I don't think redundant is the word either of you were looking for, perhaps monotonous. Anyhow, I can't say that Black Ops did 'differentiating' bad, but out of all of them, the guns in MW2 seemed to be most realistic.
I feel as though in Bad Company, some weapons had the same stats and handled the same, but all of them are different enough to keep me interested.
Monotonous, yeah, that's a lot better. The thing I like most about MW2 was that each gun felt different in some way, even though pretty much everyone used either the intervention or the UMP45. I loved the Scar though, and the P90.
No, I meant redundant. Like he explains it. Some guns had EXACTLY the same stats, while most others were barely different. The first two SMGs you get have the exact same stats.
Wrong. The SCAR does less damage than the 9A-91 AVTOMAT, but has a larger magazine size. Even if the stats are similar between weapons, there is still magazine size and type and the type of iron sight that can differentiate between them. The only guns that have the exact same stats are the XM8 LMG and the MG36 (good thing for me since that setup was my favorite. Platinum on both.) They also have the same magazine size and type, but the MG36 has a built in scope. While the guns in each class are similar, there is enough differences to be able to pick one that suits your play style best. But you don't have to worry about that in BF3 since you can drastically change how each gun itself plays instead of just choosing different guns.
It's also worth noting that the stat bars are not really accurate. You can compare the more detailed numbers and notice the differences, not to mention the different sights that Blade points out.
So what you're saying is that they are a little different. Still makes them redundant. At that point you're just putting guns into the game for the sake of having them.
Just having a few guns per class. I was fine with Vietnam, just have 3 class specific guns and 3 general weapons. It worked perfectly, but I'm willing to see what they do in BF3. I worried though because it looks like they have the M16A3 and the M16A4, don't know what that's about.
As opposed to having interesting guns which switch up gameplay a bit so it doesn't feel the same over and over again.
They're real guns. If it were Quake or Halo, sure. I don't see why you would argue for fewer weapons; even if you may not appreciate the differences, people will still have a favorite gun that works best for them. I don't see anything wrong with variety.
The primary reasons for multiple weapons in a game is to have them have different stats, these stats usually include power, accuracy, fire rate, and reload speed. With these a variety of combinations could be made, for example, the sub-machine guns on Black Ops have a lot of minor differences in them. or example the MP5K has a medium fire rate with medium power, medium ADS accuracy/high hip fire accuracy and medium range, whilst the Skorpion has high power, fast fire rate, high ADS accuracy, low hip fire accuracy and really low range. These differences may seem minor in game but they suit players differently and do have a major impact on the way the game is played. Although these differences are Over looked due to the stats system not being accurate in Black ops.
So... if all my friends are getting this for the 360 should I get it for PC or 360? IDK what to do... but I want 64 peeps. But playing without your friends is boring. Edit: I'm not surprised that more people voted for dinner than MW3.
If I was in your position I would definitely get it on PC. 60 fps, 64 player multiplayer, bigger maps, its so much better.
The SCAR has more ammo per mag than the 9A91. Plus you can customize your weapon on the fly and let it have different sights and underbarrel attachments. One of the main reasons I don't like Vietnam is that there are too few weapons to choose from. Everyone has the same gun sometimes.
Cod is good for a mediocre infantry fight Battlefield is good for realist war fight I'd have to go with battlefield since it's too complicated for little kids to play which mean's no screaming and no campers.
I just realized something... for consoles at least. BF3 Looks way better than MW3 right now. (Trailers/Leaks/GAMESCON/etc) But honestly in the end we all know that MW3 is going to be better to play and personally I wonder why that is.(I guess i think hardcore modern shooter fans think this) Is it because of all the hype behind BF3 changing the game and being better then COD. or is that down deep i know MW3 isn't going to change that much but I honestly dont care because its a formula I personally enjoy. Am i wrong? or is the true Sequel to BF2 going to beat the established beast? /high
Call of Duty's formula is just... In lack of better words, mesmerizing. No other game could have you playing amazingly one minute and then raging so hard simply because of something in the game. It's kinda like gambling, you play because it's easy and you win sometimes, but then you lose and think, I'll do better next time. At least that's what i think it is. And only because multiplayer in Call of Duty is so much more easy to get kills and it's a bit faster in response and handling. I remember switching from MW2 to BF:BC2 for a week and that first change to get used to the new handling of your gun was crazy.
32 player mw3.... interesting think its BS? I personally prefer playing Ground War in COD games so this is awesome news to me if its true. I feel like this BF3 rivalry is really pushing both these developers to make a better product to bad EA is being a **** about it.