MW3 rage. Oh, how unique.

Recommended Videos

Dizzle26

New member
Jan 15, 2011
85
0
0
Slowpoke as this topic may be, I can't help but feel the need to express my dislike for bits of this game. I've been a fan since the second Call of Duty and when I spent my hard earned money on this, I had assumed I'd be getting something as fun and functional as MW2. For the most part the game doesn't really bother me. The single player campaign, while brief, is fun and actually finishes off the story in a way that suits the series but the multiplayer is the biggest problem. For one, the weapons seem a little lop-sided in terms of usefulness. The shotguns in particular seem to dislike being used unless it's that spazzy little bastard the Striker. One shotgun has me tearing my own hair out in frustration and I'm sure a few others: The Model 1887s. These bad boys used to be powerhouses in MW2 even after the 'nerfing' patch but in MW3 Infinity Ward seems to have cut the balls off this altogether.

The gun itself is inconsistent with it's damage. One minute I'll manage to get a 'long shot' kill after two or so shots, the next I'll get knifed through the buckshot of my own outgoing fire because someone apparently has reinforced legs. The attachments are non-existent, unlike every other shotgun. The 1887 is unchanged save for the ability to have Specializations that are about as useful as having Specializations for your knife. Heck, even at my present level the gun has the Attachment Specialization unlocked by since there aren't any attachments for the gun, I can't use it. What was the bloody point of having it there if we aren't allowed to use it? Did enough people rage about the 1887s in MW2 to the point where Infinity Ward decided they'd just screw the users over? The rest of the Specialization are essentially pointless, with the exception to the Range and Damage Specializations which you get in the mid to late 20's. If you manage to stick to the weapon up to those points, you've earned it.

I guess what I'm getting at is that I can't understand why after such wide use in MW2 would the 1887s suddenly become so troublesome? I honestly can't wrap my head around it. Has anyone else noticed this?
 

StBishop

New member
Sep 22, 2009
3,251
0
0
In answer to your question. No.

What I'm getting here, and stop me if I'm wrong, is that your favourite gun has been nerfed and you're unhappy. Yes?
 

Dizzle26

New member
Jan 15, 2011
85
0
0
Unfortunately, the 1887 isn't my favorite. I like it just fine and I remember it actually being useful in the previous title. My favorite is the ACR 6.8. :3
 

Thyunda

New member
May 4, 2009
2,955
0
0
totally heterosexual said:
Im still dissapointed that we dont have a perk that gives you a big ballistic armor.

Like 35% less damage but can sprint very little.

(or something)

that would be cool

i dont play cod that much though
You can get Juggernaut armour as a killstreak reward, if that counts.

OT: I don't even use shotguns. Never trusted them. Clumsy and uncivilised, I think. Dragunov all the way.
 

Stravant

New member
May 14, 2011
126
0
0
This is why I prefer the shotguns in the Battlefield series.

Sure they're close-range most of the time, but you can also equip them with the Slug ammunition to essentially turn them into a rifle.
 

Trippy Turtle

Elite Member
May 10, 2010
2,119
2
43
This is why listening to the community can be a bad idea. They destroyed shotguns and ruined knifing. Also everyone uses those akimbo FMG's. So annoying.
 
Mar 30, 2010
3,785
0
0
I'd say the reason the 1887 isn't as powerful as it was in 2 was because it was so powerful in 2. Anyone who has spent any time playing 2 will have horror stories of some guy running around the lobby with Marathon and duel wielded '87s. Personally I'm glad they've been toned down.

totally heterosexual said:
Im still dissapointed that we dont have a perk that gives you a big ballistic armor.

Like 35% less damage but can sprint very little.

(or something)

that would be cool

i dont play cod that much though
The 5 kill support streak allows you to deploy a pack of ballistic vests which can be used by your entire team giving them double health and the 18 kill support streak gives you a juggernaut suit. So that one is well and truly covered.

More OT: The changes made to 3, especially with the re-structuring of the kill streaks has made the game much more balanced and the new level designs which discourage (although of course cannot eliminate) the camping that plagued 2 have made the game much more user friendly. It now comfortably fits into the 'easy to get into, hard to master' sweet spot of game difficulty, instead of 2's 'hard to get into, glitch to master' zone.
 

Dirty Hipsters

This is how we praise the sun!
Legacy
Feb 7, 2011
8,802
3,383
118
Country
'Merica
Gender
3 children in a trench coat
totally heterosexual said:
Im still dissapointed that we dont have a perk that gives you a big ballistic armor.

Like 35% less damage but can sprint very little.

(or something)

that would be cool

i dont play cod that much though
I see someone likes to camp and feels he needs to soak up extra damage while sitting in a corner like a boss.
 

Dogstile

New member
Jan 17, 2009
5,093
0
0
StBishop said:
In answer to your question. No.

What I'm getting here, and stop me if I'm wrong, is that your favourite gun has been nerfed and you're unhappy. Yes?
I'll stop you for him. Infinity Ward have always seemed to have something against shotguns. There's always one that stands out and the rest don't really seem to do all that much damage and its pretty inconsistent from game to game. This applies to quite a few guns (I mean the rpg is now pretty much useless again people unless it hits right next to them, compared to the last game where it had believable killing power, which is rather silly).

I've actually followed the series with only a minor interest though, so i've not actually played the multiplayer of MW3 that much because i'm honestly bored of it, but if its the same as the change between MW1 and MW2, I can see his point. It certainly seems that way from the games i've played.
 

Dirty Hipsters

This is how we praise the sun!
Legacy
Feb 7, 2011
8,802
3,383
118
Country
'Merica
Gender
3 children in a trench coat
From a realism point of view, it actually makes sense that a shotgun that's over 100 years old doesn't do as well as all the new-fangled high tech gizmos found in a game titled "modern warfare."
 

Dizzle26

New member
Jan 15, 2011
85
0
0
Heh, yeah the shotguns in Battlefield are far more reliable than those in MW3. Some of the things that were done to the 1887 just really get my goat. x_x It's slow to fire, no matter what perks you have..and there isn't a Rapid Fire specialization to compensate. For crying out loud, they let Rapid Fire on the LMGs! They don't need it! >_<
 

maxmanrules

New member
Mar 30, 2011
235
0
0
I have a solution to everyone's complaints about unbalanced weapons and regenerating health. It's called Unreal Tournament 2004, and it is a lovely beast.
 
Mar 30, 2010
3,785
0
0
Caramel Frappe said:
I understand where you're coming from. Because of MW2, sniping is never the same. When I say because of MW2, it's the fact people quick scoped and did ridiculous things that are literally impossible for a real sniper rifle to pull off. So they nerfed it, very much so to where one or two bullets in the head do not kill enemies in MW3.

It's probably the hardest class to overcome in my opinion because not only are the crosshairs off, but even getting headshots do not count as an official K.O kill. Really upsetting, because sometimes I want to feel like a sniper and not just run around shooting like I am invincible or rubbing off the bullets that hit me yet I heal after hiding a second or two. However sniping is still fun, you can weaken someone and it's hard for them to really see where you're at. Haha.
Depends what kind of game mode you're in. Playing the higher levels of Survival (my favourite) then you're bang on the money and you're looking at two headshots to kill the high end Spec Ops soldiers. In bog standard online MP however, it's still the old one-shot-one-kill rule for sniper rifles. If anything I would perhaps argue that snipers have become slightly overpowered, now that supressors no longer reduce damage and the introduction of a perk that enhances hostile ID range, but going back to my previous post the new design of the levels discourages sniping as a long-lived activity due to the number of flanking routes to any given location.

Overall I approve of the overhauls to the game modes, but I won't pretend that jumping into 3 from 2 didn't require a certain period of adjustment.
 

savageoblivi0n

New member
Aug 7, 2008
544
0
0
honestly I haven't even used shotguns in this one, never was a big fan of them. I've been having too much fun running around with dual .44 Magnums and dual Desert Eagles :D
 

McNinja

New member
Sep 21, 2008
1,510
0
0
Actually, if you get the range perk for the Striker, the range on that thing triples. It's a really broken weapon at that point.

And out of all things you choose to complain about, you pick the Model 1887? Really? You don't have any qualms with the horrid spawn system, the fucking awful way the guns act, the ridiculous amount of explosive weapons, the fact that killstreak rewards are overpowered and can completely make an evenly matched game a completely one-sided one, the fact that Death streaks are almost all useless, with the exception of final stand, or the fact that the matchmaker/team randomizer is horribly broken in every way? Just yesterday I was playing with a friend and there were two people in the lobby, both with K/D ratios over 2 (if anyone doesn't know, that's really freaking high). Actually, only three people in that lobby had K/D ratios under 1. Now, what were the teams? Everyone with a ratio >1.5 on one team, everyone else on the other. Seriously. The game ended 2000 to 7500, and the winning team didn't even have to use any killstreaks at all.

I went 0-11 that game. It was the single most infuriating thing I have ever had the displeasure of sitting through. That wasn't the first time something like that has happened. One sided teams are extremely common. It's like the team-splitter simply randomizes the teams without taking into account K/D ratios at all. MW3 as a whole is a fucking disgrace. I would say this game should be burned, but saying this game should be burned would be an insult to fire.
 

Pink Gregory

New member
Jul 30, 2008
2,296
0
0
McNinja said:
And out of all things you choose to complain about, you pick the Model 1887? Really? You don't have any qualms etc.
aaand the floodgates have opened.

It is a shame, though, that killstreaks should be overpowered, for something that's just supposed to add an extra dimension to the multiplayer gameplay for it to just devolve into a 'race for the rocket launcher' type thing; almost like there's a difference between 'playing to win' and 'playing', and the latter is the more enjoyable, only brought about by imposing certain limits on yourself, and that simply can't work in online multiplayer without a dedicated bunch of people.

Straight deathmatches in CoD games seem kinda pointless sometimes, rather than objective based games (whatever happened to 'War'?, some of the best times in shooters I've ever had) or the wager matches from Black Ops, which I personally enjoyed a lot more.