# Mw3



## Adam-tt (Apr 3, 2010)

So who's got it and what do you think of it so far?


----------



## jonah (Aug 17, 2002)

Will hopfully be at home but missus coming round so doubt I'll get to play as wev've just got back together :wink:


----------



## cdavies360 (Jun 7, 2011)

Got it and done 5.5 hours and only 50% through. Awesome game. Graphics are fantastic, scenery fantastic but they haven't messed around with the game play.

Battlefield may be more realistic in terms of soldier movement but there's nothing like COD in terms of picking it up and having a good slaughter session.


----------



## Adam-tt (Apr 3, 2010)

so far i think its good but it seems to be lacking something :?


----------



## Blade_76 (Aug 11, 2004)

Got it this morning and completed it in 5 hours 8)

I think its brilliant, cant wait to play it online. Miles better than Battlefield 3.


----------



## cdavies360 (Jun 7, 2011)

Blade_76 said:


> Got it this morning and completed it in 5 hours 8)
> 
> I think its brilliant, cant wait to play it online. Miles better than Battlefield 3.


Definately. Ignore my previous post, the main screen said 50.5%....sat down....drink on the table...snacks eaten...ready for a big stint, and then 20 mins later it was complete.

Giving it a spin online now and looks impressive. Only thing I don't like is when the opponent has the juggernaught kill streak reward....they're a bloody nightmare to kill or get anywhere near [smiley=bomb.gif]


----------



## Gforce (May 10, 2011)

Mw3 is awesome but to be honest I'm leaning more towards battlefield3 just can't stop playing it!


----------



## kazinak (Mar 23, 2010)

Awesome game as usual

Sent from my LT18i using Tapatalk


----------



## Dash (Oct 5, 2008)

I've always preferred the Battlefield range; so I'll be sticking with BF3 for the time being, I don't have time to play two of these types of game!


----------



## ScoobyTT (Aug 24, 2009)

If it can be completed in 5 hours you might :lol:

Seriously, what happened to games that took weeks to complete? It seems to me that the need for ever more detailed graphical resources and geometry in games has come at the cost of longevity. I remember finishing a sequel game in about 10 hours and feeling distinctly ripped off.


----------



## Dash (Oct 5, 2008)

You still get those games, but these games the single-player is more of an add-on; the main game is the multi-player (thank you Quake 3 and Counter-Strike). I think this is fair enough, but I can understand people getting upset by a short game if that's what they were buying it for though.


----------



## ScoobyTT (Aug 24, 2009)

Some modern games do certainly look impressive. I got tired of them years ago though as they're basically all the same just the graphics get better as the years tick by. Anyone remember Doom 3? Nice evolution in graphics, but ultimately kinda crap. :lol: Someone showed my MW or MW2 (can't remember which) and it just struck me as more of the same FPS stuff that's been going on for 15 years, but with better graphics. Am I missing something? :?


----------



## kazinak (Mar 23, 2010)

all cod games are the same to me, maybe that's why i like it

finished mine in 5:28


----------



## Dash (Oct 5, 2008)

I am stunned at how good the graphics are in BF3 even on relatively average kit. Graphics _do_ have an impact on the involvement of the game, but yes, they aren't everything.

Doom: Really gave us the FPS genre, with multiple levels and ceilings.

Quake: Introduced the concept of mouse-look and jumping (combining with a rocket launcher for rocket jumping!), things were never the same again. And worked easily over the Internet.

Half-Life: Introduced a half-decent plot to single-player; 3D sound.

Counter-Strike: Focused objective-based gaming (instead of kill, kill, kill).

Battlefield 1942: Working vehicles in multi-player.

Battlefield Bad Company 2: Destructible worlds multi-player.

Most other games seem to be evolutions/tweaks/updates to these. Not everything can be ground breaking, and sometimes the detailed refinement of the next version makes a massive difference.

OFP/Arma: These aren't FPS, more buggy war simulators, I feel it has a progression of it's own.


----------



## ScoobyTT (Aug 24, 2009)

I remember multiplayer Quake games with a bunch of mates until laaaaaaate into the morning. Before 3D cards, and a 233Mhz processor. We would crank the resolution up to 1024x768 and laugh as it chugged along at 1fps or worse and ponder how amazing it would be once games could run with graphics that crisp :lol:

Half-Life was brilliant - the toughest AI at the time too, though the graphics were dated being based on Quake 2.

Unreal wiped the floor with all of them, being developed by independent developers who got together to produce a game and included new things like procedural textures, proper dynamic lighting, and a fantastic story on an alien world which the ship you're a prisoner on crash-lands on. They made hardware do things with efficiency that hadn't been seen before, together with a great story, incredible lighting and attention to detail, just about every environment you can think of, and sheer size - it was absolutely enormous. When "Epic Games" really produced epic games. Unreal 2 was a massive disappointment :?

Whatever happened to the Source engine?


----------



## Dash (Oct 5, 2008)

Source engine is still what Valve use, Portal 2 etc was done on the Source engine.

HL2 blew me away with what the engine could do, but that said none of the Valve games felt organic. The Unreal engine does a great job of that. Still, really enjoying the Frostbite 2 engine


----------



## ScoobyTT (Aug 24, 2009)

The Serious Engine was another one that came from a bunch of independants. Another bar-raising in terms of lighting and new features, and the first proper 3D engine to be able to throw hundreds of enemies around and create the first massive blast-em-up since Doom was throwing what were essentially scaled sprites around. Pure fun was back! Up until then triangle fill rates meant you were only ever dealing with one or two enemies at a time without the craziness.

Agreed, HL's engine's lighting wasn't quite right somehow but the physics and level of interactivity with the environment was new. Unreal Engine always had that realistic lighting feel, though strangely they did balls up water and some effects in some of the later games. Did you ever play Chrome? That had decent metal effects, forest environments and landscapes heading towards what Far Cry would later achieve, good story. Dumb AI though, which made taking out the mercenaries with grenades easy. They'd shout "GRENADE!" and stand right next to it :lol: Vehicle use in multiplayer was good, but as it wasn't a high profile game to ever have massive amounts of people playing, which was a shame.


----------



## James Junior (May 12, 2011)

ScoobyTT said:


> Some modern games do certainly look impressive. I got tired of them years ago though as they're basically all the same just the graphics get better as the years tick by. Anyone remember Doom 3? Nice evolution in graphics, but ultimately kinda crap. :lol: Someone showed my MW or MW2 (can't remember which) and it just struck me as more of the same FPS stuff that's been going on for 15 years, but with better graphics. Am I missing something? :?


I know what you mean. I have been into games since the days of the NES and have owned most consoles that have come out since that time. My girlfriend is also quite into games too. We both feel at the moment however that we are losing interest. As you say, most games now just feel like a repeat of what has been do e before but with better graphics.

We are of the generation that has experienced the excitement of real revolutionary changes in gaming from each console generation. The jump from 8 bit to the vibrant graphics of 16 bit. The introduction of 32 bit and the rise of true 3D games. The slickening of graphics and polish when PS2 and Xbox were released, then the latest jump to real high end graphics brought by PS3 and Xbox 360. Many of the games themselves just feel kind of boring these days though, like they are just rehashing everything that has gone before. Also too much emphasis seems to be placed on graphics and not gameplay with many games. (I am not talking about MW3 here though)

I bought Deus Ex the other day which I had been really looking forward too, only to find it excrutiatingly tedious. Kind of just like Metal Gear but with nicer graphics. They spent so long making it look nice that they overlooked the fact that the main game mechanic simply is not fun.

I cannot really see where gaming can go from here. With games now requiring £1ms and years of work from massive teams to develop it kind of feels like the law of diminishing returns.

Any other older gamers feel this way?


----------



## Dash (Oct 5, 2008)

Unfortunately these gaming industry is a victim of it's own success. Since Counter-Strike and C&C all publishers are willing to invest seriously in is shooters or RPGs. Why financially risk your organisation on an innovate game when the cash is spent on the same format. People are told they like MW3 so they go and buy it.

Did anybody play Mirror's Edge? That was a refreshing game, and I feel the only game that has managed to translate the game-play of old 2D platform games into the world of 3D. Moving between platforms, avoiding or tackling enemies.

The FarCry engines were impressive, FarCry 2 was appalling although I get the impression that was more the game than the engine. The first 3D GTA blew me away, that _was_ a significant jump in terms of large roaming built up areas.

I long for space sims, it was the staple diet of PC gaming before gaming became socially acceptable. Freelancer was the last attempt at an online one (sure, there is Eve, but that's more a trading game, and not a space shooter). But these were never easily ported to a console, so nobody bothers with them.


----------



## ScoobyTT (Aug 24, 2009)

I've never heard of Mirror's edge. I'll take a look later. I'm trying my hand at gaming again to see if I was being unfair and am trying the original Modern Warfare. Quite slick, but I seem to be going through the game quite quickly, the lighting isn't that impressive as it's all pretty flat, but has the occasional photorealistic moment that catches your eye. Graphics aside, it's very linear, only one way to go, and infinite enemies to kill until you reach the next trip point where they all stop, and then the next lot come in when you hit the next trip point. That's no more clever than how Doom did things :?

FarCry 2 was indeed turds. Some nice ideas like torching the landscape to torch the guard positions, but weird behaviour like driving up the road a bit, coming back to find the guard post mysteriously rebuilt and restaffed!

Space sims bored me in the end. Frontier was the last great one (Elite 2 basically), but it suffered horribly once you got beyond a few tens of lightyears. All the systems were mining or similar systems so you couldn't trade between them for any decent amounts so you ended up going back and forth the same two systems trying to build up enough money to achieve something decent. Yawn. Freelancer looked good but I tired of it in no time. X-Wing vs Tie Fighter was supposed to be good but I could never get the hang of it. Finding enemy craft in Elite/Frontier was easy - the displays were ingeniously simple to read on the fly. In XWVTF enemies seemed to either be dots that were too far away to hit, or flying past you too quickly to hit. :?

Prince of Persia Sands of Time was good I thought, though some of the combat scenes were a bit protracted. They kicked the speed up a notch for the next one, removed the strategy from fights into typical console smack the buttons fare, and added irritating sections that only a 12 year old dosed up on food additives could manage to pull off. I think there was another after that but I didn't bother with it.

Has anyone tried the Assassin's Creed games for comparison?


----------



## Adam-tt (Apr 3, 2010)

I liked the Assassin's Creed games but i do find they get rather boring after an hour or so
Metal gear solid now that was a good game


----------



## Gforce (May 10, 2011)

adam-tt said:


> I liked the Assassin's Creed games but i do find they get rather boring after an hour or so
> Metal gear solid now that was a good game


The old MGS was epic the ps3 version was a bit pants same with splinter cell loved the old one not 2 keen on the ps3 version mite be that I'm just getting old :lol:


----------



## Adam-tt (Apr 3, 2010)

100% agree the first ones are the best


----------



## Dash (Oct 5, 2008)

Wing Commander 4 was one of the best space sim, and games in general I've played. A lot of space games were dull too, I guess like many shooters these days are dull too - there were just too many people wanting a slice of the action.

I found the first Assassin's Creed a good concept, but the game didn't inspire and I got bored very quickly. I haven't played the subsequent version(s).

Game franchises tend to go down hill as they just turn into milking the same thing. Although I often find the second version is good - irons out all those things that was annoying in the first version, but not a complete re-write. Doom 2, need I say any more?

Games of the x86 era that I fell in love with and played way too much of:
* Doom II
* Grand Theft Auto ("gouranga")
* Worms: Reinforcements
* Civilization 2
* Wing Commander 4
* Operation Flashpoint
* Counter-Strike (original)
* Freelancer

Probably a few more, but I've waste a large part of my life on these games. I've clocked up over 400hrs in the various Battlefield games. The jury is still out on them though - I've never tinkered with any of them, which seems to be a clear sign of obsession for me.


----------



## Bung (Jun 13, 2011)

I generally find that community mods are what gives a game longevity, you only have to look at counterstrike to see that at work. Most of my online gaming entails playing mods of the vanilla games which are, 9 times out of ten, miles better in terms of balance and gameplay than the game out of the box. Any game developer that has a hit just tweaks the engines for further releases and you end up with just more eye candy and less good game play,which for me is what I seek in any online game.

@ Dash, 400 hours for the Bf series is not a lot, I have clocked up more than 3000 hours on BF2 + mods without the rest of the Bf series and add ons and mods, Desert Combat, Forgotten Hope etc, so don't worry mate some of us are way sadder.


----------



## Dash (Oct 5, 2008)

I joined BF2 late on in the game. And I only ever toyed with 1942, preferring OFP.

BF2 - 250hrs with a measly 10000 kills to show for it
BFBC2 - 140hrs similar number of kills
BF3 - 25hrs - 1500 and counting (slowly)

So not too much. I didn't realise quite how much BF2 I played given I wasn't especially good at it. CS was my real love, I put sooo much time into.


----------



## Toshiba (Jul 8, 2004)

I cant make my mind up if to buy this - BF3 was such a let down, im tempted to just kep playing Blackops and skip this one.


----------



## Gforce (May 10, 2011)

Blackops is turd lol mw3 much better
And bf3 is a quality game?


----------



## Adam-tt (Apr 3, 2010)

Gforce said:


> Blackops is turd lol mw3 much better
> And bf3 is a quality game?


Are you playing it online?
9/10 I'm getting killed by the ump45  or someone sat in the corner with a heartbeat sensor rather annoying


----------



## Gforce (May 10, 2011)

Yea online mate you on ps3 or Xbox 
Think I need to put some hours in as I'm still using the scar and getting my ass kicked sub machine guns looks the way to go! 
I'm on ps3 THRILLERKILLER if anyone wants to add me


----------

