While I agree it's more of the same. It's more of the same good. Who doesn't care shouldn't troll the user score.
So, Modern Warfare 3 has been released...
- Thread starter C2Ultima
- Start date
Recommended Videos
Metascore: 90. Universal acclaim.
Does it really matter if it's getting review bombed?
Does it really matter if it's getting review bombed?
Yeah, people are weird like that.garjian said:
I've no intention of buying Modern Warfare 3 myself. I think COD as a whole's reached that point of turning into the FIFA of the fps genre which is a shame because I used to enjoy the series quite a lot. I don't want to pay 40 quid a time for the same game I played last year with little to no change. The market's swamped with brown military shooters these days, it's getting a bit depressing there's not been anything new for a while.
One review I found funny from one of the people who aren't happy about "lack of any change"
For people who say there's no change, here's a list of changes that I can think of.
Now, can people please stop calling it exactly the same to mw2?
Also, all the people who are spoiling the game on there can fuck off. Just because they dont like it doesn't mean they can ruin it for others.
Most of the reviews on there are like that, there from people who haven't even played the game. Watched the trailers and made assumptions that everything is the same.
For people who say there's no change, here's a list of changes that I can think of.
1. The brand new survival mode, along with lots more spec ops missions.
2. Now there is three killstreak systems instead of the one from previous games.
3. At least 20 more guns added, even the guns from the old games have been given a facelift or sound change.
4. 16 new maps, none of them are like Wasteland, a simple reskin of an old map.
5. No OMA, danger close, stopping power and noobtubes have been nerfed to hell.
6. About 7 new perks
7. The whole elite thing, which I must add is free! You only have to pay for it if you want to get all the map packs for less money!
8. Only about 10 killstreaks are back, out of the 40 that they have in the game.
9. A new campaign.
2. Now there is three killstreak systems instead of the one from previous games.
3. At least 20 more guns added, even the guns from the old games have been given a facelift or sound change.
4. 16 new maps, none of them are like Wasteland, a simple reskin of an old map.
5. No OMA, danger close, stopping power and noobtubes have been nerfed to hell.
6. About 7 new perks
7. The whole elite thing, which I must add is free! You only have to pay for it if you want to get all the map packs for less money!
8. Only about 10 killstreaks are back, out of the 40 that they have in the game.
9. A new campaign.
Now, can people please stop calling it exactly the same to mw2?
Also, all the people who are spoiling the game on there can fuck off. Just because they dont like it doesn't mean they can ruin it for others.
Want a real review of the game? I'll give one.
(Warning, contains game play spoilers for the first mission, and vague hints at the next few.)
The game is a sequel to MW1 and MW2, continuing the story. The graphics have been updated, and the game play has been tweaked slightly. Just like every damn sequel that has ever came out, Battlefield 3 included. The story has been fun so far, though I haven't finished it. It contains a few neat twists, and a lot of fun climatic scenes. And this is only in the first few missions. Is the story amazing? The best I've seen? Actually, for a FPS, it's is pretty good. (And for those who disagree, please GIVE a example of a FPS game with a better story.)
And the game play has been updated. I don't know where people keep getting the idea that it's the same game as MW1. Already in the first few missions of the single player I've noticed differences in the weapons used. The first weapon I had a hybrid scope, that was both red dot, and zoom in scope, switched between by pressing left on the directional pad. When I took out the secondary weapon, I expected a pistol. What I got, was a freaking sniper rifle that shot grenades! This prompted a argument with my room mate about if it was a machine gun that shot bombs. (I retained that a machine gun needs to be rapid fire, and that the gun was more like a rifle that shot grenades.) After fighting through the streets of New York, and through Wall Street, then the freaking stock exchange, I took out a Jammer tower, received a predator missile to take out a helicopter, before jumping in a helicopter, and manning a minigun. Soon after mowing down some Russians on top of some buildings, we went into a dog fight with several helicopters, zooming between torn up buildings, and circling around one in mid construction.
This was all the first mission. I could go even further, and go into the other missions, but I don't want to give to many spoilers. I will sum up that some of the new things I've seen is a unmanned miniature tank, dodging mines underwater while chasing a submarine down, and going down in a plane crash, before limping out, and protecting the Russian president from attackers as one of his personal guards.
I honestly don't know where people keep getting that "The Series hasn't changed at all". It's a very narrow minded view, and shows they haven't actually done any research on it.
And yes, I have my bias on the game, I've been a fan since MW1, but hell, I've actually done research. http://www.cod8modernwarfare3.com
And go ahead, give me a counter argument. I'd love one.
(Warning, contains game play spoilers for the first mission, and vague hints at the next few.)
The game is a sequel to MW1 and MW2, continuing the story. The graphics have been updated, and the game play has been tweaked slightly. Just like every damn sequel that has ever came out, Battlefield 3 included. The story has been fun so far, though I haven't finished it. It contains a few neat twists, and a lot of fun climatic scenes. And this is only in the first few missions. Is the story amazing? The best I've seen? Actually, for a FPS, it's is pretty good. (And for those who disagree, please GIVE a example of a FPS game with a better story.)
And the game play has been updated. I don't know where people keep getting the idea that it's the same game as MW1. Already in the first few missions of the single player I've noticed differences in the weapons used. The first weapon I had a hybrid scope, that was both red dot, and zoom in scope, switched between by pressing left on the directional pad. When I took out the secondary weapon, I expected a pistol. What I got, was a freaking sniper rifle that shot grenades! This prompted a argument with my room mate about if it was a machine gun that shot bombs. (I retained that a machine gun needs to be rapid fire, and that the gun was more like a rifle that shot grenades.) After fighting through the streets of New York, and through Wall Street, then the freaking stock exchange, I took out a Jammer tower, received a predator missile to take out a helicopter, before jumping in a helicopter, and manning a minigun. Soon after mowing down some Russians on top of some buildings, we went into a dog fight with several helicopters, zooming between torn up buildings, and circling around one in mid construction.
This was all the first mission. I could go even further, and go into the other missions, but I don't want to give to many spoilers. I will sum up that some of the new things I've seen is a unmanned miniature tank, dodging mines underwater while chasing a submarine down, and going down in a plane crash, before limping out, and protecting the Russian president from attackers as one of his personal guards.
I honestly don't know where people keep getting that "The Series hasn't changed at all". It's a very narrow minded view, and shows they haven't actually done any research on it.
And yes, I have my bias on the game, I've been a fan since MW1, but hell, I've actually done research. http://www.cod8modernwarfare3.com
And go ahead, give me a counter argument. I'd love one.
I'm all for sticking to a working formula, but when a developer KEEPS doing it, the value of the product should go down.TheTim said:
Code:
Not according to all the reviewersEither that of a couple of hundreds in their back pockets...
Yeah Battlefield was good and still is; but I'm not donating my honour to it. But it sure kicks the shit out of CoD for quality, value, authenticity, entertainment and value.
Wow, even the guardian and telegraph gave it 100%. The silver spooners are sitting in their castles playing COD like every other fanboy.
Some of them have a point. It should be Modern Warfare 2.1, not much has changed. Most of it could have been a patch or DLC. And the singleplayer... Don't get me started on that retarded crap.
At the end of the day, though, do you think the Xbox gamers (who make up 90% of the CoD fans) are gonna care about reviews on ING? Probably not. They probably already forked out their 80 bucks for the game, and Activision is busy planning Black Ops 2.
P.S. Someone has to balance out the "professional" reviewers who just brown-nosed their way to glory. Yes it's an OKAY game, no it is not a 9. Or even a 7.
At the end of the day, though, do you think the Xbox gamers (who make up 90% of the CoD fans) are gonna care about reviews on ING? Probably not. They probably already forked out their 80 bucks for the game, and Activision is busy planning Black Ops 2.
P.S. Someone has to balance out the "professional" reviewers who just brown-nosed their way to glory. Yes it's an OKAY game, no it is not a 9. Or even a 7.
While I don't like COD (mostly because terrible balance issue in every game) I think is is the stupidest and most often repeated argument against it, and I can only roll my eyes every time I see it used, partly because I could say the same thing about almost any other sequel. (except the part about maps but I didn't find the maps that similar between games)silverbullet1989 said:
OT: metacritic user reviews are largely made by morons!! and in other SHOCKING news /b/ is a cesspit!!
seriously is anyone supprized by this?
In a game primarily focused on multiplayer? Why the hell would I buy Modern Warfare 3 if it plays identically to Modern Warfare 2?distortedreality said:Why change a formula that obviously works?wsncie said:theres no attempt at innovation or change, just the same stuff.
For games like Battlefield and Modern Warfare there needs to be innovation otherwise one has to wonder why consumers want it over the last title. The Dynasty/Samurai Warriors games constantly get hammered by reviewers for never mixing things up, and yet it's somehow acceptable for big budget AAA games to do exactly the same because...'it works'?
I personally dont give two squirts of piss about ratings. If I like a game, I'm gonna play it, regardless of the snide comments from the peanut gallery. I love Call of Duty. They keep releasin' em, I'm gonna keep buyin em.
Your missing the point. Consider Assassins creed. Thats another franchise that gets a game pushed out every year, and it constantly improvements and adds depth with each installment. Compare that to CoD, where its essentially the Madden of the fps world. The only difference from MW2 to Black Ops to this is the maps, minor graphics updates, and the occasional new loadout ability. You can list on 1 hand the systems improvements/added depth that have been made since CoD4.distortedreality said:Why change a formula that obviously works?wsncie said:theres no attempt at innovation or change, just the same stuff.
Other studios are pushing the industry forward - if a couple want to rest on their laurels and still put out (imo) good games, I don't see the harm.
Its one of those games everyone who has Live buys because everyone else buys it. Those games became shit as soon as they moved from WW2 games, without the history backing it up its just a dumb shooter. An i love my WW2 history.
I kinda like the reviews that go "I already disliked the series, and did not expect anything from this game. Having played it, I am now even more disappointed. 0".
I really can't decide whether the worse alternative is that they suffer from some sort of compulsion to purchase CoD games, or so desperate to defend their favorites that they absolutely must strike out at all perceived "threats".
Also interesting how quite a few of the reviewers giving this game a zero, have also happened to assign a ten to BF3. Quite the coincidence. Although the other few who only seem to like semi-obscure RPGs apparently also bought, played, hated and reviewed MW3 are a bit stranger.
And the ones angry that apparently nothing has changed. It's like the diametric inverse of when Dragon Age 2 came out.
Of course, I've never played any of the games, so they might also all be entirely correct.
I really can't decide whether the worse alternative is that they suffer from some sort of compulsion to purchase CoD games, or so desperate to defend their favorites that they absolutely must strike out at all perceived "threats".
Also interesting how quite a few of the reviewers giving this game a zero, have also happened to assign a ten to BF3. Quite the coincidence. Although the other few who only seem to like semi-obscure RPGs apparently also bought, played, hated and reviewed MW3 are a bit stranger.
And the ones angry that apparently nothing has changed. It's like the diametric inverse of when Dragon Age 2 came out.
Of course, I've never played any of the games, so they might also all be entirely correct.