Modern Warfare 3 gameplay - Anything new?

[Joccaren]

BFBC2 was close in SP and MP, but it didn't have spec ops. MW3 is more worth the money, because I'm going to spend more time playing it. Why doesn't BF3 have something like spec ops, especially since it prides itself on being a more "tactical" game?

Ok, I will admit I have not played spec ops, and thus am not fully fit to judge here (Which is why I am hoping you will share your ideas of why its so 'tactical' compared to BF) however, from the videos I see online, its basically the same gameplay that I see everywhere else. Sniping enemies? Been there. Reviving team mates? Done that. please share with me what is so tactical about spec ops, as I am failing to see it. (Also, 'you have to work with a teammate' doesn't count, as that's the whole point of Co-op, and teams in online play)

My opinion of CoD as a whole is boring. Yes, I have played some CoD games. Not every one mind you, but when I do play I find myself bored as I never have to think. "Walk forward, shoot, walk forward, shoot, walk forward, shoot" is about all I ever do. I know this is what some people will enjoy, but I do not.
Yes, I prefer battlefield, but mostly Battlefield 2. I find myself planning ahead in BF, having my allies spot a tank heading my way, so I will place some landmines, fall back, take control of a rocket turret and get my allied tank to come help. Not too much thinking involved, however being a commander, having all your bases under attack at once, and having to co-ordinate your team as to who should defend where, figuring out where and when you should use your artillery, supply drops and vehicle drops, and picking which vehicles, if any, would be best suited to taking a base can take a fair bit of forethought to pull off. I do, however, consider Battelfield my non thinking game, and tend to sink more time into RPGs and RTSs where I have to think far harder about what I have to do.

CoD itself isn't a terrible game, but it isn't great. IMO, its average, just like pretty much every other shooter out there. It does some things right, some things wrong, but in the end it all comes down to personal taste.

 

[T8B95]

I love how some people automatically hate a game that's not even out yet just because it's popular.

The Call of Duty series is pretty much superior in every form to every other FPS, and infact any other genre game. Anyone who can't see that needs to open their eyes.

I remember when MW2 first came out I twittered #fourtwozeo telling him they ruined the Call of Duty franchise. I was a silly boy back then. Now I'm just riding the wave of success and loving it.

We don't automatically hate it because it's popular. We (specifically me) hate it because they're charging us $70 a year for what amounts to a new map pack. Whereas I can get a new map pack for other, more reasonable, games, at about $10.

Also, I fail to see how CoD is superior in every form to every other FPS. It's bland, and the story has quickly gone from "semi-realistic shooter", to "Dur, I like explosions." The multiplayer has been quite frankly copy-pasted ever since the first Modern Warfare, and well, it's old by now. The only place where CoD stands out is the quite frankly astonishing numbers of people who line up obediantly every year to pay for the exact same game.

Also, TheNaut131? The alarm in that trailer sounds like my girlfriend's cat with a splinter in her paw. It's really annoying.

 

[natster43]

It's Activision, they found a formula that they can pretty much completely copy and paste each time and make even more money than the last time and it works. I am probably going to get it pre owned to see the end of this story in which I came into at the middle.

 

[Hero in a half shell]

I like the way their objective is to get to the Stock Exchange, I can imagine the conversation immediately prior to this went "Oh No, Russia's invading America" I need to sell all my shares pronto"

*sigh*
and the Russians are still using a cold war assault rifle gun instead of their newest rifle...

Of course, don't you know that the AK-47 was the best gun ever made EVAH!?! Why, no modern gun can ever rival it (I actually had to pause the video and check when I saw it flash on the screen to pick up, thinking "surely they will at least have a more modern gun for the Russians, I mean these guys are invading America, they have top of the range tech, ships, aircraft, vehicles, weapons, surely they aren't using a 70 year old gun?") And then MW3 told me "Screw your logic, and don't call me Shirley!"

 

[Frostbite3789]

It's Activision, they found a formula that they can pretty much completely copy and paste each time and make even more money than the last time and it works. I am probably going to get it pre owned to see the end of this story in which I came into at the middle.

Yeah, that worked out so well for Tony Hawk and Guitar Hero, right?


Oh wait...

There's a reason we aren't on StarCraft 10 by now. Blizzard knows how to develop games and has somehow kept Activision's taint off that.

 

[gonzo20]

it.... it.... IT!!! looks exactly the same as MW2! well thats okay i guess but im afraid that battlefield 3 will be getting all my love this year as it looks Amazing!

 

[RagTagBand]

Battlefield % NV have more than few new features ,but MW3 is almost same as MW2 with new maps and few explosions.Most of the reasons that people are buying this game is people is because people like seananners and Hutch and 97% of machinimarespawn are playing this game.(I'll probably be hated for this)

And Don't call me a fanboy I hate both Activision and EA.

Perhaps you could name the new BF3 features?

Also Its very easy for something to be "New" without it being very different; There were "New" weapons in NV but they weren't very different to the norm.

MW3 has "New" features too, like having weapons with two kinds of scope attachments. But just because it's "New" doesn't mean it's "OMG INNOVATION!".

It's not suppoused to, its an sequel to battlefield 2.

Allow me to reiterate the part of my comment you blatantly removed just to be a smartass

I mean BF3 doesn't look *that* different from BFBC2 (not a direct sequel but...same dev, same kind of game, same vein etc)

Yes, if you haven't played a BF game since BF2 there are lots of new features, But thats because you're skipping near enough a decade of the Developers history and evolution.

All games series' are built of the predecessor in the series. Once Again i'm going to reiterate my overall point - Each new part of a series is going to be quite similar to the previous part because each part is built off the back of the previous.

MW3 is no more guilty of this than any other. Hell all the BF3 footage i've seen looks either like BFBC2 or Medal of Honor. Each new game doesn't have to reinvent the wheel, I don't mind them refining it.

Besides, I dont care about MW3's multiplayer, I want to know what happens next in the story and that *is* going to be 100% new material.

 

[WanderingFool]

Actually, thats one of the things that I hated the most about MW2. What I felt made Black Ops more fun was the fact I could buy the attachments and camos, and not have to spend God knows how long trying to unlock a camo by scoreing headshots or get extended mags by getting FMJ kills. I didnt have to get a set number of kills to unlock the ACOG or extended mags, I could just buy them and be on my way.

I also liked how the Perks were upgraded to pro by completing three different reqiurements than just using the perk.

Different strokes for different folks. I can't decide whether purchasing or unlocking your attachments is a better system, but I DEFINITELY prefer the MW2 camo system. Aside from hackers and boosters, it showed a small amount of skill, whereas in Black Ops everyone slaps on Tiger until they can buy Gold. And sadly, earning 50k CP isn't very difficult. I have 2/3 of Black Ops guns gilded, whereas I only have 2 Fall camos.

I will concede, Treyarch had the right idea with Pro perks, was far more fun than MW2's "get kills while using this perk" system.

yeah, I can see the arguement for skill with camos. The farthest I got was Blue Tiger for my M4. Most of the guns I use the most are around Digital or Urban.

 

[Kahunaburger]

Call Of Duty is like a great pop song.

Yes, it's simple. Yes, it follows an often-used formula. Yes, it can be shallow at times.

COD is 'Another One Bites The Dust' or 'We Will Rock You'.

A lot of you guys want all your games to be 14 minute Pink Floyd epics with long solos and deep layers of emotions.

Try and accept there's beauty and fun to be found in both styles.

I also wouldn't spend $60 dollars a year buying Tik Tok: Modern Ke$ha 3.

Well how about you just don't? Its not like anyone is claiming CODs storyline is deep and powerful, its gameplay is the best ever in any FPS.... Just like no ones claiming Ke$ha is the pinnacle of the art of music and her songs tackle challenging subjects in a thoughtful way. So why do you handle COD as if everyone sees it that way?

Okay, so you're saying that CoD shouldn't be held to a high standard, and you're saying Ke$ha also shouldn't be held to a high standard - what was your point again?

COD is a good series. The brand of gameplay it follows - quick kills and deaths, fast killing gunplay, ranking up, perk slots - they have polished it to perfection. No one Bungie and Dice makes that particular brand of FPS games better. COD games have always, undeniably, been very good at what they do. Of course, different people like different things, which is why your perfectly right if you say the COD franchise is not your thing - I just dont understand why you feel the need to bash it again and again? Nothing better to do? Cant accept different opinions? Want to feel superior based on what game you like to play? Please tell me.

Because I think it's hilarious that people shell out $60 a year to play a mediocre FPS with repetitive gameplay and a terrible community.

 

[WanderingFool]

I like the way their objective is to get to the Stock Exchange, I can imagine the conversation immediately prior to this went "Oh No, Russia's invading America" I need to sell all my shares pronto"

*sigh*
and the Russians are still using a cold war assault rifle gun instead of their newest rifle...

Of course, don't you know that the AK-47 was the best gun ever made EVAH!?! Why, no modern gun can ever rival it (I actually had to pause the video and check when I saw it flash on the screen to pick up, thinking "surely they will at least have a more modern gun for the Russians, I mean these guys are invading America, they have top of the range tech, ships, aircraft, vehicles, weapons, surely they aren't using a 70 year old gun?") And then MW3 told me "Screw your logic, and don't call me Shirley!"

Spoiler: AK-200

AK-200 [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AK-200]

Basically an AK-47, with a built in rail system.

Hell, they can keep the AK-47 in game, just change the name, thats all they really need to do.

 

[Kahunaburger]

And I was more emotionally invested in finding Makarov or saving Captain Price than I ever was in finding the killer or saving Nanako.

Yeah, man, I was so invested in CoD single player. Those generic Russian bastards stole my Burger King Town! Not in my country, not on my watch! The character I was controlling died! For the third time in the game! Video game storytelling at it's finest.

 

[yuval152]

Battlefield % NV have more than few new features ,but MW3 is almost same as MW2 with new maps and few explosions.Most of the reasons that people are buying this game is people is because people like seananners and Hutch and 97% of machinimarespawn are playing this game.(I'll probably be hated for this)

And Don't call me a fanboy I hate both Activision and EA.

Perhaps you could name the new BF3 features?

Also Its very easy for something to be "New" without it being very different; There were "New" weapons in NV but they weren't very different to the norm.

MW3 has "New" features too, like having weapons with two kinds of scope attachments. But just because it's "New" doesn't mean it's "OMG INNOVATION!".

It's not suppoused to, its an sequel to battlefield 2.

Allow me to reiterate the part of my comment you blatantly removed just to be a smartass

I mean BF3 doesn't look *that* different from BFBC2 (not a direct sequel but...same dev, same kind of game, same vein etc)

Yes, if you haven't played a BF game since BF2 there are lots of new features, But thats because you're skipping near enough a decade of the Developers history and evolution.

All games series' are built of the predecessor in the series. Once Again i'm going to reiterate my overall point - Each new part of a series is going to be quite similar to the previous part because each part is built off the back of the previous.

MW3 is no more guilty of this than any other. Hell all the BF3 footage i've seen looks either like BFBC2 or Medal of Honor. Each new game doesn't have to reinvent the wheel, I don't mind them refining it.

Besides, I dont care about MW3's multiplayer, I want to know what happens next in the story and that *is* going to be 100% new material.

Bidops,suppersing fire,Battlelog(like COD elite, but its free), blending the assualt and medic classes into one,new gadgets for the recon,if an sniper is aiming at you,you can see his Lens,open beta(not really counts as an "new" feature),new sounds,snipers need to hold their breath,new animation system,new grahpics engine

Now,show me MW3 new features.

Hell all the BF3 footage i've seen looks either like BFBC2 or Medal of Honor.

. . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . ,.-??. . . . . . . . . .``~.,
. . . . . . . .. . . . . .,.-?. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .?-.,
. . . . .. . . . . . ..,/. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ?:,
. . . . . . . .. .,?. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .\,
. . . . . . . . . /. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ,}
. . . . . . . . ./. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ,:`^`.}
. . . . . . . ./. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ,:?. . . ./
. . . . . . .?. . . __. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . :`. . . ./
. . . . . . . /__.(. . .?~-,_. . . . . . . . . . . . . . ,:`. . . .. ./
. . . . . . /(_. . ?~,_. . . ..?~,_. . . . . . . . . .,:`. . . . _/
. . . .. .{.._$;_. . .?=,_. . . .?-,_. . . ,.-~-,}, .~?; /. .. .}
. . .. . .((. . .*~_. . . .?=-._. . .?;,,./`. . /? . . . ./. .. ../
. . . .. . .\`~,. . ..?~.,. . . . . . . . . ..`. . .}. . . . . . ../
. . . . . .(. ..`=-,,. . . .`. . . . . . . . . . . ..(. . . ;_,,-?
. . . . . ../.`~,. . ..`-.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..\. . /\
. . . . . . \`~.*-,. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..|,./.....\,__
,,_. . . . . }.>-._\. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .|. . . . . . ..`=~-,
. .. `=~-,_\_. . . `\,. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .\
. . . . . . . . . .`=~-,,.\,. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .\
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . `:,, . . . . . . . . . . . . . `\. . . . . . ..__
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .`=-,. . . . . . . . . .,%`>--


MOH has small maps and BC2 dosn't have that much of urban areas plus the grahpics are better and there is a little bit more destruction and the most important is that you can see your legs and even if you still think its the same atleast BF3 did some changes since BC2

Smartasses FTW!

 

[Bobic]

Call Of Duty is like a great pop song.

Yes, it's simple. Yes, it follows an often-used formula. Yes, it can be shallow at times.

COD is 'Another One Bites The Dust' or 'We Will Rock You'.

A lot of you guys want all your games to be 14 minute Pink Floyd epics with long solos and deep layers of emotions.

Try and accept there's beauty and fun to be found in both styles.

I also wouldn't spend $60 dollars a year buying Tik Tok: Modern Ke$ha 3.

Well how about you just don't? Its not like anyone is claiming CODs storyline is deep and powerful, its gameplay is the best ever in any FPS.... Just like no ones claiming Ke$ha is the pinnacle of the art of music and her songs tackle challenging subjects in a thoughtful way. So why do you handle COD as if everyone sees it that way?

Okay, so you're saying that CoD shouldn't be held to a high standard, and you're saying Ke$ha also shouldn't be held to a high standard - what was your point again?

COD is a good series. The brand of gameplay it follows - quick kills and deaths, fast killing gunplay, ranking up, perk slots - they have polished it to perfection. No one Bungie and Dice makes that particular brand of FPS games better. COD games have always, undeniably, been very good at what they do. Of course, different people like different things, which is why your perfectly right if you say the COD franchise is not your thing - I just dont understand why you feel the need to bash it again and again? Nothing better to do? Cant accept different opinions? Want to feel superior based on what game you like to play? Please tell me.

Because I think it's hilarious that people shell out $60 a year to play a mediocre FPS with repetitive gameplay and a terrible community.

For starters it seems a bit harsh to blame the developers for the community. And hell, is Halo's community really that much better?

Also, Battlefield doesn't really compare to COD. Battlefield is at a much slower pace, you don't just spawn and sprint aimlessly into battle, you have a look around, perhaps wander over and grab a tank. It's also lacking in the ranking up thing. It's rather paradoxically more fun to earn things than to be given them from the get go (for some people at least).

As for Halo, that's just a matter of preference. Some people like sci fi and pew pew guns. Some like a more contemporary bang bang type setting. Some people like both (or all 3) and buy both.

 

[Bobic]

And I was more emotionally invested in finding Makarov or saving Captain Price than I ever was in finding the killer or saving Nanako.

Yeah, man, I was so invested in CoD single player. Those generic Russian bastards stole my Burger King Town! Not in my country, not on my watch! The character I was controlling died! For the third time in the game! Video game storytelling at it's finest.

You realise you could do that for literally any story ever right?

Yeah, man, I was so invested in the Lord of the rings. Those generic evil horsemen tried to steal Frodo's ring! Not in the shire, not on my watch! The British actor turned evil! For the second time in the film. Movie storytelling at it's finest.

 

[Kahunaburger]

Because I think it's hilarious that people shell out $60 a year to play a mediocre FPS with repetitive gameplay and a terrible community.

For starters it seems a bit harsh to blame the developers for the community. And hell, is Halo's community really that much better?

Also, Battlefield doesn't really compare to COD. Battlefield is at a much slower pace, you don't just spawn and sprint aimlessly into battle, you have a look around, perhaps wander over and grab a tank. It's also lacking in the ranking up thing. It's rather paradoxically more fun to earn things than to be given them from the get go (for some people at least).

As for Halo, that's just a matter of preference. Some people like sci fi and pew pew guns. Some like a more contemporary bang bang type setting. Some people like both (or all 3) and buy both.

Yeah, I don't blame people for liking CoD, I just think it's hilarious they buy it every year. I mean, I played MW2 and while it's the second-worst multiplayer FPS I've played (after sniper: ghost warrior) I can see what people see in it. But I wouldn't buy it again every time Bobby Kotick is all "lol, we made the same game again so buy it if you want to find a lobby."

 

[Kahunaburger]

Bungie and Dice? Let me get this straight, you are say Halo, Battlefield and Medal of Honor fit into the same mold as COD? What. The. Fuck. They might all be FPS games but they are nothing like COD when it comes down to the details. Halo and Battlefield have completely different gameplay. People dont die in 3 bullets. Killstreaks are nowhere to be found. Both contain vehicles on multiplayer maps, while recent COD titles dont. You are essentially saying Bungie and Dice make better COD games than Infinity Ward. I dont have to point out how fucking stupid that is.

Halo has the SWAT multiplayer gametype, which is basically CoD with no killstreaks, no commando lunges, and a better spawn system. So in other words better in every way. And Battlefield has people dying more or less as easily as they do in CoD, with a little less damage needed to kill someone. Having played both, Battlefield games are basically a better-executed version of the same concept.

That, or you are trying to say Dice and Bungie make better games. Which would be, wait for it, your fucking opinion, and nothing else, and its not worth much. Do I have to explain the concept of opinions to you?

Repetitive gameplay? Right, so, Halo isnt? Battlefield isnt? Are you saying you dont essentially do the same things over and over in these 2 games? I would love to hear how those games are more varied than any COD title. You actually dont even need to try and explain, really, because you are fucking wrong.

In battlefield different classes play completely differently from each other and from the vehicles, and the emphasis on teamwork means that based on how teams play, a particular game can play out several ways. In Halo you can be playing as a sword-wielding zombie one game, be playing soccer with a grav hammer the next game, and be dogfighting in a banshee the game after that. So yeah, way more variety. In CoD I was actually happy when people hacked a server, because running around with an infinite-range knife was actually welcome just because it wasn't more of the same.

A terrible community? Compared to what online shooter that came out in the last 2 years? Dont even think about saying Team Fortress, because honestly, I could log in to the first server I see and find the exact same name calling bullshit I find in other games.

As someone who played CoD, Halo, BC2, and TF2 quite a bit I can assure you that CoD has by far the worst community, no contest. Halo's a little less full of whining children, and people generally don't get on the mic in BC2 or TF2 unless they're saying something useful.

On top of that, you still havent provided a good explanation as to why you would bash a game and its player base. You think its hilarious? Well why not laugh about it and leave it at that? Personally, I think its the preferable option when the other is logging onto an internet forum to ***** about it, making yourself look like a complete idiot in the process and clarifying beyond doubt you belong to that "I say COD is bad because I want to look cool and edgy" crowd which is, by the by, just as immature as the 12 year old squeeky voiced kid who annoys everyone so much.

Yes, clearly someone who dislikes a game they played must be a hipster. It's the only explanation!

Buy a game you like, play it, and mind your own fucking business. Whos the stupid guy; the one who spends 60 bucks on the same thing each year, or the one who actually thinks hes better and has a superior IQ because he plays different video games? Both, but the first is generally the likable one while the second is a complete asshole.

Im not even going to buy MW3. But you need to put some thought into your posts. Im not trying to offend you or looking for an argument, but the way you present yourself... Do you really think developers are going to listen to people like you? Thank god they dont.

Yeah, how dare anyone express their opinions on a forum! This is the internet! No opinions allowed!

 

[Bobic]

Because I think it's hilarious that people shell out $60 a year to play a mediocre FPS with repetitive gameplay and a terrible community.

For starters it seems a bit harsh to blame the developers for the community. And hell, is Halo's community really that much better?

Also, Battlefield doesn't really compare to COD. Battlefield is at a much slower pace, you don't just spawn and sprint aimlessly into battle, you have a look around, perhaps wander over and grab a tank. It's also lacking in the ranking up thing. It's rather paradoxically more fun to earn things than to be given them from the get go (for some people at least).

As for Halo, that's just a matter of preference. Some people like sci fi and pew pew guns. Some like a more contemporary bang bang type setting. Some people like both (or all 3) and buy both.

Yeah, I don't blame people for liking CoD, I just think it's hilarious they buy it every year. I mean, I played MW2 and while it's the second-worst multiplayer FPS I've played (after sniper: ghost warrior) I can see what people see in it. But I wouldn't buy it again every time Bobby Kotick is all "lol, we made the same game again so buy it if you want to find a lobby."

Eh, that's reasonable enough. I wouldn't buy all these things at full price. Seems like a waste of money. Though, if you have plenty of disposable income, why not buy the snazzy new update to your snazzy game?

For the record I bought MW1 not long after it came out at full price and MW2 quite a while after it came out when it went 50% off on a steam sale. I won't be getting MW3 until it going for at least 50% off.

 

[ReaperzXIII]

Which competitors? Battlefield? You got me there, Battlefield is a more deep experience, even if BC2 is a game I can't stand. However, unless you call Battlefield shallow, then CoD being less deep then Battlefield does not actually make it shallow. Logic.

Wh...that....doesnt even...wait...wha...WHAT?!!! I don't give shit about the rest of what you're saying but this is a criminal offence against all things that is logic.

So if a kiddy pool is less deep than an ocean that means the ocean is shallow? Is that the type of reasoning you are getting at? Also inb4 "doesn't MAKE it shallow" but the point is it is shallow in comparison to other games. So yeah it is shallow in comparison ergo that does make it shallow.

Also I'm not asking for CoD to make their game like Halo or Battlefield all I am asking is for CoD to try some new mechanics, maybe new gametypes, more polishing etc...


Halo at least tries new things, armour abilities, health, game modes etc...