Modern Warfare 3

irish_whiskey

So another E3 has come and gone and the scenes they showed for MW3 look amazing. Plus the fact the controller disconnected during the demo was pretty funny.

But looking at what EA are bringing in with Battlefield Bad Company 3, I think COD are going to have a battle on their hands. Sure, they have the gripping storyline of Soap and Price but BFBC 3 looked awesome.

Thoughts? Im a mad COD fan, never played BFBC series at all but it looks like a serious investment for October

Azza

Can't say I'm too interested in MW 3. I liked the orginally MW but the second one lost the plot in terms of story.

Asides from the COD series has failed to do much new for the last few times in terms of gameplay and I can't imagine them changing the formula much. Unless a few of my mates say its worth a play I'll think I'll pass.

By the way the new Battlefield game is Battlefield 3 which is seperate from the Bad Company series.

Kiith

MW3 will sell better, regardless. I won't buy it myself, as i've not enjoyed the last 2 games at all. It is increadibly popular though. BF3 is s definite buy from what i've seen so far though.

irish_whiskey

Well there is something I didnt know, well it was late when I was watching it I really liked the storyline though, I thought it was amazing. A bit OTT but amazing. I loved the older ones and the way a Price is in all of them. Although, most of the FPS do tend to go mad on the old storyline too

Spuddy91

Had the last Battlefield and really loved the online play. It is better than MW2 for online mainliy because of how destructive you can be and the different vehicles available, but MW2 has a better story IMO and it's better to play with your mates.

PogMoThoin

Spuddy91 wrote: »

Had the last Battlefield and really loved the online play. It is better than MW2 for online mainliy because of how destructive you can be and the different vehicles available, but MW2 has a better story IMO and it's better to play with your mates.

Yeah, but the last Battlefield wasn't really Battlefield, it was Bad Company, a consolised form of Battlefield, it was dumbed down with less players. Battlefield never had single player until Bad Company. I'm looking forward to them moving their focus back to PC for BF3
http://www.g4tv.com/videos/44638/The-History-of-the-Battlefield-Franchise/

As for MW3 I lost interest in that series long ago with all the re-skins and removal of features

Dcully

I almost fell asleep when they announced mw3.

As much as BC2 is not battlefield as BF2,BF 1942,BFV players know it , its still vastly superior to the tripe that is now the cod series.
Horrible series with a horrible community on all formats.

War Machine 539

I will stick my neck out . . . . . I cant wait for MW3. I really enjoyed MW2, I mean all of it, I thought the story was great! Multiplayer, although flawed in many ways, is the most polished and fluid multiplayer experience out there!
On a sidenote, I hate Robert Bowling and his nasally, whiny voice. Makes it hard to watch any videos about it! Sorry about that rant! :P

Sod'o swords

Dcully wrote: »

Horrible series with a horrible community on all formats.

In fairness I found a great community in COD2 and COD4, though i left the PC scene from there with the lack of dedicated servers, plus it turned to utter tripe anyway.

I'll more than likely buy MW3, play the single player then trade it in for some silly price.

Dcully

Sod'o swords wrote: »

In fairness I found a great community in COD2 and COD4, though i left the PC scene from there with the lack of dedicated servers, plus it turned to utter tripe anyway.

Yep agreed, i was referring to every game since COD4, i should have made that clear.
Theres still plenty of great servers and communities for COD1,2 and 4 on PC thankfully.

Burgo

Dcully wrote: »

Yep agreed, i was referring to every game since COD4, i should have made that clear.
Theres still plenty of great servers and communities for COD1,2 and 4 on PC thankfully.

Didn't think anyone still played CoD1 or 2, might have to give them a reinstall!

boiledeggs

From what I have heard the only footage of battlefield 3 is the pc version so don't expect it to b looking like that when is comes to ps3 and xbox360

Auvers

boiledeggs wrote: »

From what I have heard the only footage of battlefield 3 is the pc version so don't expect it to b looking like that when is comes to ps3 and xbox360

yep Battlefield 3 was developed with the PC being the primary target, like all true BF games

hopefully it will be a true successor to the Battlefield franchise unlike that POS bastardized version Bad Company 2 & fingers crossed it will be nothing like COD as well

Dcully

Burgo wrote: »

Didn't think anyone still played CoD1 or 2, might have to give them a reinstall!

Well worth a reinstall mate.

COD servers
http://www.game-monitor.com/search.php?game=cod

COD United Ofensive servers
http://www.game-monitor.com/search.php?game=coduo&vars=

COD 2 servers
http://www.game-monitor.com/search.php?game=cod2&vars=

I misplaced my COD1 and 2 discs a while back unfortunately but still quite a few people i used to play those games with still operating fine servers and communities.
I might buy them again if i can find them cheap.

YouSavedMyLife

The only reason i would get this is cause i know most of my friends will end up getting it. Didnt really like the BC games, but BF3 looks amazing. Im tempted to build a PC for it as i played BF:V and BF2 to death. If its halfway decent i might just end up buying it on a console, i just dont have the cash to be building new PC's :mad:

I think i had my fill with Black Ops, dont wanna play it again with new skins on everything...

Trevor451

I am not going to buy another shovelware game from Activision.

BF3 >>>> MW3

ShadowHearth

Auvers wrote: »

yep Battlefield 3 was developed with the PC being the primary target, like all true BF games

hopefully it will be a true successor to the Battlefield franchise unlike that POS bastardized version Bad Company 2 & fingers crossed it will be nothing like COD as well

nothing wrong with bad company 2 :rolleyes:

if they called it battlefield 3, then yes, you could nitpick, but its bad company franchise.

i love bc2. It beats cod any day in gameplay quality. damn even console versions got dedicated servers!

i just have a feeling that i will need to get new pc... witcher allready proved to me, that my litte warrior after 3.5 years is starting to show its age!

Auvers

ShadowHearth wrote: »

nothing wrong with bad company 2 :rolleyes:

well after playing all battlefield games since 1942, IMO BC2 was a console version and didn't play like any BF game before it, so no need for the rolleyes because you don't agree with me, for me it was terrible and I just hope they don't fcuk BF3 up by trying to make it a BC2\COD clone

Paparazzo

Why does it have to be COD or BF? I'll definitely be getting both!
You can guarantee that the amount of gameplay each of them will give you will make them worth it. Even if you prefer one over the other.
I prefer COD, but hard to beat sniping on BF!

Captain Chaos

Auvers wrote: »

well after playing all battlefield games since 1942, IMO BC2 was a console version and didn't play like any BF game before it, so no need for the rolleyes because you don't agree with me, for me it was terrible and I just hope they don't fcuk BF3 up by trying to make it a BC2\COD clone

Thats why it got the BC name, it's a stand alone series within the BF franchise. You are comparing apples to oranges comparing BC1 and 2 to BF2 and 3. BC is the Kelly's Heros of modern war games, great fun and nothing wrong with them at all unless you were expecting BF3 and 4 from them. BF2 and 3 are the true BF games. Sure 1942 and 1943 play more like COD with vehicles as it is.

Auvers

Captain Chaos wrote: »

Thats why it got the BC name, it's a stand alone series within the BF franchise. You are comparing apples to oranges comparing BC1 and 2 to BF2 and 3. BC is the Kelly's Heros of modern war games, great fun and nothing wrong with them at all unless you were expecting BF3 and 4 from them. BF2 and 3 are the true BF games. Sure 1942 and 1943 play more like COD with vehicles as it is.

I am quite aware of the development of BC2 for the PS3, I just hope that its more BF2 than BC2, it already has worrying signs like regen health and no commo rose & commander

citizen_p

what pisses me off about mw3 is the fact the last 5 games have had the same engine, same exploding bins, same debries etc...

the last 5 games could of been exspansions or slight mods.

whats new in multiplayer this time? 2 SIGHTS PER GUN omfg -_-


also they probly have the map pack they will release after 4 months for €15 already made...

ShadowHearth

Captain Chaos wrote: »

Thats why it got the BC name, it's a stand alone series within the BF franchise. You are comparing apples to oranges comparing BC1 and 2 to BF2 and 3. BC is the Kelly's Heros of modern war games, great fun and nothing wrong with them at all unless you were expecting BF3 and 4 from them. BF2 and 3 are the true BF games. Sure 1942 and 1943 play more like COD with vehicles as it is.

nailed it m8. thats what i had in my mind!

Retr0gamer

Mousey- wrote: »

what pisses me off about mw3 is the fact the last 5 games have had the same engine, same exploding bins, same debries etc...

The last 5 games? It's really obvious that they are still using a modified Quake 3 Arena engine, the same one they've been using since MOH: Allied Assault. Even the seperate .exe files for multiplayer and single player has a bang of Quake 3 Arena off it.

krudler

Paparazzo wrote: »

Why does it have to be COD or BF? I'll definitely be getting both!
You can guarantee that the amount of gameplay each of them will give you will make them worth it. Even if you prefer one over the other.
I prefer COD, but hard to beat sniping on BF!

this, fanboy wars make me chuckle so, buy both if you want. I will be

Magill

Retr0gamer wrote: »

The last 5 games? It's really obvious that they are still using a modified Quake 3 Arena engine, the same one they've been using since MOH: Allied Assault. Even the seperate .exe files for multiplayer and single player has a bang of Quake 3 Arena off it.

Probably why its the smoothest shooter for the consoles.


I dont get the hate that people give CoD. Obviously a lot of people love it or else it wouldn't be so popular. Instead of giving CoD **** you should be directing it towards the other shooters out there... its the other studios job to come up with something better... and so far none has (For consoles obviously)

People always come out with the same old ****.... "OH ITS SUCH AN EASY GAME!" and that it requires no skill. Yet, they're probably the same guys that get 10 kills in a game of dom.

weiland79

I dunno, I did the whole midnight launch thing for MW2 and Blops but for some reason the new one just leaves me cold.
I would usually be lapping up all the little morsels of information between now and release but releasing two versions a year is kinda taking the mick.
I only played Blops on the Xbox and one thing that struck me from chatting to other players is the amount of people that only play COD games.

I guess some folk are easily entertained.

Paparazzo

weiland79 wrote: »

I dunno, I did the whole midnight launch thing for MW2 and Blops but for some reason the new one just leaves me cold.
I would usually be lapping up all the little morsels of information between now and release but releasing two versions a year is kinda taking the mick.
I only played Blops on the Xbox and one thing that struck me from chatting to other players is the amount of people that only play COD games.

I guess some folk are easily entertained.

I notice the odd person with 35 days gameplay :eek:

krudler

Paparazzo wrote: »

I notice the odd person with 35 days gameplay :eek:

I've got over 30 days on MW2

Paparazzo

krudler wrote: »

I've got over 30 days on MW2

Fúcking hell! I go in and out of phases of it. Addicted to it for 3 or 4 days, they won't touch it for 2-3 weeks.

krudler

Paparazzo wrote: »

Fúcking hell! I go in and out of phases of it. Addicted to it for 3 or 4 days, they won't touch it for 2-3 weeks.

I was off work sick for a few months so thats where the majority of that was racked up, I still play a lot of other stuff though

stevenmu

If you compare games to books, then MW is a rollercoaster. It doesn't have the intellectual engagement of a third level physics textbook, it doesn't even have the intellectual engagement of 'Spot the dog'. It's not even a book. But it's still a hell of a ride and lots of fun.

Black Ops didn't really do it for me, but I loved MW and MW2 and I'm looking forward to this a lot.

Edit: and I don't really care about the engine, MW/MW2 looked more than good enough. Besides I thought the motto of the games forum was "we don't care about graphics" ?

Dcully

Magill wrote: »

Probably why its the smoothest shooter for the consoles.


I dont get the hate that people give CoD. Obviously a lot of people love it or else it wouldn't be so popular. Instead of giving CoD **** you should be directing it towards the other shooters out there... its the other studios job to come up with something better... and so far none has (For consoles obviously)

People always come out with the same old ****.... "OH ITS SUCH AN EASY GAME!" and that it requires no skill. Yet, they're probably the same guys that get 10 kills in a game of dom.

You see some of us loved COD the way it was and thats our downfall and poison in our food.
Personally i probably slate it more than the game deserves, as a multiplayer game its ok fun for a quick bash every now and then but as a veteran cod player its hard to stomach what they have done to the series.
If i never played COD 1 or 2 i wouldnt know any better and most likely take the game on its own merit therefore i dont blame the new crop of players for loving the game, if they enjoy it fair play to them.
Personally I view what the series today as a new cod, todays games and yesterdays games only share a name "call of duty" i dont see them as the same series anymore, its easier to stomach this way lol

Seriously though,I still pop in and out of mw2 every now and then on pc mostly if i see a friend on steam playing, its a great looking game and can be fun if played with the right people.
I also play with my son on 360, we have two 360s and two live accounts but hes begging me for my old pc since i got my new rig so i dunno how long the 360 buts will last
I just tell myself "this is not cod as you know it old man, just enjoy it for what it is" which helps a lot until some guy knifes me from 10 feet away while im pumping him full of lead and my illusion is shattered lol.

IMO MW2 is still the superior game compared to BLOPS, if mw2 had dedicated servers id probably play it more, i cant stand waiting in lobbies etc, i usually just say screw this and boot up another fps with dedicated servers.

Potential-Monke

stevenmu wrote: »

If you compare games to books, then MW is a rollercoaster. It doesn't have the intellectual engagement of a third level physics textbook, it doesn't even have the intellectual engagement of 'Spot the dog'. It's not even a book. But it's still a hell of a ride and lots of fun.

Black Ops didn't really do it for me, but I loved MW and MW2 and I'm looking forward to this a lot.

Edit: and I don't really care about the engine, MW/MW2 looked more than good enough. Besides I thought the motto of the games forum was "we don't care about graphics" ?

This. Everyone gives out about MW, but it has a strong following of people who are looking for a fun shooter, not necessarily a realistic physics bullet shooter, but a fun game. Thats what MW is, and i'll be getting it.

Magill

Dcully wrote: »

You see some of us loved COD the way it was and thats our downfall and poison in our food.
Personally i probably slate it more than the game deserves, as a multiplayer game its ok fun for a quick bash every now and then but as a veteran cod player its hard to stomach what they have done to the series.
If i never played COD 1 or 2 i wouldnt know any better and most likely take the game on its own merit therefore i dont blame the new crop of players for loving the game, if they enjoy it fair play to them.
Personally I view what the series today as a new cod, todays games and yesterdays games only share a name "call of duty" i dont see them as the same series anymore, its easier to stomach this way lol

I also play with my son on 360, we have two 360s and two live accounts but hes begging me for my old pc since i got my new rig so i dunno how long the 360 buts will last
I just tell myself "this is not cod as you know it old man, just enjoy it for what it is" which helps a lot until some guy knifes me from 10 feet away while im pumping him full of lead and my illusion is shattered lol.

IMO MW2 is still the superior game compared to BLOPS, if mw2 had dedicated servers id probably play it more, i cant stand waiting in lobbies etc, i usually just say screw this and boot up another fps with dedicated servers.

Some people just don't like change, its the same with a lot of games (CS 1.6 players still give CSS a hard time ! I used to aswel before I actually gave it a chance). Now I dont really have a choice as I cant PC game anymore soooo i take the next best thing, which happens to be cod... trust me if something awesome like CS came to console (A proper version... not that old xbox ****e ) i'd be dropping cod in an instant as i've never really been a CoD fan until about this time last year.

Seriously though,I still pop in and out of mw2 every now and then on pc mostly if i see a friend on steam playing, its a great looking game and can be fun if played with the right people.

Thats just it tho, COD is all about who your playing with, if your playing with friends it can be a great laugh. Unfortunately without the dedicated servers there isn't much of a community so it can feel a bit empty playing on your own.

krudler

Potential-Monke wrote: »

This. Everyone gives out about MW, but it has a strong following of people who are looking for a fun shooter, not necessarily a realistic physics bullet shooter, but a fun game. Thats what MW is, and i'll be getting it.

COD is an arcade shooter, its not realistic in any way, if it was you wouldnt have perks thats allow you to run for an infinite amount of time or not show your body head on a thermal scope. Its a laugh to play when you're playing with friends and we've had some absolutely hilarious nights playing it on the COD forum with the regulars. I mostly play hardcore these days, team killing on, no hud, no uav map, no scores popping up when you kill someone, very little noobtubing or commando knifing, its the way to go if you want old school COD.

Kiith

krudler wrote: »

COD is an arcade shooter, its not realistic in any way, if it was you wouldnt have perks thats allow you to run for an infinite amount of time or not show your body head on a thermal scope. Its a laugh to play when you're playing with friends and we've had some absolutely hilarious nights playing it on the COD forum with the regulars. I mostly play hardcore these days, team killing on, no hud, no uav map, no scores popping up when you kill someone, very little noobtubing or commando knifing, its the way to go if you want old school COD.

To be fair, Battlefield isnt exactly real either. It's more realistic, but that's mnot saying much. If you want realistic, play Arma2.

boiledeggs

People who complain about COD and Battlefield for not being too realistic should check out the ARMA series on PC and the Operation Flashpoint games.

Games like COD and Battlefield are designed as entertainment set in a realistic setting.

Anyway MW3 looks fun and seems like will be entertaining.

Burgo

boiledeggs wrote: »

People who complain about COD and Battlefield for not being too realistic should check out the ARMA series on PC and the Operation Flashpoint games.

To add to that Red Orchestra is another realistic game along the same lines as those you mentioned.

irish_whiskey

I think COD will always be my first choice of game for an FPS. Arma and Red Orchestra, worth a buy or are they even possible to find now?

merc.ie

There has been nothing fresh from this series since COD4 and MW3 doesn't look to be bringing anything new to the table either - it's just the same game with new maps. But that's what their fans seem to enjoy, a familiar engine and gameplay system from the get go and a new game in which to rank up and unlock stuff (and camp for killstreaks )
I doubt that there will be any new innovation from Call of Duty before the next generation of consoles are released. Bring on Red Orchestra 2, Battlefield 3 and eventually Arma 3 I say.

funky penguin

Think I'll rent it out and play the single-player, it's all I'm interested in.

krudler

merc.ie wrote: »

There has been nothing fresh from this series since COD4 and MW3 doesn't look to be bringing anything new to the table either - it's just the same game with new maps. But that's what their fans seem to enjoy, a familiar engine and gameplay system from the get go and a new game in which to rank up and unlock stuff (and camp for killstreaks )
I doubt that there will be any new innovation from Call of Duty before the next generation of consoles are released. Bring on Red Orchestra 2, Battlefield 3 and eventually Arma 3 I say.

so essentially the same as any sequel ever then, hell nintendo have basically been making the same Zelda game since Ocarina Of Time with different settings but its almost identical, I bet the first boss on Skyward Sword is a plant you kill with a boomerang :pac:

Potential-Monke

krudler wrote: »

so essentially the same as any sequel ever then, hell nintendo have basically been making the same Zelda game since Ocarina Of Time with different settings but its almost identical, I bet the first boss on Skyward Sword is a plant you kill with a boomerang :pac:

x2 What more innovation can CoD bring? If they bring destructible buildings, etc and vehicles they'll just be copying Battlefield. If they introduce forcefields they're copying Halo. I can't see what more can be introduced tbh, and it's working great as an arcade shooter. If it's more MW with some tweaks to help alleviate non-sniper camping, with decent maps and killstreaks that don't count towards your killstreak, i'll be a happy happy man. Oh, and no subscription or preorder only ****e. But thats just hoping too much.

Darragh McD

The fact that battlefield is coming out a week or two before mw3 means that most people who think both look great will probably only be able to afford one which will probably be battlefield as it's out first.

problems with battlefield are:
There will be DLC from day one which is a bit cheap in fairness they could have just put it on the disk. Plus the fact that the DLC and some editions of the Games have more weapons mean that online multiplayer may be ruined and kinda unfair if everyone is using really powerful stuff that only some people have which will frustrate players with no special editions or DLC

Usually infitity ward is bad at supporting games but they do make a good game no doubt MW2 was fun and no1 can deny they liked it and it does boast good fair equal online with equal weapons for all which makes the game more interesting as you see nice/weird weapon combo's.

I personally will be holding out for MW3 battlefield is just a little slow paced for me

Spear

Darragh McD wrote: »

problems with battlefield are:
There will be DLC from day one which is a bit cheap in fairness they could have just put it on the disk. Plus the fact that the DLC and some editions of the Games have more weapons mean that online multiplayer may be ruined and kinda unfair if everyone is using really powerful stuff that only some people have which will frustrate players with no special editions or DLC

The Back to Karkand DLC is at least free to everyone who pre-orders, plus there are no versions with extra weapons now. Those with the Physical Warfare Pack just get them earlier then others.

Kiith

Darragh McD wrote: »

...but they do make a good game no doubt MW2 was fun and no1 can deny they liked it...

Eh, I can.

Dave_The_Sheep

Kiith wrote: »

Eh, I can.

Likewise.

A few good moments in single player - but generally more of the same done with less style and more shock value than CoD4. It's a far inferior single player game than it's predecessors and in multiplayer the lack of dedicated servers means you're waiting for multiplayer all the time, the maps aren't as well designed.

I really didn't like it. Admittedly, I went into it with a negative outlook, but it did nothing to dispel that bar the one or two good points of the single player campaign.

Needless to say I won't be getting MW3, unless I see it for less than €5.

the_big_shmoke

saw the recent trailers.... it looks exactly the same as mw2,
i think the title mw3 is a bit generous, mw2.5 at best.

Whats happening man

the_big_shmoke wrote: »

saw the recent trailers.... it looks exactly the same as mw2,
i think the title mw3 is a bit generous, mw2.5 at best.

isn't MW3 just a continue of MW2 when the Russians invaded the USA--The game is always going to look the same until better hardware comes out.720 maybe a year or two still away from hitting the stores.

Twilightning

Whats happening man wrote: »

isn't MW3 just a continue of MW2 when the Russians invaded the USA--The game is always going to look the same until better hardware comes out.720 maybe a year or two still away from hitting the stores.

There are games out on this generation's current hardware that look a lot better than Modern Warfare so it's no excuse. It's laziness.