Call of Duty v9 - Still not as shit as BF3! - Games

oh sweet jeebus

[QUOTE=Grim Joker;33502095]Ten dollars IW will patch it. They patched hacked lobbies in less than a day. This is probably even easier to patch. They just need to find out what the Triangle/Y Button does while prone and scoped with a sniper, and disable it. [editline]29th November 2011[/editline] In fact someone probably already sent that youtube video to them, or brought it to their attention. Even the guy in the video says it's probably gonna get patched in the future.[/QUOTE] It's already been patched, you win that bet. Dumb people will just continue to post stuff like this on YouTube. Not really dumb, but a lot of people post it to tell everyone, not to warn the developers. Hopefully IW continues with the constant security/bans in MW3. They just completely let things get out of hand in MW2.

[QUOTE=jbthekid;33502214]It's already been patched, you win that bet. Dumb people will just continue to post stuff like this on YouTube. Not really dumb, but a lot of people post it to tell everyone, not to warn the developers. Hopefully IW continues with the constant security/bans in MW3. They just completely let things get out of hand in MW2.[/QUOTE] The guy didn't seem like he was being a douche about it. He even told people at the end to not abuse it too much, and that it would probably get patched. He was just sharing something he found.

[QUOTE=Grim Joker;33496292]They were trying to make the game seem quick and frantic, but I think they overshot it a little. It's already been basically confirmed that they're bringing back a couple MW2 maps (I think Highrise is one of them, which was a pretty good map.) and they'll probably bring back a few CoD4 maps too.[/QUOTE] Probably my favourite, and the best map IMO. Also the very first one I played in MW2 with the grenadier class. Now that you mention it, MW2 maps are pretty good. Even favela can be better then MW3's maps, because as you said, they exaggerated in making the game seem quick and frantic with all the maze-like passages. They don't have enough open fields with smaller obstacles or walls, its like being in a small maze with 2m walls. The only map I REALLY like is outpost. They did it just right. At least its somewhat more concentrated on team work. You can't camp alone and win against everyone, but if you and everyone camps in the same place, they'll fuck you up for quite a while. Goddamn I hate the FMG's, yet, they are soo good. They require no skill whatsoever, just point and click randomly at people. Really needs to have a serious nerf, to the point of making it useless without steady aim.

[QUOTE=Darkslicer;33490096]Ok I have played this game MP normally till lvl 61 now... New goal: Piss as much people off as you can by playing things they don't like. -Real Sniping with "camping" and the hardest metal "hardscoping" on this world -Putting claymores on campers -Killing all their air support -Shield with quick weapon switch and dual pistols with better aiming from the hip (damn this works good, the animation does not even come that fast :v: you already shoot while the gun is still beeing drawn from your pockets) need more tactics, overlord m60 and shield on back.[/QUOTE] Play riotshield on kill confirmed, run around and steal everyone's tags. People hate the riot shield, no matter how much it sucks.

[QUOTE=mastermaul;33503690]Play riotshield on kill confirmed, run around and steal everyone's tags. People hate the riot shield, no matter how much it sucks.[/QUOTE] You get +50 even if someone else picks up a tag from someone you killed, so really he'd be super helpful to the team while doing that. Robert Bowling mentioned that it's a really good strategy to have one or two guys with assault rifles or LMGs and then one guy with a riot shield, blast shield, and marathon on Kill Confirmed. You really pull in the tags.

[QUOTE=Grim Joker;33498887]The only reason Call of Duty 4 is celebrated as the 'best' Call of Duty was because it was fresh and innovative. From a pure gameplay perspective it had some really staggering balance issues. Stopping Power and Juggernaut were really the only two perks worth taking, and even then, Juggernaut was arguably worse than Stopping Power. Bandolier was also the clear-cut best choice for blue perks. Steady Aim or Extreme Conditioning were probably the only great Green perks. Some of the maps were poorly designed, and the Helicopter you get for a mere seven kill streak would utterly dominate a team since there was no real way to shoot one down, short of your gun. The M16 was one of the best guns in the game and you got it right off the bat. The M4 and the AK basically dominated the full auto assault rifle choices, and to be honest all of the others were kind of forgettable. Shotguns were really underpowered and were only good on about one or two maps. Submachine guns were also kind of bad, except for the P90, which was kind of crazy good. You also got the best sniper, the M40, as soon as you unlocked create a class. The only thing you ever really had to work for was Bandolier, seeing as how the rest of the stuff you got instantly was some of the best stuff in the game. Don't get me wrong, I loved CoD4 and I have a lot of fond memories of it, but looking back on it, it suffered from a lot of issues that are kind of unacceptable by today's standards, and I think people are seeing it through nostalgia glasses quite a bit. [editline]29th November 2011[/editline] Oh also every single map was so fucking easy to camp on it was kind of insane.[/QUOTE] Even with all those issues, it seems like the best cod to me. I didn't play the early ones before MW (nope, because I'm tired of even hearing about nazis, I even prefer the generic russians/terroristsfrommiddleeast) but cod4 took the prize for me in just about every way. Story, gameplay, multiplayer... Everything is simple, solid, in place... And then the MP has that side-to-side thing instead of everyone randomly spreaded through the map.

I like all CoD's for different reasons, though I'd be lying if I said I didn't have a favorite which is Black Ops. Unique setting, almost perfectly balanced gameplay. The killstreaks were annoying and pro'ing some perks was just an exercise in frustration but it's still my favorite.

[QUOTE=Raidyr;33504135]I like all CoD's for different reasons, though I'd be lying if I said I didn't have a favorite which is Black Ops. Unique setting, almost perfectly balanced gameplay. The killstreaks were annoying and pro'ing some perks was just an exercise in frustration but it's still my favorite.[/QUOTE] I liked Black Ops, but it was kind of boring to me. It didn't take any risks, it always was playing it safe. Except for the currency system, but that fucking sucked.

Yeah, I know I'm in a pretty clear minority but I still liked it. Also it did have some unique weapons like the G11, which I absolutely adored.

So, yesterday I bought CoD 4. It's my first online CoD experience, and I've got to say, screw people who call this game bad. I had loads of fun.

Black Ops could had been better, People dont give treyarch much credit. I liked the Point Credit system. I think it would had worked better in MW3, or at least let you be able to select what you want to unlock first like the streaks.

[QUOTE=Highwind017;33505070]Black Ops could had been better, People dont give treyarch much credit. I liked the Point Credit system. I think it would had worked better in MW3, or at least let you be able to select what you want to unlock first like the streaks.[/QUOTE] Mainly because they sort of colour out of the lines, but end up doing it somewhat badly. Performance on PC was bad. Although I did have fun with the game. [editline]30th November 2011[/editline] [QUOTE=Gordon Sargent;33505011]So, yesterday I bought CoD 4. It's my first online CoD experience, and I've got to say, screw people who call this game bad. I had loads of fun.[/QUOTE] CoD4 master race :v: Gotta play it some day, but I've been only on MW3 using dat sexy MP7 or on Skyrim, and when I'm not on those, its "bed" time for me because my chair is unconfortable as hell and my room is cold as Siberia, and after a long day of work you just want to get into a warm confy bed until you fall asleep.

I installed CoD4 a couple months ago but the server browser just didn't work. Then BF3 came out and I kinda forgot about it :v:

[QUOTE=Highwind017;33505070]Black Ops could had been better, People dont give treyarch much credit. I liked the Point Credit system. I think it would had worked better in MW3, or at least let you be able to select what you want to unlock first like the streaks.[/QUOTE] black ops was pretty terrible IMO it still runs like ass with everything turned down and my config manually tweaked, and MW3 runs fine. all the assault rifles had literally no variance aside from "high recoil, high damage, burst", they shared iron sights a bit, the maps sucked, the cash system was a letdown and zombies IMO isn't as fun as spec ops. that's what I liked about Modern Warfare, they change things, some are OP, some are UP and it sounds like bullshit but for me it adds to the fun factor. Sniper FAL shotgun, dual G18s, tactical knife care packaging, etc.

[QUOTE=Grim Joker;33502228]The guy didn't seem like he was being a douche about it. He even told people at the end to not abuse it too much, and that it would probably get patched. He was just sharing something he found.[/QUOTE] Well now apparently it wasn't patched. I was just told so. Also, who is going to take the time to only carry a sniper just to do that glitch? I don't think it will be abused [I]that[/I] much. I know I won't be using it. [editline]30th November 2011[/editline] [QUOTE=Highwind017;33505070]Black Ops could had been better, People dont give treyarch much credit. I liked the Point Credit system. I think it would had worked better in MW3, or at least let you be able to select what you want to unlock first like the streaks.[/QUOTE] You know I hated Black Ops during its prime, but now that I've played MW3 a good bit I appreciate Black Ops for what it is. I like Treyarch more than IW. It felt like Treyarch did more to improve their game as in they were faster at fixing glitches and hackers.

[QUOTE=jbthekid;33506466]Well now apparently it wasn't patched. I was just told so. Also, who is going to take the time to only carry a sniper just to do that glitch? I don't think it will be abused [I]that[/I] much. I know I won't be using it. [editline]30th November 2011[/editline] You know I hated Black Ops during its prime, but now that I've played MW3 a good bit I appreciate Black Ops for what it is. I like Treyarch more than IW. It felt like Treyarch did more to improve their game as in they were faster at fixing glitches and hackers.[/QUOTE] My main gripe was that they where just too balance happy. But even still they asked the community, they wanted weapons balanced and they did just that. Both need to sort out their bloody lag issues though, How much is it to have dedicated servers on consoles, really? Heck, Battlefield even has a fricking server browser on consoles. The last game i found on consoles that had a server browser was Metal Gear Online on the PS3. Although they werent dedicated servers... should have though, considering how lag sensitive that game was. Im sure they could afford them. But, typical Activision doesnt want to spend more money on an already half arsed game. Greedy fucks.

[QUOTE=Highwind017;33506545]My main gripe was that they where just too balance happy. But even still they asked the community, they wanted weapons balanced and they did just that. Both need to sort out their bloody lag issues though, How much is it to have dedicated servers on consoles, really? Heck, Battlefield even has a fricking server browser on consoles. The last game i found on consoles that had a server browser was Metal Gear Online on the PS3. Although they werent dedicated servers... should have though, considering how lag sensitive that game was. Im sure they could afford them. But, typical Activision doesnt want to spend more money on an already half arsed game. Greedy fucks.[/QUOTE] Yeah, you'd think Activision out of everybody would be the ones to have dedicated servers. It's really just a shit load of money on their part. (Not like they don't have it) But they'd probably have to install dedicated servers into the last 5 CoDs. That's a ton of money, considering that CoD4 and WaW are essentially dead almost. Maybe they'll just make the next CoD with dedicated servers. But you shouldn't expect anything fair or that makes sense from them. They're just .... Activision.

[url]http://www.rankupxp.com/?or=dewxp[/url] EB6BKS6V6E free double xp for one of you console players

Used.... IDENTIFY YOURSELF!

[QUOTE=Highwind017;33506545]My main gripe was that they where just too balance happy. But even still they asked the community, they wanted weapons balanced and they did just that. Both need to sort out their bloody lag issues though, How much is it to have dedicated servers on consoles, really? Heck, Battlefield even has a fricking server browser on consoles. The last game i found on consoles that had a server browser was Metal Gear Online on the PS3. Although they werent dedicated servers... should have though, considering how lag sensitive that game was. Im sure they could afford them. But, typical Activision doesnt want to spend more money on an already half arsed game. Greedy fucks.[/QUOTE] Actually... They are monopolizing their own game, by making it as closed as they can to modding, so people don't make maps and gamemodes and stuff for it and make it famous. In other words, yes, Activision is full of greedy fucks that as soon as they saw the success in cod4 and the rest, they changed their business role model and "nerfed" game features to narrow down ways for people to "exploit" them and make something new. [editline]30th November 2011[/editline] [QUOTE=jbthekid;33506948]Yeah, you'd think Activision out of everybody would be the ones to have dedicated servers. It's really just a shit load of money on their part. (Not like they don't have it) But they'd probably have to install dedicated servers into the last 5 CoDs. That's a ton of money, considering that CoD4 and WaW are essentially dead almost. Maybe they'll just make the next CoD with dedicated servers. But you shouldn't expect anything fair or that makes sense from them. They're just .... Activision.[/QUOTE] Cod4 isn't dead. Its actually very alive, and has many servers.

[QUOTE=dass;33510793]Actually... They are monopolizing their own game, by making it as closed as they can to modding, so people don't make maps and gamemodes and stuff for it and make it famous. In other words, yes, Activision is full of greedy fucks that as soon as they saw the success in cod4 and the rest, they changed their business role model and "nerfed" game features to narrow down ways for people to "exploit" them and make something new. [editline]30th November 2011[/editline] Cod4 isn't dead. Its actually very alive, and has many servers.[/QUOTE] Uh, I don't know about you, but I don't really want dedicated servers on my console, personally. When I play Call of Duty I just want to play a quick game, or jump right into it quickly. I don't want to have to search for a server that isn't empty, isn't full, isn't running Search and Destroy/Hardcore, and doesn't have half of the weapons locked. That's how it is with servers on PC, so I think I'll stick to just matchmaking, thanks. CoD4 is definitely alive, but don't expect much other than modified gametypes/maps, Hardcore gametypes, and Search and Destroy. That's really all it is these days.

[QUOTE=Grim Joker;33510913]Uh, I don't know about you, but I don't really want dedicated servers on my console, personally. When I play Call of Duty I just want to play a quick game, or jump right into it quickly. I don't want to have to search for a server that isn't empty, isn't full, isn't running Search and Destroy/Hardcore, and doesn't have half of the weapons locked. That's how it is with servers on PC, so I think I'll stick to just matchmaking, thanks. CoD4 is definitely alive, but don't expect much other than modified gametypes/maps, Hardcore gametypes, and Search and Destroy. That's really all it is these days.[/QUOTE] I don't even have a console, and I prefer dedi servers because of the shitty hosts I usually get. I always find some nice TDM only servers around in cod4. They've been around for a while, but they are still going strong.

Kinda makes me sad that there is still no ability to change fov for pc. Can't really say I actually expected any updates but this low fov gives me motion sickness.

[QUOTE=RaDiVaX;33511109]Kinda makes me sad that there is still no ability to change fov for pc. Can't really say I actually expected any updates but this low fov gives me motion sickness.[/QUOTE] Are you one of those people who play TF2 with the view models to the point where you can see the cuttoff? COD has amazing V_model positioning, I don't see the problem.

[QUOTE=RaDiVaX;33511109]Kinda makes me sad that there is still no ability to change fov for pc. Can't really say I actually expected any updates but this low fov gives me motion sickness.[/QUOTE] Huh I must have some pretty great eyes... Tv all my life, 7 years gaming from PS1 through GBC/advance/DS, PC and PS2 and who knows what more, never got any headaches from actually playing a game (only from being tired from something else the day before or weather related like heat) and I can still see perfectly fine and no games ever fuck up my eyes or give me anything. The only game where I squirm is Skyrim, but thats because my screen is one of those old 17" TFT square monitors, small as fuck, and have to sweep the mouse like 5 times to gently look to the side. Feels like I'm a horse with those things on the side of their heads so they don't see things by their sides. And still, this isn't any sort of really bad thing or bad feeling or sickness. Personally, I think people whine too much about the fov thing. I don't know how it is, but thats just my opinion. It seems people complain about it far too much and that their complaints aren't even true most of the times.

[QUOTE=Niven;33501732]Hey guys. I hate the Type 95.[/QUOTE] [QUOTE=Vmonkey;33501745]Hey guys. I hate the FMG9's with the Akimbo attachment.[/QUOTE] I use them both :v:

[QUOTE=dass;33513014]Huh I must have some pretty great eyes... Tv all my life, 7 years gaming from PS1 through GBC/advance/DS, PC and PS2 and who knows what more, never got any headaches from actually playing a game (only from being tired from something else the day before or weather related like heat) and I can still see perfectly fine and no games ever fuck up my eyes or give me anything. The only game where I squirm is Skyrim, but thats because my screen is one of those old 17" TFT square monitors, small as fuck, and have to sweep the mouse like 5 times to gently look to the side. Feels like I'm a horse with those things on the side of their heads so they don't see things by their sides. And still, this isn't any sort of really bad thing or bad feeling or sickness. Personally, I think people whine too much about the fov thing. I don't know how it is, but thats just my opinion. It seems people complain about it far too much and that their complaints aren't even true most of the times.[/QUOTE] Just because you've managed to play old games, with low FOVs (hint: older shooters have pretty high FOV), on various consoles and computers for years doesn't mean there isn't a problem. It doesn't mean you have great eyes either, I've done the same throughout my life too (longer than your 7 years too). If you always play with a low FOV you adjust to it, and your eyes start to focus on it better. Having a low FOV isn't a problem when sat a good distance away from a screen, but when you get nearer you want a larger FOV to actually be able to emulate what you would see. Imagine your screen as a window into a 3D world, not the 2D plane it shows. Sitting further back, you are going to see less to the sides, sitting closer you are going to have a higher periphery. This is why having a higher FOV when close to a screen is advantageous, and lowers the problem of motion sickness caused by low FOV in some people. The FOV you see on a console is around 60-70 degrees, which at the distances you are meant to sit is great, your eyes can focus on it naturally. On a average PC game the FOV defaults to around 70-80, that extra 10 degrees allows your eyes to focus much more comfortably at the closer range. Now if you look at people who play PC games with a FOV of around 90 (which is great for the distance you sit from a monitor, plus it doesn't stretch the fuck out of the game or show viewmodel errors). Going into a game like MW3 where the FOV is locked to something low like 65 is really going to fuck with your perception of motion. Crank it up a notch or old school Quake players who used stupid FOVs like 120, and it just gets so much worse. It's nothing to do with your eyes being "better", and is an objective thing. If you have grown up with low FOV you tend to have fewer problems, monitor size, previous experience and distance all play factors into if you are going to suffer any problems with FOV changes.

[QUOTE=dass;33510793]Actually... They are monopolizing their own game, by making it as closed as they can to modding, so people don't make maps and gamemodes and stuff for it and make it famous. In other words, yes, Activision is full of greedy fucks that as soon as they saw the success in cod4 and the rest, they changed their business role model and "nerfed" game features to narrow down ways for people to "exploit" them and make something new. [editline]30th November 2011[/editline] Cod4 isn't dead. Its actually very alive, and has many servers.[/QUOTE] Sorry, I shouldn't say dead. It's not as active as it used to be though, definitely.

[media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iOokn3_dwuQ&feature=channel_video_title[/media] M16 is pretty good imo. I got 3 more kills after the clip ended, right after I got shot, but because MW3 doesn't allow 30+ second videos... I started the clip earlier than I wanted and ended it earlier than I wanted.