Is It Too Late?

[iB Proto]

Do you guys think it's too late for Spec Ops (Survival) to compete with Zombies? I personally do.

1. It is two-player, that will never compete with the fun & laughs of a four-player zombies game.

2. The lack of randomness makes it a little more bland.

3. It just seems like another Spec Ops Mission/Campaign, there's nothing different that separates it from campaign or Spec Ops Mission.

What are your personal opinions? With a few updates can it compare to zombies?

[ZombieOfTheDead]

As I've said, can't compare. Still fun, but you really can't compare.

[Rissole25]

The first problem I see with it is that it is 2 player. You would think IW would've learned from MW2 Spec Ops that just having 2 players wasn't enough. Funnily, they keep the same equation with Spec Ops and Survival again, I guess hoping people wouldn't care about there being 2 players. Zombies shows that 4 players is way more fun/better, so I don't understand why kept it to 2.

The fact you are playing on the Multiplayer maps make it seem a little bland. Some zombie maps were based on certain maps/levels but not completely. They had interesting and unique locations.

I don't even have MW3 and I'm not that excited to get it. Of course I'll try it out, but I only really want it for the campaign.

[xFaTaLx RaMpAgE]

I don't really mind it being 2 players for a couple reasons. The first is that it makes it more challenging. If you had 4 players you could all sit in a building and destroy everything. With 2 players you just can't do that. The other reason is that I usually play 2 player zombies games anyways, so it isn't much different in survival. The thing I don't like though, is the fact that it is hard to find a game. There are no lobby leader boards and matching up with one person takes a while. But I do like the fact how you level up. Different levels show your experience level, to a degree. I wish you could prestige so you could have an even better idea of how good people are.

[iB Proto]

Majority of the people all hate the up to two-player feature. I usually don't play four player zombies (I play two-player) but I would really like the feature of being able to play four player survival. I think Infinity Ward really did mess up. :/

[ZombieOfTheDead]

Exactly, the fact that 4 player is there is nice enough, and some people like playing in a little group rather than 3 people.

That is the one thing they could have kept from zombies, the one thing they really screwed up in.

The first is that it makes it more challenging. If you had 4 players you could all sit in a building and destroy everything. With 2 players you just can't do that.

Dude.... with more players, the harder it gets. They put in more enemies so that it is more intense, that's why its so hard to get up in high levels with 4 people in zombies.

[xFaTaLx RaMpAgE]

Solo survival has exactly the same amount of enemies, jugs, and choppers as 2 player does. This would mean that it's the same for 4 players as well

[ZombieOfTheDead]

Solo survival has exactly the same amount of enemies, jugs, and choppers as 2 player does. This would mean that it's the same for 4 players as well

Well then there's another thing IW failed at, increasing difficulty with more players. Guess it doesn't matter given that there can only be 2.

[ChrisMathers]

Well, I mean, I thought it was going to go without saying that Spec Ops wouldn't hold a candle to zombies. Like, I was pretty sure IW wasn't even going to try to compete, they were just going to do their own thing.

That said, Modern Warfare 3 is a great game, but all it takes is a good campaign to make a great game. Black Ops was what I would call a PERFECT game.

Let's compare.

Black Ops campaign = good.

MW3 campaign = good.

Zombie mode = I wish the levels would actually, you know, end, but zombies is awesome.

Survival mode = Kinda fun. Kinda meh. It's all right. No plot though.

Mission mode = Not exactly on par with zombies, but it's fun.

Black Ops multiplayer = Combat training. I love botmatches (except in older Battlefield games where they were poor excuses for a replacement for a good solid campaign.) I don't have to play against griefers and children. But for a lack of any apparent effect on the overall story, each map almost feels like a level from the campaign, what with all the easter eggs scattered about giving a guy a reason to explore each and every map.

MW3 multiplayer = No combat training? Fuuuuuuuck that shit. I've heard way too many horror stories about online play. Like hackers banning innocent players on BF3? Even if survival mode is harder to explore, at least I'm not taking any unnecessary risks.

Survival mode = Uh...yeah. Combat training was better. Everyone's trying to kill ME instead of each other, makes it a LOT harder to explore the maps, which is pretty much the only reason I poke around in parts of the game that don't seem to have anything to do with the story.

Mission mode =

[SaLaD_FiNgErS_HD]

imo survival got stale about a week after the release of mw3. It could be vastly improved in the next IW game but i doubt it will be as good as zombies anytime soon.

[TheZombieChicklet]

Ehh, I like Survival Mode, it's pretty fun, I play it occasionaly when im playing MW3, but nothing can hold a stick to Zombies.