Will MW3 be the next CoD4

[McNinja]

There are some many things wrong with Blops that needed to be fixed. MW2 was far superior to Blops, although it did have its flaws. Hopefully MW3 fixes the terrible fixes the fact that you can down a helicopter with a knife, or get a tomahawk insta-kill after bouncing the tomahawk off a wall twice and hitting them in the toe. They also need to fix the sniper rifles (you see kids, just because you aren't scoped in does not mean you can't hit the broadside of a barn). They also need to fix the killstreaks, so they aren't complete game changers. A Cobra can completely change a game and make it completely one sided, even if someone has a missile launcher. Then there's the fact that shooting to the chest is 12385712854209 times less powerful than shooting to the head, and those random kills where it takes you enemy one shot from an MP5k to kill you, while you have just unloaded into them with a FAMAS (which has a far more powerful round). They also need to fix grenades, because some roll, some will stick to the ground like you just threw a ball of superglue.

Also, there are four good maps in Blops. Four. Out of eight. Half of the maps are garbage.

I will never buy a CoD game. However, my friends will, and when I play it at their house I hope that I don't rage as hard when I play MW3.

 

[Riddle78]

It will,and that's a VERY bad thing.

Before Modern Warfare,the multiplayer of CoD was,arguably,balanced. No killstreaks. No deathstreaks. No perks. Just player skill,and the weapons they can find. Powerful ones were balanced in at least one of three ways

-Difficulty to locate/obtain (on top of a really tall pillar or hidden behind Identical Bush # 122)
-Restricted ammunition (Three shots. Make 'em count.)
-Openness of location (Middle of a huge,featureless courtyard at the map center)

In Modern Warfare and beyond...You unlock weapons,and they're debatably useful. You unlock perks,which change gameplay. Since MW2,you can unlock more killstreaks,INCLUDING A GAME ENDER.

Ever since Modern Warfare,the CoD multiplayer has turned into an arena that ostracises anyone who wants to lear,by browbeating them with skilled players with all the best toys. It's worse than the "MLG OR GTFO N00B" mentality of Starcraft. And that's saying something.

I miss the days of well thought out,and well balance competitive multiplayer.

 

[Eclectic Dreck]

The opening question really isn't clear. If I were to pick the relatively minor differences between Modern Warfare and MW2 that resulted in something I saw as a problem, then I'd say I'd probably end up with a list of the reasons why people play those games.

For example, the incredible lethality of the game means that, in general at least, the primary thing that dictates the outcome of any engagement is who shoots first. If I skip a lot of the usual explanation I'd use in this case for the sake of brevity I'll simply point out that this means the primary skill being measured and tested is knowledge of the map. Put another way, the difference between a good COD play and a poor one is little more than knowing where one ought to point their gun at any given point in a map before combat starts. Given that this incredible lethality is part of what makes CoD different from other games, I suspect you will not see a change away from this.

The kill streaks are another point that make me wonder. In general, these encourage players to play the game in the safest fashion possible, which stands in direct opposition to a great many other design goals. That these rewards offer such a significant impact upon the game has always been a bit troubling as they often serve as little more than a random kill generator and, in the process, undermine the fundamental notion that a good player ought to be something of a master of his own destiny. I strongly suspect this will also remain in the game as a significant feature.

 

[GLo Jones]

From a pure gameplay perspective, CoD4 was just a modern day CoD2, and both played absolutely phenomenally.

Unfortunately, from there, the only way they could go was down. I don't think the CoD series has that much longer left in it.

 

[GameMaNiAC]

As much as I liked MW2, it wasn't too CoD4-ish. But it was still fun, so I forgive it. I hope MW3 brings back the feeling.

 

[jjjonesy27]

CoD has been complete shit since W@W, sure, i play the hell out of MW2 with my mates. But there isn't a point in making a clan, having tryouts, or even having a mic. In CoD (MW2,BO) one person on the team can basically win the match, there isn't a point for multiplayer. And The killstreaks are completely overpowered. W@W and CoD4 had ACTUAL TEAMWORK, something you can only find in Battlefield nowadays. So to put it bluntly, NO. MW3 is gonna be another MW clone instead of an actual standalone sequel. Sure, there'll be new guns, new maps, new campaign, but they're missing one thing. Balance.

Still waiting for BF3

(and if you think i'm being biased, i have over 30 days in Mw2 and i just got my 5th day Gold Star in Bad Company, i used to be a CoD fanboy, but then i earned common sense)

 

[b4k4]

(and if you think i'm being biased, i have over 30 days in Mw2 and i just got my 5th day Gold Star in Bad Company, i used to be a CoD fanboy, but then i earned common sense)

Technically, you're showing your own bias with that last statement, where you say that favoring one franchise over the other is common sense.

Common sense would be more along the lines of just general tolerance, I think, an acknowledgment that it just comes down to an individual's preference, and that the two series are different enough that the only reason they're in direct competition is because the 'FPS' banner is way too broad. Good effort though, common sense seems to be a hard thing for internet users to grasp these days.

But regarding your other point, your specific play experience can vary wildly from match to match. Your complaint has little to do with the games themselves (with the exception of TDM in CoD, because there is a minimal need for teamwork in non-objective based games) and more to do with the people in your lobbies. I've had matches in both games where the rest of the team works very well together to achieve the objective, and other matches where it's one giant clusterfuck. The biggest difference is that in BF the only time anyone has shown a sense of teamwork in a match with me is when I'm with a squad of friends, in CoD the randoms have stepped up to the plate, as often as not.

And I know someone might be thinking 'for someone who talks about not being biased at the beginning of his post, that last bit seemed very Pro-CoD. You're half-right, that statement was actually pro-people-who-play-cod. Besides, I never said I didn't have a bias, I just made fun of JJJonesy27 for denying his own.

At the end of the day, I play multiplayer to have fun with my friends, and every one of us is going to get both games, because they both offer fun, independent experiences.

 

[jjjonesy27]

(and if you think i'm being biased, i have over 30 days in Mw2 and i just got my 5th day Gold Star in Bad Company, i used to be a CoD fanboy, but then i earned common sense)

I think, an acknowledgment that it just comes down to an individual's preference, and that the two series are different enough that the only reason they're in direct competition is because the 'FPS' banner is way too broad.

and i 'prefer' Battlefield