Modern Warfare 3 gameplay - Anything new?

[Meggiepants]

All gaming companies are doing it for the money. They don't do this shit out of the goodness of their hearts. That's not how it works. If you are under the impression that some other gaming company is altruistic in some way, you are fooling yourself. Activision is no more greedy than Valve, EA or any other huge gaming conglomerate. If these companies saw an opportunity to make money, they'd take it. So no, I do not know exactly what you are talking about when you talk about Activision, mainly because I do not hold any false illusions as to what these companies are all about. They are all the same to me.

If they are all the same, then would you mind explaining to me why Valve or EA Dice don't charge 15 bucks for 5 maps and don't seem to have any plans for extending their games' functionalities at the further expense of the customer? Why do you think Dice or Valve aren't involved in lawsuits for holding bonuses hostage in order to keep their development teams working?

Simple, they can't get away with selling maps for $15. I strongly believe they'd do it if they could. They don't because they don't think they can. Businesses don't make decisions based on what is moral, they make decisions based on what they think will make them the most money. If I was forced to guess, I would say DICE, Valve, et al have done marketing research that indicated the backlash wasn't worth the risk. But I wouldn't know, seeing as how I am not in the board room making those decisions. To be fair, I'm basing this on what I do know of businesses and their general practices, not on articles that try to guess the motivations of a company based on rumors, biased testimonials from both sides and scant facts.

As to the lawsuits, I don't really think any large company is immune to shit Execs. Hell, even Academia has people they hire that make life a living hell for those who work under them. I would personally find it foolish to assume no scandal like the one you are referencing could ever happen at any other company because they are so much better than Activision. Cynical, yes. But I've seen enough scandal to make my own assumptions that there is no such thing as a "good" company.

And speaking of purposefully ignoring stuff, you must've ignored the part where I said this isn't the biggest problem. The biggest problem is the gullible audience, excessive greed only amplifies it. Don't get too hung up on this.

If the biggest problem is the gullible gamers, I don't see your issue with the company. Seems to me like they are doing what they are supposed to be doing.

I also wouldn't really hurl stones at people who enjoy more maps for $15 by calling them gullible. I can look around the room I'm in now and see more than a few things people would think it was stupid of me to buy. But you know, my money, my prerogative. If a company out there knows what I want and is willing to sell it to me, I can't see how that is a bad business practice.

 

[purehatred89]

Actually, thats one of the things that I hated the most about MW2. What I felt made Black Ops more fun was the fact I could buy the attachments and camos, and not have to spend God knows how long trying to unlock a camo by scoreing headshots or get extended mags by getting FMJ kills. I didnt have to get a set number of kills to unlock the ACOG or extended mags, I could just buy them and be on my way.

I also liked how the Perks were upgraded to pro by completing three different reqiurements than just using the perk.

Different strokes for different folks. I can't decide whether purchasing or unlocking your attachments is a better system, but I DEFINITELY prefer the MW2 camo system. Aside from hackers and boosters, it showed a small amount of skill, whereas in Black Ops everyone slaps on Tiger until they can buy Gold. And sadly, earning 50k CP isn't very difficult. I have 2/3 of Black Ops guns gilded, whereas I only have 2 Fall camos.

I will concede, Treyarch had the right idea with Pro perks, was far more fun than MW2's "get kills while using this perk" system.

 

[The Wykydtron]

I love how some people automatically hate a game that's not even out yet just because it's popular.

The Call of Duty series is pretty much superior in every form to every other FPS, and infact any other genre game. Anyone who can't see that needs to open their eyes.

I remember when MW2 first came out I twittered #fourtwozeo telling him they ruined the Call of Duty franchise. I was a silly boy back then. Now I'm just riding the wave of success and loving it.

Please don't say CoD>any other game ever, i mean you're well within your rights to think CoD is a good solid FPS but to be frank it cannot and never will transcend genre.

Plus you're basically saying CoD is better than Persona 4 and the Ace Attorney games, i cannot let such a travesty continue unchecked...

 

[The Heik]

I'm going to level with you here folks, I enjoyed Modern Warfare 2 well enough. I'm a huge single player and co-op fan, as opposed to multiplayer which for whatever reason seems to be a looking glass into the very worst of human kind - and I even played that a fair bit. (However much it pained me at times).

So when Black Ops came out I picked it up, albeit regrettably for PC. I didn't enjoy it as much as Modern Warfare 2, it just didn't have the right feel, to me anyway, and so the thought of a Modern Warfare 3 sounded ironically refreshing.

Aaaaaand then gameplay footage got released. A whole level in fact... http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jNjCv9OIF-M

Now, correct me if I'm wrong but when you release new levels or maps for the same game it's called DLC right? It usually costs anywhere from 5 to 15 dollars. As I watched in utter dismay, I came to the sweeping realization that I do not see one new gameplay element. It looks, sounds, plays, moves, acts, and feels utterly identical to Modern Warfare 2. Now I'm no game designer but when you make a new game and sell it at full, or as I call it " pretty much criminal" price aren't you supposed to you know, innovate? add something new? never before seen? be creative? Tweaks such as a more pronounced kick-back when shot, an interchangeable sight, a new kind of flash grenade are not gameplay elements they are fluff, small changes which don't make a real difference to the experience, they are small improvements which should be released in an update. I invite you to please watch the gameplay and tell me if you see something new.

Now I'm aware there is a new mode, survival mode, and that's all well and good but the core game at it's heart seems to be... well, frankly the same game with new levels. It's literally astonishing how much hasn't changed. So please discuss, I'm sure you all have thoughts on this.

Well the issue here stems from the fact that you really can't add anything more to the game that pretty much complete to begin with. When IW made CoD4, they had already put in place all the things that made the series good. The tight controls, the exciting and action packed story, and the addictive multiplayer, and all of that was incredibly refined and polished. There's not much else you can add to that. MW2 stemmed this off by going more techie, but after that there's nowhere one can really go with the franchise without treading old ground.

 

[Ariseishirou]

Haters gonna hate.

Frankly, I spent more time playing MW2's spec ops alone than my entire MP and SP experience with KZ3 and Crysis 2 - let alone MW2's SP and MP. If those two are worth $60, there's no question this will be, since Spec Ops is back. BFBC2 was close in SP and MP, but it didn't have spec ops. MW3 is more worth the money, because I'm going to spend more time playing it. Why doesn't BF3 have something like spec ops, especially since it prides itself on being a more "tactical" game?

All I can say is I hope the SP campaign is a little longer than MW2's - maybe more like CoD4's. CoD's campaigns have been ridiculously good, maybe the best in the whole military shooter genre. The perfect blend of action and narrative pacing. Best characters, too. I gave more of a shit about what became of Captain Price at the end of CoD4 than I ever did about any RPG characters, except maybe Joker from ME. That's worth my money, too. I want to see how the story ends.

 

[Ariseishirou]

Plus you're basically saying CoD is better than Persona 4 and the Ace Attorney games, i cannot let such a travesty continue unchecked...

...I'd agree with that, actually. Ace Attorney had too much unnecessary teal deer, and it suffered from too many text adventure failings it didn't even attempt to rectify. Good games, but CoD's better.

And I was more emotionally invested in finding Makarov or saving Captain Price than I ever was in finding the killer or saving Nanako. Plus Persona 4 was just a rehash of P3, and if we're criticizing CoD for lack of originality, or paying $60 for glorified expansion packs (FES, anyone?) the modern Persona games are one massive glass house to throw stones from.

 

[JourneyThroughHell]

And yet I could easily argue that you're misusing it, especially since you haven't provided any elaboration.

...Because the latest CoD games are supposedly not shallow and now I'm supposed to prove my position? I can't be arsed to do this. Especially when there are other people in the thread who have done just that. Is it too much to assume you've read more posts than just those of mine and those that agree with you?

Well, surely you can be arsed to quote those posts.

I mean, if you have actually seen those posts and they are concrete proof of CoD's shallowness (which is very likely, by the way), surely you would want to shut me up by providing that empirical proof that totally exists.

You know what? Don't bother. I play these games, I'm going to assume that you don't since I've heard nothing but crusader-ish rubbish about how they're bringing down the industry from you.

 

[worldruler8]

Am I the only one who would love to play an FPS where you play as the Russians striving to fend off an American invasion? I mean, it's just as likely, and America can't just have a hissy fit cause the MW games are popular in Russia as well.
You could even put a survival element into it as well, given the Russian weather.

They already had us killing Americans in the end of MW2, and that would make for interesting narrative. It's like in All Quiet on the Western Front, where the narrator is a German soldier in WW1. Sadly, I doubt MW3, or any CoD game, would do a risk of narrative such as that.

 

[Exile714]

I explained my position. If you have no problem with people gobbling up shallow entertainment and, in turn, devaluing the industry further and further, right on. I do.

Good. Well, finally, after your incredibly rich explanation, I can respond by saying that it's a position of total subjectivity. If I were to put it less elegantly, I'd say that you're talking out of your ass.

Good luck on saving the industry, by the way. Be sure to tell me how it works out for you.

The argument that COD hurts the gaming industry is one of the great fallacies that anti-COD gamers keep pushing.

It goes something like this: COD makes a lot of money, so developers looking to cash-in on the success copy the game to varying degrees. COD-like features become more common. Games become simple and boring to "hard core" gamers. Companies pour money into simple games while "hard core" games' budgets are reduced or eliminated completely.

But here's the truth, about COD and other less than "hard core" games. They make PROFIT. Their development is funded by the success of the games that came before. Developers are not going to take COD profits and say "great, now let's make something for the hard core gamers with these profits from COD." If "hard core" gamers spent more money on their preferred games, developers would have more money to develop THOSE games.

But here's the real problem: "hard core" gamers can't agree what constitutes a "hard core" game. It really comes down to their own prejudices and preferences; their own favorite games.

So their argument really shouldn't be that the industry is damaged, but rather: "I want people to make more games that I like, not games that other people like, even though other people are in the majority." Fair enough.

 

[GaltarDude1138]

All I have to say is: "Whoa, that part in the Stock Exchange? With all the TV's scattered everywhere? Hey, I don't think that kind of part has been in...a...Call of Duty game...before...*looks down*"

 

[FOXGEAR]

My main probelm with the new CoD games is that they are extremely PC unfriendly. The first was great. A stellar campaign, nice multiplayer, and an extremely enthusiastic modding community. However, when MW2 came around, they basically just said "Haha, Fuck you!" to all of us. No longer could we have big 64 player battle on custom maps, no custom game modes, and no dedicated servers. That last one still fucking astounds me.

Well, the modding community for CoD MW is still alive and well, so we get all of the best multiplayer maps from MW2 and BO for free ~_^

 

[Smooth Operator]

The Call of Duty series is pretty much superior in every form to every other FPS, and infact any other genre game. Anyone who can't see that needs to open their eyes.

Oh the fanboyism, it burns!!

Ya this gameplay is a pretty huge deja-vu, but hey marketing is everything and it will again sell like hotcakes.

 

[JourneyThroughHell]

1) Narrow gameplay options compared to its competitors (more strongly differing game modes, vehicle combat, destruction);

Which competitors? Battlefield? You got me there, Battlefield is a more deep experience, even if BC2 is a game I can't stand. However, unless you call Battlefield shallow, then CoD being less deep then Battlefield does not actually make it shallow. Logic.

2) Having hardly any strategy to it;

A party of players always has the advantage over lone wolves. Surely they're using some sort of strategy. I mean, I probably wouldn't know seeing how I actually play the game and you just make random shit up.

3) Being unbalanced?

Well, despite the fact that this shit has only a side effect on the game's depth, show me a multiplayer FPS that's perfectly balanced. Wait, it doesn't exist? Oh those shallow games, all of them.

Also, clearly it's not as unbalanced as you would think seeing how the players in the games use a multitude of attachments and perks, and that good players are easily capable of doign well with average loadouts. I wouldn't blame you for not knowing that - after all, I actually play the game.

 

[Frostbite3789]

I'd say it's a reasonable assumption that they haven't changed much since their miserable excuse for a formula between MW2 and this. They didn't change much between MW1 and MW2.

FPSs age poorly. Innovation is good to have in a shooter, especially when your series is as bland from the start as Call of Duty.

They changed heaps in Modern Warfare 2. Map design, Pro Perks, Custom Killstreaks, Deathstreaks, Callsigns/emblems, weapons, equipment. They changed most things but the engine, which was simply upgraded - and it's one of the best engines out.

Everything you listed there, would be considered DLC in any other franchise. Map design I guess they charge $15 for anyways, so that accounts for a quarter of the price for an entire game. And that's only what? Four or five maps?

Pro perks is just a levelling system, and most of the pro ones were unbalanced. They were what lead to the insane knifing, no? Deathstreaks is just putting some of the perks from the last game under a different header.

Callsigns and emblems? You're really placing that as a category? That's just kind of sad that you have to point to that. Something that would take what? A few days to design?

They upgraded the engine to do what? Be more glitchy and apparently more easily hacked? As I never saw the level of hacking in CoD4 that I did in MW2. Even playing CoD4 a few days ago, still not the same amount of hacking as seeing infinite supply drops and AC-130's happening.

Also, one of the best engines out? Please be less of a fanboy.

 

[MartialArc]

snip

Apparently you get to play as Russians in MW3, though in what context I don't know.

snip

What's wrong with a simple, shallow experience? Next you'll be telling us Tetris is crap...

Nothing. Nothing at all. I think the perception people have is that millions of people enjoying something is ruining their art. Oh noes! A game that many people enjoy! My geeky hipster doucheness hath been destroyed. And the thing I noticed as well is if you watch say... a few EC episodes about good game design you notice that many of the factors are present in CoD. Its not new or revolutionary, it IS the same game again. People liked the old game and want more of it, simple concept. It would be pretty damn stupid if MW:3 had you chipping away at block shaped ground to make huts. Not reworking the engine lets them focus on making animations smooth and in general polishing the game. I'm sure they'll mix up weapons some as they always do. Dunno what kind of sweeping changes people expected.

What we really need is for the forum to totally disallow new threads with the words MW3 or CoD in them. Seriousy. There has gotta be no less than 8000 threads posted in the last month about MW3, go post in one of them.

 

[F4LL3N]

Please don't say CoD>any other game ever, i mean you're well within your rights to think CoD is a good solid FPS but to be frank it cannot and never will transcend genre.

Plus you're basically saying CoD is better than Persona 4 and the Ace Attorney games, i cannot let such a travesty continue unchecked...

Okay, okay. What I meant was it's superior to most games. Call of Duty is not my favorite series, but it does what it aims to accomplish better than most games. Most other really good games still have plenty of flaws. This series has had some rather large flaws to, I won't deny that. But the actual core gameplay is really solid. It's fast and it's fun.

 

[Burst6]

Anyone notice how call of duty is becoming like those sports games?

Every once in a while a new one comes out with small differences for full price.

I guess activision needs their own Madden to match EA.

 

[Serving UpSmiles]

Good.

I'm glad they're not changing the formula, I like COD campaigns the way they are. Only thing I'd change is to make them a bit longer.

Agreed, weren't you also bell end grabbed by the final scene of Mw2? Keep up the CoD campaigns, but for the love of christ, make them at least 3 hours longer.