Yes, call it McDonald's. They churn out the same things with new tweaks every year. The campaign is decent. Nothing to write home about, but they have the multiplayer down. I've heard you say on here that you haven't really played COD online. There's the main problem with your argument. I finish the campaign within the first week and never revisit it for a year. While at the same time, during that year, I prestige a few times and kill a bunch of zombs in the multiplayer. Why would a publisher wait 2-4 years between releases when they can put out a high-quality game with a bunch of features every year? I wish I had that business model. They are shortening their product cycle, much like another successful company you may have heard of: Apple. I actually would compare them more to Apple than McDonalds. Every year Apple takes the same product, puts a shiny coat on it, adds a couple more features, and sells it to its millions of loyal supporters. It's not necessarily the best of phones, tablets, or whatever, but it has brand recogntion and it is simple to use. Sounds exactly like COD. They've had the same controls since the first game on consoles. The games are high quality, no matter if you think your indie game developer is better. There are millions playing online. Good matchmaking. Little lag online. They've found a formula that works to entertain us and make a **** ton of money. Don't hate them for that. I play a lot of games. COD is my favorite of all time.
One thing is for sure. Activision certainly knows how to market the COD games. That commercial has people talking, and even my dad was asking if I'm going to get that game, because it looked pretty damn good to him apparently.
A friend of mine compared this to the Madden franchise...some ol' stuff, just different uniforms. Has there been any indication if they've changed their engine?
I've played every COD game, quite extensively, up to MW2. Although I did eventually get tired of it, I didn't see much of a problem. That is because I didn't see an alternative. To me it was the best shooter on the market, so despite being bored with it I had little choice as a shooter fan. Then I played my first Battlefield game. There was so much more depth to the gameplay that I realized WHY I was bored with COD. By comparison COD is like an arcade shootem up. The reason why it is so popular is the low barriers of entry, where anyone can pick it up. That's why you hear a bunch of screaming 12 year olds everytime you play, that's their market. As I've gotten older I realize this and gravitated to a more mature style of gameplay. And to add on to that Activision has dug their own grave by saturating the market. Your point is as long as they are making money they should take advantage. That is what they did with the Guitar Hero franchise. When you fail to innovate and use the same engine for yearly release after yearly release, eventually you will alienate your consumer base. I hope for the sake of the gaming industry that MW3 crashes and burns like I think it will, and that there will be no MW4 because of it. Not that I have anything against Activision, but if rehashing your tired formula is all you need to make it big as a developer then why would anyone innovate again? I will give credit to the consumer and say they start to wake up starting from MW3.
I'd be somewhat willing to concede this point. We can agree that CoD SP is nothing great, and you'd be better off playing campaigns from some other 100+ games (or whatever). If we start talking MP, it will degrade into a SP vs MP debate, which I've had before (usually boils down to me not usually wanting to spend much time in MP since I'd rather just try out a new experience). Though having said that, I doubt spending extensive time with CoD online would really change my mind much (not the biggest fan of some of the core aspects of CoD's gameplay). As it is, opinions about MP in games can vary based on the smallest issues, some of which don't even relate directly to anything the developer does. But screw it...I'm getting kind of tired of this argument coming up all the time. I have to clear up some of my backlog, but once that's done, I'll put some more time into CoD multiplayer (specifically MW1 and MW2 since that's what I have on my PC right now). You're making an assumption here that a publisher can easily put out a high-quality game with a bunch of features every year. Of course, if that was easy, everyone would do that. But usually, it takes some time to put together a quality product. That's why it usually takes 2-4 years for developers to put out (great) sequels to their games. And those that try to put out yearly sequels usually end up with franchises that die due to poor quality (e.g., Tony Hawk, Guitar Hero, etc.). Perhaps Activision has somehow found a way to put out yearly releases, and outdo developers that spend 2-4 years on their games. The Apple comparison is pretty poor (then again, so was McDonald's, but I was half-joking with it to begin with). Making games and making a new iPad (or whatever) are very different processes. I could go in more depth, but I'm assuming you get my point. And I wouldn't even necessarily disagree with bashing Apple (or others) for that approach. But that would simply be from a consumer approach. Not a business approach. Definitely a great business model, as is CoD for Activision (well...for now). Doesn't mean it is a great product. My indie developer? Which one would that be? Keep in mind I'm not referring to any one developer when I think of better games that CoD. I'm thinking of a ton, both big and small. When I said I could think of a lot of games I'd rather play, I really meant a lot. As I mentioned then, I have to draw the line somewhere. It definitely isn't as good as many other games I've played (most of which were by developers/publishers more interested in quality than $$$). Guess I could say 90% of the games I've played are "high quality" (including games like Lair), but that would make the term pretty meaningless. Frankly, a sub-HD game with a short campaign, not the greatest AI, extremely scripted gameplay (could even go through levels without shooting), unoptimized engine with glitches/bugs, etc., doesn't really come across as "high quality" to me. I sure hope you like CoD for more than just this. If not, than forget what I said earlier about spending some time online with CoD. If it was simply that, I'd probably leave it alone (see Madden or something, which I rarely comment on even though it is similar). As mentioned, I troll CoD due to Activision's actions. That's why I "hate" on them. (note I'd still have the same opinion about the games, just wouldn't be as vocal about it in these type of threads) Pretty sure it is the same engine...which itself was a modified version of the Quake 3 engine I think? Can't really do much work on a new engine when you put out games every year, and you also get rid of all the developers and treat them like crap. Might even go backwards. MW2 fixed some issues in the engine, but due to the way they handle the series, Treyarch didn't get those changes until it was too late, so Blops was plagued by issues that were around in MW1 (and fixed in MW2). High quality indeed.
This better not turn into some noob tube danger close fest like MW2. Luckily its not all IWs job now. Also, they better have some addictive mode, because Zombies is the only reason I play black ops
http://gamerant.com/modern-warfare-3-push-genre-forward-dyce-86251/ It’s not hard to take a few shots at Call of Duty these days. The most profitable, most well-known video game franchise in the world today doesn’t get to that kind of popularity without its share of critics. The confidence of the developers and publishers hasn’t waivered one bit it seems, as Activision is now claiming that the upcoming Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 3 will not just meet the same levels of sophistication as past releases, but will go even further, pushing the entire genre of shooters forward. Nobody has ever accused Activision of being humble, and the publisher certainly feels its place in the industry is deserved. But when your property reigns supreme in the shooter genre as CoD does, every newcomer is almost forced to address the giant brand in one way or another. With Modern Warfare 3 having been seen as an inevitability for some time, DICE and Electronic Arts haven’t minced words when discussing the competition to their own impending release Battlefield 3. While DICE voiced their own opinion that the competition had gotten lazy, favoring profitability over innovation, EA’s John Riccitiello is already claiming that BF3 is better than CoD in every way. With MW3 only recently officially announced, Infinity Ward and Activision have had to remain quiet. Now the publisher has officially confirmed that Modern Warfare 3 will once again be releasing this holiday season with an announced release date of November 8, 2011. Along with the announcement comes a chance for the developers to address the criticism by describing their optimism for the newest CoD. Activision Publishing CEO Eric Hirshberg had no shortage of kind words to say about the new game, and is already raising the collective expectations for both the singleplayer and multiplayer aspects of MW3: “Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 3 is by far the most epic Call of Duty experience yet. The teams at Infinity Ward and Sledgehammer Games have worked tirelessly to create for the Call of Duty player a scale that is unimaginable with a level of polish and creativity that will push the genre forward…The passion and energy of our developers is reflected in everything about the title. From the innovative gameplay, to the cinematic intensity, to the most advanced multiplayer ever, Modern Warfare 3.” With DICE rolling out the staggeringly impressive Frostbite 2 engine and destructible environments, it’s a large claim to boast that a game still possibly using an older engine – albeit improved – is going to be driving innovation across its genre. MW3 will also include destructible environments, but while the game’s official gameplay trailer does show escalated action, fans largely know what to expect from the game at this point. But perhaps that unique place in the minds of gamers is just what it takes to push an entire genre somewhere new. Battlefield 3 may offer entirely new takes on what the shooter genre can be, the smaller audience means that an industry-wide impact is far less likely. But if a brand as powerful as Call of Duty takes its fans into a new direction, no matter how slightly, the expectations of the entire gamer population could change. That may not necessarily be the case, since Activision’s job at this point is to talk up the game. How a multiplayer system can possibly be defined as “the most advanced ever” is beyond us, but we won’t have long to wonder. Do you buy Activision’s claims, and think that the next game could be the best we’ve ever seen? Or are you counting on Battlefield 3 for a dose of something new? Leave us your thoughts in the comments.
i will still ply this game, but i seriously get tired of the linear gameplay. I hate that there are only so many paths to take. I might end up spending more time on BF3 than MW3. I seriously think an upgraded destruction engine will change the genre of FPS games. For example, I was playing BF: BC2 the other day and some sniper was looking in my window at white pass. I threw some c4 on the back wall got out and flanked the sniper. The only thing that saved me was not running in a limited, expected pathway. I dont think MW3 will implement this to their engine. IDK but i think they use the Unreal engine which, like another poster said, makes it play like an arcade game.
http://www.psxextreme.com/ps3-news/9126.html Now that the debut trailer has arrived, the extra details are already starting to roll in. Infinity Ward boss Robert Bowling has been talking over at his Twitter page, where it seems he's answering some fan questions. Firstly, he confirms that what we see in that trailer is gameplay: "...every second of that was taken from playable moments in the game." Secondly, he says the game is locked at 60 frames per second and never wavers: "Absolutely, locked at 60 Frames Per Second. That is a core design principle for us..." Plus, the multiplayer rumors are already starting to fly. Most are coming from an unnamed source who spoke to A Gaming Site. This source says the official details will be revealed "in the coming weeks" but for now, we know the game will feature CoD points, but in a "redesigned and refocused way." Then there's this bit- "single player has a very multiplayer feel to it, with some interesting ideas to it." In addition, we can expect many more maps, modes and game types, although that wouldn't be too shocking. Those seeking a fantastic single-player experience will want that previous quote explained, though...
This is exactly how I am, I'm not spending a dime on an FPS till BF3 comes out. I love the destruction in BC2.
Actually not Unreal Engine, but close. It is based on the Quake 3 Engine (id Tech 3) from id Software. Note that id Tech 4 was used by games like Doom 3 and Tech 5 will be used in Rage. They did modify it quite a bit, and call it the IW engine: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iw_engine Not as good as creating your own engine though. Probably won't be as advanced as the Frostbite engine (which had destruction in mind in its first 1.0 release, around 2008).
were we supposed to be surprised that it was all gameplay? Don't worry Mr.Bowling, I never second guessed if that trailer was gameplay or cgi, because it looked exactly like mw2.
