Sidebar Sidebar
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.

Modern Warfare 3

fireshot91

fireshot91

macrumors 601
Original poster
Jul 31, 2008
4,721
1
Northern VA
So, now that it's released, what do you all think of it?


I preordered mine from Newegg, but they didn't ship it until today :mad:.

But I went over to my friend's house, and played multiplayer online with him.


Domination and Kill Confirmed and Team Deathmatch have to be my top favorite game modes.

I like that they brought back Wager Matches such as One In The Chamber and Gun Game, but only with private matches. :(.

The overall gameplay is nice, much like MW2, but what really do you expect. New guns, new maps, they're nice. Still getting used to the guns/maps. My better gun so far is the UMP45 (I think that's what it's called?).


I really like the Support killstreaks, and how it doesn't reset after you die. But I like the Assault killstreaks more, so yeah. I guess it doesn't affect me that much anyways since I don't die TOO often.
 
fireshot91 said:
So, now that it's released, what do you all think of it?


I preordered mine from Newegg, but they didn't ship it until today :mad:.

But I went over to my friend's house, and played multiplayer online with him.


Domination and Kill Confirmed and Team Deathmatch have to be my top favorite game modes.

I like that they brought back Wager Matches such as One In The Chamber and Gun Game, but only with private matches. :(.

The overall gameplay is nice, much like MW2, but what really do you expect. New guns, new maps, they're nice. Still getting used to the guns/maps. My better gun so far is the UMP45 (I think that's what it's called?).


I really like the Support killstreaks, and how it doesn't reset after you die. But I like the Assault killstreaks more, so yeah. I guess it doesn't affect me that much anyways since I don't die TOO often.
Click to expand...


I'm very happy with the game, even though Elite service is down and out. Kill confirmed is my current favorite and survival mode is awesome. Also, I like both assault and support killstreaks, even though I have used support most of the time.

I like weapon xp, but it is love/hate for me, as I want equipment for my weapons available immediately. I guess Black Ops spoiled me in this respect. I have not played single player or attempted a mission in spec ops yet, but MW3 will be in my disc tray a lot the rest of the year!

EDIT: Sorry to hear about New Egg. Did you get a good deal buying MW3 at New Egg? I thought they had an offer for $15 USD off or something like that.
 
Last edited:
I must be one of the few who just has no interest in it.... Much rather be playing Rayman's Origins than MW3 but I Have no doubt which will sell more copies :)
 
I might grab it later on but TBH, I don't have much interest towards it. CoD4 was and still is amazing. MW2 was okay, but not as good as 4. From what I have seen MW3 is like MW2 with a few additions. I won't even mention the Treyarch crap here :D

Snail mail delivered my BF3 yesterday so don't have time for MW3 anytime soon. Not that I have much time for gaming in general nowadays. Lucky to squeeze out a few hours a week.
 
There's quite a few people who aren't interested in MW3. It has a very vocal contingent of people who hate & despise the game because of it's popularity and the crowd that often plays it.

With that, if you're a fan of the frenetic run like a chicken with your head cut off and twitch type of play, COD has it's appeal. The game does have it's strategic component, but usually it breaks down to running & gunning. If you want something more strategic, something slower, Battlefield 3 is the way to go. Just make sure you buy new, or you'll have to pay to play online. Also for me, the online play was spotty at best, till I gave it up in frustration.

Other hand, I've had pretty good experience playing online with MW3 from day one. Elite is finally working it seems today, so all good. The highlights for me have been Kill Confirmed mode, and the new versions of Spec Ops. Kill Confirmed sort of counters the camping mentality that quite a few players have. With Kill Confirmed, your team does not get points for a kill unless you pick up the dog tags that are left behind by someone killed. You can actually deny the kills of the other team as well as pick up your own. Which adds a more faster pace to an already fast paced game, and sort of neutralizes campers who sit with LMGs & think they're skilled. :p

Spec Ops besides their 2 man missions, has included their version of Gears of War horde mode, called Survival. It's 2 of you in co operative play versus an even crazier army that features first regular shooters, to trained soldiers, to armored soldiers, to suicide bombers, attack dogs, attack dogs strapped with C-4, helicopters, and Juggernauts. It can get crazy! Love this mode!

I haven't played much of the single player, as the multiplayer I find too addictive. Well worth the purchase, and definitely worth a rental. With a rental you can at least try out the online. :D
 
I bought it a week and a half before release, got it home and played a bit of the campaign and was very impressed with the gameplay and graphics....played the multiplayer and was not at all impressed. It's just more of the same. I think the BF3/MW3 war cancelled themselves out this time. BF3 has great MP, while the SP sucks, and MW3 is just the opposite. IMO anyway. :D
 
MacRumorUser said:
I must be one of the few who just has no interest in it.... Much rather be playing Rayman's Origins than MW3 but I Have no doubt which will sell more copies :)
Click to expand...

I feel the same way. I am sure they are good games, but there are just so many others that are more appealing to me. I've been thinking about picking up COD4 or BFBC2 in the bargain bin at some point for some fun multiplayer. Somehow I feel like the Bad Company franchise might be more up my alley... I might do that once I buy and finish Uncharted3, Arkham City, Mass Effect 3, plus all the other games I already own. :D
 
MacRumorUser said:
I must be one of the few who just has no interest in it.... Much rather be playing Rayman's Origins than MW3 but I Have no doubt which will sell more copies :)
Click to expand...

Absolutely the same for me.
PS, Rayman Origins is spectacular. Hands down the best (2D) game I've played since I first got my hands on Mario World. There's sooo much magic and charm in that game and it's great in co-op.
Can't see the appeal of MW games. Played 2 last year and I just found it to be too much action, too much direction/orders, too linear, too short and (since I had the Xbox version) didn't want to pay to play online against people. Went back to Team Fortress 2 and Left 4 Dead 2 (on PC).
 
Hellhammer said:
I might grab it later on but TBH, I don't have much interest towards it. CoD4 was and still is amazing. MW2 was okay, but not as good as 4. From what I have seen MW3 is like MW2 with a few additions. I won't even mention the Treyarch crap here :D
Click to expand...

Not a huge CoD fan, though I did like CoD4 quite a bit. MW3 kinda feels like CoD4 with all the MW2 additions. The gunplay is similar to CoD4 so I'm kinda happy with it.
 
PS3 MW3 Graphics

Is it just me, or do the graphics in split-screen online play just plain suck? I mean, they look pretty good in single player (both campaign and online), but, to me at least, there's a big hit when I go split-screen. Maybe I'm just expecting too much, though; I have been playing a LOT of Uncharted lately. :D
 
js81 said:
Is it just me, or do the graphics in split-screen online play just plain suck? I mean, they look pretty good in single player (both campaign and online), but, to me at least, there's a big hit when I go split-screen. Maybe I'm just expecting too much, though; I have been playing a LOT of Uncharted lately. :D
Click to expand...

It has always been like this. It's basically like running two games at once. I remember playing CoD4 in four-way split-screen and the FPS was like 20.
 
Hellhammer said:
It has always been like this. It's basically like running two games at once. I remember playing CoD4 in four-way split-screen and the FPS was like 20.
Click to expand...

That makes sense, of course, but I didn't notice hardly any degradation with Black Ops. I guess it just surprised me how much of a difference there is between single and split. Maybe its because the single player improved so much and there's only so much horsepower for the split? Doesn't really matter, I guess... ;)
 
Hellhammer said:
It has always been like this. It's basically like running two games at once. I remember playing CoD4 in four-way split-screen and the FPS was like 20.
Click to expand...

Not exactly. Per pixel lighting and shaders would use up the same amount of resources. Same amount of AI resources. It's probably looking bad because of how small the resolution is, 640p I believe. /2 that's just 320p.

Unless the resolution increases for split screen?
 
Dagless said:
Not exactly. Per pixel lighting and shaders would use up the same amount of resources. Same amount of AI resources. It's probably looking bad because of how small the resolution is, 640p I believe. /2 that's just 320p.

Unless the resolution increases for split screen?
Click to expand...

The amount of pixels would be the same in both cases. 640p on 50" is as much as 320p on 25" (i.e. 50"/2).
 
Hellhammer said:
The amount of pixels would be the same in both cases. 640p on 50" is as much as 320p on 25" (i.e. 50"/2).
Click to expand...

Exactly, which is why performance/image quality shouldn't be degraded on splitscreen other than being in a halved resolution (per player).
 
I have both MW3 and BF3 and from being a MW fanatic I think I now prefer BF3. MW gets repetitive very quickly, while BF3 (with the vehicles, large maps etc) make it more interesting. I also prefer how you actually have to work as a team.

Many a time me and the rest of the squad have been barricaded in an alleyway trying to fight our way out.
 
Dagless said:
That isn't a lot of processing.
Click to expand...

Umm...calculating and rendering two players' movements and environments simultaneously instead of just one is not significantly more processing? :confused:

I'm not a programmer, but I have a hard time imagining this. Care to elaborate? I'm always eager to learn from someone who knows better. :)
 
stridemat said:
I have both MW3 and BF3 and from being a MW fanatic I think I now prefer BF3. MW gets repetitive very quickly, while BF3 (with the vehicles, large maps etc) make it more interesting. I also prefer how you actually have to work as a team.

Many a time me and the rest of the squad have been barricaded in an alleyway trying to fight our way out.
Click to expand...

finally...a good reason for BF3...thank you! gonna go buy this one tonight now.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.
Top Bottom
Back