Official MW3 Thread - You Knew It Was Coming!

This won't be a major media blowout thread, so sorry to disappoint you in the early run. I have yet to pick up my copy, but will do so this morning. However, I'm VERY SURE that people here must have gone to the midnight launch, picked up their copy, and have been playing it since they got it. In this thread, I urge any of you to participate in the thread, to talk about the game and all of its nuisances, its positives, etc. Also, do not make any other threads, because I'm sure the mods will see and delete them. Everything about MW3 should be discussed in here! Have fun with the game and talk about right here in the MW3 thread!

Never really been too big of a fan of MW since the original, I tend to prefer ARMA's realism and scale instead of massive set pieces MW's known for. Two pretty different games I know. Still though. I'll end up renting it at some point. And it SUCKS it got the same score as BF. I was really hoping to see system wars explode. No fun! :cry:

I was right I was so right.I called 8.5 and it scored just that.

I'll get it when it hits the bargain bins.

Renting it in a few minutes for the campaign. I went into MW2 with low expectations and came away pretty impressed with the setpieces, even if the airport level pissed me off the more i thought about it, and the fact that i couldnt stand how frustarting the game was on Normal. so easy mode it once again.

I'll get it when it hits the bargain binsCUDGEdave

Renting it in a few minutes for the campaign. I went into MW2 with low expectations and came away pretty impressed with the setpieces, even if the airport level pissed me off the more i thought about it, and the fact that i couldnt stand how frustarting the game was on Normal. so easy mode it once again.

S0lidSnake

Giving this a rent, I'm sure it'll be explosive fun.

[QUOTE="S0lidSnake"]

Renting it in a few minutes for the campaign. I went into MW2 with low expectations and came away pretty impressed with the setpieces, even if the airport level pissed me off the more i thought about it, and the fact that i couldnt stand how frustarting the game was on Normal. so easy mode it once again.

Black_Knight_00

It's been a while, but remember some annoying levels in MW2 like the Favela in the first act that had enemies from about every corner from every direction. I think I get what they were going for in that section, but I was getting pinged from every direction and had jam on my face, so I couldn't see. The campaign got better, but I didn't really like that section in particular. I'll echo that the campaign feels frustrating at times.

Well, since GS (and ign) both promoted the crap out of BF3 and MW3, then I didn't see it going any way.. (Keep them even so people can buy whatever they want) Plus Gamespot never has a medium.. It's either an 8.5 or a 9.5 game nowadays. In other words, its either missing enough to be a great game, or omgthisowns. These games are both 9.0 games but gamespot need to hold their reputations of being ub3rhard reviewers.

They say the multiplayer sticks to the same yet they give games like GTA 10's when GTA isn't all that different from the last games as well.. When they have one flaw and make it an 8.5 that usually means the REVIEWER had nothing to dislike other than him going "Eh, I didn't like it personally."

Just like IGN says Zelda SS can be the best Zelda ever. I'll be STUNNED if Zelda gets anything above a 9 here at GS. Although i'd love to be wrong.

Anyways, MW3 is great. The end.

Giving this a rent, I'm sure it'll be explosive fun.

[QUOTE="Black_Knight_00"][QUOTE="S0lidSnake"]

Renting it in a few minutes for the campaign. I went into MW2 with low expectations and came away pretty impressed with the setpieces, even if the airport level pissed me off the more i thought about it, and the fact that i couldnt stand how frustarting the game was on Normal. so easy mode it once again.

_Dez_

It's been a while, but remember some annoying levels in MW2 like the Favela in the first act that had enemies from about every corner from every direction. I think I get what they were going for in that section, but I was getting pinged from every direction and had jam on my face, so I couldn't see. The campaign got better, but I didn't really like that section in particular. I'll echo that the campaign feels frustrating at times.

Yup. What he said.

I don't see why they should give it an 8.5 when they they didn't point out a single flaw.Black_Knight_00

More of the same I'm guessing? A lot of reviewers mark down a game because "it's more of the same." I can see it not being a problem for fans of the series, but from a professional and objective point of view, it could be considered a flaw.

If anyone has a hot-fix for framerate issues, could you please post the instructions to fix it? My framerate is dangling well below 60fps. My specs: GTX 580, AMD 965 3.8ghz, 4GB ddr3 ram, windows 7 64-bit. Thanks.

[QUOTE="_Dez_"]

Giving this a rent, I'm sure it'll be explosive fun.

[QUOTE="Black_Knight_00"] What do you mean frustrating? MW2 is the easiest CoD to date. needs to play more CoD :P:PS0lidSnake

It's been a while, but remember some annoying levels in MW2 like the Favela in the first act that had enemies from about every corner from every direction. I think I get what they were going for in that section, but I was getting pinged from every direction and had jam on my face, so I couldn't see. The campaign got better, but I didn't really like that section in particular. I'll echo that the campaign feels frustrating at times.

Yup. What he said.

Well, since GS (and ign) both promoted the crap out of BF3 and MW3, then I didn't see it going any way.. (Keep them even so people can buy whatever they want) Plus Gamespot never has a medium.. It's either an 8.5 or a 9.5 game nowadays. In other words, its either missing enough to be a great game, or omgthisowns. These games are both 9.0 games but gamespot need to hold their reputations of being ub3rhard reviewers.

They say the multiplayer sticks to the same yet they give games like GTA 10's when GTA isn't all that different from the last games as well.. When they have one flaw and make it an 8.5 that usually means the REVIEWER had nothing to dislike other than him going "Eh, I didn't like it personally."

Just like IGN says Zelda SS can be the best Zelda ever. I'll be STUNNED if Zelda gets anything above a 9 here at GS. Although i'd love to be wrong.

Anyways, MW3 is great. The end.

blockbuster

BF3:

The Bad:
- Campaign is disappointing and dull
- Only six cooperative missions
- No way to practice jets
Score: 8.5

MW3:

The Bad
- Multiplayer sticks closely to familiar formula.
Score: 8.5

Not to bash BF3, I know it's an awesome game and the only reason why I didn't buy it yet is because I'm short on cash this month, but how can a game with no notable flaws (MW3) score the same as one with a "dull, disappointing campaign?". It's simple logic.

As I said, they matched the scores to keep fanboys from jumping at each others' throats.

[QUOTE="blockbuster"]

Well, since GS (and ign) both promoted the crap out of BF3 and MW3, then I didn't see it going any way.. (Keep them even so people can buy whatever they want) Plus Gamespot never has a medium.. It's either an 8.5 or a 9.5 game nowadays. In other words, its either missing enough to be a great game, or omgthisowns. These games are both 9.0 games but gamespot need to hold their reputations of being ub3rhard reviewers.

They say the multiplayer sticks to the same yet they give games like GTA 10's when GTA isn't all that different from the last games as well.. When they have one flaw and make it an 8.5 that usually means the REVIEWER had nothing to dislike other than him going "Eh, I didn't like it personally."

Just like IGN says Zelda SS can be the best Zelda ever. I'll be STUNNED if Zelda gets anything above a 9 here at GS. Although i'd love to be wrong.

Anyways, MW3 is great. The end.

Black_Knight_00

I just got home with my copy and am going to check it out in awhile.

[QUOTE="blockbuster"]

Well, since GS (and ign) both promoted the crap out of BF3 and MW3, then I didn't see it going any way.. (Keep them even so people can buy whatever they want) Plus Gamespot never has a medium.. It's either an 8.5 or a 9.5 game nowadays. In other words, its either missing enough to be a great game, or omgthisowns. These games are both 9.0 games but gamespot need to hold their reputations of being ub3rhard reviewers.

They say the multiplayer sticks to the same yet they give games like GTA 10's when GTA isn't all that different from the last games as well.. When they have one flaw and make it an 8.5 that usually means the REVIEWER had nothing to dislike other than him going "Eh, I didn't like it personally."

Just like IGN says Zelda SS can be the best Zelda ever. I'll be STUNNED if Zelda gets anything above a 9 here at GS. Although i'd love to be wrong.

Anyways, MW3 is great. The end.

Black_Knight_00

BF3:

The Bad:
- Campaign is disappointing and dull
- Only six cooperative missions
- No way to practice jets
Score: 8.5

MW3:

The Bad
- Multiplayer sticks closely to familiar formula.
Score: 8.5

Not to bash BF3, I know it's an awesome game and the only reason why I didn't buy it yet is because I'm short on cash this month, but how can a game with no notable flaws (MW3) score the same as one with a "dull, disappointing campaign?". It's simple logic.

As I said, they matched the scores to keep fanboys from jumping at each others' throats.

[QUOTE="Black_Knight_00"]

[QUOTE="blockbuster"]

Well, since GS (and ign) both promoted the crap out of BF3 and MW3, then I didn't see it going any way.. (Keep them even so people can buy whatever they want) Plus Gamespot never has a medium.. It's either an 8.5 or a 9.5 game nowadays. In other words, its either missing enough to be a great game, or omgthisowns. These games are both 9.0 games but gamespot need to hold their reputations of being ub3rhard reviewers.

They say the multiplayer sticks to the same yet they give games like GTA 10's when GTA isn't all that different from the last games as well.. When they have one flaw and make it an 8.5 that usually means the REVIEWER had nothing to dislike other than him going "Eh, I didn't like it personally."

Just like IGN says Zelda SS can be the best Zelda ever. I'll be STUNNED if Zelda gets anything above a 9 here at GS. Although i'd love to be wrong.

Anyways, MW3 is great. The end.

MirkoS77

BF3:

The Bad:
- Campaign is disappointing and dull
- Only six cooperative missions
- No way to practice jets
Score: 8.5

MW3:

The Bad
- Multiplayer sticks closely to familiar formula.
Score: 8.5

Not to bash BF3, I know it's an awesome game and the only reason why I didn't buy it yet is because I'm short on cash this month, but how can a game with no notable flaws (MW3) score the same as one with a "dull, disappointing campaign?". It's simple logic.

As I said, they matched the scores to keep fanboys from jumping at each others' throats.

Keep in mind, though, reviews are written by different people. Justin Calvert may have loved AA to death, but Carolyn thought differently with AC and didn't see it as a huge improvement. Different stokes for different people. The biggest misinterpretation that I hear from people that it is what everyone else also feels about the game when that's not true. It's one person's review and doesn't really reflect the entire GS staff.

[QUOTE="Black_Knight_00"]

[QUOTE="blockbuster"]

Well, since GS (and ign) both promoted the crap out of BF3 and MW3, then I didn't see it going any way.. (Keep them even so people can buy whatever they want) Plus Gamespot never has a medium.. It's either an 8.5 or a 9.5 game nowadays. In other words, its either missing enough to be a great game, or omgthisowns. These games are both 9.0 games but gamespot need to hold their reputations of being ub3rhard reviewers.

They say the multiplayer sticks to the same yet they give games like GTA 10's when GTA isn't all that different from the last games as well.. When they have one flaw and make it an 8.5 that usually means the REVIEWER had nothing to dislike other than him going "Eh, I didn't like it personally."

Just like IGN says Zelda SS can be the best Zelda ever. I'll be STUNNED if Zelda gets anything above a 9 here at GS. Although i'd love to be wrong.

Anyways, MW3 is great. The end.

MirkoS77

BF3:

The Bad:
- Campaign is disappointing and dull
- Only six cooperative missions
- No way to practice jets
Score: 8.5

MW3:

The Bad
- Multiplayer sticks closely to familiar formula.
Score: 8.5

Not to bash BF3, I know it's an awesome game and the only reason why I didn't buy it yet is because I'm short on cash this month, but how can a game with no notable flaws (MW3) score the same as one with a "dull, disappointing campaign?". It's simple logic.

As I said, they matched the scores to keep fanboys from jumping at each others' throats.

[QUOTE="Black_Knight_00"]I don't see why they should give it an 8.5 when they they didn't point out a single flaw.Elann2008

More of the same I'm guessing? A lot of reviewers mark down a game because "it's more of the same." I can see it not being a problem for fans of the series, but from a professional and objective point of view, it could be considered a flaw.

If anyone has a hot-fix for framerate issues, could you please post the instructions to fix it? My framerate is dangling well below 60fps. My specs: GTX 580, AMD 965 3.8ghz, 4GB ddr3 ram, windows 7 64-bit. Thanks.

[QUOTE="Elann2008"]

[QUOTE="Black_Knight_00"]I don't see why they should give it an 8.5 when they they didn't point out a single flaw.Black_Knight_00

More of the same I'm guessing? A lot of reviewers mark down a game because "it's more of the same." I can see it not being a problem for fans of the series, but from a professional and objective point of view, it could be considered a flaw.

If anyone has a hot-fix for framerate issues, could you please post the instructions to fix it? My framerate is dangling well below 60fps. My specs: GTX 580, AMD 965 3.8ghz, 4GB ddr3 ram, windows 7 64-bit. Thanks.

So far, I'm on Mission 3 and it's just another war story to me. I'm playing this on Normal and so far, it's OK. It's nothing spectacular or anything like that.

And what was Infinity Ward supposed to do, make a completely different game that would upset the fans.speedfreak48t5p

Meh. I think Gears of War 3 is a fantastic game, in fact I gave it a 10 myself so I certainly have no issues with it's review.

Played around 6 missions. Did anyone else notice how subdued the audio is in the game? Im playing on my 5.1 surround sound system that makes even the weakest sounding game sound phenomenal, but here the guns sound so weak. Like pew pew guns.

The campaign is definitely CoD. If anything it's CoD on steroid. If you love CoD campaigns, you will love it. if you dont then you will find it amazing that even with all the cool setpieces, you're actually bored playing it. Even the coolest scenes like the inception airplane sequence and the end of the plane segment, i was like yeah that's cool, but that's about it. Also i kinda wish i was playing this on the PC. The low res was really apparent in the opening NY chapters which looked fantastic even on the PS3. Especially when we lauch the submarine cruise missiles. Good stuff, wouldve looked even better on PC.

That UAV unmanned vehicle was the coolest thing in the game. It's so ridiculous that it probably does exist in real life. lol

Taking a short break from the campaign and from the system at the moment, but the UAV moment was pretty cool, I have to admit. Just mowing down guys from left and right and taking out those three Hinds was really cool.

One of the most irritating things about Call Of Duty is the lack of a radar system. I know that you're supposed to rely on sound alone, but in real life, I'm partially deaf, part of the reason why I like Halo, because I can see where my enemies and have an easier time killing them. Here, I have to rely on sound alone and it pisses me off that when you have enemies clear in front of you, someone you didn't expect comes from behind and gun whips you, instantly killing you. And you know what? That's simply f-ing retarded! I also don't like the infinite spawn either, it's very broken and it's something that Infinity Ward or whoever fails to correct; you have to kill a million enemies before moving along and it gets tiresome. Just give me a room with a set amount of guys to kill and I'll be less f-ing frustrated, thank you very much!

[QUOTE="MirkoS77"][QUOTE="Black_Knight_00"] Exactly, they don't find any flaw in the game except what we already knew (and were OK with), that it sticks to its format and yet give it an 8.5. The truth is they had to lower the score to match BF3's, so to avoid a fanboy war. Tell me if this sounds fair to you (copy and paste from gamespot reviews 'Bad aspects'):

BF3:

The Bad:
- Campaign is disappointing and dull
- Only six cooperative missions
- No way to practice jets
Score: 8.5

MW3:

The Bad
- Multiplayer sticks closely to familiar formula.
Score: 8.5

Not to bash BF3, I know it's an awesome game and the only reason why I didn't buy it yet is because I'm short on cash this month, but how can a game with no notable flaws (MW3) score the same as one with a "dull, disappointing campaign?". It's simple logic.

As I said, they matched the scores to keep fanboys from jumping at each others' throats.

Metamania

Keep in mind, though, reviews are written by different people. Justin Calvert may have loved AA to death, but Carolyn thought differently with AC and didn't see it as a huge improvement. Different stokes for different people. The biggest misinterpretation that I hear from people that it is what everyone else also feels about the game when that's not true. It's one person's review and doesn't really reflect the entire GS staff.

It reflects GS as a whole. They need to try to keep an element of objectivity in reviews and consistency in their critiques, even when reviewed by different people. One game should not be criticized for one thing and given a pass in another. Otherwise, if it's just one person's opinion against another, what is the use of a 1-10 scale? It would be all arbitrary, there'd be no standard. Someone above says GeoW3 to be a huge improvement over 2, which I heavily disagree with. Aside from MP improvements, the campaign (which was touted in GS's review as its strong point) was even weaker than its predecessor. And then I look at Forza 4 and see all they added, yet that receives an entire point lower, claimed to be "Forza 3.5". What? That's exactly what GeoW3 felt like, yet there was no mention of it.

As well, AC is a large step up from AA. Rocksteady nailed the open-world setting perfectly, the Riddler trophies were a lot more creative, numerous and difficult to figure out, the fighting was made more strategic with the implementation of gadgets, Batman's repertoire of moves both while roaming and fighting were increased, it had better boss fights. There were many things improved upon. I consider AC to be a 9.5, up there on the same level as the SMG games.

I don't know, I'm just finding their reviews to be wildly all over the place.

I got to the part where **** got real :P

But seriously... I don't really remember the MW story at all. Kinda forgot what was doing in the first place, but you know, explosions! It's fun, it looks clean, but it is looking a little dated. My biggest problem is my own vision. I have a really hard time telling friend from foe a lot of the time, but it should get easier as I go along.

I do appreciate that the devs made the bloody screen less intrusive this time around.

[QUOTE="Elann2008"]

[QUOTE="Black_Knight_00"]I don't see why they should give it an 8.5 when they they didn't point out a single flaw.Black_Knight_00

More of the same I'm guessing? A lot of reviewers mark down a game because "it's more of the same." I can see it not being a problem for fans of the series, but from a professional and objective point of view, it could be considered a flaw.

If anyone has a hot-fix for framerate issues, could you please post the instructions to fix it? My framerate is dangling well below 60fps. My specs: GTX 580, AMD 965 3.8ghz, 4GB ddr3 ram, windows 7 64-bit. Thanks.

I have just completed the campaign. What a bunch of BS...Infinity Ward still HAS NOT fixed any of the problems for it.

lol this game can be hilarious at times. *We have a high value target... who? The mother f***ing vice president!' lol

I must admit I really liked the ending of the train sequence and the intor to the mission after that. IW has really mastered the art of creating massive Michael Bay setpieces and putting you right in the middle of it. It's awesome.

I have just completed the campaign. What a bunch of BS...Infinity Ward still HAS NOT fixed any of the problems for it.

Metamania

Did you really expect them to?

I play MW for the sheer spectacle of it, why else would you play it?

[QUOTE="S0lidSnake"]

[QUOTE="Metamania"]

I have just completed the campaign. What a bunch of BS...Infinity Ward still HAS NOT fixed any of the problems for it.

Metamania

Did you really expect them to?

I play MW for the sheer spectacle of it, why else would you play it?

Well, when you play a sequel to a game, you automatically expect to see improvement and MW3 really hasn't done that. They failed in that yet again.

And I agree that there's spectacle in it, but the story just wasn't up to the goods again.

I know its MW, but spoilers?

I know you guys don't care for the story, but watch the spoilers please. Anyways I've only played MP, you level up very fast in this game, I've reached level 25 already in 4 straight hours of play. I've mainly used my light machine gun, and its a devastating weapon. I was playing my favorite mode, kill confirmed ( prevents people from camping compared to other modes ) In one scenario I killed 5 or 6 guys from the other team in a few sec ( they were group together ) I caught them off guard, but still we were face to face. If you've played CoD you know how difficult it is to kill that many people in an encounter by yourself. Anyways I've used the perk to ease on the recoil for this weapon, only downside is you're slow to run, but once you reach level 22 I believe you unlock the marathon perk. This games MP mode addition to level up your weapons has made it massive not to mention plenty of perks available. I see myself playing this way until next year.

[QUOTE="Metamania"]

[QUOTE="S0lidSnake"]

Did you really expect them to?

I play MW for the sheer spectacle of it, why else would you play it?

S0lidSnake

Well, when you play a sequel to a game, you automatically expect to see improvement and MW3 really hasn't done that. They failed in that yet again.

And I agree that there's spectacle in it, but the story just wasn't up to the goods again.

I know its MW, but spoilers?

Truth is, there really isn't any to reveal.

[spoiler] As I progressed further into it, I just felt like I was going through the motions and while there was a few exciting spots, like the afmorementioned UAV spot that was cool, it just felt predictable. Hell, I even had a good idea about one of the main characters that you play and who this soldier knew of another character...I could see that twist in itself coming a mile away! The only positive thing is that whole story, which started on MW 1, ends here. [/spoiler]

I respected your opinion before but now you're really starting to sound like a fanboy. Excuse me if you're not, and I mean nothing by it. Gears of War 3 changed noticeably in terms of gameplay. Call of Duty didn't change anything in terms of gameplay except add kill perks here and there, and did the old switch-a-roo. At least Gears of War added new gameplay mechanics like the retro lancer charge, grenade tag kick, turrets and robot vehicle in horde mode, 4-player co-op in campaign mode, and new weapons that change the gameplay up. It's not literally the same game. As a matter of my opinion, and facts, it has changed a lot.Elann2008

[QUOTE="Metamania"]

[QUOTE="S0lidSnake"]

Did you really expect them to?

I play MW for the sheer spectacle of it, why else would you play it?

Twin-Blade

Well, when you play a sequel to a game, you automatically expect to see improvement and MW3 really hasn't done that. They failed in that yet again.

And I agree that there's spectacle in it, but the story just wasn't up to the goods again. *spoiler*...

Thanks for the spoiler, jerk.

Uh, excuse me? I didn't say anything about the storyline here, nor did I mention anyone specifically. You need to re-read my posts before calling me a jerk. I didn't do anything wrong.

I don't see why they should give it an 8.5 when they they didn't point out a single flaw.Black_Knight_00

Its journalist tactics to give it the score it deserved that they thought but they never said anything bad to appease the Dev's