At 5/29/11 10:05 AM, EtchASketchClock wrote:

Also I look at your profile and it doesn't look like you know anything about anything. XD

As for halo, I do believe it goes something like this, but I really don't know that well since I haven't played the older ones in forever.

Halo 1 - has engine
Halo 2 - new engine (most notably reflections and ambient lighting)
Halo 3 - new engine, needed for 360 and huge graphical update.
Halo ODST - minor edits to the halo 3 engine
Halo Reach - either major retool of halo 3, or complete rewrite, I'm not sure.

The problem is that people don't complain about the engine in Halo, so it's not everywhere and there's not stuff to look up on it.

And noone really starts from scratch, they borrow and copy from everything everywhere.

At 5/28/11 10:45 PM, RightWingGamer wrote: you can bet your ass that it's not going to affect gameplay and/or balance in the slightest.

In the eyes of activision :

More Money > Balanced Game

People eat up Call Of Duty whether it's balanced or not, perfect example : MW2. Absolutely unbalanced piece of fucking trash. Sold millions on Day 1.

At 5/29/11 12:59 AM, HollowedPumkinz wrote: too much

All that just to say "your source is not reliable enough".

At 5/29/11 12:06 PM, sasuke2910 wrote: Also I look at your profile and it doesn't look like you know anything about anything. XD

I don't say anything on my profile, there's a difference. I must point out that I enjoy tearing apart games rather than try and make them. You learn so much more while doing so.

Halo 1 - has engine
Halo 2 - new engine (most notably reflections and ambient lighting)
Halo 3 - new engine, needed for 360 and huge graphical update.
Halo ODST - minor edits to the halo 3 engine
Halo Reach - either major retool of halo 3, or complete rewrite, I'm not sure.

All Halos use Bungie's own Blam engine.
The games consist of an executable for specific engine values, and .map files for everything else (which further tweaks values where needed.) Along with external files to index maps in Halo 3 and beyond.
This format has not changed, only added onto. Perhaps rewritten to an extent, but its still the same engine.

and there's not stuff to look up on it.

There's plenty if you know where to look, but then again I've been familiar with the blam engine for a while now.

Going off the assumption that since Halo's engine always remains the same and has the same file format, it's only expected that since the Call of Duty games also do not change file formats, the engine itself has not changed.

Much like many EA games pack everything into files called "bigfile.viv", or Harmonix with their HDR/ARK archive format, its all the same every sequel and or new game.

Engines thrive on files. if the file formats are the same, the engine is the same.

At 5/29/11 03:55 PM, RightWingGamer wrote:

At 5/29/11 12:53 PM, explodingbunnies wrote: MW2. Absolutely unbalanced piece of fucking trash.

Yeah, keep thinking that. It's much easier than actually learning how to play the game properly.

If camping + grenade launchers is how to properly play, than I would have to play the wrong way.

If I may, I would like to state that camping + grenade lanuchers is inevitable and indeed quite annoying. Modern Warfare 2 furthered that nuisance with Danger Close and One Man Army.

At 5/29/11 06:03 PM, RightWingGamer wrote: Modern Warfare 2 is a good game.

"LOL, he thinks MW2 is a good and balanced game!"

At 5/29/11 07:02 PM, RightWingGamer wrote: LOL, I haz an opinion, ain't that just so silly?

But my opinion is fact.

At 5/28/11 10:45 PM, RightWingGamer wrote: Do you REALLY think it's going to allow people to pay for better stuff?

Its Activision, they don't give a shit as long as people buy it. And people WILL buy it.

At 5/29/11 07:39 PM, RightWingGamer wrote:

At 5/29/11 07:31 PM, Jackho wrote:

At 5/28/11 10:45 PM, RightWingGamer wrote: Do you REALLY think it's going to allow people to pay for better stuff?

Its Activision, they don't give a shit as long as people buy it. And people WILL buy it.

However, you're missing the fact people simply do not buy products that they have major problems with.

True, aside from the video game industry. If a game has a famous name slapped on it (Halo, Call of Duty, Battlefield) people (mainly children) will insta-buy this game.

If Activision were to come out and say "In MW3, the richer players will kick the everloving shit out of the other players" what do you think that would do to their sales?

That's bad advertising. If they come out and say "Gain premium bonuses by spending real money" dumb people (the hardcore players of Call of Duty) will either buy it or shrug it off acting like it's nothing. If they're advertising it as a "Bonus" rather than "Real money spent on imbalance" they trick the dumbass hardcore community, thus being good advertisers.

At 5/29/11 08:00 PM, RightWingGamer wrote: Actually including something like that will fuck up their sales faster than if they were to say you played as a puddle of piss the entire time.

For Call of Duty, it wouldn't. You think far too high of both the series' fan base and publisher.

At 5/29/11 08:00 PM, RightWingGamer wrote:
Games are already expensive at $60, and CoD notoriously charges $5 extra for map packs.

$15

Any mention of Activision charging EVEN MORE than that is going to piss alot of people off incredibly quickly.

Well, the games come with a relatively small amount of maps for a modern game, and then are charged $15 for each additional map pack. Each map pack sells extremely well too, and most of it is designed before the game even launches. People are always forking out extra cash for the bullshit activision pulls to rake in money, so I doubt people would get mad at premium content if they don't get mad at overpriced maps that were cut from the game.

At 5/29/11 10:50 PM, RightWingGamer wrote:
Activision is quite greedy that way, but I don't even care. I skipped the Resurgence pack after Stimulus sucked, and since first strike was terrible, I likely won't get Escalation.

Are you the average dumbass 8 year old who buys and makes love to the Call of Duty series?

There's only so much consumers can take. They just barely put up with the overpriced map packs, but "premium content" (assuming it affects gameplay) I can guarantee would be the straw that breaks the camel's back.

It won't be. People eat up the map packs, more shit = more cash. Activision doesn't care about breaking a game if they make more money.

Besides, there's still no conclusive evidence that they even HAVE premium content, and the thought of it affecting gameplay is nothing more than an unsubstantiated rumor, so why the fuck is it such a big deal?

Because you're trying to make stupid points based on assumptions of what you think based on if everyone shared your views, as opposed to the views of the masses.

At 5/29/11 10:38 PM, Travis wrote: ITT: RWG going out of his way to protect CoD... as usual.

Nah, he's just expressing his opinion, and I agree with him. Although I don't give a shit about MW since, well, it's a game made to play online just like BF 3, and I don't like to play online, so I don't care for both, but I know well enough about Activision being assholes as usual.

About the whole "Premium" features, if that was true, than I guess it would be for mostly cosmetic features, since giving advantages to premium accounts would probably hurt the sales a lot more than it would boost. Sure, people WILL buy it, but I don't know if that will compensate the huge ammount of butthurtness that would emerge.

I'm just speculating of course, they very well could add damage boosts and better weapons and bla bla bla and be the biggest assholes of all time, but I just think that wouldn't an advantage.

At 5/29/11 11:37 PM, RightWingGamer wrote:
That's a pretty gross generalization. Yeah, there are kids on CoD, but so what? The same can be said about ANY game, that doesn't justify ridiculous assumptions like that.

Call of Duty is notorious for its community being filled to the brim with high pitched, obnoxious children.

I'd love to see you back that up.

It's called Modern Warfare 2.

Hold the phone, I'M making assumptions? You're the one who's looking at a rumor about extra content and saying "This'll break the game for sure." without so much as a fucking shred of evidence to go on!

I'm simply saying that if it is true, it would destroy the game and I wouldn't go near it. You're trying to say my opinions are wrong, and you're sucking the cock of the Call of Duty franchise harder than the series gets milked.

Example :

At 5/29/11 12:53 PM, explodingbunnies wrote:

MW2. Absolutely unbalanced piece of fucking trash.

At 5/29/11 03:55 PM, RightWingGamer wrote:

Yeah, keep thinking that. It's much easier than actually learning how to play the game properly.

I understand you have an opinion too, but when you bash me saying "your opinion is wrong" it makes you into an immature shit. I don't even want to argue with someone as ignorant as you are.

I came here and thought maybe I'd have a nice chat about what might be in the new game, but then I saw what was already here and decided to leave.

i have a dream "that MW3 would be balanced and much more fun than the fuck up activision called MW2"
seriously, i just want to see whats new and how differ the game is than MW2 and how similar it is to the first MW...

i just hope they didn't over kill it.
please god show activision the light not to screw this sequel too bad.

At 5/30/11 04:57 AM, Illegal-Product wrote: please god show activision the light not to screw this sequel too bad.

Not Activision's sentimentality to do something like that.

Sorry bro,

He's STILL defending Activision.

At 6/11/11 03:26 AM, RightWingGamer wrote: Huge amount of official info just released. Check it out.

"Bowling suggested that gamers should buy both Battlefield 3 and openly admitted both games play to completely different playstyles."

Unlike the douchey Battlefield devs that constantly try to shred on COD.

This thread is about Modern Warfare 3, not who is a fanboy and who isn't, or how much better Battlefield is than Call of Duty.

I, for one, have changed my mind about MW3. Although they put quickscoping back in, they took away a lot of the annoying shit that made me quit Call of Duty in the first place, and I may start playing again. Now, maybe we can have some legitimate gun fights; not a fucking artillery fight with OMA, Tubes and Danger close.

I'm still hoping for scopeless rifles, though. I want to get my Bolt-action-rifleage on, without that shitty Hide-in-the-back-with-ghost-on bullshit.

At 6/11/11 01:35 PM, Travis wrote:

I'm not really sure what they mean by that since MW2 was ALSO built up from CoD4.

I am guessing it's meaning that they are trying to go back to their roots?

If going back to roots means balance, then I like this information too.

Battlefield 3 will obviously be better than this. MW3 will be using the same engine. Infinity Ward just rushed the game so their little COD fans will give them money. Well good thing I won't buying that game when I'll be buying something that's more superior. Battlefield 3 engine > MW3 shitty engine

At 6/12/11 05:06 PM, SneakyGameBoy wrote: Battlefield 3 will obviously be better than this. MW3 will be using the same engine. Infinity Ward just rushed the game so their little COD fans will give them money. Well good thing I won't buying that game when I'll be buying something that's more superior. Battlefield 3 engine > MW3 shitty engine

Another great example of a Battlefield fanboy.

At 6/12/11 05:20 PM, Danavers wrote:

At 6/12/11 05:06 PM, SneakyGameBoy wrote: Battlefield 3 will obviously be better than this. MW3 will be using the same engine. Infinity Ward just rushed the game so their little COD fans will give them money. Well good thing I won't buying that game when I'll be buying something that's more superior. Battlefield 3 engine > MW3 shitty engine

Another great example of a Battlefield fanboy.

No I'm actually COD fan thank you very much. Well not anymore since I'm tired of COD series. I think almost every COD fan is tired of the same old stuff from COD series. And it don't make me a fanboy about opinions. That's just childish.

Quickscoping confirmed for MW3.

Therefore: Modern Warefare 3 confirmed for being god awful.

Shotugns are secondary weapons and the 1887 is probably going to be in the game. Welcome to the shitstorm yet again.

It was much better when shotguns were primary.

At 6/12/11 07:29 PM, Greenfrost6 wrote: Quickscoping confirmed for MW3.

Therefore: Modern Warefare 3 confirmed for being god awful.

Fixed link. Add an ! to the end.

At 6/12/11 07:41 PM, RightWingGamer wrote: Really? You're passing judgment so quickly just because it's possible to use a sniper rifle at close range? God, you're dense.

What? A feature which originally was a bug in the game but the fanbase bitched and complained about it and has now been made into an official feature to keep their junior fanbase happy? Yes. I am passing judgement.

Also, listen to yourself:

use a sniper rifle at close range

The entire point of a sniper rifle is to be a support from a distance. That should be a sniper's weakness, close range combat.
But:

HURRDURR CAWADOODY IS ALL CLOSE RANGE NO BIG BATTLEFIELDS

Then there shouldn't be sniper rifles then.

At 6/12/11 07:29 PM, Greenfrost6 wrote: Quickscoping confirmed for MW3.

Therefore: Modern Warefare 3 confirmed for being god awful.

They are promoting that cheap tactic? Its official COD has gone downhill.

At 6/12/11 11:53 PM, RightWingGamer wrote: Junior fanbase? Are you for real? Do you know how many pros there are who have built their name on quickscoping?

Quickscoper. Skill. Pro.
Three words which simply do not go together. Yes, I've seen bloody clans devoted to quickscoping. All in all, it's pathetic.

Also, even though it gets annoying wading through billions of montages on YouTube, in-game I hardly even notice it, so I don't see what the problem is.

You're missing the point completely. Quickscoping was an exploit that people found in the game, where the accuracy of the sniper rifle becomes pin-point before the viewmodel actually zooms in, the auto-aim also activates their too. It's like putting the game on auto-pilot. Not only that, but when the developers make it harder to do in Black Ops, the fanbase bitches and whines.

And what do you know? They caved. However, it was still too hard to do in Black Ops, so all the quickscoping.. uh.. 'pros' went back to MW2.

Unrealistic? Yes, of course. But does it honestly affect gameplay? At all?

I never used realism as a defense. But that is a good point to make. Do you seriously enjoy getting one shotted at a close range from an auto-aiming exploit?

Oh, and way to ignore other games with QSing, I bet you've never played Counter-Strike in your life.

Counterstrike and Halo both have an instant zoom. It's part of the game, it isn't an exploit. For Counterstrike, many dedicated servers (which I add, CoD does not have), disable the AWP because it is simply overpowered. And for Halo? Difference between Halo and CoD is that a sniper rifle doesn't one hit kill you if you body shot them. In Halo you actually have to shoot your opponents in the head to do maximum damage, just like any other game that actually takes a little bit of skill rather than fast reflexes.

Lol, you're pathetic.

<3

Yeah, it's mostly CQC, but there's plenty of vantage points for the snipers as well. For instance, there's the bridge on wetwork, the rooftops on favela, the catwalks on WMD, countless places in WAW maps, you just gotta know where to look.

If they intended snipers to take those positions and hold out there, then they wouldn't have allowed Quickscoping as an official gameplay tactic.

I quote this from someone else: There's only two ways to fix Quickscoping in CoD.
a) Bodyshots do signficiantly less damage rather than a headshot with the intervention
b) Keep it to before the Black Ops update: You have to wait a few seconds before you can shoot.

Unfortunately, that's never going to happen, because the developers are allowing the fanbase to manipulate their game.

Pic related, it's a sniper, doing what a sniper should do.