Is it better than MW2 and Black Ops? Why? I really like it, but I have little frame of reference. I played Blops up to level 10-ish a few times on PS3, but never really got beyond that.
MW3 multiplayer(12 posts)
i personally didn´t like mw3 mp that much tbh. i thought some maps were really weak and uninspired, looked and felt kind of rushed to me. but hey, could just be me. i didn´t play mw3 that much. i didn´t like mw2 that much either. some of the kill streaks were pretty annoying imo. airsupport, carpet bombing chopper nuke stuff.
i loved cod 4. it is still great but feels a bit dated now. out of the newer cod´s i personally really liked blops the most. i really dig some of the guns. love the aug! i don´t know why there is so much hate for the game. i totally prefer blops over mw3 any day! prestiged 3 times and then stopped prestiging but continued playing anyway.
Sorry Pat, everytime I play a CoD I am reminded of how much more diverse the gameplay and strategies are in a Battlefield game. I just can't get into them at all. I played Blops for a bit, but felt like it was a marry go around of shooting people, spawn, start running, shoot at something, get shoot at. If you didn't camp, you died fast. I just found it flat and repetitive. Shallow.
Wasn't my cup of tea.
The multiplayer is similar to MW2 but works better, somewhat on par with Blackops as Black Ops has a slight leg up as it has ranked dedi servers however I found the guns in Blackops not to my taste, I prefer MW3's guns. The maps on MW3 are so-so, some are quite nice, some are okay'ish but nothing really seems to stand out as awesome like they did with MW2.
The INet or w/e it's called bs is a lot better in MW3, the matchmaking works without hassle.
If you liked MW2's multiplayer you'll most likely enjoy MW3's.
Nice. That helps. Thanks.
You're gonna get a lot of different opinions on that Pat. It seems to be completely depending on the individual.
For me it's MW2. The original MW was pretty good, but the maps weren't very balanced, and it hadn't yet become the spectacle it is now with MW2 and MW3.
I think it all came together in 2. Both the maps and the guns follow a specific pattern.
For the maps it's basically three avenues going down the length of each map, with three avenues intersecting them - Leaving 2 starting zones for each team and a contested zone in the middle, so few teams are going to be coordinated enough to camp out all three avenues, at the same time. That means that you'll practically always have the option to find the right path around the map, and flank the other guys while they're playing the chokepoint game. That was an awesome dynamic. Sadly the map packs didn't follow it.
Likewise with the weapons. There are three common models. You have high accuracy/medium damage, medium accuracy/high damage and a 3-burst mode high accuracy/high damage, which is then balanced by having to put all three shots on target.
So that makes it M4/ACR/MG4, SCAR/TAR-21/LSW and Famas/M-16 according to the above "class". At level 1 you either start out with at least one of those, or get one very early on.
Personally I loved that. It also had more unique weapons like the F2000 and the FN FAL, which were entirely their own, but for me it basically meant that every time I prestiged, I could switch to weapons I hadn't used very much the first time around, and the weapons would be familiar, while I'd still have to perfect my game with either of them.
It was close to the perfect competitive experience for me. It did have a few problems like G18's being overpowered, and shotguns actually lagging. A shot from a shotgun took longer to register than a shot from any other weapon, which meant losing duels every now and then.
And that's also why I'm disappointed with MW3. The maps are a lot less thought through, and it screws with the spawn system, so you get cheap kills and take cheap deaths. In MW2 that was extremely rare. The game tracks all players and tries to put you within a "pocket" of friendlies anywhere on the map.
When the map is literally a maze of corridors, that becomes nearly impossible.
And of course with MW3 they've marginalized the shotguns almost entirely by making them a primary slot, and really upped the usefulness of machinepistols, essentially adding several G18s this time around.
It's too cheesed. The cool thing about MW2, and the thing that made me shrug when people complained about those "naughty killstreaks" was the fact that you earned what you got. Aside from the G18s, it was an extremely level playing field.
It's difficult to say which one is better outside of personal opinion, because they're all so different, and it depends on how you get your FPS kicks.
CoD4 is open and accomodating. Easy to get into.
MW2 is OTT and very deep. It requires strategy and a big time investment.
BO is a toned down MW2 with different weapons and a less frantic pace.
MW3 is a cross between C0D4 and MW2. It has more balanced gameplay than both, with small-ish maps. It's not as toned down as BO was.
Don't forget to try all the game modes, because you might enjoy one, but find others uninteresting.
Thanks for your help. I'm writing an article about how I can't really see where Modern Warfare goes from here in terms of "turning it up to 11". I've played every CoD SP, but I've never really got into the MP. I'm up to 14 on Mw3 and it's fun, but I've seen instances of a lot of the common complaints already (frame-locking, etc). It's pretty obvious that haven't made it "better," as such. Just different. I can't help questioning whether or not they really have exhausted it this time.
Spec Ops in co-op is wicked, though. Brilliant fun.
Well, there's certainly loads to take into consideration for your article.
For example, Don't forget that up until release, CoD4 was thought of by just about everyone, and probably even IW, to be just another competing FPS.
Acti were talking about it 'taking on' Halo, but I'm certain that even they didn't expect it to be raking in the awards, smashing records and still be selling for full price two years after release.
So it seems obvious that it was made by IW in a no pressure kind of environment.
So when we talk about making the game better, I think it's crucial to consider the fact that somewhere along the development process of MW2, West and Zampella had enough of a disagreement with Acti that they decided that starting from scratch was a better option than continuing to work on probably the biggest franchise in gaming at the time.
From a CoD fan's perspective, it's easy to suppose all of the instances where some external Acti producer probably had input in the game. For MW2, in many places, they quite literally just multiplied everything by 10.
Points, weapons, killstreaks, etc. Just multiplied by 10. I find it difficult to see why or how the designers that worked on the CoD4 would come up with such a naive concept and think that it would immediately make the game better.
I've always considered CoD4 to have been 90% or more IW's work and MW2 to have been heavily influenced by the franchise strip-miners at Acti.
The core of the game was there, but there were big design decisions that smacked of 'let's make it mass market' exec decisions.
They put overpowered death streaks in to make n00bs feel better, and made it possible to snipe people from across the map with a pistol.
Could an IW who had the same no-pressure environment as they had with CoD4 have come up with these ideas? I seriously doubt it.
Also, don't forget that Acti didn't even want to do a modern game. They were pushing for more WW2, and it was IW who had to really convince them that they would benefit from a change.
So then after MW2, we had Black Ops. A game from a studio whose 'sequel' to CoD4 didn't outsell, and still wasn't played more, two years after it's prequel's release.
The story of Treyarch is almost as bizzare as with what happened to IW. If MW2 was partly designed by business execs, then whatever Treyarch came up with must have been completely so.
World at War was despised by West and Zampella to the extent that they even allegedly plotted to steal it's PR thunder. Not to mention the zombie mode mocking that came from IW's direction.
Whatever Treyarch came up with seemed to have been done just to keep Kotick grinning all the way to the bank, rather than what IW actually wanted.
Understanding this, you see why Black Ops did as well as it did. You had Treyarch's desperation to stop looking like the ugly step-child, and Acti's determination to steady the ship after West and Zampella (and many other staff) left for EA.
Black Ops could have been the beginning of the death of the franchise, but Acti/Treyarch kept it going by listening to the fans.
So out went the x10 multiplier ideas, and in went some more logical ones.
Quick scoping was toned down, killstreaks were harder to get and you actually had to be accurate in order to get a kill from distance. Annoying things like overpowered deathstreaks and long distance knifing were thrown out, and CoD fans suddenly realised that Treyarch actually had something to offer.
Treyarch listened to the fans a whole lot and took the franchise forward.
And now we have MW3. A game made by two seperate studios and with a huge loss of input from the people who made CoD4.
IMHO, they've managed to make the best CoD yet. Not because they're taken it forward, or come up with anything new, or 'turned it up to 11'.
Because they've finally managed to make a proper sequel to CoD4. Instead of 'multiply it by 10 and get the n00bs involved!!', they continued to listen to fans and made the game that MW2 should have been.
2 years late.
At the end of the day, I think that the best ones to take CoD forward are the ones who worked so hard in trying to make a 'Halo-killer' back in 2006. Since then, we've had a game for gamers, made by gamers garnished with huge helpings of n00b sauce, and covered with spittle from the lips of greedy fat-cat execs.
So I don't think that CoD has been exhausted by any means. It just needs to be put back on track.
quick vid to help pat and others! :D please like and sub
You must log in to post.