Modern Warfare 3 Reveal Next Month

[Arqus_Zed]

I got the first two Modern Warfare games. The first one managed to hold my interest for almost two months before it hit the shelf permanently, the second one took about two weeks. It was just the same thing all over again. But then again, I'm not all that big a fan of FPS titles that deal with realistic warfare and make all gunporn lovers go nuts by using real weaponry. (Weaponry that basically exists out slight variations of the same 5 weapons, over and over.)

I like my shooters with variation in gameplay, weapons that have a 'secondary fire' and original environments.
Think Red Faction or TimeSplitters.

So in short: no, I'm not exited and I won't buy it.

--- Okay, so I won't know how the story ends, honestly, I couldn't care less. It was the story of an FPS title, the only shooter I ever played that had a deep, meaningful, interesting and unique tale to tell was BioShock (with the Half-Life series and The Darkness in a lesser extend). Modern Warfare 2's open ending fills me with just as much anticipation for a sequel as when you see the egg at the end of the Godzilla remake: none! ---

 

[Tdc2182]

Well, I trust this series enough to give it a go.

At least every CoD game so far has left me entertained for about a month before it becomes blind rage inducing hatred for every tiny imbalance.

And the Singleplayer, though ridiculous, is always a complete blast when handled by IW. Hopefully most of the team responsible for the single player campaign wasn't jettisoned.

snip

People hated the Campaign because of how rushed the story went. It seemed like they just pumped out a creative rough draft without proof reading it and snuffing out the stuff that didn't actually make any sense.

The "No Russian" mission is idiotic. It sounded like a good idea, but then when you think an entire country went to war based on a shooting done by one CIA operative and a bunch of known Russian terrorists without anybody in Russia saying "well, wait a sec", it kinda jumped the shark a little bit. It was thrown in purely to shock, but didn't do it properly, making it just purely offensive and in bad taste.

But if you want to get a little creative and think about it (Russia was on the verge of collapse, the Ultranationalists had technically won making it a very totalitarian state with no real leaders, War wasn't that irrational), you can kind of ignore it.

Hell, I thought Modern Warfare 2 was one of the last FPS's that actually knew how to have a little bit of fun. It wasn't trying for realism, so why knock it down for that?

In general, looking forward to it.

 

[GrizzlerBorno]

If Modern Warfare 2 didn't shoot CoD4's surprisingly good story in the foot with a shotgun, and consequently falcon punch it to within an inch of it's life, for no goddamned reason....then I would've been a LOT more interested.

As it as, Nope not interested cause I'm not getting it. WAY better games coming out in the last quarter (and next Q1) anyway.

Good story, i don't think it had one to begin with

Get into SAS, play with marines, marines blow up, SAS kill who did it, SAS kill whoever did it's son, que ending fight scene that still kicks ass.......

That's ONE way of looking at it.

Another is: Startling satire about America's policy of sticking it's nose in other people's business, followed by a tragic look at how badly shit can hit the fan, and result in Another country losing half of it's population over America's folly.

Add in some plausible back-story to make a believable and mostly waterproof antagonist, one of the best Stealth missions of any non-Stealth game and end with a bittersweet crescendo (Before MW2 ret-conned everything, Cptn Price was dead for all we knew, and Soap was practically Comatose. and ofcourse everyone else was Dead.)..... and you get a plot that is more Subtle and intelligent than many, MANY "Story driven" RPGs even.

 

[omega 616]

Madden warefare 3? Nah, I will pass. I am entertained enough with MW2 and black ops.

All that will happen is, the SP will be short and convoluted.

The MP will still have quick scopers, noob tubers and 3 over powered guns that everybody uses.

The maps will be the same camp happy maps and people will still rage about the spawns.

Kill streaks will continue to be over powered and reward good players and punish bad ones.

There will be bugs and glitches galore 'cos activision don't know what an open beta test is. These bugs or glitches may or may not get patched.

It also takes the piss that they charge more than the average game for COD, bring out 2 DLC's that cost more than other DLC and a few months later bring out a new COD and forget about the old one.

 

[Serving UpSmiles]

If Modern Warfare 2 didn't shoot CoD4's surprisingly good story in the foot with a shotgun, and consequently falcon punch it to within an inch of it's life, for no goddamned reason....then I would've been a LOT more interested.

As it as, Nope not interested cause I'm not getting it. WAY better games coming out in the last quarter (and next Q1) anyway.

Good story, i don't think it had one to begin with

Get into SAS, play with marines, marines blow up, SAS kill who did it, SAS kill whoever did it's son, que ending fight scene that still kicks ass.......

That's ONE way of looking at it.

Another is: Startling satire about America's policy of sticking it's nose in other people's business, followed by a tragic look at how badly shit can hit the fan, and result in Another country losing half of it's population over America's folly.

Add in some plausible back-story to make a believable and mostly waterproof antagonist, one of the best Stealth missions of any non-Stealth game and end with a bittersweet crescendo (Before MW2 ret-conned everything, Cptn Price was dead for all we knew, and Soap was practically Comatose. and ofcourse everyone else was Dead.)..... and you get a plot that is more Subtle and intelligent than many, MANY "Story driven" RPGs even.

I do agree about how the game demonstrates America's need to control the middle east, and then back-firing the entire operation. Also if Shephard was a character in the first one then maybe his betrayel would have been more effective.

I think this story would have been best described in a novel, shame though. I might have to work on it myself, *im a writer* if you didn't know.

 

[Shameless]

I am of most of us on the forum, I won't buy it, however there are million of people who will disagree with us and buy it.

I miss Call of Duty 4

 

[Fooz]

if it's not on a new engine, im not buying it

 

[Frozen Donkey Wheel2]

Yeah, yeah, everybody hates Call of Duty. As long as the campaign is still a blast and Spec Ops in left intact, then I'll be happy. Obvious improvements to the monstrosities MW2 inflicted on the multiplayer would just be icing on the cake.

 

[cpnichol]

It may well be a good game but unless Activision change their business practices I won't be buying. If you look at COD games purely on a price basis then they are always the high end of the price range to buy and then if you want the DLC that's another £20+. So for a new COD game with DLC it's around £60 (on PC).

Compare that to £29.99 for Battlefield 3 or £24.99 for Brink, that's two new games you can get for less. Black Ops is still £39.99, MW2 £29.99 and Cod4 £19.99. Maybe you have more fun with a COD game than others and consider £60 to be absolutely worth it, fair enough. I just don't want to give money to a publisher charges more than double what you used to pay for the same amount of game.

 

[Dirty Hipsters]

Modern Warfare 2's story was unintelligible garbage, so I really don't care about finishing it. Also, don't trust the new studio to know anything about mutliplayer balance (not that any other call of duty developer knows anything about it either), so I won't be buying this game.

It's interesting how you say you don't like the previous developers but still treat it having new ones as a negative point.

I might pick it up if I'm looking for a shooter when it's out.

Well, my problem with the new developers is 2 part.

1. Games that are developed by multiple studios are rarely any good. You'd think that the fact that each studio can focus on a different facet of the game, instead of one studio focusing on all of them would be a good think, but it almost never is. It usually ends up meaning that the game lacks cohesion, and feels like they look 3 similar but completely separate games and marketed them as one. Most recently that was what happened with Medal of Honor.

2. I tend to dislike the idea of franchises switching developers, especially if there is an overarching story to the series. I mean, I know that Infinity Ward is still doing the story, but that dev team was completely butchered and all of the development leads left to start their own company. With a story as ecliptic as Modern Warfare 2's was, it's difficult to imagine a new team coming up with a way to finish the story that isn't completely stupid.

 

[Pearwood]

Well, my problem with the new developers is 2 part.

I can't say I don't agree with what you say but I think criticism like that should really wait until we know enough details about what the game will actually play like to back it up.

 

[TelHybrid]

Sweet. Another Call of Duty 4 expansion. I wonder if this one will be a reasonable price, or if they'll charge the price of a full game again. *awesomeface*

I suppose it'll be worth a rent.

 

[SilentCom]

Meh, I'm not gonna buy it, but I am going to look up how the story ends. If it does that is.

 

[ediblemitten]

The MW2 campaign had its stupid bits (The excuse to go to Brazil was a bit weak, and I had some issues with the detonation of the nuke, and why that happened) but overall I actually enjoyed the story. I think a key reason it received some backlash is because it expected you to figure out some of the plot points, which confused the legions of 13 year olds who played it. Lets hope MW3 has more balanced MP though, I recall that many of the stupid things introduced in MW2's came out of decisions by Activision execs.

 

[Thunderhorse31]

I desperately want there to be a good version of MW3 that plays well and ends the story well, but we're not going to get it. At all. Instead, we're going to get a Frankenstein monster that the series creators had nothing to do with.

If the Escalation map pack is any indication as well, the multiplayer maps are going to be atrocious (both designed by Raven). And what will Hammerhead bring to the table? Who the hell knows.

So, what do we know so far? The devs that made MW good have nothing to do with the game, and the devs that ARE involved are known for their crippling mediocrity, especially in the FPS genre.

Fan-fucking-tastic.

 

[Sniper Team 4]

Hoping they finish the story--and tie in Black Ops' loose ends too--and then we can move to SPACE. Space marines. Yay.
Then, after that, they need to take a note from Valve and turn the Nazi zombie mode into a full-blown game with the story they already have going for it.

 

[mysecondlife]

my roommate will most likely get it. He bought black ops even though I insisted that he didn't. and I end up playing the campaign while he sticks to online.

 

[Davey Woo]

I know I'm going to hate it and still go back to Call of Duty 4 (aka the last good Modern Warfare) but I will buy MW3 regardless, just for the story.

 

[The Apothecarry]

I'll be hipster and say that I liked MW2s story until I found out it was a rip-off of Red Dawn. I might buy it just because my friends bug me about but I won't touch the multiplayer. I've lost all faith in the Call of Duty franchise. One new title from each studio every year isn't going to work like Activision thinks it will.

 

[The Apothecarry]

Stupid double post