Modern Warfare 3 Looks Purty
- Thread starter Greg Tito
- Start date
I've already posted my thoughts in a way too long post elsewhere, so for this thread, "I'm disappointed that MW3 contributes so little to the video gaming franchise, and on a personal note, would like to express my interest in firearms lay in reality or military simulations. Call of Duty represents gun-aficionados in the same way a black man hanging from a tree represents a polite and well-mannered expression of the Ku Klux Klan's opinions on socioracial hierarchy."...in that it doesn't--or more importantly, shouldn't.
Having had to sell this all day today and regarding the Elite thing, all you need to ask yourself is, am I going to buy all the map packs that come out? If yes then elite gets you them all for about 15 quid cheaper plus you get all the other extra nonsense with it.
So if you want cheaper map packs get elite. Simple.
Want a better game however? Buy Deus Ex.
So if you want cheaper map packs get elite. Simple.
Want a better game however? Buy Deus Ex.
But...but...then that would throw off the yearly release cycle and they might have to actually patch the game for awhile, instead of just releasing a new one!Eggsnham said:
Bioware is using a heavily modified engine for Mass Effect 3 actually. If not new? I remember it's different though. So...yeah. I don't have much else to say other than to point that out. I get your point, that was just a bad example.j-e-f-f-e-r-s said:
But against your point is this: Then why do we need an article saying how nice it looks? Back in 2007 this would've blown my pants off, but this is 2011. It's been 4 years. A lot has happened in those 4 years. Also, the Mass Effect 2 games do have better textures overall. But since the release of CoD4 we've had games like Crysis, Battlefield 3, LA Noire, Heavy Rain, Crysis 2.
The only reason they haven't advanced the visuals much is that it'd take too much time. Can't keep a yearly release schedule if you're having to build a new engine. Or do anything past minor improvements.
Actually seeing the game, it looks a bit... blocky. Not the graphics, but more what they're applied to. That being said, this is the sort of thing you only notice when watching someone play, as I've played plenty of games with similar design and this always happens (I think the Halo series was the same way).
It still doesn't look like anything I feel I NEED to play urgently, but it definitely looks fun to those who like this sort of game, so have fun.
Meanwhile, Uncharted 3 and Arkham City are both proving good enough to warrant another replay. I'm hoping I finish before Assassin's Creed's newest release comes out. It looks like this time of year is having something for every type of gamer.
It still doesn't look like anything I feel I NEED to play urgently, but it definitely looks fun to those who like this sort of game, so have fun.
Meanwhile, Uncharted 3 and Arkham City are both proving good enough to warrant another replay. I'm hoping I finish before Assassin's Creed's newest release comes out. It looks like this time of year is having something for every type of gamer.
I don't understand the infatuation developers have with gray and brown these days.
I'm guessing it's because the developers never go outside? Or sleep? Maybe they're all colorblind? Because the real world doesn't fucking look like that. It has actual color in it.
I'm guessing it's because the developers never go outside? Or sleep? Maybe they're all colorblind? Because the real world doesn't fucking look like that. It has actual color in it.
Ive played a few levels and honestly? Slightly better graphics, it's in need of a new engine, but the Aestetics are better. There's a bit more color, a more rounded palate, and I dare say that its an improved art direction. I think they struck a good balance, and deserve a commendation. Yes, its still a military shooter, and people will say it is horrible based purely on that. But it works.
Also, I have to wonder how many people who complain how MW3 graphics look the same as MW2 are also a big fan of Mass Effect. Standards are different when you're judging something that you view as being made for the local frat boys.
Also, I have to wonder how many people who complain how MW3 graphics look the same as MW2 are also a big fan of Mass Effect. Standards are different when you're judging something that you view as being made for the local frat boys.
For everyone saying "HERP DERP ITS THE SAME GAME", think on what you're saying. What is the discernible difference between Super Mario Bros. 1 and SMB 3? You would say, "more characters, improved gameplay elements,and a new campaign based on the same nostalgic engine", and that's completely okay. You're just saying it's the same game with some positive improvements (with new levels of course), and nothing's wrong with that. However, when you describe the difference between MW2 and MW3, you say that "it's the same game with some new maps and a different story, and is a complete waste of money". That's the thing, though, you can't blame a game for looking similar to a game that was made 2 years before it. Hell, if you put Killzone 2 and 3 screenshots in front of me, I couldn't tell the difference at all. What I'm trying to get to is that you should be paying for what you have fun with. If strategic movements and large vehicle battles is your thing, there is no reason to not enjoy BF3. I just choose to buy what I personally prefer, which is the run-and-gunning that made it possible, with some added improvements and a action movie-esque story.
