Call of Dooty: Modern Warfare 3

[Warsaw]

2007 called, it wants its respect back:

[TVTyrant]

CryTek COD mod?

[Amit]

The only people who should see this as a problem are those who actually like the game mod

This is true.

Someone should legitimately mod CoD4 into MW2 and 3.

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.

[Warsaw]

Hahaha, that's awesome. All you really need to do is buy CoD4 then, which is the only Modern Warfare worth buying anyways!

CryTek COD mod?

No, I was just pointing out that MW3 looks and plays like shit even by 2007 standards.

[paladin]

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.

[Warsaw]

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.

[jcap]

Someone should legitimately mod CoD4 into MW2 and 3.

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).

[Mr Buckshot]

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.

[Amit]

Im pretty sure its 15 maps, not 15 map packs...

Now that seems more logical.

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.

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...

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.

[Warsaw]

@Buckshot: That's because BF3 is essentially one giant cutscene, with the occasional reminder that it is a game and not a movie.