shahilsyed's forum posts

Avatar image for shahilsyed
shahilsyed

654

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

3

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#1 shahilsyed
Member since 2010 • 654 Posts

[QUOTE="shahilsyed"][QUOTE="Wasdie"]

Nothing outside of the glass in any of the MW3 videos was destructible. Small, static environments. That's what MW3 has.

Wasdie

http://www.1up.com/news/modern-warfare-3-feature-bigger-destructible-environments If you read the articles, they said the destructible environments wont be just glasses. If they mean big, they mean buildings and such. Anyways, Battlefield's destructiblity is awful anyway. It's very buggy. Anyway I will do a little chart here. Modern warfare 3 will add much more things than Battlefield 3, right off the bat, mw3 will have 16 new maps where as Battlefield 3 will have only 9 maps which are new. Already, MW3 will feature 7 new maps, need to say more? Also MW3 is adding more game modes unlike Battlefield 3, Battlefield 3 still has the old game modes like Conquest, Rush, SDM. Modern warfare will have more weapons too, more killstreaks. Also judging from the alpha footage, Battlefield 3 is already a broken game with 3D spotting where snipers could spot someone blindly. Theres nothing to argue about. MW3 will patch all the flaws from MW2 so yeah.

First off that article is old and every video we've seen of MW3 tells a different story. That destruction was nothing more than a quick statement by the developer after seeing BF3 for the first time. The article is also only commenting on rumors, all of which have turned out to be false.

Second Battlefield's destructibility fundamentally changes how each map plays. Walls getting blown out, cover getting destroyed, buildings collapsing all radically changes the environments. Bad Company 1 and 2 have been a testing ground for this gameplay mechanic and with each iteration they have improved it greatly. Now the grenade launcher is actually usefull for something more than cheap kills. With the destruction, each weapon and tool in the game assumes multiple roles.

Next the 16 maps in MW3 are tiny compared to the 9 maps in BF3. Each map in previous Battlefield games on the PC plays completely different than the other. That has always been something very unique to Battlefield. Some maps require a balance of transportation and air superiority, other maps require lots of tanks and armor, and some maps require skilled infantry. All of which feel like Battlefield, but require different tactics. Other shooters like CoD, Counterstrike, Unreal Tourny (ect.) require you only to memorize new layouts, camping positions, sniping locations and they don't play out much differently than other maps. Also they are tiny with half the detail and a fourth of the scale of a Battlefield map. You could fit all 16 maps of MW3 into a single BF3 map, guarantee it.

Battlefield's conquest mode maybe the same as before, but as I just mentioned, each map requires a whole different strategy and approach to win. There is much more variety game play options in a Battlefield game, this is why it has always had some problems

If you've also been following the BF3 development you would know that things like the 3D spotting from the alpha have already been patched up and they are reducing the amount of damage some of the weapons do and tweaking other aspects. The beta comes out this month for further balancing. CoD doesn't even bother with betas and that's why MW2 was such a mess and the PS3 and PC versions of Black Ops were a joke at launch.

I hate to be talking about BF3 in the MW3 thread, but this kind of warranted a reply. Note I'm not bashing MW3 here, I know it's a different styIe of game than BF so bashing it for the reasons I'm talking about above with Battlefield is pointless.

Firstly, if you've been following fourzerotwo alot in his twitter you would understand he clearly said that MW3 will hace destructibility but it is not confirmed what kind. I as far as I know, it wont be simple glass-breaking. And no, none of the maps in batlefield actually require any strategy. Anybody could be a sniper, camp in a bush and rack up as many kills without doing objectives and rank up. It also depends in what kind of server you're playing in. The fact that all maps are similar in Battlefield, for example Panama Canal in BFBC2 and White Pass and Laguna Alta al have the same big house. All maps have the same kind of building, they all look identical as hell. But this is my experience from other battlefield games, Battlefield 3 may be different though. 3D spotting may be patched but claymores will be a bigger problem honestly. Also Robert Bowling clearly said the MW3 will have more bigger, complex maps in MW3 in his twitter. But as people say same game gets boring but the same old game modes in Battlefield get really boring and its a fact.
Avatar image for shahilsyed
shahilsyed

654

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

3

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#2 shahilsyed
Member since 2010 • 654 Posts

[QUOTE="Heil68"]The PS3, it actually releases more than 2 games a year. Better library, more high scoring exclusives, free online, it shouldn't even be a question. Strutten



Says who if i may ask ? your opinion ? both are equal, it only matters on what you prefer etc etc..
Can't you say something good for the box for once ? , every tread your in is bout you nitpicking, its an electronic device dude seriously..

None of that is true what he said apart from more high scoring exclusives even though Halo, Gears of war always get above 90 at metacritic so you know...

Avatar image for shahilsyed
shahilsyed

654

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

3

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#3 shahilsyed
Member since 2010 • 654 Posts
The PS3, it actually releases more than 2 games a year. Better library, more high scoring exclusives, free online, it shouldn't even be a question. Heil68
Xbox 360 release with more than 2 games a year, this year it has Forza 4, Halo anniversary edition and gears of war 3 and last year it had alan wake, halo reach, crackdown 2 so thats more than 2. No, it does not have better library, thats your opinion and its all subjective. I'll agree with more high scoring exclusives but doesnt make the PS3 better. And free online means nothing, PSN is a crappy service with alot of lag in games like SSF4, crappy chat system and a service going down for a whole month and leaving everyone in scare because of their personal details.
Avatar image for shahilsyed
shahilsyed

654

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

3

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#4 shahilsyed
Member since 2010 • 654 Posts

[QUOTE="shahilsyed"][QUOTE="tbolt76"]

Some incremental upgrades, nothing that wows me. BF3 still higher on my list.

Wasdie

MW3 has got your precious destructibility, it was confirmed.

Nothing outside of the glass in any of the MW3 videos was destructible. Small, static environments. That's what MW3 has.

http://www.1up.com/news/modern-warfare-3-feature-bigger-destructible-environments If you read the articles, they said the destructible environments wont be just glasses. If they mean big, they mean buildings and such. Anyways, Battlefield's destructiblity is awful anyway. It's very buggy. Anyway I will do a little chart here. Modern warfare 3 will add much more things than Battlefield 3, right off the bat, mw3 will have 16 new maps where as Battlefield 3 will have only 9 maps which are new. Already, MW3 will feature 7 new maps, need to say more? Also MW3 is adding more game modes unlike Battlefield 3, Battlefield 3 still has the old game modes like Conquest, Rush, SDM. Modern warfare will have more weapons too, more killstreaks. Also judging from the alpha footage, Battlefield 3 is already a broken game with 3D spotting where snipers could spot someone blindly. Theres nothing to argue about. MW3 will patch all the flaws from MW2 so yeah.
Avatar image for shahilsyed
shahilsyed

654

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

3

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#5 shahilsyed
Member since 2010 • 654 Posts

So a guy buys a computer pre-made for 1000$.

Another guy builds a computer on his own using the same components for 650$.

The cost of an item doesn't not necessarily translate into value. Cheap does not equal value. Static high prices also do not equal value. It's not that hard to understand.

Maybe you need to start buying your own stuff before you start going off about how stuff that costs more is better.

KoRneYEZ
Building something with components is far cheaper than actually buying it. I can build a ferrari and pay way less. This is a bit like saying that a datsun 510 is a better car than buggati veyron because datsun is cheaper. YOU ARE WRONG.
Avatar image for shahilsyed
shahilsyed

654

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

3

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#6 shahilsyed
Member since 2010 • 654 Posts

Some incremental upgrades, nothing that wows me. BF3 still higher on my list.

tbolt76
MW3 has got your precious destructibility, it was confirmed.
Avatar image for shahilsyed
shahilsyed

654

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

3

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#7 shahilsyed
Member since 2010 • 654 Posts

[QUOTE="shahilsyed"]What will last longe and be better, $60 Nike trainers or $10 trainers made by Slazenger. Pretty obvious and please dont get Cars into this discussion. Aidenfury19

Actually most shoes will last just as long as any other pair of a similar design if treated the same way. The exception is of course Doc Martin's, which I'm pretty sure could survive a nuclear blast. The point still remains that your statement as written was and is categorically false.

Errm....OK. Lets talk about TVs. If I bought a $700 TV which is made by Sony and my friend bought $300 TV which is made by Panasonic. Obviously the more expensive one will be better, it probably would have more features, HD capabilities and so on. Xbox live is a pay service because it is better.
Avatar image for shahilsyed
shahilsyed

654

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

3

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#8 shahilsyed
Member since 2010 • 654 Posts

I actually think the destruction is being way overhyped. Things certainly explode better, but most of the map will still be indestructible. So yes, I agree with you. I expect destruction to look similar to BC2 on console. The difference is they are designing their maps with more than the same stock building in mind. Btw, watch that video. It's a topic that very few BF guys (or even MW3 fanboys) are bringing up. I might even make a thread.

ActionRemix
If you seen, MW3 will have destruction. Battlefield's destruction mechanics are god awful, how can anyone hype it up? COD is slowly adding alot of things from Battlefield. COD is taking the destruction abillity, dogtags, mini choppers, drones and adding it. How on earth is is the same game?
Avatar image for shahilsyed
shahilsyed

654

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

3

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#9 shahilsyed
Member since 2010 • 654 Posts

[QUOTE="hensothor"][QUOTE="Solid_Tango"]I swear when i watched it, it looked just like new maps for MW2, like seriously its the same thing over and over again. I much rather play BF3 and thats what i m going to do, no offense no anyone who plays it tho. ActionRemix

What makes the new Battlefield so different? It has a new engine, true. Other than that though, what really changes the gameplay from Battlefield 2 and Bad Company 2. From what I can tell it's just meeting them in the middle, taking the destruction they brought to the franchise with BC, and bringing it into the formula of BF2 with a lot of BC2 still crunched in there.

Like I just said, new engine is an oversimplification of new graphics, new lighting, new sound, and new animation (most impressive to me). It doesn't excell in just one of those areas. It excells in all.

The direction of the game is very different from BC2. Map design is going to be very different. Most of the maps in BC2 were very narrow. This has a lot to do with the focus on Rush, but even Conquest maps like White Pass had three flags in a straight row. At least four flags is needed for conquest in my opinion.

Caspian Border looks like it has the wide open style of old Battlefield maps. Even the Rush maps look to be very different. The tunnel and indoor station of Operation Metro are a big departure from the stock building "suburbs" in BC2.

In that case, MW3 has different and better graphics than MW2, it has better sound, new animations just like BF3. BF3 is doing nothing new, innovative is it is an rehash of battlefield 2 except the graphics engine.
Avatar image for shahilsyed
shahilsyed

654

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

3

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#10 shahilsyed
Member since 2010 • 654 Posts

[QUOTE="shahilsyed"][QUOTE="Crystal-Rush"]Looks like more of the same but even lower in quality. I expect a 9 on Gamespot with all the coverage it's getting. On the homepage alone COD takes up 90% of all newsCrystal-Rush

How is it the same? After reading alot, this seems much different. Different killstreak system, now called poinstreak which is split up in 3 groups, adds whole new killstreaks, new attachments like having dual scopes, new game modes like kill confirmed which discourages camping, better sound effect, more guns, better unlocking system, clan features and so on. Also the game got rid of all flaws that existed in MW2. Cant believe these people think MW3 is the same as MW2. Oh yeah, did I forget, the new survival mode.

The pointstreak system is hardly groundbreaking. All it does is create more frequent opportunities to exploit the rewards system. And if you don't have a capable team to pull their weight to build up points, then the match is going to be completely one-sided.


Kill confirmed is just a twist on the already established Team death match. It doesn't get rid of campers because you can just designate people on your team to collect the tags that you've killed from a camping position. Or you can just camp spawn points and stop the enemy from retrieving the dog tags, which then leaves it wide open for your team to collect them. If anything, Kill confirmed promotes camping. The only problem is that the camper will get little to no confirmed kills.



The sound effects and sound design are a copy and paste from the past three COD games. Everything is exactly the same, from voices to grenades and guns. Lets not get into the graphics, which are exactly the same. HUD and animations haven't changed since COD4. The unlocking system is exactly like Black ops with the exclusion of COD spending points.


Lastly, the survival mode is a re-skinned zombie survival mode. Instead of zombies they just replace them with enemies ripped from every COD game since COD4.

None of that is correct, can you tell me what battlefield 3 is improving over battlefield 2 other than new maps, new guns and new engine?