The Cool Kid said:
Have you even played Shattered Horizon?? It is nothing like Halo at all.
It's still an FPS that requires skill so why are you making arbitrary distinctions and separating it from CoD? If you only compare CoD to, well, CoD, obviously it's going to look fantastic, but compare it to original skilled FPS' like Shattered Horizon, well now MW3 is looking atrocious.
You clearly either never played MoH or were simply no good at it. MoH is CoD but it works. The differences are minor, but have a major impact on gameplay. For example:
1)Small emphasis on levelling and weapon unlocks. You can do great with the starting gun and the top level is only 15.
2)The spawn system is completely different. You always spawn with your team on the opposite end of the map from the enemy spawn, resulting in a defined front line each and every match. CoD certainly has not done this since MW2 onwards.
3)The maps always provide "safe routes" in which you can move around the map with at least 1, usually 2, of your 4 arcs of view, as being safe. In other words, you do not have the impossible task of watching your front, right, back and left all the time, as in CoD, which results in the utterly boring situation of camping.
4)The killstreak system. Either offensive or defensive and ultimately not game breaking. They will help give your team a push but certainly won't win the game for you. Same cannot be said for the killstreaks in CoD.
MW is ugly because it is dated and a drab mess. I run a GTX560 Ti. I know what good is (Crysis, Metro 2033, BF3, Shattered Horizon, MoH etc) and MW is not it. Oddly I don't see a need to compare MW3 to 10 year old games, generally because MW3 is, guess what, a new game! So I will compare it to other games on the market, and yeah, it's graphics suck.
As for fixed spawn points, they are not the only solution, nor always a problem. Try Killzone 2's fixed spawn system. Worked flawlessly.
Try Resistance 2's roaming team based spawn. Works brilliantly to put you close to the action.
MoH has a hybrid of fixed spawn locations that roam depending on opposing enemy forces. Camping rarely happens and if it does, a smoke grenade is all that's needed to sort it out.
Now look at CoD; spawn points are a mess and the map design doesn't help in anyway to create a front line. That is bad game design.
And let me reiterate what I previously have said, which you have obviously chosen to ignore:
"CoD's have random spawns therefore no killzone and the impossible situation of watching all 360 degrees of yourself at all times.
How that is "deeming [MW3] bad, because of graphics and personal preferences" I do not know...
And HL2 is crap. Generic corridor shooter with an appallingly thin and contrived story, with equally dull gameplay. But that's another story.
How you think a Sargent nuking his own men because others died, whilst tracing terrorists through the bullets they used is coherent is beyond me. That's not how real life works, nor rational minds. And that was just MW2. I literally replayed a cut scene as it made so little sense I thought I must have missed something.
However, at the end of this, the issue here is clear; the reason you are not a good FPS gamer is because you do not understand how these games work. At all. You don't realise the difference between dying because player A is better than your or because the game mechanics are broken. When you start seeing the mechanics behind the game rather than "woop I have a gun *blam blam blam*" you may begin to see the short falls of some games and the success of others.
Despite the obvious bias you have against MW and the obvious bias you have TOWARDS Shattered Horizon and Medal of Honor. Shattered Horizon to CoD is what Contra is to Ratchet & Clank. What I meant with "apples to apples" is Shattered Horizon is not in the same catagory as MW. Its a shooter, but is far to 3-dimensional. I would compare it to the likes of the 'Tribes' games.
I've played MoH though not for long, as it actually felt like a complete bandwagon jump. Though regarding the multiplayer, you go into preferences, again. MoH is a lot slower in terms of online match flow. Something that I didn't like i.e. something that I didn't PREFER.
It really felt like they were just implementing the multiplayer to 'try' and compete with the bigger markets. The campaign is nothing interesting. It tried to show it in more realistic perspective (bit respect for that), but it felt really forced with its scripted events, with no real characters to relate to, as they were always shifting.
I don't have any issues with the spawn system, I always get spawned in reasonable spawn-location, and it is pretty easy, through estimating my teammates' locations, to find the enemy. The spawnpoints are not random. They rotate with the players' locations. You say it's broken and say you have problems, I say I think it works fine as I don't have these problems. Just get over it. Your word against mine, is as good as mine against yours.
However, the fact that you hold it against MW to always keep your eyes open, and always rushing to find the enemy, are key FEATURES of MW. The cramped multi-arcing corridors and hot-spots, encourage the play to always be moving, as he can be a sitting duck from 3 angles, if he stays in one spot. That is GOOD game design, rather specific game design. You prefer to take it slow, fair enough, but that is something that MW doesn't empathize with, something that I mentioned in fast-paced online gameplay, and this exactly it. THIS is what I meant by "preferences".
Equally I can do just fine with a starting weapon, like the m4, with an iron sight, and I thought that I already mentioned, how prefer to play with a fucking uzi as primary weapon, and I stick with my point that I do just fine. Unbalanced weapons is an issue, again, that I don't have.
I agree though, killstreaks in MoH doesn't affect your team directly, like it does in MW, but neither can the team directly affect the killstreak. Launchers, counter-rewards, jammers, etc. are all things that counter the killstreaks, and they work, which is why I always carry launchers, and emp's. There are good counter-meassures to effectively combat the killstreaks. Something to keep in mind.
MW2 is arguably the weakest in the series as for story, but I stand my ground. The nuke-scene in and Chernobyl sneak-through in MW1. The controversial 'No Russian' mission in MW2. The French uprising, initiation of WWIII, the quick chemical aftermath level, not to mention the last level of MW3's campaign that implies that War, as cold as it is, is always personal. This is what I mean. good narrative value.
True, MW3 is dated, but it is also optimized. It looks dated, but is tweaked enough not to look like it did in 2007. It looks 'dated', not ugly. If you look backwards graphically then so can I, which is why I brought of 16 bit games. It looks fine, but most importantly it HANDLES fine. From day one Infinity Ward had assured everyone they were focusing on polishing the gameplay. If your eye really bleeds every time you play a game that isn't Crysis or BF3, then fine, but then that goes under PREFERENCES.
You really don't give me enough credit. I mean, I can put up with you trying to shoehorn your favorite FPS down my throat, since it's something that I can ignore. Your biases towards them? Fine, I'll work around them, but don't tell me that I don't know shit. The very fact that you haven't been able to describe the problems with CoD in concrete words makes you come off as a hypocrite. Online experience is always different to persons in between, which is why I tried to focus on campaign, but no...multiplayer is where you want to put your arguments, which makes it very hard to discuss with you. I have, so far, been able to comment on your accusations in a fairly concrete manner, so please don't give me unconstrucive shit, maybe? I do realize the difference between dying as a function of reaction time and precision, and as dying as a function of environmental advantage. So stop trying to lash out after me will ya? I've been trying to get you to realize that Modern Warfare just isn't the series for YOU. It is not bad, its a good game with good narrative, solid multiplayer, but it just doesn't hold any of the values that appreciate (which is getting really hard to determine by this point).
I'm may not "teh übermensch" at FPS'es, but I'm not the worst either. Can you stop assuming things? You aren't even basing it upon anything. So stop. Please?
