Modern Wafare 3

[redzero]

The WW2 FPS has been beaten to death, so the "modern" FPS will be next.

[mingus]

they're overdoing the out of COD, but people will continue to buy it because it's a solid product and they do a uva job marketing it. at the end of the day, it's a fun game to play for a lot of people including myself, it's just that it wasn't as fun as before because there's only a year between the last four installments and that's not including DLCs. they've gone from trying to make an AMAZING experience to just being able to hash one out yearly and hit the jackpot as far as the money. it's less about the game and consumer and more about the money then it was before. they need to just stop it with these DLCs. they could easily include those maps in the game to begin with. the series has gotten progressively more stale because there's only like 4 months between the last DLC and the when the newest COD comes out. people keep s ing out the money though at record setting rates and as long as that keeps up nothing will stop it form continuing this way.

[Nathan Explosion]

COD is fun, but enough with the WW2 era pieces. We know who won. I might be done with the series after MW3 though. Once they finish the story I might move on to something else. To me it's like this, when you've put in time with the story, wouldn't you want to know how it ended?

The Matrix was like that. The first one was good. The second one was eh, but since I had seen the first two, I had to finish the story. The third one delivered in the action department but was not as good as the first either.

[4>0rings]

The best single player CoD was CoD2, by far.



The co-op "zombie mode but with soldiers instead of zombies" could be pretty good.

True along with multiplayer also. COD2 was the best out of the series, by far. They actually made the guns sound realistic.

[Muser]

I'll get it, but only because everyone at Uni will.

[resistanze]

After buying that abortion we call MW2 I feel obligated to pirate MW3.

[symple19]

After buying that abortion we call MW2 I feel obligated to pirate MW3.

probably not even worth pirating, considering how ty the SP is in this series

[jman3000]

BF3 is gonna all over it, but I'll still probably pick it up a few months after release.

I enjoy the difficulty of the SP on veteran. One of the better challenges I get in games.

[The Gemini Method]

I'll get both BC3 and MW3 because I do enjoy teh MP in both...I just hope they do away with that Magnum Ammo BS in BF3 since it sucked having to unload a grip of rounds into someone when I started the Bad Company MP (later than most...)

[Cry Havoc]

the worst part is that they are not really realistic, they just have real weapons. I'd much rather have fantastic weapons that bring variety than 10 variations of hand guns, machine guns and sniper rifles. the auto heal mechanic typical of modern FPS is just stupid. and to top it off, all of these military shooters make GI Joe look multicultural. I understand that americans won't be offended by the patriotic, US can do no wrong vibe these games have, but doesnt it get boring? the cold war is over folks, and the Iraq / afghanistan wars barely qualify as such (in the words of Bill Hicks, a war is when at least two armies are fighting). if you want to be realistic, there are much more interesting scenarios to play out, like in Far Cry 2 or the Rainbow six series...

I dunno, I think I disagree here to a point. Of course the CoD series is being milked for money, but to suggest a genre is getting old just because it's been done over and over is a little disingenuous. I mean, how many times is the plumber going into the castle to save the princess? How many new "Pole Positions" are going to come out, even though we've got near photo-realism in our race games? Is Gran Turismo 5 less fun because there were 40,000 racing games before it? How many games are we going to be able to cast fire spells before it feels trite and contrived?

Yes, there are genre-bending games out there, but just because it's been done before should not dissuade a company from attempting to improve upon the tried and true scheme. Look what Crytek did in 2007 with Crysis. I think gaming is just now reaching the point where graphical improvements are beginning to be a thing of subtlety instead of a dump truck driving through your living room with how awesome it is.

I remember when this looked amazing:



I mean, back in the day, that was practically a duplicate of reality.

As technology improves, it allows our characters and environments to react in different ways. You didn't even have a crouch command in Doom, and now FPS games are offering dozens of methods to actually employ the reality of the place you're fighting in. It can make something you've done before seem completely new and fresh. I remember the first time I booted Battlefield 2 up, I shot a tank while hiding under a train. It exploded, and I thought, "This is the future of gaming. I can't believe how awesome this is."

[z0sa]

Can't do the series, as the meta-game is current constructed, any better than Black Ops. It has it all and it's all done about as superb as one could ask for within the series. One would probably want bigger, better designed maps, and a better net-coding, but that's about all I can ask for from Black Ops, all things considered.

MW3 will probably be a suitably standard (in relation to previous les) re-hash of something that's been done since 2007 and has already been perfected in Black Ops. Probably not worth anyone's $60, tbh

I haven't played the single player of any of CoD, all the way back to the original, and probably won't ever, so I suppose that may be a reason for many out there to waste more money. But Black Ops will "do" the CoD thing for me for some time after MW3 releases - perhaps forever.

I was calling for the series to evolve before MW2, only to be on (mainly by that re Balli). Maybe they'll change it up big time for MW3 and breathe some freshness back into the series. Doubt it though. Until then I'll have the best of both worlds in Black Ops.

[Spurtacus]

Trailer is tonight during the Mavs/Thunder game.

[spurs_fan_in_exile]

Trailer is tonight during the Mavs/Thunder game.

Saw the commercial for that and am still kind of blown away by how far it's all come from the days of Atari. From a few moving dots cons uting a game to marketing, budgets, and production values on par with summer blockbusters.

[symple19]

production values on par with summer blockbusters.

Which is why it's so amazing to me that it isn't a better game/series than it is at present.

[spurs_fan_in_exile]

Which is why it's so amazing to me that it isn't a better game/series than it is at present.

Actually I think that's yet another (unfortunate) sign of parity with blockbuster franchises, where sequels become progressively more formulaic. With all that money at stake the focus is no longer innovation but to not alienate anyone, which only serves to alienate the fanbase that just becomes harder and harder to impress by both the high standard the original set plus the inevitable immitators spawned. I think it's especially pronounced in a medium where you're asking someone to potentially drop $50+ on the product rather than the $10 for a movie, as well as a customer base that is more likely than your average theater goer to take their thoughts to internet boards like this. I don't think it will be this one, but I suspect the video game world will someday have it's own Waterworld-esque flop. Unless it's happened already. I can't say I follow the world of sales too closely.

[symple19]

I don't think it will be this one, but I suspect the video game world will someday have it's own Waterworld-esque flop. Unless it's happened already. I can't say I follow the world of sales too closely.

Sales are increasingly hard to quantify, especially on the PC where digital download totals aren't released.

There have definitely been huge flops, at least in terms of critical/fan reviews.

Final Fantasy Online and Supreme Commander 2 are two that come to mind, although I have no idea if they were financial flops as well as being critical flops

I'm sure others in here have better examples, but your post was pretty much spot on, imo

[Trainwreck2100]

[Spurtacus]

Didn't see much gameplay in the trailer. Was a nice tease though. I'm a sucker and will probably drop $60 on this game just to play the campaign for a few hours.

[Sense]

Holy crap BF3 is gonna on this game hahahaha... that looked sooo in weak

[Trainwreck2100]

does not look good for MW hopefully their next vid is better

[TwAnKiEs]

It really looked like: "Same , different game." material. BF3 and GOW3 are going to have a three way with this game and anal beads will be involved, lol

[diego]

I dunno, I think I disagree here to a point. Of course the CoD series is being milked for money, but to suggest a genre is getting old just because it's been done over and over is a little disingenuous.
...
As technology improves, it allows our characters and environments to react in different ways. You didn't even have a crouch command in Doom, and now FPS games are offering dozens of methods to actually employ the reality of the place you're fighting in. It can make something you've done before seem completely new and fresh. I remember the first time I booted Battlefield 2 up, I shot a tank while hiding under a train. It exploded, and I thought, "This is the future of gaming. I can't believe how awesome this is."

My point wasnt that its gotten old or having a problem with something being done over and over, my point is that the things they are doing over suck as game mechanics. There is nothing wrong with copying / repeating good mechanics. But the auto-heal while in cover mechanic is just lame. I understand the reasoning behind it but IMO it makes the games way too easy. The graphics strive more and more for realism, but a mechanic like that is as unreal as can be (unless the games' fiction can cover for it, but again most "realistic" games dont even have that going for them). Even when the fiction covers for it, there should be a cost to getting shot and a benefit for staying healthy.

Doom didnt have a crouch command, didnt have true 3d (no bridges or tunnels), you couldn't jump, couldn't look up or down... but I had a blast playing it- the game was scary, challenging, full of secrets, and was able to make you feel powerful and vulnerable at the same time. I can still remember every monster from doom, yet CoD, MoH, BC, for all their millions sold, their most iconic/memorable elements are basically cutscenes.

You mentioned platformers... I have two nephews who are 8 and 10. They have Nintendo DS and Wii and the Mario games for those systems. Those games are pathetically easy. I make them play super mario world on an SNES emulator and they are lucky to beat a single level. Developers are more interested in telling their story and want to make sure everyone beats the game. Before you had to earn it (and no, I'm not advocating Battletoads/megaman level difficulty, just a challenge). OTOH, a game like psychonauts which really doesnt innovate in anything game mechanics wise, is easily one of the best games I've played in the past 5-6 years. Why, because it was fun, and challenging enough that beating it felt good.

The other day I went to a friends house and played HAWX 2... It was very pretty, but you know what? 1994/95 Tie Fighter had better game mechanics (squadron commands, flight controls, weapon loadouts, strategy, mission structure, length). I could play a Tie Fighter mission for 2 hours, trying to reach all objectives and making a film of my flying prowess. HAWX 2 got boring in 10 minutes- Its just not fun to fly through little rings telling me where I have to go, when I have to press one of two buttons to destroy the same 2-3 targets over and over again.

I would kill for a good arcadey flight sim with emphasis on fun and control, instead you either have uber realist games (like Rise of Flight, which is still excellent) or arcade trash like HAWX. The problem is not repe ion, the problem is that most games today are getting caught up in either being too realistic and forgetting the point of being fun, AND/OR are simply too easy and play more like a guided movie / story book than an actual game.

the technology is becoming a problem. Games have such big budgets, and the HQ graphics demand so much more to implement, that games are becoming more and more like blockbuster movies which IMO is bad. New games may have more polygons/higher resolution textures/bigger budgets, but they dont have more content (games are getting shorter and shorter), and for all the technical complexity they are becoming more and more simple in their mechanics.

[symple19]

tie fighter and x wing vs tie fighter are two of my favorite games ever

[Muser]

Cry Havoc gonna make another thread about not buying this?

[leemajors]

trying to kill everything on the screen, rebel or imperial, in tie fighter was very fun. those levels were absurdly large, especially at the time. plus the whole order of the emperor storyline thing was incredibly engrossing.

I agree with Diego, I personally had more fun rocket jumping around with a rune in Quake (1, 2 and 3) in an absurdly unrealistic environment. When the trend shifted toward more realistic feel and physics I lost interest just like I did with the madden series.