So, Modern Warfare 3 has been released...

[TheEvilCheese]

Well, I know why some people review bombed it

Spoiler: MW3 spoiler, as if anyone actually cares

Soap dies. He was the player character in COD4 and a fairly important character since.

This combined with the STILL minuscule campaign and the seemingly unchanged multiplayer (note: I for one think MW3 is OK, but that's probably because I expected this and still enjoy shooting my friends in the face with RPGs)

Damn! I wish I didn't open that spoiler. Damn! Damn! Damn!

Anyway,I don't care for reviews. I prefer to play a game for myself to see if I enjoy it.

Sorry man, I warned you =P

And yeah, I'm going to continue playing my friends copy till I really want to buy it.

 

[42]

Bitter Battleshit 3 fanboys getting upset. *sigh* look this is pathetic alright the arguments against both shooters are pathetic because they are practically the same. CoD's copy and paste, BF is just the same game but prettier.

Both of the franchises fanboys give me the shits because they are rude, and are obsessed with the destruction of the other shooter. Cant we just live in a world where both shooters are accepted for what thy are? i mean Live the dream!!

 

[RickyRich]

This is one thing I'll never understand, it's always about innovation and that will determine a critic's score. But how far can you innovate a first person shooter? You point a gun and pull the trigger to make Mr. Evil McBadderson go away, that's how the formula has been since DOOM. Yes, the graphics do need improvement between games, and MW3 seems to have delivered that at the very least. But not everything has to be innovated, they still do the out the ass weapon customization because people enjoy it and they don't have to change it.

Honestly, most shooters never innovate. They just make the guns shinier and make the war torn landscape look better.

 

[snake4769]

Meh, who cares.

Just the intense butthurt. These are obviously people that got pulled in by EA's aggressive Battlefield 3 marketing campaign. Who cares about the gullible idiots.

Yes, if we dislike MW3 it means we got pulled in by EA. Clearly. That's definitely it. Obviously.

No, but if you go to metacritic and score the game as a 0 despite not having played it, you are obviously a douche and an idiot.

And thats what this thread is about, is it not? About the metacritic reviews, and not the game itself?

Learning to read and think would do you a world of good.

How so? If we played MW1-2, i think we can definitely and safely review this game. Cod is stale and retarded. I am not afraid to say i despise the people who flock to it every sequel. MW 1 was the only okay one. Now its just a rehash and in my book that is not okay. If battlefield did what CoD is doing. We would be on battlefield 5 by now. Battlefield 2142 doesnt count cause it was DIFFERENT, it was in the future, hence the change and refreshment.

Protip: I dont care whats "ok" in your book. I dont think anyone else does either.

Anyway, you have fair points, and if you dont like COD, thats fine, but why review it? If you havent played the damn thing, you are in no position to judge it, full stop.

Of course, you pull Battlefield into it, which just goes to show you are another one of the sheep who got pulled in by EA. Keep it up, you and the COD kiddies can tear each other apart for eternity, I will be watching from the outside, laughing.

Its not so much me being a fan boy even though i am not afraid to say battlefield is miles better than CoD for simple fact of bigger more open battles with armor. And i said i have a decent right of reviewing a game i haven't played because it is essentially then same damn game as the first one. That is the whole point of most peoples complaint of this game. If EA starts farting out new battlefields every year, i will start hating them too.

 

[silverbullet1989]

Activisions dev philosophy

ctrl c textures and map layouts from previous game
ctrl v textures and map layouts onto slightly tweaked engine
????
change title from previous generic cod number
profit
repeat for infinite monies

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)

OT: metacritic user reviews are largely made by morons!! and in other SHOCKING news /b/ is a cesspit!!
seriously is anyone supprized by this?

I hate cod for those reasons too, the last one i bought (well say bought, got it 2nd hand and traded in a couple of games to get it) was MW2 and it was the same unbalanced mp as the other 2 games. The point to my post was i hate the fact that it sells like mad, then we get forums, posts, reviews etc of people bitchin and moaning about the game because they thought it would be better or different, you would think people would have realised by now that activison is not going to do anything different

 

[godofallu]

Wow the people in this thread are almost worse then the idiot children who review bombed MW3.

Lack of innovation = 0/10? Yeah right. It sickens me to think that there are people sticking up for 0/10 scores here on these forums. I don't have a ps3 but you don't see me shitting all over every ps3 exclusive release on metacritic. I review what I play, and I review fairly.

COD MW3 runs. That alone must be worth a 1/10. It doesn't have any game breaking glitches, and it seems like IW actually made sure they released the game in working order.

 

[distortedreality]

In a game primarily focused on multiplayer? Why the hell would I buy Modern Warfare 3 if it plays identically to Modern Warfare 2?

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'?

It doesn't. It's the same sort of style, but very different to MW2.

I never said it was right/acceptable - all I was saying was that it works, so while it works, there is no real reason to change it. The series gets bigger with each installment, you would have to be an absolute idiot to change a winning formula, when the only reason to do so is a backlash from a small section of he community.

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.

I'd argue the point about Assassins Creed. Sure, AC2 improved a hell of a lot on AC1, but Brotherhood didn't really do anything that much better than AC2 imo, it felt exactly the same to me.

Again though, how does it hurt anyone? People enjoy it, some people don't, but the people that are vocal about not liking it don't really matter to Activision because more people buy their games each year.

About system improvements added depth - i'd probably agree with you if we were talking about MW2. MW3 improves a hell of a lot though, and the MP goes much deeper than before while still sticking to a formula that works.

Out of interest, have either of you actually played MW3?

 

[walrusaurus]

Again though, how does it hurt anyone? People enjoy it, some people don't, but the people that are vocal about not liking it don't really matter to Activision because more people buy their games each year.

About system improvements added depth - i'd probably agree with you if we were talking about MW2. MW3 improves a hell of a lot though, and the MP goes much deeper than before while still sticking to a formula that works.

Out of interest, have either of you actually played MW3?

Apart from the obvious financial burden of being forced to pay an extra 60 bucks each year if you want a MP server with more than 200 people in it? It's the hollywood blockbuster scenario: they can constantly churn out lame/formulaic/bad products because they know people will pay to see them in droves regardless if they market them hard enough. It stifles innovation and creativity, and the few mainstream movies every year that are of high quality get drowned out by all the noise. To put it more philosophically: it cheapens the medium.

I played a bit of MW3 this morning with a friend. I'm not a 'CoD player' or even an fps player much, really. But i didn't see anything significant different from MW2 in the multiplayer. Kill streaks were a little different, i didn't see any new weapons, but i didn't really play long enough to know whether/how many there are. I tried out a couple of the GoW/Halo game modes that they added. And you can apparently fully customize game modes for LAN games now (though why that hasn't been possible from the get go is anybody's guess). Apart from that i didn't notice anything different.

So theres a couple of positive changes, but hardly enough to justify charging $60 for.

 

[snake4769]

Meh, who cares.

Just the intense butthurt. These are obviously people that got pulled in by EA's aggressive Battlefield 3 marketing campaign. Who cares about the gullible idiots.

Yes, if we dislike MW3 it means we got pulled in by EA. Clearly. That's definitely it. Obviously.

No, but if you go to metacritic and score the game as a 0 despite not having played it, you are obviously a douche and an idiot.

And thats what this thread is about, is it not? About the metacritic reviews, and not the game itself?

Learning to read and think would do you a world of good.

How so? If we played MW1-2, i think we can definitely and safely review this game. Cod is stale and retarded. I am not afraid to say i despise the people who flock to it every sequel. MW 1 was the only okay one. Now its just a rehash and in my book that is not okay. If battlefield did what CoD is doing. We would be on battlefield 5 by now. Battlefield 2142 doesnt count cause it was DIFFERENT, it was in the future, hence the change and refreshment.

Protip: I dont care whats "ok" in your book. I dont think anyone else does either.

Anyway, you have fair points, and if you dont like COD, thats fine, but why review it? If you havent played the damn thing, you are in no position to judge it, full stop.

Of course, you pull Battlefield into it, which just goes to show you are another one of the sheep who got pulled in by EA. Keep it up, you and the COD kiddies can tear each other apart for eternity, I will be watching from the outside, laughing.

Its not so much me being a fan boy even though i am not afraid to say battlefield is miles better than CoD for simple fact of bigger more open battles with armor. And i said i have a decent right of reviewing a game i haven't played because it is essentially then same damn game as the first one. That is the whole point of most peoples complaint of this game. If EA starts farting out new battlefields every year, i will start hating them too.

Ready to have your mind blown? Some people prefer smaller maps and more arcadey gameplay. Yes! Amazing isnt it! The concept that different people have different tastes! Its so complicated, its unsurprising the thought never crossed your small mind, but dont worry, im here to clear things up for you.

Alright, now for seconds. Have you played MW3? No? Then how do you know its the same old? Yeah, because legions of brain dead retards on these forums say so. Check your sources.

If you have no interest in the COD franchise, dont review the games. I fucking hate JRPGs with a burning passion. Does that mean im going to bomb Final Fantasy 7s metacritic with "0" user scores? Fuck no.

Ready to have your mind blown again? EA is pumping out more Battlefield games than Activision are pumping out CODs.

2008: Bad Company
2009: Heroes, 1943
2010: Bad Company 2, Battlefield P4F
2011: Battlefield 3

Makes CODs one a year release schedule look tame, doesnt it?

Frankly, I dont give a fuck about COD and I dont give a fuck about Battlefield, but the blind hate and love both get is sickening. Its like Activision and EA are using their money to kill off braincells through their games.

Still, im waiting for someone to pinpoint what exactly makes COD stale and Battlefield innovative. There is literally no difference between Bad Company 2 and 3, apart from Jets, which were in previous games and just got taken out. Hardly innovation.

I really dont know why i keep throwing my opinion in. Obviously you cant handle it and are hell bent on attacking that.

THE MAIN POINT: CoD is a rehash of the same fucking game and Activision needs to fuck off and make something new with a NEW fucking ENGINE.

But also, they arnt to blame cause they are just doing what works, the sheep gamers, who buy the piece of shit remake are the real idiots who i dont respect the least bit. Like i said, MW1 was fine, the sequels are what makes me hate the people who like CoD.


Another point, a huge amount of hate also comes from the insane love of CoD thats causing the shitty gameplay to bleed into other games and series. Hell, battlefield 3 has some CoD feeling to it.

 

[ElPatron]

Meh, who cares.

Just the intense butthurt. These are obviously people that got pulled in by EA's aggressive Battlefield 3 marketing campaign. Who cares about the gullible idiots.

The biggest reason for my hate towards the Modern Warfare series is the fact that I had the chance to play BF3 and it had MW's sour taste all over it.


I can't seem to enjoy any FPS because it has been developed with call of duty in mind. Not that I want to bomb Metacritic or anything.


Butthurt? Definitely. Modern Warfare has to be the rape of the century.