Modern Warfare 3 Discussion Thread

I just thought on creating a discussion thread, so we have 1 only thread for all MW3-related talk

Here are the first 2 teaser trailers releases by IW :

YouTube - CALLOFDUTY's Channel <- all teasers are over there.

Sounds nice according to leaks, but it will NEVER top BF3

UPDATE : First gameplay trailer coming Monday the 23rd : https://www.twitter.com/#!/fourzerotwo/status/71698435354542080

Quoting :

 

Graphics look like crud. I was especially appalled by the ground textures, the oil refinery/shanty town, and gun textures. Eww.

Activision has been releasing a new COD every year now. Can you say, rehash?

DICE will be releasing BF3 over five years after the last BF game. It's pretty clear which one will probably be better.

 

Pretty much confirms that the game is based on the Black Ops engine. Look at how they hold the weapon, the ground texture, the overall image quality...

 

Which looks like the Modern Warfare 2 engine which pretty much looked like the Modern Warfare engine. IW needs to ditch the crap engine they are using or totally build it from the ground up. Of course, with 1-year release intervals, I doubt they have the time to do just that. DICE on the other hand has been building Frostbite 2 for years.

 

EVEN the MW2 engine is 10000000000000000000x better than the Black Ops engine. The Specular Lighting effects are amazing, whereas Black Ops didn't have it.

 

I agree - black ops was really bad. Amazingly so. I'm not used to regressions in graphics quality in video game sequels, but it does happen. The last one I remember is Rainbow Six Vegas: 2 - had the same problem.

 

At least Rainbow 6 Vegas 2 dident play like crap.
Still kinda sad they removed the tactical aspect (Like the old games) but on Coop that game was a blast!

 

I'll be damned if i buy another call of duty game after the mess black ops was. I wanted a refund the day of purchase.

 

2010 Battlefield: Bad Company 2
2009 Battlefield: 1943
2009 Battlefield: Heroes
2008 Battlefield: Bad Company
2006 Battlefield: 2142

 

Those are Battlefield spin-offs. BF3 is the true sequel to the true Battlefield game : Battlefield 2.

 

Lol! you and your BF3 Pistachio... Well anyways, this game is made by 3 companies together, who dident work on Black ops. So i guess that you can say that they have had more than a year working on it? But i think its gonna be a decent game, but im gonna be really disappointed if they use the Black ops engine since the black ops engine is a refined WaW engine which was a refined CoD 4 engine....

 

I have no doubt that it will use some derivative of id Tech 3, like every other Call of Duty game ever released. That said, I also have no doubt it will be a fun game and I'm sure I will end up getting it and playing it. It will have its flaws, I'm sure (what game doesn't, especially CoD games?), but like the other ones, hopefully the overall fun of the game will transcend those flaws.

 

Yet they are all games that were developed by DICE. That guys is saying its 5 years in the making, but look at all that filler.

 

Engine for MW3 will be same as MW2 ie the IW4 engine. What screenshots have actually been released that people are commenting on, the kotaku leaked ones?? They were not final, so i would not comment on graphics based on them. Though based on them it looked as good as a source based game. But you can tell that graphical prowess has never been the focus of the Call of Duty series. They are simply more focused on providing a cinematic style gameplay that is not exactly deep but it is satisfying. You never want to play it again but it is fun the first time around. Kind of like a movie like Fast Five, an absolute BS movie but i still enjoyed it, but it was in no way on the same level as say Inception, or The Kings Speech.
But it can in no way compete with Frostbite 2, which is a newer engine, whereas the IW 4.0 is based on a 10year old engine id Tech 3. And I don't think Activision will upgrade the engine till the next gen of consoles.
But here is a final fact - MW3 WILL sell more than BF3, and there is nothing EA or DICE can do to stop it, and we all know that. Black Ops was perhaps the worst CoD game ever but it was still the highest selling CoD. So even if MW3 sucks and BF3 rocks, MW3 will sell more. Why, cause CoD is a much better established brand that BF and every casual gamer out there will want to play the new CoD.

 

Are you so sure about that? I'm pretty sure a lot of gamers found Black Ops to be pretty bad...EA is also planning a multimillion dollar marketing campaign for BF3. BF2 has almost mythological status in the FPS world in accordance with BF1942. It's a VERY well known franchise.

 

Unfortunately the market CoD has created for themselves has allowed them to put out a game with minimal effort needed so the save money. By not investing in a new engine or tons of time on design, they will make hand over fist money on this title. This has become the Madden of shooters and BF3 looks better with every video activision releases.

 

Yes as i said gamers found Black Ops to be bad, cause it was bad. But the thing is BF can in now way reach the popularity of the CoD series which was built over years starting from CoD 1. Earlier CoD games were great as they presented a realistic shooter as oppsoed to most shooter back then, think you playing in a squad rather than being a lone gunman as was popular with most games when CoD came out, also are we forgetting the new regenerating health system which turns your screen red as opposed to health packs and armor, correct me if i am wrong but wasn't CoD2 one of the first games to feature it, CoD was also on of the few games that stressed on gun realism ie designing guns exactly the way they looked and worked in real life, many things like these created a large fan base for the CoD franchise which got way bigger thanks to Modern Warfare and Modern Warfare 2. Also the majority of CoD market is console gamers who have no idea about Battlerfield, the only good BF game on consoles has been the BFBC 2 and just one game cannot build the brand name that was build over several games.
Also what exactly was wrong with Black Ops?? We say it sucks but all the console gamers(ie majority of the gamers) of the world had no problems with it. It even got amazing reviews. The problem with Black Ops was that it was too linear and easy, all it required you to do was point and shoot. But that is exactly what its market wants. I have realized that PC Gamers usually want games that are challenging and require thinking and the use of tactics(think Crysis or Half Life 2) whereas majority of console gamers want a game that helps bust stress and does not require you to think too much just point and shoot and be good at it, ie no use of tactics. This is exactly the reason why Crytek designed Crysis 2 to be more linear and focused than Crysis 1(though it is still not as linear or easy as CoD). And the fact is no matter what you say all CoD games will sell cause they are the best at what they are and don't proclaim to be anything more, give me another game that is as good as CoD in the Point and Shoot genre?? Even BF is not as good as it crossed the genre and involves the use of tactics(the fact that environments are destructible add a whole level of complexity to the game), even in multiplayer BF requires teamwork and cooperation to succeed as opposed to every man for himself thinking that players adopt during black ops deathmatches.

 

Im pretty sure halo was the first with regenerating shields, and all fps followed right behind. The statement about console gamers is asking for rage, for reals I can generalize about pc gamers aswell, Im a console gamer and theres no way MGS Series, Heavy Rain, GT5, and countless other games are just for people who want a quick 2 second experience. A more accurate characterization would be the Average gamer, the one who owns a pc to just play WoW or CS:S, or an xbox for madden, halo and cod.

I know alot of my Average gaming buddies all get cod over BF because "Its quick". The 2 games appeal to 2 different crowds, one crowd is quick twich shoot gameplay of cod, were you feel like your not being being slowed down by game speed, or size of map. People I talk to generally don't like the size of the maps in BF series, it appeals to a crowd. Were as CoD players are generally like CS:S players, a select hand full of maps, small, easy to manouver around and strategize, no vehicles just straight gun play.

 

I wasn't really generalizing console gamers, I was also talking about the average gamer, its just that the majority of the console gamers are average gamers. Anyway I think we should get back to topic on MW 3.

 

UPDATE : First gameplay trailer coming Monday the 23rd : http://www.twitter.com/#!/fourzerotwo/status/71698435354542080

Quoting :

 

Well that's exciting news. +rep just in the excitement.

 

LOL I wish CoD required some skill unlike CS:S. On the contrary, I've found many cs players also like battlefield (bf 2 especially) as both games required tremendous skill to burst fire and control recoil.

I accept that the games tend to cater to different crowds, but the main reason Cod is so popular is that the game is really easy. When I occasionally pub cs 1.6, I'm generally in the middle-top in terms of kdr where as I rarely finish outside of top 3 in most cod 4/ bl ops games. Not bragging, just saying the game is ridiculously easy.

 

CS is not exactly any tougher in terms of recoil control and stuff. I know a friend who is an expert CS player but i generally trump him in both CoD and BFBC 2. It all depends on your style of play. But CS and BF both require a bit of tactical thinking.

 

The thing about it is pubbing. If you are just pubbing then CSS, BF/BC2 and COD games take zero tactical skill to win. In COD when you are playing league using Promod, it takes months to get good enough to play good teams. Both CSS and COD take a lot of skill to play top teams in respectable competitive leagues.

But yes playing in public servers in any of those games is almost like going through the motions.

 

It's the same in any multiplayer game, really. Even Team Fortress 2...pub games and competitive matches are completely different worlds.

 

Completely Agreed.

 

U serious? Comparing recoil in CS to cod? What about ak-74 in cod 4, or the laughable ACR in mw2 (along with a bunch of other guns), or the galil/famas in bl ops

CoD is literally just about getting your sights up and then spraying. The gun does not jump which allows you to just hold down mouse 1 into the target.

You can't do that in CS or BF2 (by which I mean battlefield 2, not that crappy console ported bad company 2)!

Even on an individual level, those games are far more challenging than cod. CS involved great money management, added to a very difficult (relative to cod) game in terms of controlling recoil, whereas BF2 was even more difficult to hit people at longer ranges. Choosing where to spawn itself, when to give up on a CP, which CP to target next was all 'layers' that added to the complexity of the game. Add to that how to the handle the various vehicles.

Scrimming in cod is only really more difficult as you are playing in a team - which have developed team work, proper communication, etc.
Pro Mod was great for tweaking/removing some of the crud that made it so n00b friendly, but it still, as a game, was very poor in differentiating between top players, making it a poor competitive game.

I agree pubbing is vastly different to scrimming, but Activision are making billions targeting the game to pubbers alone. The competitive scene of cod 4 was laughable at best.

 

I mean that is also true, I see crappy players get scores like 30 kills and 0 deaths only cause of dumb luck. This never happens in BF games(I play all of them from time to time including 1943 on my ps3 and 2142 and 2 on pc), though I am not a big fan of CS, it seems as easy as CoD to me. I don't what recoil are you guys talking about??

 

Its the climb that guns get as you fire them. In cod, once you aim down sights, you can literally empty half a clip into someone without the aim being disturbed. You fire off a couple of rounds in CS, and the recoil would have pulled the gun away, and you had to judge/compensate for recoil in order to keep on target. That requires real skill/judgement!

 

Lol, I know what recoil is, I am just saying that there is absolutely no recoil in CS, kind of like CoD. What version are you guys all playing?? I am playing CS:CZ.

 

Not to take this too far off topic here, again.

But I am not sure what is your point? Almost the same Professional teams that played in Pro leagues in USA and EUR are the exact same top teams in CSS, some even the same players.

No doubt the competition is there.

* Also it is pretty much a known fact in the CSS community, that the hitboxes in CSS are absolutley terrible. This is become the ongoing debate as one of the major reasons why most great players and teams go back to CS1.6. Because they claim you can just 'spray n pray' in CSS. (this is also how I found if after competing in CSS CEVO for 1 1/2 years in college)


Cheers.

 

....Compare the differences in where your gun ends up after spraying in cz and compare it to cod...

I was referring to the fact that you compared cod4 scene to css, in the sense that adding team elements suddenly turned cod into one of the most tactical modern shooters on the planet. I am trying to say that the only reason it became 'better' (in a strategy sense) is due to the natural consequences of introducing team play into an fps, not due to inherent special strategy required within the game itself.

I was saying that the game is targeted to pubbers alone, but activision seems indifferent in actually trying to improve the experience by introducing more challenging mechanics.

Add this to a callous manner of not releasing public betas/demos...resulting in ZERO feedback. When blizzard was told by beta testers of starcraft 2 that macro was lacking in the game, they went and introduced a bunch of mechanics that would add to the apm requirements of the game. Despite the same complaints coming with iterations of the series being too spray n pray, 3arc/IW have really done nothing to improve the game, not even releasing mod tools for mw2 or black ops early enough when people actually are interested in the game.

I am referring to 1.6, not source. I never play source any more. But source required more skill than cod, and valve actually sorted out many of the hitbox issues (eventually).

Contrast this with IW and 3arc, who put out the same imbalanced guns, game in game out, without any hope of improvement since Cod4. You could see they tried to implement more recoil in bl ops, but seemed to lack the guts to actually implement it in a meaningful manner.

 

OK i think we should get back to topic before the mods interwene.

 

First gameplay trailer

YouTube - ‪Call of Duty Modern Warfare 3 Reveal Trailer [HD]‬&rlm;

 

Yup, same old generic COD. Not buying into the hype until I get some solid honest reviews because Blops was a huge fail on PC.
They really need to upgrade their engine.

 

Completely agree. Damn - even the boat sequence looks exactly the same as in mw2, just different location.

Doesn't look like they even updated animations

Expected better from a franchise making billions off their last two games..

 

The trailer for MW3 looks terrible! Everything looks almost exactly like the past two games. The animations, the scripted sequences, the graphics. Wow. You would have thought they would have gotten serious about taking on BF3 now it just seems like BF3 is gonna steam roll MW3 which looks like every other COD before it.

 

I actually found the trailer interesting, but I won't any decisions until it is released.

 

I must agree with this.

But still, it's so obvious that they used the BLOPS engine, and not the MW2 engine... Seriously...

Look at the shadows, textures and in France the houses = nuketown...

 

I really preferred the MW2 graphics over the BO graphics.... hmm, we'll see.

 

Same. The BO engine is terrible : terrible quality for TERRIBLE optimization.

IW4.0 > BO

 

MW2 used IW 4.0 and the BL Ops engine was called simply the IW engine. Why would activision use the older engine. An Infinity Ward official did say in March that they'll be using the same engine but it was never clarified the same engine as MW2 or BlOps. I am guessing MW2 since it was an IW official and why would he mention a Treyarch game, they know that Treyarch games suck and are just made to keep the fans busy while IW works on the real sequel. Anyway even Wikipedia says MW3 uses IW 4.0 but there is no source for that so it is unconfirmed. It would be a really stupid move if they used the Black Ops engine which is basically a 5yr old engine from MW1.

 

Sigh....

hopefully they figure out why the game runs so much better in xp than 7 and try and fix this...

But as a consumer, you are pretty much screwed, as they don't release demos early (or at all) and so you can't really judge how it is going to run!

 

They can't use the Treyarch based engine ( based on cod4's idtech 3, modfied for World at war, then used for Blackops) because Treyarch has rights to it and they aren't working on MW3. So it is safe to assume it will be IW4, because IW ( what is left of them after the fiasco of firings) and Sledgehammer are working together to make to the game.

IW4 was a much better engine than the significantly modified IW3 -- based on idtech3 -- engine that Treyarch seems to be ruining. How a company can take a time tested, efficient engine such as IW3 and make it so absolutley 5hitty is beyond me.

IMO Treyarch should not be allowed to touch another engine.

 

Actually they are using the IW4, which is the MW2 engine. The textures and the houses aren't part of the engine, they are assets.

 

That is weird... MW3 seems to have worse GFX than MW2...

 

I'm not sure how you are able to tell that from a trailer that is displaying entirely pre-rendered cut scenes.

 

When someone says GFX (Graphic Effects) that usually means they are talking about stills or video. So he is saying that he thinks the trailers are more simplistic then the other ones. Some people like how that is, and some people like more effects. Just a preference....

 

Yeop. Compared to MW2's, I can say that, from what I saw, MW2 has a little better graphics.


We will see though

 

No, I mean Graphics, not Graphics effects