I find the entire problem with MW3 is the fact that it caters to the fanboys of call of duty.
Infinity Ward is now what I think of is the lesser developer compared to tryarch which have not yet sunk as low as to strictly cater to the fanboys of COD.
You might be asking yourself.....What the hell is this guy talking about?
Let me fill you guys in.
Back in November I was a happy MW3 fan, the game was new and a breath of fresh air from black ops. I had high hopes for this game, I was actually like "this is a great game, sure a few bugs but a great game none the less" Then about 2 month into the game, I was throwing my guts up. The ACR and the MP7 was clearly the master two weapons, the perk diversity was basically the same. The game had so small maps and basically offered nothing new from any of the previous CODs.
Let's start with the map size. The maps are WAY to small. I can name about over 10 maps in MW2 that was really open/big enough to allow snipers to be good and used without quickscoping on majority if not nearly all maps. Now about 2 maps are good for sniping and the game has no elevation. Think of the map Quarry from MW2 that is the style of map that was good, has open spaces and had plenty of elevation and sniping could be done well. So map sizes have been designed for the SMG nuts and Fanboys, Infinity ward has given into them.
The two most powerful guns in the game, OMG. MP7 is got to be almost like an assault rifle, It performs that well and has all the perks of being an SMG. The ACR has no recoil, good irons, can out beat a sniper at range and has a lot of benefits strictly for it.
Put it bluntly this game is really bad for the COD veternas who played MW1 WAW and even MW2 (yes it was a tube fest but really a great game arguably). Even Black Ops is better than this game, sure it had guns like the FAMAS but hey, they patched that in the end and now it is slightly above par to the rest of them, making it slightly more balanced.
Overall this game is for complete fanboys, I ain't hating on the game I am merely disgusted by the way the game has been developed, with such unbalanced weapons and nothing new really, small maps, same two weapons always used, the game is very very bad in my opinion.
The game was made for fanboys, the people who love running about or using explosives and that is it really.
Yes I agree tha map design is poor and it they cater to idiots who just run around randomly with their head cut off. But I wouldn't call those types of players fan boys.
There's plenty of lines of sight for snipers you just need to be creative with the abundance of cover provided on each map. Also MW3 is not unique in the COD series for having a couple of weapons that are used by most in the past the scar,ump, ak47u and famas have all been that gun you constantly see on the ground.
When it comes to COD people seem to develope a strange amnesia when it comes to past titles in regards to weapon use and other issues.
Although I agree with you points about map size, no recoil guns etc...
But the statement: "I find the entire problem with MW3 is the fact that it caters to the fanboys of call of duty." does not really make sense to me. Maybe I am misunderstanding you but:
Who were they supposed to cater to? (the non-fanboys???)
I am not sure if the sales would have been better if the game was not like this (I am sure future sales would be better), but as a business you have a decision:
- do something that will ensure sales (even if it sacrifices quality)
- go for quality and make the game for the "veterans", although this could sacrifice time to market and risk sales.
The best of both worlds would have been ideal, and they surely failed on that aspect (judging by the reactions of the forum community - those who could be argued to be the fans of the series who wish to have their input heard. Unfortunately we represent a small fraction of the total fan/purchase base)
Anyways.. I am likely misunderstanding what you mean by "fanboys"..
MW3 isn't built for long range sniper battles or at least it's not as built for them as previous titles were. It was built to be more run and gun friendly which creates more intense action. They have, however, added some long range sniper friendly maps with the DLC drops. Liberation, Foundation, and Sanctuary come to mind. But no it's not just another remake of every COD before it. You should try branching out and using other guns or maybe try HC mode. The maps aren't any different in HC but snipers are more deadly there and generally a more tactical gameplay. As to the "fanboys" comment, every game including the ones that you love were made with the idea of making as much money as they could get out of it. Businesses aren't artists holding to certain values regardless of appeal. They make money. So, of course, they will alter the game to bring in the most fan appeal that they can while trying to hold on to the old base. It's about making money. Always has been and always will be. The upside to the catering is that it forces you to adapt your gameplay for the changes. As someone who enjoys strategy, I would think that you could appreciate not just doing the same thing over and over again. I don't always get to run the load out that I want either to be successful but that's part of what keeps things fresh.
In one part you are correct. IMO however, I think they just cater to newer players. I can't count the number of times I've heard some little kid whine and cry about how hard this game is...
THIS IS THE EASIEST CoD I'VE EVER PLAYED!!! I've been able to get maxed out at prestige 20 in little time played. I had almost 15 days played on MW2 before I was a prestige 10. In this title I was a level 20 by the same amount of time played.
They simply want more money. To get more money, you have to make the game easier for the younger generation that has just started gaming. Make it easier for them = money from their parents = more money for the craptivision execs to go on vacation.
How do you make it easier? They have a simple solution: Death Streaks. Makes it more fun for the beginner and pisses off the vet.
Let's face it and be honest, we all thought this was going to be a great game but MW3 doesn't come close to MW2.
MW2 had a better selection of maps: from small close-quarters to large maps.
The sound on MW2 was massively better. Surround sound enabled you to determine where your enemy was.
The guns were more balanced and way better.
Most importantly to me the 'matchmaker' selection and way the servers ran on MW2 was infinitely better. None of this awful 'lag-correction-mess' that we experience now. The better your connection on MW3 the worse experience against people with poor connections. We now experience endless servers full of people who live thousands of miles away from you who can't speak the same language. How does that work out?
You would have thought Activision would have used MW2 as a bench mark and created an even better game but it seems somewhere the development of MW3 got confused and ended up as a shadow of MW2.
Everyone I have spoken to who plays MW3 and who played MW2 thinks MW2 was much better. The reason no-one plays MW2 is because its full of glitchers and hackers and they probably get away with it on MW2 because it stops people going back on there.
My point: MW3 - Quite an easy game to play for the casual gamer (because of the small maps, random connection and unbalanced weapons).
MW3 - Perfect game for anyone to play who doesn't take gaming very seriously. Ideal for Fan boys (or whatever you want to call them). Meh.....