Modern Warfare 3

[David M]

Has anyone been playing it? I am really enjoying it. I just wish there was the option to turn the music down or off. Sometimes it is distracting or overly dramatic or affects the game play where you cannot understand the dialogue.

[Bronxbomber90]

We got it the same day it came out and I got to tell you that I am a true loyal PlayStation fan. Before all this COD games came out there weren't many fans on war type of games. All of suddenly we got all this people jumping on the COD wagon because it became popular. Honestly they suck! lol I have play MW3 campaign on normal is fairly easy and boring. I hear BF3 is a lot better than MW3. I miss playing the medal of honor, Socom, Metal Gear games.

[pam123]

I've got a few clients who love it.
Me?
Not my thing, I'm waiting on the next adventure/murder mystery game.

[birddog_61]

I just prestiged for the first time and still can't stop playing. I love the game, its by far the best COD game in my opinion.

[birddog_61]

Originally Posted by pam123 I've got a few clients who love it. Me? Not my thing, I'm waiting on the next adventure/murder mystery game.

Have you played LA Noire? If not you should give it a try, its really good detective game.

[David M]

Does anyone know why COD 4 MW was created before COD 3 MW?

Is this sort of like what George Lucas did with Star Wars?

[birddog_61]

No its COD 4 MW then 2 years later COD 6 MW2 and then 2 years later COD 8 MW3.

[Bronxbomber90]

Guys just played BF3 and is SICK!!!!!!!!!!!!!! SEMPER FIDELIS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! F@#$ MW3

[Simplicity]

MW3 Is a good game a lot similar to MW2 if you ask me but eh I'll still give it a thumbs up. Now Battlefield 3 still doesn't quite fill the void of what I was expecting it to be, I used to play Battlefield 2 on PC and man do I miss those days that's for sure ha.

[David M]

Call of Duty: Biggest One Day Entertainment Sales Ever - Forbes

[Dave21]

I got it the day it came out too. The lobby area for multiplayer was really buggy and slow due to overload of players. After an update, it is okay now. But honestly MW3 is like MW2.. just new maps, new weapons, same game. They need to add in some zombies...

Oh and a few months later, they'll take more of our money by adding a map pack for $15 bucks :s

[Masaki 7-11]

I tried MW3 on friend's Xbox 360, I liked the gameplay of it, more so than MW2 and Black Ops, but not quite as much as CoD 4. Experience on the 360 wasn't too bad, though there was occasionally host transfers and lag, I really don't see why they don't use dedicated servers, imo it would make the experience so much better for multiplayer.

[David M]

Probably because dedicated servers cost them more money than their shareholders are willing to pay.

Yeah, servers with high ping rates stink. I always get fragged on those. Too bad people with 1 or 2mb speeds even bother to host.

[birddog_61]

Originally Posted by Masaki 7-11 I tried MW3 on friend's Xbox 360, I liked the gameplay of it, more so than MW2 and Black Ops, but not quite as much as CoD 4. Experience on the 360 wasn't too bad, though there was occasionally host transfers and lag, I really don't see why they don't use dedicated servers, imo it would make the experience so much better for multiplayer.

Computer has dedicated servers, while I agree it would be nice if they had them and they worked well for console, I am glad that haven't done like EA with battlefield and run dedi's that suck. The amount of servers required for xbox alone would be staggering for MW3, last night there were 800,000 people online playing.

[David M]

For a single game....that's amazing.

[Masaki 7-11]

I'd imagine it'd be cost effective if not profitable to use ad supported servers, and it wouldn't be that hard to do. Could be something as easy as making the loading screen an advertisement and having ads on the side while you're in the lobby.

FPS games generally don't have that high of server requirements since they don't have that much information they need to store, I mean if a lowly 360 can host 16 ppl, imagine what a proper server could do.

[birddog_61]

Originally Posted by Masaki 7-11 I'd imagine it'd be cost effective if not profitable to use ad supported servers, and it wouldn't be that hard to do. Could be something as easy as making the loading screen an advertisement and having ads on the side while you're in the lobby. FPS games generally don't have that high of server requirements since they don't have that much information they need to store, I mean if a lowly 360 can host 16 ppl, imagine what a proper server could do.

You would still have to have a set of servers in every major city across the world, and probably some in the not so major cities in between that way ping and latency would not be an issue. If you have one server on each coast in the USA the people in the middle of the country are going to get a lot of latency just because the distance to the server is so far. Also yes an xbox can handle 16 people which is not a lot, but there are also 58 million xbox's worldwide. 7 million of those bought MW3 in the first week, if say 10% of the people who bought it have a good connection then that makes 700,000 good 16 man servers spread across the world capable of hosting 11,200,000 people. It would take a monumental amount of servers to even equal what IWnet currently handles, imagine how many it would take to improve it. If a single server could handle 1000 people (not gonna happen) it would still take 11,200 servers. I personally think what IWnet is capable of is amazing and that it does a great job, I have been playing COD since COD4 and have logged probably in the neighborhood of 65 days played total, I would say maybe 5% of the games I have been in have had bad lag issues, and another 2% that had lag but it was tolerable.

[alanebro82]

Originally Posted by David M Does anyone know why COD 4 MW was created before COD 3 MW? Is this sort of like what George Lucas did with Star Wars?

It was explained a little bit, but their rationale was this:

COD 1,2,3 were WWII-era games. They released COD4, but it was no longer WWII, it was present, so they called it "CoD 4: Modern Warfare" in order to differentiate from the others. After realizing how popular this new "Modern Warfare" brand was, they decided to drop the numbering from the "Call of Duty" portion of the title and add numbering to the "Modern Warfare" portion. So after "CoD 4: MW", they had "CoD: MW 2".

[Masaki 7-11]

Originally Posted by birddog_61 You would still have to have a set of servers in every major city across the world, and probably some in the not so major cities in between that way ping and latency would not be an issue. If you have one server on each coast in the USA the people in the middle of the country are going to get a lot of latency just because the distance to the server is so far. Also yes an xbox can handle 16 people which is not a lot, but there are also 58 million xbox's worldwide. 7 million of those bought MW3 in the first week, if say 10% of the people who bought it have a good connection then that makes 700,000 good 16 man servers spread across the world capable of hosting 11,200,000 people. It would take a monumental amount of servers to even equal what IWnet currently handles, imagine how many it would take to improve it. If a single server could handle 1000 people (not gonna happen) it would still take 11,200 servers. I personally think what IWnet is capable of is amazing and that it does a great job, I have been playing COD since COD4 and have logged probably in the neighborhood of 65 days played total, I would say maybe 5% of the games I have been in have had bad lag issues, and another 2% that had lag but it was tolerable.

A single 2U (possibly even 1U) could easily handle 1000 players; right now you can populate that one server with 4 physical processors and each one can have up to 16 cores for a total of 64 cores on one server. Each of these servers have room for 32 DIMMS with a capacity of 8GB each for a total of 256GB of ram; for comparison a Xbox 360 has 512MB of ram, a very large portion which is used for local processing.

Now in a single rack full of 2U servers, you would be able to fit it with 9 of them. A data center might have 100s of racks. Realistically you'd have enough processing power in one data center to server for all players of MW3.
As you mentioned above, this isn't feasible as you'll have to spread the servers around to help reduce the amount of latency for connecting players.

Another option would be to allow hybrid mode for serving games; you could have centralized servers in major cities that would be ad supported, and for areas that are too far away to effectively connect, you would fall back to current method of having an Xbox 360 serving.

[David M]

Would any players be willing to pay the true costs of playing on those servers?

[birddog_61]

Originally Posted by David M Would any players be willing to pay the true costs of playing on those servers?

Some would, many wouldn't and it would then split the community up. The cost of implementing those servers would be astonishing.

[Sourtop]

So far I really like MW3. The multiplayer seems more balanced than MW2 was and the new unlocks are really cool. The changes to special ops and the inclusion of survival mode are also really neat.

The single player was easily my favorite of the MW series too.

[Masaki 7-11]

Originally Posted by birddog_61 Some would, many wouldn't and it would then split the community up. The cost of implementing those servers would be astonishing.

Like I said it could be ad supported, don't know about you but having millions of viewers for ads sounds like good marketing. Wouldn't be hard to get the required amount of money to keep the servers going through advertisement. Also keep in mind that the servers are already out there, they just need to go out and rent the servers.

[bhamil77]

I have both MW3 and BF3 for my PC, and I have to say I do not have a favorite between the two. They both fill different niches, and have fantastic game play. I do like the ability to get into vehicles in BF3 though.

[David M]

In MW3 you can get in, you just can't drive them. Someone else has to drive you to soccer practice. Perhaps that was intentional so 12 year old's could play?

[Extremerc12]

I am primarily playing BF3 on the pc right now, but MW3 feels no different than Black Ops and MW2 before that. Don't get me wrong, they are both great games, I just think the recycle and incorporate new maps needs to be refreshed.

[birddog_61]

Originally Posted by Extremerc12 I am primarily playing BF3 on the pc right now, but MW3 feels no different than Black Ops and MW2 before that. Don't get me wrong, they are both great games, I just think the recycle and incorporate new maps needs to be refreshed.

MW3 feels absolutely nothing like black ops unless you think all FPS feel the same. It does feel a little like MW2 but it is a direct story line from cod 4 to now. There are to many changes to list, not the least of which is the specialist point streak.

[Extremerc12]

Maybe I am just run down of all the CoDs, but to me they are one in the same with a few additional features (just large enough) to make an impact and say the games are different.

[David M]

The story line is different. Everything else feels the same, which is a good thing because I really enjoy it. This is a case where not changing a whole lot is beneficial. I have seen a few good games messed up by changing a number of things.

[Extremerc12]

As far as I am concerned, the game got messed up after UO/COD2 PC. With that said, CoD 4 was good, not what UO was, but none the less good.