For those of you hyped for MW3, I ask... why?

[Mordwyl]

TF2 has flourished and it is older than the original Call of Duty 4: Modern Warfare. Yes, even the original MW is the fourth installment, making MW3 the seventh game in the series.

Then these people bash games like Final Fantasy for going as far as the fourteenth game (in the main series).

It's the eighth, actually. You must have forgotten one.

4: Modern Warfare
5: World at War
6: Modern Warfare 2
7: Black Ops
8: Modern Warfare 3
...a decade from now...
18: Look, we beat Final Fantasy at number of games, but this one's just titled Future Warfare 2, so no one is going to even suspect that!

I agree about the Final Fantasy point. They're hypocrites when they complain that a game goes to number 14, yet they want more and more of their certain franchise. What really gets me are the people who think that FF has this overarching storyline, though. No, they're 14 DIFFERENT stories, which kind of explains why there are so many.

Most other series don't have that excuse as to why there are so many games. Except for sports games and certain shooters, of course. You know, the ones that are guaranteed to sell millions of copies when they use the same formula.

To be honest, I'll stick with stuff that has a small, dedicated community, like HL2 Deathmatch or Unreal Tournament 3.

Not just different stories but different mechanics and gameplay as well, especially starting from FF7 with the Materia system which was very ingenious and added a lot of strategy to the game (i.e. Killing the hardest enemy in a game in less than two minutes without Knights of the Round).

 

[cryogeist]

Okay, so, if you are a major fanboy of the call of duty series (specifically speaking, multiplayer) I have a very important question. Ever since the release of Call of Duty Modern Warfare, they seem to have lacked (both treyarch and infinity ward) in the "creativity department". So, I ask you a very important question: Why are you still getting modern Warfare 3 if you already have virtually the same gaming experience from four other games? And I mean this honestly, I'm not trying to put anyone down for being excited about a video game, I'm genuinely curious. What does MW3 have to offer to you that makes you excited to play it? I've personally waited four games to see if they will come out with something new and inovative like in call of duty four but have been thoroughly disappointed each time. And now, with the slow progression to Activision adding an extra EXTRA charge to playing just call of duty games, I have drawn the line and simply won't buy the game at all, but that does not leave me from being curious about your opinions. So, one last time, why are you so excited for Call of Duty MW3?

because i have a shit ton of fun with CoD
i really dont think i need to say more.

 

[Dr. Pepper Unlimited]

...because the game looks fun?

Wow, really? That was hard to answer. I swear you guy's make thread already knowing the answers half the time. *shakes head*

 

[ToastiestZombie]

That's a fair reason I suppose. Personally, I'm more stuck in the older days of gaming when the story was the only thing that merited a good game and multiplayer was just something extra that you could choose to enjoy if you had friends with controllers. And that's very well perhaps one of my problems with current gaming. I just don't like to see half of a game's emphasis on multi-player. Personally, it tells me that they aren't working hard enough on what makes their game unique.

In the old days most games barely even had a story. Many of them weren't even good games. Here, ill compare the stories of a MW2 and Super Mario Bros

MW2: Russian terrorist stages a terrorist attack on a Russian airport. He frames an American soldier for the attack which leads Russia to lead all out war on the USA. Meanwhile an SAS group is trying to find the terrorist. They get information that will lead them to the terrorist, but the general wants to get recognition for saving the world so he betrays the SAS group and steals the info. Two members of the SAS group then go to the generals base and in an epic knife fight kill him.

Super Mario Bros: Princess kidnapped by evil one sided enemy, go save her.

You seem to have a bad case of nostalgia. There was a few very good games from that era (Mario Bros 3, Zelda, Metroid etc), but most game were crap, had very little story, had broken controls and were only made to get kids money. In the past games that were good (except hardcore JRPGs) didn't have a good story. The games were merited on their gameplay, same as today. Story has only gotten better since then because we have so many new ways to tell stories that we couldn't of done back when technology was at its earliest. Also, multiplayer IS what makes CoD unique, its the game to go to now if you want fast paced and easy action, its like going to play battlefield to have a team focused intelligent game.

fair enough, I'll concede to that. But you have to admit that it definitely seems that game developers have seemed to stop trying when it comes to single player campaign. I'll make a comparison

MW2: Go from point A to point B and shoot enemies along the way... expect intermittent cutscenes and repetitive strategies

Mario: Go from point A to point B, expect repetitive strategies and structures for every level you go by as well as toad saying "we're sorry, your princess is in another castle".

But allow me to offer this. When I play an older game like mario, I am actively challenged. I have to figure out what to do, how to do it, and when to do it. In Call of Duty, I just yawn as I take cover behind a table, then duck out to do some occasional shooting, then right back in for a coffee break.

Also, the story was only one part of my argument, and perhaps a badly worded one at that. What I should've said was "the single player". games concentrated a lot of single player, mostly because that was really what they were judged by. Either way, you have a decent point, I appreciate the response.

I do admit that CoD doesnt really have much change in its core gameplay but the levels are designed in a way that gives you lots of ways to play. Heres an example

The first level from CoD 4 (the one where you rescue kamarov)
You start with stealth, shooting with silencers. Then you go to a high place and snipe enemies whilst a heated battle goes down below. You then have to survive an onslaught of enemies coming at you from a hill. Using grenade launchers and unsilenced weapons for something thats a polar opposite to the start of the mission. You then go down into the fight you were just sniping from and make a run to a house. Generally not stopping and using fast firing guns. The level then ends with a sneak into a house with all the lights off, killing unsuspecting foes as the clamber in the dark.

See, in that level you didn't do the same thing for more than 1 section. You were always firing guns at enemies, but the level presents itself in a way that you arent using the same gun and you use different tactics for each of its sections.

You can find many more examples of this sort of pacing in the CoD franchise some where you start all out but then end sneaky and some the other way around.

 

[Deathninja19]

I don't get hater threads, why fixate on why people enjoy something?

Just accept that some people like what you don't, yeah it's annoying when something you love gets overlooked for something popular but get over it, please.

 

[katsabas]

Cause I can die and continue my killstreak, that's why.

 

[ToastiestZombie]

MW2: Russian terrorist stages a terrorist attack on a Russian airport. He frames an American soldier for the attack which leads Russia to lead all out war on the USA. Meanwhile an SAS group is trying to find the terrorist. They get information that will lead them to the terrorist, but the general wants to get recognition for saving the world so he betrays the SAS group and steals the info. Two members of the SAS group then go to the generals base and in an epic knife fight kill him.

Super Mario Bros: Princess kidnapped by evil one sided enemy, go save her.

Or you can stop trying to favor MW and be true to yourself and others. The story is more "Terrorists bad! America smash!"

At this point MW is the Madden of fps games. They don't change much besides maybe a new perk, a new game mode and a shiny new box to wrap it all up in to.

And I was hoping that the post would make some long debates. Ill try to defend CoD then.

Well, pretty much all of the CoD games had the most engaging and well thought out characters be British, the Americans were just there to maintain and were only there to serve a different perspective so the game doesn't get boring. As a matter of fact, there had pretty much been no CoD game where the enemies were JUST terrorists. 1, 2, 3 and WAW you were fighting the Germans and Japanese. Even in CoD 4 and MW2 you weren't just fighting a random terrorist group you were fighting the Russian army.

Why do you think that if you defend CoD you aren't being true to yourself? Surely whining about other people liking stuff you dont and trying to make them not like it is forcing other people to not be true to themselves.

 

[Sieni]

To be honest, it doesn't seem like BF3 has any major new features either. From what I've noticed they're both just the same old stuff in a new package unless I've missed something.

 

[Griphphin]

Ever since the release of Call of Duty Modern Warfare, they seem to have lacked (both treyarch and infinity ward) in the "creativity department".

While the games may look like the same shooter on the surface, when you get into the multiplayer each successive game in the franchise(talking multiplayer here, btw) as of late has been an answer to the previous one, and it's interesting to see how one developer does their best to outdo the other in their own way, for better or worse. I can give you a good few examples why if you'd like to hear my opinion on that, though it's going to be a lot of text(minimizing the fanboy, of course).
Besides that, I like the fast paced gameplay of the CoD series, which is why I opted for it over BF3(not hating, I just prefer CoD in that respect). I have a few friends getting it as well, and CoD games tend to make for fun social gaming with friends. I'm especially looking forward to spec ops and spec ops survival with my old MW2 spec ops buddy.

 

[Father Tunde]

We like things that you don't. It's our opinions. I'm not a fan of South Park, nor of Sprouts, but I don't ask people to explain to me why they like them.

Do you know what "hype"means ? you sir have missed the point of this thread by miles. He didn't ask why you like the game. He want's to know why you are hyped for it. Or were you just trying to find an excuse to use your picture?

Okay, shall we review the first post?

Okay, so, if you are a major fanboy of the call of duty series (specifically speaking, multiplayer) I have a very important question. Ever since the release of Call of Duty Modern Warfare, they seem to have lacked (both treyarch and infinity ward) in the "creativity department". So, I ask you a very important question: Why are you still getting modern Warfare 3 if you already have virtually the same gaming experience from four other games? And I mean this honestly, I'm not trying to put anyone down for being excited about a video game, I'm genuinely curious. What does MW3 have to offer to you that makes you excited to play it? I've personally waited four games to see if they will come out with something new and inovative like in call of duty four but have been thoroughly disappointed each time. And now, with the slow progression to Activision adding an extra EXTRA charge to playing just call of duty games, I have drawn the line and simply won't buy the game at all, but that does not leave me from being curious about your opinions. So, one last time, why are you so excited for Call of Duty MW3?

He asks why we're looking forward to a game he's not looking forward to. I faceplam myself at yet another opportunity to explain my opinion to someone who disagrees with me (especially to someone who has already stated he has no intention of being open to interpretation). So what I said was bang on the money; he was asking us to explain our opinions on MW3, just because he doesn't get why we're looking forward to something he isn't.

 

[BlumiereBleck]

For those of you who are hyped for Skyrim I ask why? See what I did there. It is something that looks good and I will be playing, sure I hated the first two Modern Warfare games, but this one....this one actually looks good. It invloves the corruption in Afrika! It alows you to play as not only an American soldier but also a German, French, and British one. How many games about Modern conflicts allow you to do that? Also Skyrim is going to be good, I already love it I just used it as a counter-question.

 

[Jakub324]

I intend to buy the game for about £20. I don't really ever set out to play the multiplayer, but if my friends are, I'll join them. I do like the single player though. Why is lack of creativity a problem? CoD has a formula and it works, keeping millions entertained for months. I'll be mainly buying it for Survival mode and story mode. Both look fuckin' awesome.

 

[TheLastSamurai14]

snip

Not just different stories but different mechanics and gameplay as well, especially starting from FF7 with the Materia system which was very ingenious and added a lot of strategy to the game (i.e. Killing the hardest enemy in a game in less than two minutes without Knights of the Round).

Very true, and this type of argument (or rather, the inverse) is applied against the CoD franchise; they don't try anything new. Taking risks and trying vastly new mechanics isn't going to kill your series. Let's look at the previous example of FF: Sure, some of Square's more outlandish changes that came with XII and XIII kind of hurt their player base, but they're both still going strong. Hell, FFXIII sold more copies than any other FF game EVER, and it had a fairly significant twist on the ATB system. It wouldn't hurt CoD to try the same concept of tweaking an existing mechanic to try and broaden the player base.

 

[Char-Nobyl]

Okay, so, if you are a major fanboy of the call of duty series (specifically speaking, multiplayer) I have a very important question.

If you're trying to get a non-hostile response, it doesn't help that you established that anyone holding an opinion contrary to yours is "a major fanboy."

Ever since the release of Call of Duty Modern Warfare, they seem to have lacked (both treyarch and infinity ward) in the "creativity department".

Wait...but this is only the third MW game. I don't think it's reasonable to declare that a series has run out of ideas when it only has two existing installments. And Black Ops hardly counts towards the expected merits of the Modern Warfare series.

So, I ask you a very important question: Why are you still getting modern Warfare 3 if you already have virtually the same gaming experience from four other games?

Well, to be honest, I-

Wait a second. "Four other games"? Modern Warfare (1), Modern Warfare 2 (2), and if you're really lax about counting titles in the series, Black Ops (3). That makes MW3, at absolute most, the fourth game, and more likely just the third game. You seem to think that it's the fifth, for some reason.

And I mean this honestly, I'm not trying to put anyone down for being excited about a video game, I'm genuinely curious. What does MW3 have to offer to you that makes you excited to play it?

Suuuuuuure. "PessimistOwl" isn't trying to bring anyone down with his "why are you excited when there's clearly nothing worth being excited over" mantra. /sarcasm

I've personally waited four games to see if they will come out with something new and inovative like in call of duty four but have been thoroughly disappointed each time.

Again, where is this mysterious fifth game? Did I miss something? Was there a MW cellphone game that I'm not counting and you're not mentioning?

And now, with the slow progression to Activision adding an extra EXTRA charge to playing just call of duty games, I have drawn the line and simply won't buy the game at all, but that does not leave me from being curious about your opinions. So, one last time, why are you so excited for Call of Duty MW3?

All the weirdness of the rest of your comment aside, it's because I don't consider a series defunct of its creative spark after one sorta-maybe-lackluster installment. It seems unfair to preemptively condemn the third part of a series because the second wasn't as impressive as the first. I still had fun with it, and if anything, knowledge of what went wrong in MW2 will help make MW3 better.

 

[TheLastSamurai14]

Wait a second. "Four other games"? Modern Warfare (1), Modern Warfare 2 (2), and if you're really lax about counting titles in the series, Black Ops (3). That makes MW3, at absolute most, the fourth game, and more likely just the third game. You seem to think that it's the fifth, for some reason.

Again, where is this mysterious fifth game? Did I miss something? Was there a MW cellphone game that I'm not counting and you're not mentioning?

You seem to be forgetting World at War, bro. MW, WaW, MW2, BO, MW3. Infinity Ward and Treyarch seem to just be trading off development roles for every other installment.

 

[Clive Howlitzer]

There is no point hyping up anything unless its Skyrim.

 

[HellbirdIV]

I'm excited to see the continuation of the story in Singleplayer.

The multiplayer of 2 was technically inferior to CoD4, I hope MW3 will strike a good balance. If not, big deal, it'll still be enjoyable in its own right with different maps and weapons and styles.

Innovation is highly overrated. Most of us - who aren't pretentious and feel the need to parade around exclaiming how "Not Mainstream" we are - just enjoy well-designed games.

 

[8bitlove2a03]

There is no logical reason to keep buying CoD or Battlefield games. The reasons they keep selling well are 1) highly trained consumerism, 2) the mainlining of minuscule rewards to the pleasure centers of one's brain (the leveling up and minor victories in these types of shooters, as well as MMOs, is the same type of stimulus that keeps gamblers addicted to slots), and 3) the ability to justify the purchase by saying it's to keep playing with your friends (friends who are buying it for the exact same reason as you, and justifying it the same way).

And please don't go "bluh he just hates the games." I'm saying this as someone who owns both Modern Warfare games, despite them being absolute shite, and has played the first Bad Company, Black Ops, and part of BC2. I have at least 1000 hours between them all, and I still play MW2 from time to time. They really are terrible games, but we got hooked and now we're stuck in a cycle of "I'll buy it because my friends will, I'll buy it because it's CoD so I must, flashy pleasure center stimulation with no substance, play until I build up a tolerance and have to quit cold turkey and wait for the next one." So guess what? You know how everyone makes fun of the Warcrack addicts? Activision got us too.

tl;dr: Bobby Kotick and the psychologists who sold their souls to develop a system that overrides logical evaluation of these games with addiction are very, very evil, and very, very rich.

 

[X123Lewis123X]

A new game where i can f**k some noobs up! BRING IT ONNN!