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

[PessimistOwl]

You know, you could ask people's opinions without trying to imply that they are mindless consumers. We get it, you don't like the game, that's your own opinion. Why should we have to justify ourselves? For the record, it is because if a group of players starts on one game, they will continue to the next game in the series in order to keep playing with their friends.

Well, I'm not trying to imply that you are a mindless group of consumers because I realize everyone has their hobbies. But I am curious as to why this group of gamers you speak of always have to stay with the times instead of enjoy what you already have? That's honestly all I'm saying, while I may not like the direction in which the games have turned since mw, I'm not bashing the consumers in any way.

Sorry about that. Thought you were one of those elitist snobs for a bit.
Anyways, its like I said. People will play with their friends. If their userbase migrates to another game, they will follow them. Nobody will want to play COD4 if all their friends are playing COD6.

It's quite alright! I've seen a lot of the game bashing ever since Call of Duty four versus Halo three arguments. It's relentless stuff. Still, and perhaps this is merely because my group of friends don't have as much money just like me, we still play MW2, MW even though we all have BO we prefer the earlier games. Personally, my still favorite is the balance within CoD4, I just get stressed out most of the time when I play MW2.

 

[Korten12]

I suppose, in retrospect one of the reasons I've been asking this here is because of the fact that Activision seems hell bent on adding more and more charges to their games and I don't like that simply because when I buy a game, I expect to be able to play my game. I have the same issue with EA and their "online pass" shit. I don't care what the reason, when I buy a product for sixty+ dollars I want my product.

But, I can see everyone's reasoning for playing the game and they're all pretty fair. Playing with friends is always a fun thing and I will definitely not disagree with people that say that Call of Duty is a good diversion because it really is.

But what extra charges? I can buy MW3 and never pay for anything around it again. There isn't another payment I need ti make to play it.

 

[owen20011993]

sure the core game has stayed the same and there are little new improvements each time. however, if you like it the multiplayer is a good choice for your money, since you can play it for 2 years without getting bored. but most titles do this you know, make little improvemnents to a good game. and i dont mean just sportsgames, pokemon and mortal combat. take for instants batman, the main things they did was expand the maps and little more depth. sure there are some main big improvements there aswell. but it is not uncommen.
ps. im only looking at the games from infinity ward, since treyarch cant even do a good copy game.

 

[Sewer Rat]

Meh, so long as the multiplayer for MW is still going strong, and on the pc it still is, I couldn't be bothered to get the new games unless they were offered for $2 each.
Frankly, from my experience, you play one of these soldier sims, you've played em all. And this includes Battlefield. I really don't get all the hype for that game, even more so then MW3.

 

[Leopard]

I don't think anyone disagree's that they can be alot of fun and do what they do very well. My curiosity is in what makes the old ones so outdated when the next installment comes along? There has been no major leaps in gameplay and the story isn't worth £50. I can't justify getting a new one every year. The same goes for sports games.

 

[Zac Smith]

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 simply, I enjoy Call Of Duty...all of them. The single player and multiplayer keep me entertained for hours on end. I could not care less about whether a game has that "creative spark" or be completely original story wise. All I ask is one thing. While playing do I have fun, and with call of duty, the answer is always "YES" Some games I do not have fun with, one example is LA Noire, which personally I found boring, monotonous and repetitive, but that's just me personally. Every Call Of Duty game to date has kept me entertained so long as it's spinning in the disk drive

 

[Toeys]

More of the same spec ops from MW2 would be my only reason. I dont get too much out of playing a pretty easy singleplayer campaign, im tired of slaughtering casual players in multiplayer and playing zombie mode without zombie mode makes no sense.

to be perfectly honest with you, the story isnt that deep or intruging that i couldnt survive watching something awful like segal instead.

People will play with their friends. If their userbase migrates to another game, they will follow them. Nobody will want to play COD4 if all their friends are playing COD6.

Yeah and theres this. Cursed friends.

 

[meowchef]

I am hyped because the single player is fun, the multiplayer is fun, the co-op is fun, the story is good in a cheesey James Bondy way and I like to play the occasional arcade shooter...

 

[Savryc]

For starts I went to see what happens to Price and Soap, being the endangered species that they are (British and GOOD guys, sort of). Secondly I revel in the prospect of blowing up half the civilized world. Multiplayer might entertain me for a while too.

 

[Bacaruda]

I had pre-ordered BF3 and I am not planning to buy MW3 on release(maybe later) but the thing is... That the Call of Duty series has perfected the CoD formula since the first game was released. And even though the games seem to be very similar they are, in fact, not. And, from what I have heard and read about BF3, they will have better Singleplayer.

 

[PessimistOwl]

sure the core game has stayed the same and there are little new improvements each time. however, if you like it the multiplayer is a good choice for your money, since you can play it for 2 years without getting bored. but most titles do this you know, make little improvemnents to a good game. and i dont mean just sportsgames, pokemon and mortal combat. take for instants batman, the main things they did was expand the maps and little more depth. sure there are some main big improvements there aswell. but it is not uncommen.
ps. im only looking at the games from infinity ward, since treyarch cant even do a good copy game.

That's a very good argument. Most games that are sequels don't add much that they didn't have in the last game. But the thing that perplexes me is that CoD has been a perfect example of that. Ever since CoD4 things have remained pretty much the same. Sure new campaign but, to me personally, the campaign's story hasn't really been something that I would buy those games for. And I'm sure we can all agree that the story to the campaigns are not something that activision sells it's Call of Duty franchises off of. To them it's always about the multiplayer experience, and my argument to that is that I already have three games with the exact same experience so why buy another one? You see, I'll buy a game like "Batman: Arkham City (when the price goes down)" but that's really because they sell the game from a platform that they really concentrated on making the single player good. They advertise Batman games from the basis that their single player will not only wrap you inside of it, but will make you both enjoy and interested in it. Activision doesn't sell their Call of Duty games on the entire "Our single player is amazing and you should try it" platform.

 

[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.

 

[PessimistOwl]

Btw, I appreciate all of the level headed responses thus far in this thread. I tried very hard not to turn this into an outright fanboy flame war and it's good to see my curiosity being satiated with these responses. I do thank everyone that's responded.

 

[Karma168]

Well i'll get it eventually, mostly to see how the campaign story progresses (i know its not great but i hate not knowing) and will probably play the multiplayer as it's still a good bit of fun to sink some down time into. But this is definitely the first time since CoD4 i won't be buying it in release week, it just doesn't seem worth the £40.

 

[MiracleOfSound]

1. I enjoyed all the other ones

2. It's the most fun shooter to me

There you go.

 

[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.

 

[PessimistOwl]

The same reason that many people are excited for all the sequels this year that don't do a whole lot that hasn't been done before - because that's what they like and it's been refined and refined and refined to a very, very fine point.

I won't be getting MW3 at launch because Skyrim, but some people just like it that much.

Also remember that MW3 is more multiplayer than single player. Yeah, the single player is usually good in these games, but it never lasts very long and most people jump right into the multiplayer.

I completely agree with this. Though I'll still play and beat single player games on their hardest difficulties, The CoD games have been something of multiplayer enjoyment for me up until recently. However, I will argue with you that they've been "refining" the games. Personally, the last game that I've thought was a really excellent title in the call of duty series was Modern Warfare. The story was exciting, made sense, the single player was new and intriguing, the new multiplayer exp system was done to perfection (I could go on with how they did this so well but for now, I'll just say that they perfected the balance of the game between noobs and skilled players by giving the best weapons first without getting rid of determination to unlock and master other weapons). When it comes to multiplayer on Modern Warfare, I actively enjoyed it, it was both relaxing and intense at the same time. However, since then (i.e mw2, bo) I have been frustrated with other players. Whether it's that camper in the room getting one shot pot shot kills with a sniper rifle, or the wave of enemies all using the famas, I begin actively getting mad at other players online, furthermore, I too play games for a good escape factor and the fact that I only get more and more stressed out when I play multiplayer for BO and MW2 is an indication to me that they aren't doing it as well as they did in the past.

 

[ruben6f]

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.

This, I am tired of " why do you like *product name here*" threads.

I am excited for CoD because I liked the other CoD games I don't think it's to hard to understand.

 

[Iwata]

I think at the end of the day it comes down to "because I find it fun".

 

[PessimistOwl]

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.