Modern Wafare 3 devs will LISTEN to their fans, unlike Battfield devs

.

[QUOTE="StealthMonkey4"]

That chart proves nothing, it's all nitpicking over things that 95% of players don't care and probably don't even know what it is. MW2 featured a much more fleshed out online MP and an amazing Spec Ops, and it shows by popularity daily, sales, and reviews.

ChubbyGuy40

Yeah because getting headshots with uzis across the map is really a great multiplayer :lol: Why does it encourage camping so much then? Sorry, but that chart proves a lot. MW2 was a downgrade in every possible way. Nitpicking? Sorry, but that is far from nitpicking.

So paying off reviewers by giving them a very nice vacation, means great reviews? Wanna know why it gets so many sales? Because it caters to the casuals and people who are new to video games. There is no learning curve and no skill.

If there was no learning curve or no skill, everyone would be equally as good, that doesn't happen. I'm great at many other MPs considered more hardcore than CoD, but I'm awful at CoD's MP (mostly because I don't care for the run-n-gun play, I prefer a more tactical game). Just because it's not your style doesn't mean it's easy, I'm sure many of the "casuals who are new to games" have better stats than you.

[QUOTE="T1GERBLOOD"][QUOTE="DarkLink77"]

Yes, because Infinity Ward has such a good track record of "listening to the fans." :roll:

Phoenix534

Maybe you should do some research before coming here and blantently insulting people. Infinity Ward is still the primary developer for MW3. Sledgehammer and Raven are simply providing support in the areas that IW can't handle in their current situation.

[QUOTE="T1GERBLOOD"][QUOTE="DarkLink77"]

Yes, because Infinity Ward has such a good track record of "listening to the fans." :roll:

Phoenix534

Maybe you should do some research before coming here and blantently insulting people. Infinity Ward is still the primary developer for MW3. Sledgehammer and Raven are simply providing support in the areas that IW can't handle in their current situation.

1. No they didn't, that was Activision.

2. It doesn't, if you have any evidence of this please show me, if the online was so easy to win, then everyone would be great. There are players with high skill and low skill, a low skill player can not just start being cheap and instantly start winning.

3. I'm not sure what is messed up about it, the campaign was a great improvement over CoD4, and MW2 Spec Ops are the most fun I've had in co-op this gen. The varied tactical missions were unique and fresh, each type (round survival, co-op protection, stealth, progress through enemies, training course, driving) required a different tactical approach.

StealthMonkey4

1. So Activision knows their game is crap and not worth it, and must throw millions upon millions to sell their game?

2. Because that's how FPSes work. Someone has to die and have a negative K/D ratio. Guns are very imbalanced and broken. Even IW knows this and that's why they never bothered to support the game and patch it.

3. The campaign was even worse. Terrible story, bad music, terrible characters, the airport level, you only get about 4 hours of play-time while the rest is some scripted hollywood BS, and the ending was stupid. Spec Ops were just SP missions with two-player support and new objectives. It's not tactical at all.

[QUOTE="DarkLink77"]

Yes, because Infinity Ward has such a good track record of "listening to the fans." :roll:

T1GERBLOOD

Why be rude?

[QUOTE="Phoenix534"]

[QUOTE="T1GERBLOOD"] Sorry but the this is not the developers behind MW2. This is Sledgehammer games. Do some research before you come hating you idiotT1GERBLOOD

Maybe you should do some research before coming here and blantently insulting people. Infinity Ward is still the primary developer for MW3. Sledgehammer and Raven are simply providing support in the areas that IW can't handle in their current situation.

No, Raven is involved and IW and Sledgehammer are working together, but they aren't acting as a single studio.

[QUOTE="Phoenix534"]

[QUOTE="T1GERBLOOD"] Sorry but the this is not the developers behind MW2. This is Sledgehammer games. Do some research before you come hating you idiotT1GERBLOOD

Maybe you should do some research before coming here and blantently insulting people. Infinity Ward is still the primary developer for MW3. Sledgehammer and Raven are simply providing support in the areas that IW can't handle in their current situation.

http://www.gamespot.com/news/6286666/sledgehammer-raven-sharing-modern-warfare-3-duties-report

http://www.videogamesblogger.com/2011/01/20/call-of-duty-modern-warfare-3-being-made-by-3-developers.htm

[QUOTE="T1GERBLOOD"][QUOTE="Phoenix534"]

Maybe you should do some research before coming here and blantently insulting people. Infinity Ward is still the primary developer for MW3. Sledgehammer and Raven are simply providing support in the areas that IW can't handle in their current situation.

Phoenix534

No, Raven is involved and IW and Sledgehammer are working together, but they aren't acting as a single studio.

[QUOTE="T1GERBLOOD"][QUOTE="Phoenix534"]

Maybe you should do some research before coming here and blantently insulting people. Infinity Ward is still the primary developer for MW3. Sledgehammer and Raven are simply providing support in the areas that IW can't handle in their current situation.

Phoenix534

No, Raven is involved and IW and Sledgehammer are working together, but they aren't acting as a single studio.

If there was no learning curve or no skill, everyone would be equally as good, that doesn't happen. I'm great at many other MPs considered more hardcore than CoD, but I'm awful at CoD's MP (mostly because I don't care for the run-n-gun play, I prefer a more tactical game). Just because it's not your style doesn't mean it's easy, I'm sure many of the "casuals who are new to games" have better stats than you.

StealthMonkey4

No they wouldn't. There is no learning curve, unless you count finding the camping spots as learning. Skill? Counter Strike is skill, but like I said it's a casual game. People more aware will get the kills. Doesn't mean they're better. I may have a high K/D in CSS but I know a lot of people on the server are more skilled than me.

CoD isn't even considered hardcore :? Yeah, and I'm sure you play much more hardcore and tactical games than CoD :roll: You just said Spec Ops was tactical, but now you're calling it run-and-gun (Which it is?)

I would expect those casuals who are new to games to have better stats. It'd be really hard to have worse than 0/0 stats.

[QUOTE="StealthMonkey4"]

1. No they didn't, that was Activision.

2. It doesn't, if you have any evidence of this please show me, if the online was so easy to win, then everyone would be great. There are players with high skill and low skill, a low skill player can not just start being cheap and instantly start winning.

3. I'm not sure what is messed up about it, the campaign was a great improvement over CoD4, and MW2 Spec Ops are the most fun I've had in co-op this gen. The varied tactical missions were unique and fresh, each type (round survival, co-op protection, stealth, progress through enemies, training course, driving) required a different tactical approach.

ChubbyGuy40

1. So Activision knows their game is crap and not worth it, and must throw millions upon millions to sell their game?

2. Because that's how FPSes work. Someone has to die and have a negative K/D ratio. Guns are very imbalanced and broken. Even IW knows this and that's why they never bothered to support the game and patch it.

3. The campaign was even worse. Terrible story, bad music, terrible characters, the airport level, you only get about 4 hours of play-time while the rest is some scripted hollywood BS, and the ending was stupid. Spec Ops were just SP missions with two-player support and new objectives. It's not tactical at all.

1. most companies do that, it's called advertising. This thread is about IW so that's irrelevant anyways.

2. Guns are not imbalanced and broken, they each have unique damage, fire rate, recoil, range, reload times, and ADS times.... If the guns were so imbalanced many people would all pick one gun. I see a wide variety of guns often and even really good players each have a preference in their guns. It's impossible to have them all 100% even, and why would you even want that? IW patches games often.

3. CoD games have bad stories in general, CoD4 and MW2 both, at least MW2 didn't focus on it and push it like BO, same with music and characters (though I thought Ghost and some others were cool as did many others), the airport level isn't bad and is skippable..... MW2 is just as scripted as CoD4 and much less than BO and the campaign is longer plus there's Spec Ops and MP. Spec Ops were tactical for reasons like I said and were really varied and great co-op fun.

[QUOTE="StealthMonkey4"]

If there was no learning curve or no skill, everyone would be equally as good, that doesn't happen. I'm great at many other MPs considered more hardcore than CoD, but I'm awful at CoD's MP (mostly because I don't care for the run-n-gun play, I prefer a more tactical game). Just because it's not your style doesn't mean it's easy, I'm sure many of the "casuals who are new to games" have better stats than you.

ChubbyGuy40

No they wouldn't. There is no learning curve, unless you count finding the camping spots as learning. Skill? Counter Strike is skill, but like I said it's a casual game. People more aware will get the kills. Doesn't mean they're better. I may have a high K/D in CSS but I know a lot of people on the server are more skilled than me.

CoD isn't even considered hardcore :? Yeah, and I'm sure you play much more hardcore and tactical games than CoD :roll: You just said Spec Ops was tactical, but now you're calling it run-and-gun (Which it is?)

I would expect those casuals who are new to games to have better stats. It'd be really hard to have worse than 0/0 stats.

I called the MP run-n-gun not the Spec Ops. CoD requires just as much skill as any other game.

[QUOTE="Phoenix534"]

[QUOTE="T1GERBLOOD"] Maybe you should do some research before countering my point. Infinity Ward and Sledgehammer are co-developing the game as one studio and Raven isn't involved.T1GERBLOOD

No, Raven is involved and IW and Sledgehammer are working together, but they aren't acting as a single studio.

Here. Is that the proof you need? They're all three collaberating with development.

Wow. The haters just nitpick at anything. MW2 doesnt count. IW fell apart right after release. You guys are just grasping for straws. SO We have MW1: Fantastic support Mw2: doesnt count since they fell apart right afte release. MW3: will have fantastic support. The end.slarkyslark

Nitpicking = pointing out obvious truth? Oh SW is truly funny today!

MW2 does count. IW did not fall apart during development. Activision refused to pay royalties, so they did the right thing and formed a new studio and sued them. That doesn't matter, because it's a big studio and they still had members. They could've worked on fixing up the game especially when so many still play it. That's terrible support and only speaks to the low quality of Activision and IW.

I called the MP run-n-gun not the Spec Ops. CoD requires just as much skill as any other game.

StealthMonkey4

Counter Strike, CSS, Red Orchestra, ArmA 2, Project Reality, Quake 3, UT2k4, Rainbow Six 3...and I'm just going off FPSes.

Oh wait, you meant console games.

[QUOTE="T1GERBLOOD"][QUOTE="Phoenix534"]

No, Raven is involved and IW and Sledgehammer are working together, but they aren't acting as a single studio.

Phoenix534

Here. Is that the proof you need? They're all three collaberating with development.

[QUOTE="DarkLink77"]

Yes, because Infinity Ward has such a good track record of "listening to the fans." :roll:

Jebus213

I know right!

I love how it says that there is LAN in MW2 but that its some how worse than having lan in MW. They must really hate MW2 :P

[QUOTE="Phoenix534"]

[QUOTE="T1GERBLOOD"] Look at the E3 demo with Machinima ( I think Its Machinima anyway ) When asked about the games development they mention nothing about Raven. Glen Schofield mentions that they are collaborating with Infinity Ward on both the single and multiplayer and that they are working as a single studioT1GERBLOOD

Here. Is that the proof you need? They're all three collaberating with development.

Don't worry about it. They've been keeping pretty quiet on Raven's involvement, so it's understandable to not realize that they're doing something.

[QUOTE="StealthMonkey4"]

I called the MP run-n-gun not the Spec Ops. CoD requires just as much skill as any other game.

ChubbyGuy40

Counter Strike, CSS, Red Orchestra, ArmA 2, Project Reality, Quake 3, UT2k4, Rainbow Six 3...and I'm just going off FPSes.

Oh wait, you meant console games.

Those don't require any more skill, it's just different playing styles.

[QUOTE="super600"]

[QUOTE="StealthMonkey4"]

I am really looking forward to MW3. You can tell IW listens to fans as the fans continue to buy and love it and critics like CoD too. BF3 looks mediocre at best and I think it's just praised so much because there's not really any other military FPSes if you don't like CoD (I don't see how people could not like CoD though).

StealthMonkey4

So you're saying that it's impossible to hate the COD franchise. Here are some reasons to why some people hated the rcentvgames in the franchise.

1. The buying off of reviewers

2. The broken multiplayer in MW2 that rewarded you for playing cheap.I determined this from watching my cousins play the MP of this game.

3. The messed up story line(I saw this when I played the SP in MW2).

1. No they didn't, that was Activision.

2. It doesn't, if you have any evidence of this please show me, if the online was so easy to win, then everyone would be great. There are players with high skill and low skill, a low skill player can not just start being cheap and instantly start winning.

3. I'm not sure what is messed up about it, the campaign was a great improvement over CoD4, and MW2 Spec Ops are the most fun I've had in co-op this gen. The varied tactical missions were unique and fresh, each type (round survival, co-op protection, stealth, progress through enemies, training course, driving) required a different tactical approach.

1. That still shows that reviewers are not judging the full quality of the recent games in the franchise and instead they are judging it based on how Activsion treats them.

2.The online is easy to win in if you know the major exploits in the game, like the cold blooded pro glitch and camping in a well hidden area. The stacking of killstrwaks also helps peopleresort to playing like this too.

Anyway's here's a video showing a major exploit in MW2.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wZltoiFCjsA&feature=fvst

3. The storyline was incredibly hard for me to understand.They don't really explain a lot of things.

[QUOTE="Jebus213"]

[QUOTE="DarkLink77"]

Yes, because Infinity Ward has such a good track record of "listening to the fans." :roll:

I know right!

I love how it says that there is LAN in MW2 but that its some how worse than having lan in MW. They must really hate MW2 :P

[QUOTE="Phoenix534"]

[QUOTE="T1GERBLOOD"] Look at the E3 demo with Machinima ( I think Its Machinima anyway ) When asked about the games development they mention nothing about Raven. Glen Schofield mentions that they are collaborating with Infinity Ward on both the single and multiplayer and that they are working as a single studioT1GERBLOOD

Here. Is that the proof you need? They're all three collaberating with development.

Dice listens to its fans too much. There was too much buffing/debuffing in Bad Company 2. My beautiful M60 was turned into a piece of ####. :cry:

Dice listened to its fans too much, imo. There was too much buffing/debuffing in Bad Company 2, in my opinion. My beautiful M60 was turned into a piece of ####. :cry:

TSNAKE617

YOU DARN MEDICS! Start healin' and stop shootin'! :P

and so it has come to this.

[QUOTE="ChubbyGuy40"]

[QUOTE="StealthMonkey4"]

I called the MP run-n-gun not the Spec Ops. CoD requires just as much skill as any other game.

StealthMonkey4

Counter Strike, CSS, Red Orchestra, ArmA 2, Project Reality, Quake 3, UT2k4, Rainbow Six 3...and I'm just going off FPSes.

Oh wait, you meant console games.

Those don't require any more skill, it's just different playing styles.

Yes, yes they do.

Dice listens to its fans too much. There was too much buffing/debuffing in Bad Company 2. My beautiful M60 was turned into a piece of ####. :cry:

TSNAKE617

It was extremely overpowered.

Wow they're actually listening to people? :shock:

Dice listens to its fans too much. There was too much buffing/debuffing in Bad Company 2. My beautiful M60 was turned into a piece of ####. :cry:

TSNAKE617

[QUOTE="TSNAKE617"]

Dice listens to its fans too much. There was too much buffing/debuffing in Bad Company 2. My beautiful M60 was turned into a piece of ####. :cry:

NVIDIATI

The dinosaur represents how ancient Call of Doody is!

[QUOTE="StealthMonkey4"]

[QUOTE="ChubbyGuy40"]

Counter Strike, CSS, Red Orchestra, ArmA 2, Project Reality, Quake 3, UT2k4, Rainbow Six 3...and I'm just going off FPSes.

Oh wait, you meant console games.

Jebus213

Those don't require any more skill, it's just different playing styles.

Yes, yes they do.

How do you come to that conclusion?

How do you come to that conclusion?

StealthMonkey4

One cannot go in and have a decent score at those games. They takes months of practice. Quake 3/Quake Live you WILL NOT survive at all.

CoD you can learn everything about the game within 2 days, and you'll still be killed by some little **** with an RPG or n00b-tube.

If you really needed to ask that question, you obviously don't play more "hardcore" games.

listening to fans? All they had to do with mw2 was put a 3 second delay in noob tubes during the start of a match and it would of solved one of their biggest problems...

[QUOTE="StealthMonkey4"]

How do you come to that conclusion?

ChubbyGuy40

One cannot go in and have a decent score at those games. They takes months of practice. Quake 3/Quake Live you WILL NOT survive at all.

CoD you can learn everything about the game within 2 days, and you'll still be killed by some little **** with an RPG or n00b-tube.

If you really needed to ask that question, you obviously don't play more "hardcore" games.

The OP used the worst example of developer support.

I hardly remember IW listening to their fans flooding their boards reporting hacked matches on their alegged "hack free" IWNET. IW is the most lazy, useless, and terrible multiplayer designers ever. They are the "inteligent" minds that introducd stuff like Commando, Last Stand, Martydom, painkiller.. they don't know how to properly balance guns.. look at the **** Grenade launcher, its broken on Both MW1 and MW2...

Any inteligent PC player that experienced the whole MW2 thing will not go onto this garbage again. IW provides the worst support ever, way before the idiots zampella and west left. So, that's not a excuse.

Yes because we all asked IW to charge us to play the MP version of MW3 :roll:

Battfield devs only do an ok job as actually listening to their fans, but they aint no inifinity ward. Cant wait for MW3

slarkyslark

I'm glad they ain't IW indeed. Dice may make some mistakes sometimes, but they get it right most of the time and they know how to properly develop a multiplayer game.

Even Treyarch is superior, WAW and BLOPS are way more balanced and better designed mp games.

IW should have been gone for good.

[QUOTE="ChubbyGuy40"]

[QUOTE="StealthMonkey4"]

How do you come to that conclusion?

viper-kid

One cannot go in and have a decent score at those games. They takes months of practice. Quake 3/Quake Live you WILL NOT survive at all.

CoD you can learn everything about the game within 2 days, and you'll still be killed by some little **** with an RPG or n00b-tube.

If you really needed to ask that question, you obviously don't play more "hardcore" games.

He wasnt talking about gamers, he was talking how call of duty is a noob tubing, smg sniping, grenade spamming, camp fest. Call of duty is made so anyone can beat someone at least once, whether its due to the horrible lag, or dumb map design with no skill involved. In call of duty, if you both see eachother at the same time, its dependent on who has the better ping. In quake, its who can dodge, manuever, and use their weapons better, it takes alot more skill, and by alot i mean at least 10x more skill.

they are really desperate to get any advantage over bf 3, maybe they know they dont have any other than the mindless people who buys the same game over and over

I think they probably shouldn't listen to their fans. Most of them aren't that old.

[QUOTE="StealthMonkey4"]

How do you come to that conclusion?

ChubbyGuy40

One cannot go in and have a decent score at those games. They takes months of practice. Quake 3/Quake Live you WILL NOT survive at all.

CoD you can learn everything about the game within 2 days, and you'll still be killed by some little **** with an RPG or n00b-tube.

If you really needed to ask that question, you obviously don't play more "hardcore" games.

If it takes months of practice, then it takes months of practice for every one. If it takes days of practice, it takes days of practice for everyone (I'm not saying everyone advances at the same pace I'm saying that there is no difficulty differenc because everyone is exposed to the same thing). It's the same with auto-aim and without auto-aim and with killstreaks and without killstreaks. Everyone has autoaim so it is fair, people with better aim might actually find auto-aim harder as it gives everyone auto-aim so they have no edge. Same with killstreaks, it makes it no easier as everyone has access to them. I still don't understand how Quake is any harder than CoD, it's just simply a different playing style that some people excel at and that others are not as well at. There is the same ratio of kills to deaths overall in every MP game out there so every game is equally difficult.

Hardcore or Casual gamers who really cares? at the end of the day they pay the same amount as the 'hardcore' gamers. Their opinions are just as valid as 'hardcore' gamers. What makes 'hardcore' gamers think they can dictate gamers? viper-kid

So much wrong with your post I'm starting to wonder why you even tried to respond. Actually read the freakin' posts before responding.

[QUOTE="viper-kid"][QUOTE="ChubbyGuy40"]

One cannot go in and have a decent score at those games. They takes months of practice. Quake 3/Quake Live you WILL NOT survive at all.

CoD you can learn everything about the game within 2 days, and you'll still be killed by some little **** with an RPG or n00b-tube.

If you really needed to ask that question, you obviously don't play more "hardcore" games.

edinsftw

He wasnt talking about gamers, he was talking how call of duty is a noob tubing, smg sniping, grenade spamming, camp fest. Call of duty is made so anyone can beat someone at least once, whether its due to the horrible lag, or dumb map design with no skill involved. In call of duty, if you both see eachother at the same time, its dependent on who has the better ping. In quake, its who can dodge, manuever, and use their weapons better, it takes alot more skill, and by alot i mean at least 10x more skill.

Not true, the overall kill to death ratio overall is 1.00 (excluding suicides, team kills, etc. of course), the same as Quake, CS, CSS, RS3, etc. If this was true it would allow a low skill level player to just do these things and win. I've played against many people who attempt to noob-tube, camp, etc. and I've even tried it myself and it's not a free pass to being good at the game. I've seen videos of my friends and other gamers who are extremely skilled at CoD, they don't camp, noobtube, or do anything that is frequently called cheap (for the most part they don't, I'm sure some do though, same as with every game).