# 2 New Modern Warfare 3 Screens Pop Up



## Livin in a box (Jul 22, 2011)

Activision has released two new screens for Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 3. There are only two new shots so take your time when browsing through the Modern Warfare 3 screens gallery - if you fancy it you can also check out the three previously released screens.

Infinity Ward recently revealed that Modern Warfare 2's Party Chat restrictions would be lifted across many of Modern Warfare 3's modes and that the studio had recruited glitch-hunting experts mapMonkeys to fly over to Los Angeles and spend a week trying to squash bugs.

Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 3 will be released for Xbox 360, PS3, and PC on November 8.[/p]

Source












Forgive me for saying this, but it's just the same old crap again. I suppose I can see why some people like it, but it's just a very mediocre game- enough said.


----------



## awssk8er (Jul 22, 2011)

I agree on the mediocre, recycled crap.

I've thought that since World at War came out.


----------



## Raika (Jul 22, 2011)

Had a conversation about how all CoD games looked the same with my friend yesterday. We both agreed that it was recycled garbage.


----------



## FireGrey (Jul 22, 2011)

These don't look that good..
Anyway some trash isnt meant to be recycled


----------



## Slyakin (Jul 22, 2011)

At least they look pretty... right?

I wish Activision would do something a little different. But... Oh well, if the mass market of screaming 12 year olds want it, then I guess they have to comply.


----------



## Fudge (Jul 22, 2011)

I honestly can't wait. I know it's the same thing every time, but it's so fun! 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 and they added a tactical noob-tube!


----------



## ZAFDeltaForce (Jul 22, 2011)

"Same shit different say" as they say


----------



## The Catboy (Jul 22, 2011)

Wow, the same repacked shit again.
Anyone willing to bet that it's going to make a stupid amount of money and be over-hyped again?


----------



## coolness (Jul 22, 2011)

f*ck mw3 battlefield is the king


----------



## Deleted User (Jul 22, 2011)

*fix'd: 2 New Money-Grabbing Cash Cow Screenshots released


----------



## Forstride (Jul 22, 2011)

Ehhh...The graphics don't look any different from MW2, but there hasn't been any multiplayer footage as far as I know (And seeing as multiplayer is really the only reason people play CoD, including myself), so who knows if it'll feature the same gameplay or not.

I mean, they can really only change so much without making it so different from previous titles.  And different doesn't always mean good.


----------



## DeadLocked (Jul 22, 2011)

Wait, you guys don't think this looks good?
Because I think that looks pretty damn good...


----------



## machomuu (Jul 22, 2011)

DeadLocked said:
			
		

> Wait, you guys don't think this looks good?
> Because I think that looks pretty damn good...


I don't think that's gameplay.  Either way, it does look pretty good.


----------



## Deleted member 473940 (Jul 22, 2011)

Ya, I also thought that the second image looked pretty good, but I dont think its from gameplay. its probably shot from a cut-scene.


----------



## Guild McCommunist (Jul 22, 2011)

They're probably not gameplay and they definitely look touched up. Graphically it's nothing compared to Battlefield 3.


----------



## Foxi4 (Jul 22, 2011)

Everyone's dissing MW3 now, and the moment it comes out everone's like "OMG, why can't I log on, n00blets are jamming mah servur! GTFO, I wunna play!".

Seriously people, COD is one of the most popular franchises out there, and MW3 is one of the most highly anticipated titles in it. It doesn't matter if *you* like it or not, MILLIONS like it, and as long as it brings a profit, there will be new COD's.

I could say that *Pokemon* is a recycled piece of crap, a franchise that lives with *no innovations whatsoever* since the very beginning of the series, and I'd be *goddamn right* - all they do is slightly upgrading graphics, but always at an underwhelming level and adding more of the annoying bastards to catch. "Gotta Catch'em All" became an euphemism - you'd have to be a Buddhist on dope to catch 660+, and I sure as hell am not wasting my life on that.

All in all, it's a fun game and I'm looking forward to it. It's not good enough to lick the new Battlefield's shoes, but I'll play it regardless.


----------



## Forstride (Jul 22, 2011)

^ This.

Most people just hate on CoD because it's the cool thing to do.  Or because it's not as graphically intense as other modern games.  There's nothing wrong with the games besides the fanbase.  Other games have horrible fanbases as well, but people still like them.

The games are fun, and they clearly sell well.  People don't buy the games because they're CoD games, they buy them because they're fun and addicting, and a great game to play with friends.


----------



## _Chaz_ (Jul 22, 2011)

Am I from the future? Because that game looks like something I've played at least 3 times before.


----------



## machomuu (Jul 22, 2011)

Time for a breakdown


			
				Foxi4 said:
			
		

> Everyone's dissing MW3 now, and the moment it comes out everone's like "OMG, why can't I log on, n00blets are jamming mah servur! GTFO, I wunna play!".
> *So?  You can diss a game you like, and play a game you don't like...besides...tempers don't do that.  Seriously, who are you quoting?*
> 
> Seriously people, COD is one of the most popular franchises out there, and MW3 is one of the most highly anticipated titles in it. It doesn't matter if *you* like it or not, MILLIONS like it, and as long as it brings a profit, there will be new COD's.
> ...


Sure, I hate the people that hate on the series as well just because it's cool, but I ALSO hate people who make these statements that we already know, it pisses me off to high heaven.

Quit it.  Enjoy the game or don't enjoy it, but stop it with this crap, You two types of people are part of the reason I hate the games so much (a small part, but a part nonetheless)


----------



## Nebz (Jul 22, 2011)

Blehhh Pics don't really say much so there's really nothing to see here. Also, the multiplayer reveal isn't happening until September if some of you guys didn't know already. 
These games are really "mediocre" but they're also enjoyable and easy to get into which is why I'm usually there to pick up the next MODERN WARFARE title. The herp derp they all look the same yadayada works with tons of games... I hate how CoD gets the short end because Activision has more than one company working on a game each year and hating solely on CoD this way is the new wave.

I really wish they'd drop Treyarch, for one, and just stop making CoD titles for 3 or so years and maybe during 2 of those years actually put in some decent development but... A boy can only dream.


----------



## Tom Bombadildo (Jul 22, 2011)

I agree, recycled and boring. If I buy it it will be only for the story.


If anything it's the fanbase of CoD I don't like. I know its been said a lot before and that this is kind of a stereotype for the series, but here are just way to many little kids who play it. Just the other day I was playing MW2 and sure enough it was a whole game filled with little kids. I swore once and they all started bashing me. If the fanbase stays the same we won't ever see any improvements on the series and it will stay stale and recycled.



			
				Foxi4 said:
			
		

> I could say that *Pokemon* is a recycled piece of crap, a franchise that lives with *no innovations whatsoever* since the very beginning of the series, and I'd be *goddamn right* - all they do is slightly upgrading graphics, but always at an underwhelming level and adding more of the annoying bastards to catch. "Gotta Catch'em All" became an euphemism - you'd have to be a Buddhist on dope to catch 660+, and I sure as hell am not wasting my life on that.



I personally believe the only reason CoD gets bashed so badly is because it's one of the more well known and worst offenders, I'd put it just barely in front of the Pokemon series in terms of blandness. But then again you have to admit the Pokemon Company has tried different strategies along the way, with the GC/Wii titles and the upcoming Pokemon for 3DS.


----------



## _Chaz_ (Jul 22, 2011)

The fact that people are still considering buying it is fucking hilarious to me.


----------



## Deleted User (Jul 22, 2011)

_Chaz_ said:
			
		

> The fact that people are still considering buying it is fucking hilarious to me.


I second that motion, good gentleman.


----------



## Satangel (Jul 22, 2011)

Looking forward to it. Hopefully we see some more balanced gameplay, I couldn't care less about those graphics.


----------



## Ikki (Jul 22, 2011)

The only way I would even consider getting this game would be if it had a zombies mode (I found it very addicting in Black Ops, yet the only thing I liked about the game)
But I think I read it won't. So, I probably won't even play it.

Battlefield 3 will annihilate this thing. And I say it as a person who doesn't like either game.


----------



## Satangel (Jul 22, 2011)

Ikki said:
			
		

> The only way I would even consider getting this game would be if it had a zombies mode (I found it very addicting in Black Ops, yet the only thing I liked about the game)
> But I think I read it won't. So, I probably won't even play it.
> 
> *Battlefield 3 will annihilate this thing.* And I say it as a person who doesn't like either game.



Doubt it. Think about it, how many people that bought CoD BO will actually know right know what has happened between Activision, Infinity Ward and Treyarch? All those people who bought Black Ops, will just buy MW 3 again because they liked BO and their friends are going to play MW 3 again, so they better buy it too. 
Critics will rate BF 3 maybe higher, but I really doubt BF 3 will outsell or make more profit than MW 3.


----------



## Raiser (Jul 22, 2011)

TDWP FTW said:
			
		

> Most people just hate on CoD because it's the cool thing to do. * Eh, some people do. *Or because it's not as graphically intense as other modern games.  I have no idea where you got this. *Sure, some people say other FPS games look better, but no one says "those graphics are ugly".* There's nothing wrong with the games besides the fanbase.  *You're missing something there.* Other games have horrible fanbases as well, but people still like them.
> 
> The games are fun, and they clearly sell well.  People don't buy the games because they're CoD games, they buy them because they're fun and addicting, and a great game to play with friends.


People don't hate on the CoD franchise (post-CoD 4) solely on the fanbase, they hate it because it has recently become the same formula, same feel, same gameplay, same recycled crap over and over, and the hype it gets is ridiculously hideous. Why is there a need to hype over the same game with different settings? 

The sad thing is, all the kids these days just go for the fact that it will be "*the* shooter to play" not because it's anything well-designed or innovative. Some probably don't even realize it's the same game but in a different skin.


----------



## The Catboy (Jul 22, 2011)

DeadLocked said:
			
		

> Wait, you guys don't think this looks good?
> Because I think that looks pretty damn good...
> 
> 
> ...


Accually I have played the games (never really owned them, just borrowed them or pirated them...not throwing my money at that game.) And still say they aren't that good. I have played countless over-looked games that are far better than these games. Also I don't care too much about graphics, some of my favorite games (this including FPS's) happen to be the older games, so graphics aren't my concern.
Also your last statement really isn't fully true. Some people generally enjoy the games, but I know a good number of people who only buy the games just based on the fact that they are CoD.


----------



## Nathan Drake (Jul 22, 2011)

CoD is a prime offender of the standard of releasing a lack of innovation in titles. The problem with CoD is that they have made it real obvious with these yearly releases. Seriously, there are incredible games that have 2 or 3+ years spent on them that don't get the level of hype a CoD game gets in about three days. My friend has really ruined the games for me though. He's a total fanboy (one oblivious to his own fanboyism), will only play CoD on his 360 (other games are okay, but they aren't that shit storm CoD).

The problem is that lots of people who love the series are just like he is, and they are a plague on gaming. CoD is one of those big reasons why we don't see more of the games that the minorities (compared to CoD fans) would like to play. Instead we just see a shooter, a shooter, another shooter, and then another shooter, in case we didn't have enough of them yet.


----------



## DeadLocked (Jul 22, 2011)

A Gay Little Catboy said:
			
		

> DeadLocked said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


But I'm just laughing at the fact that everyone is saying these screenshots look boring and dull when, compared to most games, they look fantastic.
The gameplay isn't the best, true, but there's never a dull moment in CoD campaigns (particularly MW series) which is more than I can say for most shooters I've played.


----------



## The Catboy (Jul 22, 2011)

DeadLocked said:
			
		

> A Gay Little Catboy said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


They do look pretty and shiny, but I don't think that is gameplay.


----------



## Nathan Drake (Jul 22, 2011)

Those screenshots aren't game play guys. There is game play you can find on youtube if you are interested. The game looks exactly like MW2. Not a hint of a graphical upgrade. Not a huge surprise considering they opted to use the MW2 engine again basically calling creating a new engine a waste of time.


----------



## DeadLocked (Jul 22, 2011)

A Gay Little Catboy said:
			
		

> They do look pretty and shiny, but I don't think that is gameplay.


I agree, I doubt it will be.


----------



## machomuu (Jul 22, 2011)

A Gay Little Catboy said:
			
		

> TDWP FTW said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


This.  I have played the games, imo they're really not that good.  I've played CoD 1-7 (1-4 were fun, though imo), and when 8 comes out, I'll play it, and it'll probably suck to me.


----------



## DSGamer64 (Jul 23, 2011)

Hurray for grey scale graphics and lack of colour? Honestly these games look freaking terrible because they have a bland visual pallet and it's something I hate about other shooters as well. I do not want to sit there and look at a game that has a million shades of grey and a few areas where there might be some red or black, it doesn't look good at all. If you want to see a game with great graphics that doesn't look like a boring piece of shit, play Crysis.


----------



## Foxi4 (Jul 23, 2011)

The only COD's I really enjoyed were BlackOps on the Wii and Modern Warfare 2 on the Wii and the DS, the rest pretty much sucked. They're typically Multiplayer-oriented games, sometimes I wonder why the hell do they still have a Single Player campaign - it's usually dull anyways.


----------



## machomuu (Jul 23, 2011)

Foxi4 said:
			
		

> The only COD's I really enjoyed were BlackOps on the Wii and Modern Warfare 2 on the Wii and the DS, the rest pretty much sucked. They're typically Multiplayer-oriented games, sometimes I wonder why the hell do they still have a Single Player campaign - it's usually dull anyways.


They really should just make a multiplayer Arcade version strictly made for online and make a major update each year.

They'd never do it, though.

Though I disagree on the ones that you say sucked (of course it's simply opinion).  I thought 1-4 were good but the rest sucked.


----------



## Nebz (Jul 23, 2011)

Foxi4 said:
			
		

> The only COD's I really enjoyed were BlackOps on the Wii and *Modern Warfare 2 on the Wii and the DS*, the rest pretty much sucked. They're typically Multiplayer-oriented games, sometimes I wonder why the hell do they still have a Single Player campaign - it's usually dull anyways.


I think you mean Modern Warfare: Reflex Edition and Mobilized which weren't Modern Warfare 2 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 and I know what you mean with the Single Player but... The rest sucked? Do you mean by their multiplayer or Single Player? Compared to their predecessors, those games have terrible SP and their multiplayer is practically the same with each new edition of CoD after MW 1.


----------



## stanleyopar2000 (Jul 23, 2011)

same goddamn motherfucking game..

same bullshit cash in

battlefield has made about 3 games

how many games has Call of Duty had?...7 fucking games..

in a franchise..by the time the 4th one has been released (with movies or games)...it gets stale and old..

sad to say that I might be switching to Battlefield this year and jumping of the COD bandwagon...

cause i'm getting sick of Activision charging me for the same damn game...and now making me pay to get a full multiplayer experience.


----------



## machomuu (Jul 23, 2011)

stanleyopar2000 said:
			
		

> battlefield has made about 3 games


Actually There have been 7 games: Battlefield 1942, Battlefield 2, Battlefield 2142, Battlefield Bad Company, Battlefield 1943, Battlefield Bad Company 2, Battlefield 3; all in that order.


----------



## Nathan Drake (Jul 23, 2011)

stanleyopar2000 said:
			
		

> same goddamn motherfucking game..
> 
> same bullshit cash in
> 
> ...



Battlefield may only have three main series games, but there are far more than just three Battlefield games.

Battlefield release timeline
2011 	Battlefield 3
2011 	Battlefield Play4Free
2010 	Battlefield Online
2010 	Battlefield: Bad Company 2: Vietnam
2010 	Battlefield: Bad Company 2
2009 	Battlefield 1943
2009 	Battlefield Heroes
2008 	Battlefield: Bad Company
2007 	Battlefield 2142: Northern Strike
2006 	Battlefield 2142
2006 	Battlefield 2: Armored Fury
2006 	Battlefield 2: Euro Forces
2005 	Battlefield 2: Modern Combat
2005 	Battlefield 2: Special Forces
2005 	Battlefield 2
2004 	Battlefield Vietnam
2003 	Battlefield 1942: Secret Weapons of WWII
2003 	Battlefield 1942: The Road to Rome
2002 	Battlefield 1942
1999 	Codename Eagle

Stolen from Wikipedia, and I know some are expansion packs but the point still stands.

Battlefield 1942
Battlefield 2
Battlefield 2142
Bad Company
Bad Company 2
Battlefield Heroes
Battlefield Vietnam
Battlefield 1943
Iffy, but it's in the list though, so: Codename Eagle
Upcoming Battlefield 3

That will make 10 games with the release of Battlefield 3.


----------



## stanleyopar2000 (Jul 23, 2011)

Nathan Drake said:
			
		

> stanleyopar2000 said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



holy shit..well I stand corrected


----------



## Nebz (Jul 23, 2011)

stanleyopar2000 said:
			
		

> battlefield has made about 3 games
> 
> how many games has Call of Duty had?...7 fucking games..


lolwut. Battlefield has about 10 or 11 titles in its series. The actual title "Battlefield" now has two sequels. They're right on par with the amount of different titles as Call of Duty. I understand the frustration with the CoD series but come on -_-

I am looking forward to BattleField 3 a hell of a lot more than MW3 though but I'm not gonna pick favorites and buy both. One for an actual challenge and looks like it's worth the money and one for the super fast, casual fun on those days I need it and for my friends... Can you guess which one is which?


----------



## DarkLG (Jul 23, 2011)

I wonder if CoD will follow the way of GH...be canceled lol


----------



## stanleyopar2000 (Jul 23, 2011)

DarkLG said:
			
		

> I wonder if CoD will follow the way of GH...be canceled lol



thats what happened to Guitar Hero...too many damn games and not enough changes to warrant another purchase...

with them now charging for players to get a full multiplayer experience.._some people_ hope so..cause eventually...people say that multiplayer access in general will be a monthly price..._I think _activision commented one time saying pretty much that they had so many millions of online players...they were pissed because they couldn't charge for for online access to them 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	





online access will possibly be persuasive (pay for "features") to coercive (pay or you don't get access)   

(if you want to play online that is)


----------



## Nathan Drake (Jul 23, 2011)

This will be the last game developed with Infinity Ward's name on it (if I'm not mistaken), so the buggy MW installments will be a thing of the past (well, IW buggy). Instead, Treyarch will have the reigns, and well, I think CoD's popularity will finally drop due to a lot of the fan base not liking the Treyarch style games.

Take the above with a grain of salt. I heard it from my friend and am not 100% on its legitimacy. With IW having fallen to pieces though, it wouldn't surprise me if it was true.

Edit: Hell, take it with six shakers of salt. With the type of friend I have, he would believe it if I told him the sky was purple.


----------



## Maedhros (Jul 23, 2011)

Nathan Drake said:
			
		

> CoD is a prime offender of the standard of releasing a lack of innovation in titles.


Pokémon.

And Treyarch CoD's sucks, yeah. But they're still popular enough.

And with Battlefield not being sold on Steam, I don't see a reason to buy that game too.


----------



## stanleyopar2000 (Jul 23, 2011)

Maedhros said:
			
		

> Nathan Drake said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



This 

COD and Pokemon - We don't have to make any changes. cause people will buy it just because we hype the living fuck out of it and put the name on it...they SHIT money for fucks sake..why be more innovative if we don't have to?


----------



## Nebz (Jul 23, 2011)

@Nathan Drake: lol @the comment you included in the Edit.

I haven't heard anything of this being the new IW's last title but something like that wouldn't surprise me if MW3 did terrible in sales (which I highly doubt would happen with it's great popularity). Either way, this series is continuously taking a turn for the worst with each new title. I enjoy the MW titles so this will likely be my last buy unless they show something spectacular next (inb4AnnouncingBlackOps2(Dear lawd NO!)).


----------



## Nathan Drake (Jul 23, 2011)

Maedhros said:
			
		

> Nathan Drake said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



If you consider frequency of releases, CoD is offending a bit more often. In six years since the launch of the DS, we have seen two main Pokemon installments, and one remake that either you wanted, or you didn't. In those six years we've seen: CoD 3, CoD 4, CoD MW2, CoD WaW, CoD Black Ops, and before the DS is even seven years old, CoD MW3. Five, what are considered to be core releases definitely trumps the frequency of releases by Pokemon. You can use the example all you want, but it doesn't change the fact that CoD has been shining the spotlight on the lack of innovation with shiny unimportant new things strategy. If Pokemon released at the frequency of CoD games, I think people would be fairly angry.


Oh, by the way, it only took four years to turn out all of those CoD games (barring CoD 3 which would make it five years for six games). There isn't even an strategy in it. As soon as one company finishes, the other is already a quarter of the way done with the new CoD.

Edit: Sorry, had to check the date of CoD 3's release, and that now racks the number up to what is going to be six "new" installments by the end of 2011.


----------



## stanleyopar2000 (Jul 23, 2011)

Nathan Drake said:
			
		

> Maedhros said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...




Activision said that MW2 was such a hit and a cash in...around 2009 I think?...they said they were allready half way done with MW3...I can fucking see why...since its the same damn game almost.


----------



## Maedhros (Jul 23, 2011)

Nathan Drake said:
			
		

> Maedhros said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


I don't see how frequency has something to do with the games being innovative or not... that only makes Pokemon looks even worse, they don't make then every year and it's almost the same game.

I don't fuck care if in these 6 years we had saw all these CoD's. They're not made by the same developer. If you count only the Infinity Yard ones, you'll see that they don't make them yearly.

What's important is that they're fun online and have a solid single player campaign. What's important about Pokemon series is that they're still fun games to play against the others.


----------



## Nathan Drake (Jul 23, 2011)

Maedhros said:
			
		

> Nathan Drake said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



I'm telling you why Pokemon can't be compared. How are they worse for not releasing the same non-innovative crap as often as the CoD series? I mean, what sense does that make? Would you like a new Pokemon game every year, maybe twice a year? Does that somehow make it better? CoD games have been a joint effort for long enough that they all count too. It would be like saying that if Pokemon was released more often, but with a separate developer every other time, consistently, it wouldn't matter. They could control the flow of CoD games, but they are being purely developed for profit. Not entertainment, not fun, just money. They are just barely passable games that have gained an astounding amount of popularity considering how many people just play and rage.

Pokemon has presented more in their games that take longer than the CoD games have with each installment. And although innovation =/= new content, at least you see consistently new content in Pokemon games. All because you like to place the two right next to each other doesn't mean it is the all around truth that you continue to preach in MW3 threads. The games aren't played for their single player anymore, in case you didn't know (just as a side thing). Over half the player base buys the game and lives online. You can ask people who bought MW2 on launch day, and many will still tell you that they never touched the campaign.


----------



## 4-leaf-clover (Jul 23, 2011)

i don't really care if looks the same like mw2, i just want the game to be fun and have good gameplay.


----------



## Maedhros (Jul 23, 2011)

Nathan Drake said:
			
		

> Maedhros said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


I already said that CoDs are developed by different teams yearly. They're not the same type of games at all, even the engines they use are different, so they are different games altogether. You can say whatever the hell you want about the games, but they still sell A LOT, so your opinnion is not universal, people still have fun with the games.

Games are developed to make money, what the hell are you talking about? Do you think the Pokemon Company cares about the people who buy their games? Nope, they only care about your money. That's the same for all the companies.

Also I still play the single player, I know people that still plays the singleplayer. But yeah, it's not required to be played. People can have fun only with the online, so there's no problem with that too, people have a right to play the way they like most.

The only valid complain about CoD is that Activision is a shitty company, seriously. Everything else is just oppinion.


----------



## Ikki (Jul 23, 2011)

DarkLG said:
			
		

> I wonder if CoD will follow the way of GH...be canceled lol


I wish.

But that won't happen. Guitar Hero wasn't nearly as much of a cash cow as CoD is.
Also, it's not GH, it's their music games in general.


----------



## Nathan Drake (Jul 23, 2011)

Maedhros said:
			
		

> I already said that CoDs are developed by different teams yearly. They're not the same type of games at all, even the engines they use are different, so they are different games altogether. You can say whatever the hell you want about the games, but they still sell A LOT, so your oppinnion is not unniversal, people still have fun with the games.
> 
> Games are developed to make money, what the hell are you talking about? Do you think the Pokemon Company cares about the people who buy their games? Nope, they only care about your money. That's the same for all the companies.
> 
> ...



Had to destroy some of that quote chain. Long quote was too long.

They are developed by different teams, but headed by Activision. The head company doesn't change, and every game is considered part of the series. I wouldn't care if a new company made every single game, there is still no excuse for the frequency of releases.

Games are developed to make money, but also with the intention of entertainment on part of the gamer in mind. My friend is one of those trickshotters (Oh lord do I hate them) that has to change how they play the game completely to stay interested. That seems a little off when the player has to take what's there and craft the fun after spending $60, $80, or $120. At least Pokemon makes an effort to try to say through advertising that the games are fun, and great. Each new CoD game just says "We like money, money is great, give us more money." The two series don't even compare except for the innovation factor in certain respects. It is nearly apples to oranges.

Single player is a dying game mode. The Black Ops campaign can be cleared in six hours easily. This is due to the developers knowing that the player generally doesn't care about the single player anymore. I wouldn't be surprised to see some online only CoD games in the future. Might as well make the focus into the entire game and save some time. Of course, then they couldn't charge $60 (well, actually, they could, and people would sheep off to buy it).

So it isn't valid to say that the average CoD game is buggy? It isn't valid to say that the games that get hacked to a nearly unplayable state don't get fixed (CoD4)? It isn't valid to say that after all the patches a lot of the time, the game still doesn't work so hot (CoD4, MW2)? It isn't valid to say that the Treyarch games are genuinely worse and are only developed and released to keep a new CoD game consistently out there for profit? Of course, that one correlates with the Activison sucking thing.


----------



## DarkLG (Jul 23, 2011)

Did someone compare CoD to pokemon? lol seriously??


----------



## Maedhros (Jul 23, 2011)

Nathan Drake said:
			
		

> Maedhros said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



No problem, I don't like big quotes too. My answer is in bold.


----------



## machomuu (Jul 23, 2011)

Maedhros said:
			
		

> Nathan Drake said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


...Y'know, it's not very often I agree with Maedhros, but as much as I love Pokemon...I agree with him right here.


----------



## Nathan Drake (Jul 23, 2011)

@Maedhros

They're making money because people are under the illusion of innovation. It's a terrible state of things when it comes down to just buying a game because of the name, regardless of the degenerating value of each game. Does no CoD instant buyer feel any buyers remorse when they spend $60 when less than a year later, the game is half the price? It isn't like the communities of the ones considered more fun die. The likes of MW2 is going strong online, while CoD4 was, but is dying due to negligence on part of IW when referring to the prominent hacking problem. The hacking on Pokemon is a pain, but if you're like me, the only online interaction you have is trading Pokemon via the GTS. Most people know to only play online against people they contact beforehand to know they are legit. It isn't so hot when CoD games have to be played the same way.

Pokemon *is advertised in a more effective way* as to obtain sales by entertainment value (clips of actual gameplay instead of just the likes of Gamestop promotions). CoD is dependent entirely on the name. I don't see gameplay adds that boast the new, or even improvements to the old. I just see a name, and a "if you trade in this or that, etc."  It is a little disappointing.

The problem is, that in the past, single player was huge for the console experience, while online focus was dependent on PC gaming. With online becoming bigger and bigger in the console world, we are losing track of single player, and even seem close to abandoning it (for the likes of shooters at least) in favor of the online. For those not big with online (like myself), it is a bit of a killer.

I covered the last in the top anyways, so no biggie there.


----------



## dryo (Jul 23, 2011)

NOT EVREYTING IS CALL OF DUTY YOU FUCKING AMERICANS!


----------



## Nathan Drake (Jul 23, 2011)

dryo said:
			
		

> NOT EVREYTING IS CALL OF DUTY YOU FUCKING AMERICANS!



I love you too. :3


----------



## Forstride (Jul 23, 2011)

Nathan Drake said:
			
		

> Does no CoD instant buyer feel any buyers remorse when they spend $60 when less than a year later, the game is half the price?
> 
> The likes of MW2 is going strong online, while CoD4 was, but is dying due to negligence on part of IW when referring to the prominent hacking problem.
> 
> ...


Black Ops is still $60 new, and only $55 used (At GameStop at least)

What do you want them to do?  Spend a month or so creating a patch for a 4 year old game that TheTechGame or some other Xbox hacking community will find a way to work around within a few days?  You should know by now that hackers can find a way to get around any fix, update, etc.

Not really.  For instance...I bought MW2 because the multiplayer trailers looked really awesome, and there were a ton of new features (More killstreak rewards, more weapon attachments, more customization, etc.).  I bought Black Ops because the campaign looked good (And it was, albeit short), Zombies was making a return, and the multiplayer was being balanced out.  There are people who buy it solely because it's CoD, but not everyone does.  Stop assuming things.

The IW/Treyarch team clearly focus more on multiplayer than single player when developing the game.  It's the biggest replayability factor, pretty much the biggest part of the game, and the mode most people buy it for (I know some people who have never even bothered with the campaigns in CoD, mainly because they aren't that good).


----------



## Nathan Drake (Jul 23, 2011)

TDWP FTW said:
			
		

> Nathan Drake said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Responses in bold, well, because I could.


----------



## FireGrey (Jul 23, 2011)

machomuu said:
			
		

> DeadLocked said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


It's just a cinematic, all cinematics in games look a bit like that.


----------



## Alex221 (Jul 23, 2011)

they should make a call of duty game that only has online multiplayer with an ever-expanding world and that you could travel on vehicles and go to different places in that world 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 and also for it to have major updates every year,that would be a great game


----------



## shakirmoledina (Jul 23, 2011)

after modern warfare 2, its more of ppl want to play it again in a different style so lets release more games. not a bad psychology but nothing special.


----------



## Jamstruth (Jul 23, 2011)

Call of Duty looking the same as the last Call of Duty? WHAT A TWIST!

Yeah, what did you expect? If the next Mario game came out as a gritty cover based shooter what would you think? Yeah I thought so. Its the same genre, the same setup, slightly different gameplay, new levels, new multiplayer system to restart yourself in. Keep working sequel factory.

Y'know what would be innovative for a CoD game? DLC that added to the single player campaign. Some cut out levels or something. Even that isn't innovative but since when has CoD been interesting?


----------



## Wizerzak (Jul 23, 2011)

Jeez, I wish they'd just give up with these games. They're taking over the world with them and now everyone seems to buy them just because they're called CoD. It is actually taking over people's lives: when BO was released about 7 people in just my class at school were 'ill' at home playing it. And the thing is, they probably weren't even enjoying it, just playing because their mates were.

I also hate the people that literally only play CoD and class themselves as 'hardcore' gamers.


----------



## Foie (Jul 23, 2011)

Go ahead and bitch all you want, but I own black ops, and it's damn fun.  The very fact that you can do 2-player split screen online is a blast.

I understand that if you purchase each and every call of duty game, it'll probably get boring and repetitive.  It's kinda of like Fifa.  Be smart and don't let them milk you for your money, and you'll come away happy.  

And I don't understand how everyone starts bashing the game after seeing two screens that look pretty nice but reveal next to nothing about the game.  Take your trolling elsewhere.


----------



## Tom Bombadildo (Jul 23, 2011)

Foie said:
			
		

> Go ahead and bitch all you want, but I own black ops, and it's damn fun.  The very fact that you can do 2-player split screen online is a blast.
> 
> I understand that if you purchase each and every call of duty game, it'll probably get boring and repetitive.  It's kinda of like Fifa.  Be smart and don't let them milk you for your money, and you'll come away happy.
> 
> And I don't understand how everyone starts bashing the game after seeing two screens that look pretty nice but reveal next to nothing about the game.  Take your trolling elsewhere.



I agree with you on everything but the last (and first) sentence. It's not just those two screens, if you've seen all of the MW3 media and compare it to MW2, you'll find it looks almost identical. Besides, it doesn't matter what the 2 screens show or don't show about the game because it's not actual gameplay. You can tell it has been touched up and it's obviously a cut scene. Not only that be we DO know quite a bit about the game. It isn't trolling, it's their opinion and general facts about the game. So please, try harder next time


----------



## Maedhros (Jul 24, 2011)

Jamstruth said:
			
		

> Even that isn't innovative but since when has CoD been interesting?


Since it was one of the best selling game series in the world. If that's not a interesting game, then I don't know what is one.


----------



## machomuu (Jul 24, 2011)

Maedhros said:
			
		

> Jamstruth said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Just because it sold well doesn't make it interesting.  I don't know anyone who ever liked CoD because it was "interesting".


----------



## Maedhros (Jul 24, 2011)

machomuu said:
			
		

> Maedhros said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Good lord...


----------



## machomuu (Jul 24, 2011)

Maedhros said:
			
		

> machomuu said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Just sayin'.  I'm not saying it's not interesting, but seriously, because it sells well...you know the rest.  My reasoning wasn't the best there, disregard the latter statement of my penulltimate post, I didn't mean to say that.


----------



## leeday100196 (Jul 24, 2011)

Maedhros said:
			
		

> machomuu said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Just to be a bitch, I FIND COD INTERESTING!


----------



## machomuu (Jul 24, 2011)

leeday100196 said:
			
		

> Maedhros said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


I guess "they" come out when you make a verbal mistake *sigh*


----------



## Maedhros (Jul 24, 2011)

Why would someone buy a non interesting game?? Are people really masochists?

Are you really serious? Your logic astounds me...


----------



## leeday100196 (Jul 24, 2011)

machomuu said:
			
		

> leeday100196 said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


In case you didn't know, I was being sarcastic. SRSLY who would find CoD interesting? BLAM! BLAM! Same old shit, as pointed out in this video below:

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WsFswQ7W81c[/youtube]


----------



## machomuu (Jul 24, 2011)

Maedhros said:
			
		

> Why would someone buy a non interesting game?? Are people really masochists?
> 
> Are you really serious? Your logic astounds me...


'Cuz it's popular, and it becomes popular because it looks pretty.  Astounding I know.


----------



## Maedhros (Jul 24, 2011)

machomuu said:
			
		

> Maedhros said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Things are popular because enough people were interested in it in the first place. Being popular is a consequence of the game being interesting for the fans and the idiots who buys then because it's popular. Even these idiots who buys the games on impulse saw something interesting in it: the fact that it's popular makes the game interesting for them, so, yeah, the game is interesting.


----------



## Nathan Drake (Jul 24, 2011)

The concept of interesting doesn't have to correlate with anything specifically. You could see a grizzly car crash, and although stomach turning, it would still be interesting. You may not find a game fun, but you can still find it interesting.

There, now we all know interest and that people who buy CoD games generally find them to be interesting in some respect.

THE MORE YOU KNOW!


----------



## machomuu (Jul 24, 2011)

Maedhros said:
			
		

> machomuu said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Looks like my possibility has been defeated, not saying I didn't expect it.  In fact, what I said was a little stupid on my part, sorry for wasting your time, that was unlike me.

So who are these idiots exactly?  The type of person who doesn't know what he wants and basically just looks for what's cool and popular?


----------



## Maedhros (Jul 24, 2011)

machomuu said:
			
		

> Maedhros said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Both.

I will say again: That's the case with Pokémon and other popular series too.


----------



## machomuu (Jul 24, 2011)

Maedhros said:
			
		

> machomuu said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


No doubt, as long as something is popular there will always be people who join the bandwagon without prior knowledge or without actually liking it prior to.


----------



## Eswar21297 (Jul 24, 2011)

Another piece of recycled CoD trash. I want BF3 for PC. I would rather play Doom. That was awesome, much fun.
Next overrated FPS please? (not BF3 or Uncharted)


----------



## boktor666 (Jul 24, 2011)

A Gay Little Catboy said:
			
		

> Wow, the same repacked shit again.
> Anyone willing to bet that it's going to make a stupid amount of money and be over-hyped again?


+1 to this. CoD MW has been same over and over. Does that count for a lot of CoD titles? Yes.


----------

