Changes you'd like to see in MW3: ***mw2 spoiler warning**

P

PS3

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
May 31, 2009
Messages
1,386
MW2 is obviously the game of the year hands down. For those that don't know here is a recap of mw2: Graphics are really good on the pc. Very clear and awesome with a decent graphics card...I would say 5850 or 5870 will really do this game justice...you'll want to use super-sample aa to really see some magic. Story is really good. Yes, I was pssed off when the General turned evil and killed the two you know whos...It's like an action pack movie all the way through. It's too bad it's so short, because it does leave you wanting more. And I would say that spec ops mode and multiplayer certainly extend the game nicely.

As for MW3, it's tough to see what improvements could be made with this game. I can start with what is perfect with mw2:

1) P2P system is impressively smooth the majority of the time if you have a broadband connection. It's not perfect but neither is a dedicated server at times. I prefer it over dedicated servers because:
- a - it's more fair
- b - clans can't stack the teams
- c - level playing field
- d - people won't waste money on dedicated servers.
- e - more accountability on the iwnet system
2) Great story line
3) Really nice graphics
4) Attention to detail is phenomenal...the detail on the player models, vehicles, etc. is the best in any shooter out there. It is something to appreciate. Again, use a 5850/5870 to see what I mean. Yes, an 8800gt can play it but it won't look nearly as good. I will say that I wouldn't play this game on the console...I'd play it on a pc with a gtx260 or higher.

Some improvements I'd like to see in mw3:

1) Make the single player game longer(At least 12 hours or so)
2) Ability to disable crosshair and change the fov to 80 like you could in cod4/cod5.
3) More multiplayer maps.
4) No more having to unlock weapons and features in multiplayer play, just leave them all unlocked right from the get go.
 
Umm...

Dedicated servers and mod support? P2P has no place on the pc. We want more players on servers that have custom rule sets and good moderators. Without that there is no way this game can be GOTY on the pc platform. With dedicated server support you could take this gameplay to the next level -- much larger maps, bigger teams. This would allow for epic ground battles with bases etc.
 
PS3 said:
1) P2P system is impressively smooth the majority of the time if you have a broadband connection. It's not perfect but neither is a dedicated server at times. I prefer it over dedicated servers because:
- a - it's more fair
- b - clans can't stack the teams
- c - level playing field
- d - people won't waste money on dedicated servers.
- e - more accountability on the iwnet system
Click to expand...

Complete and utter rubbish, I know already you are a troll, but do you have to make it so blatantly obvious!?

There is no point even attempting to have any intelligent dialogue with you because all of these points you raise have been refuted 10 times over in other threads.
 
Terrible thread. Go back to the console forum.

You know PC users want to scrap the P2P system completely because it's garbage.

Bring the console back. Bring back mods. Stop locking everything down. We'll pay for it if we can play with the game our way and you treat PC players with respect.

As released so far on PC, aside from spec ops with friends, this is one of the worst games of the year IMHO.
 
Have you played the p2p system? It's actually quite good. If you got a good connection(4 to 5 bars) it's actually smooth. I play cod5 on dedicated servers and mw2 still feels as fluid so long as you got a good connection going. It's geared more towards the main stream gamer which makes sense, as it levels the playing field through the matchmaking system.
 
PS3 said:
Have you played the p2p system? It's actually quite good. If you got a good connection(4 to 5 bars) it's actually smooth. I play cod5 on dedicated servers and mw2 still feels as fluid so long as you got a good connection going. It's geared more towards the main stream gamer which makes sense, as it levels the playing field through the matchmaking system.
Click to expand...

Yes, I've played with it and yes it works decently but it's not what PC games want. It's living in East Germany in the 80s. You work hard for a couple years and then you get a coupon to buy a Trabant, the same piece of crap car everybody has. When the Berlin Wall falls down, everybody ditches it because while it has 4 wheels and moves forward, it's garbage the state forced you to get and everybody goes to West Germany to get a real car.

PC gamers want dedicated servers because multiplayer gaming is about community. You goto a server that you know and that you know the people there. You can trust the admins. You know the map lists. You can control map changes, you meet other players that play there often. There are mods that you like there, etc. Dedicated servers also run on dedicated hardware and are always up and always working. Clans and admins are a good thing. Not a bad thing. And cheating is rampant on the P2P system whereas cheaters on a dedicated server can just be vote-kicked.

Everything IW has told us about removing dedicated servers has been a lie. It is NOT a better system. There are NOT less cheaters (there are even more). Levelling the playing field for mainstream users is also B.S. and discourages competition and player growth. Dedicated servers can have automatic team balance programs for a reason. The only reason IW did it this way was to make more money because they want to control what gaming you get and to sell you more DLCs.
 
PS3 said:
1) P2P system is impressively smooth the majority of the time if you have a broadband connection. It's not perfect but neither is a dedicated server at times. I prefer it over dedicated servers because:
- a - it's more fair
- b - clans can't stack the teams
- c - level playing field
- d - people won't waste money on dedicated servers.
- e - more accountability on the iwnet system
Click to expand...
Wow, talk about horseshit. Those points are complete utter rubbish, inaccurate, and just vague generalizations - the kind of nonsense we would expect from a PR lying sack of shit like Robert 402 Bowling.

Just in case you are not just trolling: P2P is ok-ish for a *casual game* if you're living in a first world country with fat pipes and high population density. Now realise that there are 6 billion other people on this planet.

P2P is HORRIBLE, especially when compared to the alternative that is dedicated servers.
 
PS3 said:
4) Attention to detail is phenomenal...the detail on the player models, vehicles, etc. is the best in any shooter out there. It is something to appreciate. Again, use a 5850/5870 to see what I mean. Yes, an 8800gt can play it but it won't look nearly as good. I will say that I wouldn't play this game on the console...I'd play it on a pc with a gtx260 or higher.
Click to expand...

He has no idea what he is talking about hardware wise.

The game is built on a heavily modified Quake 3/Id Tech engine that runs at very fast framerate with maximum textures, AA, AF, etc. all on just as well on low end hardware as high end hardware. Visually there is no difference. Max settings @ 60 FPS on my 8800GT is not going to look any visually different than max settings @ 60 FPS on a GTX260.

Graphics-wise, the ID Tech engine has a good and sharp lighting model and bump-mapping system that sadly many other engines don't do nearly as well. Unfortunately, the maximum textures in this game are still very low resolution and tuned for consoles. The graphics are decent but nothing to write home about and not even close to a benchmark like Crysis. Look at the terrible resolution of the backgrounds and the sky. The terrain of most maps also has a terrible polycount.

Can you even play this game with your Integrated intel GMA 3100 that you advertise in your sig? Go back to the console forum and sleep with your PS3 and it's Nvidia 7800 equivalent under your pillow.
 
Last edited:
PS3 said:
Have you played the p2p system? It's actually quite good. If you got a good connection(4 to 5 bars) it's actually smooth. I play cod5 on dedicated servers and mw2 still feels as fluid so long as you got a good connection going. It's geared more towards the main stream gamer which makes sense, as it levels the playing field through the matchmaking system.
Click to expand...

I've played MW2 with the P2P system and it is alright but prefer dedicated servers. There is much more one can do with dedicated servers than with P2P servers. As for fairness- if people want to play with their friends or clanmates, than so be it; nobody is being forced to play vs them.
 
TheCommander said:
I've played MW2 with the P2P system and it is alright but prefer dedicated servers. There is much more one can do with dedicated servers than with P2P servers. As for fairness- if people want to play with their friends or clanmates, than so be it; nobody is being forced to play vs them.
Click to expand...

Also, like I said before, many casual dedicated servers eventually incorporate auto-team balancing scripts as well so all those reasons by IW are bunk. Dedicated servers = choice and freedom. You don't like something, find another server. With P2P systems, you just have to connect and cross your fingers and hope it's something you like. It's restrictive and confining and limiting player choice and freedom.
 
The OP might want to change his name from PS3 if he wants to convince PC gamers why MW2 is good and what should be changed for MW3. There's really only 1 thing that needs to be changed for MW3 on the PC and I think we all know what that is.
 
i would really like not to see MW3 i would like to see something new from IW, what could MW3 give us that we haven't already gotten?

the story in MW2 was lame at best ok game play and sp way to short.

so what else is there a new MP experience, what more can the do? i reached lvl50 and stopped playing, with so many other games out there to play who has time to dedicate themselves to one game, MW2 MP is something i would play off and on in small chunks nothing more.

so i would like something completely new i really think the C.O.D series has run its coarse.
 
cnick79 said:
. There's really only 1 thing that needs to be changed for MW3 on the PC and I think we all know what that is.
Click to expand...

Yup..show some damned respect for the PC gamers and community who made your franchise what it is..:mad:
 
Console gamers are so easily pleased. It's like they have grown up only on what developers have fed and brainwashed them and have no taste or volition of their own to strive for or demand better things. :)
 
Things MW2 didn't have that MW3 needs:

Penguins - Preferably wearing SS uniforms, and they should speak english with german accents.
Apes from "Planet of the Apes", a scene with soap crying out "You maniacs! You blew it up!"
That baby with the cigar from Roger Rabbit. He should be the voiceover guy when you watch the videos in-between missions.
Ridiculously huge nerf weapons, perhaps involved in some kind of nerf wargame. Nerf jets, tanks, aircraft carriers, the works.
M61 vulcan as a carryable player weapon.
Nanosuit from Crysis.
 
If we are seriously debating this, I would like the option to select fire from semi auto to full auto.

However, without dedicated servers, I would never buy the game anyway.
 
Good story? Used in the same sentence as MW2? Really?

Don't get me wrong, the missions were fun, the different locales were cool, but I would never say it was a "good story". There's been tons of threads ripping the story to pieces, so I'll summarize it by saying this...

It was like the devs at IW just wrote "snow level", "urban combat", "shanty town", "shooting from an aircraft" etc on pieces of paper and taped them to the wall. Then, they turned their backs and threw darts over their shoulders. Whatever piece of paper the darts hit, that level got made, and then there was a half assed attempt at stringing these individual missions together into a story.
 
Hate moderators on public servers, you always get banned for saying any slander. Come on its a game and trash talk is a huge part of game play.

I love the integration of Steam on MW2. Say what you want and if they don't like it GTFO.

To bad MW2 still has cheaters.

One thing I would changes is the atomic bomb, that crap needs to go, of course the cheaters love that bomb >O
 
powertower said:
Hate moderators on public servers, you always get banned for saying any slander. Come on its a game and trash talk is a huge part of game play.

I love the integration of Steam on MW2. Say what you want and if they don't like it GTFO.

To bad MW2 still has cheaters.

One thing I would changes is the atomic bomb, that crap needs to go, of course the cheaters love that bomb >O
Click to expand...

If you are on a dedicated server that doesn't permit swearing, then like you said, GTFO and find another one. There are plenty that don't care. Personally I find those that trash talk are the young immature kids that I don't want to play with anyway.
 
Spare-Flair said:
If you are on a dedicated server that doesn't permit swearing, then like you said, GTFO and find another one. There are plenty that don't care. Personally I find those that trash talk are the young immature kids that I don't want to play with anyway.
Click to expand...

Trash talking does not always include swearing. I don't swear much while trash talking.

But look at the game, plently of mature content and foul language. If you can't deal with it, why buy and play it? I don't see how taking a game rated mature and expecting PG13 game-play works...
 
OP you better be working for IW or have had your eyes gouged out by to much IW bullshit or I feel sorry for you.

You seem to have somehow convinced yourself that p2p matchmaking through IWNET is better than dedicated servers that we the gamers control. Try again.
 
Spare-Flair said:
If you are on a dedicated server that doesn't permit swearing, then like you said, GTFO and find another one. There are plenty that don't care. Personally I find those that trash talk are the young immature kids that I don't want to play with anyway.
Click to expand...

Q.F.T. only more proving this point when you hear the (pre-)teen voices in soprano.
 
Zicro said:
OP you better be working for IW or have had your eyes gouged out by to much IW bullshit or I feel sorry for you.

You seem to have somehow convinced yourself that p2p matchmaking through IWNET is better than dedicated servers that we the gamers control. Try again.
Click to expand...

Sorry man but all the credible review sites have given this game top scores for a reason...IGN, etc. pick one. I have played it twice on a high end pc rig and find it a lot more fun than cod4. Cod5 has a special place in my heart since I am a bit of a WW buff, but MW2 far surpasses MW in terms of the game as a whole - graphics, story, sound, etc.

And as far as the dedicated servers giving gamer's the control? How is that? Some dedicated servers are just a dictatorship if you think about it. It's the admin making the decisions, not the players.IWnet does give players the ability to choose to skip maps. Story of the game was far more intriguing than MW, especially how Captain Price came out of the woodwork, and how Soap/Price became mercenaries in a sense. Not to mention how General Shepherd kills you and your buddy. My only complaint for the single player campain is that it should of been longer!
 
Q-BZ said:
This is where I stopped reading. This isn't even true on the consoles let alone the PC.
Click to expand...

QFT - I got a copy for Christmas and ended up playing through the SP completely the next day. Ignoring the obvious troll about the P2P system, the storyline was complete shit.

I'd much rather see MW3 handed to Treyarch who handled World@War much better.
 
PS3 said:
Sorry man but all the credible review sites have given this game top scores for a reason...IGN, etc. pick one
Click to expand...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_authority

Those sites and portals all sold out a long time ago and receive money from publishers and advertising revenue from driving traffic and sales. They are all almost all console oriented now, having betrayed their PC roots (much like Infinity Ward has) because they were following the money. As a console game, CODMW2 is a decent game, probably only slightly weaker than the first and there are no real changes. As a PC game however, this is an absolute de-evolution and crippling of the game and a classic PC franchise we've probably been playing before you've ever heard of COD.
 
Last edited:
PS3 said:
Sorry man but all the credible review sites have given this game top scores for a reason...IGN, etc. pick one. I have played it twice on a high end pc rig and find it a lot more fun than cod4. Cod5 has a special place in my heart since I am a bit of a WW buff, but MW2 far surpasses MW in terms of the game as a whole - graphics, story, sound, etc.

And as far as the dedicated servers giving gamer's the control? How is that? Some dedicated servers are just a dictatorship if you think about it. It's the admin making the decisions, not the players.IWnet does give players the ability to choose to skip maps. Story of the game was far more intriguing than MW, especially how Captain Price came out of the woodwork, and how Soap/Price became mercenaries in a sense. Not to mention how General Shepherd kills you and your buddy. My only complaint for the single player campain is that it should of been longer!
Click to expand...
Do you seriously take what review sites say to heart before you buy a game? The only reason I read/watch them is to get a first impression of a game, and most of the time it's a biased one at that, especially after the Kane and Lynch gamespot fiasco. For me as a competitive player MW2 is a total let down and after reading the IGN review all they did was copy and paste the console review over to the pc review and left it at that. Sure they mentioned how the game has no dedis/mod support but yet somehow forgot to factor that into their score.

I've played through the MW2 campaign once and while it does have better gfx/sound than MW as it should many would argue that the story was lacking and way to short, even IGN says it in their review. Don't get me wrong the single player was fun(the whole 5 hours of it) but the game as a whole is not worth the $60 price tag.

That stuff about dedicated servers being a dictatorship is a bunch of bull. There are plenty of MW servers to choose from all with different rule sets and maps, if you don't like a server that you are playing on just leave and join another, or better yet join a clan and host your own. I don't feel like writing the pro's and con's of dedicated servers vs p2p as it's been written a millions times over now and anyone with half a brain can see that dedicated servers far outweigh p2p in a game such as this.
 
Last edited:
I use gamespot.com a lot for reviews and ratings along with metacritic. The gamespot ratings I am more concerned with are the user ratings. MW2 receives 9's across the board on the console and a mere 6.9 by PC users. Geez, I wonder why?

There's nothing to miss enjoying when you never had it.
 
You sounds like a cry baby... no offense ;)

I am in a clan and play MW2... we stack it, BECAUSE we are playing together

ummmmm

leveling up in MP was one of the fun parts about playing.. what is the fun in being able to have all the guns right off? -? just to play it, but don't care about anything else?
or because you dont like someone killing you because they have a bigger gun then you..... mom he has a better gun then me :( cry

well I will let you right off, the m4a1 is the 1st gun you get and 1 of the best guns in the game... I am lvl 70 and play 90% with the m4a1 ;) everything unlocked on it but still m4a1, stock and i still own you with it :p

oh and the AK sucks, so if you are playing to get lvl 70 just for the AK, don't, just play the game because it owns

oh and watch out for me... I might just have to nuke you for being posting this :D



But everything else I do agree.

I wish it had mods and dead servers, but all and all I don't see the matter, plays great and you can start private matches to play in, so what that one person has to host... not saying it is the best but it does work, but still so many cry about it.... not the people playing it for the game it is and not the game they wish it was :rolleyes:
 
PS3 said:
Sorry man but all the credible review sites have given this game top scores for a reason...IGN, etc. pick one.

And as far as the dedicated servers giving gamer's the control? How is that? Some dedicated servers are just a dictatorship if you think about it. It's the admin making the decisions, not the players.IWnet does give players the ability to choose to skip maps. Story of the game was far more intriguing than MW, especially how Captain Price came out of the woodwork, and how Soap/Price became mercenaries in a sense. Not to mention how General Shepherd kills you and your buddy. My only complaint for the single player campain is that it should of been longer!
Click to expand...

This guy is a truly excellent troll.
 
Fuck this world is packed full of Idiots!

I mean, why would you waste time starting a thread like this? How is this entire thread any more productive than the post that I am currently typing for the sake of commenting on the idiocy of starting this thread?

Being more fond of IWnet than Dedi's is an complete regression. It is like giving a person a bicycle and expecting them to be satisfied with it as a means of transportation when we have all been driving cars for years.
 
Yah but driving cars is the leading cause for global warming.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top