Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 3 Reveal Trailer

[cheesy999]

i might buy it just cause the daily mail's description of 'An ultra-violent computer game which features explosions and scenes of destruction on the London Tube and at the Houses of Parliament is to be released later this year' makes it sound awesome

 

[xenocide]

An ultra-violent computer game which features explosions and scenes of destruction on the London Tube and at the Houses of Parliament is to be released later this year

I guess if you ignore the fact that it lacks actual destructible environments that might hold true. That could just be me nit-picking, but it's hard to say anything features destruction if you can shoot a rocket at a wall and it remains intact.

http://arstechnica.com/gaming/news/...battlefield-3-the-difference-is-in-the-pc.ars

Articles like this remind me of why I love Arstechnica. Pretty much sums up how I feel about MW3. It was the only Preview for MW3 since that London Screening that wasn't basically a fap-fest of praise. Ars actually critiqued the Engine, something most sites didn't even mention, and even considered the difference in communities between the two games. Favorite quote;

One of these war games will deliver what I like in action games, and the other is Modern Warfare 3.

 

[TheMailMan78]

i might buy it just cause the daily mail's description of 'An ultra-violent computer game which features explosions and scenes of destruction on the London Tube and at the Houses of Parliament is to be released later this year' makes it sound awesome

I lol'd at that. Thanks!

 

[Wile E]

well guess what? i own BC2 and blackops, i prefer blackops

so your theory has already been disproven

You hardly account for an entire majority. BO is steaming pile of shit. Most CoD fanboys I talk to are console only gamers, and don't know of titles like BC2, or the upcoming BF3. Of all the ones I let play BC2 long enough to get used to it, most liked it better. More challenging and less kiddy. The only ones that didn't like it were the ones that either sucked at it because they have no sense of strategy, or because "my buddies all play CoD".

Again, just because more people like it, it is not a better game, just better advertised and/or easier for kiddies.

 

[treehouse]

You hardly account for an entire majority. BO is steaming pile of shit. Most CoD fanboys I talk to are console only gamers, and don't know of titles like BC2, or the upcoming BF3. Of all the ones I let play BC2 long enough to get used to it, most liked it better. More challenging and less kiddy. The only ones that didn't like it were the ones that either sucked at it because they have no sense of strategy, or because "my buddies all play CoD".

Again, just because more people like it, it is not a better game, just better advertised and/or easier for kiddies.

but you used the word 'only'... which means no other reason is possible.

ye BO is lesser than cod4 or mw2 even but dya know why i play it over bc2? because the mouse controls in bc2 are the worst i have ever seen in any game, maybe not for you, but yes for me. i couldn't even tweak them as the options kept getting defaulted every time i entered a match.

and doesn't 'easy' work both ways? if a games easy for kiddies then its easy for you too na? maybe you got tired losing to 'kiddies' so now you play bc2 so you can take it easy on ur ego?

just pulling your leg, but please dont make the mistake of assuming ALL players who prefer COD are lesser than you are, intellectually and taste wise

 

[Wile E]

but you used the word 'only'... which means no other reason is possible.

ye BO is lesser than cod4 or mw2 even but dya know why i play it over bc2? because the mouse controls in bc2 are the worst i have ever seen in any game, maybe not for you, but yes for me. i couldn't even tweak them as the options kept getting defaulted every time i entered a match.

and doesn't 'easy' work both ways? if a games easy for kiddies then its easy for you too na? maybe you got tired losing to 'kiddies' so now you play bc2 so you can take it easy on ur ego?

just pulling your leg, but please dont make the mistake of assuming ALL players who prefer COD are lesser than you are, intellectually and taste wise

Of course not all of them are. I'm not insinuating that it applies to every single person that plays the game, just that most that I meet are.

I'm not bad at CoD at all. Actually better at it than I am BC2 most of the time. I just think everything after CoD4 has been a pile of rehashed, aimed at kids, garbage.

 

[Easy Rhino]

please no trolling.

 

[erocker]

How could one possibly troll this wonderful game?

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052702304563104576355310423496054.html#ixzz1NszYydbm

 

[EastCoasthandle]

How could one possibly troll this wonderful game?

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052702304563104576355310423496054.html#ixzz1NszYydbm

The problem is not what they do with MW3 that would be an isolated incident. What I'm concerned about is other publishers following suite if they believe they were profitable enough.

 

[Easy Rhino]

if it does happen to be profitable than other companies will do it. but it wont work with all titles as most kids get bored of their games after 2 weeks. personally, i see this failing hard.

 

[Volkszorn88]

Call of Duty Elite? lol

This is no surprise, actually if anything I'm shocked it hasn't been impleneted sooner since console gamers are so eager to buy every unnecessary pointless item on xbox marketplace/psn.

Oh lets pay for a new gamertag, new profile, new gamer pictures, new skateboard for the avatars, new background theme, new $15 cod map pack...etc

Console players have proved that they will buy anything if it makes them cool online.

Dumb consumers + greedy publishers = $$$$$$$$$$$$ and that's exactly what COD is.

Play COD4, WaW, MW2, BO and when MW3 is released and tell me, with pure honesty that it doesn't feel exactly the same. Just because they change the theatre to every game, doesn't mean they can slap a $60 price tag on it

What it comes down to is peeps can't complain, whine, be angry, make some dumb online petition that will never work, make a bunch of rage threads or quit the game entirely because they decide to charge. You've done it to your self. You kept buying the same game every year and created a monster.

For anyone who plays any RTS game, lets take Star Craft2 as an example, would you buy a new SC every year? Knowing there's no way in hell a game like SC could be balanced and fixed in one year? Of course you wouldn't.

By releasing a new one COD every year, it's Activision's way of saying "our games really do start to suck after a few weeks and have absolutely no replay value. BUT THAT'S OK!!! WE WILL HAVE A NEW ONE NEXT YEAR!!!!"

 

[TheMailMan78]

How could one possibly troll this wonderful game?

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052702304563104576355310423496054.html#ixzz1NszYydbm

Hot damn I was right again!

http://www.techpowerup.com/forums/showthread.php?t=115281&highlight=pay+Cod

 

[xenocide]

Activision instituting a revenue-oriented idea, you don't say?

But in all seriousness, this won't exactly go over with the gaming community too well. This amounts to paying $60 for the game, say $5 a month for CoD Elite, and $15 each for 2 different map packs. That means in a year, Activision wants to get $150 from you, for basically the same game you bought 2 years ago...

I remember seeing an interview with Bobby Douchedick about how they no longer wanted to get people to just buy their game's, the real money was in getting them to pay a ton of extra money for seemingly arbitrary items. His example was Guitar Hero, sure the game itself is only $40-60, but you need all the instruments, there's $100-150, you're gonna want some more songs, that's anywhere from $5-100, and the list just went on. Then what if when the next game comes out your old instruments don't work anymore? You're back to square one.

This is just another way for Activision to maximize profit while running a [semi-]respected franchise into the ground. Sadly, I guarantee a lot of people buy into this crap. Hopefully EA capitalizes on this by offering similar services for Free for BF3. It can be done, I've read that most of the features listed Bungie has been doing for Free for quite some time, but I'm not certain how accurate that is.

 

[qubit]

How could one possibly troll this wonderful game?

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052702304563104576355310423496054.html#ixzz1NszYydbm

Ewww... shit, no. They're not milking me with a monthly sub. I can just see this business model becoming popular. ...and me boycotting all those games.

So what if they are going to charge to play, they aren't forcing you to buy the game. MW2 in my opinion is awful. Any sequel wouldn't be worth paying for anyways.

I will pay a monthly fee for a game under these circumstances:

-It has to be a good game
-GM's should be available 24/7
-Any problems/glitches with the game must be resolved in a timely manner
-Have a good billing system
-Have good support for the billing system
-A good flow of new content

I don't anticipate MW3 fulfilling any of my requirements.

These are all very fair requirements, but I still wouldn't pay a recurring fee for a single product; talk about money for old rope. They should provide this as standard. The only case where I feel it's ok to pay a recurring fee is with antivirus protection, because the company has to work around the clock to update the signatures for new threats. I get all this protection for a very cheap £20 or so per year, so I sure as hell am not gonna pay several times that to get a whole lot less.

 

[EastCoasthandle]

Call of Duty Elite explained using MP rounds of BO. Watch the video. Looks like they are going for some sort of social networking thing.

The group feature reminds me of steam.

 

[HookeyStreet]

I need this game NOW!!

 

[treehouse]

Hot damn I was right again!

http://www.techpowerup.com/forums/showthread.php?t=115281&highlight=pay+Cod

ermmm no you weren't http://news.softpedia.com/news/Acti...-Multiplayer-Will-Always-Be-Free-203375.shtml

the new online pay monthly service has nothing to do with the actual multiplayer gaming element, its only for an enhanced social experience (pc players have steam anyway)

 

[TheMailMan78]

ermmm no you weren't http://news.softpedia.com/news/Acti...-Multiplayer-Will-Always-Be-Free-203375.shtml

the new online pay monthly service has nothing to do with the actual multiplayer gaming element, its only for an enhanced social experience (pc players have steam anyway)

How was I wrong? To get the full experience you will have to pay. Even says so in that article you posted.

It seems that the cost for Elite will be under 7 dollars for one month and that those who join up can expect to get a fuller multiplayer experience, specifically designed for those who have been following the series for a long time and are looking for something extra.

 

[MilkyWay]

I feel terrible for 360 owners who buy this game, you have to buy xbox live and then this crappy Elite thing on top. I just watched the posted video and the dude says Activision wont charge you to play online, so it seems like its another extra thing.

I cant see them charging for multiplayer, its just some maps and gameplay types. They don't host servers either which means that doesn't cost anything either.

EDIT: We will have to see exactly what this Elite offers first. Im not even sure wtf it is yet.

 

[treehouse]

How was I wrong? To get the full experience you will have to pay. Even says so in that article you posted.

but, but, but you have to pay for maps in BC2 too, so you have to 'pay to get the full experience.' so whats your point?

and the comments in that thread are of people who thought that activision would charge for multiplayer...

 

[treehouse]

I cant see them charging for multiplayer, its just some maps and gameplay types.

http://news.softpedia.com/news/Acti...-Multiplayer-Will-Always-Be-Free-203375.shtml

 

[TheMailMan78]

but, but, but you have to pay for maps in BC2 too, so you have to 'pay to get the full experience.' so whats your point?

and the comments in that thread are of people who thought that activision would charge for multiplayer...

Pay for what maps in multiplayer for BC2? PC players never paid for any maps so whats YOUR point?

 

[treehouse]

Pay for what maps in multiplayer for BC2? PC players never paid for any maps so whats YOUR point?

so your saying that the vietnam pack was free for pc gamers on multiplayer? if so why is steam charging £10 for this? for single player?

and what about this? http://store.steampowered.com/app/24963/?snr=1_5_9__13

 

[TheMailMan78]

so your saying that the vietnam pack was free for pc gamers on multiplayer? if so why is steam charging £10 for this? for single player?

and what about this? http://store.steampowered.com/app/24963/?snr=1_5_9__13

Vietnam was an expansion pack (new game) which CoD hasnt had since UO and the skins added nothing to the game just eye candy. However ALL THE MAPS for BC2 were free. Theres your difference.

 

[treehouse]

Vietnam was an expansion pack (new game) which CoD hasnt had since UO and the skins added nothing to the game just eye candy. However ALL THE MAPS for BC2 were free. Theres your difference.

seeing as you ignored it i will ask again;

and what about this? http://store.steampowered.com/app/24963/?snr=1_5_9__13