Modern Warfare 3: Is Activision Offering Enough?

The Call of Duty series has been one of the most critically acclaimed, highest selling, most populated first-person-shooters of all time. From its Modern Warfare inception to its newest release (Black Ops) the Call of Duty series is the franchise that many different developers who wish to enter the online multiplayer arena wish to beat. Activision is making sure that they take advantage of this series current hold on the genre by promising to release a new Call of Duty title on an annual basis, with their newest addition to the series being the upcoming Modern Warfare 3.

Read Full Story >>
The story is too old to be commented.
Wizziokid2714d ago

if overpriced dlc is what you want then it's enough for the COD fanboy, for everyone else, it's not, it's just a poor cut-past job on the same old engine with the same old mistakes

StanLee2713d ago (Edited 2713d ago )

"Everyone else" is the minority. I think the monster sales of Black Ops and the fact that 600,000 unique users were online at peak last night, proves that. The fans will decide if it's enough for them, not the detractors. And 20 million strong speaking with their wallets can be pretty loud!

agentxk2714d ago

ultimately, I think they are trying to boast the 60 fps framerate

scotchmouth2714d ago (Edited 2714d ago )

So what was Glen Schofield's quote in context? What was he addressing? From the quote Glen is talking about naming an engine. He is saying nothing about game play additions. He merely comments on frame rate.

I would assume the author has read too much into this. Unless there is another quote elsewhere that isn't included in the article. The one included doesn't make the author's case.

Kee2713d ago (Edited 2713d ago )

Yeah. I'll happily buy a call of duty game every year for obvious reasons.

The game itself is solid: if its not broke; don't fix it.

The gameplay is enjoyable: it engages with the player and makes you feel like a god when you get a nice double kill etc.

You can play with your friends who aren't hardcore gamers because chances are if you own a system and only bought one game for it, chances are its CoD (obviously from the sales figures)

Its a game you can pick up and play any time. You can also play it when you want a break from the 'main' game you're playing at the time and you can also play it to kill time while waiting on a new release.

Anyway, if you like fast-paced action games, there is no better than call of duty franchise.

All these people who say they don't like it are just jumping on the bandwagon right now because they think they're being an individual by not playing call of duty, but truth be told, they're missing out on a great game. They are just too stubborn to admit it.

EDIT: @LightofDarkness: Show me anything coming out this year that can compete with / replace call of duty and you might have an argument.

And yes, it is currently "cool" to hate on call of duty games. Trying to act like you're too good to play it, people need to get off their high horse.

The main things people are mad about are the DLC which, if you don't want it, don't buy it. The fact that it's the same engine, which I think is a good thing because it makes the game feel similar to its predecessors in how it controls and how the player moves. And the last thing is the glitches which have been in it since the beginning and no one was complaining then.

LightofDarkness2713d ago (Edited 2713d ago )

That's called the "bandwagon" fallacy, oh purveyor of concealed truths.

So the only reason anyone could dislike Call of Duty ever is because it's popular and they're a disharmonious malcontent? Nice generalization. In fact, I think Doom is better for fast-paced action gaming, among many others. But that's just me being stubborn, right?

Spinal2713d ago

Battlefield 3 will be the shooter of the year. That same old engine that Infinity Ward said is not worth making a new one can go an die a slow death.

Atleast DICE are trying to make leaps forward and thats who i will support with my wallet.

why support a developer who feels making a new engine for their game is not worth it? So they use the same copy and paste system from all their old games. So no vehicle combat, no destructible environments? Nothing? lool how can you throw a grenade at a wall an the wall is unharmed??

Ducky2713d ago

"lool how can you throw a grenade at a wall an the wall is unharmed??"

... the same reason you can take a shot to the chest and not fall down writhing in pain.
i.e. it's a game that can sacrifice reality for the sake of fun

As far as the engine is concerned, the old IW engine (MW/MW2) is still impressive seeing as how it boasts 60fps on consoles. (Which will probably remain unrivaled until RAGE shows up)
Most devs stick to one engine per console cycle, choosing to upgrade it as necessary instead of making new engines.
Though they are guilty of copy/pasting animations and such, I'll give you that one.

Kee2713d ago

Vehicle combat ruins the fun for people who are good at the game. No point in being a good shot if you can just jump in a tank and blow everyone to smithereens. They had vehicle combat in world at war and it ruined the game so that's why it's not in it.

Okay, again this point about them copying and pasting the engine. The engine is fine as it is. The game needs no drastic changes. It is fun and if they can deliver on the 60 frames per second then that'd be ideal.

And destructible environments? Really? You want to ruin the environment for the sake of realism? It is a gameplay mechanic a lot of people ask for in games which works in theory but if you put that in a game and give people that option, then the buildings are gonna get destroyed right at the start of every single game by an opportunist trying to get a cheap kill from having a building fall on someone. It would make going indoors pointless. You can't get away from the person chasing you down by going into a building because they can just blow it up. Thats why destructible environments don't impress me.

And battlefield can't take call of duty's place. They may both be military shooters but they are very different games. Call of duty is more fast-paced frantic fun. It can be played and enjoyed as a one man army, practically. Whereas Battlefield is more for strategical players who rely on their team mates for support etc.

Both games will have a market and neither will really "win" but the point I'm making is that Modern Warfare 3 will be a very good game.

Miiikeyyy2713d ago

"The game itself is solid: if its not broke; don't fix it" It's been broken for ages, yet they never bothered fixing it

Show all comments (15)