How is MW3 any worse than the original Modern Warfare?

I bought MW3 for the PC recently. The game is really no different than the Call of Duty game that everyone thinks is the best: the original Modern Warfare. Same over the top campaign, same deathmatch-esque multiplayer, same crappy weapon sounds - how is the original Modern Warfare any better? How is MW3 and later CoD titles any worse?

The only reason people hate CoD these days is because everyone has jumped on the CoD hate bandwagon when PC gamers reacted strongly against the lack of dedicated servers. Think critically, people. Does anyone here seriously hate CoD that much? Or did you, like many others, simply jump on the hate bandwagon without even really thinking about it?

Its worse because your killstreaks dont count towards getting a nuke streak, now you must kill 25 with your weapon alone for a nuke. other than that its an awesome game just like the other CoD games

MW3 is better than MW.

If you're talking about COD4 (the last COD made by root to the PC) then shut up. COD4 is the best COD ever made.. yet.

It shoehorns you into running and gunning while not really allowing for other playstyles. Terrible, tiny and fractured maps. P2P matchmaking. Flat, boring gunplay. Dated visuals (essentially the same as MW 1, but standards have changed)

this is just the multiplayer of course. The co-op and Campaign of MW 3 is comparable to post-MW1 CoD games.

Its worse because your killstreaks dont count towards getting a nuke streak, now you must kill 25 with your weapon alone for a nuke. other than that its an awesome game just like the other CoD games

finalstar2007

lol

It isn't, it's exactly the same.meetroid8

This. But more noobs play it now

It shoehorns you into running and gunning while not really allowing for other playstyles. Terrible, tiny and fractured maps. P2P matchmaking. Flat, boring gunplay. Dated visuals (essentially the same as MW 1, but standards have changed)

this is just the multiplayer of course. The co-op and Campaign of MW 3 is comparable to post-MW1 CoD games.

with_teeth26

The first MW was like this, too. Albeit with dedicated servers.

Not only is it pretty much a carbon copy of the gameplay, the killstreaks and perks have become unbalanced to the point of no return, the map design in MW3 was increadibly lackluster and full of terrible exploits, and the production values haven't changed despite being the 5th game in 5 years.

CoD 4 was fresh and unique. It had very well put together maps, had attempts at being balanced, and was overall fun. MW3 was not only a clone of it, it's obvious the game was rushed as everything is ripped from MW/MW2 and the maps and design are worse than any previous.

It isn't. However, it is a big step back from Black Ops. Black Ops was a bigger improvement for the series than people give it credit for. MW3 is trash in comparison. Hopefully Treyarch will once again show Infinity Ward how it's done with BO2 this year.

cod4=death of call of duty franchise

Who cares? They're all trash, only played by mindless casuals with attention spans of a special-ed student.

Who cares? They're all trash, only played by mindless casuals with attention spans of a special-ed student.

Bigboi500

Who cares? They're all trash, only played by mindless casuals with attention spans of a special-ed student.

Bigboi500

They all suck after World at War

One reason is because the devs who developed the game failed to make MW3 have a COD4 type of MP for the game's MP mode.

[QUOTE="Bigboi500"]

Who cares? They're all trash, only played by mindless casuals with attention spans of a special-ed student.

burgeg

Could be the balance issues I constantly hear about. And that whole "the game gets kills for you thing."foxhound_fox

That being said. I'm just gonna say. I got a "complete package" when I bought the game on whelm

Its worse because your killstreaks dont count towards getting a nuke streak, now you must kill 25 with your weapon alone for a nuke. other than that its an awesome game just like the other CoD games

finalstar2007

Really??? I could use that lol That being said. I'm just gonna say. I got a "complete package" when I bought the game on whelmhayato_

I bought MW3 for the PC recently. The game is really no different than the Call of Duty game that everyone thinks is the best: the original Modern Warfare. Same over the top campaign, same deathmatch-esque multiplayer, same crappy weapon sounds - how is the original Modern Warfare any better? How is MW3 and later CoD titles any worse?

The only reason people hate CoD these days is because everyone has jumped on the CoD hate bandwagon when PC gamers reacted strongly against the lack of dedicated servers. Think critically, people. Does anyone here seriously hate CoD that much? Or did you, like many others, simply jump on the hate bandwagon without even really thinking about it?

The_Capitalist

answered in the second sentence already. I have CoD4, why should I buy a game that's the same thing as it and hasn't aged well over the years? I stopped buying them when they did nothing new and other FPSes went in different directions

[QUOTE="with_teeth26"]

It shoehorns you into running and gunning while not really allowing for other playstyles. Terrible, tiny and fractured maps. P2P matchmaking. Flat, boring gunplay. Dated visuals (essentially the same as MW 1, but standards have changed)

this is just the multiplayer of course. The co-op and Campaign of MW 3 is comparable to post-MW1 CoD games.

The_Capitalist

The first MW was like this, too. Albeit with dedicated servers.

Not nearly to the same extent though. There were advantages to using short range vs. long range weapons, silencers etc. in MW 3, it seems a mid range assault rifle is the only viable option. Also, killstreaks weren't nearly as prevalent in MW 1.

Saying MW 3 is identical to MW 1 isn't fair to MW 1.

IMO, World at War had the best multiplayer of all the CoD's because it had big maps where all different weapon types and play styles were viable.

As a Veteran Quake III, Tribes 2, Halo, Gears of War and Call of Duty player, I must say that the reason Cod gets hated on so much here is because it doesnt make the slightest effort to improve with new installments.

Quake and Tribes havent been relevent for years, so ill stick with this:

Halo has continued to change up it's gameplay since the original. Halo 3 played different than Halo 2, and Reach plays vastly different from Halo 3 (highly disputed as to better or worse)

Gears of War's Multiplayer has changed dramatically with each iteration. The first was a fast paced shotgun orgy, the second was a slow paced tacical camp fest, and the third is back to the fast paced action, but rifles and tactics are viable options.

The point is, for better or worse, those games have changed up the formula to stay fresh. Call of Duty on the other hand, has the massive multiplat fanbase that is incredibly immature and young. The players of Call of Duty dont want to have to practice to become skilled, they want to jump in and be able to go 20-5 first game.

The problem with CoD is that it's fanbase is such a gold mine for activision that they dont want to risk losing them in any way. So they continue to rehash Cod 4.

CoD fans like being ripped off.

On PC,MW1 has great mod support,more ppl in servers,and is much more PC orriented...

MW3 is a straight console port,no mod support,few ppl in servers,bugs,matchmaking crap,etc.Its also almost same as MW2.Would never buy MW3,in fact,Im done with CoD franchise,I've been following it since its WW2 beginnigs,but lately it has fully lost its way for me as a PC gamer...

It isn't worse, it's just that the games haven't evolved in any significant way.

Well the campaing was shorter than the origional MW, it also isn't as good either. But the MW3 campaing it'self is pretty fun and defianlety better than BF campaign, that game shouldn't even had one with how bad it was. But I like how the survival mode on MW3, but overall the multiplayer and gameplay is the same. I don't have MW 3 yet but I will be picking it up soon.

I like the COD games, in fact I like them more than BF and Halo :gasp: no I'm not trolling I'm serious. COD haters are hypocrites, check their gamertags, they play it too. You don't like my opinion too bad.

It isn't worse, it's just that the games haven't evolved in any significant way.

dommeus

Neither has Assassin's Creed, BattleField (same game modes as Bad Company), Mario Kart, or alot of other games. Doesn't mean they are bad.I do think COD should change a few things though, but the gameplay it'self is fine and the online is great.

CoD 4 wasn't anywhere near as over the top as its subsequent entries. Also, the online runs pretty smooth in CoD 4, but every other CoD after is a complete lagfest. Additionally, the pixelated nightmare that are the graphics in those games was acceptable in 2007, but they are just laughable now. The games look, sound, and play like they are programmed by interns.

[QUOTE="burgeg"]

[QUOTE="Bigboi500"]

Who cares? They're all trash, only played by mindless casuals with attention spans of a special-ed student.

Bigboi500

Congratulations for proving my point. I'm pretty sure it's the pretentious morons like you that are worse than a bunch of people that are having fun playing a video game. Having fun playing a video game isn't a crime.

[QUOTE="Bigboi500"]

[QUOTE="burgeg"]Who's worse? The casuals that enjoy playing COD or the pretentious people like you that look down your noses at them?

burgeg

Congratulations for proving my point. I'm pretty sure it's the pretentious morons like you that are worse than a bunch of people that are having fun playing a video game. Having fun playing a video game isn't a crime.

[QUOTE="burgeg"]

[QUOTE="Bigboi500"]They are. Call of Dooty gamers can't even tie their own shoes, much less play games that require any thought. They cry to their moms for chocolate milk while they run around in circles, dying and re-spawning again and again like a dog chasing its own tail.

Bigboi500

Congratulations for proving my point. I'm pretty sure it's the pretentious morons like you that are worse than a bunch of people that are having fun playing a video game. Having fun playing a video game isn't a crime.

Impact I guess..:|

I bought MW3 for the PC recently. The game is really no different than the Call of Duty game that everyone thinks is the best: the original Modern Warfare. Same over the top campaign, same deathmatch-esque multiplayer, same crappy weapon sounds - how is the original Modern Warfare any better? How is MW3 and later CoD titles any worse?

The only reason people hate CoD these days is because everyone has jumped on the CoD hate bandwagon when PC gamers reacted strongly against the lack of dedicated servers. Think critically, people. Does anyone here seriously hate CoD that much? Or did you, like many others, simply jump on the hate bandwagon without even really thinking about it?

The_Capitalist

I think that's the main issue, the lack of change. If Bioshock 4 played just like Bioshock, but prettier and with new areas, people would be pissed.

Plus that's not entirely true. The game is much more unbalanced and unfocused (where CoD4 had some competitive elements instead of being pure random hopping around), the story and campaign aren't nearly as well done as the original MW, and it just doesn't have that "new idea" smell that MW had when IW decided to bring the series to modern day.

Far from a "bad game", but its not on the level of the original MW, and a low point.

Plus you mentioned you got it on PC, and ever since MW2, IW's kind of moven away from a PC focus, so unlike MW, MW3 doesn't have dedicated ranked servers or modding and costs more, so naturally it had the ire of some hardcore PC gamers.

The simple fact is that at the time, COD 4 seemed pretty original, and was a radical overhaul for the series. I think if you look at it objectively, the two games are pretty much of the same level of quality, (though MW3 has the Spec Ops mode, while COD 4 has better multiplayer maps). But, ultimately, it makes sense that COD4 is more highly regarded simply because it was more impactful.

The simple fact is that at the time, COD 4 seemed pretty original, and was a radical overhaul for the series. I think if you look at it objectively, the two games are pretty much of the same level of quality, (though MW3 has the Spec Ops mode, while COD 4 has better multiplayer maps). But, ultimately, it makes sense that COD4 is more highly regarded simply because it was more impactful.

WTA2k5

I have a similar outlook. MW3 fails in a few ways CoD4 didn't, but it has some big improvements (like the co-op and extra content).

But MW1 was a little better, and in the end it came out 4 years before military FPS gaming took off and everyone from THQ to EA was busy making the next big Call of Duty rip off with only 10% of any sort of originality. Nothing wrong with taking a few key things (like a highly improved gameplay mechanic, like just a leveling system), but games don't even go for a different feel anymore. An FPS just means an 8 hour or less campaign with a multiplayer that focuses on running around and killing things and earning XP down the sight of your gun.

Though in this case I don't completely blame MW for being popular doing what it does, a lot of the fatiguing is easily the other military titles trying to take so much from CoD.

[QUOTE="burgeg"]

[QUOTE="Bigboi500"]They are. Call of Dooty gamers can't even tie their own shoes, much less play games that require any thought. They cry to their moms for chocolate milk while they run around in circles, dying and re-spawning again and again like a dog chasing its own tail.

Bigboi500

Congratulations for proving my point. I'm pretty sure it's the pretentious morons like you that are worse than a bunch of people that are having fun playing a video game. Having fun playing a video game isn't a crime.

I agree that it doesn't make sense to love CoD4, but hate MW3. My stance is actually the opposite of most people's: I hated the first Modern Warfare, liked the second, & loved the third.

I bought MW3 for the PC recently. The game is really no different than the Call of Duty game that everyone thinks is the best: the original Modern Warfare. Same over the top campaign, same deathmatch-esque multiplayer, same crappy weapon sounds - how is the original Modern Warfare any better? How is MW3 and later CoD titles any worse?

The only reason people hate CoD these days is because everyone has jumped on the CoD hate bandwagon when PC gamers reacted strongly against the lack of dedicated servers. Think critically, people. Does anyone here seriously hate CoD that much? Or did you, like many others, simply jump on the hate bandwagon without even really thinking about it?

The_Capitalist

You just essesintally admitted what many hate it for...

I bought MW3 for the PC recently. The game is really no different than the Call of Duty game that everyone thinks is the best: the original Modern Warfare. Same over the top campaign, same deathmatch-esque multiplayer, same crappy weapon sounds - how is the original Modern Warfare any better? How is MW3 and later CoD titles any worse?

The only reason people hate CoD these days is because everyone has jumped on the CoD hate bandwagon when PC gamers reacted strongly against the lack of dedicated servers. Think critically, people. Does anyone here seriously hate CoD that much? Or did you, like many others, simply jump on the hate bandwagon without even really thinking about it?

The_Capitalist

1. Who ever said CoD4 was the best? Call of Duty 1 is the best in the series in my opinion.

2. You seem not to understand why people dislike CoD. It's not because of a notable decrease in quality in between iterations of the game, people hate CoD because almost NOTHING CHANGES (which you have nicely outlined above) from sequel to sequel, and they release them almost annually and expect you to pay $60 for them and then $15 for each overpriced map pack.

You're right OP, they're the same game.