Modern Warfare 3

PiEdude wrote:

The Pariah wrote:Do you guys notice that as COD gets more popular it also gets more retarded?

my hypothesis? :The majority of people are just fucking stupid.

I have a better theory:

Most people aren't unreleasable douchebags who get bored quickly and judge games months before they even see a trailer.

I wasn't the biggest fan of Modern Warfare too, but come on guys! Give it half a chance before you see the trailer at least.

its activision. when was the last time they released a fully realised game experience instead of just "every franchise must release 1 game per year"?

here are the others

They said a while back that they'll never have P2P in their games, so I doubt it'll start now.

Game companies & Devs say a lot of things.

But hey, I'm not complaining. Just callin' it like I see it if that rumor holds any truth.

Angatar wrote:They said a while back that they'll never have P2P in their games, so I doubt it'll start now.

its activision...they're probably going to copy EAs 'pay extra unless you bought it new' thing

Angatar wrote:They said a while back that they'll never have P2P in their games, so I doubt it'll start now.

http://www.joystiq.com/2011/05/09/call-of-duty-micro-transaction-game-china/

Kotick disagrees.

I meant Infinity Ward, not Activision, but that thing is news to me. Damn you, Kotick.

You have to remember that IW as we knew it has changed a lot given that the company heads are gone and huge chunk of the original staff to boot, hence why they have two other studios to help.

A change in game design under a new lead wouldn't surprise me especially given a new tighter leash under activision.

It probably will see a shift in game design. Which is probably for the better. What has really been turning me off to call of duty lately is they dont change anything between games.

A better multiplayer system couldn't hurt either, possibly copying the perk system crysis had in place.

it's going to change less. he didn't mean a change in game design, but a change in how things are run.


It
s just funny, with the history of Infinity Ward, how they made Medal of Honor under EA, and were on a strict leash and left to make Call of Duty the way they wanted, where they could lead it. And now it's right back to the publisher constricting innovation.

Well there was an leaked internal activision memo where they seemed to think that franchise fatigue may be setting in. But they dismissed it going the way guitar hero did because of it's sales and the fact the FPS market is more stable than the music one.

I think there in for a nasty surprise. I was one of the first to give up with COD, now even the faithful are growing tired. If MW3 doesn't change up the formula drastically, the series is going to decline.

one of my friends on facebook is all stoked for it.

and I was like "great, more unoriginal story, and sub-par uninnovative gameplay"

and he replied "who cares about that, this means more multiplayer!"

and i said "so you want to pay $60 to reset your character, and lose all your prestige?"

and he didn't reply...

KristallNacht wrote:one of my friends on facebook is all stoked for it.

and I was like "great, more unoriginal story, and sub-par uninnovative gameplay"

and he replied "who cares about that, this means more multiplayer!"

and i said "so you want to pay $60 to reset your character, and lose all your prestige?"

and he didn't reply...

Pwned.

I haven't even played the last two because their the same game with a FEW tweeks.

And I know most sequels are the "same game" because you can't change everything and don't fix whats not broke, but CoD is copy and pasted games.

Yesterday, I sold my Black Ops and bought Portal 2.

I think it was a good trade...considering what other FPS's I already have and are on the way.

Oh and because...you know, Portal 2.

Ruski wrote:

That looks retarded as hell. Sure, global conflict is cool, but it looks like it is going to be so action-packed it will be boring. Seriously, it was just a minute and half of stuff blowing up.

OMG!!! THEY ARE SPEAKING TEH 1337!!!

looks like a good weekend rent to finish the story and get a couple achievements (btw ruski's WIC avatar looks cool)

TNine wrote:
That looks retarded as hell. Sure, global conflict is cool, but it looks like it is going to be so action-packed it will be boring. Seriously, it was just a minute and half of stuff blowing up.

thats the call of duty philosophy.

if something isn't immediately grabbing the players attention at all moments, they won't be smart enough to know what to do!

I'll get it.

RX wrote:I'll get it.

You and the 100 million other people who still like this series will and enjoy it. Power too you for finding some way to still enjoy this shit.

I see exactly the same thing I saw two years ago with MW2, and four years ago with MW1.

The Modern Warfare games have always been a global conflicts, the only difference is more bayspolosions. Oh and New York blown up and in semi-ruins with US troops fighting there? Well nobody's done that before in games (And certainly not 2 MONTHS AGO in a game that came out, real quiet release, something about a crisis of something).

I'd like to point something out, they oh so subtely put WW3 at the end (I SEE WHAT YOU DID THAR HOHOHO) Every country shown, and Russia as well who are obviously the antagonists (They always are) have nuclear weapons. Now I can buy that America might have access to them, due to the fact they were partially invaded while their scanning network was caput and probably don't have everything back to normal, but England, France and Germany all have Nuclear weapons (We have Trident Submarines that at least 1-2 are at sea constantly). I really doubt they can just flatout invade these countries. Cue Plot point I suppose.

CoD 4 wasn't really a global conflict.

it was on one hand, a parallel to our current war in the middle east, that happened to be tied in (although unknowingly to most US forces) to the Russian Ultranationalists, and everything with the british was all completely black ops like. Things nobody knew about.

Then Modern Warfare 2 was just like "lets have everybody fucking know whats going on!!!"

and it just goes more downhill from there.

KristallNacht wrote:CoD 4 wasn't really a global conflict.

it was on one hand, a parallel to our current war in the middle east, that happened to be tied in (although unknowingly to most US forces) to the Russian Ultranationalists, and everything with the british was all completely black ops like. Things nobody knew about.

Then Modern Warfare 2 was just like "lets have everybody fucking know whats going on!!!"

and it just goes more downhill from there.

You know, the justification for Russia to go to war with America still makes no damn sense, sure their government is a bunch of radical nutballs, but still there are huge laws in their logic. Like a Russian airport was bombed a few years back but a supposed insurgent, but they didn't go an attack every single arab country because that would be stupid, because pinning the action of one person on the actions of an entire country is really fucking stupid.

Sure they may think it was a US op, given the identity of the attacker, but this would be easily countered by the US by privately disclosing the classified information showing it was a double agent to infiltrate a known terrorist group. They could also back this up by the fact they would have Marakov ON FILM from the security recordings from the cameras at the airport. It would also explain why the only body recovered was an american, and was killed by his companions as no security forces hit him and he was shot just prior to the attackers getaway, clearly showing a betrayal or double-cross. You would at least investigate this before you loaded up the tanks and got into the planes, and the US would obviously assist in any way possible, because if they didn't it would indicate to the world they were implicite in the attack. They also could of caught wind of Shepard's crazy fucking stupid plan by questioning his judgement on the whole operation and why he choose a man with no previous covert ops experience, and was basically a grunt working in the middle east for training the local populice and peace-keeping for such an important and dangerous operation, given that he had available much much more suitable candidates (Soap).

Besides the UN and Nato would be pretty pissed if they did, and even if resports were slow, in less than 12 hours they would have confirmed reports and could easy retaillate for this unprovoked invasion with Nukes if neseccary.

The whole premise of this WW3 makes no bloody sense. They have no idea how international politics work.