We all know both games have their quirks: MW2 has many broken things that could(easily) be fixed, MW3 has a lot of bullshit as well, but at least some things are kind of balanced. Both games have fast-paced action, diverse guns, lots of opportunities for many playstyles, and much more. But for some reason, I find the latter of the two incredibly BORING and dull to play.

 

I have seen many people hate on the new IW game, and liking the old one. They can't find a reason why, they just do. Or they have a reason for it, but that's not what we are going to discuss here. Mainly people think that the community likes the older games, because it's a part of the routine. Once the new game gets boring, people revert back to the older games and prize them. I am going to explain why I dislike MW3.(and a little bit of BO)

 

The main reason I dislike MW3 and like MW2, is because the latter has more feel. I will explain what I mean by this later.

 

First, let's start my reasoning with the most simple one: MW2 has many pretty colors. It has a very diverse palette. Not many people pay attention to this, but I do. For example: let's compare the new and old versions of Terminal:

Note that these are just the loading screens. But still, take a look at Interchange. Downturn. Underground. Bakaara. Arkaden. Bootleg. Lockdown. Aground. Fallen. At first, I thought Fallen would have a good palette. And in comparison to the other maps I listed, it does. But it still is a very grey and dull map. The DLC maps are overall just fine, but they still have that ugly grey smoke and overlay on them. With filmtweaks the maps do look nice, but that's because they run on the MW2 engine, just slightly tweaked. And filmtweaks don't even count.

Let's compare these maps to some "dull" mw2 maps. Skidrow. Vacant. Storm. Underpass. Those maps are pretty dull, I would admit. Not as grey as the maps listed for MW3, but they are still pretty dull in comparison to those other maps MW2 has to offer. But why do I like them? You see, Those maps are unique. This may sound biased, but Skidrow for example has this green overlay, which perfectly fits in the setting. It's not the dark green grey overlay, it's more like a warmish green overlay. The maps are warm. Storm has this blue haze. It rains, it's set in Great Britain. But the map is unique, in a way that it's the only map where it has this kind of overlay. The textures aren't that grey at all. They use the normal textures like you see them in the other maps. In MW3 the textures, even those of the guns, are dark, dull, and grey.

 

The second thing I'd like to adress, is the pacing of the game. Yes, at the beginning I stated that the pacing is overall the same as MW2, and I'm not denying that. However, the movement speed of the guns have been changed. Assault Rifles now move at 90%, while they moved at 95% in MW2 and BO. So? Well, the LMG's have been slowed as well, now you move at 80%. What does this mean? Your character feels more fat and sluggish, and you can really feel it if you are using something that's not an SMG or a Shotgun. Shotguns are cool, however, I like them. They make the game entertaining for me.

 

The Third thing, is the gunplay. I said earlier that there are many diverse guns, and again, I'm not going to deny that. However, most guns feel the same. Not as bad as in BO, but not as diverse as in MW2. For example: Even though the M4A1 is almost inferior tot the ACR in MW2, you still had reason to use the M4. The slight RoF difference made the gun feel badass, and strong. Way stronger that the ACR, even though it's a laser. The 40-30 damage assault rifles each had their own role. The SCAR-H for the long range firefights, the TAr-21 for the close range powerhouse,and the AK-47 for something in between. I've heard people say that the AK in MW2 is worse than the one in CoD4, but statistically they're the same. They do play different, though, because the other guns in MW2 are more balanced around the AK. In CoD4 the AK-47 stood out and dominated the assault rifle class, while still being balanced.

In MW3 the guns feel bland and the same, even though they are very different indeed. Guns like the CM901 and the AK are almost identical, but the CM901 is almost obsolete because the AK has the higher Rate of Fire. The M4A1 is usable and good, but the ACR still is better. The recoil difference is relatively big between these two. The SMG's have poor range, and only a few of them are usable in just one way. Using weaker guns is a really bad decision, while in MW2 you would still be able to do good with the Vector, and have a lot of fun(speaking from experience). Snipers are good, but again, some are designed obsolete. Like the L118A and the MSR. But using guns like the MK14 is really fun. Why? The MK14 has an amazing feel. It's a strange gun that has no equivalent in its class, and it's actually usable! However, the rest of the game is still grey and dull.

You could create really bad classes to a certain point and still get a good score. In MW3 you are almost obligated to select a certain perk, because of what is happening in the game. You can not choose a perk to your liking. Selecting Specialist is a good choice, it brings something new to the game. But you will not get the excitement that MW2 gives you by choosing the AC130 and mowing people down.

 

The fourth point. This one is one that only I care about. It's about how the guns look. They did a really bad job at texturing these guns. I am speaking in camouflaging the guns. On the PKP, PP90 and the M4A1 for example, they just textured it, put an ugly white transparent layer over the parts they wanted to camouflage, and copied the texture itself in the alpha channel. The gun looks horrible when Camouflaged. They also had a very stupid mindset while doing this. IN mw2, the mindset was kind of like this:

Dev1: hey man, you know what would be cool?

Dev2: Tellmetellmetellme

Dev1: Well, let's say we have a black gun, and only camouflage PARTS of it, so it looks really pimped out and customized!

Dev2: Oh. My. God. That would be really epic!

The results are mostly camouflaged magazines and stocks, which make for a really cool gun. They saw that camouflaging your gun wasn't useful at all in their game, so they threw the whole camouflage idea away, and they did a good job at it.

At Treyarch, a year later, they thought a bit different. They wanted to create a realistic experience, like Vonderhaar constantly repeated in his interviews, and tried to do so as well on their guns. This is what could have happened:

Dev1: Ok, so the guys at IW did a good job. We know that guns get a little bit worn out on the battlefield. How about we do this as well and put it in our game?

Dev2: I want solid colors!

Dev3: Why not both?

The results are magnificent looking guns, and my camouflaging packs are based on this idea. Over at Sledgehammer Studios, they threw both ideas completely out of the window.

Dev1: You know, it's the modern era and all, the guns have to look clean. Camouflages are most of the time applied to the whole gun.

Dev2: I think you're right. We could try to do the reverse of what happened in MW2: NOT camouflaging some parts of the guns.

Dev1: I am liking this idea!

Dev3: Yes, but they are still in the battlefield, so the guns get worn out and all.

Dev1: Leave it to me.

If you take a look at the alpha channels of the textures of the guns, you will see they just copypasta'd the texture and raised the levels. For some guns they did some work, actually, like the CM901. They applied a good effect, which is (unfortunately) barely visible, and then WENT OVER WITH A 1 PT BRUSH, DRAWING SOME AMATEURISTIC SCRATCHES.

Also, they did a bad job at wrapping the texture around for some guns. The PP90M1 has just some rectangles which are completely away from each other on the texture file, creating this:

As you can see, they textured their guns with the mindset that those would not be camouflaged. A solid black overlay. Or tan, whatever. Without the camouflage applied on the PP90M1 the gun looks OK at best.

Also they used too many repeating textures. If you reload the KSG, you see that the stock is camouflaged. But for the bottom parts, they just used some other space of the texture sheet. There's nothing wrong with that, but when you reload the thing is all in your face, and they didn't even give modders the chance to fix this error. This is also visible on the PP90M1 while aiming down the sight.

They made use of the non-camouflage bug. On MW2 this was also present on the AK. For the small group that have followed my camouflage pack, they can see in the changelog that I am constantly updating the AK47. This is because the selected parts of the texture sheet outside of the original parts where the gun is camouflaged, just get the default solid color. For example the upper receiver on the AK47 was always tan. This glitch only happened from the first person view, when the gun was on the ground everything was ok. This bug happens a lot in MW3.

 

MW3 brang a lot of good things, like Theater mode and Specialist. But the theater mode is shitty when compared to the one in BO, and there isn't much change in the game at all when compared to MW2. I enjoyed two months of mw3, and then I quit.

Oh, I didn't like black ops, because it has a really slow pacing in the gameplay. You run fast, but your guns kills slower and people like to camp. There is a lot that black ops did right, though. Cod4 was simple and fun, fast paced and balanced. It also had diversity and the palette wasn't too dull, but it fitted right in the setting of the game.

So. In short:

1.The maps are dull as fuck

2. You move very slow in comparison to the older games

3. The gunplay is bad, the game isn't even fun.

4. The guns look HORRIBLE.

5. They didn't innovate much when compared to MW2.

 

I tried to make this some kind review of the game with some bias, but I think it turned into a rant at the end of this post.

But. What do you think? Do you agree? Do you disagree? Vote in the poll or leave a reply.

Woah, this thread is useless AND long.

Didnt read single thing...

Dat wall of text, I can safely say, TL;DR

 

If you don't like it, don't play it.

 

And you're totally the first person to dislike this game.

OP actually makes some valid points. Nice wall, read it all.

OP actually makes some valid points. Nice wall, read it all.

 

Indeed. He actually goes in depth about how IW5 is bad, and has decent valid points to back it up, and how it is isn't innovative, just a grey looking version of IW4 with new maps. GJ OP.

Very nice thread... how long did it take you to do this???? 6 months..???

Very nice thread... how long did it take you to do this???? 6 months..???

Why do people assume making a nice long post takes a long time ?

Very nice thread... how long did it take you to do this???? 6 months..???

Why do people assume making a nice long post takes a long time ?

Cause you have to type a lot..

Very nice thread... how long did it take you to do this???? 6 months..???

Why do people assume making a nice long post takes a long time ?

Cause you have to type a lot..

Doesn't matter if you type fast.

all ver is very nice of iw

OP actually makes some valid points. Nice wall, read it all.

 

Indeed. He actually goes in depth about how IW5 is bad, and has decent valid points to back it up, and how it is isn't innovative, just a grey looking version of IW4 with new maps. GJ OP.

Thanks for the non-sarcastic post. What you stated exactly is why I don't like iw5.