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

[QUOTE=jbthekid;33555967]This is almost kind of like XboxAhoy, if you know who that is, except you're reviewing perks. Interesting concept.[/QUOTE] It did kind of seem weird he never reviewed perks, they are big enough to actually be able to use up around 5 minutes or so of video why you explain the downsides, and show how the advantages can be used. Even if it was just one video per grouping of perks (red, blue, yellow or whatever the colours are).

Black Ops had a lot of enjoyable, unique weapons. There were a lot of same-y ones in the assault rifle category, sure, but most of MW3's arsenal was in MW2.

[QUOTE=jbthekid;33554219]Information on the "next" Call of Duty. Treyarch is making it, though. I'm happy about that. [url]http://mp1st.com/ads/interstitial.php?oldurl=http://mp1st.com/2011/12/02/treyarch-on-tweaks-for-black-ops-and-next-call-of-duty/[/url][/QUOTE] At least Treyarch actively seek suggestions on how to improve their game unlike IW.

[QUOTE=mastermaul;33556803]Black Ops had a lot of enjoyable, unique weapons. There were a lot of same-y ones in the assault rifle category, sure, but most of MW3's arsenal was in MW2.[/QUOTE] I was actually curious as to how many guns were in MW2 and carried over into MW3, so I went ahead and counted them out. M4, M16, ACR, AK-47. That's 4 out of 10 Assault Rifles. UMP and P90. That's 2 out of 6 SMGs. L86 LSW. That's 1 out of 5 LMGs. Barret 50. Cal and Dragunov (if you count MW2's Single Player.). 2 out of 6 Sniper Rifles. SPAS-12, AA-12, Striker, and the Model 1887. 4 out of 6 Shotguns. Overall, they re-used 13 out of 33 weapons. 14 out of 34 if you count the Riot Shield. That's not even half, so I don't think it's fair to say most of the guns in MW3 were in MW2. [editline]3rd December 2011[/editline] [QUOTE=SteveUK;33557058]At least Treyarch actively seek suggestions on how to improve their game unlike IW.[/QUOTE] That's not really a fair thing to say. Both of the studios have been doing that lately. Treyarch did it on Black Ops, and now Infinity Ward is doing it on MW3. Infinity Ward has been really on the ball as far as patching things and tweaking things goes, in MW3. [editline]3rd December 2011[/editline] Oh shit I forgot secondaries. They re-used 3 out of 4 Machine Pistols. They re-used 3 out of 6 handguns. They re-used 3 out of 6 Launchers. That brings the tally up to... 23 out of 50 weapons re-used between MW2 and MW3. [editline]3rd December 2011[/editline] Still not even half.

[QUOTE=Grim Joker;33557401]I was actually curious as to how many guns were in MW2 and carried over into MW3, so I went ahead and counted them out. M4, M16, ACR, AK-47. That's 4 out of 10 Assault Rifles. UMP and P90. That's 2 out of 6 SMGs. L86 LSW. That's 1 out of 5 LMGs. Barret 50. Cal and Dragunov (if you count MW2's Single Player.). 2 out of 6 Sniper Rifles. SPAS-12, AA-12, Striker, and the Model 1887. 4 out of 6 Shotguns. Overall, they re-used 13 out of 33 weapons. 14 out of 34 if you count the Riot Shield. That's not even half, so I don't think it's fair to say most of the guns in MW3 were in MW2. [editline]3rd December 2011[/editline] That's not really a fair thing to say. Both of the studios have been doing that lately. Treyarch did it on Black Ops, and now Infinity Ward is doing it on MW3. Infinity Ward has been really on the ball as far as patching things and tweaking things goes, in MW3. [editline]3rd December 2011[/editline] Oh shit I forgot secondaries. They re-used 3 out of 4 Machine Pistols. They re-used 3 out of 6 handguns. They re-used 3 out of 6 Launchers. That brings the tally up to... 23 out of 50 weapons re-used between MW2 and MW3. [editline]3rd December 2011[/editline] Still not even half.[/QUOTE] There's a lot of different models of the same gun, that all play nearly the same and look extremely similar. -MP5k - MP5 - SCAR-H - SCAR-L - M14EBR - MK14 (Despite being different weapon catagories) Then different weapons that look and function extremely similarly, such as the Mini Uzi/PM9 and intervention/MSR. Even if the a lot of the weapons aren't technically the same they pretty much all feel the same as they did in MW3, with the exception of a few. Black Ops had the China Lake, G11, Flamethrowers, HS10, Olympia, Crossbow, Ballistic Knife, Minigun, and M202 FLASH. MW3 has the XM25, KSG, FMG9, and FAD. Nothing else really stood out. They're both great games but Black Ops felt more unique when playing it.

[QUOTE=mastermaul;33558282]There's a lot of different models of the same gun, that all play nearly the same and look extremely similar. -MP5k - MP5 - SCAR-H - SCAR-L - M14EBR - MK14 (Despite being different weapon catagories) Then different weapons that look and function extremely similarly, such as the Mini Uzi/PM9 and intervention/MSR. Even if the a lot of the weapons aren't technically the same they pretty much all feel the same as they did in MW3, with the exception of a few. Black Ops had the China Lake, G11, Flamethrowers, HS10, Olympia, Crossbow, Ballistic Knife, Minigun, and M202 FLASH. MW3 has the XM25, KSG, FMG9, and FAD. Nothing else really stood out. They're both great games but Black Ops felt more unique when playing it.[/QUOTE] Black Ops was unique because they just made up guns and attachments, or had things that wouldn't have existed/been available at the time. Black Ops was twice as fictional and unbelievable as any of the MW games, in my opinion. If we're playing the game of 'this feels similar to x'.... China Lake was basically the Thumper from MW2. I mean fuck, reloading it after every shot was actually faster than firing it normally. G11 basically just felt like the M16 that shot faster and had a neat reload. Flamethrowers were exactly the same as they were in World at War, you just had to reload them. HS10 wasn't really that unique. Akimbo shotguns had been done before. The only difference was that the HS10 was semi auto. The Olympia was the same as the double barreled shotgun from World at War. Crossbow was terrible and frustrating to use. Ballistic Knife was neat, I'll give you that one. Minigun wasn't really a new idea, the only thing new about it was that you could use it unmounted in MP, but even then it was rare anyways, M202 FLASH was seriously just a four shot rocket launcher. It was the exact same as, say, the AT4, you could just shoot it four times before reloading. Not a whole lot stood out for me in Black Ops, because I felt like they were trying too hard to be wacky and super-spy-mode to the point where everything was boring in it's wackiness. Black Ops was literally the only Call of Duty game I just stopped playing after three months. I've already spent more time played with MW3 than I ever did with Black Ops.

So you didn't like a call of duty game because it was unrealistic and silly?

[QUOTE=mastermaul;33558399]So you didn't like a call of duty game because it was unrealistic and silly?[/QUOTE] No, it was because I felt like they were focusing on making it unrealistic and silly while at the same time going for a balanced game, and it didn't mix well, because then you had all of these neat guns that were just totally bad and impractical to use. China Lake was terrible, Crossbow was bad, the Flamethrower attachment was basically useless, you could only get the minigun or the M202 if you were using the care package killstreak, the Olympia was terrible, the HS10 was terrible, the Ballistic Knife was terrible too. They packed the game with neat stuff that was horrible, so it hardly ended up being used. It just ended up being another game filled with the same three assault rifles being used, a couple SMGs being used, and that was basically it. Sniping was even worse than it is in MW3, which means all of those original sniper rifles just went unused, and none of the shotguns were really that good either, save the SPAS-12. I mean, it was a good try, they just had two totally different directions they were pulling it. It feels like half of the development team wanted a wacky, fun, unrealistic game, and then the other half wanted a gritty, balanced shooter, and instead of coming to a compromise, it was just this bad, clashing mix. [editline]3rd December 2011[/editline] The issue I have with Treyarch games is that it feels like they're too worried about making big leaps in Call of Duty and doing original things instead of making an actually good game. World at War suffered from horrible balancing issues, and so did Black Ops, but in the sense that only a few guns were worth using because they were okay, and the rest were bad. [editline]3rd December 2011[/editline] Say what you will about Infinity Ward not making any big leaps with Call of Duty, but at least they know pretty much exactly what they're doing, and they do it well. There are only a couple things I see that are wrong with MW3's multiplayer, whereas there was a bunch wrong on the Blops release, and things that are still wrong to this day with World at War.

[QUOTE=Grim Joker;33558555]No, it was because I felt like they were focusing on making it unrealistic and silly while at the same time going for a balanced game, and it didn't mix well, because then you had all of these neat guns that were just totally bad and impractical to use. China Lake was terrible, Crossbow was bad, the Flamethrower attachment was basically useless, you could only get the minigun or the M202 if you were using the care package killstreak, the Olympia was terrible, the HS10 was terrible, the Ballistic Knife was terrible too. They packed the game with neat stuff that was horrible, so it hardly ended up being used. It just ended up being another game filled with the same three assault rifles being used, a couple SMGs being used, and that was basically it. Sniping was even worse than it is in MW3, which means all of those original sniper rifles just went unused, and none of the shotguns were really that good either, save the SPAS-12. I mean, it was a good try, they just had two totally different directions they were pulling it. It feels like half of the development team wanted a wacky, fun, unrealistic game, and then the other half wanted a gritty, balanced shooter, and instead of coming to a compromise, it was just this bad, clashing mix. [editline]3rd December 2011[/editline] The issue I have with Treyarch games is that it feels like they're too worried about making big leaps in Call of Duty and doing original things instead of making an actually good game. World at War suffered from horrible balancing issues, and so did Black Ops, but in the sense that only a few guns were worth using because they were okay, and the rest were bad. [editline]3rd December 2011[/editline] Say what you will about Infinity Ward not making any big leaps with Call of Duty, but at least they know pretty much exactly what they're doing, and they do it well. There are only a couple things I see that are wrong with MW3's multiplayer, whereas there was a bunch wrong on the Blops release, and things that are still wrong to this day with World at War.[/QUOTE] I disagree, half of your complaints or all are either opinionated with no solid evidence that the majority of players disliked them. I loved the cross bow and the ballistic knife for being unique to the series.

In my opinion, all the weapons are pretty balanced. The only thing that iffs me are akimbo FMG9's on short-range encounters considering most maps are pretty short-range.

[QUOTE=Grim Joker;33557401]I was actually curious as to how many guns were in MW2 and carried over into MW3, so I went ahead and counted them out. M4, M16, ACR, AK-47. That's 4 out of 10 Assault Rifles. UMP and P90. That's 2 out of 6 SMGs. L86 LSW. That's 1 out of 5 LMGs. Barret 50. Cal and Dragunov (if you count MW2's Single Player.). 2 out of 6 Sniper Rifles. SPAS-12, AA-12, Striker, and the Model 1887. 4 out of 6 Shotguns. Overall, they re-used 13 out of 33 weapons. 14 out of 34 if you count the Riot Shield. That's not even half, so I don't think it's fair to say most of the guns in MW3 were in MW2. [editline]3rd December 2011[/editline] That's not really a fair thing to say. Both of the studios have been doing that lately. Treyarch did it on Black Ops, and now Infinity Ward is doing it on MW3. Infinity Ward has been really on the ball as far as patching things and tweaking things goes, in MW3. [editline]3rd December 2011[/editline] Oh shit I forgot secondaries. They re-used 3 out of 4 Machine Pistols. They re-used 3 out of 6 handguns. They re-used 3 out of 6 Launchers. That brings the tally up to... 23 out of 50 weapons re-used between MW2 and MW3. [editline]3rd December 2011[/editline] Still not even half.[/QUOTE] Which is even sort of weird. Why would we even have different weapons from one game to another if mw3 continues right after mw2? (thats just to shut up the "hurr rehashed" people)

[QUOTE=dass;33558661]Which is even sort of weird. Why would we even have different weapons from one game to another if mw3 continues right after mw2? (thats just to shut up the "hurr rehashed" people)[/QUOTE] Because the world over is packed with heaps of different weapons. Take a stroll through africa and there will be just as many Lee Enfields and Turkish Mausers as there are Kalashnikov patterns.

[QUOTE=Grim Joker;33558555]No, it was because I felt like they were focusing on making it unrealistic and silly while at the same time going for a balanced game, and it didn't mix well, because then you had all of these neat guns that were just totally bad and impractical to use. China Lake was terrible, Crossbow was bad, the Flamethrower attachment was basically useless, you could only get the minigun or the M202 if you were using the care package killstreak, the Olympia was terrible, the HS10 was terrible, the Ballistic Knife was terrible too. They packed the game with neat stuff that was horrible, so it hardly ended up being used. It just ended up being another game filled with the same three assault rifles being used, a couple SMGs being used, and that was basically it. Sniping was even worse than it is in MW3, which means all of those original sniper rifles just went unused, and none of the shotguns were really that good either, save the SPAS-12. I mean, it was a good try, they just had two totally different directions they were pulling it. It feels like half of the development team wanted a wacky, fun, unrealistic game, and then the other half wanted a gritty, balanced shooter, and instead of coming to a compromise, it was just this bad, clashing mix. [editline]3rd December 2011[/editline] The issue I have with Treyarch games is that it feels like they're too worried about making big leaps in Call of Duty and doing original things instead of making an actually good game. World at War suffered from horrible balancing issues, and so did Black Ops, but in the sense that only a few guns were worth using because they were okay, and the rest were bad. [editline]3rd December 2011[/editline] Say what you will about Infinity Ward not making any big leaps with Call of Duty, but at least they know pretty much exactly what they're doing, and they do it well. There are only a couple things I see that are wrong with MW3's multiplayer, whereas there was a bunch wrong on the Blops release, and things that are still wrong to this day with World at War.[/QUOTE] Actually, sniping was awfull. They tried to fuck up quickscoping, and they ended fucking up sniping altogether. I liked black ops. The only reason I didn't love it was that it was horribly unoptimized full of problems, hit detection was GOD AWFULL (I've "missed" a clear shot straight to some guy's head with the L96 about 3 times in a row in a mysterious way) for a game that has dedicated servers, multiplayer was rather boring after a while since there were those guns that were awesome but all the same and then there were the shitty guns that you were better off not using them, unlock system was more of a hassle then inovative, the cool stuff isn't worth using because its either unpractical as hell or just really hard to get... Don't get me wrong, I enjoyed the game. It was good. But... Its the reason why I'm probably really not getting this next title. Better yet, mw3 might be the last title I bought from the cod franchise... CoD4 was the best for me, has no problems at all. MW2 had the lack of dedicated servers that gives me a huge laggy problem which deems the game unplayable. Black ops sort of saved it with dedicated servers but killed it with the aformentioned problems PLUS how they use an older and worser looking engine (not a huge thing, but oh well) MW3 has the problem that its dedicated servers seem to be rubbish that are nowhere near comparable to cod4's or BO's servers (can't even select custom classes in any of them, wtf) and the multiplayer maps are horrible. Other then that, IW actually did a good job at it. I'm being a bit too picky, but I just can't stand one game's lag and hit detection problems, nor another's shitty respawn system that puts me 50% of the time dying and respawning. I know that they can't get EVERYTHING right, but when they don't get something right, it turns out to be an important aspect for me. Still, they got everything right in cod4 for me. I don't even care about SP/Jugg and any OP stuff, mainly because I can deal with anything easily. [editline]4th December 2011[/editline] [QUOTE=mastermaul;33558780]Because the world over is packed with heaps of different weapons. Take a stroll through africa and there will be just as many Lee Enfields and Turkish Mausers as there are Kalashnikov patterns.[/QUOTE] And then suddenly the MW2 m4 versions get swapped for mw3's m4's? Suddenly PM9's and PP's appear? Deagles suddenly look different? HELL, suddenly ACR's aren't huge anymore?

[QUOTE=The Ultimate;33558613]I disagree, half of your complaints or all are either opinionated with no solid evidence that the majority of players disliked them. I loved the cross bow and the ballistic knife for being unique to the series.[/QUOTE] I like how you just ignored what I said. I didn't say they weren't unique, I said they were bad. If you have a Crossbow or a Ballistic Knife and you're going up against an average player who has an Assault Rifle or an SMG, you will lose, nine times out of ten. Also, I didn't say "Black Ops is terrible and everyone hates it because" I said "I didn't like Black Ops all that much because". Why are you complaining that my opinion is... Opinionated? A+ for reading comprehension.

[QUOTE=Grim Joker;33559142]I like how you just ignored what I said. I didn't say they weren't unique, I said they were bad. If you have a Crossbow or a Ballistic Knife and you're going up against an average player who has an Assault Rifle or an SMG, you will lose, nine times out of ten. Also, I didn't say "Black Ops is terrible and everyone hates it because" I said "I didn't like Black Ops all that much because". Why are you complaining that my opinion is... Opinionated? A+ for reading comprehension.[/QUOTE] ballistic knife was great imo

[QUOTE=Grim Joker;33557401]I was actually curious as to how many guns were in MW2 and carried over into MW3, so I went ahead and counted them out. M4, M16, ACR, AK-47. That's 4 out of 10 Assault Rifles. UMP and P90. That's 2 out of 6 SMGs. L86 LSW. That's 1 out of 5 LMGs. Barret 50. Cal and Dragunov (if you count MW2's Single Player.). 2 out of 6 Sniper Rifles. SPAS-12, AA-12, Striker, and the Model 1887. 4 out of 6 Shotguns. Overall, they re-used 13 out of 33 weapons. 14 out of 34 if you count the Riot Shield. That's not even half, so I don't think it's fair to say most of the guns in MW3 were in MW2. [editline]3rd December 2011[/editline] That's not really a fair thing to say. Both of the studios have been doing that lately. Treyarch did it on Black Ops, and now Infinity Ward is doing it on MW3. Infinity Ward has been really on the ball as far as patching things and tweaking things goes, in MW3. [editline]3rd December 2011[/editline] Oh shit I forgot secondaries. They re-used 3 out of 4 Machine Pistols. They re-used 3 out of 6 handguns. They re-used 3 out of 6 Launchers. That brings the tally up to... 23 out of 50 weapons re-used between MW2 and MW3. [editline]3rd December 2011[/editline] Still not even half.[/QUOTE] Don't forget 50% of the emblems in MW3 are recycled from MW2. (Exaggerating, but there are a good bit) On a side note, I've been using Marksman a lot now and I gotta say, it is absolutely remarkable! I aimed down sight down the hill in Mission, next thing I know 3 names are popping up on my screen and I had no clue those people were anywhere near there. I find it more effective on assault rifles rather than sniper rifles.

So I just unlocked this. [IMG]http://i.imgur.com/PS90y.png[/IMG] "Transfer Transmission complete" How did I unlock this?

Portal 2 ARG

[QUOTE=jbthekid;33559978]Don't forget 50% of the emblems in MW3 are recycled from MW2. (Exaggerating, but there are a good bit) On a side not, I've been using Marksman a lot now and I gotta say, it is absolutely remarkable! I aimed down sight down the hill in Mission, next thing I know 3 names are popping up on my screen and I had no clue those people were anywhere near there. I find it more effective on assault rifles rather than sniper rifles.[/QUOTE] I was actually surprised at how many were re-used. I want my Chick Magnet title back, damn it.

[QUOTE=Niven;33560168]So I just unlocked this. [IMG]http://i.imgur.com/PS90y.png[/IMG] "Transfer Transmission complete" How did I unlock this?[/QUOTE] It's basically just an infection spread by developers. Just like in MW2 with "Pushing Daisies" and that daisy emblem. If someone who has this knifes you, then you will get it. Then, when you knife someone else, you have transferred it to them. Quite neat actually.

[QUOTE=Niven;33560168]So I just unlocked this. [IMG]http://i.imgur.com/PS90y.png[/IMG] "Transfer Transmission complete" How did I unlock this?[/QUOTE]I think thats the one where you get stabbed by someone who also has that title.

Just had my first game with a hacker... was leading pretty hardcore and often zeroed in on you before shooting at you, even without line of sight or UAV. Also, on the topic of BO2, Black Ops was balanced, but I feel like it was overbalanced. Weapon variance had not as significant of an effect as I'd hoped, and even then, some weapons were overall better than the others (FAMAS, AK74U, etc). MW3 is really the same thing, except the maps are all different this time, and IMO they overdid "destroyed" maps. But I like the weapons and overall look of MW3, but as far as recent CoD's go, I'll have to say MW2 is still my favorite. Maps were all lovable, weapons were all lovable, and the occasional hacked game was fun. I just feel like after MW2, the CoD series has lost its "edge" and while the new ones are fun they don't bring anything new to the table. At least Black Ops had extreme fun weapons like the Crossbow and Ballistic Knife.

[QUOTE=jbthekid;33561236]It's basically just an infection spread by developers. Just like in MW2 with "Pushing Daisies" and that daisy emblem. If someone who has this knifes you, then you will get it. Then, when you knife someone else, you have transferred it to them. Quite neat actually.[/QUOTE] That's cool.

Finally got Damage on Model 1887. Worth it and I seem to have formulated a pretty good shotgun class. [editline]4th December 2011[/editline] That guy who made the "Death of PC Gaming MW3" video was in our game hacking like a faggot. I don't understand people who hack... What's the point?

To bring them over to the exbawx version obviously! Or maybe he's shit at aiming on pc and has to use hacks to feel better about himself?

[QUOTE=Lizzrd;33564047]maybe he's shit at aiming on pc[/QUOTE] how is this even possible.

[QUOTE=Raijin;33564217]how is this even possible.[/QUOTE] It's impossible to be bad at aiming on the PC? ... :smith:

Anyone else notice the picture of Cthulhu on the map Resistance?

I probably asked this before but I completely forgot the answer to.. I prestiged in every game but COD4 and WaW. If I prestige in those two, will I be able to get 2 prestige tokens? Or does it not count now?

[QUOTE=PyroCraz3d;33565121]I probably asked this before but I completely forgot the answer to.. I prestiged in every game but COD4 and WaW. If I prestige in those two, will I be able to get 2 prestige tokens? Or does it not count now?[/QUOTE] You only get one token per game for just one prestige.