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

MW3 just didn't give me the buzz that Black Ops did. Whenever it was close to the end of school, my friends and I would sneak out to the lockers to organize what we would do on Black Ops. But now, it's just "Are you gonna play MW3 tonight? No? That's fine, I'll be playing (Skyrim/Saints Row The Third/BF3/Gears of War 3/Killing Floor/Portal/Whatever)"

What competition did Black Ops have upon release? Honestly i don't know i'm just asking assuming there wasn't much, there's your answer

[QUOTE=Vmonkey;33663751]I may get a gold AK just because i can then feel like an African Warlord everytime i play as them But most definitely solidified the SCAR-L Silenced as my absolute favorite gun to use.[/QUOTE] Yeah, I'm going back and forth between the silenced CM901 and silenced SCAR as my favorite guns

Holy shit fuck off FMG9 akimbo. Juggernaut with full health, dead before I can even turn around.

[QUOTE=Grim Joker;33660267]What's your obsession with getting golden guns? Half of them are ugly and nobody really gives a shit when you're running around with a gold gun. It's really kind of a silly think to be working at so hard.[/QUOTE] Maybe he just likes to achieve small time goals. You gotta do something in the game. Not everyone wants to show off a gold gun, considering in MW3 they're easy to get.

Half way to Gold on the M16. Only 45000 exp and I'm done. Gonna finish it tomorrow though. I might even be able to get SCAR-H to gold tomorrow, considering my SCAR is level 19 or 20 or something along those lines. I may also get started on the CM901.

[QUOTE=jbthekid;33665828]Maybe he just likes to achieve small time goals. You gotta do something in the game. Not everyone wants to show off a gold gun, considering in MW3 they're easy to get.[/QUOTE] But, he's bitching about how hard it is to gold certain guns. If you're going to set a goal for yourself, set a goal that you are actually going to enjoy achieving. Like, my goal right now is to get the HYBRID Sight for the Mk. 14, and then get to the next prestige and get another custom class. Like, it's a game. People are saying it's a chore to play. If you aren't having fun, don't do it. Nobody is forcing you to do it. It is purely for your enjoyment. If you're not enjoying yourself, you may as well not be playing.

[QUOTE=Grim Joker;33666279]But, he's bitching about how hard it is to gold certain guns. If you're going to set a goal for yourself, set a goal that you are actually going to enjoy achieving. Like, my goal right now is to get the HYBRID Sight for the Mk. 14, and then get to the next prestige and get another custom class. Like, it's a game. People are saying it's a chore to play. If you aren't having fun, don't do it. Nobody is forcing you to do it. It is purely for your enjoyment. If you're not enjoying yourself, you may as well not be playing.[/QUOTE] I mean every person plays for their own reasons. People play for fun, people play just to play, people play to compete. There's all types of players. Personally, I play just to play. I have some fun during that time but when I get off, it's just a game after all you know? I didn't know he was bitching about it either.

[QUOTE=Grim Joker;33666279]But, he's bitching about how hard it is to gold certain guns. If you're going to set a goal for yourself, set a goal that you are actually going to enjoy achieving. Like, my goal right now is to get the HYBRID Sight for the Mk. 14, and then get to the next prestige and get another custom class. Like, it's a game. People are saying it's a chore to play. If you aren't having fun, don't do it. Nobody is forcing you to do it. It is purely for your enjoyment. If you're not enjoying yourself, you may as well not be playing.[/QUOTE] I'm not bitching how hard it is to get gold on certain guns. I just said how hard it is to use the M16, but I solved that problem and I almost have gold already. Shotguns, yeah, they're a bitch to get. I may even just skip most of them besides the striker.

Already over MW3, black ops lasted 9 months for me, this lasts me a few weeks. Can't wait for the next Treyarch COD.

Probably just CoD in general seeing as the games are the fucking same.

Single player was fun I guess. It was nice to finally finished the story. Spec ops is spec ops really. Always fun with a friend or just to shit around on. But goddamn MW3's multiplayer is so boring. I've been playing the same thing for 4 years now and i've finally gotten sick of it. Hopefully they mix things up with the next Call of Duty.

There's always the option of moving to a new game. Call of Duty will be the same as long as it's being made, you should know that from the past 5 releases all being the same.

[QUOTE=Rhodry;33668687]There's always the option of moving to a new game. Call of Duty will be the same as long as it's being made, you should know that from the past 5 releases all being the same.[/QUOTE] CoD 1 and 2 were basically identical as far as multiplayer goes. The only thing that changed was the health system. CoD3 introduced Killstreaks, and that's it, I believe. CoD4 changed a bunch of stuff around. WaW was basically WW2 CoD4 MW2 changed quite a bit. It changed around the entire killstreak system, along with adding the playercard system, changing what weapons did what, adding new weapon classes entirely. It was a pretty big change from CoD4, really. Black Ops followed MW2 pretty closely, but added in a bunch of new tweaks to balance the game out, and also changed the timeframe. It also let players customize their appearance, to a degree. The biggest change was the currency system, which let you unlock guns and attachments and a bunch of other stuff in exchange for 'COD Points', which you gained by doing challenges and just getting kills. MW3 has changed around the killstreak system quite a bit and how they work, along with moving around weapon systems, and completely changing how you unlocked attachments/camos for your gun. Call of Duty has actually been changing a lot. Sure, the core gameplay is always the same, but that stands to reason with every single franchise ever. They're making so much money off of every game, I honestly can't blame them for not wanting to drift away from their style. If they change it too much, people could simply go "This isn't the Call of Duty I know and love anymore" and take a big dip in sales. Pretty much, developing a successful franchise is hard, and I don't think it's fair at all to say that they're lazy or that they're simply releasing the same game year after year. I mean, there's only so much they can do with the franchise anyways. It's an FPS, based around an RPG-ish system. Besides changing the setting, it's not like they can do anything revolutionary with it anyways.

[QUOTE=Grim Joker;33669499]If they change it too much, people could simply go "This isn't the Call of Duty I know and love anymore" and take a big dip in sales. [/QUOTE] But Facepunch tells me they have to change the game every single release and that it's only successful because of marketing and 12 year olds!!!

[QUOTE=Grim Joker;33669499]CoD 1 and 2 were basically identical as far as multiplayer goes. The only thing that changed was the health system. CoD3 introduced Killstreaks, and that's it, I believe. CoD4 changed a bunch of stuff around. WaW was basically WW2 CoD4 MW2 changed quite a bit. It changed around the entire killstreak system, along with adding the playercard system, changing what weapons did what, adding new weapon classes entirely. It was a pretty big change from CoD4, really. Black Ops followed MW2 pretty closely, but added in a bunch of new tweaks to balance the game out, and also changed the timeframe. It also let players customize their appearance, to a degree. The biggest change was the currency system, which let you unlock guns and attachments and a bunch of other stuff in exchange for 'COD Points', which you gained by doing challenges and just getting kills. MW3 has changed around the killstreak system quite a bit and how they work, along with moving around weapon systems, and completely changing how you unlocked attachments/camos for your gun. Call of Duty has actually been changing a lot. Sure, the core gameplay is always the same, but that stands to reason with every single franchise ever. They're making so much money off of every game, I honestly can't blame them for not wanting to drift away from their style. If they change it too much, people could simply go "This isn't the Call of Duty I know and love anymore" and take a big dip in sales. Pretty much, developing a successful franchise is hard, and I don't think it's fair at all to say that they're lazy or that they're simply releasing the same game year after year. I mean, there's only so much they can do with the franchise anyways. It's an FPS, based around an RPG-ish system. Besides changing the setting, it's not like they can do anything revolutionary with it anyways.[/QUOTE] That's looking way too far into it. I'm referring to the fact that Call of Duty has always been a small map shooter with unbalanced weapons and killstreaks. yes there are some minor changes like more attachments and more killstreaks, but that's pretty much the only change throughout games in the multiplayer component. The next CoD will just be the last one with some stuff removed and other stuff added. [editline]11th December 2011[/editline] Really though in my opinion, Activision should remember the KISS principal. CoD4 was the most balanced of the lot, and that had very basic stuff. Besides nade spam, martyrdom and last stand, it was pretty much the perfect first person shooter whether brainless FFA or competitive hardcore SnD. The only overpowered weapon in the game would have to be the P90 I guess. But that game was very basic. You were given a set killstreak chain of uav, airstrike and chopper (which is pretty much all you need, though the chopper could have been done wayy better), the weapons are necessary - most of them are neutral and have on advantage over the other, ie the AK-47, M4 Carbine, G36C and MP44 are the only auto assault rifles. The AK-47 is more powerful than the M4 and G36C, The M4 has the faster fire rate, the G36C is more accurate, and the MP44 is similar to an AK-47 but has a slower faster rate - though there's more time to take killing someone, it's more controllable, and the MP44 has no idle sway. There's the two semi-autos (obviously the fire rate is no factor in this when you can just scroll or use normally) - theres the more powerful, less accurate M14 and the more accurate, less powerful G3. Basically now, they throw in all these "uber-cool" guns when they're pretty much the same with little exception. Every gun in CoD4 seems to have a purpose.

Modern Warfare 3 won Shooter of the Year from Spike VGA's. I hope the BF3 thread can cope.

[QUOTE=Vmonkey;33663751]I may get a gold AK just because i can then feel like an African Warlord everytime i play as them But most definitely solidified the SCAR-L Silenced as my absolute favorite gun to use.[/QUOTE] I yell out different african names (african sounding at least) in the same voice as the announcer. MUJIGI, MATUMBO, KITEMBE! :v: I dunno it just cracks me up and even makes me think I'm african... [editline]11th December 2011[/editline] [QUOTE=Grim Joker;33669499]CoD 1 and 2 were basically identical as far as multiplayer goes. The only thing that changed was the health system. CoD3 introduced Killstreaks, and that's it, I believe. CoD4 changed a bunch of stuff around. WaW was basically WW2 CoD4 MW2 changed quite a bit. It changed around the entire killstreak system, along with adding the playercard system, changing what weapons did what, adding new weapon classes entirely. It was a pretty big change from CoD4, really. Black Ops followed MW2 pretty closely, but added in a bunch of new tweaks to balance the game out, and also changed the timeframe. It also let players customize their appearance, to a degree. The biggest change was the currency system, which let you unlock guns and attachments and a bunch of other stuff in exchange for 'COD Points', which you gained by doing challenges and just getting kills. MW3 has changed around the killstreak system quite a bit and how they work, along with moving around weapon systems, and completely changing how you unlocked attachments/camos for your gun. Call of Duty has actually been changing a lot. Sure, the core gameplay is always the same, but that stands to reason with every single franchise ever. They're making so much money off of every game, I honestly can't blame them for not wanting to drift away from their style. If they change it too much, people could simply go "This isn't the Call of Duty I know and love anymore" and take a big dip in sales. Pretty much, developing a successful franchise is hard, and I don't think it's fair at all to say that they're lazy or that they're simply releasing the same game year after year. I mean, there's only so much they can do with the franchise anyways. It's an FPS, based around an RPG-ish system. Besides changing the setting, it's not like they can do anything revolutionary with it anyways.[/QUOTE] +1'd. Its like asking a fast food joint with a very famous sauce to change it to something new, even though its going strong and in demand. Thats the thing about FP. Whine about being the same thing, but when it does changes, they shit themselves. This happened a bit with cod4. Some threw a tantrum because it wasn't WW2 and because it had new stuff never before seen in a cod game. I wonder how they would even change it... But then again, the people asking for this and bashing cod are usually hypocrits who might even buy games and dlc that are the same shit in other games but eat it up because it isn't cod. Meanwhile, I've been having a BLAST with mw3. [editline]11th December 2011[/editline] [QUOTE=Rhodry;33669850]That's looking way too far into it. I'm referring to the fact that Call of Duty has always been a small map shooter with unbalanced weapons and killstreaks. yes there are some minor changes like more attachments and more killstreaks, but that's pretty much the only change throughout games in the multiplayer component. The next CoD will just be the last one with some stuff removed and other stuff added. [editline]11th December 2011[/editline] Really though in my opinion, Activision should remember the KISS principal. CoD4 was the most balanced of the lot, and that had very basic stuff. Besides nade spam, martyrdom and last stand, it was pretty much the perfect first person shooter whether brainless FFA or competitive hardcore SnD. The only overpowered weapon in the game would have to be the P90 I guess. But that game was very basic. You were given a set killstreak chain of uav, airstrike and chopper (which is pretty much all you need, though the chopper could have been done wayy better), the weapons are necessary - most of them are neutral and have on advantage over the other, ie the AK-47, M4 Carbine, G36C and MP44 are the only auto assault rifles. The AK-47 is more powerful than the M4 and G36C, The M4 has the faster fire rate, the G36C is more accurate, and the MP44 is similar to an AK-47 but has a slower faster rate - though there's more time to take killing someone, it's more controllable, and the MP44 has no idle sway. There's the two semi-autos (obviously the fire rate is no factor in this when you can just scroll or use normally) - theres the more powerful, less accurate M14 and the more accurate, less powerful G3. Basically now, they throw in all these "uber-cool" guns when they're pretty much the same with little exception. Every gun in CoD4 seems to have a purpose.[/QUOTE] Balanced? Cod4's AKs basically triumphed upon every other AR and SMG. The USP IMO was the most balanced pistol in terms of stats, but comparing it to the other pistols, it was better in every way. The deagle was a bloated piece of crap that jumped off of your hand and was hard to aim with just 7 bullets and the other pistols were basically the USP with more or less bullets per mag. Although, nothing was really that overpowered imo. Not even those annoying perks. I managed to counter them just fine. Although, I don't get it. How exactly can you make every gun different enough to suit everyone's bitching? Some say there are op guns, hence the game sucks. Some say all the guns are the same and its too balanced. Some say its too balanced and boring (me for example). My opinion? I like guns that have advantages over others. Not FMG9 akimbo, thats just crazily retarded, but maybe cod4 ak47 with stopping power level. For starters, it gives me a challenge, to use "weaker" guns against those "OP" guns and to win. And then, its not as boring. BC2 for example was the pinnacle of balancing, but IMO, ended in soo much balancing that every damn AR/SMG/sniper/pistol/LMG is nearly the same to me. Goddamn, people whine that the heavy duty sniper rifles in cod don't sometimes kill in one shot, but the M95 or whatever it was called (bc2's heavy duty rifle) couldn't 1 hit kill unless you were at medium range and was slow as fuck. Same for every other sniper. It was a headshot or nothing. Automatic ARs, SMGs and pistols were all the damn same, with more or less fire rate and bullets per mag. [editline]11th December 2011[/editline] [QUOTE=Raidyr;33669993]Modern Warfare 3 won Shooter of the Year from Spike VGA's. I hope the BF3 thread can cope.[/QUOTE] They should be flipping shit in their flying coffins they call jets :v:

[QUOTE=Raidyr;33669993]Modern Warfare 3 won Shooter of the Year from Spike VGA's. I hope the BF3 thread can cope.[/QUOTE] Did it really? I stopped following VGA after Bastion won two awards, especially the best original score, in which case Skyrim/Portal should've won. Honestly, MW3 deserves it. BF3 was wayy too hyped up. MW3 was hyped up too, but it mostly lived up to it's expectations. BF3 is kind of hard to jump in to. Where as, CoD is easy. I've seen somebody who has never played one call of duty before kick ass in a match[I know he has never played COD because his playercard didn't show ANY ranks from previous games.]

P90 silenced, Range, Specialist. Base perks: Sleight of hand, hardline, steady aim. Specialist perks(in order): Assassin, blind eye, scavenger. = GOD.

[QUOTE=PyroCraz3d;33670939]Did it really? I stopped following VGA after Bastion won two awards, especially the best original score, in which case Skyrim/Portal should've won. Honestly, MW3 deserves it. BF3 was wayy too hyped up. MW3 was hyped up too, but it mostly lived up to it's expectations. BF3 is kind of hard to jump in to. Where as, CoD is easy. I've seen somebody who has never played one call of duty before kick ass in a match[I know he has never played COD because his playercard didn't show ANY ranks from previous games.][/QUOTE] I'm not surprised that Bastion beat out Skyrim and Portal for soundtrack

[QUOTE=PyroCraz3d;33670939]Did it really? I stopped following VGA after Bastion won two awards, especially the best original score, in which case Skyrim/Portal should've won.[/QUOTE] Bastion had a really great soundtrack. Skyrim's soundtrack was pretty generic, imo, because it was just the same stuff you've heard in other fantasy games and movies. It didn't do anything new with the genre. Portal 2 had a great, great soundtrack, but it didn't use it effectively in the game. To really appreciate it, you needed to actually get the soundtrack and listen to it, which a lot of people probably didn't. But yeah the VGAs are dumb so who gives a shit.

[QUOTE=Grim Joker;33669499]Call of Duty has actually been changing a lot. Sure, the core gameplay is always the same, but that stands to reason with every single franchise ever. They're making so much money off of every game, I honestly can't blame them for not wanting to drift away from their style. If they change it too much, people could simply go "This isn't the Call of Duty I know and love anymore" and take a big dip in sales.[/QUOTE] This is the only real problem I had with this post. CoD4 changed Call of Duty in such an extreme way, moving to a new era, changing the multiplayer functionality a bit. Pretty much a massive change from CoD2/3 (whichever you want to compare to). And it worked excellently. They took a leap of faith with CoD4, and it was so well accepted that almost all FPS games have moved to the same era now. I'm sure they could do it again quite easily, if it does fail. Just pull the food industry classic backpedal "We're going back to our roots with x [I]classic[/I]. You'll get the same old recipe you loved again!". One game isn't going to completely destroy the series if they actually listen to the feedback from their users after a big change.

[QUOTE=PyroCraz3d;33670939]Did it really? I stopped following VGA after Bastion won two awards, especially the best original score, in which case Skyrim/Portal should've won. Honestly, MW3 deserves it. BF3 was wayy too hyped up. MW3 was hyped up too, but it mostly lived up to it's expectations. BF3 is kind of hard to jump in to. Where as, CoD is easy. I've seen somebody who has never played one call of duty before kick ass in a match[I know he has never played COD because his playercard didn't show ANY ranks from previous games.][/QUOTE] And this opinion is coming from you, someone that spends a lot of time in the CoD thread and a lot of time playing all the CoD games mostly?, yeah, no... both games are good I enjoy them both but they both have flaws and good points and are both different type of shooters and should never be used against each other.

Golded my M16, and level 25 with the SCAR. Lol, I nerded it up this weekend. M16 wasn't hard to use, just the shotgun attachment... SO MUCH PAIN. And I have to do it for every other assault rifle for 1000 exp. Oh well. Now that I played hardcore so much, I'm TOO used to it and now am using hardcore to level up my SCAR and probably most of my other guns. It's just too easy for kills. [QUOTE=SoUl_ReApEr2;33676279]And this opinion is coming from you, someone that spends a lot of time in the CoD thread and a lot of time playing all the CoD games mostly?, yeah, no... both games are good I enjoy them both but they both have flaws and good points and are both different type of shooters and should never be used against each other.[/QUOTE] Sorry, I just realized I was comparing them and made a mistake doing so, because I enforce that comparing them is a dumb thing to do.

[QUOTE=SoUl_ReApEr2;33676279]And this opinion is coming from you, someone that spends a lot of time in the CoD thread and a lot of time playing all the CoD games mostly?, yeah, no... both games are good I enjoy them both but they both have flaws and good points and are both different type of shooters and should never be used against each other.[/QUOTE] Yeah. Call of Duty is an arcade shooter that's more of a casual game. If you wanna kill give minutes, you hop on, shoot some guys, jump out. That's why I like it. If you wanna play for hours, you can, but if you aren't looking for anything long term, you can just hop on, do something quick, and log off. Battlefield is a lot more team based and grounded in reality, but as such requires a lot more focus, time, and skill to really enjoy yourself with it. They're two different kinds of games. Sure, they're both modern day shooters, but that's about where the similarities end, really. [editline]11th December 2011[/editline] [QUOTE=hexpunK;33676185]This is the only real problem I had with this post. CoD4 changed Call of Duty in such an extreme way, moving to a new era, changing the multiplayer functionality a bit. Pretty much a massive change from CoD2/3 (whichever you want to compare to). And it worked excellently. They took a leap of faith with CoD4, and it was so well accepted that almost all FPS games have moved to the same era now. I'm sure they could do it again quite easily, if it does fail. Just pull the food industry classic backpedal "We're going back to our roots with x [I]classic[/I]. You'll get the same old recipe you loved again!". One game isn't going to completely destroy the series if they actually listen to the feedback from their users after a big change.[/QUOTE] CoD4 wasn't an extreme change, though. Treyarch already did something similar in Call of Duty 3, and also included vehicles in there. Call of Duty 3 was a bigger change than Call of Duty 4, gameplay wise. Call of Duty 4 also changed the setting, though, which was a big part of it. I'm not denying that the era of CoD3 and CoD4 was a bigger time of change than we've been getting lately, all I'm saying is there have been changes consistently, and we could be seeing a big change soon. It was 4 games before we saw a big change before. It's been 4 games. The next Treyarch or Infinity Ward game could change everything. In fact, I wouldn't be surprised if they next Infinity Ward game was a big change, since they've wrapped up the Modern Warfare series.

[QUOTE=Grim Joker;33676529]CoD4 wasn't an extreme change, though. Treyarch already did something similar in Call of Duty 3, and also included vehicles in there. Call of Duty 3 was a bigger change than Call of Duty 4, gameplay wise. Call of Duty 4 also changed the setting, though, which was a big part of it. I'm not denying that the era of CoD3 and CoD4 was a bigger time of change than we've been getting lately, all I'm saying is there have been changes consistently, and we could be seeing a big change soon. It was 4 games before we saw a big change before. It's been 4 games. The next Treyarch or Infinity Ward game could change everything. In fact, I wouldn't be surprised if they next Infinity Ward game was a big change, since they've wrapped up the Modern Warfare series.[/QUOTE] I'd hope they do decide to try something a bit new now that MW is (hopefully) done. I expect there are some genuinely good ideas somewhere in IW, but they just haven't been able to use them during the MW series.

i found this interesting to say the least likely a glitch? [img]http://filesmelt.com/dl/nade_launcher_secondary.JPG[/img]

level 30 p90 is impossible to level up. also village demolition=shit. b is pretty much impossible to attack as the only way you can use cover while planting is on the defending side of the bridge not the attacking...

[QUOTE=hexpunK;33676940]I'd hope they do decide to try something a bit new now that MW is (hopefully) done. I expect there are some genuinely good ideas somewhere in IW, but they just haven't been able to use them during the MW series.[/QUOTE] Well, Infinity Ward didn't even want the Modern Warfare series to be considered a part of Call of Duty. They wanted to break off and do Modern Warfare while Treyarch was left with Call of Duty. Activision was fine with that until they found out that by taking off the Call of Duty name, interest and awareness of the series dropped by about 25%, so they stuck Call of Duty back on there to help the game become popular. I kind of wonder what it would be like if Modern Warfare and Call of Duty were two separate franchises by two different developers.