Quantcast

Jump to content

» «
Photo

Modern Warfare 3

1,331 replies to this topic
OnlineGamer
  • OnlineGamer

    Crackhead

  • BUSTED!
  • Joined: 04 Jun 2011

#61

Posted 14 June 2011 - 08:39 PM

Did anyone see Jimmy Fallon last night?

The graphics are way better than mw2.

Vastly improved lighting, animation, and materials.

Anyoine saying "same game!" is silly, this is highly upgraded. MW3Engine (what they are calling it 'would be IW5, but with respect to Sledgehammer, we are calling it MW3Engine') is a decent leap and it looks really, really good.

vertical limit
  • vertical limit

    When in doubt don't pull out.

  • Members
  • Joined: 27 Aug 2010
  • None

#62

Posted 14 June 2011 - 10:07 PM

To bad he didn't use the model 1887, we already picked it up.

KilnerLUFC
  • KilnerLUFC

    M.O.T

  • Members
  • Joined: 17 Apr 2011

#63

Posted 15 June 2011 - 12:59 AM



WTF, the animation in that video looks worrying. The A.I wasn't looking that great either.

The Yokel
  • The Yokel

    True Gentleman

  • Members
  • Joined: 30 Mar 2007
  • Jamaica

#64

Posted 15 June 2011 - 01:26 AM Edited by GTAvanja, 15 June 2011 - 01:42 AM.

The only reason why graphics, lightning and textures appear to be better than MW2 is because the map is set in daylight and bloom effect is doing it's job. There's not a single hint of improved graphics and as The-King said the animations are awkward. They walk like crabs. If you look closely you'll see that ground texture is very poor, character textures are extremely bland and they look almost cell-shaded. Gun textures are of the same quality as always. A.I. appears to be non-existent but maybe its just a very low difficulty setting. Not that AI was ever good in a CoD game after CoD 2. Not to mention that most guns sound like underwater farts. But people see what they want to see and they want to see a vast improvement. That's the sad truth whether you chose to see it or not. There's no objectivity or learning curve among fanboys.

I know this is not a finished product, but don't expect much better from a franchise that doesn't even need to try to improve their products in order for them to sell. You can't make a good game if you just recycle the last year's game and change a few screws. CoD is successful because of good marketing campaign, not because of the quality of the product. If you believe otherwise you're a naive fool. And that's not an opinion, that's a fact.

The-King
  • The-King

    [Rekt Intensifies]

  • The Connection
  • Joined: 26 Jan 2005
  • None

#65

Posted 15 June 2011 - 01:46 AM

QUOTE (GTAvanja @ Tuesday, Jun 14 2011, 19:26)
The only reason why graphics, lightning and textures appear to be better than MW2 is because the map is set in daylight and bloom effect is doing it's job. There's not a single hint of improved graphics and as The-King said the animations are awkward. They walk like crabs. If you look closely you'll see that ground texture is very poor, character textures are extremely bland and they look almost cell-shaded. Gun textures are of the same quality as always. A.I. appears to be non-existent but maybe its just a very low difficulty setting. Not that AI was ever good in a CoD game after CoD 2. Not to mention that most guns sound like underwater farts. But people see what they want to see and they want to see a vast improvement. That's the sad truth whether you chose to see it or not. There's no objectivity or learning curve among fanboys.

I know this is not a finished product, but don't expect much better from a franchise that doesn't even need to try to improve their products in order for them to sell. You can't make a good game if you just recycle the last year's game and change a few screws. CoD is successful because of good marketing campaign, not because of the quality of the product. If you believe otherwise you're a naive fool. And that's not an opinion, that's a fact.

I said what now? dontgetit.gif

I do agree with you though, considering this game is running on a heavily modified variant of the same engine they originally used with the very first CoD they're doing an absolutely piss poor job of utilizing it.

Jake
  • Jake

    Vagina Mine

  • $outh $ide Hoodz
  • Joined: 02 Dec 2003

#66

Posted 15 June 2011 - 02:38 AM

QUOTE (GTAvanja @ Tuesday, Jun 14 2011, 17:26)
The only reason why graphics, lightning and textures appear to be better than MW2 is because the map is set in daylight and bloom effect is doing it's job. There's not a single hint of improved graphics and as The-King said the animations are awkward. They walk like crabs. If you look closely you'll see that ground texture is very poor, character textures are extremely bland and they look almost cell-shaded. Gun textures are of the same quality as always. A.I. appears to be non-existent but maybe its just a very low difficulty setting. Not that AI was ever good in a CoD game after CoD 2. Not to mention that most guns sound like underwater farts. But people see what they want to see and they want to see a vast improvement. That's the sad truth whether you chose to see it or not. There's no objectivity or learning curve among fanboys.

I know this is not a finished product, but don't expect much better from a franchise that doesn't even need to try to improve their products in order for them to sell. You can't make a good game if you just recycle the last year's game and change a few screws. CoD is successful because of good marketing campaign, not because of the quality of the product. If you believe otherwise you're a naive fool. And that's not an opinion, that's a fact.

Or we just buy them to play a quick shooter every now and then for maybe an hour? And how about when games didn't need to be top of the line? Regardless of what you say, the game still looks good. I've always enjoyed these games, even before they were as massively popular as they are. I don't usually sit down for hours on end playing either. It's just a quick 30 minutes and I'm done. And back then in the old days I played on the original Xbox, for multiplayer after the campaign. And it was a hell of a good time. I kinda like how the CoD games look graphically anyway. Not too over the top with realism, still somewhat a comic effect to them. Graphics don't make the game fun. Whether you enjoy sitting down with a game for a little bit is what matters. It's not like it's some completely sh*t N64 graphics, and even then, those games were fun. And the animations are whatever. I'd be happy if they threw in rag doll like they had back in the day though. Because sniping someone when they ran, and watching them do flips through the air was hilarious. Same for explosives and RPGs. I saw more than a few corpses shoot straight up into oblivion and over a building. Those were some good times.

Quit worrying about graphics so much, man. If you enjoy it, then play. If you don't, then don't play.

vertical limit
  • vertical limit

    When in doubt don't pull out.

  • Members
  • Joined: 27 Aug 2010
  • None

#67

Posted 15 June 2011 - 02:46 AM

^ f*cking this.


Jake
  • Jake

    Vagina Mine

  • $outh $ide Hoodz
  • Joined: 02 Dec 2003

#68

Posted 15 June 2011 - 03:12 AM

Seriously...guys..take some time to breathe some air or something. This is a game. If you enjoy them, cool, if not, cool. But there's not really much point to whine about it. I say I don't enjoy certain games, but I don't go into great detail about why. Because if you stop and listen to yourself, you'll realize how you sound. And it isn't good. There's much more in life to spend that energy on. These are just games. Enjoy the good sh*t about the entertainment you'll receive if you play the sh*t you enjoy. It never really should go much further than that in my opinion, unless you work in the industry.

The Yokel
  • The Yokel

    True Gentleman

  • Members
  • Joined: 30 Mar 2007
  • Jamaica

#69

Posted 15 June 2011 - 08:40 AM

I didn't say I care about graphics. I was just pointing out that they are not as good as OnlineGamer thought they are. I was pointing out that the game will be no improvement over MW2, while he said it's a vast improvement. I don't care about the game at all, I just care about the truth, wherever it is and whatever it's about, even if it's only a game.

LittleBlueTroll
  • LittleBlueTroll

    ★★★★

  • Leone Family Mafia
  • Joined: 07 May 2008
  • England

#70

Posted 15 June 2011 - 10:11 AM Edited by tms_junk, 15 June 2011 - 10:14 AM.

QUOTE
Or we just buy them to play a quick shooter every now and then for maybe an hour? And how about when games didn't need to be top of the line? Regardless of what you say, the game still looks good. I've always enjoyed these games, even before they were as massively popular as they are. I don't usually sit down for hours on end playing either. It's just a quick 30 minutes and I'm done. And back then in the old days I played on the original Xbox, for multiplayer after the campaign. And it was a hell of a good time. I kinda like how the CoD games look graphically anyway. Not too over the top with realism, still somewhat a comic effect to them. Graphics don't make the game fun. Whether you enjoy sitting down with a game for a little bit is what matters. It's not like it's some completely sh*t N64 graphics, and even then, those games were fun. And the animations are whatever. I'd be happy if they threw in rag doll like they had back in the day though. Because sniping someone when they ran, and watching them do flips through the air was hilarious. Same for explosives and RPGs. I saw more than a few corpses shoot straight up into oblivion and over a building. Those were some good times.

Quit worrying about graphics so much, man. If you enjoy it, then play. If you don't, then don't play.


This, ive said so many times that the graphics on any game are not the most important thing! Cookies for you cookie.gif cookie.gif

As ive said before im a big fan of MW2, so keeping MW3 similar is not a bad thing in my book.

KilnerLUFC
  • KilnerLUFC

    M.O.T

  • Members
  • Joined: 17 Apr 2011

#71

Posted 15 June 2011 - 01:27 PM Edited by Butters 2011, 15 June 2011 - 04:11 PM.

@Vanja...think it was me you meant, not King.

Anyway, am not bothered at all if the graphics are the same as MW2, or slightly improved, but the animation in that video is what shocked me the most. The way the enemy moves around is terrible, and looks like something from a PS1 game. If you don't get me, just look at their legs when they are moving backwards.

As I said earlier, I always sit on the fence when it comes to new games, and judge it by screenshots and in-game gameplay only. The main reason I'm keeping up to date with this game is because I've pre-ordered it, but apart from that it's just another FPS game for me.

*Edit* So I decided to finally try the Intervention the other night, and now it's my most used weapon. I was getting some really good QS's with it aswell, but I put that down to been stoned and time running really slow.

I don't take back what I said, as I aimed it at those who run around the whole map with the sniper rifle, but I tend to go to the end of a corridoor or room that people use, and just camp and snipe. Got quite a few nice QS's as I'm running around though, but only when stoned.

OnlineGamer
  • OnlineGamer

    Crackhead

  • BUSTED!
  • Joined: 04 Jun 2011

#72

Posted 15 June 2011 - 08:25 PM Edited by OnlineGamer, 15 June 2011 - 08:31 PM.

QUOTE (GTAvanja @ Wednesday, Jun 15 2011, 08:40)
I didn't say I care about graphics. I was just pointing out that they are not as good as OnlineGamer thought they are. I was pointing out that the game will be no improvement over MW2, while he said it's a vast improvement. I  don't care about the game at all, I just care about the truth, wherever it is and whatever it's about, even if it's only a game.

I create 3d art.

I see vast improvements in shaders and materials used, and the lighting system has been improved greatly. This is all true, it is not my imagination.

Also, the linked video is too low res to give even a clue.

If you care about the truth, then respect it - it is a vast improvement over the last game in the MW series... I can't find any decent video of it, if you saw it on the tv, you would know what I am talking about, it looks completely wrong in any youtube videos I can find of that session, I assure you, on the broadcast, the materials and lighting stood out and I was pretty shocked that nothing I'd seen up to that point gave me that kind of impression.

That video looks NOTHING like the real thing. That 360p and washed out video looks like low settings on mW2PC, it is not indicative of the actual game in any way, it looked amazing on the full definition (for a cod game).

coin-god
  • coin-god

    High Roller

  • $outh $ide Hoodz
  • Joined: 18 Mar 2007
  • None

#73

Posted 15 June 2011 - 09:02 PM

QUOTE (Jake @ Tuesday, Jun 14 2011, 23:38)
QUOTE (GTAvanja @ Tuesday, Jun 14 2011, 17:26)
The only reason why graphics, lightning and textures appear to be better than MW2 is because the map is set in daylight and bloom effect is doing it's job. There's not a single hint of improved graphics and as The-King said the animations are awkward. They walk like crabs. If you look closely you'll see that ground texture is very poor, character textures are extremely bland and they look almost cell-shaded. Gun textures are of the same quality as always. A.I. appears to be non-existent but maybe its just a very low difficulty setting. Not that AI was ever good in a CoD game after CoD 2. Not to mention that most guns sound like underwater farts. But people see what they want to see and they want to see a vast improvement. That's the sad truth whether you chose to see it or not. There's no objectivity or learning curve among fanboys.

I know this is not a finished product, but don't expect much better from a franchise that doesn't even need to try to improve their products in order for them to sell. You can't make a good game if you just recycle the last year's game and change a few screws. CoD is successful because of good marketing campaign, not because of the quality of the product. If you believe otherwise you're a naive fool. And that's not an opinion, that's a fact.

Or we just buy them to play a quick shooter every now and then for maybe an hour? And how about when games didn't need to be top of the line? Regardless of what you say, the game still looks good. I've always enjoyed these games, even before they were as massively popular as they are. I don't usually sit down for hours on end playing either. It's just a quick 30 minutes and I'm done. And back then in the old days I played on the original Xbox, for multiplayer after the campaign. And it was a hell of a good time. I kinda like how the CoD games look graphically anyway. Not too over the top with realism, still somewhat a comic effect to them. Graphics don't make the game fun. Whether you enjoy sitting down with a game for a little bit is what matters. It's not like it's some completely sh*t N64 graphics, and even then, those games were fun. And the animations are whatever. I'd be happy if they threw in rag doll like they had back in the day though. Because sniping someone when they ran, and watching them do flips through the air was hilarious. Same for explosives and RPGs. I saw more than a few corpses shoot straight up into oblivion and over a building. Those were some good times.

Quit worrying about graphics so much, man. If you enjoy it, then play. If you don't, then don't play.

Why would you spend 60 bucks on the same game every year. Stick with COD MW, or BO. You say you enjoy the simple gameplay, but why buy the same thing over and over again?

OnlineGamer
  • OnlineGamer

    Crackhead

  • BUSTED!
  • Joined: 04 Jun 2011

#74

Posted 15 June 2011 - 09:10 PM Edited by OnlineGamer, 15 June 2011 - 09:12 PM.

Because it's not the same thing over and over again...

That's like saying san andreas was the same as vice city. it's like saying vice city was the same as GTA III.

At their core, they are the same. But they are all good and all different experiences.

I could see if it was all the same maps with new textures or something, but it's an all new single player campaign, spec ops, survival mode, and new maps and remade favorites - it's like saying "Oh, I'm not buying San Andreas because I already have GTA III" in 2004 tounge.gif

Just like there are no choppers or planes in GTA III (no real ones, dodo doesn't count as a plane...) , there are barely any killstreaks and no ability to customize them in MW1. In MW2, look how much MORE game there is to be found than in Cod4. Now imagine that much more game added to MW3... plenty reason to get the new Infinity Ward cod.

I don't play blops, it's broken streaming and bad ported mouse control. IW games are the only ones worth purchase, really.

This is not gta talk, it is an example, and a valid one.

coin-god
  • coin-god

    High Roller

  • $outh $ide Hoodz
  • Joined: 18 Mar 2007
  • None

#75

Posted 15 June 2011 - 09:47 PM

Yeah... I think you have a valid point thre. Although GTA VC and SA are very heavly based on story.... and its totally diferent.
But SA has plenty of new features compared to VC. Im not sure latests COD's have that much of an improvement.

(And not putting IV into discussion)

OnlineGamer
  • OnlineGamer

    Crackhead

  • BUSTED!
  • Joined: 04 Jun 2011

#76

Posted 15 June 2011 - 09:57 PM Edited by OnlineGamer, 15 June 2011 - 10:07 PM.

Well, you have MW1 and MW2, which are vastly different. From controls to customization of class and loadouts and killstreaks, it's totally different.

Treyarch stuff doesn't count and never will, they are just cod 4 mods, and the latest one is broken.

Now you have the next IW game coming, MW3. But I don't know how much will be added!

I know the only good cods (to me) are IW cods.

They said they would have called this engine "IW5" but didn't because it is just "MW3 engine" because they co-built with sledgehammer. So, last time they used a new engine name (mw2), it was a vastly improved experience with extended create a class and much better controls and graphical effects. MW1 was IW3, MW2 was IW4. Treyarch's last two games are IW3. Now MW3 is using the spiritually dubbed "IW5", correctly named "MW3 engine" - it will probably have a lot more enhancements like MW2 did.

Think about this, cause it excites me when I consider it, hopefully it is cool to you too:

I noticed in the helicopter take downs shown that the helicopters/killstreaks explode much more violently now with a lot more effects shown.

Anyway, I wonder if in MP broken killstreaks can land on, and kill, players! That would be so awesome biggrin.gif

fanboy disclaimer: The jury isn't out on this game until it releases, so if I seem like a fanboy, don't worry, I'm not "convinced" until I play it tounge.gif

FullMetal
  • FullMetal

    Non-Retard

  • Feroci
  • Joined: 23 Nov 2004
  • None

#77

Posted 15 June 2011 - 10:21 PM

It'll probably have even more realistic glass... because they got some realistic glass going on in the game, you know very realistic glass in this game.

turn.gif


The Yokel
  • The Yokel

    True Gentleman

  • Members
  • Joined: 30 Mar 2007
  • Jamaica

#78

Posted 15 June 2011 - 10:32 PM

QUOTE (OnlineGamer @ Wednesday, Jun 15 2011, 23:57)
Well, you have MW1 and MW2, which are vastly different.

They are not vastly different. MW2 was just CoD4 overhauled in some aspects and dumbed down in others. And to make things worse, CoD 4 was actually a lot more fun than MW2. It was more balanced and it had dedicated servers and mods. Also the story was a lot better and it was actually finished. There was no need to make a continuation of that story. It only ruined the epic ending of CoD 4. MW2 was a cash-in on a successful CoD4. And MW3 will be a cash-in on MW2 which is quite evident seeing how IW won't bother making dedicated servers again. You can't make a quality game that is vastly improved over the previous one if you just release them on yearly basis. You can have slight improvements, and a good marketing that will tell you how it's a completely different game. Kinda like they did with MW2 and Blops. But in it's core it was completely the same. The only thing that was different was more killstreaks and renamed perks to make the game even dumber (perks and killstreaks ruined CoD by the way). Some perks and killstreaks were changed to give you the illusion of improvement and advancement. But in reality it takes about 30 seconds to come up with all of those "ideas". They don't even bother anymore.
I won't even try to go into details why your GTA analogy is wrong. It's hilarious.

Pat
  • Pat

  • The Connection
  • Joined: 03 Aug 2006
  • None

#79

Posted 16 June 2011 - 12:30 AM

QUOTE (OnlineGamer @ Wednesday, Jun 15 2011, 16:57)
From controls to customization of class and loadouts and killstreaks, it's totally different.

I've played both games, the control scheme was exactly the same, the biggest difference in class customization was the addition of deathstreaks, and there were only a few new perks. Claiming that they're "totally different" is a complete fallacy. Even the other fans of the series have said in here that they buy it because they like the lack of major changes. I don't care if you want to buy the same game over and over, I just find it amusing that you keep trying to argue that you aren't.

d0mm2k8
  • d0mm2k8

    ad infinitum

  • Leone Family Mafia
  • Joined: 06 Jan 2009

#80

Posted 16 June 2011 - 01:37 AM

Since he's bigging up IW for making the best CoD, I think he forgets the fact that IW aren't developing the MW3 MP. I think he also forgets that IW isn't even the same company it used to be, but that's irrelevant since they're only making the campaign (I believe).


Jake
  • Jake

    Vagina Mine

  • $outh $ide Hoodz
  • Joined: 02 Dec 2003

#81

Posted 16 June 2011 - 02:40 AM

Yes we keep buying them because they're the same at their core. And the core game play is what we enjoy. The bonuses to that are some new guns or different variations of old guns and some just same old guns. Different perks and differently balanced perks. Different stats for guns. And just to experience what the flow of the current title will be like in action. And new maps, we all love new maps. Just things like that keep it interesting and flowing when you just play casually or even for hours on end. I still hop on the older CoD games from time to time to enjoy what those games brought to the table. It's all about fun, man. Black Ops had crappier graphics in comparison to MW2, but I still enjoy it for what it is. There's some things I don't like, but that's okay because no game is perfect. It's the fact that I still enjoy playing them for a little bit is what matters. I don't care about paying $60 a year if it keeps me entertained when I feel like killing and getting an adrenaline rush in for the day. And I don't care about the $15 for a map pack every few months either. The only thing I find bullsh*t that they're doing is the Elite subscription feature. I can afford it, but do I really want to pay for it is the problem. I'm thinking nay.

Sauron
  • Sauron

    chillin' like a mega villain

  • The Precinct
  • Joined: 07 Jul 2002

#82

Posted 16 June 2011 - 03:02 AM

Jake's last few posts have summed up my thoughts perfectly.

Bravo fine sir. (Except for the map packs. I refuse to pay $15 for three maps, but that's just me.)

Chinatown Wars
  • Chinatown Wars

    <3 Chris

  • Members
  • Joined: 18 Oct 2009

#83

Posted 16 June 2011 - 03:50 AM

Call of duty elite doesn't sound to bad for me. I mean, of course I'm going to have it the first couple months, but I really don't know what ppl are complaining about. I mean, you get the mappacks free if youre subscribed, no "special maps" are added for elite players, and no extra things besides the ability to upload 30 sec clips and other are added.

OnlineGamer
  • OnlineGamer

    Crackhead

  • BUSTED!
  • Joined: 04 Jun 2011

#84

Posted 16 June 2011 - 05:46 AM Edited by OnlineGamer, 16 June 2011 - 05:52 AM.

QUOTE (Pat @ Thursday, Jun 16 2011, 00:30)
QUOTE (OnlineGamer @ Wednesday, Jun 15 2011, 16:57)
From controls to customization of class and loadouts and killstreaks, it's totally different.

I've played both games, the control scheme was exactly the same, the biggest difference in class customization was the addition of deathstreaks, and there were only a few new perks. Claiming that they're "totally different" is a complete fallacy. Even the other fans of the series have said in here that they buy it because they like the lack of major changes. I don't care if you want to buy the same game over and over, I just find it amusing that you keep trying to argue that you aren't.


Scuse? Control scheme exactly the same? Wrong.

Not that I was even talking about control schemes, BUT It was Q and E for lean, V for knife. Not q flash and e knife. Different weapon select/item use buttons, too.

It was not only different in the buttons, MW2 was vastly superior in smoothness of the controls and mouse look.

One can simply open both games and compare them.

MW2 had secondary slots. Cod4 had only boring sidearms.

And MW2, just like they said, wasn't balanced for lean, poke head out -> get shot through wall. Lean doesn't belong. And lean is useless and slow in black ops.

So much can be said about this, I am actually kinda appalled at how cod4 is defended compared to the MW2 masterpiece, let alone how matter-of-fact some people speak about this series and are actually wrong.

MW2 was vastly different, one need only to play the two to hear the complete difference in sound dynamics, lighting, and smoothness of controls, fluidity of action, agility of your player character, all that stuff. Launch the two games separately.

MW3 is going to be vastly different in the sense that it has improved lighting, effects, much larger levels, and who knows about MP? none of us yet wink.gif

Claude4Catalina
  • Claude4Catalina

    being a fag since '07

  • Members
  • Joined: 13 May 2007

#85

Posted 16 June 2011 - 06:06 AM

saw the secondary slots part, pretty early so having a tl:dr moment, but that was one of my favourtie parts of MW2, being able to carry my ACR ACOG and an M1014, otherwise I would just stick to Holographic's and a 1911 so I can function in close quarters. anybody had any thoughts on what they can see themselves using when it comes out?

Chinatown Wars
  • Chinatown Wars

    <3 Chris

  • Members
  • Joined: 18 Oct 2009

#86

Posted 16 June 2011 - 07:52 AM

P90 rapid fire with aa-12 cool.gif (same class I have in mw2)

tubbs51
  • tubbs51

    Superbowl 48 Champs! GO SEAHAWKS!!

  • Angels of Death MC
  • Joined: 28 Aug 2009
  • None

#87

Posted 16 June 2011 - 08:47 AM

QUOTE (goin-god @ Wednesday, Jun 15 2011, 21:02)
QUOTE (Jake @ Tuesday, Jun 14 2011, 23:38)
QUOTE (GTAvanja @ Tuesday, Jun 14 2011, 17:26)
The only reason why graphics, lightning and textures appear to be better than MW2 is because the map is set in daylight and bloom effect is doing it's job. There's not a single hint of improved graphics and as The-King said the animations are awkward. They walk like crabs. If you look closely you'll see that ground texture is very poor, character textures are extremely bland and they look almost cell-shaded. Gun textures are of the same quality as always. A.I. appears to be non-existent but maybe its just a very low difficulty setting. Not that AI was ever good in a CoD game after CoD 2. Not to mention that most guns sound like underwater farts. But people see what they want to see and they want to see a vast improvement. That's the sad truth whether you chose to see it or not. There's no objectivity or learning curve among fanboys.

I know this is not a finished product, but don't expect much better from a franchise that doesn't even need to try to improve their products in order for them to sell. You can't make a good game if you just recycle the last year's game and change a few screws. CoD is successful because of good marketing campaign, not because of the quality of the product. If you believe otherwise you're a naive fool. And that's not an opinion, that's a fact.

Or we just buy them to play a quick shooter every now and then for maybe an hour? And how about when games didn't need to be top of the line? Regardless of what you say, the game still looks good. I've always enjoyed these games, even before they were as massively popular as they are. I don't usually sit down for hours on end playing either. It's just a quick 30 minutes and I'm done. And back then in the old days I played on the original Xbox, for multiplayer after the campaign. And it was a hell of a good time. I kinda like how the CoD games look graphically anyway. Not too over the top with realism, still somewhat a comic effect to them. Graphics don't make the game fun. Whether you enjoy sitting down with a game for a little bit is what matters. It's not like it's some completely sh*t N64 graphics, and even then, those games were fun. And the animations are whatever. I'd be happy if they threw in rag doll like they had back in the day though. Because sniping someone when they ran, and watching them do flips through the air was hilarious. Same for explosives and RPGs. I saw more than a few corpses shoot straight up into oblivion and over a building. Those were some good times.

Quit worrying about graphics so much, man. If you enjoy it, then play. If you don't, then don't play.

Why would you spend 60 bucks on the same game every year. Stick with COD MW, or BO. You say you enjoy the simple gameplay, but why buy the same thing over and over again?

for the same reason Minecraft is the biggest selling Indie game of all time...

At the end of the day if the game play is awesome (in the players opinion) the graphics could be from the early 1990s...

FullMetal
  • FullMetal

    Non-Retard

  • Feroci
  • Joined: 23 Nov 2004
  • None

#88

Posted 16 June 2011 - 09:31 AM

OnlineGamer: you're actually defending IW and claiming MW2 is the holy grail of FPS gaming and you actually are a PC gamer... and experienced MW2 on the PC?

Seriously, are you f*cking kidding me? No sane person ever told me that MW2 on the PC is a f*cking brilliant product. It's probably the sh*ttiest PC FPS game I've played so far and most likely the only FPS game I regret buying.

MW2 wasn't smooth in any way and they dumbed down the game even more. One thought apart from dumbing down the gameplay so it would cater to 12 year old retards with an attention deficit disorder and allow them to do 'well' at the game it wouldn't be possible to rape the franchise even more. Oh IW/AV could and they bloody will. Remove dedi servers or a decent server hosting system in general and provide IWNET, console like party/lobby bullsh*t that laggs big time and makes the game pretty much unplayable.

Not to mention 'cheater/hacker heaven'. And also remove some features that were pretty much the only advantages and things we PC gamers could enjoy from the game... LEAN.

Seriously, I highly doubt you've ever played any (decent) other FPS game(s) on the PC.

The Yokel
  • The Yokel

    True Gentleman

  • Members
  • Joined: 30 Mar 2007
  • Jamaica

#89

Posted 16 June 2011 - 10:16 AM

QUOTE (fullmetal @ Thursday, Jun 16 2011, 11:31)
OnlineGamer: you're actually defending IW and claiming MW2 is the holy grail of FPS gaming and you actually are a PC gamer... and experienced MW2 on the PC?

Seriously, are you f*cking kidding me? No sane person ever told me that MW2 on the PC is a f*cking brilliant product. It's probably the sh*ttiest PC FPS game I've played so far and most likely the only FPS game I regret buying.

MW2 wasn't smooth in any way and they dumbed down the game even more. One thought apart from dumbing down the gameplay so it would cater to 12 year old retards with an attention deficit disorder and allow them to do 'well' at the game it wouldn't be possible to rape the franchise even more. Oh IW/AV could and they bloody will. Remove dedi servers or a decent server hosting system in general and provide IWNET, console like party/lobby bullsh*t that laggs big time and makes the game pretty much unplayable.

Not to mention 'cheater/hacker heaven'. And also remove some features that were pretty much the only advantages and things we PC gamers could enjoy from the game... LEAN.

Seriously, I highly doubt you've ever played any (decent) other FPS game(s) on the PC.

Ignore him he's a 12 year old idiot. He probably never played any other FPS game on PC. Not a single one. CoD 1 and CoD 2 were awesome on PC. He clearly never played them because he was still sh*tting in his diapers.

d0mm2k8
  • d0mm2k8

    ad infinitum

  • Leone Family Mafia
  • Joined: 06 Jan 2009

#90

Posted 16 June 2011 - 10:38 AM

OnlineGamer is just a PC gamer in the minority opinion. I don't even know why he plays on PC since all the things that make PC gaming great are all missing from MW2.

QUOTE
Scuse? Control scheme exactly the same? Wrong.

Not that I was even talking about control schemes, BUT It was Q and E for lean, V for knife. Not q flash and e knife. Different weapon select/item use buttons, too.

You ever heard of remapping keys? Other than lack of lean, the controls are all accounted for and are exactly the same.

QUOTE
MW2 had secondary slots. Cod4 had only boring sidearms.

The whole secondary slot thing is one thing that makes the game so unbalanced. Just look at people who use their secondary more than their primary because they're often more powerful. It's more interesting having them as secondary but it's terrible for balancing (not that you'd care).




1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users