Captain Antonio Posted March 1, 2012 Report Share Posted March 1, 2012 It not good for great reason's just stick to this post. The biggest reason is you can't use vehiacels not even in the campaign your ethier rideing or opening the door or controlling the gun. Another reason is the graphics have bareley changed since Call of Duty 4 MW! Also your health is also a problem if your foot gets mauled by bullets you should be able to live but if you can't handel 4 theres a problem, also its not balenced at all if you just started it will not be fun for you. Also the hit box and your knife isn't right when you lunge your knife at someone even when you missed the body by not much you still get killed and your knife is unreal it could kill you even when stabbed in the foot! And finally the maps almost all of them are areas in the campaign and they said they worked hard for you and the rest ( which isn't many ) are newly generated same thing with Spec Ops and DLC. If you got good reasons why the game dose not suck ( i doubt you do ) i will take this back. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr Biggles Posted March 1, 2012 Report Share Posted March 1, 2012 we don't want to attack other games on here, at all, we are a friendly community, you can say why the game isn't as good as halo or aren't as good as the Other CoDs, don't attack it. CoD isn't bad, it just misses essential stuff like Vehicles and stuff, but, its not bad. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Captain Antonio Posted March 1, 2012 Author Report Share Posted March 1, 2012 we don't want to attack other games on here, at all, we are a friendly community, you can say why the game isn't as good as halo or aren't as good as the Other CoDs, don't attack it. CoD isn't bad, it just misses essential stuff like Vehicles and stuff, but, its not bad. ok mabey i was to rough ill edit that Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CandiBunni Posted March 2, 2012 Report Share Posted March 2, 2012 I enjoy Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 3 quite a bit. Here are my reasons for why I don't think it's a bad game. I have fun when I play it. The game isn't utterly crippled by bugs and glitches that make it unplayable. Its simplicity makes it accessible to a wide audience. It's all just opinion, and my opinion is that it's not a bad game, it's a good game. I have fun with it, and I'll continue to play it regardless of what others think. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ForerunnerBR Posted March 2, 2012 Report Share Posted March 2, 2012 Nah, COD is a big game, i really don't like but we need to respect right? Imagine all this kid cod players on halo... Let them have fun with this game Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Archangel Tyrael Posted March 2, 2012 Report Share Posted March 2, 2012 I think cod mw3 is okay, i don't play much cod but it's the best one i have played so far, i liked the campaign though. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SuperIntendant Posted March 2, 2012 Report Share Posted March 2, 2012 Another reason is the graphics haven't changed since Call of Duty 4 MW! Fix'd Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Captain Antonio Posted March 2, 2012 Author Report Share Posted March 2, 2012 I enjoy Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 3 quite a bit. Here are my reasons for why I don't think it's a bad game. I have fun when I play it. The game isn't utterly crippled by bugs and glitches that make it unplayable. Its simplicity makes it accessible to a wide audience. It's all just opinion, and my opinion is that it's not a bad game, it's a good game. I have fun with it, and I'll continue to play it regardless of what others think. Actully theres lag in the game the lag sucks unlike in reach its fun when it lags like when your ghost goes light speed or when your warthog goes flying up. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Captain Antonio Posted March 2, 2012 Author Report Share Posted March 2, 2012 I think cod mw3 is okay, i don't play much cod but it's the best one i have played so far, i liked the campaign though. then youll like other CODS because in Call of Duty 3 theres levels where you can use a tank. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Twinreaper Posted March 2, 2012 Report Share Posted March 2, 2012 The graphics department is actually better than Reach. MW employs a vast library of textures and shaders...much more than Reach does. Factor in the almost limitless LOD the engine yields compared to Blam! I can go on...but ill spare you all.the novel sized post. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Captain Antonio Posted March 2, 2012 Author Report Share Posted March 2, 2012 Fix'd I don't get it superintendent? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Captain Antonio Posted March 2, 2012 Author Report Share Posted March 2, 2012 The graphics department is actually better than Reach. MW employs a vast library of textures and shaders...much more than Reach does. Factor in the almost limitless LOD the engine yields compared to Blam! I can go on...but ill spare you all.the novel sized post. No they took out more colors in MW3 and when you get killed it looks weird and when you die by an explosion its even weirder you fly like you fell out of a plane. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Captain Antonio Posted March 2, 2012 Author Report Share Posted March 2, 2012 I think cod mw3 is okay, i don't play much cod but it's the best one i have played so far, i liked the campaign though. Cool pic. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SuperIntendant Posted March 2, 2012 Report Share Posted March 2, 2012 I don't get it superintendent? *smirks* read over what I quoted and what the OP says Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CandiBunni Posted March 2, 2012 Report Share Posted March 2, 2012 Actully theres lag in the game the lag sucks unlike in reach its fun when it lags like when your ghost goes light speed or when your warthog goes flying up. Lag sucks in any game, even in Reach. The lag isn't a game crippling thing either. It doesn't make the game unbearable or unplayable in the slightest. It stinks when there is some lag and you get killed when perhaps you shouldn't have, but that happens in every other FPS that I can think of. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Captain Antonio Posted March 2, 2012 Author Report Share Posted March 2, 2012 Lag sucks in any game, even in Reach. The lag isn't a game crippling thing either. It doesn't make the game unbearable or unplayable in the slightest. It stinks when there is some lag and you get killed when perhaps you shouldn't have, but that happens in every other FPS that I can think of. In reach the lag last only for second and thats where the flying comes in.And when the lag lost longer that means theres a problem and in MW3 it happens too commonly. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CandiBunni Posted March 2, 2012 Report Share Posted March 2, 2012 In reach the lag last only for second and thats where the flying comes in. The lag can last for quite a while actually. There is no set amount of time that the lag lasts, as it depends on the connections on the players involved in the game. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Azaxx Posted March 2, 2012 Report Share Posted March 2, 2012 Tru dat Mystic, i have for lag entire matches Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Director Posted March 2, 2012 Report Share Posted March 2, 2012 The graphics department is actually better than Reach. MW employs a vast library of textures and shaders...much more than Reach does. Factor in the almost limitless LOD the engine yields compared to Blam! I can go on...but ill spare you all.the novel sized post. I would hope the graphics of MW3 would be better than those of Halo Reach, considering MW3 came out over a year after Reach did. As far as COD goes, it's not my cup of tea. However, it IS a good game for casual FPS players. It rewards you for time played, rather than for skill only like other games on the market. Just like any game, if you put enough time into it you will get better at it. As far as the reasons for it not being a game that I play very often: 1. It doesn't have even multiplayer gameplay. What I mean by this is that higher ranked players get better weaponry, giving them an advantage over those who've just started playing or do not play that often. 2. The "ranking" system. Rather than based off of skill alone, players can level up rather quickly just by playing, again rewarding those who "came first" rather than those who are "the best". 3. Realistic graphics, non-realistic ballistics. A .50 caliber sniper rifle WILL blow someone to bits when it hits them. That is a one shot one down weapon. It's max effective range is about 2000 yards. For those of you more familiar with metric, 1829 meters. If you get hit by one of those, you will NOT be combat ready any time soon. That's not to mention the rest of the unrealistic ballistics. 4. Lack of vehicles. This has always bothered me about COD multiplayer, the lack of vehicles. I like vehicles, even if I'm just the one blowing them up. 5. Killstreaks. This is the last on my list because I'm torn on them. I like the idea of being awarded for getting multiple kills in one life, but on the other hand, killstreaks promote "antlion" gameplay. Antlion gameplay is basically camping in an area that sees regular traffic, but in a spot that is difficult (or even impossible) to get killed in. The antlion player will remain in this spot killing anyone nearby until they get a high enough killstreak that they don't even have to leave their spot to get ridiculous amounts of kills. Not to mention some killstreaks can be used in combination to devastate the enemy team (dogs and chopper gunner on black ops, for instance) and an antlion player gets even further rewarded for "camping". Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Twinreaper Posted March 2, 2012 Report Share Posted March 2, 2012 Captain, please don't quote me and try to argue a development and engine technical fact. I would rather not have to embarass you. Surfice to say I have extracted and compared textures from Reach and MW3. MW3 uses 18,764 individual texture files. The total texture file size is somewhere around 8.64 gigs. Reach from my last count uses the ballpark of 12,000. The point you are trying to make about being killed is called "physics". In this case, more specifically Ragdoll physics. Activision at my last game decrypt, does not use Havok for it's physics simulation. This is why there is a drastic difference. Also depending on how the engines are coded to interact with core data schemas, you will always see varying results. Your comments about lag are just god aweful. You quite obviously don't understand lag or why it happens...otherwise your comments would not be as half assed as they were presented. Lag is everywhere. As long as people connect to others across networks from varying locations, it will always be around. And lag is not a one time little hick-up in data transmition and interpretation. Lag occurs at a constant. The big jumps in framerate are largely due to either heavy processor load or usually a larger spike in ping. While CoD may not be your cup of tea Director, it is for far more than casual FPS players. Halo or any other FPS cannot be properly compared to eachother due to the immense difference in which the games play out and what they offer. As far as vehicles go, I have never liked any vehicles outside campaign gameplay. And as for realistic ballistics, CoD does not try to say they are "realistic", but they do take a more realistic approach. I could count the ways Halo is a bunch of BS. One in particular is the shield system. It blocks shots by absorbing damage. Physical projectile damage...yet an assassination with a knife....mysteriously goes right thru the shields and kills instantly? And lets not get started on the insane buggy Havok coding that went into the phmo responses for objects. Point being, each FPS game on the market brings something new or improved to the table. Rather tahn bash a bunch I take a higher path, I learn and evolve as a gamer and learn to appriciate each's own attribute. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Director Posted March 2, 2012 Report Share Posted March 2, 2012 1. Surfice to say I have extracted and compared textures from Reach and MW3. MW3 uses 18,764 individual texture files. The total texture file size is somewhere around 8.64 gigs. Reach from my last count uses the ballpark of 12,000. 2. While CoD may not be your cup of tea Director, it is for far more than casual FPS players. 3. Halo or any other FPS cannot be properly compared to each other due to the immense difference in which the games play out and what they offer. 4. One in particular is the shield system. It blocks shots by absorbing damage. Physical projectile damage...yet an assassination with a knife....mysteriously goes right through the shields and kills instantly? I broke your quote up and numbered it for an easier counter-point presentation. 1. Halo Reach was completed and released a over a year before Modern Warfare 3 was, so it's obvious that MW3 would be more advanced. MW3 is the newest version of the COD games. The COD game that came out around the same time as Halo Reach did was COD Black Ops. 2. I did not say that it was for only casual FPS players, I said, "it is a good game for casual FPS players." What I meant by this is that it is more casual friendly than other FPS games, such as Halo 3 or Battlefield 3. 3. I was not comparing COD to Halo at all in my post, so I am not sure where this came from, however I do remember making a similar argument in a thread titled "Halo vs CoD?". Here is an excerpt, "Halo and COD are fundamentally different, and comparing them is unfair. Halo is Halo, COD is COD." 4. I'm in full agreement with you on this one, and have in multiple posts lamented on how Halo is becoming more fiction than science, but again, how did it come up? The only comment in my post about Halo was at the very beginning stating that comparing the technology of Halo Reach with Modern Warfare 3 was unfair due to the fact that Reach was released a full year before MW3. I think you sorely misunderstood my post. I was stating the reasons why I personally am not a fan of Call of Duty, rather than saying that everyone should believe as I do. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Twinreaper Posted March 2, 2012 Report Share Posted March 2, 2012 Sorry Dirwctor, the whole thing was not aimed at you. It was aimed at the whole.given the various ideals that have been floating around. The graphics layer to which CoD uses has not changed from Black Ops to MW3. That part of the engines code is still pretty much the same. The main reason for thw graphics being much better is due to the wxtreme levwl in which CoD's game engine post processess data. Halo does not use it very well. Im hoping to see a huge leap with this in Halo 4. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lᴜᴋᴇ Posted March 2, 2012 Report Share Posted March 2, 2012 I really like MW3. It is fun, fast paced, balanced, and fair. CoD hasn't had vehicles since WaW, and in World at War they were a complete failure. Don't come on here just blatantly attacking over games. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheTallmidgeT24 Posted March 2, 2012 Report Share Posted March 2, 2012 thats why i play battlefield 3. it has everything call of duty has (excluding killstreaks) and has everything that call of duty doesn't have. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skummgummigubbe Posted March 2, 2012 Report Share Posted March 2, 2012 The only thing I do not like about COD, BF3, and other "real" games is that they are gray compared with halo, halo is more colorful. but MW3 has a little better multiplayer than MW2, MW, Black ops, but it is still an unbalanced game, mentioned above the higher levlade has better stuff than lowlvl, halo is the skills that determines pretty much Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.