[CoD MW3] General News and Discussion

i'd be more excited for bf3 if i had a proper gaming pc.

The stock exchange itself looks savage, its the details in the buildings during the aerial fight I couldnt get over, really impressive

To me this is the better of the two trailers.

Also rookie using a wireless controller!

fjsanchez wrote: »

Anyone else feel that this looks more like MW2.5 than MW3? It looks basically like a remake of MW2 in terms of graphics, etc. I guess I'll be happy so long as they cut out all the crap from it and put in a few new guns, gamemodes etc.

Single player doesnt interest me at all tbh it does just look like MW2.5 tho.

krudler wrote: »

Its just the natural progression of the story tbh, they couldnt have Russia invade America in MW2 then have a completely different story for the next one, MW2 is a continuation of what happens in MW1 as well sure, it all ties together

I actually meant in terms of graphics or the look of the guns, characters, etc. There's no step up like there was from cod4 to mw2

fjsanchez wrote: »

I actually meant in terms of graphics or the look of the guns, characters, etc. There's no step up like there was from cod4 to mw2

Its still the same engine they are using. They have only been using it since mw2. Game developers get years out it. Look at portal and portal 2. They look the exact same with a few touch ups or gta3/liberty/san all look the same graphic wise. Its still great looking.

Graphically I'd say the current generation of consoles are reaching their limits, the 360 moreso than the ps3. You can see the progression that's been made especially when you look at the Battlefield on the pc. Mass effect 2 was largely the same for all 3 but I reckon that they didn't push the limits with regard to ps3 and pc and the 360 was probably near on the limit. Graphics are still secondary to gameplay and they simply have to get a good balance.

Black Ops had at it's core, solid unspectacular gameplay, somethings were wrong with it but they were amended or minor gripes. MW2 had the better gameplay (IMO) but it had far more game breakers which over-shadowed all the good parts and these were never looked at. Once you took away noobtubes/oma and hackers there wasn't a lot wrong with it.

If you get the gameplay balance right you'll have a gem. Look at CounterStrike and it's success. It's incredibly hard to have a balanced game with so many various parts in COD; perks, killstreaks, equipment, deathstreaks, weapon and attachment combinations. Whether there is synergy with certain combinations of the above that give unplanned benefits takes serious testing. It takes far more rigourous testing to achieve that all important balance. For me, Halo lost it's appeal by adding stuff in.

I know that they'll go overboard and add in things to further complicate the balance of the game but I really hope that some of the additions are window dressing. A stripped down approach to certain aspects of multiplayer might not be everyone's cup of tea and get the fanboys moist with excitement but it could be what the game and the franchise needs in long term success.

krudler wrote: »

MW2 still holds its own with newer games to be fair, some parts of it look stunning, and theres not much difference between the SP and MP compared to Black Ops, that looks like two diferent games.

Completely agree, look at homefront. It's probably below COD2 graphically but it's less than a year old. It didn't have IW/Activision's financial clout to be fair to it.

Leeg17 wrote: »

Can we assume that Mw3 map packs may include some Mw2 maps as Mw2 used CoD4 maps?

I vote for Afghan / Terminal / Favela if they do

sh1t I didnt even think of that, just add Terminal, Afghan and Wasteland (I love it, get over it :pac: ) and i'd be happy, then more original maps, and every map pack should have 5 new ones , not 3 new and 2 from old games.

Maybe IW will do them by game so from COD4: Crash, Broadcast and Crossfire.

And Highrise, Subbase and Terminal from MW2.

And pigs might fly.

[Embedded Image Removed]