This, this and a million times, this. I have had this conversation with so many people about CoD - WaW, MW2, BO & now MW3:Drenaje1 said:[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]
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."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
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.