Why MW3 is the most balanced game of all time. - General

[QUOTE=Raidyr;33945524]The only unbalanced CoDs I thought were WaW and MW2. CoD4 and Black Ops were damn near perfect. MW3 is somewhere in between. Still not much better or worse than any other brown manshooter to come out over the past 10 years.[/QUOTE] CoD4, in my opinion, was near perfect, but Black Ops was far from it, the weapons in it were horribly unbalanced, there was no need to use anything except the assault rifles and the AK74u(which is also an assault rifle, but they somehow made the same mistake twice). Sniper rifles were useless, same for shotguns and the rest of the SMGs. Black Ops was still a solid game though, they tried to mix it up a bit with the money system and wager matches, which I thought were pretty fun, but I think it fell down a bit in-game. Haven't played MW3 yet so I'm not going to judge it, just as I was reading the thread I wondered how many of the people who said MW3 is shit have actually played it.

[QUOTE=Hiccuper;33952905]CoD4, in my opinion, was near perfect, but Black Ops was far from it, the weapons in it were horribly unbalanced, there was no need to use anything except the assault rifles and the AK74u(which is also an assault rifle, but they somehow made the same mistake twice). Sniper rifles were useless, same for shotguns and the rest of the SMGs. Black Ops was still a solid game though, they tried to mix it up a bit with the money system and wager matches, which I thought were pretty fun, but I think it fell down a bit in-game. Haven't played MW3 yet so I'm not going to judge it, just as I was reading the thread I wondered how many of the people who said MW3 is shit have actually played it.[/QUOTE] I've been playing it and it's mw2 with new maps, models, killsteaks and weapon stats. And before someone says "that's what a sequel is" not that's what an expansion is.

[QUOTE=Silly Sil;33953017]I've been playing it and it's mw2 with new maps, models, killsteaks and weapon stats. And before someone says "that's what a sequel is" not that's what an expansion is.[/QUOTE] That's what an expansion is! Honestly I loved MW1, then loved mw2, great games, but mw2 felt like an expansion, not a complete overhaul, just extended. I hear so much about MW3 being just an expansion too.

[QUOTE=J!NX;33953241]That's what an expansion is! Honestly I loved MW1, then loved mw2, great games, but mw2 felt like an expansion, not a complete overhaul, just extended. I hear so much about MW3 being just an expansion too.[/QUOTE] If you felt that mw2 is similar to mw1, then mw3 will feel identical to mw2 then.

[QUOTE=Silly Sil;33953288]If you felt that mw2 is similar to mw1, then mw3 will feel identical to mw2 then.[/QUOTE] Yeah, and even though MW2 did have a lot of new good improvements, it just seemed like a rushed expansion that was unbalanced to shit. [editline]29th December 2011[/editline] and really that's all it'll ever be

[QUOTE=Silly Sil;33953017]I've been playing it and it's mw2 with new maps, models, killsteaks and weapon stats. And before someone says "that's what a sequel is" not that's what an expansion is.[/QUOTE] I'm not doubting that any one person hasn't played mw3 and is judging it, it's just a lot of people here seem to know for a fact that it's a shit game, but in the run up to it's release, there were quite a few people that were adamant that they wouldn't buy it, so I'm wondering is there a bit of overlap between the two groups.

[QUOTE=Raidyr;33943133]Well yeah that's how it works. When [B]80 [/B]publications from a wide range of sources give a game an 88, obviously Activision is paying them all off. It can't be that it's just a good game in itself. Nope, you don't like it so CONSPIRACY.[/QUOTE] 88? I would expect a higher score for a game that sold so well.

[QUOTE=J!NX;33945900]Raidyr didn't you like, troll that BF3 thread? Also, just tested my new xbox for CD stability whilst being tilted, used my MW2 copy to test it, so I scrached it really badly hey it's either MW2 or I risk breaking an actually worththemoney game.[/QUOTE] You just wasted $60 of your moms money way to go. I hope you feel bad she is crying right now about how much of a disappointment you are. [editline]29th December 2011[/editline] [QUOTE=Hiccuper;33952905]CoD4, in my opinion, was near perfect, but Black Ops was far from it, the weapons in it were horribly unbalanced, there was no need to use anything except the assault rifles and the AK74u(which is also an assault rifle, but they somehow made the same mistake twice). Sniper rifles were useless, same for shotguns and the rest of the SMGs. Black Ops was still a solid game though, they tried to mix it up a bit with the money system and wager matches, which I thought were pretty fun, but I think it fell down a bit in-game. Haven't played MW3 yet so I'm not going to judge it, just as I was reading the thread I wondered how many of the people who said MW3 is shit have actually played it.[/QUOTE] I had no problems with the weapons. Sure there were a few weapons that sucked/were obviously better than the rest but most shooters have that so it's a given. As far as perks go it was a lot better than CoD4, and it was the first CoD to remove stopping power which is probably the best change in the series since CoD4 came out. I kinda just want to go back to CoD2 though. No perks, no killstreaks, just quick shootan and designed for PC. [editline]29th December 2011[/editline] [QUOTE=MadBomber;33950778]Yes because kill streaks that reward the best players and punish those who arent as good are totally balanced.[/QUOTE] Yes because getting more gold for more kills in DotA or more money for kills in CS and Tribes is totally balanced. Giving benefits to bad players is worse than giving benefits to players who are good because it rewards bad play as opposed to good play [QUOTE=Pandamox;33945821]me thinks raidyr needs to stop blindly defending a clearly and widely accepted game that isn't good [editline]29th December 2011[/editline] which is mw3[/QUOTE] Me thinks this is a forum where anyone is allowed to post their opinion about things as inane as video games. It's not blindly if I'm stating opinions. Widely accept that it isn't good? The 80+ critical reviews and best selling game of all time tend to disagree with your findings sir.

[QUOTE=Raidyr;33955358]You just wasted $60 of your moms money way to go. I hope you feel bad she is crying right now about how much of a disappointment you are. [/QUOTE] My mom doesn't buy games, my dad does I got mw2 free anyways, so way to be a disappointment I hope your mom is crying over your shitty posts GOOD RIDDENCE MW2 [editline]29th December 2011[/editline] and I say CS is unbalanced as fuck too, but not as horribly as MW2 do you know why? Same system, reward those that do good. This is why real gamers play games like UT. Though unbalanced, CS and MW are awesome games, but that can be a big issue still.

[QUOTE=Wormy;33955594]How about developers just remove these benefits? Why wont developers make games like Halo, or Quake? Everyone had a fair balance. Sure they did have to find the best weapons first on the map, but you can always play gamemodes that gives you all weapons in the beginning, such as Quake. The CS money benefits is not as large as killstreaks. CoD would be better if they removed kill streaks, or if they kept it like CoD 4 was.[/QUOTE] Because those kinds of mechanics add depth. Gold income, bounties, and item priorities are huge in DotA and Tribes, less so in CS but still a factor. Killstreaks in CoD add depth as well. UAV's keep the game moving and bombing runs root out campers. I agree that most of the killstreaks are pretty superfluous (we don't really need AC130's bombarding maps the size of my backyard) but the mechanic as a whole works fine.