35 replies to this topic

[Ami89E1234]

[matte31]

Bf3 still looks alot better. ->
Cod is for kids and Bf for the real men's

[billyfromhill]

Not buying MW3. It's rumored that there will be no dedicated servers. BF3 looks way better and that's what I'll be playing come November.

[Ami89E1234]

I don't even like MW that much. The original 3 CODs were and still are some of the best games ever, far more so than BF or MW can ever hope to be. MW had an ok campaign but the best multiplayer component of any game I've ever played. MW2 was the opposite. For me, MW has a more solid story behind the campaign, especially considering this is the first BF to have a real story behind it. Plus hopefully MW3 will have a better multiplayer than MW2, since 12 y/o's and hackers royally f'd it up. The reason IW decided not to have dedicated servers for MW2 is because the multiplayer was designed for consoles, which are better for COD multiplayer anyway. If they don't, it's not IW's problem anyway, since the game is being made with the help of two other companies; IW is NOT working on the multiplayer component. Blame Steam for not having dedicated server software.

At least IW came up with a more entertaining and somewhat more original story than "Ooh look, yet another game set in the Middle East fighting terrorists and militiamen which is a frivolous and useless fight anyway since terrorism and extremism is an idea and not a physical entity and can't be fought through warfare so we shouldn't even be there."

If you want to play a 'real man's' game, play Arma 2. Far more professional players on it anyway and seemingly more realistic tactics, etc.

I do believe BF1942 was better anyway. Such a fun game.

[theocd]

As long as I have enough disposable income, I'll buy both; once my exams are finished I'll be bored!

The OC-D

[hunter42]

Bottom picture relevant:


Might get this for the story, or just watch it on youtube.

For me, MW has a more solid story behind the campaign, especially considering this is the first BF to have a real story behind it.

BF:BC & BF:BC 2 both a "real" story lines.

it's not IW's problem anyway, since the game is being made with the help of two other companies; IW is NOT working on the multiplayer component. Blame Steam for not having dedicated server software.

Blame Steam? Steam is a platform for buying games and a form of DRM. Nothing is stopping Activision using Steam.

At least IW came up with a more entertaining and somewhat more original story than "Ooh look, yet another game set in the Middle East fighting terrorists and militiamen which is a frivolous and useless fight anyway since terrorism and extremism is an idea and not a physical entity and can't be fought through warfare so we shouldn't even be there."

Disregarding the fact that a memorable chunk of MW and the start of MW2 took place in the Middle East?
"A somewhat more original story" - All they did was take your above description, add Russians in and recreated the cold war fear of a Russian invasion.

I do believe BF1942 was better anyway. Such a fun game.

Best game music too.

[aitor]

Umm, MW3 still needs some work, the cities still needs something, like in MW2... Some life...Some visual and scenery life and efects, but the submarines, the carriers on the Hudson and the guys diving on the NY Subway Brooklyn station (I suposse that is a subway station) are great
BTW, that green smoke that is in France part of the video around the streets is gas?

[matte31]

Umm, MW3 still needs some work, the cities still needs something, like in MW2... Some life...Some visual and scenery life and efects, but the submarines, the carriers on the Hudson and the guys diving on the NY Subway Brooklyn station (I suposse that is a subway station) are great
BTW, that green smoke that is in France part of the video around the streets is gas?

Yes it looks like gas or radioactive waste.
The soldiers have gasmasks on too.

------

I have never liked Call of duty after Modern warfare 1.
All Cod's with WW2 in focus are great, but the "run-and-kill" genre is nothing for me.

[Ami89E1234]

BF:BC & BF:BC 2 both a "real" story lines.
Not really, they're all multiplayer.

Blame Steam? Steam is a platform for buying games and a form of DRM. Nothing is stopping Activision using Steam.
Steam can provide Dedicated Server software. Or it's not really even that difficult to make one yourself.

Disregarding the fact that a memorable chunk of MW and the start of MW2 took place in the Middle East?
"A somewhat more original story" - All they did was take your above description, add Russians in and recreated the cold war fear of a Russian invasion.
The only reason the first MW had parts in the ME was to capture Al Asad who was allied with the real enemy. It's more of a filler and not really the meat of the game. In MW2 there's only 2.5 missions in the ME; the tut is just a tut, the second mission was just to get you into Shepherd's squad which leads into the rest of the game. The last part is just to get Shephard after coming from a spot where Makarov could have been. It wasn't just a cold war thing, the provided an extensive background and reasoning behind the invasion more than just "Oh Russia, what losers, they're never happy and constantly bitch about everything that goes wrong so they need to attack to feel love. Just like North Korea."

Best game music too.
Damn straight.

Also about the bullets thing. You forget, its release is in more than 5 months still. It's a low priority detail anyhow. That's a fine little detail you never notice; I didn't realize it was just a box until the screen was shown, as it gets tossed too fast to notice. Besides, IW could also be reducing some graphics so it can be on more systems, thus increasing potential customers. If it fails, blame the two companies Activision hired to help IW after they fired the two brains behind IW and COD.

[aitor]

Yes it looks like gas or radioactive waste.
The soldiers have gasmasks on too.

------

I have never liked Call of duty after Modern warfare 1.
All Cod's with WW2 in focus are great, but the "run-and-kill" genre is nothing for me.

I like MW2, the mission based in USA are great, I wish in MW3 there would be more missions based in the United States...
If they includes gasmask to the principal character I'd like to see an effects like in you carry a gasmask, a lower vision caused by the dirtiness in the mask glasses.
That's a efect I miss in video games, the goggles effects in the soldiers.

[matte31]

I like MW2, the mission based in USA are great, I wish in MW3 there would be more missions based in the United States...
If they includes gasmask to the principal character I'd like to see an effects like in you carry a gasmask, a lower vision caused by the dirtiness in the mask glasses.
That's a efect I miss in video games, the goggles effects in the soldiers.

A little OT but still, in Battlefield 2 Special Forces expansion there is a gasmask that you put on and it lower your vision.
Its a old game but still fun to play i guess.

[hunter42]

Not really, they're all multiplayer.

There's no sitting on the fence, it's either "yes it had a story" or "no, there was no story". BC was about a group of misfit soldiers who discover that the mercs they are fighting are being paid in gold, and decide they want to steal it. BC2 was about trying to secure the secret Japanese weapon before the Russians use it. Granted, the story was rubbish, but it's a story nevertheless.

The only reason the first MW had parts in the ME was to capture Al Asad who was allied with the real enemy. It's more of a filler and not really the meat of the game.

What? Filler? No. The storyline in the ME in MW was fundamental to the whole plot, especially in MW2.

Spoiler

If the nuke had never gone off, then general shepherd would never have done anything that he did. You wouldn't have been doubled crossed and he wouldn't have been one of the two main antagonists in the game. Soap and Price would also never have become international wanted terrorists for killing Shepherd.

If it fails, blame the two companies Activision hired to help IW after they fired the two brains behind IW and COD.

That makes no sense. Those two other companies that you refer to are owned by Activision - Sledgehammer games and Raven Software. Neither of them fired the two workers behind because:
A) Activision claims that IW is still the central player behind the CoD franchise
and B) The two men were fired by Activsion in 2010.
To protest Activison's firing of Mr. West and Zampella, members of the IW team left. If MW3 is a failure, there is no one to blame except Activision.

[Ami89E1234]

I said Activision fired them. You read it wrong. They hired the two others to help after they (Activision) fired them.

But their would have been no nuke without the Russians, either.

Am I the only one here who realizes all the comments by BF3 fanboyz are in a topic about a different game and therefore inherently spam?

[hunter42]

I said Activision fired them. You read it wrong. They hired the two others to help after they (Activision) fired them.

But their would have been no nuke without the Russians, either.

Am I the only one here who realizes all the comments by BF3 fanboyz are in a topic about a different game and therefore inherently spam?

Yep. Sorry, I see what you're saying now.

Just expressing opinion. - Actually, mainly concerned about the game's end result. The game was officially announced in late 2010 and, as you said, still has a bit more of 5 months until release date. There's no doubt that the game will feature spectacular moments, but what about actual playability? MW had great shootouts and impressive moments, MW2 was kind of the same, until you got your hands on a heavy weapon, then it kinda got a bit daft. Black Ops was just a joke - "press X to do everything" (I know IW didn't make Black Ops, but IW is missing a lot of original staff).

I want to see a well designed game with a solid story with those awesome moments. I don't want to pay dosh for a quick time event movie, nor do I want to pay out for a game purely for some stupid online game mode. It would be harsh to predict the end product, since MW3 is being made by, essentially, three new companies. I really hope IW still has it in them, but I'm not holding my breath.

[Ami89E1234]

Meh. The story in MW is getting better as it goes along; let's just hope they keep the momentum going. Dunno why they'd put France in the game though. It's obvious they'd lose, just like always.

Hopefully its MP aspect goes back to MW epicness and loses the 'noob l33t hax0r' aspect of MW2's...

[billyfromhill]

Call of Duty has turned into a rushed game using outdated engines that comes out each year on the same day like clockwork. Activision is trying to milk the series for as much money as they can before CoD goes the way of Guitar Hero. First PC had to pay for the map packs, not they have this "elite" service. Activision would love to charge for MP (just like WoW) if they could get away with it. It's turned into one big racket out to make money.

That picture up in post #6 says it all.

[Ami89E1234]

Call of Duty has turned into a rushed game using outdated engines that comes out each year on the same day like clockwork. Activision is trying to milk the series for as much money as they can before CoD goes the way of Guitar Hero. First PC had to pay for the map packs, not they have this "elite" service. Activision would love to charge for MP (just like WoW) if they could get away with it. It's turned into one big racket out to make money.

That picture up in post #6 says it all.

If the id Tech engine is outdated, then how come it is consistently rated highly and has a new version coming out containing extremely advanced technologies? Now you're just bashing id Software. Besides, IW uses a highly modified version of said engine.

Every game publisher eventually becomes a grabasstic money whore. Just look at EA, Valve, and pretty much every other major publisher.

And CoD isn't released every year, as you so blatantly stated. Every version of CoD was released with at least a two year interval, except for 3, WaW, and BlackOps, which were developed by Treyarch, and came out at most one year after an IW game.

If you want to harp on CoD and jizz over how much more useless eye candy BF3 has, please do so in a different topic. Thank you.

[hunter42]

Dunno why they'd put France in the game though.

Here be possible MW3 spoilers:

Spoiler

Price discovers that Makarov's right hand man, Volk, is hiding out in Paris.... ...the game shifts us back to the story of Price and his crew. Now in Paris, players control Delta Force operative Frost who, with the help of the French special forces, leads an assault on Volk's location in the underground catacombs of the city. Next, players take to the sky supporting Frost's ground movements as a gunner in an AC-130.

As far as I know, Activision has not confirmed nor denied the huge leak of spoilers. However, the article containing the spoilers was written on the 13th of May. The reveal trailer was released 10 days afterwards, and pretty much everything is spot on.

If IW don't make this a run and gun, and keep the story as good as the one I've seen, then I'll have to get this.

[Ami89E1234]

No matter if MW3 fails, there's always Gears of War 3, Halo 4, and ArmA III to keep me happy.

[billyfromhill]

If the id Tech engine is outdated, then how come it is consistently rated highly and has a new version coming out containing extremely advanced technologies? Now you're just bashing id Software. Besides, IW uses a highly modified version of said engine.

They use an engine that is based on the same engine that the original Call of Duty used. Extremely advanced technologies my ass. Frostbite 2 is way more advanced than any outdated IW 4.0 engine.

Every game publisher eventually becomes a grabasstic money whore. Just look at EA, Valve, and pretty much every other major publisher.

The difference is that they actually support their customers instead of ignoring them. Valve is one of the best companies out there. Look how much support TF2 has gotten since it's release over three years ago. They also run Steam which gives you all sorts of excellent features for free. EA gives you free map packs and dedicated servers and an open beta for BF3. Activision? Paid map packs, "dedicated" servers that only can be bought from one company, half-assed patches, poor optimization.

And CoD isn't released every year, as you so blatantly stated. Every version of CoD was released with at least a two year interval, except for 3, WaW, and BlackOps, which were developed by Treyarch, and came out at most one year after an IW game.

I don't know what you're smoking but there has been a Call of Duty title released every year since 2005 when CoD 2 came out. Hell if you want to count United Offensive you can say there has been a CoD game released every year since the first game in 2003.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aPu7-LtLKmU&hd=1