Will MW3 be the next CoD4

[ToastiestZombie]

No, it'll be more like MW2. Have you seen any trailers for the game? It looks exactly like MW2.

Yes, they used the same graphics as mw2. That means that instead of working a lot on the graphics they can focus on the gameplay and balance

Sorry but thats no excuse for a triple a game running on the same engine as its last 4 predecessors. Balance does not require a huge budget or a humongous team to do. Sure graphics alone don't show game quality, but the lack of advancement in the graphics, sound, and gameplay of the past games has left a pretty bad taste in people's mouths.

Half life 2, ep1 and ep2 all use the source engine. They all feature the exact same weapons. 2 and ep1 are set in the same city. There is only a few new tracks added throughout the 3. They feature exactly the same enemies, only adding slight variations. They all have the same sorts of puzzles. They have pretty much the same gameplay. None of this has left a bad taste in anyone mouths because its a good game (probably also just because its called half life). Yet call of duty gets bashed for having the same engine more than half life has most things the same. IMO your post was just another example of call of duty bashing just because its popular and war based, and made by activision. Can you please tell me how the half life 2 series gets away with it whilst cod only has the same engine( although that is not technically true, if you look at cod 4 then mw2 they look very different) and it gets bashed and says that it leaves a bad taste in peoples mouths

 

[ProZack]

No, it'll be more like MW2. Have you seen any trailers for the game? It looks exactly like MW2.

Yes, they used the same graphics as mw2. That means that instead of working a lot on the graphics they can focus on the gameplay and balance

Sorry but thats no excuse for a triple a game running on the same engine as its last 4 predecessors. Balance does not require a huge budget or a humongous team to do. Sure graphics alone don't show game quality, but the lack of advancement in the graphics, sound, and gameplay of the past games has left a pretty bad taste in people's mouths.

Half life 2, ep1 and ep2 all use the source engine. They all feature the exact same weapons. 2 and ep1 are set in the same city. There is only a few new tracks added throughout the 3. They feature exactly the same enemies, only adding slight variations. They all have the same sorts of puzzles. They have pretty much the same gameplay. None of this has left a bad taste in anyone mouths because its a good game (probably also just because its called half life). Yet call of duty gets bashed for having the same engine more than half life has most things the same. IMO your post was just another example of call of duty bashing just because its popular and war based, and made by activision. Can you please tell me how the half life 2 series gets away with it whilst cod only has the same engine( although that is not technically true, if you look at cod 4 then mw2 they look very different) and it gets bashed and says that it leaves a bad taste in peoples mouths

Because they're good. When did CoD have excellent character development? When did CoD even have something that challenged you, rather than not shooting things? At least in Half-Life you actually care about the characters. They're good games. Damn near perfect. I don't see CoD doing that.

 

[remnant_phoenix]

I loved the CoD4 campaign and I haven't touched the MW2 campaign as everything I've heard and seen about tells me that it would only tarnish my love for the compelling execution of the CoD4 story.

As far as campaign goes, the screens and trailers for MW3 look more like MW2 than CoD4. Ridiculous set piece moments over competent storytelling. Shock and awe tactics over solid character development. Style over substance.

As far as multiplayer goes, the co-op Survival Mode sounds pretty cool. Nazi Zombies is the most fun I've ever had with CoD multiplayer, and Survival looks like it's going to take the "fighting off the unrelenting waves of attack as a team" gameplay to another level.

As for competitive multiplayer, I'm similar to Yahtzee in that I think it should be a nice bonus attached to a solid single-player experience. Yes I know I'm in the vast minority in that department, but still, I don't really give a toss about CoD's competitive multiplayer.

 

[Random berk]

If I know CoD, then yes, because it'll be exactly the same as the last few games.

 

[b4k4]

Oh another patch called a sequel?... Fun

Can we all agree to stop using that cop-out excuse because we don't want to get into what we actually dislike about a series?

I've heard it regarding everything from New Vegas to GTAIV to Reach to Duels of the Planeswalkers 2012 to AC Brotherhood, and on and on and on. There's nothing wrong with just saying 'I'm tired of this franchise, I'm not going to buy it anymore,' I can think of quite a few people who will respond better to you for that than for 'OMG This is just a goddamn expansion noone should buy it for any reason whatsoever!'

As for the original question, I give it even odds as to whether it'll be the 'second coming' of CoD 4. On the one hand, the guys who were mainly responsible for MW1 are gone, but on the other hand, those guys were also responsible for MW2. So it could come down to the new guys just following the same rote formula (and mixing up the proportions as someone else pointed out on page 1), but it could also come down to these new guys having a fresh(er) perspective than what IW had on MW2 and being able to change it up a bit without feeling like they're surgically destroying their own baby.

As for me, I'll end up picking it up, (and probably BF3 as well, the two play differently enough that there's room for both on my shelf), but I doubt I'll pick up another CoD after this one.

 

[omega_peaches]

No, it'll be more like MW2. Have you seen any trailers for the game? It looks exactly like MW2.

Yes, they used the same graphics as mw2. That means that instead of working a lot on the graphics they can focus on the gameplay and balance

Sorry but thats no excuse for a triple a game running on the same engine as its last 4 predecessors. Balance does not require a huge budget or a humongous team to do. Sure graphics alone don't show game quality, but the lack of advancement in the graphics, sound, and gameplay of the past games has left a pretty bad taste in people's mouths.

Half life 2, ep1 and ep2 all use the source engine. They all feature the exact same weapons. 2 and ep1 are set in the same city. There is only a few new tracks added throughout the 3. They feature exactly the same enemies, only adding slight variations. They all have the same sorts of puzzles. They have pretty much the same gameplay. None of this has left a bad taste in anyone mouths because its a good game (probably also just because its called half life). Yet call of duty gets bashed for having the same engine more than half life has most things the same. IMO your post was just another example of call of duty bashing just because its popular and war based, and made by activision. Can you please tell me how the half life 2 series gets away with it whilst cod only has the same engine( although that is not technically true, if you look at cod 4 then mw2 they look very different) and it gets bashed and says that it leaves a bad taste in peoples mouths

Because they're good. When did CoD have excellent character development? When did CoD even have something that challenged you, rather than not shooting things? At least in Half-Life you actually care about the characters. They're good games. Damn near perfect. I don't see CoD doing that.

Can't really talk about the character development.
THAT FUCKING MILE HIGH CLUB ON VETERAN (CoD4bros will know what I'm talking about.)
"Perfect" is a highly-opinion based word, I think that CoD4 was close to perfect, and I'm almost positive that you will disagree with me, Half-Life 2 was good, but I found it highly overrated.
I also thought GTA IV was almost perfect, and LA Noire, but I didn't think that about games that people raved about, like Portal, but I absolutely adored Portal 2.

 

[Treblaine]

Half life 2, ep1 and ep2 all use the source engine. They all feature the exact same weapons.

Well they ARE episodic expansion packs sold for about the same price as a single COD map pack!

Hell, you got HL2, all episodes, Portal AND Team Fortress 2 for the cost of a single main-game.

MW3 is supposedly a full new game for $60 with (if its anything like Black Ops) another $60 to the price tag of map packs!

This is why I am mad; MW3 should be a $15-25 expansion pack but it is being tarted up as some full price game!

 

[ProZack]

No, it'll be more like MW2. Have you seen any trailers for the game? It looks exactly like MW2.

Yes, they used the same graphics as mw2. That means that instead of working a lot on the graphics they can focus on the gameplay and balance

Sorry but thats no excuse for a triple a game running on the same engine as its last 4 predecessors. Balance does not require a huge budget or a humongous team to do. Sure graphics alone don't show game quality, but the lack of advancement in the graphics, sound, and gameplay of the past games has left a pretty bad taste in people's mouths.

Half life 2, ep1 and ep2 all use the source engine. They all feature the exact same weapons. 2 and ep1 are set in the same city. There is only a few new tracks added throughout the 3. They feature exactly the same enemies, only adding slight variations. They all have the same sorts of puzzles. They have pretty much the same gameplay. None of this has left a bad taste in anyone mouths because its a good game (probably also just because its called half life). Yet call of duty gets bashed for having the same engine more than half life has most things the same. IMO your post was just another example of call of duty bashing just because its popular and war based, and made by activision. Can you please tell me how the half life 2 series gets away with it whilst cod only has the same engine( although that is not technically true, if you look at cod 4 then mw2 they look very different) and it gets bashed and says that it leaves a bad taste in peoples mouths

Because they're good. When did CoD have excellent character development? When did CoD even have something that challenged you, rather than not shooting things? At least in Half-Life you actually care about the characters. They're good games. Damn near perfect. I don't see CoD doing that.

Can't really talk about the character development.
THAT FUCKING MILE HIGH CLUB ON VETERAN (CoD4bros will know what I'm talking about.)
"Perfect" is a highly-opinion based word, I think that CoD4 was close to perfect, and I'm almost positive that you will disagree with me, Half-Life 2 was good, but I found it highly overrated.
I also thought GTA IV was almost perfect, and LA Noire, but I didn't think that about games that people raved about, like Portal, but I absolutely adored Portal 2.

I admit, I found the fourth good, but not as good as HL. Maybe I do like the HL games more than what I'm supposed to, but you can't admit they're bad. Let's put it this way: The CoD franchise is nothing like the good ol' days of the earlier stuff. Either way, no. MW3 will not be CoD4.

 

[omega_peaches]

No, it'll be more like MW2. Have you seen any trailers for the game? It looks exactly like MW2.

Survival Mode wasn't in MW2.
Have you read fourzerotwo's twitter at all?
It sounds not exactly like MW2.

Adding a (kind of) new game mode doesn't make them any less similar gameplay-wise.

And no, I don't follow fourzerotwo's twitter, because I'm not really interested in the game.

Survival Mode =/= Nazi Zombies.
On 402's twitter, he talks about how things have been removed, tubes have been balanced, they are changing the melee system, they are changing the killstreak system, etc.

Things were things changed and added and removed with Black Ops but the gameplay was still exactly the same. The only difference was the weapons and a darker art direction.

Meh, Black Ops was cool, but I got bored of it.
It seems that the IW games are the only ones that actually change things up.

No, it'll be more like MW2. Have you seen any trailers for the game? It looks exactly like MW2.

Survival Mode wasn't in MW2.
Have you read fourzerotwo's twitter at all?
It sounds not exactly like MW2.

Adding a (kind of) new game mode doesn't make them any less similar gameplay-wise.

And no, I don't follow fourzerotwo's twitter, because I'm not really interested in the game.

Survival Mode =/= Nazi Zombies.
On 402's twitter, he talks about how things have been removed, tubes have been balanced, they are changing the melee system, they are changing the killstreak system, etc.

So your point is that it's a ?65($90) balance patch?

What the hell? 90 dollars?
I guess, balancing, new maps, a new game mode, new campaign, updated engine, dedicated servers for PC, etc.
I mainly get the new CoDs because it's what my friends play, I like it, and I like keeping up with the plot/community.

So, I know, people said this about MW2 and Black Ops, but when those were coming out, I admit, I thought MW2 would be like Jesus' second coming, and I was kinda burnt out on CoD when Black Cops came out. World at War WAS the next CoD4, because it was basically a mod of CoD4 with WW2 weapons.
But, MW3 will put the focus back on gunplay, it will remove most of the BS from MW2, and other things.
So what are your opinions on the statement in the OP?

Sure, it'll be like COD4... and if by COD4 you mean "Still vastly inferior to a certain other FPS made by a certain other company." Yes, I agree, it'll be a clone of COD4.

Lol... seriously though, fanboyism aside, I appreciate the changes they're trying to make to the game so a lot of the horse shit that made me NEVER want to TOUCH a COD game again is taken out. What I still see them severely lacking is a focus on team-play. I'm not saying it's not there, and I'm not talking about the other cooperative game modes... but in their multiplayer game modes such as domination and that one with the bomb, I never felt like anyone else cared except for their own points. I would be very, VERY disappointed if I were to hop into a match and be on a team full of those brats who say, "WHAT ARE YOU DOING, WHY WOULD YOU PLANT THE BOMB!?" "... ummm, cause that's how you win?" "NO YOU NOOB, WE DON'T WANT TO WIN, WE JUST WANT TO INCREASE OUR KDR!" -.- That shit don't happen in Battlefield. You play as a team, and you play to win - otherwise your ass is conveniently gift wrapped for you in the form of a 105 mm howitzer cannon blast from an m1a2 abrams.

Seeing as how I only ever bought the other two modern warfares because I needed something new to hold me off till the next Battlefield - and since the next battlefield is coming out before MW3 - I don't think I'll ever touch this COD... cept maybe to rent it for it's single player cause I always liked their single player.

To each his own, I guess, I'm apparently an ignorant fanboy according to these forums because I enjoy CoD, I might pick up BF3 though.

I don't think that. I actually can see the appeal of CoD. And to be honest, the last time I played it (at a LAN party where I knew everyone) I had a lot of fun! It's a good FPS... but it's not my style of play. Battlefield's my style. CoD is almost like a party game, in my opinion, where you get together with friends and eff around. Battlefield is more in depth, with an ever evolving world. CoD is about finding the strategy that works the best on a given map. Battlefield is about adapting to new strategies on the fly.

I have seen EXCELLENT CoD players get PWNED in Battlefield because they don't realize that running like a mad man across the map isn't how you win - taking cover and well placed shots is. Yet even when they try to take cover, they can never get used to destructible environments. I just feel like they're not adaptable enough.

It's true, even though people say otherwise, CoD and Battlefield feel like Night and Day.
I can barely play them consecutively, because I try running around in BF, or I try blowing up buildings in CoD!

 

[Dutch 924]

Don't get your hopes up. It took fans 6 months to start complaining about "the greatest game of all time" and 4 months to start hating "the game that fixed everything bad from its predecessor". I'll give CoD8 three months, no more. After that people will be throwing them into the pre-owned shelves.

 

[AlphaEcho]

They ALL have been the new Cod4. That is not a good thing, because they have just been copy pasting the game and going, "OLOOOLOOLOL LUK AR DUH NW GNS N DEH AWSUM 1337 STOREH WITH A GUD AMERIKEN MSG AT DEH END LOLOOOOL"

 

[omega_peaches]

No, it'll be more like MW2. Have you seen any trailers for the game? It looks exactly like MW2.

Yes, they used the same graphics as mw2. That means that instead of working a lot on the graphics they can focus on the gameplay and balance

Sorry but thats no excuse for a triple a game running on the same engine as its last 4 predecessors. Balance does not require a huge budget or a humongous team to do. Sure graphics alone don't show game quality, but the lack of advancement in the graphics, sound, and gameplay of the past games has left a pretty bad taste in people's mouths.

Half life 2, ep1 and ep2 all use the source engine. They all feature the exact same weapons. 2 and ep1 are set in the same city. There is only a few new tracks added throughout the 3. They feature exactly the same enemies, only adding slight variations. They all have the same sorts of puzzles. They have pretty much the same gameplay. None of this has left a bad taste in anyone mouths because its a good game (probably also just because its called half life). Yet call of duty gets bashed for having the same engine more than half life has most things the same. IMO your post was just another example of call of duty bashing just because its popular and war based, and made by activision. Can you please tell me how the half life 2 series gets away with it whilst cod only has the same engine( although that is not technically true, if you look at cod 4 then mw2 they look very different) and it gets bashed and says that it leaves a bad taste in peoples mouths

Because they're good. When did CoD have excellent character development? When did CoD even have something that challenged you, rather than not shooting things? At least in Half-Life you actually care about the characters. They're good games. Damn near perfect. I don't see CoD doing that.

Can't really talk about the character development.
THAT FUCKING MILE HIGH CLUB ON VETERAN (CoD4bros will know what I'm talking about.)
"Perfect" is a highly-opinion based word, I think that CoD4 was close to perfect, and I'm almost positive that you will disagree with me, Half-Life 2 was good, but I found it highly overrated.
I also thought GTA IV was almost perfect, and LA Noire, but I didn't think that about games that people raved about, like Portal, but I absolutely adored Portal 2.

I admit, I found the fourth good, but not as good as HL. Maybe I do like the HL games more than what I'm supposed to, but you can't admit they're bad. Let's put it this way: The CoD franchise is nothing like the good ol' days of the earlier stuff. Either way, no. MW3 will not be CoD4.

I don't know, I definetly like CoD4 more than I should. I admit, they are very good, but just not my cup of tea, and yes, MW2 is nothing like the old CoD days, when the campaign actually took me a few days to beat.

 

[Treblaine]

Can't really talk about the character development.
THAT FUCKING MILE HIGH CLUB ON VETERAN (CoD4bros will know what I'm talking about.)

Yeah, we all loved COD4 but Activision have been coasting on that for the past 4 years. In fact the guys who actually made that game have all left Infinity Ward.

How did MW2 finish things off? With a retarded knife throwing quick-time event "TAP BUTTON TO NOT DIE!"

This is brand-loyalty. COD4 was a good game but its sequels were not.

 

[b4k4]

I have seen EXCELLENT CoD players get PWNED in Battlefield because they don't realize that running like a mad man across the map isn't how you win - taking cover and well placed shots is. Yet even when they try to take cover, they can never get used to destructible environments. I just feel like they're not adaptable enough.

You have a fair point, but I've been in a large number of BattleField matches where the only way to win is to sprint across the map to the objective, because if you try to take cover and pick your shots, you'll get annihilated by the helicopter that's been circling your spawn all match.

But you are right, the two games have two VASTLY different styles, and in my opinion, neither is inherently superior to the other, that's why I'll likely end up getting both before the year is out.

 

[b4k4]

DEH AWSUM 1337 STOREH WITH A GUD AMERIKEN MSG AT DEH END LOLOOOOL"

Wait, what? have, you played either MW game up to this point?

One ends with the only survivors being a Russian, a Brit, a Scottsman, and ONE (1) American after the rest of the teams have been massacred.

And the other ends with America still technically occupied by the Russians, and heavily hinting that the main protagonists of the next game will be the Scottsman and the Brit.

Someone explain to me how that's a 'GUD AMERIKEN MSG,' if it's not too much trouble.

(if this double posts, oh well, not much I can do about it)

 

[hermes]

No, it won't.
COD 4 was a game that took everyone by surprise, and changed so much over the previous games that could be considered a different franchise... It became the mold to an entire genre.
COD 8 will be a lot like the previous ones... just with more money pour into them. Its the games equivalent to Bay's movies: Dumb, expensive fun. Nothing wrong with it, but don't expect it to chart any new grounds (except on sales)

 

[cubikill]

MW2 was great. And it was a hell of a lot better than COD4. Anyone who says COD4 was more balanced than MW2 doesnt know what they are talking about, its that simple.

I love the slam that you had to make. Cant you just like MW2 more that COD4 without slamming every else who doesnt? And for the record MW2 wasn't even close to being remotely balanced, nether was COD4, but hey thats how I feel.

 

[Cuddly Knife]

I think, technically, it will be CoD8. Thassalotta fish!

LMAO!!!!!!!!, For some reason, i thought that was a great and funny joke. Thanks for the laugh.

On topic I guess, so i don't take a warning, for MW3 to be CoD4, it would have to be a re-invention that takes the series in a new(ish) direction, like CoD4 did. SPAAAAAAAAACE COOOOOOOOOOOOOOMMMMMMBAAAAAAAT!!!!