Aces High Bulletin Board

General Forums => The O' Club => Topic started by: ACE on November 10, 2011, 10:20:57 AM

Title: MW3
Post by: ACE on November 10, 2011, 10:20:57 AM
Probably the best cod I've played. Thoughts?
Title: Re: MW3
Post by: curry1 on November 10, 2011, 12:25:17 PM
I heard it was a $60 map pack.  Basically a refined MW2 so I didn't get it.
Title: Re: MW3
Post by: Krupinski on November 10, 2011, 12:27:17 PM
Letting someone borrow my Xbox.. I'll get back to you.
Title: Re: MW3
Post by: ACE on November 10, 2011, 12:28:37 PM
IMO its quite differnt than Mw2 
Title: Re: MW3
Post by: Wildcat1 on November 10, 2011, 03:27:54 PM
I've heard from many different people that It's garbage, but the story is compelling
Title: Re: MW3
Post by: Spikes on November 10, 2011, 03:33:52 PM
I got it after playing only COD4 and 5. I never played 6 MP. Have it for PC, I like COD4 better. It's more simple.
Title: Re: MW3
Post by: TheRhino on November 10, 2011, 03:47:48 PM
Personnally I've always enjoyed COD2, COD3,4,5 and probably 6 just don't seem to cut it   :old:
Title: Re: MW3
Post by: skorpion on November 10, 2011, 04:19:35 PM
Everything after WaW is crap in the line of CoD.


Battlefield 3 is much better.
Title: Re: MW3
Post by: chaser on November 10, 2011, 04:27:15 PM
I played it for 3.5 hours last night and while it is similar to MW2 there are some differences in it to. Defiantly worth the money :banana:
Title: Re: MW3
Post by: SoonerMP on November 10, 2011, 04:47:56 PM
I enjoy the story mode and the Special Ops levels but the online play is crap in my opinion. Way too much clutter and the game play is way too fast (at least for me). If and when they come out with new maps I would like to see some long range terrain. Also, if they turned the Special Ops Survival mode into 4 player instead of two....  :banana:
Title: Re: MW3
Post by: Soulyss on November 10, 2011, 04:49:16 PM
It needs a new abbreviation, whenever I see "MW3" I think "Mechwarrior 3".

:)
Title: Re: MW3
Post by: curry1 on November 10, 2011, 04:51:54 PM
It needs a new abbreviation, whenever I see "MW3" I think "Mechwarrior 3".

:)


You are too old.
Title: Re: MW3
Post by: PFactorDave on November 10, 2011, 05:01:26 PM
It needs a new abbreviation, whenever I see "MW3" I think "Mechwarrior 3".

:)


That's what I thought too.  Needless to say, I feel disappointed.  :frown:
Title: Re: MW3
Post by: MaSonZ on November 10, 2011, 06:34:01 PM
worth my money? was talking with VansCrew (who is that?) and he had said he isnt so hot on MW3 or BF3... but I am in need of some games for PC or xbox..... dont feel like spending money on one to find out the other is better. also dont feel like spending money to find out its only the story i like.....  :bhead
Title: Re: MW3
Post by: Krupinski on November 10, 2011, 06:46:09 PM
worth my money? was talking with VansCrew (who is that?) and he had said he isnt so hot on MW3 or BF3... but I am in need of some games for PC or xbox..... dont feel like spending money on one to find out the other is better. also dont feel like spending money to find out its only the story i like.....  :bhead

If you get one... BF3 for PC, MW3 for Xbox.
Title: Re: MW3
Post by: Tyrannis on November 10, 2011, 09:03:06 PM
Mw2.5 wasn't a huge letdown for me, because i never expected it to be good in the first place.
Same drawn out COD storyline, with little to no significant improvements to MP.
re skinned kill streaks and gun models. (Sign of laziness).
The official reviews are giving it rave reviews, but the user reviews are tearing it apart.
Wonder how much money activision shelled out to get this dump of a game a 9.0.


BF3 will def win Shooter of the year over this.
Title: Re: MW3
Post by: curry1 on November 10, 2011, 09:14:20 PM
worth my money? was talking with VansCrew (who is that?) and he had said he isnt so hot on MW3 or BF3... but I am in need of some games for PC or xbox..... dont feel like spending money on one to find out the other is better. also dont feel like spending money to find out its only the story i like.....  :bhead

BF3 story was okay but not as good as the first modern warfare (COD 4) its multiplayer is way better then MW3s.
Title: Re: MW3
Post by: M0nkey_Man on November 10, 2011, 09:35:42 PM
BF3 story was okay but not as good as the first modern warfare (COD 4) its multiplayer is way better then MW3s.
I still love cod4 :aok
Title: Re: MW3
Post by: Spikes on November 10, 2011, 09:40:55 PM
COD4 is the best always will be.
Title: Re: MW3
Post by: branch37 on November 10, 2011, 11:21:26 PM
I'll probably end up getting it but not until I've beaten BF3 into the ground. 
Title: Re: MW3
Post by: Hoffman on November 10, 2011, 11:30:30 PM
I enjoy the story mode and the Special Ops levels but the online play is crap in my opinion. Way too much clutter and the game play is way too fast (at least for me). If and when they come out with new maps I would like to see some long range terrain. Also, if they turned the Special Ops Survival mode into 4 player instead of two....  :banana:

Problem is, if the weapons are modeled the same way as MW:1.  They didn't accurately model the ballistics at all.  There's one server on MW:1 that has maps with actual distance on them, after about 4-500 meters the bullets just stop.  They don't drop off, there's no bullet drop at all, they just stop.  :mad:  It's very frustrating having a weapon that can effectively engage targets at over a kilometer, being restricted to 200 meter by 200 meter boxes of close quarter nightmares, and when finally given a map with adequate range to use the damn gun. The round just disappears halfway to the target.

I'm also continually frustrated with move-speed with sights-up on weapons like the M4 being as ridiculously slow as it is.  I can move at a decent pace while aiming with an MP-5 and iron sights; but not with an M4 and a reflex sight?
It's almost as bad as the glaring balancing that DICE did with weapon recoil in BF 2.  Model the damn weapon with what it's capable of doing in the hands of a trained operator in the real world. (Y'know like what we're supposed to be ingame.) Not as wielded by an asthmatic 12 year old who's 80 pounds overweight. Nothing infuriates me more than seeing someone open up full auto with an AK-47 @ 200 meters and having the same accuracy as an M-16.

After MW 2, I was done with CoD.

As far as the BF series goes... their only good game was 2142.  Because that's the only game where they couldn't F*** up real world weapons and capabilities for the sake of "balance".  1942, BF 2, and BF 3 are complete crap IMO.  Nothing infuriated me more in BF 2 than firing point blank into the rear of a T-series tank... what'd they use? The T-80? With an Abrams and not instantly turning it into a scrap heap. Or worse, him being able to kill me after the mentioned rear-shot on him, because he had someone with a blowtorch zapping his treads. :huh



My Shooter of the Year goes to Space Marine.  Because I don't need a gun, I can just jump in with a Thunder Hammer and smash things into paste.
If you're going to have ridiculous capabilities. Do it in a setting that doesn't crap all over what real equipment is capable of.
Title: Re: MW3
Post by: Reschke on November 10, 2011, 11:41:45 PM
Seriously considering getting rid of my BF3 for PC...don't know if I can or not yet but I haven't played it that much and I really don't want to play it. Hell I haven't even activated the LE stuff for it yet.
Title: Re: MW3
Post by: Vudu15 on November 11, 2011, 01:07:36 AM
 It sux.........I liked cod4 and MW2 but this is the same thing all over again. No changes cept a few guns and some other goofy add ons.
Title: Re: MW3
Post by: Gaidin on November 11, 2011, 08:10:36 AM
I miss the squad based single player games like Rainbow 6 and Ghost recon!

Whatever happened to them :P

Oh and the old SWAT games :P
Title: Re: MW3
Post by: MaSonZ on November 11, 2011, 08:19:01 AM
I miss the squad based single player games like Rainbow 6 and Ghost recon!

Whatever happened to them :P

Oh and the old SWAT games :P
them were fun games. much more interactive too. even the new MOH is almost more interactive then COD...
Title: Re: MW3
Post by: LCADolby on November 11, 2011, 09:09:57 AM
I have it on xbox. All I found were that the Single player is as always relatively good quality but the graphics and gameplay are no better than the last CoD. I find that the lack of significant improvement makes for a very samey game to the last CoD.
As for the multiplayer I find that the maps are ever getting smaller and more cluttered than previous games. The smallness of the maps may be good for the ADD suffering Halo style dirtbags of the gaming would but for me as a tactical shooter type of guy the pace of the gameplay and opportunity for the respawn system to place you right infront of an enemies guns or place a respawning enemy at your back, serves constant frustration and irritation on my end.
CoD4 is still the best in the series by far, as far as whole package go.
Best FPS ever still goes to ARMA II (even if the voice acting is like a 7th year/grade amateur play)
Title: Re: MW3
Post by: branch37 on November 11, 2011, 12:17:37 PM
I have it on xbox. All I found were that the Single player is as always relatively good quality but the graphics and gameplay are no better than the last CoD. I find that the lack of significant improvement makes for a very samey game to the last CoD.
As for the multiplayer I find that the maps are ever getting smaller and more cluttered than previous games. The smallness of the maps may be good for the ADD suffering Halo style dirtbags of the gaming would but for me as a tactical shooter type of guy the pace of the gameplay and opportunity for the respawn system to place you right infront of an enemies guns or place a respawning enemy at your back, serves constant frustration and irritation on my end.
CoD4 is still the best in the series by far, as far as whole package go.
Best FPS ever still goes to ARMA II (even if the voice acting is like a 7th year/grade amateur play)

This exactly has been my #1 complaint with the COD games.  While the single player story is good and easy to get into, once you beat it, all that is left is the mindless run and gun multiplayer. 
Title: Re: MW3
Post by: Bodhi on November 14, 2011, 05:35:35 PM
I have both for PC.

The learning curve on BF3 is brutal.  MW3 is a bit easier to pick up. 
Maps, for close in slug matches, definitely MW3 otherwise it is all BF3 and the huge maps it has.
Game play.  Depends on what you are into, macro or micro.
Availability of anti-hacks.  BF3 all the way.  MW3 is already overrun with hacks.
Vehicles.  BF3
Online matching.  MW3

Right now I give the edge to BF3, although I am not a huge fan of it.  Personally I am disappointed in the long term playability of MW3.  BF3 does not interest me much either.
Title: Re: MW3
Post by: SmokinLoon on November 14, 2011, 08:09:16 PM
Problem is, if the weapons are modeled the same way as MW:1.  They didn't accurately model the ballistics at all.  There's one server on MW:1 that has maps with actual distance on them, after about 4-500 meters the bullets just stop.  They don't drop off, there's no bullet drop at all, they just stop.  :mad:  It's very frustrating having a weapon that can effectively engage targets at over a kilometer, being restricted to 200 meter by 200 meter boxes of close quarter nightmares, and when finally given a map with adequate range to use the damn gun. The round just disappears halfway to the target.

I'm also continually frustrated with move-speed with sights-up on weapons like the M4 being as ridiculously slow as it is.  I can move at a decent pace while aiming with an MP-5 and iron sights; but not with an M4 and a reflex sight?
It's almost as bad as the glaring balancing that DICE did with weapon recoil in BF 2.  Model the damn weapon with what it's capable of doing in the hands of a trained operator in the real world. (Y'know like what we're supposed to be ingame.) Not as wielded by an asthmatic 12 year old who's 80 pounds overweight. Nothing infuriates me more than seeing someone open up full auto with an AK-47 @ 200 meters and having the same accuracy as an M-16.

After MW 2, I was done with CoD.

As far as the BF series goes... their only good game was 2142.  Because that's the only game where they couldn't F*** up real world weapons and capabilities for the sake of "balance".  1942, BF 2, and BF 3 are complete crap IMO.  Nothing infuriated me more in BF 2 than firing point blank into the rear of a T-series tank... what'd they use? The T-80? With an Abrams and not instantly turning it into a scrap heap. Or worse, him being able to kill me after the mentioned rear-shot on him, because he had someone with a blowtorch zapping his treads. :huh



My Shooter of the Year goes to Space Marine.  Because I don't need a gun, I can just jump in with a Thunder Hammer and smash things into paste.
If you're going to have ridiculous capabilities. Do it in a setting that doesn't crap all over what real equipment is capable of.

Just curious, but have you ever been in the military (combat MOS), or had any LEO or tactical training? 
Title: Re: MW3
Post by: Devil 505 on November 14, 2011, 11:44:51 PM
(http://i241.photobucket.com/albums/ff252/DropkickYankees/call_of_duty_comic.jpg)
Title: Re: MW3
Post by: Yeager on November 15, 2011, 01:16:04 AM
You are too old.
youth is fleeting.  enjoy it.  I sure as hell did.