Fallout Studios Forums

Raven, on 08 November 2011 - 03:08, said:

Yes it should be in your library, if you right-click the game you should get the option to view game key or something. You can definitely view your keys in Steam.

Hmm I installed steam on my work machine just to see that...but there was no option like that. I saw a similar suggestion when I googled.

Playing the campaign, it is fucking awesome. Seriously fucking awesome. It's got that factor treyarch just never can deliver.

Well I also managed to install it. I had steam running and when I ran the setup exe it just installed. No probs. Also it created a shortcut for dedi servers. It seems that COD4 type local servers back!!!

Chyros I agree...its frikin awesome. Played the first few missions. Story is a little predictable though. Still its awesome!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Dunno why, but for me at least it seems like the game doesn't look as good as MW2 did O.o

Wanderer, on 08 November 2011 - 15:42, said:

Probably because it's been two years and it looks the exact same as it did 6 years ago, while everything else around it has had some degree of visual change.

Although its the same engine.... I can see a few finer improvements. Especially lighting and fire. Also I am sort of glad that the engine was not upgraded since my machine is old. My poor machine screamed in pain when it ran BF3. So this is a welcome change.

I played a few more missions on the campaign, maaan it awesome. The campaign has the COD4 feeling to it...which was sort of missing in MW2. This is a real good campaign IMO. However I got one error...some "Reliable Stack Overflow" thing when playing the Goalpost mission. Just stay off the street and move thru the building if anyone else experience it.

lol, they released this as a game, yet its just new maps, the odd weapon and a new single player; and now the cod crowd is a tad peeved

cccdfern, on 09 November 2011 - 00:42, said:

Actually the game is VERY different, in many ways it's not comparable to MW2 at all.

As for the MP part; I like it. I think it's better than MW2, and that's saying something. However, it's certainly not without its flaws.

The good points are obvious. The hardpoints and perks are MUCH better balanced against each other (though the juggernaut is almost impossible to kill), the weapons so far aren't that badly balanced either and the Kill Confirmed is, against my every expectation, actually really good fun and all the small mistakes I thought they were going to make are perfectly circumvented. Lots of great and interesting options are open to the player, and overall I like almost everything in the loadout part, basically; it's all more balanced than I thought it would be. The weapons aren't always very balanced though, that's obvious even without having used the vast majority of them. They also kept their promise; noob tubes are almost useless in this game. You need to practically shoot it in the face to kill someone, and you can't reload them (or grenades) with either Scavenger or OMA (since there is none). Frag grenades seem to be more useful than they were in MW2, too, which I like. And deathstreaks aren't very prominent in this at all, all day I only met one Final Stander (and there's no Last Stand, YAY!) and deathstreaks are also weaker to begin with. All in all, the most annoying points about MW2 have pretty much been fixed completely. Even DVK can be lowered (effectively) with a proficiency that can be quite useful. They also re-introduced idling, though it's now also on stuff like SMGs which is a bit overshooting the target. Nonetheless they make MW2 ACRs a non-issue, and it really helps balance.

The bad points are that the maps (well most) are very detailed but incredibly badly designed. They are quite campable, and on Domination it's extremely easy to get camped in into a spawn with no exit available. Most annoyingly though, and this is a change pretty much as bad as the introduction of DVK and therefore almost reason to not play the game at all, the player makes footstep sounds when in ADS. This piece of extreme nonsense was of course, you guessed it, introduced by Treyarch, who used it to ruin Black Ops. And the SVD is even worse than it was in CoD 4 .


Overall I've found that, as I predicted, they improved a million things and introduced a few major flaws that can really ruin your day. From a design point of view, the game is, I would say, worse than MW2. However, if you pick the right gametypes (the ones staying true to the original formula of the game, such as FFA and Kill Confirmed), the game is much better, as they circumvent the biggest problems completely. As such, I would say that if you enjoyed MW2, you should probably buy MW3, as the overall result is much much better.

Well written mate, I suggest if you want to play a real game switch to battlefield 3 or BF1942: DCFinal

Anyone else who tried (and preferably finished) the campaign and who could post some feedback about it? I'd rather know if it's worth borrowing a friend's account and downloading 10 gigabytes ust for the SP...

As of the MP, judging by the (tons) of gameplay videos out there, it still plays exactly the same as MW2 so I'll definitely keep playing that game for the MP when I feel like doing some lone wolf shooting

Chyros, on 09 November 2011 - 01:55, said:

In reality what you're really saying, though, is that this may as well have been a large-scale patch for MW2, or at most an expansion (remember back in the day when these were actually a good thing, before DLC came and ruined everything?).

Should I even bother posting or is everybody just going put put words in my mouth FOREVER on this subject?

Chyros, on 09 November 2011 - 07:29, said:

You've pretty much stated that all the changes in it would be just as fitting in patch notes.

I cannot see any change that warrants $100, I'm sorry for your wallet that you don't see the same way.

Alias, on 09 November 2011 - 07:38, said:

Did you read a single word of that entire post? I'll requote the first sentence for you, "Actually the game is VERY different, in many ways it's not comparable to MW2 at all." So why talk about patches and blahblah and whatnot when that has obviously nothing to do with it? You don't buy EA's C&C Generals and then expect them to patch it to Starcraft II just because you paid for Gens, do you?

Chyros, on 09 November 2011 - 07:43, said:

Your opening sentence might say it's "very different" but from your actual description of the differences I can hardly see any sufficiently large changes at all. Plenty of balance changes, definitely - but balance is something you expect to be patched in, not added with every new game. Starcraft had balance patching for a decade after it was released. You didn't have to buy Starcraft 4 just to be able to play the latest balanced version, although now Blizzard has merged with Activision, anything is possible.

No, I buy C&C Generals and then get Zero Hour as an expansion for around 50% of the price I paid for C&C Generals, because there's enough new content to pay, yet not enough new content to pay completely. If anything, MW3 might be worth $20 or $30 on top of MW2, but I mean that's what Activision charges for four new maps, so that just wouldn't fly.

Alias, on 09 November 2011 - 07:52, said:

In that case Battlefield will probably be a better choice for you. MW3 has much more content than MW2 and most of all is a major overhaul of the formula. Perhaps the best description I could give is that MW3 tries to do it the BO way, not the MW2 or CoD 4 way. This is where its design problems come from, as some elements are introduced into which no thought at all was put, just like with BO. On the other hand, it still has IW innovation to it so there's lots of new content and most of all everything is refined majorly.

Again, even though to me it's obvious I'll never go back to MW2 other than its singleplayer with MW3's more satisfying MP experience and Spec Ops/Survival mode it's not without flaws. Though I suspect that nothing on Earth could make the perfect CoD game, as despite CoD's apparent simplicity it's actually very complicated in ways most players have no idea of, and because it's so fast-paced, minor imbalances and tiny changes are felt strongly.

Overall I would say that if you liked MW2, MW3 will be worth it. Some of you will probably be choking with laughter by now at the notion of "IW innovation" and "complicated CoD gameplay" and those I would advise to stay away from the game, because those of you will never understand the first thing about CoD ever. Those should probably buy BF3 or something.

Chyros, on 09 November 2011 - 08:08, said:

Doubtable. I don't mind some Battlefield every now and then, but it gets pretty stale pretty quickly.

I am personally more of the Quake/UT persuasion more than anything else, unfortunately the last good releases of those were Q3A and UT2k4. However, regardless of how bad Quake 4 was as a Quake game, and UT3 was as a UT game, at least they brought significant change even if it was bad. Thankfully, most good developers learn from mistakes so here's to hoping.

Chyros, on 09 November 2011 - 08:08, said:

Quake and UT are as fast, or faster paced than Call of Duty yet somehow manage to get a pretty decent level of balance across the board.

Chyros, on 09 November 2011 - 08:08, said:

I think we (or at least some of us) understand a fair lot about Call of Duty. I very much enjoyed Call of Duty 4 for several years (as I'm sure even a lot of the most prudent Call of Duty haters did, at some point), however it gets a bit hard to like Call of Duty 4 five times. That is our primary problem.

Chyros, on 09 November 2011 - 08:08, said:

Just as bad. Pretending to be something it isn't.

Maybe I'm just a cynic but there really hasn't been any quality multiplayer FPS for about 5 years, ironically I think Call of Duty 4 was probably the last quality multiplayer FPS.

Well, this will be fun to watch again...

Alias, on 09 November 2011 - 08:25, said:

Makes sense that you like UT/Q, tbh I'd take that over BF any day. However, though you're right UT is very fast-paced, it's fast-paced in a completely different way than CoD. In UT, gameplay is fast because everything moves very fast, however killing goes very slowly. In CoD, gameplay is fast because the killing happens very fast, not because the moving is very fast (as bunnyhopping etc. is strongly limited in CoD). The reason UT go the balance better is easy though; it has much fewer gameplay elements than CoD. In UT, you get a gun and you can fire it. In CoD, you get a gun, which you can hipfire or ADS, guns recoil visually and absolutely, iron sights idle, and you make different levels of sound depending on how you move, giving away your position to different degrees, and you can custumise your gun with attachments and now proficiencies and your class with several tiers of perks and equipment and there is a rotating minimap that shows you if you fire unless you have a silencer, and there are rewards for getting streaks of kills which can be countered with this perk and that weapon or that equipment etc. etc. etc. If CoD had none of those things I'm quite sure it'd have been balanced fairly early on too.

Call of Duty may have a larger level of features in the gameplay, but functionality wise, pretty much every weapon is the same.

Look at UT2k4 for instance, there's more than 10 weapons which function wildly different to each other and all of them have alternate modes. The difference between the shock rifle and the rocket launcher is far bigger than the difference between the minor differences in Call of Duty.

There is no need for perks or attachments, you get everything you need as is, and that is the real beauty about Unreal Tournament. It is so incredibly simple on so many levels yet so difficult to master. It's even more extreme with Quake when you add all of the extra mechanics you get.

To be honest I think it's a lot harder to balance a game which has rocket jumping and telefragging (not to mention the damage of individual weapons) than a game which has perks which change percentages in preset values.

I think that's enough of this though, I can only nostalgia wank for so long before I look like a complete tool.

alias i'll have to strongly disagree: UT3 changed NOTHING from UT2 (figure of speech, of course stuff changed).

there was seriously not a single significant change apart from the pretty graphics that made it stand out from UT2. hence why so many people don't like it and rather play the former game (at least where i live). it's also a public secret that UT3 was in fact just a showcase game for unreal engine 3, the engine used in pretty much 60% if not more of today's popular games.

OT: good summary chyros though i get the feeling you were contradicting yourself a few times. either way, it doesn't really matter for me as i won't be buying the game anyway. i'll be playing it someday perhaps but i am sure as hell not going to pay money for it. activision does not deserve my money (or anyone's money for that matter)
Edited by Camille, 09 November 2011 - 13:47.

Camille, on 09 November 2011 - 13:46, said:

My personal opinion is the problem with UT3 is it just doesn't feel like Unreal Tournament. Everything was turned Gears-of-War-brown and it doesn't play like 2k4 and GOTY do. It felt too sluggish to be UT.

Of course, Epic and id do have some level of excuse for making bad games, as you said, as most of their profits come from engine royalties rather than actual profits from their own games. Infinity Ward and Activision by extension have no such excuse.

Camille, on 09 November 2011 - 13:46, said:

Yeah, I can understand why you might think that. In many ways, the game's development contradicts itself - an obvious result of the leaving of half of IW and the co-op development of MW3. It's kind of hard to explain why it's badly designed but also very well-designed at the same time, I guess.

well, according to metacritic, MW3 is getting a fair beating, so, if all these points you make are promoting the game as good, why are there so many posts, well everywhere that it was a disappointment and that it is getting bad user ratings (site ratings don't counts anymore due to some obvious 'bribery'). Not attacking your views, just commenting upon how others are viewing the game. Some were saying that to actually score the kill, you had to go and get the guys dogtags, this is quite ingenuitive and an interesting addition; but all these things that they (the developers) are thinking they are changing (forcing players to not camp etc), never seem to come out that well with the community and quite quickly the normal habits are what makes the game.

So, how is this a different experience to blackops and MW2? What game mechanics have changed, have they upgraded the engine, support, balance, et cetera et cetera.

Also, the future, what shall happen next? Modern warfare 4? covert ops? or something else miltaryish-armyish. How much longer can cod stay alive with its consistent multiplayer style? Will another game take over the batton as to that which other games shall follow (crysis 2 was basically cod, where as crysis 1 was amazingly unique).

ty for tolerating my earlier pointless posts.