Modern Warfare 3 Breaks Every Sales Record Known to Man

[Bvenged]

[small]Not surprising, not even a little bit. But it's really nothing special as far as games go, which is why I tend to have a hard time trying to figure out just why everyone is spending their money on it. What I eventually end up with is, "It's the new Call of Duty." So? "So it's the new CoD, dude! It's awesome!" But what's different this time around? Is the multiplayer more fun? Did they fix the bugs, or try to balance the game? Did they put effort into the story? "Uh, it's CoD."

That's all fine, it really is. Congratulations on selling so much, I'm not going to shove my opinion down anyone's throat. I simply state that I see nothing of value of with it, and move on. Note that the above isn't the way every fan I've met words his opinion. I've seen a few people who actually make a compelling case in it's favor, but still. Meh.[/small]

This, this and a million times, this. I have had this conversation with so many people about CoD - WaW, MW2, BO & now MW3:

"It's the new Call of Duty." So? "So it's the new CoD, dude! It's awesome!" But what's different this time around? Is the multiplayer more fun? Did they fix the bugs, or try to balance the game? Did they put effort into the story? "Uh, it's CoD." Yep, but from what I've played; it's the same thing again and you've just had the wool pulled over your eyes

It's doing my head in. You wouldn't pay £45 for Halo: ODST, or Halo: CE Anniversary, or Starfox 64 3D/Super Mario 3D Land, or the a fucking Fallout 3/NV add-on (not for opinion, but for quality-value/price) - But why CoD? The devs hardly fix the multiplayer each time around. Speaking of which, it's nothing more than a bundle of new maps that took fuck-all time to make, some different perks & weapons and some new textures; and they couldn't even be arsed to pay for dedicated servers because monkeys keep buying the game in the sorry state it's in.

MW3's Campaign is actually 4 hours long or less, so if you bought it for the campaign for £45, you're paying for lazy workmanship and basically saying it's alright for developers to make half-games and still charge full. Spec Ops is now half of what it was on MW2, which is fucking ridiculous as Spec Ops was the best thing to happen to the series post-MW1; and ODST's Firefight was more involving than Survival mode as you could play with 3 friends, not 1. It is not worth £45 no matter how you look at it and buying it will kill the market off dead.[footnote]Even if you play £45 worth of the game in time=money, MW3 is still not worth that price to you as it's nothing more than MW2 with a splash of MW1. If you've owned both it's a bigger waste than if you didn't own either because you could've bought them for less than £45; and MW1 is by far superior to MW2/3 as it did everything right and everything is fresh-new; and it wasn't programmed using that brick-meets-keyboard method Activision make the Devs use now.. [/footnote] Though now I think it's too late for First Person Shooters, and here's a link to why. [http://www.escapistmagazine.com/forums/read/7.323666-Modern-Warfare-3-Breaks-Every-Sales-Record-Known-to-Man?page=2#13260806]

Congrats CoD, you've made the games industry the top dog, bigger than Hollywood, but it embarrasses me because you are not a good representation of the average gamer at all, just the select gamer who play CoD 99% of their time online - most who play CoD don't really touch any other games: It's no longer CoD vs. BF / Halo; This is CoD vs The rest of the gaming industry; and for good reason too.

 

[Rarhnor]

What other FPS' are you comparing it to though? I've played pretty much all of them (Doom through to today) and MW3 is just bad - it pushes no boundaries other then being the same game which wasn't even any good two games ago. Unbalanced, poor map design etc etc and hideous graphics.
I'd compare it to other shooters e.g. BF3, MoH, Shattered Horizon, Crysis 1 & 2, Cryostatis, Quake 4 etc.
Setting a colour palette does not constitute revolutionising a genre; Halo CE did that with the quick button grenade, regen health (shield but same difference) and melee attack. And actually the game to set the colour palette was Gears of War...
If you want a game which is like MW but decent try MoH. The difference is the latter is balanced and takes skill to be good at, not a lucky spawn point or level difference for equipment.
How many FPS' have you played?

I'm gonna go out of my way and pick Shattered Horizon and Cryostatis, even tough they are FPS'es, they are not within the genres definition.
I was comparing it to the recent Battlefield games, MoH, Resistance. You know, cover-based first person shooters with focus on linearity and fast pace. I'm inclined to throw out your other mentions, Quake 4 and Crysis (the first one at least), because they have more run'n'gun and free-roam style, respectively.
The modern gen shooter is set-piece action, but fuses this with restricting game-mechanics such as Halo's HP regen and weapon limits, and puts more emphasis on movement and gameplay.

MW isn't necessarily about it innovation, but rather about polish. You don't need to reinvent the wheel to make a car.

Talking about your dislikes: While I can't comment on the graphics, since I think they look just fine. While you may argue that doesn't hold up graphically to today's "A+ titles", it isn't ugly. Games on the Atari 2600 are, what you can call "ugly". Regarding your dislikes about what seems to be multiplayer issues, I don't agree. You say unbalanced, but I'm able to attain a good average score, with less-than-effective weapons (Uzi and pistol if you have to ask).
I can empathize with you on the maps. They are cramped and doesn't leave a lot of breathing room, but where you dislike it, I love it. The cramped maps means more action, and more players staying in motion. Again, I don't quite see why you hate it. Multiplayer experiences vary a lot from player to player.
Saying MW3 doesn't take skill is subjective. I'm only an average player, but the competition in MW3 is a lot more tough than it was for me in Battlefield: Bad Company 2 (When you can kill snipers with an uzi on their terms in context of distance, then the weapon of choice becomes a 'what-looks best-in-my-hands-on-my-enemies-killcam' thing. Therefore, I can't put down a conclusion on skills required to play.
And I'm gonna stay on the fence about MoH, until I hear, which on of them you are talking about.

I've played many. My former college acquaintances dragged me into buy a lot of fps game including: Rainbow six: vegas, every BF game since 2002, every Valve FPS, etc. I had a good relationship with the genre with Doom 2 and 007: Goldeneye, but I soon became more than familiar with the genre.

 

[pppppppppppppppppp]

Well, that's honestly surprising.

Now, I don't have a big problem with COD like some gamers do; it's not my cup of tea but that's fine. But the reception and hype behind this game has been lukewarm at best, at least from where I'm standing. It's not even a "hate stuff that's popular" thing either, it just seems like people have stopped caring, like someone else said it reminds me of the Guitar Hero/Rock Band thing.

 

[mooncalf]

The way this thread has gone you'd suppose barely any of us have bought it, heh.

The only disappointment I have is that this will further discourage any new IP for the next few years. Prepare for another year of bi-monthly brown shooter releases.

I disagree, you may object to one company having a squidillion bucks but it would radically affect their perceptions of risk. Indie Dev X wants 200,000 to try out his small idea with big potential? Kotick says "Sure! Here's the wadge I was using to prop my solid silver mercedes up against my other two solid silver mercedes."

 

[gphjr14]

Not surprising at all.

Biggest problem is the greedy bastards cant charge less for DLC and refuse to provide dedicated servers for the console version. They can afford it.

 

[Conner McGuire]

God I hope your being sarcastic Sneaklemming.

 

[Ariseishirou]

Would people like to know why its selling so well? Because of MW2, which was a great game, and MW3 is even better.

Stop trying to justify why the game sold well apart from the fact that "Its a very good AAA FPS, with a large following of players, a fairly solid story and a very good multiplayer.

Excellent comment, good sir. This should be /thread, but alas, we both know it won't be.

Besides, all of this nonsense about "discouraging the development of new IPs" is just that: nonsense.

Let me break it down for those who hate CoD, don't know anyone who likes CoD, and thus don't know what CoD players are actually like aside from the "ADD CoD kiddies" insult thrown about forums. Real CoD players come in two types:

1) Bros. (And a small number of She!Bros.) These people bought an XBox for CoD. Or Halo. Or Gears. On the off chance they bought a PS3, it was for CoD, Killzone, and Resistance. As you can see, they are never going to buy new properties. Military and futuristic shooter sequels are all they want. If they do buy a new IP, it had better be pretty much the same as CoD or Halo. The success of CoD isn't going to cause these people to turn up their noses as new and fresh ideas - they already would have, even if CoD tanked. They'd just look for a new CoD. To them, gaming = FPS. And possibly Madden. Which somehow escapes all the hate for releasing an updated roster for $60/year, but no one ever said CoD hate was logical.

2) Gamers. Who happen to enjoy CoD. For these people (of which I am one), the annual CoD release sits on the shelf beside a healthy mix of RPGs, adventure games, horror games, platformers, fighting games - even art house games. This year I pre-ordered Deus Ex and Dark Souls; I also own Demon's Souls, Heavy Rain, Catherine, Metro 2033, the Uncharted series, Assassins Creed, Infamous, and many, many more... in addition to CoD from Classic to MW3. We are not discouraging the development of new IP because we spend dollars on new IP. As a game, CoD is just good. And between the best single player saga of any modern military shooter to date, co-op play like zombies or spec ops, and a lengthy and nuanced multiplayer, it's well worth $60. Honestly, I spent a lot more time playing Black Ops than I did Catherine, and I bought that for $60. In fact, I make a pretty decent professional income, so that's one of the things I do to support the industry: I buy games at full price. So, fuck you I'm discouraging the development of new IPs. I give dollars directly to the developers of new IPs.

Also, imo, what killed any chances BF3 had of dethroning MW3 was EA's shitty marketing campaign, otherwise it would have been a more serious threat, but that's another topic for another time.

 

[PunkRex]

Im not a fan of MW or BF but at least now we can say,

Us: "Hey Hollywood!"

Hollywood: "Yeah?"

Us:

 

[meow]

that doesn't mean the game is good, just because a lot of people look at a pile of shit doesn't make it gold its still a pile of shit

 

[Ariseishirou]

MW3's Campaign is actually 4 hours long or less, so

See, this is why CoD fans just can't take CoD haters seriously. That statement is an objective, bald-faced lie. Perhaps an excellent player playing on the easiest difficulty level could, with effort, finish the game close to that - but that's not how the game is intended to be played. I can finish Super Mario World in an hour by unlocking the secret doors; this is like going around saying DURR HURR SUPER MARIO IS ONLY AN HOUR LONG, WHAT A RIP. You sound moronic, and moreover, we know you're lying, so it calls into doubt everything else you have to say about the series. Played on a challenging difficulty setting for the player, the game is about 7-8 hours long, which is pretty normal for the genre. And double your ridiculous claim. If fact, it's longer than Homefront, KZ3, Bulletstorm, and even BF3's campaigns. Crysis 2 was unusually long at 10-12 hours.

In before BUT I PLAYED IT ON RECRUIT VETERAN AND THAT'S HOW LONG I TOOK.

 

[Kukakkau]

Didn't it sell less than MW2 but still make more money on day one? With magic?

Exactly what I was thinking, since a ton of people were put off by this being more of the exact same and black ops' performance. So how can it have sold more?

 

[Lord_Nether]

"I don't like the game, therefore it must be bad."

Seriously everyone? Get off your elitist high-horse.

At least be happy that the medium of video games is having such a significant impact world-wide.

It's not that, it's how games like Skyrim and Battlefield actually improve with each new game, whereas all the CODs are pretty much reskins of the last (except COD4) with little improvement and maybe a few new perks.

 

[Buizel91]

It may be selling well, but i know ALOT of hardcore COD players that have traded it in to get other games...

And now i wish i didn't get this =\

Never again am i getting a COD game...it'll be be a hard struggle, but i will prevail!

How many is that you know of who have traded it in?
I'm amazed it sold so well (or was it just the price?) as all the folk I know who had Black Ops bought BF3 instead.

At least 10, (Who are on my facebook) and i see a lot of my friends, friends saying they traded it in to.

Also i just have to look in my local Game/Grainger Games/CEX/HMV to see A SHIT LOAD of MW3 copy's in the Pre-Owned sections.

 

[Kadoodle]

IDGAF how much it sells. Sales have nothing to do with quality.

Keep in mind that the bible has sold more copies than any other book in the world.

 

[rapidoud]

Problem, BF3?

 

[maninahat]

Standard escapist mentality: "If only everyone who bought the game would admit they don't like it, everything will be better."

Basically, it doesn't matter if you thought the game was mediocre - that means nothing to the millions who like it. Stop preaching to the malcontent choir, you snobs.

 

[SonicKoala]

What I find hilarious in light of all this is how Yahtzee had the nerve to call Bioshock 2 a derivative, cash-grab sequel.

Really? In the realm of FPS sequels, Bioshock 2 is the worst offender in that regard?

But....that was last year. MW3 hadn't even been released yet....

I'm so confused at the nature of your comment. And he didn't say it was the worst offender in that regard, he just said it was a cash-grab sequel (and he arguably has a point). Do you expect him to reflect on and modify every review he does and every opinion he makes every time a game which is more befitting to one of his many, many opinions is released? Are you on the crazy pills?

No offense intended - that last line was meant in a light-hearted manner, just so you know.

 

[maninahat]

IDGAF how much it sells. Sales have nothing to do with quality.

Keep in mind that the bible has sold more copies than any other book in the world.

In fairness, you probably appreciate it more than you realise. I bet you can't even have a five minute conversation without accidently quoting it. [http://www.phrases.org.uk/meanings/bible-phrases-sayings.html]