The "Why Don't You Like Modern Warfare(1-3)" Thread

I don't like it simply because it's too much of the same thing with yearly repetition.

I may buy one after skipping few iterations, but this yearly repetition does rub me the wrong way.

 

I don't hate the game for this, but I do hate it's fans. This blind allegiance to the game is pure %*$gottry

 

Yeah i agree. The games does seem to fly. The environmental effects are nice btw, chaos everywhere. Though it just lacks that certain "something" that could have made it better.

Lol, well im just a nurse so taking care of patients really is boring compared to taking care of computers hehe

On topic: Well perhaps they killed him off because Ghost did become more famous than the other characters. He took the spotlight from Soap and Price

:banana:

 

From a single player perspective...

I didn't have any real issues with CoD4. While the story wasn't anything special, it was a nice change from the previous CoD games. And they did a good job of keeping the gameplay fun.
Also, killing off a playable character in the story was a bold move... and one that worked out. I actually enjoy CoD4.

But, with MW2... things really, completely fell apart. In an effort to outdo the previous game they took the Michael Bay approach and went for style over substance. The story is a complete joke, basically a (very, very) cheap backdrop to allow stuff to blow up.
But even then the plotholes and ungodly jumps to story takes as whips back and forth are not only disjointed, but very poorly explained.
And while the gameplay does keep the CoD standard... the lack of interesting and solid pacing kills it. There's almost no deviation between gunfights, no way to make each fight seem special or interesting. Pacing is a huge issue in MW2.

Also, given how well people responded to the shock of a playable character being killed off in CoD4... they jumped the gun in MW2. Killing off one character after you've spent like five minutes with him... then killing another that you've played about 90% of the game as.
And given how completely forgettable the characters are... neither death has any impact.
Also... Soap talks a lot in MW2. Until you start playing as him... then he suddenly attains the social grace of Gordon Freeman.



It's hard for me to view MW3 objectively. I can't see it without expecting it to spiral even further into stupidity then MW2 did.
But, at the same time, I do wonder if Infinity Ward being restructured... and Sledgehammer and Raven helping bring this game to completion has done anything to strengthen the story at all.

There is potential in the series. But, the gameplay and pacing needs improving and some tweaks.
And, if they are going to continue to firmly gripe onto such a campy, over the top premise for the story... they should embrace it completely. Stop trying to push it at the player as if it's such a realistic, important and OMG style story... when such a presentation just makes it look even dumber.
Pull back, enjoy the camp that's filling the games and have fun with it. I'm not saying go full on like DICE did with the Bad Company series.
But, at least embrace the over the top nature of the story. Don't try to hide it behind a bunch of military jargon.

 

Way i see it:

BF+ mostly realistic sounds of vehicles, explosions and weapons
BF+ size of landscape allows searching for targets & flanking tactics
BF+ engine is constantly updated
BF+ unscripted destruction in MP

MW+ SP Stories
MW+ Modding is easier
MW+ invented COOP mode first


All in all, both game series have their moments. Some hate both, some love both, some just play one for MP and one for SP. Hard to say which one is the 'better' game series since thats personal taste.

 

For me it's easy to say, as one feels like it's from 1997 and the other feels like it's from 2011

 

CoD4 was one of the most complete and well done PC games to come out in a long time.

This has nothing to do with its play style or whether you like to play that kind of game or not.

It was just very well done.

MW2 just tried to use the name alone to sell and left out tons of content and playability that 4 had...it was a joke....well it was a console game lazily ported to PC.

We can't say much about 3 yet obviously but if it follows 2's lead of just porting and leaving out mapmaking ability and mods and other essential first person shooter physics such as lean then it to will be a joke.

....and it will still sell well...which is why they don't have to put effort into it.

 

Dev's kinda messed that up after CoD4.

 

Last CoD I enjoyed was World at War. The smaller console sized maps in later sequels just made playing a lot less fun. The lack of dedicated servers in MW2 didn't really help and Black Ops was a huge letdown, it ran horrible/unplayable while they continued to fix it. Plus it is the same game rehashed over and over.

I only started playing Battlefield with BC2 when I snagged it on a Steam sale in Dec, I've been hooked ever since. I only wish Battlefield had more modes like CoD has. Perhaps with Battlefield 3 to likely dominate this year, it'll net us a CoD game that won't be a console game ported to PC in the future.

 

I don't dislike MW, I just think that BF is a better MP game that is all. Single player wasn't spectacular in either. I didn't really play either that much...only enough to blaze through them and play the MP. I never felt as though I was cheated with MW2, the matchmaking never bothered me (it was actually nice because I played with a group of about , but there was a lot more cheating and lag in MW2 than there ever has been with BC2. I also don't care for the superpower perks that ended up in the MW games...I also don't like people running around shooting two machine guns at a time or holding two pistols.

I might get MW3, but definitely not at releases...I'll probably try it on one of my friends' consoles just to see what they have added. If it is just like MW2, I probably won't get it for quite some time since I believe BF3 will give me what I want in an MP game.

 

I never thought about it, I enjoyed all COD games, including World at War, as well as BF2, I can't see I would choose one over the other, I'll get both, not necessarily at the same time, but eventually. I also play all the MOH games too, though the last one did blow a bit, too buggy and not as crisp as BF2 or COD.

MP I couldn't give a crap about, hate MP in any form, don't see the point in endlessly getting fragged and running around hither and thither, spawning, getting shot, a-holes cheating, yardy yardy yah! I can not understand it's popularity.

 

MP adds value to a title as they can add almost endless enjoyment--as long as you can find a server.

I can watch a movie for about $10 if I go to a theatre...That is about $5 per hour of entertainment. I also expect to pay more going to a theatre as opposed to a $3 rental or $10 monthly subscription to a movie service. A 5-6 hour campaign on MW? I would feel cheated if that is all I got for $50. People log hundreds of hours on MP games and that is where they get the value.

 

I know it adds value, I'm just saying it adds no value to a game for me, it is something I have to pay for regardless, but I still buy the game, and I don't rate one series over another because of it. I lose out on FPS in what I make up for in my Sims, rFactor on a per hour rate has worked out at fractions of cent for me. Incidentally I did join a league one year, enjoyed several seasons but again, like shooters, there are always eggs, and I couldn't be bothered with them, with the limited time I get on the computer, I would rather enjoy myself, and that enjoyment does not involve online gaming of any sort.

 

I didn't play either series enough to dislike or love them. For Call of Duty specifically, I feel that people think they are gods, especially console players (and people I know in person). The first COD game I ever bought was MW2 (PC) and I raped. Got bored with it in a month, because if you come from an arena type shooter or danmaku shooters, games like this are too easy.

 

Yeah ok I'll play you in some CoD and see how easy it is. lol

It is who you play against. There is plenty of room for skill in Call of Duty. I suggest not using pubs to measure how "easy" or "hard" it is to be competitive at a game.

 

N/O but half decent Quake/Unreal players simply demolish people in modern shooters these days when it comes down to aim.

Very rarely you meet newer players that never played Quake or similar games that do have some aim, but they're rare.

 

I'm sorry but I'm inclined to agree with FULMTL here. The skill cap for CoD is far lower than it was/is for arena style shooters from back in the day. Back when Quake 3, Tribes (Or my personal favourite, JK2, if you can consider that in the same arc) etc were at the height of their popularity differences in skill were far more prominent, even when jumping into a random server.

I'm not a big FPS fan anymore, I find both CoD and the BF games to be a little boring - I'd rather play Painkiller than either. They're just not for me, and I've tried. Though I do lean more toward BF if only for the greater focus on team work.

 

I like both MW and BF series. MW is more serious in the storyline while BF BC2 had some humor, dialogue was a bit funny and well it was DICE's second attempt at a single-player story which i think they did a good job in.

In multiplayer I cant compare the two, they are different in play style and tactics. I like both but I prefer the BF multiplayer.