How Modern Warfare 3 Changes the Call of Duty Multiplayer Game Yet Again

Kotaku - Year after year, how can Call of Duty's massive online shooter remain fresh? With Modern Warfare 3, the game's developers have focused on what works—player progression, extensive customization, tons of maps and game modes—and are blowing it out.

Activision offered a first look at Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 3 the night before Call of Duty XP officially kicks off. I liked what I saw, even if I'm not the kind of Call of Duty player capable of a 15 kill-long killstreak.

The story is too old to be commented.
jozzah2606d ago

The thing is new maps and guns do NOT justify a sequel. Seriously every COD after 4 could have just been DLC or giant title updates. It's still using the same old engine damn it.

floetry1012606d ago

Yes, we've heard this argument an innumerable amount, but there is absolutely no reason to update the engine. It's fine. Most, if not all Call of Duty players play the game because it runs at a blistering speed on console, not because it's mind-blowing visually.

The look is clean, crisp and good enough to compete with the current generation of games without sacrificing the fast pace.

I'm ready for a big amount of disagrees and few replies.

jozzah2606d ago

It's the fact they get away with is what annoys me. Worse comes to worse keep the engine but please do something original.

geddesmond2606d ago

Most people play COD for its noob friendliness not for its 60 frame per second. If that was the case then everyone would be gaming on PCs. Secondly most casuals who play COD don't even know what Frames per second is and means. Thirdly the engine still has room for improvement while running at 60 FPSs but activision is all about the money. They don't want to waste resources on improving the engine.

Pixel_Pusher2606d ago

How do they manage to keep things fresh? Why with dogs strapped with C4 is how.


floetry1012606d ago (Edited 2606d ago )

It's a vicious cycle, I'll agree with you there. What is lost on most of the gamers though is that Infinity Ward and Treyarch don't so much want to make these games as they are forced to churn them out each year by Activision. Given the short development time for each game, it's difficult to revolutionise the series in any way, which is why they come across as tweaked, but mostly re-skinned.

The question is, if you are in Bobby Kotick's position, do you continue to promote the biggest selling game of all time (which is still trending upwards), or do you risk working on a new IP/reviving another franchise?

An interesting dilemma.

jozzah2606d ago

Its not like if they make a game that bombs that their pile of money is going any where soon.

Kee2606d ago (Edited 2606d ago )

This is a comment that is in favour of call of duty, so battlefield fanboys can scroll down to the bottom and click "dislike" right now because I know you're not gonna read it anyway...

" "more changes to the core experience than we ever have before" and "the most balanced multiplayer experience we've ever done" "

Really? This doesn't intrigue you? Not even a little. It's a lot more than just DLC.

How about this?

"Sure, kills still count, but in MW3, completing objectives in gametypes like Capture the Flag and Seek (I think it means "search" here) and Destroy will reward players with points they can cash in to call in recon drones, attack helicopters, sentries and other power-ups"

That type of thing totally changes the dynamics of the game. Finally players like me who play the objective get rewarded in this game. This means the players who deserve the rewards get them.

And this one: "No One Man Army, no Nuke, no Commando and no Last Stand" makes the game sound like it's shaping up to be the least annoying call of duty game ever.

"the more often you use a weapon in MW3, whether it's an assault rifle, handgun, shotgun or sniper rifle, the better that weapon gets"
^^^ This is interesting, it's a sort of RPG element where you can level up your weapon as you increase your soldier's skill with it.

The 2 new game modes (as well as the private match game modes for fun with your friends) sound awesome.

Sure, they've no new engine but they don't need one, the game plays well and looks okay. These are all really good changes and they're much more than small updates that you would expect to see in DLC. I think they're definitely enough to warrant the release of a new game. They've really taken call of duty and made it into something that the fans want.

These changes are big and we'll see how big they are when the game releases.

Edit: @geddesmond You are part of the problem... It's not all about kills. It's about helping your team win the game. If you do that successfully, shouldn't you be rewarded? Or do you just like running around killing people? Because there's team deathmatch for that, bro. Nope... No last stand. It was confirmed to not be in it. Maybe that's what you read.

"The weapon progression was stolen from Insomniac which is there [Should be their but I'll let you off] trade mark for Rachet games and now Resistance 3"
Dude, RPGs have been doing upgrades like that for ages. I could name you like 10 games just off the top of my head that use an upgrade system. The point I'm making is that it's good to see it in a call of duty game.

geddesmond2606d ago

Yeah a more balanced Multiplayer would be great however what they described tells me there will be more people using killstreaks now because even the unskilled players will get them from doing objectives and such. So instead of having the top 3 players using killstreaks we will now have the bottom 3 using Killstreaks 2. Yeah great balancing.

Also wasn't last stand confirmed??? I could have sworn I read an article on it yesterday.

The weapon progression was stolen from Insomniac which is there trade mark for Rachet games and now Resistance 3

DirtyLary2606d ago

They wont update the engine, not until the 360 has been replaced.

NuclearDuke2606d ago

Most FPS use the same engine. They just update it. Rage is an updated version of the Quake engine, it still looks amazing.

padz12606d ago

But this doesn't look amazing, that's the whole point.

lategamer2605d ago

Honestly, the haters need to shut up. Every Call of Duty game adds a new single player, which requires new voice actors, sound, new locations (new textures, etc.)

The Multiplayer is re-balanced, Spec Ops is given more modes, new maps, etc.

Yes, the gameplay is similar to the previous games, but why fix what's broke? CoD is the #1 FPS, played by casuals and hardcore gamers. Ruining/Changing the gameplay radically will alienate fans.

Keep hating, and bring on the disagres.

+ Show (4) more repliesLast reply 2605d ago
Newsman2606d ago

even the COD boys won't approve this

Cpt_kitten2606d ago

if by changed you mean the same thing as last time just different but then your of duty isn't worth a dime

geddesmond2606d ago

Activision must have their checkbooks out at this COD XP event.

First of all the weapon upgrade system sounds like it was robbed from insomniac. They heard R3 was going to use the weapon progression from the Rachet games and decided to add it in to their multiplayer game too. Copying R3s upgrades is not a problem but how Kotaku will praise MW3 for it when its clear where it came from is beyond me.

I have bought every COD game thats on the PS3 but I will be replacing MW3 with BF3. Mainly because when I seen the 3 minute Multiplayer trailer of MW3 I first thought it was a new map pack for MW2. The graphics look shit and outdated and it looks like more of the same shit. Why pay 60 euros when I already have the same experiance with my MW2 copy and don't say for the SP campaign because COD SP has always sucked

BladedTech2606d ago

I've heard about this. Trash.

Show all comments (21)