Seems about right. No word if they’ve retained the services of Modern Warfare 2 and NCIS writer Jesse Stern for MW3.
COD has become a joke quite honestly. A new game every year, no different than the previous one. It's the Madden of FPS games. Also made by Infinity Ward, so certainly won't be worth a ****. Certainly won't be stealing any more of my money which would be better served going to DICE for Battlefield 3 and Crytek for Crysis 2. Two multiplayer FPS is enough for me in one year and COD obviously won't compare to either of those 2.
Same. Single player is the only reason I play FPS games these days, Team Fortress 2 aside. I didn’t have a problem with MW2’s campaign or story, and I thought it was better overall than CoD4. But I guess multiplayer is the only reason people buy most games these days. Looking forward to MW3.
It is a joke that a new game comes out every 11-12 months, but to say every COD is the same is flat out wrong. Every year the new game has been changed in different ways, from surrounding settings, to multiplayer features.
Agreed, I hardly play any multiplayer these days, single player is how I tend to roll in most games, even sports games like Madden I tend to just play seasons and create my own franchises and such. Developers who skimp on single player are only hurting themselves.
This just reminds me of an interview with the Boss at Blizzactivision a few years ago. Basically he said they were going to milk their "franchises" for everything they can. COD, check. Guitar/Band/DJ Hero, check. It seems like only yesterday EA was the big baddie that everybody *****ed about and Activision was trying to grab the glory.
EA at least made the decision to start doing more than just releasing sports game sequels every year, need to give them credit for that. They released Mirror’s Edge, brought back Medal of Honor, have Battlefield rolling, things like that. And yes, Bobby Kotick said that he wants to milk whatever franchises Activision has. This doesn’t include Blizzard’s assets, because Kotick actually has little to no control over Blizzard. So instead he puts at least 2 developers on the Call of Duty franchise, and tells them to get a new game out every 2 years, meaning 1 new CoD game every year from one of two developers. You’d think he would run the franchise into the ground, but hey, a new Mario game every few months hasn’t hurt Nintendo.
So, by judging from what they did going from Modern Warfare to MW2..... -MW3 should have about 40 killstreak options, all able to be chained together and used simultaneously... -Invisibility Perk -Instant Kill Perk -Flying Perk -All 3 of those perks above will be allowed in the same kit -No recoil/negligible recoil -No dedicated server support/Massive Host advantage -Since its "IW", we should expect plenty of bugged boxes and walls that allow for glitches to annoy everyone. -Speaking of glitches, the Javelin Missile users will probably turn into a suicide bombers -Continuation of the most mindless, worst designed spawn system in the history of shooters....without even putting a better system in place in a different game mode. Ok...it may sound like Im a "COD hater", but I'm not....Ive put in a ton of hours into those games and have bought every one of them since I first pirated the original MW on the PC(See, pirates arent so bad!). The fact is, despite my aggravations with the stagnated gameplay/design....the COD games are always very polished shooters with better gunplay than any other "arcade" style shooter out there. They also seem to put in quite a bit of effort to make both the 1P and Multiplayer communities satisfied.
^^^^^ This made me laugh. I don't like COD mainly because I like to go online with FPS games, and I can't stand the spawning behind you, small map BS. That is why I like BF2, Project Reality, and ARMA. But to each their own, but like you said, there is only so much you can do to an FPS while maintaining the exact same premise of the predecessors. So really, yeah, if you play COD you spend $60 for a map pack and upgraded graphics every year, and then another $xx for DLC? Not interested.
Not sure what people see in the COD campaigns anymore. It's getting to the point it's not even a game anymore. Black Ops for example, the motorcycle stage, the helicopter? Come on. We would have cussed at controls like that for an 8 bit NES game. It's just a ton of graphics with very poor gameplay and very restrictive with map and not very interactive at all. Press this button to take off. WOW! Press R3 to grab a hatchet and put it in a guys neck! I mean, how is that a game? Play on normal or hard and it's ridiculously easy and not fun, play on veteran and it's obnoxiously hard and still not fun. Judging off previous COD games with that last critique because I didn't waste any time with the campaign other than to beat it on normal to unlock zombies.
Different developer. Press a button to perform an action… sounds like every video game in existence to me.
Funny jab, and I set myself up for it but I think you know what I mean. Too many one button sequences that trigger long cut scenes with no gameplay. What's the point of the Jet scene? You don't actually fly the jet. You press one button to start the engines. It's stuff a 2 year old child could do. Vehicle gameplay in any CoD game is clunky and very poorly done. People get so mesmerized by graphics, ignoring that the gameplay is garbage. The online games are fun, but the campaigns leave a lot to be desired, IMHO.
Call of Duty is hardly the first and only game to use QTEs. The game that invented them, Shenmue, used them far more often. God of War uses them far more often. Hell, The Force Unleashed uses them more often. There are plenty of legitimate reasons to dislike CoD—and I would know, I actually hate the series—but supposed overuse of QTEs isn’t one of them. You’ll be thrilled to know that the SR-51 takes off regardless of whether or not you hit the button at the QTE prompt. There are, what, a grand total of 2 vehicle segments in the CoD series since 4? The highway chase at the end of 4, the snowmobiles in MW2. If there’s a vehicle sequence of any significance in Black Ops, I forgot it, and it wouldn’t really matter anyway because Treyarch isn’t developing MW3.
There's a ******ed atv sequence if I'm not mistaken. I could be confusing it with medal of honor though.
Nah, not really. As McLovin says, it's pretty much a $60 dollar map pack. The gameplay hasn't changed much at all since MW1. I'll probably still download it for the single player campaign, but there's much better multiplayer options out there to spend money on.
I agree with this. COD's campaigns are pretty much the same as the last as well. Different setting, same missions for the most part. Either way, run and gun isn't my type of thing. I prefer some reality in my shooters.
While I enjoy the campaigns of COD/MW, I think one of the best shooters I've played in next gen gaming was Rainbow 6 Vegas 1 & 2, and the Ghost Recon games too. Love having to sneak around, hide behind walls, shoot around corners and objects, order other guys around. Really really enjoyed those games. They took more patience from me to play through, but it was so much more rewarding I found. COD/MW, while the campaign can be entertaining, once I play through it its kinda like... oh... ok, whatever, that was fun I guess. When playing through GRAW or R6, it was more like... wow. that was pretty damn cool. Maybe its just me, and maybe that's not even what you were referring to, I dunno. Just really enjoyed those 4 games. Hope a new R6 comes along soon.
Don't know about the other games, but God of War at least made it somewhat challenging, requiring timing. Really what it boils down to is that open universe games like Fallout, etc. have really spoiled me so that games like CoD don't really do it for me anymore. Except for the zombies...
That seems like a strange comparison to me. Fallout is an RPG, Call of Duty is an action game. That’s like saying Madden NFL turned you off from Gran Turismo.
The Rainbow Six (first 3) and Ghost Recon series are fairly realistic. America's Army is is as realistic as it gets. SWAT 3 and 4 are games I enjoy a lot, very realistic. Battlefield 2 with the Project Reality mod. Brothers in Arms, and the similar Full Spectrum Warrior 1 and 2 are realistic, espesially FSM. Red Orchestra is realistic. WWII Online. The SOCOM series isn't too arcadish either.
I disagree with most of your list. There’s a difference between being rooted in reality and being an accurate recreation of reality. Brothers in Arms, for example, is rooted in reality—it gets the basic squad structure and WW2 Tactics 101 right, and its areas are mostly map-based recreations of real places—but it’s not realistic, since it discards things like formations, gun ranging and sighting, etc. The Clancy-based games are the same way; based on reality, not actually realistic. I love me some Clancy, but the guy is perfectly willing to push the imaginary envelope for the sake of a better story or experience. America’s Army is a good pick, but it’s more of a training course clone than anything else.
Well, my point was, they at least resemble some reality. Obviously, the ArmA/Opflash series is the only fully realistic games out there. After all, VBS and VBS 2 derives from them.
Right. What I’m getting at in response is that Call of Duty isn’t bad because it’s not sufficiently like reality. Its campaign flaws have more to do with the almost funhouse-like shooting galleries you’re given. Objectives are usually vague and require following someone somewhere, you can shoot bad guys in the middle of some transitional animation and they won’t fall down dead until they’re done climbing over that wall you caught them at, the absence of bullet physics and recoil (though most people prefer their games this way), things like that.
Project Reality is almost done an Arma 2 mod. That should be amazing! [video=youtube;0jdTX_CKhfI]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0jdTX_CKhfI[/video] [video=youtube;cTsJ_sWVxXs]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cTsJ_sWVxXs&feature=related[/video]
