Modern Warfare 3 unveiling imminent

CODs are still a nice way to vent frustration, though. Just blow through everybody, with an M240 or or something.

"366vektorprime wrote:

CODs are still a nice way to vent frustration, though. Just blow through everybody, with an M240 or or something.

Yes, it absolutely is. (I don't think it's nearly as fun as Team Fortress 2 or the multiplayer modes from Quake 2, but that's another topic.) The big point here is that CoD is in no way realistic and hasn't been since the very first game.

MW3 multiplayer: brings back gun-on-gun feel from CoD4, deemphasizes MW2's verticality

A reduction of the number of so-called hotspots on the multiplayer maps of Modern Warfare 3 will alter and accelerate the flow of action in this fall's installment of the Call of Duty franchise juggernaut, one of the game's creators told Kotaku this week in New York City.

The creators of Modern Warfare 3's multiplayer mode are creating maps that include no more than five hotspots—places from which enemy players may be hiding or shooting—for a gamer to worry about at any one time.

"It simplifies it so that the less skilled player has less to think about," Robert Bowling, creative strategist at Modern Warfare development studio Infinity Ward told me yesterday. "What happens when you have more is that the professional guys are using that spot that is either difficult to get to. … There's fewer places to hide, which discourages the more camper mentality that seemed to emerge in the map design of Modern Warfare 2."

The multiplayer maps will also de-emphasize the verticality of combat that was introduced in Modern Warfare 2, Bowling said, offering that type of tiered combat more selectively. A reliance on air support, also emphasized in the last Modern Warfare will also be reduced, switching to something that will feel, Bowling believes, a little more like the first Modern Warfare, Call of Duty 4.

More at the link.

Making the multi-player more like MW1 and less like MW2 can only be a good thing. MW2 was a camp/kill streak fest. Less kill streaks or toned down kill streaks is a good thing. I like how Black Ops used the kill streaks although, I still think they are over powered and make people camp. Not having the kills "stack" while in kill streak mode was a great addition.

It's funny that they seem to be going back to how Modern Warfare 1 did it with multi-player. I don't know why they ever got away from it to be honest.

All I want from the game is weapon balance, something I know will never happen. A light machine gun, with a bigger/heavier cartridge should do more damage. There should not be any "must use" weapons in the game. There should be weapons based on situations and style of play. In "World at War" everyone used the MP-40, it enabled mobility, had the best non sniper rifle killing power and had insane range. In what universe does a sub-machine gun, with a 9MM cartridge and a relatively low fire rate have more stopping power than a MG-42, that is still considered one of the best machine guns ever made. The MG-42 has a higher rate of fire, is more accurate and has a much bigger cartridge but in Call of Duty land it is a rubbish gun and the MP-40 is a God amongst weapons.

If I'm using a light or heavy machine gun I should be penalized by mobility and long reload times. I should not be penalized by those things AND accuracy AND stopping power.

I really like the multi-player and I'm not asking for a "sim". What I would like is simple things like I listed above. The best gun in the game should under no circumstance be a sub-machine gun unless it is a close contact map. IF I'm playing like I usually do (perimeter, getting kills at longer range) I should be able to do lots of damage with an assault rifle or a light/heavy machine gun. I should not have to worry about someone shooting me from across the map with a sub-machine gun that uses a tiny bullet.

"unifiedtheory wrote:

It's funny that they seem to be going back to how Modern Warfare 1 did it with multi-player. I don't know why they ever got away from it to be honest.

For what it's worth, in their lawsuit, Activision alleges that West and Zampella (the IW heads who left to start Respawn with EA) intentionally sabotaged MW2.

If I'm using a light or heavy machine gun I should be penalized by mobility and long reload times. I should not be penalized by those things AND accuracy AND stopping power.

Machine guns trading accuracy for ammo count and rate of fire is the correct path, IMO. You simply are not going to be as accurate with a heavy, full-auto gun meant to be mounted than you will with an assault rifle. No way around that.

The good news is that competition provided by BF3 will make both games better.

"Desides wrote:

For what it's worth, in their lawsuit, Activision alleges that West and Zampella (the IW heads who left to start Respawn with EA) intentionally sabotaged MW2.

I could see that holding water to be honest. The game was SO TERRIBLE online that someone had to do something. It was broken on the first day and never got fixed. Who ever had the bright idea about kill streak rewards in that game should be shot at dawn.

"Desides wrote:

Yes, it absolutely is. (I don't think it's nearly as fun as Team Fortress 2 or the multiplayer modes from Quake 2, but that's another topic.) The big point here is that CoD is in no way realistic and hasn't been since the very first game.

yes, well, atleast the stories were good, plausible ones, until some idiots thougt tht MW 2 should be an action movie, and BO a psycho thriller.

"366vektorprime wrote:

yes, well, atleast the stories were good, plausible ones, until some idiots thougt tht MW 2 should be an action movie, and BO a psycho thriller.

CoD has never had plausible stories. The series has always been an over the top action movie. Black Ops is the guiltiest of them all. The 60s didn't work that way.

Call of Duty is what you get when you take a Tom Clancy movie (not a book, a movie), subtract the element of time, and make zero attempt to be accurate beyond superficial appearances ("check those corners!").

Again: the ArmA series is what military realism looks like, while the Brothers in Arms series is what you get when you cross a video game with reality. Call of Duty is what happens when people want to make a playable movie. I suspect Battlefield 3 will be equally full of itself.

"Desides wrote:

CoD has never had plausible stories. The series has always been an over the top action movie. Black Ops is the guiltiest of them all. The 60s didn't work that way.

Call of Duty is what you get when you take a Tom Clancy movie (not a book, a movie), subtract the element of time, and make zero attempt to be accurate beyond superficial appearances ("check those corners!").

Again: the ArmA series is what military realism looks like, while the Brothers in Arms series is what you get when you cross a video game with reality. Call of Duty is what happens when people want to make a playable movie. I suspect Battlefield 3 will be equally full of itself.

I'm sure it will be, since the latest Battlefield releases basically mock themselves and the shooter genre. The Bad Company series specifically.

"sking29 wrote:

I'm sure it will be, since the latest Battlefield releases basically mock themselves and the shooter genre. The Bad Company series specifically.

Bad Company was specially designed to make fun of everything, yeah. But the main Battlefield series wasn't. BF3 is being described as a game where you play as a soldier, versus MW3 where you play as an action hero. On the realism scale, BF3 will probably be much closer to MW3 than most realize.

After all, they've already fallen for deceptive marketing on BF3's part. All BF3 footage (except for the Jimmy Fallon stuff) is of the PC version running a GTX 580 GPU, a $500 piece of equipment. MW3 has only been shown on an Xbox 360, which is the least powerful hardware not named the Wii. Thus, BF3 looks "great", while MW3 looks "old." Yep, wonder why.

"Desides wrote:

Bad Company was specially designed to make fun of everything, yeah. But the main Battlefield series wasn't. BF3 is being described as a game where you play as a soldier, versus MW3 where you play as an action hero. On the realism scale, BF3 will probably be much closer to MW3 than most realize.

After all, they've already fallen for deceptive marketing on BF3's part. All BF3 footage (except for the Jimmy Fallon stuff) is of the PC version running a GTX 580 GPU, a $500 piece of equipment. MW3 has only been shown on an Xbox 360, which is the least powerful hardware not named the Wii. Thus, BF3 looks "great", while MW3 looks "old." Yep, wonder why.

I agree on your Battlefield stance (in regards to the older games) but my point was to say that drawing upon recent history even if Dice chooses to act "for real" with BF3 I pretty much know to take it with a grain of salt.

As for BF3 and deception that is sort of a double edged sword. I agree that showing the PC version basically maxed out is deceptive for gamers not paying attention or really familiar with the series. That's why I found the whole "outrage" over the Jimmy Fallon PS3 presentation of the game to be silly. The BF series has, at least in my estimation, always favored the PC because that is where it has its roots and chooses to favor its roots. Bad Company 2 for example was better graphically on the PC than for the consoles and a lot of the "compromises" BF3 is making on the consoles also occurred with Bad Company 2. Point is, gamers familiar with the series shouldn't have been remotely shocked. Hell, I think the console versions look great for a multiplatform title that is basically just entering the beta stage running on 5 year old hardware.

In regards to the CoD series and graphics I don't think I am qualified to give an accurate assessment. I will say I base my feelings mostly off of the great looking CoD4 on the PS3, the PS3 version of MW2 which I thought was literally COD4 2.0, and Black Ops/WoW on the 360 which I though looked quite nice. I have read that the PS3 versions of CoD games struggle so I tend to want to throw MW2 out the window and say the CoD series has progressed more theatrically instead of graphically.

In the end, BF and CoD are different series that appeal to different gamer sensibilities. That's not a bad thing because generally every gamer that enjoys shooters has at least one series they really enjoy. :yes:

"sking29 wrote:

I agree on your Battlefield stance (in regards to the older games) but my point was to say that drawing upon recent history even if Dice chooses to act "for real" with BF3 I pretty much know to take it with a grain of salt.

Right. You just gave me the opportunity to make a point, so I took it. :lol:

Hell, I think the console versions look great for a multiplatform title that is basically just entering the beta stage running on 5 year old hardware.

It's tough for me to make a similar judgment because we haven't really seen the console versions for a long enough period of time. My impression of the PS3 version footage from Fallon is that it's a little too heavy on the post-processing effects.

In regards to the CoD series and graphics I don't think I am qualified to give an accurate assessment. I will say I base my feelings mostly off of the great looking CoD4 on the PS3, the PS3 version of MW2 which I thought was literally COD4 2.0, and Black Ops/WoW on the 360 which I though looked quite nice. I have read that the PS3 versions of CoD games struggle so I tend to want to throw MW2 out the window and say the CoD series has progressed more theatrically instead of graphically.

Prior to MW3's unveiling, there was fear that Infinity Ward hadn't upgraded their engine, or that the upgrades were minimal. So when you had BF3 showing PC footage off weeks ahead of MW3's unveiling, in an era when all game footage is recorded on an Xbox 360, people were led to believe that BF3 was vastly superior to MW3 on what was perceived to be an apples to apples comparison. They were wrong.

But you mix in a healthy dose of Bobby Kotick hate, and people don't care that they're wrong.

In the end, BF and CoD are different series that appeal to different gamer sensibilities. That's not a bad thing because generally every gamer that enjoys shooters has at least one series they really enjoy. :yes:

Absolutely. I just want people to understand that CoD is about as far from reality as Half Minute Hero. :lol:

"Desides wrote:

Right. You just gave me the opportunity to make a point, so I took it. :lol:

It's tough for me to make a similar judgment because we haven't really seen the console versions for a long enough period of time. My impression of the PS3 version footage from Fallon is that it's a little too heavy on the post-processing effects.

Prior to MW3's unveiling, there was fear that Infinity Ward hadn't upgraded their engine, or that the upgrades were minimal. So when you had BF3 showing PC footage off weeks ahead of MW3's unveiling, in an era when all game footage is recorded on an Xbox 360, people were led to believe that BF3 was vastly superior to MW3 on what was perceived to be an apples to apples comparison. They were wrong.

But you mix in a healthy dose of Bobby Kotick hate, and people don't care that they're wrong.

Absolutely. I just want people to understand that CoD is about as far from reality as Half Minute Hero. :lol:

Well games, much like movies, only reflect reality every now and then. Of course what is to be expected of a whole industry created by imagination.

We also agree that DICE played with the truth when they first started showing off BF3. Still I guess I just expect everything BF to be running on the PC unless otherwise specified. Being the BF nerd I am, I've just gotten accustomed to seeing DICE label the 360/PS3 builds as the 360/PS3 version of the game. Whenever I browse the Battlefiled site/blog it is pretty clear that they use PC for their base work and then sort of port over to the consoles. So I've been a bit brainwashed in how I see new BF material. :)

Okay so I better shut up about Battlefield now seeing as how I'm sort of hijacking the MW3 thread. :lol:

"Desides wrote:

CoD has never had plausible stories. The series has always been an over the top action movie. Black Ops is the guiltiest of them all. The 60s didn't work that way.

Call of Duty is what you get when you take a Tom Clancy movie (not a book, a movie), subtract the element of time, and make zero attempt to be accurate beyond superficial appearances ("check those corners!").

Again: the ArmA series is what military realism looks like, while the Brothers in Arms series is what you get when you cross a video game with reality. Call of Duty is what happens when people want to make a playable movie. I suspect Battlefield 3 will be equally full of itself.

oh, cmon, the WW2 series was a good one. Disregarding the rather sordid MGs, and the unnaturally powerful and accurate SMGs.
Oh, BTW, i didnt see any OpFlash Red river thread. Nobody interestd in that one?

COD is at the tethers of the end. Until activision, or whoevers runnin the game, revamps the series, its nt going to last. A dose of reality would do good. The multiplayer's gotten unnatural too, with noobs pulling irritating stunts. I still think COD 2 had the best multiplayer

"366vektorprime wrote:

oh, cmon, the WW2 series was a good one. Disregarding the rather sordid MGs, and the unnaturally powerful and accurate SMGs.
Oh, BTW, i didnt see any OpFlash Red river thread. Nobody interestd in that one?

The WW2 CoDs were pretty terrible in the sense that they were nothing like WW2. Again: Brothers in Arms. BiA is a pretty simplistic recreation, but it at least uses satellite data and planning maps to recreate the actual areas soldiers fought in, and has a basic implementation of squad tactics.

"Desides wrote:

The WW2 CoDs were pretty terrible in the sense that they were nothing like WW2. Again: Brothers in Arms. BiA is a pretty simplistic recreation, but it at least uses satellite data and planning maps to recreate the actual areas soldiers fought in, and has a basic implementation of squad tactics.

I've played BiA hells highway. And yes its good. But at the end of the day, most ppl r looking for ways to njoy themselves. So while avid gamers like u and me, happily spend time in positioning our mg teams, most will probably blow their fuses.

"366vektorprime wrote:

I've played BiA hells highway. And yes its good. But at the end of the day, most ppl r looking for ways to njoy themselves. So while avid gamers like u and me, happily spend time in positioning our mg teams, most will probably blow their fuses.

Oh, definitely. I'm not trying to say that CoD is inferior because it's unrealistic, I'm just trying to make the point that it is unrealistic. Remember, this discussion began with talk about how MW2 was outlandish for a CoD game. I'm pointing out that MW2 was precisely in line with the rest of the series, and that CoD has always been ridiculously over the top.

In fact, MW2's campaign was more enjoyable than previous CoD games' campaigns specifically because it throws off whatever shallow pretense it makes at being realistic.

"Desides wrote:

Oh, definitely. I'm not trying to say that CoD is inferior because it's unrealistic, I'm just trying to make the point that it is unrealistic. Remember, this discussion began with talk about how MW2 was outlandish for a CoD game. I'm pointing out that MW2 was precisely in line with the rest of the series, and that CoD has always been ridiculously over the top.

In fact, MW2's campaign was more enjoyable than previous CoD games' campaigns specifically because it throws off whatever shallow pretense it makes at being realistic.

and others r going tht way, too. BiA, for instance, got a health regeneration, OpFlash got dumbd down in RED RIVER. And the new ArmA may go the same. Knw anything, if MW3 will have LAN gaming?

"366vektorprime wrote:

COD is at the tethers of the end. Until activision, or whoevers runnin the game, revamps the series, its nt going to last. A dose of reality would do good. The multiplayer's gotten unnatural too, with noobs pulling irritating stunts. I still think COD 2 had the best multiplayer

COD2 is my favorite one as well.

"366vektorprime wrote:

and others r going tht way, too. BiA, for instance, got a health regeneration, OpFlash got dumbd down in RED RIVER. And the new ArmA may go the same. Knw anything, if MW3 will have LAN gaming?

BiA did have regenerating health, yes. That's a concession it made to the post-Halo FPS convention. Even Duke effing Nukem Forever has regenerating health. It's here to stay.

I don't think ArmA is at any risk of being dumbed down. They do need to redesign the in-game interface and fix the AI, but it looks like they're going with a less structured campaign.

Haven't heard anything about MW3 supporting LAN gaming.

i know, i asked this before, but hasnt anyone played the new OpFlash?

"Desides wrote:

BiA did have regenerating health, yes. That's a concession it made to the post-Halo FPS convention. Even Duke effing Nukem Forever has regenerating health. It's here to stay.

I don't think ArmA is at any risk of being dumbed down. They do need to redesign the in-game interface and fix the AI, but it looks like they're going with a less structured campaign.

Haven't heard anything about MW3 supporting LAN gaming.

besides the unrealism, i think the stories in CoD have become too fragmented, too similar. Distracting.

"Desides wrote:

BiA did have regenerating health, yes. That's a concession it made to the post-Halo FPS convention. Even Duke effing Nukem Forever has regenerating health. It's here to stay.

I don't think ArmA is at any risk of being dumbed down. They do need to redesign the in-game interface and fix the AI, but it looks like they're going with a less structured campaign.

Haven't heard anything about MW3 supporting LAN gaming.

Ah yes regenerating health. I remember reviews for "The Getaway" on the PS2 getting a couple knocks for having unrealistic regenerating health (of course that could very well have been because the game tried to portray itself as realistic and we've already had that debate). Either way the point of my rambling is to say I kind of miss med packs being scattered all over the map. Because ask any soldier who has been in battle and they will tell you about all the random med packs scattered around the battlefield. Regenerating health...bah...how unrealistic. :shifty:

I'm really looking forward to BF3 if it is anything like BF2 or 1942 was on PC. However really the last few CoD installments just have been frustrating online. I don't see how I can even get myself excited for MW3. These games should be taking notes from the Halo series how to produce a fun online experience.