MW3 - The Final Verdict

Nuri Sahin

So, it's close enough to a year to the day that MW3 was released. What are people's overall opinions on the game? Put banter aside as much as possible. If you vote in the public pool, I'd appreciate if you state your reasoning please as to why you you liked it/neutral to it/hated it. Be it a word, line, paragraph or essay.

Also curious to for my own sake to see how many hours people have put into the game. You don't need to post this if you wish, but again, I'm just being curious.

Word to the wise, go about trolling and enjoy an extended holiday. Looking for a decent debate here. But to get it out of the way, I love BF3 and for the most part I've enjoyed my experience for the past year, but Dice as well as EA, latter goes with saying, are idiots themselves and seemingly out to nerf their game into oblivion. It's by no means perfect. So don't come into here saying it is.

___________


Anywhoo, moving on. My feeling about the game is quite well known at this stage I would have thought, it is one big pile of steaming crap. A truly god awful game and for the first time, I feel like this is CoD's first real serious wound and it was all self inflicted to add to it all. Even factoring in MW2 and the cluster**** that was, everyone knows how much I slated that game. MW2 was no doubt a more enjoyable game, albeit a catalyst to how the community has devolved as much as the game itself.

I'd go as far as to say CoD3 multiplayer was better than MW3, oh yeah, I went there I can hand on heart say that tbh. At least with CoD3, there was a drop of skill required to play it and the maps, a fair amount of them were quite nice.

I've always said kudos to the people who enjoyed MW3, but I'm not gonna lie to the sake of some people online, I don't understand you. Anyone who loves gaming, who has played CoD in the past should see this themselves. IMHO, you take away that banter you change the entire outlook of the game for many, many people here. That goes for those on the PC, PS3, 360 or Wii. Again, I stress this is all my opinion. Disagree, fine. Type out why though. Though with some, and you know who you are, you'll disagree with me for the sake of it won't you.. :pac: I digress. I'll finish off with this vid -

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XhY_yf5Pv0E

gimli2112

Excellent. The game as a whole was an enjoyable experience.

I went for "It was ok not great but not terrible"

It's weird but MW2 is probably my favourite game. It's hard to explain but any time I get into any of the maps I feel stupidly happy. MW3 looks very similar and runs similar but there's something just not the same about it. Haven't played it now since about May but still on MW2 regularly.

I really enjoyed the SP, survival got boring quick and the spec ops were fun online, Infected was fun for a while too. Play a lot of S&D on MW2 but hardly any on MW3.

super_furry

Excellent. The game as a whole was an enjoyable experience.

The most disappointing in the series and the first CoD that I felt was a step back - both MW2 and Black Ops were straight up better games. I had the Elite season pass and still haven't bothered to download the last lot of DLC which says it all for me.

Having said that, I did still really enjoy Kill Confirmed and Infected.

Edit - Just checked Elite there and I have a total of 48 hours played.

yimrsg

I wasn't massively taken in with the hype and had no real hopes for the game bar the riot shield making an appearance, so maybe my expectations weren't all that much. Pre launch marketing hype almost certainly means that your expectations are unreasonably high and you'll almost certainly be disappointed.

Pros:
Hearing dead enemies moaning about being killed.
Hit detection much improved over black ops.

Meh:
Decent if predictable campaign.
Misses opportunity with special ops limited to 2 players.
New game modes didn't offer much longevity.

Cons:
Many weapons/perks redundant.
Matchmaking/hosts system was awful initially but still remains poor.
Spawning systems never fixed.

It's middle of the road for me in terms of the series, possibly a little bit below average. The flaws weren't as glaring as MW2 but the highs aren't as intense or exciting as past instalments. If one manufacturer had made it and not the a game designed by committee, who knows how it would have turned out. IW having a court case with it's founders probably didn't help development. Had the game something truly epic, the death chatter is good but not quite it would lift it out of the mundane for me, as it is it's a middle of the road shooter.

If you add in playing with friends and the banter factor it becomes a better game, (like many others). I don't see the point in deliberately denying the existence of the social aspect of the game; it incorporates 8 player party chat on the 360 so why not use it? Like others I got bored of it after giving it a good going over and possibly overplayed it but that just means I got my fill of it and maximum from it, 350 hours played without any map packs bought is the marks of a good game. I can't speak for others but, the social aspect of the game and from playing with others on the share your gamertag thread and sharing an experience is largely what drives me to play CoD and will probably make me buy the next iteration.

Edit Just saw the poll:
The poll needs more options, I thought it was average but I got my moneys worth.

justsomebloke

It was okay. Not terrible, but not great.

Truthfully I just wasn't a massive fan of it. I hated the maps and I was pretty indifferent to the guns.

Haven't played it in months yet still managed to rack up 64 hours (this was due to being stuck at home last christmas with the wife stuck in bed with the flu) but if it wasn't for being in parties I wouldn't have built up that amount of hours

jimmy the car

Excellent. The game as a whole was an enjoyable experience.

17 days played 8th prestige, stopped just to get a few gold guns as knew Blops 2 imminent, was always grand for a couple hours playing but as always played solo would do my nut in some of the numptys on the objective games kill whoring and runnig past flags/bombs etc. instead of helping out, suppose it will always be like that when playing alone. I certainly won't miss the akimbo FMG9's and lately an abundence of rocket launchers, otherwise would pass an evening! That's my 2 cents worth

Kells...

Excellent. The game as a whole was an enjoyable experience.

Game overall was meh,Enjoyable when playing in party,**** when playing Solo.

Gun's were decent overall,with a few standout **** guns.

Gameplay was same old ****.

Connection in game was quite horrible



MOAAAAAAAB

iMuse

Game was ok, got my moneys worth as with every COD. But the spawns and maps are the biggest problems along with the instakill lag compensation that they seem to have fixed in the latest patch. Youtube has basically ruined COD now anyways as everybody exploits the cheapest setups.

derm0j073

Excellent. The game as a whole was an enjoyable experience.

I enjoyed it but not as much other CODs . I liked the campaign , Infinity Ward turn it up to 11, just rember to turn your brain off . MP was alright , a few too many flaws for my liking . Connection could be quite poor but my main problem was the maps . In other installments in the series there was a bit more variety in the maps , not so in MW3 . All medium sized maps , tight corners and no large open areas . A few larger maps would have made a difference in terms of the pace the game is played and tactics used . Derailed , Afgan and Overgrown were great maps for Domination because there was a lot more room to play around in .

Dr. Kenneth Noisewater

Excellent. The game as a whole was an enjoyable experience.

I found it enjoyable at times, and hugely frustrating at others. Rotten connection didn't help. Still prestiged as far as 11th and definately got my money's worth out of the game.

ugglasdav

It was okay. Not terrible, but not great.

i thought the game was alright for the first initial 2-3 months but after that things began to become more and more annoying, it did have a few new features that were not seen in previous cods which made it abit different but still you could tell it was made in 6 months rather then the 2 years they had to finish it

Pros:
Fast paced Games
Specialist
Introduction of new game Types

Cons:
Lag Compensation( Made a 4 bar feel like a 2)
Easy mode guns( Guns in BO are alot harder to control)
Terrible Map design( Suited to people who want to head glitch)
Support killstreaks with lethal killstreaks
Deathstreaks ( juiced and most importantly Dead mans hand)
Overpowered Perk combination ( Blind eye, assassin, dead silence)
Matchmaking ( took 10 minutes to find a game in a party of 6)
Spawn system( you kill a person and they spawn 2 feet behind you)
Random exploding Barrels and Cars( Resistance and dome)
Snipers being More powerful than shotguns at close range

Have i mentioned everything

PizzamanIRL

Excellent. The game as a whole was an enjoyable experience.

I'm an SND and FFA player so I didn't experience too much of the bull**** that the majority of the community would give out about.

Sitrep pro patch ruined it for me, made people play like complete bitches.

Best part about it was specialist.

Spike2010

I loved the fast pace aspect of the game, IMO some of the maps were real good Bootleg, Hardhat and Mission. But the lag comp, silly spawns and Blindeye spoiled it for me. I'll miss DZ and Infecteded for sure, my two best gamemodes by far ATM.

Logical_Bear

60€ fecking euro..played more than a couple of hours so it paid for itself.

Is it as good as CoD4,Mw2,Blops?not by a long shot(it was the first CoD i didnt buy any extra maps for)....but put it in perspective I got my moneys worth.B!tching and moaning comparing it to previous ganes is like comparing your most recent GF to previous ones,just enjoy it and take it as it is:P

oh and BF3 sucks....tried both

Magill

It was okay. Not terrible, but not great.

Very poor game imo, was bored of MP after a few weeks. Horrible map design, bad connection problems, guns felt meh... and all the colours were so saturated.. almost comparable to a killzone or resistance game !

SP is gash and spec ops interested me for about 5 minutes.

Overall i'd give it a 3 out of 10.





Really tho, it could just be me as i built my PC about a month after the game was released so being able to play MP games that i love and ones i missed over the years probably didn't help........ nahhhhhhh... its fuking sh1t.

Jev/N

I can't remember what it was like actually so I dunno what that says about the game :pac:

Headshot

It was okay. Not terrible, but not great.

A game that even hell's fire wouldnt accept

Icaras

Excellent. The game as a whole was an enjoyable experience.

I thought MP was ok, maps were generally poor but some were decent and could be a bit of fun at times - dome, hardhat and mission I preferred but none we close to MW2 maps (didnt play much MW1 multiplayer).
The best thing I can say about single player is it was better the BF3 campaign.

cathal_flynn

My first cod that was online gaming. So I have nothing to compare it to. I've racked up a total of 20 days game play. The new MP maps have been really enjoyable IMO (dlc content). The spawns are utter ****e... But if you didn't want to deal with that just play SnD ...if I wanted fast pace game play Dom , KC , TDM .... That's the way I've always seen it. It's a real b*tch of a f
Game to play when your not in a party tho. And I hate when one bad game sets the tone for the night

Nuri Sahin

It was okay. Not terrible, but not great.

Headshot wrote: »

A game that even hell's fire wouldnt accept

Nearly spat out my tea when I read this you prat :pac:

Snake Plisken

Excellent. The game as a whole was an enjoyable experience.

You know lads I stuck with it, played MP nearly every day, enjoyed some aspects and found the maps decent enough, I like the AON game type and I went all the way to the end of Prestige 20 Level 80, but once I got there a few weeks back I took it out of my PS3 and could not bring myself to play it again, I'm not sure why, but since then I've been playing Blops and really enjoying it. So I've picked the middling OK option, it was fun while it lasted, it will be interesting to see in 12 months if me and my friends will go back to play a few weeks of MW3 in preperation for Infinity Ward's next outing or will we stick playing with Treyarch's latest offering, time will tell!
Roll on this night 3 weeks

KERSPLAT!

I really liked it, not as much as BLOPS but still liked it! New game types like infected, drop zone etc are good craic. Private matches were fun on BLOPs but I have way better craic on MW3

Like someone already said, play in a party and its grand, on your own is a bit sh*t

Edit : 395 hours played... I definitely got my money worth!!!!!

P.S @ Happii, ya left out boosters, they ruin all the COD games... or was that on purpose??? :rolleyes:

Yousef

What people are forgetting is that MW3 is the first and last of it's kind...

This game was Call of Duty in name only. The original creators of the franchise, Jason West and Vince Zampella, were fired from Activision after MW2 and didn't so much as see a second of MW3 in development. The original Infinity Ward developed the first, second, COD4 (a masterpiece) and MW2. When they left and took the court case up with Activision for the brand name, 99% of the team that had worked on Call of Duty for years went with them and formed Respawn Entertainment (they're working on a brand new game due for release next year). One of the few that stayed behind for a massive paycheck was Robert Bowling, no doubt someone who most COD fans deem as incompetent. This was his game, not IW's.

On the flip side you have Treyarch. COD3 wasn't the greatest but W@W and BLOPS cemented their ability to make fun games. Treyarch, unlike the new IW (a shell of the original development team) have a deep history and involvement with the brand. MW3 suffered for the fact that Activision decided to throw a team together that had no prior knowledge of COD and it clearly showed. It would be akin to EA giving the rights to make Fifa14 to Valve or something....

I'll always consider MW3 as nothing more than a cash-in. To me, it's a COD game in name only. Treyarch obviously want the title as the torch carriers now. And judging by what I've seen thus far, it would be stupid of Activision not to give them a huge say in development in all COD projects from now on in....

Nuri Sahin

It was okay. Not terrible, but not great.

yimrsg wrote: »

I wasn't massively taken in with the hype and had no real hopes for the game bar the riot shield making an appearance, so maybe my expectations weren't all that much. Pre launch marketing hype almost certainly means that your expectations are unreasonably high and you'll almost certainly be disappointed.

Neither was I. I constantly played the game down be it here, Skype, Twitter or elsewhere. The game was way below my low expectations.

yimrsg wrote: »

If you add in playing with friends and the banter factor it becomes a better game, (like many others). I don't see the point in deliberately denying the existence of the social aspect of the game; it incorporates 8 player party chat on the 360 so why not use it? Like others I got bored of it after giving it a good going over and possibly overplayed it but that just means I got my fill of it and maximum from it, 350 hours played without any map packs bought is the marks of a good game. I can't speak for others but, the social aspect of the game and from playing with others on the share your gamertag thread and sharing an experience is largely what drives me to play CoD and will probably make me buy the next iteration.

.. because I wanted a discussion about the gameplay entirely. Nothing more, nothing less. The banter aspect/factor, whatever people wish to call it is a cop out excuse in defending the game IMHO. There are numerous games, that banter aside are complete and utter garbage. But adding it in, it makes games bearable. Case in point MW3 as per the discussion. As I've stressed before, if it weren't for people having a fair amount of friends playing MW3 for as long as they did, be it till January like with myself (ugh!), April, August or right up to this day and thus want to be included in the social aspect of it all, I feel there would have been far less playing it for as long as they did. CoD is popular and will be for another two years at the very least no matter what the haters say, even if sales took a hit this year and next it'll still outsell pretty much every game out there including heavyweights such as GTA V quite possibly. Of course it has a social advantage over other games. If people were willing to branch out which I think is lacking with many people in general, a social aspect can be generated in near any game to make it enjoyable more so than it is going by gameplay.

MW2 was this for me when I properly began posting in this thread. The game annoyed the **** out of me by and large in regards to public gaming (I loved competitive MW2), but I did enjoy the laughs most night we had as a group. To a far lesser extent, the same could be said of Black Ops (which I enjoyed up until April or May, around 7 months on) and CoD3. CoD2 and Cod4 I could play on my own if I so wish for years and still have fun. Though perhaps me growing up in the days of Atari, NES, SNES, Megadrive, N64, etc. I can get enjoyment out of the games without the need of others. This generation of gamer seemingly cannot.

But nonetheless, as I said earlier in my post. I wished the discuss the gameplay entirely. Not cloudy the water I feel.

[/QUOTE]

Yousef wrote: »

What people are forgetting is that MW3 is the first and last of it's kind...

This game was Call of Duty in name only. The original creators of the franchise, Jason West and Vince Zampella, were fired from Activision after MW2 and didn't so much as see a second of MW3 in development. The original Infinity Ward developed the first, second, COD4 (a masterpiece) and MW2. When they left and took the court case up with Activision for the brand name, 99% of the team that had worked on Call of Duty for years went with them and formed Respawn Entertainment (they're working on a brand new game due for release next year). One of the few that stayed behind for a massive paycheck was Robert Bowling, no doubt someone who most COD fans deem as incompetent. This was his game, not IW's.

On the flip side you have Treyarch. COD3 wasn't the greatest but W@W and BLOPS cemented their ability to make fun games. Treyarch, unlike the new IW (a shell of the original development team) have a deep history and involvement with the brand. MW3 suffered for the fact that Activision decided to throw a team together that had no prior knowledge of COD and it clearly showed. It would be akin to EA giving the rights to make Fifa14 to Valve or something....

I'll always consider MW3 as nothing more than a cash-in. To me, it's a COD game in name only. Treyarch obviously want the title as the torch carriers now. And judging by what I've seen thus far, it would be stupid of Activision not to give them a huge say in development in all COD projects from now on in....

Valid points.

But the game was tested constantly pre-launch. From it's skeleton stage, alpha testing and beta testing. Albeit that was done privately as it'll be a cold day in hell before a CoD game has a public beta testing as that in turn means the company and developer have to change things. Thus it's time consuming and probably comes at a cost too be it at the moment or later down the line in regard to sales.

I'd like to think Treyarch are possibly open to the idea of it (more so Vahn given past comments), but even if they were, they have their hands tied by the suits upstairs I'm sure of it.

I'd like to think there was someone at this new IW or the other developers who realised what a pile of **** the game was that they were releasing to the public. Well, I suppose there was one, and that was Robert Bowling basically admitting with a pile of **** the game was after he had left the company.

I'll entirely agree that the future at present is in Treyarch's hands though. If BOPS2 doesn't work, and I'm not talking about sales, but actual gameplay. The game, the series has gone from teetering on the edge to down a slippery slope. Momentum is very difficult to change.

yimrsg

Nuri Sahin wrote: »

Neither was I. I constantly played the game down be it here, Skype, Twitter or elsewhere. The game was way below my low expectations.

.. because I wanted a discussion about the gameplay entirely. Nothing more, nothing less. The banter aspect/factor, whatever people wish to call it is a cop out excuse in defending the game IMHO. There are numerous games, that banter aside are complete and utter garbage. But adding it in, it makes games bearable. Case in point MW3 as per the discussion. As I've stressed before, if it weren't for people having a fair amount of friends playing MW3 for as long as they did, be it till January like with myself (ugh!), April, August or right up to this day and thus want to be included in the social aspect of it all, I feel there would have been far less playing it for as long as they did. CoD is popular and will be for another two years at the very least no matter what the haters say, even if sales took a hit this year and next it'll still outsell pretty much every game out there including heavyweights such as GTA V quite possibly. Of course it has a social advantage over other games. If people were willing to branch out which I think is lacking with many people in general, a social aspect can be generated in near any game to make it enjoyable more so than it is going by gameplay.

MW2 was this for me when I properly began posting in this thread. The game annoyed the **** out of me by and large in regards to public gaming (I loved competitive MW2), but I did enjoy the laughs most night we had as a group. To a far lesser extent, the same could be said of Black Ops (which I enjoyed up until April or May, around 7 months on) and CoD3. CoD2 and Cod4 I could play on my own if I so wish for years and still have fun. Though perhaps me growing up in the days of Atari, NES, SNES, Megadrive, N64, etc. I can get enjoyment out of the games without the need of others. This generation of gamer seemingly cannot.

But nonetheless, as I said earlier in my post. I wished the discuss the gameplay entirely. Not cloudy the water I feel.

From this and your opening post it's abundantly clear that you're the one deliberately trying to muddy the water to disparage the game by ignoring the social/multiplayer aspect of mw3. The multiplayer aspect is part of the game play, whether you like that or not. It's a completely illogical argument. It's like ignoring the co-op campaign in halo 3 because it's not part of the game play, or ignoring how you can play multiplayer on mass effect 3. It's part of the game, let us be the judge of it and not cordon off areas where we'd like to express our opinion.

The one area of the game where MW3 is ground breaking is being able to hear what the player you just killed says. It may seem like a small thing but this quote by Conan the Barbarian when asked what is best in life sums it up well:

Conan: To crush your enemies, see them driven before you, and to hear the lamentation of their women

Normally we're restricted to 8 (party chat) or 9 players (game chat) on xbox but this tiny little advancement meant that you could hear the bleating and bitching from your friends in an 18 man lobby briefly and it greatly improved the mundane experience of killing someone into something much more satisfying. Likewise when playing against randomers you also got that extra bit of satisfaction when you kill them.

Just because you didn't get to experience the giddy joy of killing 10+ people with explosive decoy care packages in a custom game of drop zone and hear their dying word curse my name; so I should not be able to share what I found good in the game as it falls under what you consider outside your limitations of appraising the game? You asked for a fair and full appraisal there it is; warts, beauty spots and all.

Conveniently ignoring the advances in a particular area and then condemning it is just deliberately trying to denigrate the game and not give a balanced appraisal. You're deliberately trying to stymie debate and coerce opinions on mw3 and it's not a fair thing to do.

Magill

It was okay. Not terrible, but not great.

yimrsg wrote: »

From this and your opening post it's abundantly clear that you're the one deliberately trying to muddy the water to disparage the game by ignoring the social/multiplayer aspect of mw3. The multiplayer aspect is part of the game play, whether you like that or not. It's a completely illogical argument. It's like ignoring the co-op campaign in halo 3 because it's not part of the game play, or ignoring how you can play multiplayer on mass effect 3. It's part of the game, let us be the judge of it and not cordon off areas where we'd like to express our opinion.

Yeah, but even if you take into account the social side (Playing with mates) the gameplay is still poor. There are plenty of games available that are far superior to MW3 in MP gameplay that also have all the same social features, its just people are unwilling to try those games out and if they do, their "CoD mates" probably won't... and thus they'll not enjoy it as much. Which is a shame.

The one area of the game where MW3 is ground breaking is being able to hear what the player you just killed says. It may seem like a small thing but this quote by Conan the Barbarian when asked what is best in life sums it up well:

Another one of CoD's stolen "Ground breaking" features. This has been available on quite a few mods for PC games. Its a nice feature, but not an exclusive MW3 thing. I think even halo 3 had something similar to this (Could be wrong).

Nuri Sahin

It was okay. Not terrible, but not great.

yimrsg wrote: »

From this and your opening post it's abundantly clear that you're the one deliberately trying to muddy the water to disparage the game by ignoring the social/multiplayer aspect of mw3. The multiplayer aspect is part of the game play, whether you like that or not. It's a completely illogical argument. It's like ignoring the co-op campaign in halo 3 because it's not part of the game play, or ignoring how you can play multiplayer on mass effect 3. It's part of the game, let us be the judge of it and not cordon off areas where we'd like to express our opinion.

The one area of the game where MW3 is ground breaking is being able to hear what the player you just killed says. It may seem like a small thing but this quote by Conan the Barbarian when asked what is best in life sums it up well:



Normally we're restricted to 8 (party chat) or 9 players (game chat) on xbox but this tiny little advancement meant that you could hear the bleating and bitching from your friends in an 18 man lobby briefly and it greatly improved the mundane experience of killing someone into something much more satisfying. Likewise when playing against randomers you also got that extra bit of satisfaction when you kill them.

Just because you didn't get to experience the giddy joy of killing 10+ people with explosive decoy care packages in a custom game of drop zone and hear their dying word curse my name; so I should not be able to share what I found good in the game as it falls under what you consider outside your limitations of appraising the game? You asked for a fair and full appraisal there it is; warts, beauty spots and all.

Conveniently ignoring the advances in a particular area and then condemning it is just deliberately trying to denigrate the game and not give a balanced appraisal. You're deliberately trying to stymie debate and coerce opinions on mw3 and it's not a fair thing to do.

, there's no muddying the water on my behalf. Made myself abundantly clear as one could do, no doubt not as eloquently as yourself but it's a valid point I made. You do make a valid point yourself to an extent, but it's one I feel distorts the view at looking at the game for main reason why people buy computer games by the majority. That is for the gameplay. Banter holds only so much weight with me and I for one don't let that blind me and my judgement of a game. I don't buy games for other people, I buy them for me. No one else. Same can't be said of everyone who play CoD I feel. If I don't enjoy a game, I'm not gonna play it for the banter alone.

Of course Xbox has party chat over the PS3 (most of the lads on PS3 use Skype anyway ourselves). But that is down to a console feature adding to the gaming experience. Simple as.

As for messing about in MW3 or CoD games in the past, me and the lads have done that so I don't know why you're going on about that tbh.

I'll forever stand by the point on this I feel, and likewise yourself on the point you made I'm sure of it. Take away banter and look it head on. Gameplay structure, the gaming mechanics and most importantly balance. Graphics even as well to a degree. MW3 is a shadow compared to even say MW2.

Give me noob tubes, OMA and commando over MW3 any day of the week.. and this coming from a person who bitched, moaned and complained near daily about the game on here at one point 2 years ago.

gimli2112

Excellent. The game as a whole was an enjoyable experience.

Nuri Sahin wrote: »

Give me noob tubes, OMA and commando over MW3 any day of the week.. and this coming from a person who bitched, moaned and complained near daily about the game on here at one point 2 years ago.

Some sessions of MW2 you'll have aimbots, wall hacks, UAV hacks, people 50 feet above you, guys embedded in rocks (now patched I believe), everything you mention and it's still more fun than MW3.

-( i )- Wicker

On Sunday I finally finished playing through Black Ops SP, and I must say I was very disappointed. Quite probably the worst of the CoD single players, and I felt finishing the game was actually somewhat of a chore with glitchy gameplay causing me the restart several of the levels. I must now say I have lost all faith in Treyarch.

Then last night I fired up MW3 SP for the first time and wow! I've played through about 4 missions so far and every single one of the had me in a state of awe. Its nothing new, almost identical gameplay to MW2, but why change something that doesnt need changing. So far it has reminded my why I consider the MW series to be the best single player experience out there. I have heard a lot of negativity surrounding the multiplayer, but when I buy a game I usually think of the multiplayer aspect as a nice bonus, in my mind its the single player I am paying for. Im already looking forward to playing some more missions this evening

KERSPLAT!

Would much rather MW3 multi than MW2 multi

Yousef

Nuri Sahin wrote: »

Valid points.

But the game was tested constantly pre-launch. From it's skeleton stage, alpha testing and beta testing. Albeit that was done privately as it'll be a cold day in hell before a CoD game has a public beta testing as that in turn means the company and developer have to change things. Thus it's time consuming and probably comes at a cost too be it at the moment or later down the line in regard to sales.

I'd like to think Treyarch are possibly open to the idea of it (more so Vahn given past comments), but even if they were, they have their hands tied by the suits upstairs I'm sure of it.

I'd like to think there was someone at this new IW or the other developers who realised what a pile of **** the game was that they were releasing to the public. Well, I suppose there was one, and that was Robert Bowling basically admitting with a pile of **** the game was after he had left the company.

I'll entirely agree that the future at present is in Treyarch's hands though. If BOPS2 doesn't work, and I'm not talking about sales, but actual gameplay. The game, the series has gone from teetering on the edge to down a slippery slope. Momentum is very difficult to change.

I agree that Bowling was given clear, precise instructions as to what MW3 was to be. Activision wanted a game tailored to the novice in a bid to get more sales, that much is understood. But at what cost? MW3 over it's lifespan has not equated the success of BLOPS and over half a million people have decided not to pre-order BLOPS2 when you compare the numbers at present to this time last year. So something is very wrong here. Whether past players have emigrated over to other brands such as Battlefield during the past year, or perhaps even with the release of other FPS blockbusters such as Halo4 and Far Cry this year has had an effect on sales is anyone's guess.

Nevertheless, Activision have a problem on their hands. We've seen brands come and go but Activision in particular have a history of draining the lifeblood out of franchises...think Tony Hawk or Guitar Hero. Just as Valve have an emotional attachment and investment in Half-Life, Respawn Entertainment had that with CoD...it was their baby and anyone else designing a game for solely profit reasons is not going to produce a game to equal what the creators could do. I think Treyarch have that emotional attachment to CoD...they want to see it do well and are removed from the attitude of thinking "hey, this is what we've done, you're going to like it so buy it".

Honestly though, I don't know where CoD can go from here. Releasing a new title every year is unsustainable and a recipe for disaster IMO. They should have kept the last four years under the CoD4 label and just added to it i.e - WWII maps (W@W), MW2 maps, Cold War maps (BLOPS) and MW3 maps and games modes. They would have still got the 50 quid a year out of everyone and would have everyone on the edge of their seat for this new game next month!

Perhaps we can look forward to Respawn Entertainments new game next year. Maybe when we play that, we'll realise what MW3 should have been.

Snake Plisken

Excellent. The game as a whole was an enjoyable experience.

it will be interesting to see what's going to happen next year, I take it that it's a 2 year development cycle for COD games, will Activision hold off releasing next year's infinaty Ward's offering? Also with the next gen consoles rumoured to be showing up next year will that have any bearing on the direction of the COD franchise? I did read that Activision were hiring for next gen console game developement and aren't they going to switch to using a new game engine for the next gen?

I agree when your online with your friends playing Cod and having the banter it's great fun and I do love the MW3 option of hearing your enemy's comments once you kill them is great, actually hope they carry that over to Blops 2 along with All or Nothing.
As for other games being better then COD, maybe so but imho COD will always be my favourite FPS

COD till I die

yimrsg

Excellent. The game as a whole was an enjoyable experience.

yimrsg wrote: »

From this and your opening post it's abundantly clear that you're the one deliberately trying to muddy the water to disparage the game by ignoring the social/multiplayer aspect of mw3. The multiplayer aspect is part of the game play, whether you like that or not. It's a completely illogical argument. It's like ignoring the co-op campaign in halo 3 because it's not part of the game play, or ignoring how you can play multiplayer on mass effect 3. It's part of the game, let us be the judge of it and not cordon off areas where we'd like to express our opinion.

The one area of the game where MW3 is ground breaking is being able to hear what the player you just killed says. It may seem like a small thing but this quote by Conan the Barbarian when asked what is best in life sums it up well:



Normally we're restricted to 8 (party chat) or 9 players (game chat) on xbox but this tiny little advancement meant that you could hear the bleating and bitching from your friends in an 18 man lobby briefly and it greatly improved the mundane experience of killing someone into something much more satisfying. Likewise when playing against randomers you also got that extra bit of satisfaction when you kill them.

Just because you didn't get to experience the giddy joy of killing 10+ people with explosive decoy care packages in a custom game of drop zone and hear their dying word curse my name; so I should not be able to share what I found good in the game as it falls under what you consider outside your limitations of appraising the game? You asked for a fair and full appraisal there it is; warts, beauty spots and all.

Conveniently ignoring the advances in a particular area and then condemning it is just deliberately trying to denigrate the game and not give a balanced appraisal. You're deliberately trying to stymie debate and coerce opinions on mw3 and it's not a fair thing to do.

That isn't even remotely ground breaking. The EXACT same feature was in Killzone 2, released 2 years previously and I'm willing to bet it was in another game before that.

And it really didn't enhance gameplay all that much in either game.

Nuri Sahin

It was okay. Not terrible, but not great.

Yousef wrote: »

I agree that Bowling was given clear, precise instructions as to what MW3 was to be. Activision wanted a game tailored to the novice in a bid to get more sales, that much is understood. But at what cost? MW3 over it's lifespan has not equated the success of BLOPS and over half a million people have decided not to pre-order BLOPS2 when you compare the numbers at present to this time last year. So something is very wrong here. Whether past players have emigrated over to other brands such as Battlefield during the past year, or perhaps even with the release of other FPS blockbusters such as Halo4 and Far Cry this year has had an effect on sales is anyone's guess.

Nevertheless, Activision have a problem on their hands. We've seen brands come and go but Activision in particular have a history of draining the lifeblood out of franchises...think Tony Hawk or Guitar Hero. Just as Valve have an emotional attachment and investment in Half-Life, Respawn Entertainment had that with CoD...it was their baby and anyone else designing a game for solely profit reasons is not going to produce a game to equal what the creators could do. I think Treyarch have that emotional attachment to CoD...they want to see it do well and are removed from the attitude of thinking "hey, this is what we've done, you're going to like it so buy it".

Honestly though, I don't know where CoD can go from here. Releasing a new title every year is unsustainable and a recipe for disaster IMO. They should have kept the last four years under the CoD4 label and just added to it i.e - WWII maps (W@W), MW2 maps, Cold War maps (BLOPS) and MW3 maps and games modes. They would have still got the 50 quid a year out of everyone and would have everyone on the edge of their seat for this new game next month!

Perhaps we can look forward to Respawn Entertainments new game next year. Maybe when we play that, we'll realise what MW3 should have been.

While I still play CoD4 on occasion, I'd be one of those who have made the jump myself to Battlefield 3 actually. I won't be getting BOPS2 for awhile anyway also, despite liking BOPS. Not overly impressed with that I've seen so far and I'm not a fan of futuristic shooters. Albeit BOPS2 isn't Halo or anything like that obviously. But still.

The similarities between CoD at present and the Guitar Hero series as well as the Tony Hawk series is quite staggering and something I've referenced in the past as well as others. Common denominator being Activision. They really need to kill their own series of games. It's a talent almost. Drawing blood out of a rock is their goal it seems like alright.

DanTheMan91

Excellent. The game as a whole was an enjoyable experience.

I have about 5 days playtime so I definitely got my money worth. I think its not half as bad as some people make it out to be, I enjoyed it for the most part and I didn't buy any DLC.

Mickeroo

Excellent. The game as a whole was an enjoyable experience.

The only thing that I didn't like was the maps weren't up to the standard of BLOPS or MW2. There was definitely a lot more hair-pulling frustration in this game than the others but I can't quite figure out why, certainly lost a bit of the fun.

Overall though I can't say I found it much different from any other COD game I've played tbh. Got a lot more mileage out of it than I did BF 3 anyway.

Will be trading it in to help fund BLOPS2, Halo 4 and Assassin's Creed 3 over the next few weeks without regret though.

Angron

It was okay. Not terrible, but not great.

I hated it. The least I've enjoyed a CoD game to date.

krudler

Excellent. The game as a whole was an enjoyable experience.

Liked parts, hated parts, was indifferent to the majority of it, COD4 and MW2 even for all its major faults are just more fun to play, simple as.

repsol

I liked it but agree with previous poster who said MW2 was the best of the genre

everlast75

Excellent. The game as a whole was an enjoyable experience.

20 days played and 99% domination. The other 1% was private lobbies or infected.

As a game, it was pretty much a mirror image of MW2, with the majority of the changes being slight adjustments being made in terms of removal of certain annoying perks, only to be replaced by other annoying perks.

There was however, new game modes (infected etc) and that is to be welcomed.

It was however, a very very slight advancement on the quality of the MW2 game and with the amount of feedback available from a very willing audience and two years to develop matters, this has to be said to be disappointing.

I am unsure as to how much laziness can account for this (caused by the presumption that it is such a popular brand and therefore it will sell by the bucketloads). Perhaps figures may be down for the upcoming game and that might even to a tiny degree shake a little of the lethargy out of the developers. There is however an insane amount of money being made by the franchise and until a direct effect of the stagnation of the brand is felt by the developers I fear there will be equal and tiny measures of advancement, certainly by the Modern Warfare branch.

podgemonster

Pros:
Dead Man's Hand
The Type 95
Striker
L86 with Thermal and Rapid Fire
Dome
The crazy characters on the Boards clan.
The Face off games: Loved em!

Cons:
Never got a MOAB
Downturn, Outpost, Baraka
No zombies
Lobby waiting time when in a clan

x43r0

podgemonster wrote: »

Cons:
Never got a MOAB

Come on some night and join in the infected fun. Moabs'a'plenty!

greenman09

I was closer to a moab on dom last night than I ever was on infected.crazy.
I got my moneys worth outta this game. So money well spent for me think I'm burnt out by cod now tho

podgemonster

x43r0 wrote: »

Come on some night and join in the infected fun. Moabs'a'plenty!

I can't, in Skyrim mode at the moment. Doing a few excavation jobs in the quarry near Markarth to save up to buy the house there with some nice decor. Then hopefully il pop the question to Hroki, that sexy bítch!

Anyway on topic.
Probably gona starve myself on COD for a while before Black Ops II.

krudler

Excellent. The game as a whole was an enjoyable experience.

podgemonster wrote: »

Pros:
Dead Man's Hand
The Type 95
Striker
L86 with Thermal and Rapid Fire
Dome
The crazy characters on the Boards clan.
The Face off games: Loved em!

Eh? surely one of the most annoying things in the game, its the new martyrdom/last stand.

What really annoys me about the COD franchise as a whole is that the developers seem to go out of their way to ensure bad players stay bad players, why try and up your own skillset when you can bombard people from across the map with grenades or use broken perks to get kills you didnt deserve? To "help casual players" is a copout excuse, it reinforces bad play and encourages sh1tty tactics and noobish behaviour, then people wonder why the COD community is viewed as such a bunch of dickheads ('cept boardsis obviously :pac: )

Mickeroo

Excellent. The game as a whole was an enjoyable experience.

podgemonster wrote: »

I can't, in Skyrim mode at the moment. Doing a few excavation jobs in the quarry near Markarth to save up to buy the house there with some nice decor. Then hopefully il pop the question to Hroki, that sexy bítch!

She's grand but she's no Lydia.....

I never got a MOAB either

iMuse

It sums it up when during the 24 hour charity livestream one of the devs was using fmg akimbos as a primary every game and another was using type 95 with blind eye and assassin. And they where apparently complaining alot about the spawns in MW3 and they got spawn trapped at A on terminal. They must never play their own game.

cathal_flynn

I don't understand those death streaks ....reward someone for being sh*t at the game??

podgemonster

Sometimes you can get stuck in rut, caught in a spawn trap and you feel like you cant go on, feel like giving up....

But then a hand reaches down,
A hand pulls you to your feet,
A dead mans hand.

It gives you a little pat on the pack and in a way that says "hey, here's some volatile C4, go kill someone?"

And then you run like a starving child after a UN convoy to that camping blind eyed príck in the corner and laugh as you both die pathetically together.

Fúcking Love It!

KaosWatson

Pros

Hardcore Gametypes, Riot Shield.

Cons.

ACR, Assassin, MP7, Dead Silence, Noob Tubes and Campers.. here's looking at you Furious/Kells.

Headshot

It was okay. Not terrible, but not great.

19 people should be banned from cod forum