest gap imo or am I missing something? Fair enough if there was proof the massacre was authorised by the US Government but just cos some whack job shoots up an airport ?

krudler

AGB_Ghost wrote: »

They did, in a news report at some point in the game it says

"it is later revealed the attack was by ultranationlist leader Vladmimir Makarov, it also appears that the Americans were involved with the attack"


Something along those lines anyway

The reason they used American weapons and 5.56 rounds was obviously to frame America, in it could have easily been Makarovs henchmen who went to see Rojas rather than Makarov himself.
When I get home from school I'll type up the entire story for you guys if you want to read with some hot coco.

But isnt Shepherd behind the whole thing? he starts the war so he's given a blank cheque by the US government and can make himself look like a war hero by saving America. TF141,Pvt Allen and all the rest are just a smokescreen. a lot of MW2s plot makes no sense.

sierra117x

senordingdong wrote: »

Yeah but Russian authorities didn't notice the famous, highly wanted Russian terrorist in the security footage?

the russian authorities are the ultranationalist party. the group that was led by imrhan zawhatshisface from modern warfare 1. Makarov was his second in command and is now in charge of the group. the actual party is a front as obviously you cant have a terrorist sitting at the head of a government so makarov runs things in the background. So why would the authorities implicate their own man

Chefburns wrote: »

Pretty sure it was shot down and that's the ACS module Soap and Roach go after in one of the first few missions only they had already cracked it before you get there hence they had every key to every american lock.

its confirmed to have been downed and crash landed in russia its never confirmed how or why it was downed. whether it was intentionally shot down or if it was just a malfunction and the russians take advantage of it. its logical enough to assume they shot it down as the russians where planning to make a move on the americans but it was never confirmed in the story or by IW.

gimli2112 wrote: »

Would the Russians really have started World War III over a bullet?
This is the biggest gap imo or am I missing something? Fair enough if there was proof the massacre was authorised by the US Government but just cos some whack job shoots up an airport ?

no no the whole bullet thing was just how TF141 traced makarov it hadnt got much to do with where he got the guns and weapons the team just take advantage of the information to see if they can get anything on makarov. the war was justified because a terrorist group including if not being led by at least one CIA opperative broke into an international airport and used american weapons and ammo to gun down everyone they could . so you have a government agent using government weapons and ammo to kill people. pvt allen goes along with it to stay in with makarov. figure out what the next move is for the ultranationalists and maybe take out its leadership when the time comes. it cant be as simple as just killing the leader as thats what they do in the first game and he's replaced by someone even more worse.

krudler wrote: »

But isnt Shepherd behind the whole thing? he starts the war so he's given a blank cheque by the US government and can make himself look like a war hero by saving America. TF141,Pvt Allen and all the rest are just a smokescreen. a lot of MW2s plot makes no sense.

ok so i was reading up on this one because i wasn't sure about it before. apparantly it was part of shepherds plan for allen to get caught. he doesnt work with makarov in anyway he just sends allen to work with makarov undercover in the hopes it will kick something off. it doesnt say whether or not he was aware of the airport plan. it does say though that he believed the us military strenght had been worn down throughout the years and he wanted to show they where still a world super power

Thomasheen

I'm sure the story makes sense if you look deep enough. Another thing that bugged me about mw2's story is why burgertown was treated like the turning point in the war. I know it probally had a purpose but again badly explained.

Angron

The main point of the Burger Town was to save that V.I.P, Raptor or whatever it was they were calling him. It was a victory for the US in a sense I guess cause he survived.

sierra117x

Thomasheen wrote: »

I'm sure the story makes sense if you look deep enough. Another thing that bugged me about mw2's story is why burgertown was treated like the turning point in the war. I know it probally had a purpose but again badly explained.

how was it badly explained? your sent to look after a vip who is being kept in a meat locker in nates untill the convoy show up. nates is bombed to hell so you move into burger town until the convoy arrive.

krudler

wonder will IW take a leaf out of Epics book and do more fun stuff for the multiplayer, like Gears 3 is having stuff like big head mode maps and tons of extra ticker enemies in Horde mode, stuff just to break things up and have fun with. COD takes itself way too seriously for whats a ridiculous arcade shooter anyway so why not have more fun with it.

hightower1

krudler wrote: »

its entertaining alright, I still dont get why a Russian terrorist needed an American bullet provided from a South American gun runner. guess it was just to send TF141 on a wild goose chase and get them killed in the favelas in the process.

MW2's campaign does have a ton of cool moments though, Price launching the nuke was a genuine "wtf?!" moment, and I loved the short space mission, was something a bit different

Never mind the fact that they managed to take a ballistics report .... FROM GRAINY ASS CCTV FOOTAGE! lolz, not even CSI are that brazenly cheezy...."enhance!"

hidinginthebush

Will MW3 get a beta / demo release like BF3 did, and if so, has anyone anmy dates for such a thing?

(on the 360 btw)

minidazzler

senordingdong wrote: »

Yeah but Russian authorities didn't notice the famous, highly wanted Russian terrorist in the security footage?

The Russian Authorities WANTED the war to happen. The Ultra Nationalists were in control of the country and were pissed that the US and SAS tried to stop them taking control of the country. It's why there was a statue of Zakhaev in Red Square.

Makarov was a lieutenant of Zakhaev and was put in charge, probably by the new leadership of Russia, to exact revenge on the US for their interference and causing the death of Zakhaev.

The weapons were sourced from an arms dealer, that's probably as simple as it is, from a guy in South America so tracing them doesn't lead it straight back to a Russian government stockpile. That could have just been a mission to give diversity on the multi-player maps though.

gimli2112 wrote: »

Would the Russians really have started World War III over a bullet?
This is the biggest gap imo or am I missing something? Fair enough if there was proof the massacre was authorised by the US Government but just cos some whack job shoots up an airport ?

The character you play when shooting up the airport, is American, posing as a Russian, posing as an American... The bullets and weapons were not really the proof, it was the fact that they were American.

This content has been removed.

EIREHotspur

minidazzler wrote: »

The Russian Authorities WANTED the war to happen. The Ultra Nationalists were in control of the country and were pissed that the US and SAS tried to stop them taking control of the country. It's why there was a statue of Zakhaev in Red Square.

Makarov was a lieutenant of Zakhaev and was put in charge, probably by the new leadership of Russia, to exact revenge on the US for their interference and causing the death of Zakhaev.

The weapons were sourced from an arms dealer, that's probably as simple as it is, from a guy in South America so tracing them doesn't lead it straight back to a Russian government stockpile. That could have just been a mission to give diversity on the multi-player maps though.



The character you play when shooting up the airport, is American, posing as a Russian, posing as an American... The bullets and weapons were not really the proof, it was the fact that they were American.

Basically what he is saying is that there will be different maps where you have people in different uniforms shooting at you that you can shoot back at with a wider variety of weapons while getting a chance to drive various vehicles.....just take it as it comes and reach the next checkpoint.

No need to remember any of the names etc because that is basically it in a nutshell....you won't have to answer any questions on it at the end or attend any conventions or seminars to show vast knowledge on the game......Oh yeah and it will be fun and sell really well.

senordingdong

minidazzler wrote: »

The weapons were sourced from an arms dealer, that's probably as simple as it is, from a guy in South America so tracing them doesn't lead it straight back to a Russian government stockpile. That could have just been a mission to give diversity on the multi-player maps though.

IIRC the map was originally to be used in MW1 but didn't make the cut and so they recycled it for MW2.

Soby

Jesus i wasn't confused about mw2 story line.....I am now :P

gimli2112

hidinginthebush wrote: »

Will MW3 get a beta / demo release like BF3 did, and if so, has anyone anmy dates for such a thing?

(on the 360 btw)

http://www.cinemablend.com/games/Why-Modern-Warfare-3-Didn-t-Have-Beta-35893.html

no

hidinginthebush

gimli2112 wrote: »

http://www.cinemablend.com/games/Why-Modern-Warfare-3-Didn-t-Have-Beta-35893.html

no

Cheers! I'm a bit annoyed by that, but the reasoning is sound. I mean, I downloaded the BF3 beta and decided that I didn't really like it and hence wouldn't buy it, so I foolishly treated it as a demo, whereas it was most definitely not. I guess I'll give the full game a shot so.

Here's the article:

Many of the fall's high-profile shooters, including Gears of War 3 and Battlefield 3, held public beta tests of their multiplayer modes. Modern Warfare 3 hasn't, though. Why not?

"Personally I don't like to show a painting in progress," said Glen Schofield, boss of MW3 co-developer Sledgehammer Games in an interview with Eurogamer. "I don't like to show anything in progress, because you know as the artist what it's going to look like when it's done and you're looking at it now and don't feel right about it, because it's not finished."

That's not really the point of a beta, though. A beta is supposed to be "a painting in progress". Testers try out the game, point out what sucks or what's broken, and then the developer makes changes so that the final version of the game is more polished.

Sadly, though, a lot of players don't treat a beta as a test. They act like it's a trial version of the final product - in other words, they act like it's a demo. I imagine a good chunk of people played Battlefield 3's beta in order to evaluate whether or not it was worth buying. They're free to do that but you can see why the thought of releasing an unfinished version of their game to the public would give developers anxiety. It's much safer, in their opinion, to internally test their titles.

gimli2112

^ yeah I was seriously underwhelmed by the BF3 demo but I'm still getting it. I do prefer COD games over the BF series but it'll still be a solid game, I think. Just have to try and learn not to play it like a COD game.