1 2 3 4 Previous Next 57 Replies Latest reply: Nov 16, 2011 10:37 PM by hobowi7hashotgun Go to original post RSS
  • 10. Re: What MW3 Should've Taken From Black Ops

    Don't worry, friend, the Advanced UAV is just like the UAV in every way except one; it shows direction. The reason why the SR71 was so powerful was that it glowed and receded; essentially being a constant UAV. The AUAV refreshes like a normal UAV so it won't be nearly as bad. That, and you're forced to get your other killstreaks before you can get the AUAV anyway

  • 11. Re: What MW3 Should've Taken From Black Ops

    LOL@ Ghost not being balanced. Infact it was Underpowered compared to the other first tier perks. Big deal, the perk only works when a spy plane is up. If there isn't one then you just have a wasted space. Scavanger, lightweight, flackjacket were much much better perks.


    Choppergunner/hind were 100000x more balanced than in mw2. You instantly were marked in red boxes in mw2. The chopper actually MOVED to where the enemy was spawning unlike blackops where gunner simply circled the map.

    We can argue about balance all day and it wont make a difference because:


    Mw2 and blackops are 2 completely different games that appeal to completely different people.


    Mw2: Focus on fast paced killing fest. Everything about that game screams it. Most games are judged on who can get their killstreaks rolling first. Which that is fine the game was made for anyone to pick up and have a blast with. That is exactly what it deliverd a intense adrenaline rush.


    Blackops: Focus more on the person and his gun. This game felt much more competitive than MW2. The game did not revolve around killstreaks. Reason being they were easily countered. Plus the fact if you wanted those high killstreaks you actually had to earn them. Regardless of what opinions are it is much harder to earn those killstreaks camping and i felt it encouraged more rushing then anything. there is not right and wrong way to play a game but it felt to me more people were willing to run around and fight with their gun without worring about constant predator missles/harriers/and ac130's raining down hell all game.


    All that said i think IW did take notice and took some of the more major changes in black ops and added them to MW3. One of the main ones is the in depth statistics black ops offered. I loved being able to see all my stats in detail. Down to my accuracy rating for any gun i've ever used. It's a shame they didn't keep the leaderboards because they felt much more competative then simply being KDR. The score per minute was a great way to make a leaderboard. They also kept theater which was another amazing addition to black ops. Hopefully they improved on it.

  • 12. Re: What MW3 Should've Taken From Black Ops

    I reaaaaaaaaaaaally wanted to see an adcanced emblem customization. It really expanded upon the freedoms of players, and the creativity among some was astonishing.






  • 13. Re: What MW3 Should've Taken From Black Ops

    I've got to agree with avengedyesterday overall.


    I'm going to add some other thoughts to the conversation. IW had gotten really big headed with the success of MW1. The "issues" people complaing about with BO, really, pale in comparison to the problems MW2 experienced. Out of sight, out of mind, I guess. To this day, some of those problems still exist.


    The IW vs 3A argument, frankly, is stupid. Both devs work together - especially now after the shakeup at IW - and both have brought innovations to FPS games with each release. You're all forgetting that it was 3A that brought us player controlled vehicles to the game. Everyone brags about IW bringing selectable kill streaks to the game, but it was 3A that removed the kill count stacking. We're not able to use the game's own menu to report cheating as a result of 3A which allows for two levels of attention toward the people that ruin the game.


    The bottom line is that these two developers are both owned by Activision and do work together and the relationship has made for an award winnin game series that deserves the accolades it receives.


    After a year of Black Ops fun and reflection on Call of Duty; where it has been, where it is, and where it is going ... Treyarch did a damn good job. In some ways, and maybe you could say in some big ways, yes, the game took a step backwards. That step was necessary. As far as the options, variety, and ability to rack up crazy kill counts, yeah, MW2 was a better game. But none of those things mattered because the amount of hacking, modding, and cheating made the game flat out miserable to the players that matter most: the ones actually spending their money, not their parents' money on the game.


    And BO will continue to be played by 1000s of players for years to come ... just like all the previous titles still have plenty of players even now.

  • 14. Re: What MW3 Should've Taken From Black Ops



    I completely agree with your anaylisis on the two games, but where can you see all those stats that Black Ops offered. I don't think MW3 has a Combat Record or any variation.

  • 15. Re: What MW3 Should've Taken From Black Ops

    They carried over some of the big things for me to buy MW3

    - Shottys as primaries

    - Less explosive damage/ No OMA/DC

    - MLC is gone

    -The aiming is harder for QS


    They seemed to have pulled more from 3ARC than IW usually does. And I agree with the above poster. Ghost was IMO completely over exaggerated by these forums. In 16 days of BO time I have never been in a game with no red dots on a radar. In my time playing BO I never experienced this myth of ghost whoring.

  • 16. Re: What MW3 Should've Taken From Black Ops

    @ zman6776  ...


    I am assuming the stats most people talk about being glad to see are ability to see the stats of in-game competitors. I think it is universally agreed that the ability to see if some blow hard really has a 20:1 KDR is great.


    But better than that, people can see what weapons opponents are using, what kill streaks are being used - everything. There is still plenty of trash talking out there, but I think the trash talking has subsided to a noticeable degree, as well. Why? Well, because if I trash someone for "camping" but I've deployed 2000 cameras, do I really have room to talk?


    The last big adjustment players need to make is to learn how to use the stats to their advantage. If you prefer the MP5 as an SMG but you have a 2.3 KDR with the Uzi after 500 kills, you may need to look closer at why it is you have a higher KDR with the Uzi. Could be that, as much as people don't like the Uzi, you're actually pretty good with it.


    It becomes a matter of interpretting all the stats so that you can set up your classes to what suits YOU the best, not using stats to determine which gun is OP/OU.


    As far as MW3 and BO, we're actually going to have access to even more statistics.


    It comes via Call of Duty: Elite.

  • 17. Re: What MW3 Should've Taken From Black Ops

    combat record was great.  i loved theater and combat training too but thats ALL blackops had to offer.  emblems were fun but besides a small amount of people who actually made GOOD emblems, everyone stuck to skulls and youtube emblems plus u cant unlock them through challenges which adds playtime to a game.  the game was the least balanced cod.  famas was and still is horrible op.  there isnt really a point not to using assault rifles considering lmgs didnt even get more ammo besides the M60.  snipers are horribly underpowered.  the game is also the dullest one with the least playtime.  i can go on and on ranting about this game.

  • 18. Re: What MW3 Should've Taken From Black Ops

    The FAMAS may have been overused not OP. I always won using the AK-47. Weapons that are unlocked low are always overused.

  • 19. Re: What MW3 Should've Taken From Black Ops

    I actually used quite few different weapons than I would have seeing the K/D for individual weapons. W@W had the same stat thing online and it also made for a great evaluator for yourself.

1 2 3 4 Previous Next