[QUOTE=jaykray;30028365]You mean you like how it has zero recoil?[/QUOTE]
It also has the lowest DPS of all the assault rifles.
It is easily outclassed by even the M4A1
[QUOTE=TraderRager;30046513][img]http://www.imodernwarfare3.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/05/mw3-weapons-model-1887-shotgun.jpg[/img]
You can cry tears of shame now.[/QUOTE]
wow I just realized "HASTA LA VISTA" is scratched into the latch thing or whatever it is
the thing that ejects the used shells
[QUOTE=TraderRager;30046513]But there wern't even and British characters outside of one level. Which was a flashback.
[editline]25th May 2011[/editline]
[IMG]http://www.imodernwarfare3.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/05/mw3-weapons-model-1887-shotgun.jpg[/IMG]
You can cry tears of shame now.
[editline]25th May 2011[/editline]
Atleast it's a remodel, not just a retexture.[/QUOTE]
hahaha are you fucking kidding me? Oh boy. It has a rail and everything.
[QUOTE=TraderRager;30044364]1. Attempting to assassinate Castro, for thier own needs and desires
2. Willing to work with a former nazi scientist, and attempted mass genocidest.
3. Torturing their own for information
4. Using napalm, a extremely cruel weapon, liberally during Vietnam.
[editline]25th May 2011[/editline]
[sp]o wait that last one happened in real life.[/sp][/QUOTE]
1. They portrayed Castro as a stereotypical Big Bad who was threatening America's super freedom. Hell, you even get an achievement for killing his double.
2. ...The russians were the ones working with Steiner.
3. Making the torture scene interactive makes you feel like a big badass.
4. Except most of the Vietnam levels make it look like America kicked everyone's ass, winning every battle with their one man Sam Worthington armies.
[QUOTE=Mabus;30047030]hahaha are you fucking kidding me? Oh boy. It has a rail and everything.[/QUOTE]
What rails...
[QUOTE=sa2fan;30052696]What rails...[/QUOTE]
Exactly, there are no rails on that gun, the Sight is just a sight, it isn't mounted on a rail.
There wouldn't be any point adding rails on 1887.
[QUOTE=sa2fan;30053905]There wouldn't be any point adding rails on 1887.[/QUOTE]
yes there is the reason is because the gun needs to be 100% tacti1337 or else it isn't good enough for mw3
just look at the new m4 and the lever for the secret spring-out commando knife attachment
I don't get why everyone is bitching about "1337 Tactic00l" guns. We're talking about Modern Warfare here. Of course it's gonna have those and bitching doesn't get you anywhere. I, for one, like that tactic00lness of it to feed my inner 12 year old who thinks war is all about rails and knife attachments.
[QUOTE=Diet Kane;30050070]1. They portrayed Castro as a stereotypical Big Bad who was threatening America's super freedom. Hell, you even get an achievement for killing his double.
2. ...The russians were the ones working with Steiner.
3. Making the torture scene interactive makes you feel like a big badass.
4. Except most of the Vietnam levels make it look like America kicked everyone's ass, winning every battle with their one man Sam Worthington armies.[/QUOTE]
1. No, they didn't. You wer eon a mission rfom the CIA to kill Castro, for no adequet reason other then "He might be a threat."
2. That has nothing to do with anything.
3. So wait, just becuase it was "cool" makes it right?
4. To be fair, WE DID KICK EVERYONES ASS IN VIETNAM. the kill count was somewhere about 30:1, and that bullshit about "america started loosing the war after the tet offensive" is a load of crock cooked up by Hollywood. Read about the Vietnam war, I don't feel like explaining it.
[QUOTE=TraderRager;30046513]But there wern't even and British characters outside of one level. Which was a flashback.
[editline]25th May 2011[/editline]
[img]http://www.imodernwarfare3.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/05/mw3-weapons-model-1887-shotgun.jpg[/img]
You can cry tears of shame now.
[editline]25th May 2011[/editline]
Atleast it's a remodel, not just a retexture.[/QUOTE]
Keyword "sorta" bad.
i don't see what's wrong with rails
i don't even get why you guys care i think the guns look alright
woohoo, can't wait to pay 60 dollars for a game i have already bought several times, and then pay 15 dollars ever few months for a handful of maps that took half an hour to make.
This is gonna be so great guys!
I am legitimately looking forward to this game.
Can't wait to have a blast goofing off with friends just like MW2 :)
[QUOTE=TraderRager;30054160]
4. To be fair, WE DID KICK EVERYONES ASS IN VIETNAM. the kill count was somewhere about 30:1, and that bullshit about "america started loosing the war after the tet offensive" is a load of crock cooked up by Hollywood. Read about the Vietnam war, I don't feel like explaining it.[/QUOTE]
You don't feel like explaining it, ie you're too lazy to back up your statement.
Define "kick everyone's ass". I'll go ahead and assume you mean "neutralize the enemy as a fighting force". Not only did the United States military fail to destroy the NVA or Vietcong as fighting forces, they failed in their ultimate objective of preventing North Vietnam from taking over the South. Did the United States win when Saigon fell? What the hell kind of victory is that?
Tactically speaking, we won many engagements. On a strategic level, we lost. Plain and simple. I wouldn't qualify losing on a strategic scale as "kicking everyone's ass".
[QUOTE=LiquidNazgul;30066703]You don't feel like explaining it, ie you're too lazy to back up your statement.
Define "kick everyone's ass". I'll go ahead and assume you mean "neutralize the enemy as a fighting force". Not only did the United States military fail to destroy the NVA or Vietcong as fighting forces, they failed in their ultimate objective of preventing North Vietnam from taking over the South. Did the United States win when Saigon fell? What the hell kind of victory is that?
Tactically speaking, we won many engagements. On a strategic level, we lost. Plain and simple. I wouldn't qualify losing on a strategic scale as "kicking everyone's ass".[/QUOTE]
We never "strategically lost" so much as we backed out of the war due to overwhelming public outcry to pull out. Purely from a standpoint of military engagements, we never lost a major battle and losses were relatively minimal compared to the enemy.
[QUOTE=Fire Kracker;30055150]i don't see what's wrong with rails
i don't even get why you guys care i think the guns look alright[/QUOTE]
I think the biggest problem is how they seem to try and make the guns look tactic00l by adding rails everywhere and making a shotgun from 1887 black with a red dot sight. It just makes it look overdone. The guns would be nicer if they toned it down a notch.
is it still gonna have chunkyass animations and no ragdolls in multiplayer?
[QUOTE=SoaringScout;30067926]I think the biggest problem is how they seem to try and make the guns look tactic00l by adding rails everywhere and making a shotgun from 1887 black with a red dot sight. It just makes it look overdone. The guns would be nicer if they toned it down a notch.[/QUOTE]
You still see reskinned m1911s everywhere in videogames, does anyone complain about those? No.
And it doesn't have a red dot sight if you look closely, it's just a sight similar to the m1014's.
[QUOTE=Fort83;30068628]the US got creamed in vietnam, but they still say they won in the history books so they don't hurt their own ego. Don't believe the bullshit in your history book, they are written by the victor, or in this case the butthurt loser.[/QUOTE]
Nobody "won" in Vietnam, and never have I read anywhere in my schooling that the US won.
[QUOTE=Fort83;30068628]the US got creamed in vietnam, but they still say they won in the history books so they don't hurt their own ego. Don't believe the bullshit in your history book, they are written by the victor, or in this case the butthurt loser.[/QUOTE]
Ironically "History is written by the victor" is one of the major themes in Modern Warfare 2
:v:
[QUOTE=SoaringScout;30067926]I think the biggest problem is how they seem to try and make the guns look tactic00l by adding rails everywhere and making a shotgun from 1887 black with a red dot sight. It just makes it look overdone. The guns would be nicer if they toned it down a notch.[/QUOTE]
i don't see the problem with rails still though
it makes for easy types of attachments and call of duty isn't a really realistic game
more attachments only means more fun in a game
[QUOTE=SoaringScout;30067926]I think the biggest problem is how they seem to try and make the guns look tactic00l by adding rails everywhere and making a shotgun from 1887 black with a red dot sight. It just makes it look overdone. The guns would be nicer if they toned it down a notch.[/QUOTE]
Rails are for adding attachments, 1887 never had red dot sight.
Yes modern day Russia clearly still uses GP-5s, infinity ward.
[QUOTE=sa2fan;30069914]Rails are for adding attachments, 1887 never had red dot sight.[/QUOTE]
1887 is never used in the present day army.. what's your point.
This game is going to be awesome!!
[QUOTE=Melon_Mapper;30070102]1887 is never used in the present day army.. what's your point.[/QUOTE]
For one, it makes you feel like the fucking Terminator. 2, it's a game, who gives a shit.
[QUOTE=Rammaster;30070143]For one, it makes you feel like the fucking Terminator. 2, it's a game, who gives a shit.[/QUOTE]
Exactly my point.
I guess I should probably make it clearer why Call of Duty is just dumb. It's not a horrible game... well okay, it kinda is.
The main problems with CoD were best illustrated in Duty Calls. First of all, everything just looks so dull. No real color is used. Secondly, the guns are simply generic and bland looking. Sure you could say it's realistic, but when it comes down to it they all looks the fucking same. Third, the characters are pretty one-dimensional. Yeah oh man that looks exciting. Pit this against every game that's been original, such as Half-Life 2, Halo, Team Fortress, and Bulletstorm and you can clearly see the contrast. Third, it tries to be cinematic in the worst way possible. First, let's look at Portal 2. I didn't expect it to have cinematic music or whatever, but goddamn was that game amazing and how the music helped. Then Halo. There's a whole bandwagon of hate (which I'm confused about there's been 4 games and two expansions of which if you knew anything about you'd understand why they're there). Call of Duty pointlessly uses slow-motion every time something interesting happens and it's obvious that they tried too hard to make it look good, and instead you get this scene which looks like some 12-year-old kid edited. All in all this game just shows that the developers haven't really advanced the engine too far, where at the same time Bungie, Valve, Epic, and other have tried making something that doesn't totally look it was made by a bunch of war vets.
[editline]26th May 2011[/editline]
It's a fun game to goof off in apparently.
[QUOTE=cpl bradley;29835175]Breaking news about mw3 in this thread!
[url]http://www.facepunch.com/threads/1088660-Modern-Warfare-3-breaking-news[/url]![/QUOTE]
:vd:
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.
