Beat the campaign.
Printable View
Beat the campaign.
^ i love how this forum shows the text inside spoilers on the main page.
I just tried to play the 360 version and everything was playing like shit. Anyone having this problem?
You sure it wasn't just the game itself.
I should think that it would play like butter on the 360 since that is the main platform it was developed for. Plays like butter on PC, too. Has to be the disc itself.
Install it to your HDD so that you only have to insert the disc for one-time authentication, similar to old school PC gaming.Quote:
Originally Posted by Champ
It cuts down on wear-and-tear of both the disc and the drive.
Heh, no Elite for PC players even after Activision said there would be. They "delayed" it right after launch.
http://www.pcgamer.com/2011/11/16/ac...t-we-misspoke/Quote:
Originally Posted by Amit
regardless, how many PC gamers actually care? From the start, I never saw any gains from using COD Elite. I don't have a problem with them just scrapping the Elite plan and putting that manpower into creating a quality game for once.
They didn't create anything. This is basically MW2 with new skins. The only thing that is even mildly interesting is the Spec Ops mode. I enjoyed that for a few hours. Campaign ending felt anti-climatic too. Recycling a quality item does not equal creating a quality item. MW2 had quality production. It looked great, but it just played bad. Gameplay design choices were retarded and that is the case with MW3, as well.Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr Buckshot
Yeah, ELITE doesn't really offer anything substantial, especially to PC communities. On consoles, it's cool because there's no other alternatives for its features, like recording. However, on the PC we have programs such as FRAPS that record in higher quality and for longer durations. The only "benefit" I see is that ELITE includes the DLC maps in your subscription, but if the sub costs $50/yr and the two map packs cost $30 TOTAL, you aren't saving anything.Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr Buckshot
Monthly DLC: http://www.callofduty.com/elite/whats-includedQuote:
Originally Posted by jcap
"Monthly, throughout the 9 month season." 9 map packs at $15 each for non "hardcore" CoD players. Disgusting.
What.
un fucking believable. :smithicide:
This is a joke, right?
...Right?
I'm betting that they'll release like one new map per month that isn't available to anyone but the ELITE subscribers, then after 4 or 5 are released, they will group them together in a $15 map pack for everyone else. It rewards those "hardcore players" who subscribe because they can get to play early without screwing everyone else.
The only people who should see this as a problem are those who actually like thegamemod :mech2:
I'm betting they'll release the maps to everyone and those who premium elite subscribers get the maps for free, and those who are not have to pay..
Someone should legitimately mod CoD4 into MW2 and 3.Quote:
Originally Posted by Kornman00
MW3? It must feel like I'm playing a game from 2007!!!
2007 called, it wants its respect back:
CryTek COD mod?
This is true.Quote:
Originally Posted by Kornman00
People have already done the MP. I've played on COD4 servers that completely revamped everything to be MW2-style, including perks and maps, but the weapon balancing is better and maps still have their horrible design flaws. I forget how the killstreaks work, though. It must have been easy enough to do. Just pull the models and skins from MW2 and pop them into the COD4 mod tools.Quote:
Originally Posted by Warsaw
Hahaha, that's awesome. All you really need to do is buy CoD4 then, which is the only Modern Warfare worth buying anyways!
No, I was just pointing out that MW3 looks and plays like shit even by 2007 standards.Quote:
Originally Posted by TVTyrant
Im pretty sure its 15 maps, not 15 map packs...
Also,
Finished MW 3's campaign a few hours ago. From start to finish, it blows BF 3's campaign away. The only mission I didn't like was the Russian airplane thing, Harkov holding a pistol with one hand looks goofy to the point that I thought I was playing a Treyarch game.
Other than that, much better than BF 3. Like I've always been saying, wasted potential on DICE's part.
IW makes sure you pretty much got all your bases covered before you play online. You get to use Predator missiles, the AC130 and a Juggernaut. BF 3 gives you a tank and leaves you hanging. Not only that, but they shove it in your face with on-rails jet action.
Not sure about length, but I felt the MW 3 campaign was bigger. They may be on par though.
BF 3's Achievements are somewhat entertaining, but feel like a chore at times. There's one I really did enjoy though, which was taking out the 4 lights. Having to take into account that the bullets travel more distance and changing your shot accordingly is pretty awesome.
If MW 3 is anything like MW and MW 3, we have our winner.
Also, I did not care for the characters in BF 3 one bit. MW 3 wins again. Obviously IW have a much easier time establishing that connection because this is a trilogy and this is the last game, but BF 3 doesn't even lay foundations. You're this American guy, then you're this Russian guy.
Switch back and forth, but they're both pretty useless.
Another big issue in BF 3 is how the QTEs throw you off. MW, MW 2 and MW 3 have on-rails sections that allow you to think that you're in control, very small touches and stuff like that. Being able to move the camera around when your character is interacting with someone/something is a big plus. One button presses to plant C4, to breach a room or to pick up an NPC that you're guiding yourself, instead of pushing A 4 times to help out a guy that the AI decides where to take... You feel like you're in control. BF 3 feels rigid and uninspired. They don't even pretend to let you control the character. Both final missions have the same objective and QTEs, but MW 3 manages to do it right and BF 3 doesn't.
If BF 3 had a SP on par with MW 3, I would love it do death. It doesn't, and if DICE doesn't learn, it will never have it.
For Online though, hands-down BF 3. There's not even a contest.
I agree, actually. The BF3 campaign plays like a frustrating Rainbow Six campaign with less time in the actual playable segments. DICE should have stuck to the Bad Company 1 formula for campaign, they had something there. They are trying too hard to be Call of Duty with BF3.
Many MW2 SP maps were converted into MW1 maps for multiplayer. They actually look fun. Also, they look literally identical to MW2 (because it's the same fucking engine with literally zero improvements).Quote:
Originally Posted by Warsaw
I was always against the idea of trying to make a "proper" SP campaign for BF3.
BF2 just put you into 16-player multiplayer maps with AI - along with opportunities to practice flying aircraft. I would have much preferred that instead.
I played about 5 minutes of BF3's campaign and got bored. I did stay focused long enough to play MW3's campaign from start to finish though.
Now that seems more logical.Quote:
Originally Posted by paladin
Basically, yeah. I dunno, I managed to get into the characters and I always knew who was with me. I was starting to like Campo and then, well...Quote:
Originally Posted by paladin
BF3 started to pick up in the later missions but then we get that dead end sort of ending. The last mission was literally just "press this, press that, you missed so you die."
WTF? MW3's ending felt anti-climatic to me, but it was still better by a longshot. A lot of the scenes in MW3 felt cool. That Hamburg insertion looked cool at first, but then became a pain in the ass getting up the beachhead. The Berlin mission was simply awesome. Retarded, but awesome. I also hated how IW and Sledgehammer tried to make an emotional game, but they failed to convey emotion for anyone that wasn't a leading character. When the building collapses in Berlin, there are soldiers still alive and holding wounds. I saw a soldier holding his eye. I get that part, but I don't get that Sandman just disregards them like they are insignificant. At least get them to the shelter of the building before running off.
@Buckshot: That's because BF3 is essentially one giant cutscene, with the occasional reminder that it is a game and not a movie.
X-Posted in the Youtube thread:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uKz77XH3OeI
Only goes to show how retarded the CoD gameplay is. At least, that's how I see it.
And my friends tell me to buy this game. :laughingwhores:
Also more tags for this thread :realsmug:
dem tags
Been like that since CoD4 really... Good to see that some other people are finally figuring it out.
He's also using the M16, which has been a massively overpowered piece of shit since CoD 4 :D
TeeKup and I were just playing survival on Interchange and I discovered that the stupid Elite Run is back! I thought tears were going to start rolling down my face I was laughing so hard.
http://i.imgur.com/C2zlh.jpg
he means this btw
Gay game is gay. Call of Duty is for fags. Real men play Battlefield.
+REP, seconded.Quote:
Originally Posted by Amit
good cod games: 1, united offensive, 2, maybe 4. every other one is an awful piece of shit.
CoD 4 is the best CoD.
And yes I played 1, 2, and UO.
Agreed that all the other ones are shit though.
I'd plus rep you if we still did that.Quote:
Originally Posted by Amit
>>I have entered your accountQuote:
Originally Posted by Amit
>>Section located:
>Reputation
>>Reputation level:
>1225
>>Increasing value:
>1700
>>Saving
Fixed that for you.Quote:
Originally Posted by Amit
:mech: Red Orchestra is for the demigods of gaming.Quote:
Originally Posted by Warsaw
And what the fuck kind of propaganda is this shit?:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HmnupRbdpoc
It's shit like that that makes kids grab their dads' guns and "play" Call of Duty in real life. I have to say, though, that last scene was pretty funny.
Attachment 2595
Why do people think this this game is still fun?
the same reason so many people listen to "pop" music. in fact, i think referring to call of duty as the pop music of video games is a pretty fair evaluation.
Camping, over powered piece of shit weapons, retarded kill streaks, retarded perks, retarded everything. The list can go one, like the tags down below for this thread, I feel up to adding more.Quote:
Originally Posted by hobojoe
You know, except for kill streaks, that list can be applied to Battlefield 3 just as well.
More than one severely unbalanced weapon and retarded customizations? Are you sure you don't want to rethink that?Quote:
Originally Posted by Warsaw
Pretty much everything in Battlefield 3 at least has a good counter.
You can camp in Battlefield 3, and either actually benefit the game by defending a control point or not get any kills/points at all. The way conquest and rush is set up, there really is no reason for players to camp a single dark corner like in MW3. The dynamic nature of the game modes pretty much forces players not to camp, or at least I would imagine it to be very boring.
I guess you can camp for kills in team deathmatch, but really, who actually plays team deathmatch in BF3?
Jets and helos don't have any REAL counters, except ignoring them. That's the best counter, because they are bloody useless anyways.
The Jackhammer (with FRAG rounds) and FAMAS are absurdly overpowered and abused by everybody. MW's equivalents are the UMP and the SCAR. Yes, they are used more than the M16, because they are one-hit wonders AND 100% automatic.
Like I always say, that's been my experience on the 360 (where MW3 reigns supreme). That's why I haven't touched the damn game in three weeks. I just don't want to play it. You might say that Modern Warfare is more popular because it went retarded before Battlefield did.
E: Plenty of people camp in BF in Conquest mode (my favourite mode, because people are more retarded in Rush). Metro is all about camping the corners, Kharg is all about camping the ridges and the tower, Caspian is about camping the rocks next to each flag, Damavand is about camping the boxes or the side passages, Bazaar is about camping the Alley, and Tehran is about seeing how many people you can get on top of the bridge. Really, the only map that isn't about camping is Noshahr Canals, because you can't. The closest you can get to camping there is abusing the helos, which are unkillable thanks to the automatic flares and double engineers. Fucking yay.
You really need to spend more time playing the game before you draw conclusions like that.
How is there nothing to counter aircraft? The Mobile AA is boss at killing aircraft. And then you have the stingers and the laser-guided javelin missiles which almost always guarantees a kill. You say that aircraft are useless, but that's because you obviously haven't witnessed anyone actually using it properly. Aircraft, especially attack choppers, are pretty damn effective against ground targets. Also, there are no "automatic" flares in this game. The only aircraft that can be actively repaired by engineers are the transport choppers and those are hardly worth shooting down since all they do is transport troops and randoms almost never jump out of them over the objective, so they aren't a huge threat any ways. Anyways, two to three javelins will bring down a transport chopper easily even with 2 engineers repairing.
Pretty much anything with the FRAG rounds is OP, but that's pretty much it. The FAMAS is OP because the DICE devs accidentally added an incorrect value for the recoil reduction of the foregrip. They've already said that they will fix this.
Kharg Island does have its fair share of ridges to snipe from, but where else are you going to sniper from if not there? You can't add sniper rifles to the game and then give the players no places to utilize a range advantage. Also, I've never seen anyone use that stupid little tower on Kharg Island for camping. Maybe that shit happens on consoles, but it doesn't fly on PC. I must agree with Caspian Border and Metro, though. However, Caspian Border is more manageable since most snipers tend to stick to the Antenna or the RU base to snipe. Infantry can run around pretty freely without major risk of getting sniped.
How can you say people camp the Alleyway in Grand Bazaar? That's not camping, that's actively defending because the minute you leave that area the enemy just walks in from at least 2 different directions and sets up shop. Defending a capture point is not camping.
metro is an awful fucking map anyway. anybody who's played it for more than 10 minutes on any game mode should know that. i havent played many games on davamond peak, but fuck that tunnel in all ways. the side passages are death traps. if youre not getting camped by people in them, youre getting camped by LMGs with bipods near the entrance.
but im gathering that engies can repair vehicles while inside them in bf3? i was pretty sure theres a reason you CANT do that in bad company 2.
side note, as an assault, i can have the 870mcs, some pistol (raffica or g18), and i can swap my med pack for the m27(?) shotgun that has 6 shots. my loadout allows me to have two shotguns and an automatic pistol. im not sure if that should please me or enrage me.
The M16 was only supremely dominant in CoD 4, because automatic weapons actually had recoil back then :downs:Quote:
Originally Posted by Warsaw
It's still annoying in every CoD it appears in though.
Nope, not like BF2142. There is HP regen after 15 seconds of not being damaged further, though, on normal servers.Quote:
Originally Posted by Donut
Pooky: Yeah, I don't trash MW4. It's superior to successors in most aspects. Then they realized that everybody wants rehash (now with moar RETARD!), and thus MW2 was born. Fuck the state of the industry.
Amit, I've spent a shitload of time playing BF3. I don't need to spend three years worth of time playing a game to draw some sound conclusions. I'm not drawing anything half-assed here. I have tons of unlocks, I generally do well in servers where I'm not getting spawn-raped because team mates were extra stupid, and I have spend a lot of that time playing with friends who are generally superior team mates to your average player. These are my conclusions after taking three steps back and looking at it as a game.
It's just a terrible game. It isn't as rewarding to play as its predecessors and it has design choices that make literally no sense at all. When did regenerating health encourage players to act as a team and use squad tactics? When did chunky menus with load times become acceptable, ever? How is vehicle disables remotely useful to the play when it still takes two more rockets to finish it off AND the vehicle can still traverse the gun while firing? How can they not know that a scout helicopter with automatic flares and two engineers repairing it is broken despite three stinger missiles hitting it in rapid succession?
Mobile AA is all good and well when they get close enough to get hit or when they aren't flying so low that you can't even see them, but it can't take them all out at once. Like I said, though, aircraft are useless so it isn't that big of a deal. I was just bringing the example up because someone said that there are counters to every thing, when that's not true. Before the patch, I could have said there was no counter to NIRV, but since NIRV is completely useless now (yeah, you fix something that's broken by breaking it another way), I can't. I can, however, say that there is no counter to somebody whoring a Jackhammer on Metro using Frag rounds because you don't live long enough to know where he is. You just explode and he moves on, increasing his 18:0 kill streak by another point. You just get lucky and kill him by accident, not because you were seeking him out and had the perfect gun to kill him with. Frag rounds are not OP in a pump action, as they often won't even kill on a hit, and the cycle time gives players plenty of opportunity to react.
I snipe from ground level. All the ridge campers on Heavy Metal would get demolished by me, running between C and B, in the middle of field. Plain as day. Sitting on ridges with an M82 is for MW players. Get your feet dirty, cap flags, and be useful. Camping the ridge is not useful and never has been. It could be in Rush, but they would all rather focus on the Attacker's spawn rather than cover the MCOM. To that end, I've never met a useful ridge-camping sniper in any Battlefield game. Ever.
As for Grand Bazaar, yes, it's defending. The problem is that the map was designed for camping, and encourages it. They camp B so hard that they forget to defend A and C, and I'm usually on the team that doesn't take the initiative to take them back and hold them. Now I'm stuck doing it all by myself. Sometimes it works out, sometimes it doesn't. Point is, that's not Battlefield. That's MW. In Battlefield, nobody should be able to solo and get away with it.
DICE has said they will fix many things. The only thing they've fixed on Xbox is the NIRV, and there it's completely unusable now. Flares have not been touched, weapon stats have not been touched (416 is still firing in bursts when it shouldn't), and I have no faith that they will be. And again, you can say "well there's the problem, you're on Xbox," but that doesn't excuse the game. I will just answer with "BC2 was great on all platforms, and so BF3 should also be." It's pretty, but it's not up to snuff where it actually counts.
E: Engineers can still repair from inside on BF3 Xbox. And it fucking blows.
I still disagree with much of what you have said, but I know that nothing I say will dissuade you from your position. I think the issue lies in the differences between the console and PC versions. The XBOX version has obviously suffered the most neglect which had lead to the massive gameplay differences between the three platforms it's available on. I only play on 48-player and 64-player servers and without a doubt that greater number of players changes the gameplay radically, especially on maps like Grand Bazaar (just too many players to effectively camp). It seems that you have experienced one type of game and the rest of us have experienced another. Hopefully you'll be able to experience BF3 in a much better way once you get your new PC up and running.
It's not about dissuading me, it's about us having totally different experiences because we are playing on two different platforms. I've acknowleged that in the past. The bottom line is that just because it's good on PC doesn't make it good on Xbox, which is what matters to me because that's what I have to work with. There is no excuse for not delivering a quality, polished, finished product across the board.
This isn't even really a debate, more like a comparison of BF 3 on console vs. BF3 on PC. If you spent $60 on a new game and found out that it was inferior to its predecessor in every way that matters on your platform of choice, you'd be pretty upset, too. I hope it does make up for itself on PC, we'll see, though.
Well, I can agree to that. I guess I'm having trouble understanding your concern seeing as PC gamers have been shafted heavily for half a decade and I finally get to see the favour returned to the consoles. Since I'm going to take what you're saying about what happens on consoles as the truth, I sort of feel bad now since you reminded me how consistent BC2 was across most platforms. Quite honestly, though, I would not even care if the console versions dropped deead. BF was always about the PC experience anyways so I'll get over it. I cannot deny that you are completely right for saying that there's no excuse for not equalizing the three games properly. I sometimes wonder what the fuck DICE is doing assuming that EA isn't forcing them to shit out another game and/or DLC within the next 3 months. They have been inconsistent at best. I don't know how Daniel Matros can take his job seriously when he has nothing to communicate to the community when they have everything to communicate to the dev team.
Holy shit, this is the MW3 thread.
I prefer PC, but I'm pretty agnostic. I hate console ports as much as the next guy, but BF3 is console native. Come on, DICE, throw us a bone.
This little discussion demonstrates why CoD continues to do better: it delivers exactly what is expected of it and it is a consistent experience wherever you play it.
They mastered that back in 2007. Since then they haven't changed a damn thing. They don't take any risks.Quote:
Originally Posted by Warsaw
But nobody is expecting them to, at this point. You either like the CoD formula or you don't. Since Activision is making hand-over-fist the way it is, they can just tell the naysayers to fuck right off and play something else, because they're in the minority.
And that right there is why most of us don't like the CoD series any more. Being a modding community, new mechanics and pretty graphics get us excited. Rehashes just earn our scorn.
Well when you put it that way...
I liked the CoD formula up until 4. I haven't liked a single CoD since. MW2 was my single biggest disappointment in gaming, ever.Quote:
Originally Posted by Warsaw
Heh, that pretty much sums up my experience with Halo 2. Loved the first one so goddamn much, got to Part Deux, was assmad for the next 7, going on 8, years over all of the changes.
I only played *some* of the campaigns for CoD 2 and 3. They were alright, but they weren't my favourite type of game. I can't comment on the multiplayer.
What I do know is that before CoD 4, Battlefield was king of military multi-player shooters outside of Counter-Strike. One might surmise that DICE's success with a departure from WWII in BF2 is what inspired Infinity Ward to take a gamble by doing the same in CoD 4. If I remember, there were reports of Activision being a bit squeamish about leaving WWII for modern day.
That's one way to put itQuote:
Originally Posted by Warsaw
IW had to develop CoD4 in almost complete secrecy so that by the time they had to show off what they'd done the project would be too far along for the Activision execs to turn around. That's why World at War went back to WWII; Treyarch had already begun pre-production before they even knew what direction IW was going
Cruel irony becomes apparent when you notice that the game responsible for launching CoD's popularity into the stratosphere was the one where AV had the least involvement (except possibly the first maybe)
Call of Duty 4 was developed in secrecy until E3 2007, but it wasn't kept secret from Activision. The dev team approached Activision and voiced that they wanted to do a modern game, but they were met with scepticism. So Activision allowed them to develop the game, but they were very cautious with the information about this new game. So they let Treyarch start on World At War as a kind of backup if COD4 wasn't well received. Well I guess they worried for no reason.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ifafudafi
The game has its moments, but its rage inducing. Weapon balance is retarded, maps are mediocre. The maximum joy I get out of this is trolling the trolls. I haven't even unlocked the Striker or C4 yet, so when I do it will be amplified tenfold. Of course I'm just going to pick up BF3 before then anyway so whatever.
THANK you. I have no one to play Co-op with now that you left...
I actually enjoy BF3's co-op. It's broken on Xbox to always be at the hardest setting (I swear it is), but it's still fun.
As for MW3, I wish my brother hadn't sold his copy so I could've at least given the single player a run. It looked entertaining enough.
Singleplayer was sort of fun. Hardly engaging, though. It made more sense than MW2, but it felt more retarded running around in a different part of the world every single level. It's like they have some fetish with making everyone outside of NATO an enemy combatant at some point.
The part where you take control of the Russian drone tank had me laughing at the awesome, though.
Article of the decade: http://games.ign.com/articles/121/1217539p1.html
Best thing I've read in ages. The best part?:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mitch Dyer
^ This
I don't subscribe to the philosophy of change for the sake of change. I'm perfectly happy playing more of the same, as long as the same is good.
Read: entire Mega Man series
[Activision talking to Infinity Ward and Treyarch]: "Remember, no innovation."
E: Check out them tags, holy moly
Holy shit lol. I almost spat out my drink when I saw the list. I have to read the tags more often.Quote:
Originally Posted by Spartan094
Both Battlefield and Call of Duty are shit.
I really got this vibe from both. Battlefield is a lot less so than CoD, but it really didn't appeal to my tastes at all. Not sure why, but Halo has so far been the only FPS that's really made me come back for more than a month.Quote:
Originally Posted by annihilation
I would have attempted to make fun of you but somebody already did this in the tags.
E: But seriously, I have not bought either BF3 or MW3, nor have I touched both its MP, SP, or anything at all. I know is $60 down the drain, found better uses by using money to buy real firearms, I don't rage at people and it's a good stress reliever.
So you guys came into this thread about a video game for what reason? To tell us to go play real life instead? Well okay, fair enough, that's actually a grand idea.
Meanwhile I'm close to my second service star for my Jets in BF3.
My thread, I run this bitch. hth I wouldn't say "you guys" since annihliation never said anything about RL, and I never ment to project my thoughts/opinions about this game or others.Quote:
Originally Posted by Amit
Then again this is my thread I don't take too seriously considering the next COD game will be announced sometime soon or at E3.
Hot damn, you play to much.Quote:
Originally Posted by TeeKup
Nah I'm just that good in the air.
He really is. Anytime I've ever been on he opposite team and we're in jets I can never shoot the bastard down. It doesn't matter what we're flying, he ALWAYS out turns me. >:/
I'M BETTER THAN YOU HAAAAWWWW.
Simple fix. SOFLAM + Javelin.
FUCK YOU.
MUAHAHAHHA. Oh well, he'll need an accomplice to do it. Or do SOLFAMS persist through death too?
No.Quote:
Originally Posted by Amit
I'm fast approaching my 9th jet service star. Nothing compared to this guy though:
http://battlelog.battlefield.com/bf3/user/SturdyWings/
IIRC he has 50+ jet service stars and 180+ hours in jets.
There is to a point I will lock this thread so we can't make fun of this game. Go to the BF3 thread.
I will unlock this thread so we can make fun of this game.
And all who play it. I nag Pyong about playing MW2 and MW3 every couple months or so, but he still chooses to play bad games when almost any game is at his fingertips. It just doesn't make any sense :gonk:
I always laugh when I see jcap playing MW3.
WHAT? SACRILEGE!Quote:
Originally Posted by Cortexian
tag: dreamcast was best
Lovin it.
