Review: Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 3 brings World War 3 to your living room
With Vince Zampella and Jason West, the former heads of Infinity Ward out of the picture, many questioned if Infinity Ward was now a shadow of its former self. Activision brought in all of the guns to get this game together with Sledgehammer and Raven Software backing up Infinity Ward on development duties.
As I wrapped my brain around review copy of the game, I found the final result to be actually quite pleasing. The studios have crafted a refined title that is on par in quality to all of the previous Modern Warfare titles.
Story
Everything in the Modern Warfare series has built up to this climatic moment with the entire world engulfed in war. Modern Warfare 3 picks things up by replaying the ending of Modern Warfare 2, which leaves Soap and Captain Price, hurt and dying with Nikolai out to save them. The gears to start World War 3 have been set in motion, as a misguided military faction engaged the US on American soil in the previous game. This time around the enemy has taken the fight to New York as the center stage for the global war.
The war is spreading to Europe with armies invading England and France. There is even a World Trade Center moment in Paris that will leave your jaw on the floor. With the fictional World War 3 in full swing, the hunt for the man responsible for setting things in motion, Vladimir Makarov has begun.
While the story can be exciting, if you can keep up with it, most will find it a bit confusing and difficult to understand. Admittedly, many hardcore COD fans will just skip the story as it really serves to train entrants for the beefier multiplayer mode. The story is also considerably shorter than its predecessor as many will complete the single player campaign in five hours.
The action has been cranked up to a 10, throwing non-stop explosions into your face. Unfortunately, this means more scripted cinematic moments taking the controls from your hands quite often. A good portion of the game feels like an on-rail shooter as you hop on a speed boat, tank, van or chopper to be carried from point A to point B, with stuff blowing up everywhere.
While many may have difficulty following the confusing story, there will be a sense of satisfaction from completion the single player campaign as it finally closes the book on the Modern Warfare’s story arc and all of its loose ends.
Multiplayer/Design
The real meat of Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 3 is in the multiplayer mode. Its unbelievable the amount of value per dollar that exists between Spec-Ops and the competitive online modes. The latest iteration of Spec-Ops is back and its better. The mode features online and split-screen co-op capability again, with an assortment of action packed missions.
For the first time, Spec-Ops includes a new horde-like mode called “Survival” where you can buy and upgrade weapons similarly to Zombie Mode. In addition to a new cash economy, Spec-ops have its own leveling system integrating many of the popular multiplayer elements.
The competitive online multiplayer mode is largely the same but with some tweaks and additions. The mode is still largely perks driven, but the introduction of the Strike Packages spices things up. This addition allows players to quickly select a class that has its own skill tree-like progression system. The Strike Packages come in three flavors: Assault, Specialist, and Support.
Each Strike Package comes with a different set of kill streak bonuses. The Assault class comes with a set of deadly bonuses but resets after each death. However, the Support Strike Package allows gamers to carry over their kill streaks even after death, allowing players to accumulate them during the duration of the match. This may seem unbalanced, but the kill streak bonuses are much weaker- and defensive in nature. The Specialist package is for hardcore players as there are no Kill Streak bonuses, but it does offer up some extra perks to the player.
The multiplayer mode is rich in content with nearly 20 modes and 16 maps on disc. However, many of the maps do feel recycled with some of the buildings rearranged, providing for a sense of déjà vu at times.
This time around, all of the guns are leveled up individually making gamers really work for that additional attachment. For example a scope unlocked for one weapon can’t be used for another until its unlocked for that weapon. This allows gamers to spend more time with each weapon, specializing in customizing their loadout.
The addition of private matches is a nice touch as it allows for varied but limited customization. Whiles its not on the same level of a custom match on a PC with dedicated servers, it is a step in the right direction.
The biggest addition to the multiplayer mode is the mostly free Call of Duty Elite program. COD: Elite is a stat tracking dashboard on steroids, which can also be accessed from a PC. Elite will allow you to plan out and strategize with your buddies as well as study each individual map.
Elite will also provide interesting information such as what area on the map is a kill zone and where you die often. Elite also allows you to modify and improve loadouts remotely from work or anywhere in the world.
On the graphics front, it seems like Infinity Ward is reusing the same engine and recycling many of its artifacts with each iteration of the game. Unfortunately, in a sea of visually stunning games, Modern Warfare 3 is definitely looking aged. However, it is also important to note that no other console FPS can crank out 60fps in a super twitchy manner on the market.
In addition to the engine the AI is also showing its age with armies of cannon fodders running to their death without hesitation around you. It is understandable that with a tight two year development time, there is very little time to upgrade the tech or fundamental design. Hopefully with the next story the studio will revamp everything.
As always, the series features some top notch celebrity voice work with exceptional audio. The dramatic music playing in the background is nonstop but varied just enough from getting too old fast.
Wrap-up
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 3 is a nice ending to the main story that has been building up to this game. While the franchise started off as a believable near-future world, the series surprisingly ended on a note that is arguably more sci-fi in nature.
While the story has evolved, the way it is presented continued to stay in its confusing disconnected state, which was probably done for continuity. The multiplayer modes are undeniably one of the best in the business, with Activision mastering the art of addiction on the FPS front. While fundamentally there is very little in the way of innovation, the tweaks and addition to the existing framework pushes the value proposition of the multiplayer offering.
The market is getting crowded with new top notch contenders, but Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 3 continues to keep the bar high by bringing the same level of quality since the first iteration of the series. I highly recommend that all fans of the FPS genre to pick up Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 3.
Score
4.5/5
Related Posts:
166 Responses to “Review: Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 3 brings World War 3 to your living room”
Leave a Reply:
You must be logged in to post a comment. Don't have an account? Register today!
November 22nd, 2011
Not a bad review, if I do say so myself.
November 22nd, 2011
Those graphics look aged now.
November 22nd, 2011
Seams like a fare enough break down.
Lets wait for Rocas Troll fest on how this is a MW2 mod pack, with no change to anything
November 22nd, 2011
“While the story has evolved, the way it is presented continued to stay in its confusing disconnected state, which was probably done for continuity. ”
Haven’t played the game but I already assumed this to be the case.
November 22nd, 2011
ctrl c ctrl v.
Done.
November 22nd, 2011
Mike – “On the graphics front, it seems like Infinity Ward is reusing the same engine and recycling many of its artifacts with each iteration of the game. Unfortunately, in a sea of visually stunning games, Modern Warfare 3 is definitely looking aged”
Mike must have not noticed the totally new graphics engine with its huge graphical improvements. How is this possible? the huge improvements are as clealr as night & day. He must be trolling.
November 22nd, 2011
Roca, while the game outwardly may not look like a huge step forward, what’s happening under the bonnet is.
You’re grasp of computing I know is very limited, so I’m not going to waste my time trying to explain it to you. If you are interested, there are plenty of interviews with the Devs that explain what they have managed to achieve.
The MW3 engine, is doing a lot more work than the previous versions. you’re too much of a hater to bother learning what it is they have done. I’m not going to try and change that.
I think it’s popularity online will evidence that the game is top of the class in what it does.
If this were a PS3 exclusive you’de be jizzing all over its performance.
graphical performance doesn’t always come down to just how good it looks. Find a PS3 FPS that offers 60FPS and anywhere like as good an online gaming experience?
November 22nd, 2011
Godless,
I don’t dislike you or anything. However, when it comes to game graphics, you don’t what you are talking about. The graphics of MW3 are subpar in comparison to other games that have come out and this has nothing to do with this game not being a Ps3 exclusive title.
November 22nd, 2011
Again Godless, Mike has played the and game and his reviews crealy states the obvious.
“On the graphics front, it seems like Infinity Ward is reusing the same engine and recycling many of its artifacts with each iteration of the game. Unfortunately, in a sea of visually stunning games, Modern Warfare 3 is definitely looking aged”
I’m not a hater, I have the game and I call it as I see it. I was just as critical on Resistance 2 color-saturated graphics. You just can’t accept reality, simple as that.
Godless – “I think it’s popularity online will evidence that the game is top of the class in what it does”
too bad it’s NOT ‘top of the class’ in graphics. Not even close.
Also, 60FPS =/ better graphics.
The best looking game this generation – KZ, Uncharted, God of War, Heavy Rain, MGS4 – don’t run at 60FPS – so stop drinking that kool-aid, the sooner you do it, the better.
Also, why are you whining/bitching at me. I simply quote part of Mike’s review…so if you have any problem with that quote, feel free to give a buzz.
Even TFOS agreed with Mike – “Those graphics look aged now”
November 22nd, 2011
Roca
“Also, 60FPS =/ better graphics.
The best looking game this generation – KZ, Uncharted, God of War, Heavy Rain, MGS4 – don’t run at 60FPS – so stop drinking that kool-aid, the sooner you do it, the better.”
No 60FPS = better response time, and twice the processing, so No better graphics, but twice as fast.
30 FPS in a game effectively gives the engine twice the time to process the image, this is what makes the MW3 engine impressive, not that it looks stunning, because it doesn’t and I have never claimed that it does. it’s because it bloody fast, and that’s what matters in a game like this.
Hell we used to play Quake LANS where half the guys there played with most setting on lowest so as to up the frame rate, this more than anything gave them the edge.
Next gen will do 60FPS and full quality of render, for now it really has to be one or the other.
November 22nd, 2011
@Godless
It’s very clear that you have no clue about COD and you’re acting as if 60FPS is a big improvements over its predecessors. Let me inform you that ALL COD games this generation (maybe with the exception of BO & WaW) run at 60FPS, this includes COD2. It’s a fact that since COD4 all other COD games have used the same Inifinty Engine with minor to no improvements.
60FPS doesn’t mean jack when the overall product doesn’t compete in graphics or gameplay. Dante’s Inferno runs at 60FPs but that didn’t help it look or play better than GOW3. Sly Collection runs at 60FPS so Sly must be one of the most graphically demanding game (according to your logic)
Hell, even SSX on PS2 runs at 60FPS, it all depends on the game…fast paced games with fast moving gameplay need faster frames. I believe Wii Sports is also a 60FPS game.
Again, MW3 is the same old and recycled engine with some minor tweaks. 60FPS is nothing new so stop acting as if it is… Instead you should appreciate Mike’s honesty in his review
November 22nd, 2011
Roca
lets use mikes full quote you cherry picking git
“On the graphics front, it seems like Infinity Ward is reusing the same engine and recycling many of its artifacts with each iteration of the game. Unfortunately, in a sea of visually stunning games, Modern Warfare 3 is definitely looking aged. However, it is also important to note that no other console FPS can crank out 60fps in a super twitchy manner on the market.”
yeah, kinda puts it back in perspective.
IT seams like it uses the same engine. . FACT is that it doesn’t, it uses a modified improved version, which can do bigger maps, has better sound and improved lighting.
60FPS with this much shit going on is impressive.
Keep on TROLLING Roca
November 22nd, 2011
“60FPS with this much shit going on is impressive.”
60FPS has been there since COD2, keep being an IGNORANT.
and fyi, World at War and COD2 had bigger maps (idk about Black Ops because I played for about 10 mins) so idk why are you bringing this up when other 60FPS games have bigger maps.
where are the improved res (which, btw still run at sub-hd res), improved texture, character model and overall graphics? Yup, same old, same old.
Godless do yourself a favor and hold your judgement until you actually play the game.
and Thanks for quoting Mike’s description of the engine/graphics. He doesn’t state there were any major improvements. Since you seem to agree with it, then it seems like we’re all in agreement – “seems like Infinity Ward is reusing the same engine and recycling many of its artifacts with each iteration of the game” <- from Mike's review
November 22nd, 2011
MW3 is a brilliant game. Super(x10) smooth as hell, brilliant online, campaign mode is short but very very good but the graphics are exactly the same as the 2nd. Sure the game runs better and there is improvements to how the game runs but it doesn’t change the fact it looks exactly the same.
I don’t care that it looks the same, I wouldn’t want it to look too different otherwise it wouldn’t feel like MW. It’s just you seem to be in denial about its graphics Godless. I have no idea why, it makes no difference. Graphics aren’t always the biggest selling point, the game is smooth as hell and a blast to play.
November 22nd, 2011
btw I beat Uncharted 3 yesterday and WOW – this is the best game I’ve played this generation. so many epic set pieces and jaw-dropping moments. The Boat, the airplane, the horse chase, the desert, the ending, Atlantis of the Sands, Sully and all the “OH SHIT!!” moments. The only thing missing was a great sex scene lol.
Great game, it surpassed Uncharted 2 in every imaginable way.
November 22nd, 2011
I enjoyed MW and MW2, but hearing that the campaign in MW3 is even shorter kind ruins it for me.
November 22nd, 2011
Tired of hearing about MW’s “short” campaign.
Seriously, the same people complaining about a 6 hour campaign (MW3) are the same blokes lauding Uncharted 3′s campaign– and it’s an average of 7 hours on CRUSHING.
Let that sink in.
It’s just haters Fahkin.
Hell, I did 7 run throughs of Metal Gear Solid 2, and did Hard in 2 hours 1 minute, and Extreme in 3.75 hours. Much less than both those games, but Metal Gear is critically acclaimed.
I’ve done less than 2 hour run throughs in almost every Resident Evil game (except 4 and 5); are these games just as shit as MW? It’s not fair to critique a game based on length, but I digress because folks will do it anyway.
In the end though, it’ll always be quality over quantity for people like me.
November 22nd, 2011
Also, Mike– stop trying to please the fanboys. Your articles are becoming extremely annoying.
While Modern Warfare’s writers will most likely never win a Pulitzer in anything they ever write, the story has been the strongest aspect of series, come the hell off it. If you found MW’s story confusing, you should not be playing video games. Nearly everyone who has played 1 and 2 would understand the story, because it’s presented in a clear fashion. Hell, if people on this site were to be believed, you’d be an idiot for being confused by MW3′s story because according to some, the story is exceedingly weak.
November 22nd, 2011
Wrong side of the bed Bird?
I’ve said nothing but praise for MW3 except it’s samey graphics which I’ve said I don’t care about.
I do think the CoD games should be longer if Activision want to charge an extra tenner for it, which they do.
November 22nd, 2011
But that’s my point.
For example, Uncharted 3 is the same price as MW3, but (on average) they are about the same amount of playtime, campaign-wise, not to mention you get an exceedingly robust and extremely long lived multiplayer experience. I think both games are brilliant, but when people repeatedly bash one for no good reason, whilst praising the other when it’s arguable that Uncharted should be LESS because you get more for your money with Modern Warfare (excluding the ridiculous Elite rubbish).
Uncharted is undoubtedly the better game. I didn’t even mean to compare the two, but the my reason for doing so is to point out the hypocrisy. People gripe about the most inconsequential things, like saying MW is the same game over and over– yet seem to miss the fact that Uncharted is ALSO the same game over and over, God of War is the same game over and over, Arkham Asylum is the same as Arkham City, and so on.
Have a good reason to shit on a game. Saying that Modern Warfare 3 is the same as Modern Warfare 2 is like saying Harry Potter 7 is the same as Goblet. Get the fuck over it. MW isn’t going to change into Dark Void all of a sudden. Only a small percentage of games completely revamp the formula that has made them millions, and Uncharted is not one of them.
November 22nd, 2011
“not to mention you get an exceedingly robust and extremely long lived multiplayer experience.”
That should read “not to mention you get an exceedingly robust and extremely long lived multiplayer experience with Modern Warfare”.
November 22nd, 2011
“I think both games are brilliant, but when people repeatedly bash one for no good reason, whilst praising the other when it’s arguable that Uncharted should be LESS because you get more for your money with Modern Warfare (excluding the ridiculous Elite rubbish).”
Ahh sorry guys, I’m kind of hungry. This should read
“I think both games are brilliant, but when people repeatedly bash one for no good reason, whilst praising the other when it’s arguable that Uncharted should be LESS because you get more for your money with Modern Warfare (excluding the ridiculous Elite rubbish), it grates heavily on my nerves.”
Haven’t eaten so I’m kind of pissy…and light headed.
November 22nd, 2011
You are retarded is what you are. I haven’t played mw3 yet but U3 is epic and even beats out GOW 3. Yeah I said it. U3 is GOTY for me. No way is it short. You obviously haven’t played it dip shit.
I’m taking my time with U3. I may even go back an play through with the CE book they sucked me into buying. Lol bastards.
I’m currently on the cargo plain.
No spoilers please.
November 22nd, 2011
“You are retarded is what you are.”
The hell are you on about?
November 22nd, 2011
Really tired of your shit NC. You are clearly the retarded one on this site. You claim to have difficulty with EVERY game you play, so it’s no surprise you find Uncharted to be longer than why it is
Also, my position is not that Uncharted is short– contrarily, I believe that 6-10 hours is NOT short. What I was saying is people should stop faulting Modern Warfare for being “short” whilst simultaneously praising Uncharted, when the average campaign difference is an hour or two (in Uncharted’s favour). Also, the point still stands that you get more for your money with Modern Warfare.
Also, you stupid bitch motherfucker, I just bought Modern Warfare and Uncharted (the whole reason for me bringing up Uncharted was because I was looking at the platinum difficulty rating and in the forums almost everyone was saying the campaign is roughly 7 hours on Crushing.). I’m clearly not saying it’s short, only that it’s about the same as MW and that MW has a more robust multiplayer experience and more longevity.
Sit your punk ass down and eat some Poutine. Ay?
November 22nd, 2011
“Poutine”. Didn’t know what that was until just now, but it sounds delicious. I’m in 29 Palms now though, so I’d probably have to drive at least 100 miles just to find someplace that makes it properly.
November 22nd, 2011
You’re right mostly Bird but you have to remember that UC3 has the greatest console graphics ever, I couldn’t imagine how hard it is to make a game look that good. MW3 looks exactly the same as 2, they probably could have made it longer if they wanted. But the online more than makes up for it, that’s what CoD is all about anyway.
As for prices, the cheapest I found MW3 for was £44.99 and the cheapest UC3 was £34.99(day of release obviously). Activision are well known for charging a hell of a lot more for their CoD games than what any other company would do. Their map pack prices are disgusting, never bought any myself. I download my mates from his account when he gets them(he’s stupid enough to pay it lol).
November 22nd, 2011
Oh I’m not comparing them, from a review standpoint, I’m just saying that most complaints leveled at MW can be directed towards any AAA game released this or last year.
Regarding MW3–
Complaint #1: It’s too short (if 6-10 hours is short)
Complaint #2: It’s the same game as the last one
Out of all the 2011 Game of The Year candidates, find me one that doesn’t fit neatly into the one of the above categories. (PLEASE don’t say Skyrim. I will rant you to the death…)
Regarding prices, I’m with you. Activision can fuck off. So can Capcom.
November 23rd, 2011
I thought MW3 having the same graphics engine without significant improvements and with reused environments was the number one complaint about it?
Oh yes, I forgot: Skyrim
November 23rd, 2011
You’re asking for it Carl, man
That may be what the reviewers are saying, but remember, I don’t care about the reviews. I’m just getting tired of reading the same shit online from these cake ass fanboys who say dumb shit like “the game is short”.
Well fuck, every game outside RPGs is short then.
Besides, what didn’t MW3 improve on, that Uncharted 3 did, up from 2?
And I’m not picking on Uncharted, I’m just using the best example of the best game of the year.
November 23rd, 2011
Hey man, you started it by throwing Skyrim into this hot mess
“I don’t care about the reviews.”
Well, then, what do you think after playing Skyrim yourself? Because I’ve been playing it for awhile now and I think it’s a different game than it’s predecessor, it has better, more detailed graphics (even though they are still poor on console in comparison to pc), and it is much, much longer than 6-10 hours.
Just saying.
November 23rd, 2011
Graphics doesn’t make the game different.
It’s the same shit as 4 man. I personally don’t like the Elder Scrolls games, but my gf has been playing on her 360. I only played it a bit, but I watch her. It’s just like Oblivion gameplay wise.
November 23rd, 2011
Improved graphics can often improve the experience.
It’s the same in that it is a western RPG with a similar art style prevalent. It’s different in that they introduced dragons as having a key part in story progression, new powers, several more spells, more weapons, more “books”, a different way to level up, different ways of increasing your skills and earning perks, larger and more detailed environments, more detailed characters (in both graphics, story, responses, etc.), more variety of NPC’s and characters to choose from, etc., etc.
Yes, it’s a “different game”.
November 23rd, 2011
Still the same stuff bro (although that dragon that spits ice is kinda nasty)
But let’s not get away from my point: most, if not all games with sequels are similar to their predecessor, so why the hate on MW? It’s not as if it’s a bad game, so I don’t see the problem
November 23rd, 2011
“Improved graphics can often improve the experience.”
Tell that to the cats that play Minecraft.
November 23rd, 2011
Let’s get one thing straight. I’m not “hating” on MW, I’m simply defending Skyrim as a new, improved, better looking, better playing game than it’s predecessor.
Just try to refrain from critiquing those games you haven’t actually played yourself and we’ll be golden.
Minecraft is a sequel?
November 23rd, 2011
Who is saying you hated on anything? Perception skills not all there mate?
I’d rather be golden with people I’ve actually met, though. Fuck you.
November 23rd, 2011
At which point did I say anybody accused me of “hating” anything? I was merely making a statement.
Cheers.
November 23rd, 2011
“Let’s get one thing straight. I’m not “hating” on MW, I’m simply defending Skyrim as a new, improved, better looking, better playing game than it’s predecessor.
”
Dumbass.
November 23rd, 2011
No need to put “hating” in quotes, unless you’re replying to what I said, and I didn’t say “Carl stop hating”.
Again, you never can admit when you’re wrong. Stop talking to me dog
November 23rd, 2011
Again, it was a statement that made clear I wasn’t of a particular opinion on MW.
Is it wrong to state a position in a particular discussion or on a particular topic now? You used the word “hate” in a particular manner, I simply reused it to make clear I wasn’t in that category. I never implied that you in particular were “accusing” me of anything.
Again, there is nothing to admit I was “wrong” about, although I think it’s becoming clear you have a deep-seeded need to somehow prove others “wrong” on a consistent basis while trying to insult them.
It is not a particularly good habit.
November 23rd, 2011
You two are a bad as me and CON lol.
And as someone who put over 200+ hours into Oblivion and around 40 in Skyrim, I think I can safely say they are not the same game. There is enough differences to make it different but not radically different so it doesn’t feel like Elder Scrolls.
November 23rd, 2011
You should have seen me and CON go at it when I was still in Iraq OS. He was just as ugly back then.
November 23rd, 2011
Yeah just shut the fuck up Carl.
No one was even talking to you, yet I’m the one with a deep seeded habit eh? Go fuck yourself.
Then, shoot yourself.
November 23rd, 2011
http://www.techradar.com/news/gaming/hackers-infiltrate-xbox-live-accounts-1042780
November 23rd, 2011
“Then, shoot yourself.”
No need for that Bird.
Carl, I didn’t realise he gave you shit as well, I always thought he left you alone because you were American. This must have been before I joined the site. Got any links? Would love to read them lol.
November 23rd, 2011
OS, oh yes, he didn’t discriminate in distributing his hate, or his hateful language. I think Roca and phranc were present for that little episode.
November 23rd, 2011
Cap, perhaps I was overly harsh in my response to you.
I apologize.
November 23rd, 2011
@OS,
Here’s one:
http://gamer.blorge.com/2009/11/11/gta-iv-dlc-exclusivity-expires-for-xbox-360/#comment-89986
November 23rd, 2011
Hah. You were even in that one… I completely forgot!
“And Half my family are from Australia you fuck tard.”
LOL.
November 23rd, 2011
A quote from CON:
“Sorry this is a games forum so Carl and Roca shut the fuck up!”
LMFAO!!! Oh the hypocrisy haha.
Thanks for the link Carl. Im gonna have a good read now :p
November 23rd, 2011
I gotta say Carl, your responses are fucking brilliant.
November 23rd, 2011
Fuck my grammar is terrible(more so). Don’t think I cared much back then but there’s a lot of grammar nazis now lol.
I totally forgot the confirmed kill amount from our last afghan tour lmao. I knew it was over 200, forgot the actual amount :p
November 23rd, 2011
“And Half my family are from Australia you fuck tard.”
That’s not exactly accurate as it goes, half my family emigrated there.
Sentence fixed(years later).
November 23rd, 2011
Yes, I think Con and I started going at it around April ’09 on Blorge, but I can’t find any threads that were nearly as good as that one. And thank you for the compliment.
November 23rd, 2011
Better late than never
November 23rd, 2011
Reading my comments back I’ve come to the conclusion that I was a naive retard back then lmao. Don’t seem like its the sort of comments I would write, I come across as a child :/
#cringe
November 23rd, 2011
Wonder why he was hiding his nationality.
November 23rd, 2011
You are so full of shit your eyes are brown capt.
November 23rd, 2011
You say they are the same then you say “when the average campaign difference is an hour or two (in Uncharted’s favour”
Wich is it?
November 23rd, 2011
At. Least I’m mature enough to admit I’m not the best gamer. You are like a snot nose 10 year old coming here saying you beat every game in less time than everyone. And you are the best player eva! Fuckin little punk is what you are. You probably haven’t even played most of the games you lie about.
November 23rd, 2011
“While Modern Warfare’s writers will most likely never win a Pulitzer in anything they ever write, the story has been the strongest aspect of series, come the hell off it. If you found MW’s story confusing, you should not be playing video games. Nearly everyone who has played 1 and 2 would understand the story, because it’s presented in a clear fashion. Hell, if people on this site were to be believed, you’d be an idiot for being confused by MW3?s story because according to some, the story is exceedingly weak.”
No it’s not. The story is presented poorly. After reading up on wikipedia I realize I was wrong and the story isn’t weak, but to say it’s presented well is a fallacy. It’s like listening to a book on tape and comparing it to a visually stunning a well presented movie and saying the book on tape had better presentation abilities than a movie. Sure there’s a story there, but the way it’s presented is a way where you don’t care and your waiting for the next time to be playing virtual whack a mole.
I’ve noticed on an average, I spend about twice as long in the SP of Uncharted games as opposed to COD games. 7 Hours on Crushing is pretty funny for a couple of reasons. The guy was bragging a bit, and you can’t even play crushing until you at least beat the game once. A second playthrough, like a “speed run” doesn’t truly best represent the length of a game.
November 23rd, 2011
“But let’s not get away from my point: most, if not all games with sequels are similar to their predecessor, so why the hate on MW? It’s not as if it’s a bad game, so I don’t see the problem”
@CaptBirdman:
I agree with you on this! Don’t you know the answer to your own question? Why hate on MW? Well because it is the top dog of this formula you speak off. Has outstanding record breaking sales, yet only minor changes. See now most people are cool with this and keep buying this over and over again. However there are a small amount of people compared to those buying that are sick of paying 60-70 a pop year after year for a very similar game. If MW3 was not a big seller rather then being top dog in sales, people would not hate as much on it. It’s simple really!
I don’t hate on MW3, it’s just feeling a little old now and I think they need to step it up! When people praise the game beyond what I think it deserves then I will point out the games flaws to back up my opinion.
November 23rd, 2011
I’ll try and find an article I recently read. The gist was that despite what people say, most people really rather play the same game over and over again because they already know they like it. It was pretty well written and explained it from multiple points of view.
November 23rd, 2011
^
Yeah it’s all about what sells and makes them money. Don’t ever think they care about your needs! Lol it’s all about the money!
November 23rd, 2011
@phranc yes but with improvement.
I won’t buy mw3 I’ll just play it at my brother in laws or buy it when it hits $25 or $15 used. I won’t play the online anyway. Too many cheaters and kids like capt.
November 23rd, 2011
IM going to end this fucking stupid ass “60fps” makes a FPS better…
Godless you mentioned Quake…60FPS is ONLY really great if YOU ARE USING A MOUSE AND KEYBOARD son…..if any of you dont own a current rig atm then yall need to stfu about ‘response time’ because console FPS isn’t shit compared to PC FPS gaming and the response time you are talking about is not fucking needed as much as on PC DUE TO PC USING THE MORE ACCURATE M/KB…
Also, MW3 looks like shit…it looks decent on console but compared to Bf3 it looks like shit…oh and just fyi, that 60FPS advantage on console that MW has over BF3…is fucking erased on PC..
Until you see BF3 the way i do, over 65-70FPS with pretty much EVERYTHING turned on…you can’t really cant say shit about graphics….BF3 on PC offers much more “under the hood” and graphically than MW3….whats Activisions advantage/excuse there?
November 23rd, 2011
I’m sure They’re working on a new engine…for next gen. Why would Activision have a developer bother making a new engine this gen when there’s no need to? People will still buy the $60 map pack each and every year without complaint.
November 23rd, 2011
Phranc
Alas, so true…
November 23rd, 2011
Firstly to NC
Ok, admitting you’re shit at games does not make you “mature”; it makes you shit at games. I’ve always admitted to when I’ve been bested by anyone, and that includes people on this site. Ask Roca, I gave him props when he was killing me with Vega. Although I did a turnaround and began beating him, I told him I had gotten better because of him: he helped me with my Vega matchup in Street Fighter. You just suck at games, and your daughters are better than you. No shame in that (LOL).
@Phranc
I’m glad you can admit it’s at least a workable story (in my opinion, and amongst a lot of other gamers it’s a fantastic story). However, it is not presented in a weak fashion. Once you guys get over your disdain for the game, you’ll come to appreciate it for what it is. Modern Warfare has such a great fiction attached to it. It was chilling to witness Russian troops descend on American soil in MW2. Of course that’s my opinion, but I was engrossed in the story very much.
Oh and Crushing is available on Uncharted 3 from the start. The “guy” wasn’t bragging: it’s multiple people on PS3trophies.org that were saying 6 1/2, 7 and 7 1/2 hours. Check its difficulty rating thread in the forum if you don’t believe me.
@Kushy
Clearly that can be said of any sequel this generation. Why doesn’t Uncharted 3 feel “old”? Not saying it should in the slightest, but that game is one of those culprits that don’t really change the formula much. Hell the only improvement I’ve seen so far (haven’t popped in my copy yet, it’s at home and I’m over my go’s house, so when I do I’ll update) is the graphics. It looks like a prettier Uncharted 2. My point is that everything you’ve said can be attributed to any game on PS3 or 360, so why is Modern Warfare being singled out? Just asking. None of you can give me a good enough answer, so it’s just you guys taking out your arses (no offense) because it’s such a good game and it sells well.
So my question still stands: why the hate? Because that’s all it is: hating. No one likes giants, I understand that.
November 23rd, 2011
“Oh and Crushing is available on Uncharted 3 from the start. The “guy” wasn’t bragging: it’s multiple people on PS3trophies.org that were saying 6 1/2, 7 and 7 1/2 hours. Check its difficulty rating thread in the forum if you don’t believe me.”
They must be playing a different game. Crushing was not available from the start for me. How about you? I’m playing it on normal at around 10 hours so far on chapter 21/22. How long was your run?
November 23rd, 2011
Hmm that’s curious then. And yeah, you’re right. I remember the devs saying they’d have Crushing available from the beginning, and some dope on the platinum difficulty thread said that as well, and some blokes backed him on it…
I haven’t played mine yet. Been on Metal Gear Collection and my Uncharted 3 is at home. I’ll let you know how long it takes me, but it’ll be more than 7 hours, I’m sure. I like to take my time on adventure games that have collectables, and enjoy the story.
November 23rd, 2011
Captain, i will explain the ‘hate’ about MW.
First off, i have ALWAYS said, if your into single player games with solid multiplayer, then by all means i even recommend MW over BF, as i have stated BF is all about the multiplayer.
The story i agree with you, MW story is very good, i like it, but, in these times, id rather player a ‘better’ single player game i.e god of war, uc 3 etc…not to take away from MW..
Now here is the issue with the franchise…its not pushing the envelope anymore, and i dont give a shit what you or anyone here thinks, we ALL ARE graphics whores….again if you try to argue this point your full of shit, else we’d still be with our NES’…
I don’t mind a franchise not fixing what aint broke but when the franchise begins to reek of milking its fanbase<–THATS where all the hate is coming from…every other developer in their sequels is at least improving the graphics or trying to bring something new to its sequels, not the CoD franchise…it just reeks of being milked and the sad fact of the matter is, it still sells….not because its improved or whatnot, but because it stays the same, all Activision is brining is more of the same…
The problem with that is, it favors the developers…in one hand they will keep things the same as long as possible as it keeps costs down…in the other hand because it sells so well, they are literally afraid to touch the formula, else the masses not take too kindly to the change…so what WILL END UP HAPPENING is we can pretty much kiss the CoD franchise goodbye, as like all trends, they die and they die quickly….the only one to blame here is the developer….
THEY set the precedent by being money whores, which is alright for them…im coming from the customer side so i really don't give a shit about their bottom line…the sad thing is, mark my words, because of the way they are handling it, i.e milking, the franchise dry, all will be left is the name…
I honestly don't see them competing for long with the likes of Guerilla Games pushing Killzone in the graphics department ( only Crysis and BF3 look better ) Halo's developers push their multiplayer with build your own maps or whatnot, Crytek pushing on the graphics, and DICE pretty much (IMO) leading the pack with bringing out an all around best FPS on the planet….
Activision as of right now are in trouble due to their own greed, they dont even try to to hide it (we all know all companies are greedy but AV is doing a piss poor job of hiding it ) EA has learned from their money hungry ways, or at least they seem to have…remember its all about what the customers thing, and right now Activision has the old "EA" stigma…who'd have thought huh?
Its like this man, DICE/EA have called out Activision in terms of pushing the envelope, and the proof is in the pudding..DICE has spent years developing its current scalable Frostbite 2 engine….and it knocks the socks off pretty much anything on the market…Activision, i believe, if they want to compete in the future has an extreme uphill battle..
DICE did what it set out to and that was to take a big chunk away from CoD ( which it did, 10 million units sold in 4 days as opposed to 1 year ) and it has turned the heads of many a CoD fan…..a massive achievement….its only a matter of time as next year we can expect the same MW redux, because its obvious the MW developers are NOT working on a new engine for this gen, while DICE just has to 'update/modify' its Frostbite 2 engine for whatever competition it will have…
November 23rd, 2011
Wait wait wait, I can’t take Jojo’s explanation seriously hahaha
Battlefield fanboy and all
jk mate.
November 23rd, 2011
lol all good man
November 23rd, 2011
On the graphics front, it’s hard to argue that, on consoles, MW doesn’t look better than Battlefield. I would have agreed with you if EA and DiCE weren’t deceiving everyone with PC footage and passing it off as PS3 footage (don’t say they weren’t, because they did). Battlefield 3 doesn’t look as good nor run as smoothly on consoles as it does on PC.
And I know you get angry about this, but as I’ve told you before– as consumers, NO ONE cares about tech specs of graphics. We only can see the end result of those specs, and at least on consoles, MW3 has the edge.
On PC, hands down, doors closed, titties bouncing, eyes closed, baby’s fed, lights off it’s Battlefield 8 days a week.
But we’re console gamers (for the most part) and Battlefield’s graphics aren’t where MW3′s is. Because you like digital foundry so much, I have what they had to say about BF3 and MW3 (ESPECIALLY for you dudes that think MW3 didn’t improve on MW2– Looking at Carl and Jojo here)
November 23rd, 2011
Some might say that the war was over before it truly began. The extraordinary sparring between Electronic Arts and Activision, encompassing developers and executives alike, may well have made for good copy for us journalist types, but where it matters – with the gamers – the results look rather one-sided. Preliminary sales data points to just one winner in the great Battlefield 3/Modern Warfare 3 kerfuffle: Activision has clearly emerged triumphant with what it is describing as the biggest launch in the history of the entire entertainment business.
Perhaps EA will be examining its week-one sales and thinking that Battlefield 3′s performance should have been better, bearing in mind the gargantuan marketing spend put behind the product. From a UK perspective, BF3 sold less than half as many copies as FIFA 12 managed in the same time period, and is way behind the total amassed by Call of Duty: Black Ops’ own week one sales. The extent of Modern Warfare 3′s sales has yet to be fully ascertained, but the evidence seems to point to an even greater level of success than last year’s game.
But to what extent was this even a valid contest in the first place? In his Modern Warfare 3 review, Eurogamer’s Dan Whitehead astutely remarks that “comparisons to Battlefield 3 are expected, but played back-to-back, also fairly futile. Where multiplayer is concerned, the two are far more different than their surface similarities would suggest.”
Perhaps the truth is that in creating this phony war, Electronic Arts has managed to utilise the Activision brand and marketing in selling a different style of first-person shooter – which may well have been the plan all along. According to sources, BF3 has managed to double week-one sales of last year’s Medal of Honor and has sold more than all previous Battlefield games combined in the same time period. That’s pretty good going, not to mention an excellent platform for future titles in the series.
The main contenders for this year’s top first-person shooter, shown in their Xbox 360 incarnations. Modern Warfare 3 (left) iterates on the existing, established Infinity Ward engine while Battlefield 3 innovates technologically in a number of ways with the new Frostbite 2 architecture.
After all, it’s worth remembering that Call of Duty didn’t become a console phenomenon overnight – it took four years, four games and a new console generation before the series really ignited. Electronic Arts and DICE know this and have almost certainly planned for it. Our contention is that the war between these two heavyweights in the FPS genre isn’t over at all – in fact the battle has only just begun – and gaming technology defines the conflict.
The gameplay offered up by 2007′s epoch-making Call of Duty 4: Modern Warfare is intimately connected to the phenomenal technology at its core. The combination of state-of-the-art visuals married up to 60Hz gameplay produced a game that not only looked fantastic but also felt quite unlike anything else: it was arcade-like in its look and its controller response. The combination of this exceptional interface between player and game, along with the XP unlock mechanic, created a sensation. Infinity Ward and fellow COD studio Treyarch have spent the last four years building and iterating upon this base formula.
Let’s take a look at how that low-latency interface benefits the player by comparing response between the Infinity Ward/Sledgehammer game and DICE’s Battlefield 3 – both running on Xbox 360. Using a Ben Heck latency controller monitor board – the exact same piece of kit used by Infinity Ward itself to optimise pad response on previous COD titles – we can measure the responsiveness of the controls on each game. The pad inputs are connected to LEDs on the board, so measuring input lag is a simple matter of counting the number of frames between the LED illuminating and action kicking off on-screen.
With input lag measured at 50ms – or three frames – Modern Warfare 3 simply feels so much more crisp and responsive than any other first-person shooter we’ve played on the current-generation consoles. Somehow it even seems to be faster than other titles in the COD stable, as previously we’ve measured MW3′s predecessors at anything between 66ms to 83ms latency. As swift and responsive as MW3 is, though, we should expect frame-rate drops to take a toll on that superlative level of response. However, where it matters most – in multiplayer – console frame-rates remain high, preserving that all-important feedback.
As the video demonstrates, Battlefield 3 on console – running at 30FPS – clearly has a deficit in response in comparison with Modern Warfare 3. Our latency measurement of 116ms might not sound too fantastic (it’s over twice the response time of its competitor) but it is roughly ballpark within a frame or two with a whole host of other console shooters. For reference, 116ms is the same as Killzone 3 and 16ms faster than Epic’s Bulletstorm.
However, Call of Duty’s unique strength is also in a sense its greatest weakness. The notion of processing gameplay and rendering a whole new frame in less than 16.66ms means that key aspects of the tech are highly unlikely to improve radically during this console generation.
Particles, lighting and effects work in general have improved significantly compared to Modern Warfare 2, and the introduction of a new, context-driven audio system makes MW3 sound a lot better than its predecessors.
Changes made for Modern Warfare 3 are impressive though – if clearly incremental in nature. The gap in performance level between Xbox 360 and PlayStation 3 has been addressed to a certain extent, audio has significantly improved via a system of contextualised sound effects processing, similar in concept to (if not quite as effective as) the “HDR” audio instigated by DICE in its earlier Frostbite work. Lighting and particle effects work has seen some improvement, although the room for improvement here can only go so far owing to the tight rendering budget.
DICE’s approach on console is remarkably different. While dropping down to 30 frames per second obviously impacts input lag, doubling the available rendering time opens up a whole new world of possibilities. The tile-based deferred rendering setup allows for lighting that is in a completely different league to what the IW engine is capable of on Modern Warfare 3, so hundreds of light sources can be rendered simultaneously – point lights, lens flare, emissive particles and muzzle flashes are all genuinely dynamic light-sources.
Similarly, while Call of Duty still allows for different materials to offer varying levels of resistance to bullet impacts, and renders decals on top of the environment detail to signify damage, DICE’s destruction system actually allows for cover to be incrementally chipped away by incoming gunfire, and for entire structures to collapse, giving a more realistic, visceral experience – not to mention opening up new gameplay strategies. On a more macro level, DICE’s engine also allows for more players and larger terrain, in turn opening up the ability to use a range of vehicles.
Battlefield 3′s superb lighting model, high-quality textures and materials, plus its state-of-the-art destruction model and expansive enviroments make it a very different game to Modern Warfare 3. It runs at half the frame-rate of the Activision title, but the extra rendering time has been put to good use.
In a sense, Modern Warfare 3 plays like the ultimate iteration of a gameplay formula that first found its feet with Quake 3 Arena, while BF3 offers up a full-on Battlefield experience – visually the console versions may be cut-down, but every element of the core feature-set is there. Each game has its own strengths and weaknesses, essentially boiling down to a higher frame-rate and controller response against bigger maps, more players, and a higher level of fidelity in graphics and sound.
Clearly though, there are many points of similarity between the two single-player campaigns and it is here that the games are ripe for comparison. DICE chose to highlight the potential of the new Frostbite 2 technology here with a range of beautifully lit levels, showpiece destructive cut-scenes and a small clutch of the type of expansive terrains that are commonplace in the multiplayer game.
However, much of the campaign is based on the same type of linear, script-driven corridor-style gameplay that Call of Duty pioneered and of which its development studios are the masters, with BF3 simply not at the races. DICE also carbon-copied the COD concept of shifting across different locations by swapping between characters – though in this case the protagonists aren’t really fleshed out at all and we don’t care about their stories, making their eventual fates seem somewhat meaningless.
The net result is that up until the later stages, the design of BF3 feels very much like a COD game, but with the ultra-fast response swapped out for higher-detail characters, effects and lighting – and a whole lot less action. In what must surely be an almighty coincidence, there are also a number of shared locales and situations we’ve pulled out here from our previous Face-Off captures.
Put side by side like this, just in these few clips we can see a remarkable difference. Modern Warfare 3 won’t just collapse a building on you, it’ll precede it with a colossal explosion first and then send a burnt-out car flying past your face for good measure. It won’t dispatch a bunch of police cars and a van to take you down, it’ll helicopter in a bunch of troops and have them rappel down to earth to get to you. Perhaps the biggest difference between the Battlefield 3 and Modern Warfare 3 single-player campaigns is simply that Activision’s adventure is just far more of an exciting place to be – their pacing and scripting work is on a whole different level. It’s a game that is ram-packed with action and over-the-top effects, with no time whatsoever to catch your breath.
The video also serves to demonstrate just how much of an impact the 60 frames per second update makes to the overall presentation. In each of these clips we could reel off a substantial range of technological advantages offered up by the talented DICE tech team: the deferred shading, the filmic tonemapping, volumetric smoke, the advanced pixel shader work, the state-of-the-art animation… the list of new rendering tech is virtually endless. But Modern Warfare 3 rarely drops frames and there’s never, ever any screen-tear. Combine that with the way the game feels in your hands and it’s not difficult to understand why the Call of Duty series has evolved into the consummate console shooter.
So if the first fracas between the Battlefield and Call of Duty franchises has resulted in such an overwhelming sales victory for the Activision franchise, what evidence is there to suggest that the battle is far from over? What’s to stop the same situation repeating for years to come?
Battlefield 3 on PC offers us a glimpse of how the next generation of console shooters may look. The level of investment EA has put into DICE’s Frostbite 2 engine wouldn’t be sustained just from sales to high-end PC enthusiasts – this is an engine built for the future.
The answer is simple: run Battlefield 3 on any reasonably powerful PC on high settings, and something wonderful happens. Not only are the visuals drastically improved, but you can play at 60 frames per second too, with no tearing. Try out Modern Warfare 3 on PC after a few rounds of Battlefield 3 in all its DirectX 11 splendour and you’ll realise that the underlying Infinity Ward technology is of an age that is swiftly drawing to a close. Pared-back lighting, effects work and low-resolution textures made for machines based on vintage 2005 technology just won’t cut the mustard – especially when scaled up to 1080p and beyond.
Today’s high-spec PC is tomorrow’s games console, and the smart money says we’re just two years away from the arrival of a DirectX 11-powered next-generation Xbox. EA and DICE’s investment in Frostbite 2′s more high-end technology isn’t just for hardcore PC enthusiasts – it is laying the groundwork for the mainstream games of tomorrow. Even more exciting is the fact that Battlefield 3 is just its first game on the new engine, so by the time the new consoles arrive, Frostbite 2 will be even better than it is now. Certainly, despite the undoubted majesty of Battlefield 3 on PC, there are still improvements that we’d really like to see. For example, input lag, even on a high-end PC, wasn’t hugely improved over what we saw on Xbox 360, unless we disabled v-sync and ran the game well in excess of 60FPS (with all the tearing that inevitably ensues).
If the BF3/MW3 conflict tells us anything it’s that we’re dealing with developers and publishers with two very different agendas: the COD studios clearly have their focus on the present day, while DICE is looking to the future. Frostbite 2 works well on current-gen consoles, but it’s built to challenge for the next-gen. How will Activision’s collection of talented COD-focused studios respond? Now that’s the battle we’re really looking forward to witnessing.
November 23rd, 2011
“ESPECIALLY for you dudes that think MW3 didn’t improve on MW2– Looking at Carl and Jojo here”
Where did I say MW3 did not improve on MW2 overall? I was mainly defending Skyrim here.
November 23rd, 2011
“Where did I say MW3 did not improve on MW2 overall?”
“I thought MW3 having the same graphics engine without significant improvements and with reused environments was the number one complaint about it?”
Yeah, you have no particular opinion on MW, yet you went out of your way to say this, eh? Also:
“I was mainly defending Skyrim here.”
This is what I mean by you always get away from the subject matter. I mentioned Skyrim in passing and jest, and you bypass points made to straw man Skyrim. It’s one of the most annoying thins about reading what you write. You always do that. You’re like a writer with ADHD. Sit still for a moment, pop some Ritalin why don’t you
November 23rd, 2011
Capn
We all Activision tweaked the game engine to get as much juice out of it as they could, the bottomline is, its not enough, at least not for me, for me to be playing the 3rd iteration of a game, and it looks SLIGHTLY better than the first…sometimes i swear you want to act stupid….no one in their right mind actually thinks MW did not at least tweak the game engine..but we ALL know, its not enouogh..
Btw, have you even played BF3? The graphics, even on PS3 are fucking amazing…and ive been playing in about 4-6 hour spurts…mind you when im NOT home im forced to play MW3 at my friends house….and its the same shit, hell, even those friends that play CoD say damn, it kinda looks the same….i threw in BF3 in them for them and they were blown away…and that was at the sorry ass single player campaign ( cant’ play online because of the stupid ass online pass thing, gonna try that account thing as see if it lets me log on and play on different ps3s)
Mind you, the single player campaign DOES NOT do BF3 justice…AT ALL you cant drive shit, you cant destroy crap, and yet, this CoD heads were amazed at what the campaign did let you do…
The bottom line is,MW is a good game, its just not a better multiplayer game than BF3, and the thing is, YOU, and all the other retards who claim you want innovation, change, i.e, something different, are the same damn people that let gems like Mirror’s Edge, Beyond Good and Evil, Pychonaughts, Battlefield, slip under the radar, when they bring with them TRUE innovation, creativity and i.e, something different, right between your fingers and for what? MW, WaW were awesome, but now it just reeks of milking and recycled stuff….Activision im SO GLAD you can’t touch Blizzard’s properties, and Blizzard even said the day Activision or Kotick try and demand/deadline Blizzard, that merger is over
gotta love Rob Pardo, CHris Metzen and the rest of the Blizzard head honchos 
November 23rd, 2011
Jojo, I must say, you get pretty butt hurt if people aren’t licking Battlefield’s nuts… Calling me retard is a sign that you’re angry for no reason. You’re going away from what I’m saying.
“The bottom line is,MW is a good game, its just not a better multiplayer game than BF3″
Would you like to show where I claimed otherwise? I personally don’t like BF3′s multiplayer (too slow for me), but I haven’t said anything about the multiplayer, so what are you getting at??
“YOU, and all the other retards who claim you want innovation, change, i.e, something different, are the same damn people that let gems like Mirror’s Edge, Beyond Good and Evil, Pychonaughts, Battlefield, slip under the radar, when they bring with them TRUE innovation, creativity and i.e, something different, right between your fingers and for what?”
You are clearly no longer talking to me anymore. Don’t know if I should respond or not, but I will. The games I like, some would call niche. I play a lot of lesser known games that eventually blow up into something great. For example, back in college, I was thoroughly enjoying a little known RPG called Mass Effect on my 360. Half Life was also in my 360 more than almost anything. At that time, Battlefield was already mainstream, so what are you saying? Sure I played the Halos and Gears and Left 4 Deads, but so what? I like CoD because it’s a great game. You want to play BF, that’s fine, no harm no foul. But for you to say Battlefield innovates outside of its tech is bullshit, and you need to shut up on that. Also, I know one of your points is that CoD comes out on a yearly basis… well guess what? SO does Battlefield. BF ALSO recycles stuff, and BF3 stole a lot of ideas from MW.
So keep defending BF, but I just want to let you know that it is in the exact same boat as CoD.
November 23rd, 2011
Just for argument’s sake, to prove my point, I would like for you to list what MW has not improved upon, gameplay wise, and I’ll list what BF has not improved upon. There’s a lot
And I can list the BF games by year to prove they DO in fact come out on a yearly basis, just as CoD has for the past 4 years.
Haters never notice that the things they love are similar to the things they hate.
November 23rd, 2011
Battlefield does not come out on yearly series, the only ones that have are the Bad Company series…lets dance on this you and i:
Battlefield main series:
Battlefield 1942- 2002 with two expansion packs
Road to Rome
Secrete Weapons
Battlefield Vietnam- 2004
Battlefield 2- 2005
(Then they released a future BF in 2006 BF:2142)
Seems the main series BF: 1942 and BF2 are what….2 years apart…then a year for BF2….now back on track
Battlefield Bad Company- 2008 seems like a HUGE gap for Battlefield..and its NOT EVEN THE MAIN SERIES….
Battlefield Bad Company 2- 2010…thats a 2 year gap Cap…where did ya learn to count? and now we have
Battlefield 3- 2011 which if we go by the main series is 6 years later….
and i did go off on a tangent on ya and its not that i get butt hurt, its the sad thing that most ‘gamers’ claim to want change and innovation but when it smacks them in the face, they run away from it…
November 23rd, 2011
1999 Codename Eagle
2002 Battlefield 1942 (1942 series)
2003 Battlefield 1942: The Road to Rome
2003 Battlefield 1942: Secret Weapons of WWII
2004 Battlefield Vietnam (MAIN SERIES 2 YEARS DIFFERNCE)
2005 Battlefield 2 (MAIN SERIES heres where we count )
I dont have to explain the differece between EXPANSIONS and passing off whole expansions cough BlackOpscough as Expansion do i ?
2005 Battlefield 2: Special Forces
2005 Battlefield 2: Modern Combat
2006 Battlefield 2: Euro Forces
2006 Battlefield 2: Armored Fury
2006 Battlefield 2142 (2142 series )
2007 Battlefield 2142: Northern Strike
2008 Battlefield: Bad Company (3 YEAR GAP )
2009 Battlefield Heroes
2009 Battlefield 1943
2010 Battlefield: Bad Company 2 ( 2 YEAR GAP )
2010 Battlefield: Bad Company 2: Vietnam
2010 Battlefield Online
2011 Battlefield Play4Free
2011 Battlefield 3 ( 1 Year gap or if you dont count the bad company series then its a 6 year gap )
November 23rd, 2011
So birdman, it seems that no, BF is not done on a yearly rendition the way CoD is. You fail to remember that there are seperate series in the Battlefield name: The Battlefield Series, Bad Company, Vietnam, 2142 and 1942….
The fun part is, DICE has never tried to pass off an expansion as a full game…and the nature of PC gaming seems to slip your mind as well as expansions are not yearly renditions but rather how map packs were done and should be done…they didn’t just add maps they added kits, weapons, vehicles, AND maps…
Now, say you were wrong and we can move on
November 23rd, 2011
Okay ill play your game too:
Graphics: Still can’t destroy walls, control vehicles, do chip damage to walls.
Gameplay: Its more of the same…same AI…
do you really need me to list what MW has not improved on itself? They are using the same textures on a lot of the campaign for chris sakes even the same soldier textures…
And please please give me the BF3 list i have the game on PC AND PS3, i KNOW the game inside and out…
November 23rd, 2011
Heres my list from the limited time ive actually had with it though:
Maps: In terms of map sizes, they are ALL small as fuck, which leads to my next complaint, spawn deaths and spawn camping
Spawns: Due to the sizes of pretty much all the maps, spawning on top of a firefight is pretty much a given along with spawn camping..
COD Elite: Now you have to track your stats OUTSIDE the game menus instead of in, i could be wrong here but its not easy to just look at your overall stats
Assists: Theres no more points for assist killing, nothing sucks more than almost killing a dude only to have someone else finish em off and get all the points
Shotguns: Seem a bit underpowered even at point blank range
I think thats it so far…
November 23rd, 2011
ANd heres a good read with the same underlying theme; MW3 did not innovate or do anything other than be a big map pack for MW2…but in a more open minded way of thinking:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/gamesblog/2011/nov/10/modern-warfare-3-internet-hatred
November 23rd, 2011
If your reasoning is that the Bad Company series is only Battlefield in name, then the same can be said for Modern Warfare, and the Big Red One series of Call of Duty, so that logic fails.
And spawn camping, really? Battlefield is the KING of spawn camping, moreso than counter strike. Man are you blind or what? Always has been a spawn-camper’s dream game…
November 23rd, 2011
“Also, you stupid bitch motherfucker…Sit your punk ass down and eat some Poutine. Ay?”
You could have put that attitude to good use and joined the Occupy LA Protest.
Wow you’ve been really pissy as of late Tweety Bird. 
You dought you daw a putty cat? You did you did
November 23rd, 2011
“I mentioned Skyrim in passing and jest”
Sorry, I took you for somebody who said what they meant and meant what they say. I’ll remember in the future that a lot of what you say is bullshit.
“I thought MW3 having the same graphics engine without significant improvements and with reused environments was the number one complaint about it?”
So you disagree and would state that MW3 in fact has a significantly improved graphics engine over MW2 and does not reuse graphical resources at all? Remember, I was only talking about the graphics engine alone here and not game play.
November 23rd, 2011
Captain your so full of shit
you obviously have NOT played any bf game as spawn camping is NOT rampant at all in a BF game due to being able to spawn on your team mates, and the main spawn point is behind the fog of war meaning if you try and even run to the enemy base you get 10 secs or you die…
Also, the MODERN WARFARE series SINCE RELEASE have been YEARLY RENDITIONS so YOUR point is moot, get the fuck out of here dog, you have no clue what the hell your talking about.
DICE made it VERY clear that theres the MAIN Battlefield games and the Bad Company games…
Epic Fail on your logic son….
Also EVEN if you put the Bad Company series, your wrong there too, Bad Company released in 2008, Bad Conpany 2 in 2010…Now, eat your own words and accept you were DEAD WRONG about Battlefield being a yearly rendition or just continue to look stupid…either way, you were wrong…ill wait here for you to accept that
November 23rd, 2011
Just for good measure captain:
Battlefield 2 released in 2005
Battlefield: Bad Company 2008
Battlefield: Bad COmpany 2 2010
Battlefield 3 2011
I guess you fail at math too…because between 5 and 8 is 3 years…between 8 and 10 is 2 years…a far cry from yearly releases…
November 23rd, 2011
“Sorry, I took you for somebody who said what they meant and meant what they say. I’ll remember in the future that a lot of what you say is bullshit.”
As will I.
“I was only talking about the graphics engine alone here and not game play.”
Exactly my point that you went away from what anyone else here was talking about, which incidentally was the length of the campaign of Modern Warfare. Yeah, you kinda proved my point there.
@Jojo
What kind of turtle weed have you been smoking dog??? You said Modern Warfare is a yearly release? LMFAO you’re clearly the one who is full of shit.
“Also, the MODERN WARFARE series SINCE RELEASE have been YEARLY RENDITIONS so YOUR point is moot, get the fuck out of here dog, you have no clue what the hell your talking about.”
COD4- 2007
Modern Warfare 2-2009
Modern Warfare 3- 2011
You want to keep making yourself look like an ass, keep on posting. Otherwise stop. It’s clear you are ignorant of the subject matter and further posting would only put the stamp on the envelope.
The only way COD is a yearly release, is if you add World at War (2008) and Black Ops (2010), both of which are not “the MODERN WARFARE series”, and not what we’re talking about. However, if that’s the game we’re playing (anything with CALL OF DUTY on the box) then anything with Battlefield on the box counts as well.
2002 Battlefield 1942
2003 Battlefield 1942: The Road to Rome
2003 Battlefield 1942: Secret Weapons of WWII
2004 Battlefield Vietnam
2005 Battlefield 2
2005 Battlefield 2: Special Forces
2005 Battlefield 2: Modern Combat
2006 Battlefield 2: Euro Forces
2006 Battlefield 2: Armored Fury
2006 Battlefield 2142
2007 Battlefield 2142: Northern Strike
2008 Battlefield: Bad Company
2009 Battlefield Heroes
2009 Battlefield 1943
2010 Battlefield: Bad Company 2
2010 Battlefield: Bad Company 2: Vietnam
2010 Battlefield Online
2011 Battlefield Play4Free
2011 Battlefield 3
“a far cry from yearly releases…”
LOL.
“you were wrong…ill wait here for you to accept that
“
November 24th, 2011
“you obviously have NOT played any bf game as spawn camping is NOT rampant at all in a BF game due to being able to spawn on your team mates, and the main spawn point is behind the fog of war meaning if you try and even run to the enemy base you get 10 secs or you die…”
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cYp4XXQekME
Enjoy. There’s more where that came from, if you want.
Jojo, you’ve been owned bud. Let it alone.
November 24th, 2011
““you obviously have NOT played any bf game as spawn camping is NOT rampant at all in a BF game”
http://battlefield.wikia.com/wiki/Spawn_Camping
Quote from page:
“Due to the design of the Battlefield Series, with the game revolving around static control points, players are more vulnerable to ‘Spawn Camping’ than other games”
Shut. The. Fuck. Up.
November 24th, 2011
Captain your a turd my friend
YOU WERE THE ONE WHO CLAIMED BF was a yearly released you dipshit, cant handle the truth dont step up or i will knock your dumb ass down as i have been all over this thread.
EXPANSIONS are that; EXPANSIONS..what kind of moron are you? Over 7 of those titles are EXPANSION PACKS
Its all good dog, i already owned you. YOU were the one who claimed BF was a yearly release and when i made you look stupid you resorted to copping out and bitching about BF spawn camping…hahaha you really are pathetic my friend
Also, whats Activisions excuse for rehashing the same engine given that they had 2 year gaps?
Also, Activision didn’t differentiate BOs from the MW the way DICE THEMSELVES believe Bad Company is seperate from the main BF series…your gripe is with DICE not with me retard..
Again, YOU WERE WRONG, ACCEPT IT birdman, else you will be the asshole everyone here knows you to be…
YOU STARTED it by claiming BF was a yearly release, i shut you the fuck up by showing you otherwise
November 24th, 2011
“YOU WERE THE ONE WHO CLAIMED BF was a yearly released ”
But I already proved it was…don’t get mad dog
“EXPANSIONS are that; EXPANSIONS..what kind of moron are you? Over 7 of those titles are EXPANSION PACKS”
Hmm, expansion or not, is it not a release of a different game? Think before answering that, because according to this quote from you:
“Also, whats Activisions excuse for rehashing the same engine given that they had 2 year gaps?”
…EA rehashed Battlefield over and over, a total of 7 times (for “expansions”) , year after year, making them just as bad as COD. Or…if they are different games, then they are still just as bad as COD if not worse, because by my count, that’s a total of 19 Battlefield games within 9 years. Dummy.
“YOU were the one who claimed BF was a yearly release and when i made you look stupid you resorted to copping out and bitching about BF spawn camping”
As you can see we’re still on the subject. Where am I copping out?
Oh wait, I guess because I proved that there in fact IS rampant spawn camping in the game, you’re copping out of ADMITTING YOU WERE WRONG. Ahahaha and I’m pathetic? LMFAO
*still laughing*
“Also, Activision didn’t differentiate BOs from the MW the way DICE THEMSELVES believe Bad Company is seperate from the main BF series”
*roars with laughter again*
Jojo, I used to think you knew what you were talking about. I’m sorry, but I am DEAD at the above comment.
Explain how Treyarch and Infinity Ward have anything to do with each other. No, scratch that, explain how Modern Warfare has anything to do with World at War and Black Ops. Activision is the publisher, they have never said the two game series were the same. Hell, the Treyarch developed games are clearly not named nor numbered Modern Warfare, so you can just sit in your corner because you’re done here.
Funny thing is, Battlefield 2 is a “spiritual sequel” to 1942. Don’t believe me? Look it up. Also Bad Company is developed by DiCE. You’ve lost all credence: at least the two main series of CoD is developed by–get this– TWO DIFFERENT DEVELOPERS lmao
Yeah, you’re excellent at proving my point. Be a sport and stop it, as I do just fine on my own mate.
November 24th, 2011
“when i made you look stupid you resorted to copping out and bitching about BF spawn camping”
OK, take a look at you post about the things that were wrong with CoD. I’ll post a direct quote:
“Spawns: Due to the sizes of pretty much all the maps, spawning on top of a firefight is pretty much a given along with spawn camping”
And my response was
“And spawn camping, really? Battlefield is the KING of spawn camping, moreso than counter strike.”
So. You tell me who brought up spawn camping.
Keep getting owned. But don’t feel too bad about it. Most people that argue with me do.
November 24th, 2011
But I already proved it was…don’t get mad dog
Listen mutt, you didn’t prove shit other than your stupidity at being confused at the difference between an EXPANSION and a FULL ON RELEASE…fuck your stupid, i just didn’t realize how stupid you are…
“Hmm, expansion or not, is it not a release of a different game? Think before answering that, because according to this quote from you”
Wow, you really are that stupid arent you? Did you even know what the definition of EXPANSION is? dont answer it, youll just look more stupid..
“Also, whats Activisions excuse for rehashing the same engine given that they had 2 year gaps?”
…EA rehashed Battlefield over and over, a total of 7 times (for “expansions”) , year after year, making them just as bad as COD. Or…if they are different games, then they are still just as bad as COD if not worse, because by my count, that’s a total of 19 Battlefield games within 9 years. Dummy.”
Again, for a game tester you prove you really are fucking stupid…Its quite funny actually, i made you look stupid at showing you the gaps between the battlefield games and all of a sudden you turn into a complete moron and forget the definition of what expansion packs are…
“YOU were the one who claimed BF was a yearly release and when i made you look stupid you resorted to copping out and bitching about BF spawn camping”
As you can see we’re still on the subject. Where am I copping out?
Oh wait, I guess because I proved that there in fact IS rampant spawn camping in the game, you’re copping out of ADMITTING YOU WERE WRONG. Ahahaha and I’m pathetic? LMFAO
*still laughing*
Keep laughing, spawn camping in BF is MUCH MUCH less a problem than in MW3/CS in which i believe you havent even really played any of those games for you to make such a moronic claim, and yes, you are pretty pathetic, not only are you back pedaling your way out of being completely wrong here, your also throwing out all kinds of non issues just to cover it up…its the same thing you try to do to Carlb only he makes you look more stupid, he makes you look like the asshole you really are..
“Also, Activision didn’t differentiate BOs from the MW the way DICE THEMSELVES believe Bad Company is seperate from the main BF series”
*roars with laughter again*
Jojo, I used to think you knew what you were talking about. I’m sorry, but I am DEAD at the above comment.
Explain how Treyarch and Infinity Ward have anything to do with each other. No, scratch that, explain how Modern Warfare has anything to do with World at War and Black Ops. Activision is the publisher, they have never said the two game series were the same. Hell, the Treyarch developed games are clearly not named nor numbered Modern Warfare, so you can just sit in your corner because you’re done here.
Funny thing is, Battlefield 2 is a “spiritual sequel” to 1942. Don’t believe me? Look it up. Also Bad Company is developed by DiCE. You’ve lost all credence: at least the two main series of CoD is developed by–get this– TWO DIFFERENT DEVELOPERS lmao
Yeah, you’re excellent at proving my point. Be a sport and stop it, as I do just fine on my own mate.
yeah you do fine on your own, at making yourself look like the dumbfuck you are, and the asshole everyone here says you are…
Even more so, the actual DEVELOPER DICE stated the differentiation between each of the series, you said it yourself you dumbfuck
and remember the reasons behind treyarch developing BOs was due to how they handled the whole IW fiasco..go fucking educate yourself…you are now lower than HappyHockum…at least he didn’t pull shit from his ass the way your dumbfucked ass does..
Oh, and im still waiting for you to admit you were wrong about the INITIAL subject you jack ass
Also, you have never owned anybody in this site keep on dreaming dipshit, just like you keep dreaming of beating me at SSF4, you keep on begging me to play for what? So i can whooop you 4 times in a row again? so that you can get that ONE win? or blame it on the dog? or your gf? excuses excuses is all your ever about homie, you’ve been owned yet again
try not to cry like the bitch you are 
November 24th, 2011
“fuck your stupid”
The irony.
“Did you even know what the definition of EXPANSION is?”
Yeah I know, but the point was that these were still releases using the same engine. And the fact remains that, OK, even if you don’t want to use those 7 games “because they’re expansions” then how do you account for the other 12? List is as follows (minus expansion packs)
2002 Battlefield 1942
2004 Battlefield Vietnam
2005 Battlefield 2
2005 Battlefield 2: Special Forces
2005 Battlefield 2: Modern Combat
2006 Battlefield 2: Euro Forces (booster pack, not expansion)
2006 Battlefield 2: Armored Fury (booster)
2006 Battlefield 2142
2007 Battlefield 2142: Northern Strike (booster)
2008 Battlefield: Bad Company
2009 Battlefield Heroes
2009 Battlefield 1943
2010 Battlefield: Bad Company 2
2010 Battlefield Online
2011 Battlefield Play4Free
2011 Battlefield 3
Even exluding booster packs, the only gaps are from 2002-2004 and 2006-2008, So minus those two years we didn’t see a Battlefield release (2003 and 2007), the series is a yearly release, whether you agree or not.
“i made you look stupid at showing you the gaps between the battlefield games and all of a sudden you turn into a complete moron and forget the definition of what expansion packs are…”
Technically, I’m showing YOU the gaps in BF yearly releases, of which there are only two (if we aren’t counting expansions, which we should seeing as how they are relevant to the discussion being “rehashes of the same game engine”). You’re the one being ignorant by listing only 4 games out of the 19 there were. That was totally disingenuous, and you know it. Or maybe you didn’t?
“Keep laughing, spawn camping in BF is MUCH MUCH less a problem than in MW3/CS”
Nope, wrong yet again. Whilst I’m not moronic enough to say Modern Warfare doesn’t have spawn camping (as you are with BF), I do know there is much more in BF, and that has always been the case. Hell, Battlefield’s wiki clearly states this– you’re either ignorant or lying, so which is it?
“i believe you havent even really played any of those games for you to make such a moronic claim”
Fortunately, what you believe is irrelevant to what is fact.
“not only are you back pedaling your way out of being completely wrong here”
About…what exactly? That Battlefield has a yearly release (it does) or that there is major spawn camping in BF (there is)? What am I back pedaling about here? You clearly stated Modern Warfare has a yearly release (it doesn’t) and that “spawn camping is NOT rampant at all in a BF game” (in which BF’s own wiki says that it is. Didn’t watch the vid I posted?? Disingenuousness, tsk tsk)
“yeah you do fine on your own, at making yourself look like the dumbfuck you are, and the asshole everyone here says you are…”
Lol, I guess you had nothing to counter eh? It’s alright old chap, not everyone can be on the ball.
“Even more so, the actual DEVELOPER DICE stated the differentiation between each of the series, you said it yourself you dumbfuck”
I’m not sure how this applies to anything…I told you to explain how Modern Warfare is connected to W@W or Black Ops in any way. Why can’t you do this? I’ll tell you: they aren’t connected, not even spiritually.
“Oh, and im still waiting for you to admit you were wrong about the INITIAL subject ”
The INITIAL subject was that Modern Warfare is unfairly criticized because of its perceived short campaign. I guess you’re the lad that needs to be educated? Or should I say “lass”?
“just like you keep dreaming of beating me at SSF4″
Wait, I didn’t? *scratches head*
“So i can whooop you 4 times in a row again”
Wait, what? I thought it was two… *scratches head*
” you keep on begging me to play for what”
Begging?
Also, you have more excuses than the pope bruh. “I’m not at home, I’m not on my PS3, I’m on a Battlefield high”
Sounds like you’re the real bitch. A lying one, so I guess that makes you a whore. Take your bitch ass to Figueroa and make some money so you can pay your internet bill.
Damn, I went there…
November 24th, 2011
“As will I.”
I think the difference here is when I say things that are meant to be a joke I do not go on to defend and reiterate them after someone responds, then backpedal and say I just meant it in “jest”.
“you went away from what anyone else here was talking about”
That happens sometimes on forum threads. But you still did not answer my question:
“So you disagree and would state that MW3 in fact has a significantly improved graphics engine over MW2 and does not reuse graphical resources at all?”
“don’t get mad dog
”
Hey, it’s not like he told you to go “shoot yourself” or anything bromie
November 24th, 2011
Jesus Christ ALMIGHTY!! You guys are pathetic. It’s fucking Thanksgiving and you guys are arguing over video games….REALLY??
Drop the talk, eat a slice of turkey, turn on the football, and enjoy the day for Christ’ sakes. Sheesh…
November 24th, 2011
Alright this is frickin ridiculous…You guys can sit here and argue about who’s cock is bigger but uuuh I’m gonna get some sleep, wake up, and enjoy my Thanksgiving. Chow
November 24th, 2011
The irony.
“Did you even know what the definition of EXPANSION is?”
Yeah I know, but the point was that these were still releases using the same engine. And the fact remains that, OK, even if you don’t want to use those 7 games “because they’re expansions” then how do you account for the other 12? List is as follows (minus expansion packs)
2002 Battlefield 1942
2004 Battlefield Vietnam
2005 Battlefield 2
2005 Battlefield 2: Special Forces
2005 Battlefield 2: Modern Combat
2006 Battlefield 2: Euro Forces (booster pack, not expansion)
2006 Battlefield 2: Armored Fury (booster)
2006 Battlefield 2142
2007 Battlefield 2142: Northern Strike (booster)
2008 Battlefield: Bad Company
2009 Battlefield Heroes
2009 Battlefield 1943
2010 Battlefield: Bad Company 2
2010 Battlefield Online
2011 Battlefield Play4Free
2011 Battlefield 3
Even exluding booster packs, the only gaps are from 2002-2004 and 2006-2008, So minus those two years we didn’t see a Battlefield release (2003 and 2007), the series is a yearly release, whether you agree or not.
“i made you look stupid at showing you the gaps between the battlefield games and all of a sudden you turn into a complete moron and forget the definition of what expansion packs are…”
Technically, I’m showing YOU the gaps in BF yearly releases, of which there are only two (if we aren’t counting expansions, which we should seeing as how they are relevant to the discussion being “rehashes of the same game engine”). You’re the one being ignorant by listing only 4 games out of the 19 there were. That was totally disingenuous, and you know it. Or maybe you didn’t?
“Keep laughing, spawn camping in BF is MUCH MUCH less a problem than in MW3/CS”
WRONG, WRONG and WRONG….
Battlefield <– NOT 2142, NOT 1942 is NOT a yearly release, admit you wrong like the dumbshit you really are and we can move on…
Notice i didn't even bring up the entire CoD series, because unlike your idiotic piece of shit, i can gather context from a debate, which was clear the franchises during THIS gen…go ahead and back pedal away your dumbshit..plus, Expansions are meant to 'reuse' the same engine…or are you really that stupid? Nevermind, we can all gather from your posts you really are.
"Nope, wrong yet again. Whilst I’m not moronic enough to say Modern Warfare doesn’t have spawn camping (as you are with BF), I do know there is much more in BF, and that has always been the case. Hell, Battlefield’s wiki clearly states this– you’re either ignorant or lying, so which is it?
“i believe you havent even really played any of those games for you to make such a moronic claim”
Fortunately, what you believe is irrelevant to what is fact."
Sorry, i never said BF didn't have it, but NOWHERE NEAR AS BAD AS CoD…you are lying fuck here, heres a hint PLAY THE FUCKING GAME then come back and tell….i didn't bring up spawn camping, i brought up the lack of improvements your dumbass was asking for, that being one that didn't get improved upon with MW3…its just you decided to focus on that to try and sidestep your dumbass being wrong about Battlefield being a yearly release…
“not only are you back pedaling your way out of being completely wrong here”
About…what exactly? That Battlefield has a yearly release (it does)"
It doesn't…Bad Company and Bad Company 2 are 2 years apart….BF2 and BF3 are 6 years apart….
"or that there is major spawn camping in BF (there is)? What am I back pedaling about here? You clearly stated Modern Warfare has a yearly release (it doesn’t) and that “spawn camping is NOT rampant at all in a BF game” (in which BF’s own wiki says that it is. Didn’t watch the vid I posted?? Disingenuousness, tsk tsk)"
Want me to post a video on MW spawn camping…get the fuck out of here, your grasping at straws, by trying to bring up a strawmans argument…go read the fucking forums, there are A LOT more MW peeps bitching about spawn camping thatn BF3 players, hell even the reviews state as much..l actually play these games sorry but spawn camping in BF is nowhere near as bad as CoD, just look at the fucking maps you dumbshit, CoD maps are smaller so naturally spawn camping is going to happen more often.
“yeah you do fine on your own, at making yourself look like the dumbfuck you are, and the asshole everyone here says you are…”
Lol, I guess you had nothing to counter eh? It’s alright old chap, not everyone can be on the ball.
“Even more so, the actual DEVELOPER DICE stated the differentiation between each of the series, you said it yourself you dumbfuck”
I’m not sure how this applies to anything…I told you to explain how Modern Warfare is connected to W@W or Black Ops in any way. Why can’t you do this? I’ll tell you: they aren’t connected, not even spiritually.
The same way Heroes/2142/are not connected you dumbshit….But my point still stands….IF MW has that much a gap, why rehash the same bullshit engine answer me that dipshit…
“Oh, and im still waiting for you to admit you were wrong about the INITIAL subject ”
The INITIAL subject was that Modern Warfare is unfairly criticized because of its perceived short campaign. I guess you’re the lad that needs to be educated? Or should I say “lass”?
Sorry but the question and topic at hand was your dumbass thought BF was a yearly release, i showed you otherwise and instead of admitting you were wrong you cried like the bitch you are in RL, then asked me to point out what wasnt improved upon in MW3, which i did, and again, your bitch ass started crying and focused on spawn camping NOT being an issue, instead pointing fingers like the girl you are at BF having spawn camping issues, to which i retorted NOT NEARLY AS BAD AS COD….so again, admit your dumbass was wrong or continue looking like the asshole everyone here knows you are, and dumbass we all know you to be..
“just like you keep dreaming of beating me at SSF4?
Wait, I didn’t? *scratches head*
“So i can whooop you 4 times in a row again”
Wait, what? I thought it was two… *scratches head*
” you keep on begging me to play for what”
Begging?
Keep scratching your head, its obvious you have a hard time with single digit numbers….
Also, you have more excuses than the pope bruh. “I’m not at home, I’m not on my PS3, I’m on a Battlefield high”
Sounds like you’re the real bitch. A lying one, so I guess that makes you a whore. Take your bitch ass to Figueroa and make some money so you can pay your internet bill.
Damn, I went there…
Haha funny you bring that up, go ahead and play the race card you piece of shit, and sorry, but unlike your pathetic life, games are not the forefront of my schedule, and i will take my ass to Figueroa ill prob pick up on your girlfriend on the corner…what now bitch!
November 24th, 2011
race*= im rich card
Either way, wasn’t it your lying ass about how you couldnt play because your popularity with ladies was at an all time high…yeah…guess only birdman is allowed to have a life L M A O…go fuck yourself birdy
November 24th, 2011
CarlB, TFoS
You guys are right, i’ll stop wasting my time with that piece of shit, i should seen it coming the second i seen how his dumbass just attacked CarlB a few posts back….oh well, at least i got him all riled up and i will go pick up his girlfriend from the corner of Figueroa
should make for an interesting Thanksgiving 
Laters all, im off to SD anyways 
November 24th, 2011
Happy Thanksgiving everyone. Don’t forget… Black Friday!
http://www.amazon.com/Black-Friday-After-Thanksgiving-Sale/b?ie=UTF8&node=384082011
November 24th, 2011
This is the first Black Friday Carlb, that i really don’t need anything really….
3D LED TV..check
PS3..Check
HTS…check
Gaming Rig..check
GSXR 750..Check
Just need some games, but Sony is making it really hard to keep up lol that and SW:ToR is right around the corner and whatnot…damn it feels good to be a gamer
November 24th, 2011
Birdy
Too many COD haters here, unwilling to accept the game for what it is, or admit that it has progressed in any way.
I have to admit I got bored of the MW3 Vs BF3 stuff, I don’t really care about the history, both games are great examples, and I’m pretty sure both will still be around for next gen, though I do see battle field closing the sales gap.
November 24th, 2011
@retarded fuckface. I didn’t say I was shit at games I said you are.
You pretend to be the best but the only thing you’re good at is suckin your moms tits.
You just a lieing punk that says you are a game tester and just recently said you worked at best buy.
You are probably working at McDonalds cleaning toilets.
How’s your McJob going? ????
November 24th, 2011
These are the main BF games. all others were expansion, dumb down console version or just after thought projects.
2002 Battlefield 1942
2004 Battlefield Vietnan
2005 Battlefield 2
2006 Battlefield 2142
2008 Battlefield: Bad Company
2010 Battlefield: Bad Company 2
2011 Battlefield 3
And even when include all the BF games you will notice that they are all different from each other and they all bring a new BF experience while ALL COD has been the same for 4 or 5 years now.
November 24th, 2011
Roca
FAR from the yearly releases birdman claimed BF to be
Godless
Its not that we are “CoD” haters…i swear you and birdman need fucking glasses or something…
Did you miss the part where i said CoDs single player is LEAPS better than BF?
Or the part i said BFs single player is shit compared to CoDs
Or that EVEN I recommend CoD over BF if you enjoy an actual single player experience along with solid multiplayer..
Learn to fucking read what people post before making stupid ass claims….
The ONLY aspect where BF is leaps and bounds bbetter than CoD is in its multiplayer, just as CoD wipes the floor with BF on its single player, BF whoops that CoD ass in multiplayer…
November 24th, 2011
“Birdy
Too many COD haters here, unwilling to accept the game for what it is, or admit that it has progressed in any way.”
I think it’s insanely obvious I am not a CoD hater. In fact I love the MW games, I’ve always defended the campaign and online matchmaking but as for progress, it hasn’t changed that much(which is a good thing), the only thing that looks like it hasn’t progressed at all is the visuals but as long as the game performs as smooth as its known for then it’s no big dead. You don’t need amazing visuals as long as the game is good fun, which MW is. You’re lying to yourself if you think the graphics looks(looks, not under the hood performs better but visually) better. Just because people can see the graphics are very very similar to the 2nd that instantly makes us “haters”? Doesn’t make sense.
I’ve played MW3 extensively, I’ve played MW2 more so and I can say through personal experience that the games look exactly the same(minor tweaking aside). Call me a hater if you want but you’ll have to explain why I buy all CoD games and praise the MW series as well.
The games look the same, get over it. As long as the games continue to play brilliantly then what difference does its graphics make?
November 24th, 2011
Anyone seen the recent video on IGN, the MW3 vs BF3?
BF3 won on all 3 accounts, visuals, multilayer and campaign. Don’t agree with the campaign going to BF3, that should have gone to MW3.
November 24th, 2011
http://www.ign.com/videos/2011/11/21/modern-warfare-3-vs-battlefield-3-the-results
November 24th, 2011
Oldschool
I agree, the campaign shouldn’t have gone to BF…it was over before it even started and was so sporadic it bordered on ridiculous…<—but im a cod hater lol in all fairness..it is IGN….
November 24th, 2011
*Closes the blinds, packs the food up, and says goodnight to family members*
Wow…I honestly expected for no one to comment today given the OCCASION….fuck was I wrong. There’s alot of lonely souls on this site.
November 24th, 2011
“I think the difference here is when I say things that are meant to be a joke I do not go on to defend and reiterate them after someone responds, then backpedal ”
No, you’re misunderstanding. As always. What I said was I mentioned Skyrim in passing, and what I meant by “jest” I meant this:
“I will rant you to the death”
Nice fail there. I don’t backpedal out of shit. I mean exactly what the fuck I say “bromie” (whatever the fuck that means). What gets me is that you lot have a self inflated sense of importance that you feel people have to lie to you or backpedal, and you feel this site is so important, that you do it. I find this fascinating because I truly see no point in lying about anything to you guys. What is there to gain? I don’t get it… Say what you want about that. I know you will.
@Sega
Well technically when I posted, it was the 23rd. Also, forgive us for talking about video games, on a VIDEO GAME WEBSITE and not trolling as you do. Besides, I’m not a fan of Thanksgiving or the food. I’ll order pizza. Oh and although the Patriots are my favourite team, I’d much rather be watching the early basketball season, but due to the lockout…
@Roca
That’s not correct. The ones I listed are the main games. Besides, I was CLEARLY talking about Modern Warfare, not Call of Duty. Say what you will about the series but my original point was that why the hate for a series that “doesn’t change” when great games like Uncharted, Killzone, Gears of War, God of War Battlefield 3 and Metal Gear don’t change either, yet get nowhere near the amount of flak Modern Warfare gets. It’s become en vogue to hate on the series, that’s all. They thought BF3 would be David, and it turns out it was just another punk.
@Jojo
“FAR from the yearly releases birdman claimed BF to be”
Ok, even using the cherry picked games you posted, it’s still exactly what I said before– in the same boat as Modern Warfare. Ok, you want to differentiate what is a “Battlefield”, but you need to realize you can’t do that with Modern Warfare because if it doesn’t have MW and Infinity Ward on the box, it isn’t MW. Every Battlefield game has been developed by the same guys– Digital Illusions, otherwise know as DiCE. You can’t be a cherry picker like that, and not have me call you on it. Modern Warfare is NOT a yearly release, whereas you can clearly say that about Battlfield. Every other year release, hey I won’t deny it, but even using your cherry picked data, so is Battlefield. So why be a hypocrite? Why say Modern Warfare is a yearly release, and not admit to it not being one? That’s all I’m asking.
“i will take my ass to Figueroa ill prob pick up on your girlfriend on the corner”
All bullshit aside, we both know that was a lame comeback, for a variety of reasons. Firstly, my girlfriend is Japanese, and just moved to LA. She couldn’t find Fig using a GPS. Second, why would you pick up whores, especially ones on Fig? Come on bro, you and I both know better than that. Third, you’d go all the way to Central LA to find a hoe, and not stop by the Blue Zebra in Silverlake? Hell, my homie got a blow in that bitch in the VIP room dog, and she was BAD.
@Godless
Tell me about it. Most people fall victim to trends, and trends in gaming are no different. I’ll be the first to shit on Modern Warfare (and there is a lot to shit on) but the series “not changing” is a box of bullshit simply because not many games in a franchise do. It’s always been like this, but hey, people need something to bitch about and hey, Modern Warfare is a giant target due to it’s unparalleled popularity. Haters gonna hate, and babies gonna cry.
“I agree, the campaign shouldn’t have gone to BF…it was over before it even started and was so sporadic it bordered on ridiculous”
I agree with you Jojo. My only problem is that BF took itself too serious. They thought they were going to compete with MW’s campaign, but copying MW’s style is not the way to do it. Focus on what they do best (I guess that’s the multiplayer, again, not my style, but it works) and made the camp more enjoyable.
November 24th, 2011
“You pretend to be the best but the only thing you’re good at is suckin your moms tits.”
What kind of trailer trash insult was that bro? Leave it to a hick to make a joke about a mom’s boobs. Cousin/wife turning you down these days, guero?
“I didn’t say I was shit at games I said you are.”
Yeah you did. You did. Remember?
If you would like the honour of losing to someone who is shit at games, I’d say nut up or shut up. We all know your cousin/wife is better than you at games, so don’t pass her the sticks when I’m smashing you bro…I’ll notice the skill difference.
November 24th, 2011
“No, you’re misunderstanding.”
That happens sometimes on forum threads. But you still did not answer my question:
“So you disagree and would state that MW3 in fact has a significantly improved graphics engine over MW2 and does not reuse graphical resources at all?”
November 24th, 2011
My bad didn’t see it.
Nope, wouldn’t say that
November 24th, 2011
“Ok, even using the cherry picked games you posted, it’s still exactly what I said before– in the same boat as Modern Warfare. Ok, you want to differentiate what is a “Battlefield”, but you need to realize you can’t do that with Modern Warfare because if it doesn’t have MW and Infinity Ward on the box, it isn’t MW. Every Battlefield game has been developed by the same guys– Digital Illusions, otherwise know as DiCE. You can’t be a cherry picker like that, and not have me call you on it. Modern Warfare is NOT a yearly release, whereas you can clearly say that about Battlfield. Every other year release, hey I won’t deny it, but even using your cherry picked data, so is Battlefield. So why be a hypocrite? Why say Modern Warfare is a yearly release, and not admit to it not being one? That’s all I’m asking.”
Sorry man but your dead wrong, the issue you are having you think people are hating on MW, when in fact people are hating that MW3 pretty much looks like MW2…or MW1….sad fact is, MW is not improving on the graphics front..PERIOD…Battlefield is always improving its graphics….big differences from BF2 to BF 3 and BC and BC2 is even more apparent, graphically….
The thing is, MW hasn’t improved on the graphic front since pretty much MW1 and THAT IS WHAT PEOPLE’S GRIPE is about, which makes it MORE APPARENT that it pretty much is a yearly release due to them not pushing the graphics department and face it, WE ALL ARE GRAPHICS WHORES here, again, else you would have stayed with the NES…the bottomline is DICE pushes forward while IW/Activision is milking the fuck out of the franchise…READ ANY OF THE REVIEWS of MW and you will see the words “cash cow”, “milk”, more of an “expansion”, “yearly release”…the same CANNOT be said about BF….
Also, im not cherry picking shit..the 2142 titles is NOT Battlefield, its a freaking futuristic game, Heroes has its own different style…are you really that dumb man? come on, i didn’t even use the Red One series or the WaW series or the freaking WW2 CoD because guess what? I can actually think and differentiate the games that apply to the topic at hand: Battlefield vs Modern Warfare….
This is what i mean by, you got showed up, and now you are the one cherry picking topics to hide the fact…You asked me to mention the lack of improvements i seen in MW3…i listed them and you cherry picked the one issue that actually backfired on you…have you even played MW3? I have, i dont own it but as i mentioned, i play at my friends house, pretty much everyday after work…and as you have seen this entire week, ive been on BF3 pretty much the entire time…
THE ONLY WAY to get spawn camped in BF3 is if your team sucks balls, and they take ALL THE flag points in Conquest Mode and push you all the way back to your main base…EVEN THEN you cant get near the spawn area because the game wont let you….In Rush Mode same shit…if your team sucks you get pushed back to your spawn area which is inaccessible to the opposing team… in Team Deathmatch the spawn points are randomized….all this ON TOP OF THE FACT that you are able to spawn on your team mates….and its pretty much been like this since BF2….again, play the games before pullling shit out of your ass…
In MW 1-3, once you learn the spawn areas you pretty much can set yourself out there for at least -5-7 kills before you get killed…even then just rinse and repeat…
“All bullshit aside, we both know that was a lame comeback, for a variety of reasons. Firstly, my girlfriend is Japanese, and just moved to LA. She couldn’t find Fig using a GPS. Second, why would you pick up whores, especially ones on Fig? Come on bro, you and I both know better than that. Third, you’d go all the way to Central LA to find a hoe, and not stop by the Blue Zebra in Silverlake? Hell, my homie got a blow in that bitch in the VIP room dog, and she was BAD. ”
Who the fuck cares? Still on this?….
“I agree with you Jojo. My only problem is that BF took itself too serious. They thought they were going to compete with MW’s campaign, but copying MW’s style is not the way to do it. Focus on what they do best (I guess that’s the multiplayer, again, not my style, but it works) and made the camp more enjoyable.”
And i’ve NEVER EVER defended BF sorry ass single player campaign, im not in it for single player im in it to get people’s dog tags…
November 24th, 2011
“Nope, wouldn’t say that”
Well, as I said before, I think that is the main point of contention with MW3, not that it is the “same game” or it is “too short”. At least that’s what I gather.
November 24th, 2011
“Sorry man but your dead wrong, the issue you are having you think people are hating on MW, when in fact people are hating that MW3 pretty much looks like MW2…or MW1….sad fact is, MW is not improving on the graphics front..PERIOD…Battlefield is always improving its graphics….big differences from BF2 to BF 3 and BC and BC2 is even more apparent, graphically….”
Because graphics=better game. Riiight…just ask Killzone 3.
You honestly think people were hating because the graphics? I know you hit too many bongs now bro. There is nothing wrong with MW’s graphics. They haven’t changed? OK, but were they bad in the first place? I like improvement just as anyone (see I was willing to give Dark Souls a chance), but MW graphics are fine where they are, and more than acceptable for this generation. Frostbite is built for the future, IW’s engine is built for now. I don’t see the problem.
“Also, im not cherry picking shit..the 2142 titles is NOT Battlefield, its a freaking futuristic game, Heroes has its own different style…are you really that dumb man?”
Then I guess Modern Warfare is not Call of Duty…but, saying that sounds…stupid. Don’t cha think?
“come on, i didn’t even use the Red One series or the WaW series or the freaking WW2 CoD because guess what? I can actually think and differentiate the games that apply to the topic at hand: Battlefield vs Modern Warfare….”
Whoa whoa whoa whoa whoa. You ain’t gotta lie Craig! You weren’t using the WAW series?? Here we go:
“So birdman, it seems that no, BF is not done on a yearly rendition the way CoD is.” << You'd have to be talking about WAW and BLOps to be correct here, no?
"Also, Activision didn’t differentiate BOs from the MW"<< oh well that's a clear reference to the WAW series right there…
"This is what i mean by, you got showed up, and now you are the one cherry picking topics to hide the fact…You asked me to mention the lack of improvements i seen in MW3…i listed them and you cherry picked the one issue that actually backfired on you"
You mean spawn camping? How was that a cherry pick? Didn't you bring it up? All I said was there is more of it in Battlefield. You made the biggest deal out of it, so hey, I showed you you were wrong, and you still can't admit it. You are the only BF player that seems to think it doesn't happen as often. I clearly showed you what the wiki said, showed you a video and everything. But Godless and I need glasses though right?
"Also, im not cherry picking shit..the 2142 titles is NOT Battlefield, its a freaking futuristic game,"
Fanboy fail there. How do you not know anything about your favourite game series?? Developed by the same devs, has "Battlefield" in the title, has most of the same gametypes…Sounds like BF to me (and every other normal person). Because it's "a freaking futuristic game" it isn't Battlefield? LOL So because W@W and Black Ops are set in the past, I guess they aren't CoD…
You said I want to act stupid sometimes…perhaps you need to ask the man in the mirror that same question.
Here are my points in order of importance:
1. MW receives disproportionate hate for things many other lauded games are guilty of.
2. The Battlefield series is guilty of the many of the same things as the COD series, and even copying MW's style in the BF3 campaign.
Period.
November 24th, 2011
“MW receives disproportionate hate for things many other lauded games are guilty of.”
Again, it seems the majority of the hate stems from it having a nearly identical graphics engine and reusing the same resources. As far as I can tell, most major games have a significantly improved graphics engine over their predecessors… amongst these are Uncharted 3, Skyrim, and yes, Battlefield 3… in fact, I can’t really name “many” AAA multiplatform sequels this year that have not looked significantly better than their predecessors other than MW3.
Can you
?
.
November 24th, 2011
Carlb nailed it with this ;
“Again, it seems the majority of the hate stems from it having a nearly identical graphics engine and reusing the same resources. As far as I can tell, most major games have a significantly improved graphics engine over their predecessors… amongst these are Uncharted 3, Skyrim, and yes, Battlefield 3… in fact, I can’t really name “many” AAA multiplatform sequels this year that have not looked significantly better than their predecessors other than MW3.
Can you
?”
“Because graphics=better game. Riiight…just ask Killzone 3.
You honestly think people were hating because the graphics? I know you hit too many bongs now bro. There is nothing wrong with MW’s graphics. They haven’t changed? OK, but were they bad in the first place? I like improvement just as anyone (see I was willing to give Dark Souls a chance), but MW graphics are fine where they are, and more than acceptable for this generation. Frostbite is built for the future, IW’s engine is built for now. I don’t see the problem.”
No its not okay for a developer to reuse the same damn shit without at least trying to improve the graphics…MW3 fails in this regards, “its good enough” is not good enough for any of us…thats just lazy developing…
No i wasn’t using the WaW series, i said if you wanted to include all the other non-battlefield type games like Heroes, the expansions, 2142….comprehension continues to elude you..and as a fan of the DICE, its clear as day that 2142, Heroes and Online are a completely different style as is WaW…BOs is a pretty pathetic and blatant expansion passed off as a full title….
“You mean spawn camping? How was that a cherry pick? Didn’t you bring it up? All I said was there is more of it in Battlefield. You made the biggest deal out of it, so hey, I showed you you were wrong, and you still can’t admit it. You are the only BF player that seems to think it doesn’t happen as often. I clearly showed you what the wiki said, showed you a video and everything. But Godless and I need glasses though right?”
Sorry bro but reading comprehension continues to make you look stupid….you asked for me to list the lack of improvements i thought MW3 lacked, i listed them, you picked out spawn camping…and please just like i can show you a video of lebron james looking like the bitch he is, i can pull videos and wiki’s and MW OWN FUCKING forums of people bitching en masse about the blatant spawn camping that goes on in MW…which is way worse than the BF series..
Again, its funny i can explain to you from ACTUAL experience yet your over here pulling shit from your ass….you must take it in the ass to pull so much out….
“Fanboy fail there. How do you not know anything about your favourite game series?? Developed by the same devs, has “Battlefield” in the title, has most of the same gametypes…Sounds like BF to me (and every other normal person). Because it’s “a freaking futuristic game” it isn’t Battlefield? LOL So because W@W and Black Ops are set in the past, I guess they aren’t CoD…”
Wow, you really are that stupid arent you…you think the WW2 CoD would be able to compete with the modern BF games…you said it yourself they take place in different fucking settings hence they are fucking different games….i was smart enough to pit the current setting BF with the current setting CoD games, which is Battlefield/Bad Company ( to which i already schooled you in how they are not yearly renditions) to the Modern Warfare titles….damn, you must have been a retarded ass kid growing up…
“You said I want to act stupid sometimes…perhaps you need to ask the man in the mirror that same question.
Here are my points in order of importance:
1. MW receives disproportionate hate for things many other lauded games are guilty of.
2. The Battlefield series is guilty of the many of the same things as the COD series, and even copying MW’s style in the BF3 campaign.
Period.”
MW is receiving hate simply BECAUSE of the LACK OF IMPROVEMENTS to the graphic engine, OS and EVEN THE FUCKING REVIEWS state MOST if NOT ALL the graphics are recycled from previous games..it reeks of milked cash cow….is it still a great game? yes…it just happens to look like shit compared to other FPS…
BF has its own flaws, and your stupid for thinking CoD leads the FPS in problems…there are many problems that are similiar in both games due to the nature of them being FPS…damn, you really are stupid sometimes birdman…its worse than having to spell shit out for you…i dont think your that stupid man, come on you have to be deliberately acting like this else…wow…
MW3 FAILS to improve on the graphic department. Period. MW3 feels like the same rehashed game MW2 was all about….PERIOD…the reviews support this…PERIOD…does it make it a bad game. No…it just can’t compete graphically <—-again, your a graphics whore just as any of us are, else sellyour PS3 and get a NES..
November 25th, 2011
” I can’t really name “many” AAA multiplatform sequels this year that have not looked significantly better than their predecessors other than MW3.
Can you”
Portal 2
Uncharted 3
Dead Space 2
Fight Night Champion
Dragon Age 2
MLB 2k11
Tiger Woods PGA 12
Resistance 3
NBA 2K12
Shall I continue?
@Jojo
“Sorry bro but reading comprehension continues to make you look stupid”
And the above sentence makes sense, how? LOL
“you asked for me to list the lack of improvements i thought MW3 lacked, i listed them, you picked out spawn camping”
No, I thought that was the most egregious example, so it surprised me that you said it. Notice my reaction to it. I didn’t single it out, just asked were you fucking with me.
“just like i can show you a video of lebron james looking like the bitch he is”
Like you can do for any other basketball player right? But go ahead.
“i can pull videos and wiki’s and MW OWN FUCKING forums of people bitching en masse about the blatant spawn camping that goes on in MW…which is way worse than the BF series..”
Two things dumbass:
1. I never said MW doesn’t have spawn camping and
2. BF has more spawn camping, end of discussion.
“you must take it in the ass to pull so much out”
What kind of gay shit are you on bro??
“you think the WW2 CoD would be able to compete with the modern BF games…you said it yourself they take place in different fucking settings hence they are fucking different games”
Now you’re all over the place, what in the blue hell are you talking about cabron?
“to which i already schooled you in how they are not yearly renditions”
Now you are truly pathetic. First Modern Warfare is a yearly release, then the 1942/1943 and 2142 series aren’t Battlefield because “they are set in a different time era”. You lose the argument so you bring out criteria that STILL doesn’t work in your favour. Using (ONLY) the Modern games(which in my opinion is bullshit because the other ones are Battlefield games, and when I said Battlefield is yearly, I meant all of them, don’t really give a fuck what YOU were talking about):
2005: Battlefield 2
2008: Battlefield Bad Company
2010: Battlefield Bad Company 2
2011: Battlefield 3
vs
2007: COD 4
2009: MW2
2011: MW3
So. In a span of 6 years, there were 4 (Modern) battlefield games, 2 of which were within a year of each other, and in a span of 4 years, there was 3 Modern Warfare games, none of which released within a year of each other. What was that you said again? Oh here it is:
“the MODERN WARFARE series SINCE RELEASE have been YEARLY RENDITIONS so YOUR point is moot, get the fuck out of here dog, you have no clue what the hell your talking about.”
LOL. Not ready to admit you were wrong yet?
“BF has its own flaws, and your stupid for thinking CoD leads the FPS in problems”
Man, what the fuck are you talking about?
“again, your a graphics whore just as any of us are, else sellyour PS3 and get a NES..”
Explain what kind of logic this is. Firstly, I have an NES still, and a SNES, and if ever mine failed to power on, I could buy another one at a wonderful store called Book Off in the Del Amo mall. But, can I ask you one thing?
Are there new games being released for the original Nintendo? I’m just curious, as you seem to know something I don’t…
Also, for someone who calls people stupid so much, you sure have a tough time spelling the word “you’re”. Might want to brush up on proofreading and spelling before you make claims whilst simultaneously looking like the ass you’re claiming others to be.
Just a thought.
November 25th, 2011
Just for fun, I thought to look up spawn camping on Wikipedia.
Whether negative or positive, it’s hilarious how many times “Battlefield” comes up in the article.
Fanboys. Gotta love em.
November 25th, 2011
CoD haters should love this (really).
I laughed my arse off.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b5dsOn06w1s
November 25th, 2011
http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Camping_(video_gaming)
Lol it came up 3 times, one of which backs up what ive been fucking saying: BF reduces its spawn camping…the other two “negatives” are due to the nature of a class in ALL fps, snipers…base camping happens exactly how i stated, only if your team completly sucks and gets pushed back all the way to their main base…
A far cry from your claim of being notorious for spawn camping… do you even know the definition of spawn camping? Can you differentiate the difference between base camped, flag camped both of which only happen when your BF team ks full of CoD retards trting to snipe a tank? I.e, your team is getti g owned?
Can you see the difference?
November 25th, 2011
LmAO
Also the only reason BF was mentioned was because of its large open maps…..and again thats due to the class in any game, Snipers….we all hatem but love to playem….
November 25th, 2011
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZqTygHEfkeo
Thats just one video a random one about spawn campi g in mw3….
See its easy to link videos…
November 25th, 2011
http://modernwarfare3forums.net/spawn-camping-episode-7-t10676.html
From their own forums
seven episodes dedicated to span camping issues…
November 25th, 2011
Mw3* that was a vid of 2…same game though lol
November 25th, 2011
http://forum.rpg.net/showthread.php?599656-MW3-instead-of-BF3/page3
Most of the spawn camping gripes come from TDM and if you read the forum, you will see bf should not be played in tdm, it should be played in ruah or conquest mode and even then spawn camping aint as rampantt as in cod
November 25th, 2011
http://eswclan.net/index.php?topic=1248.30
More of the same…
When you come after BF you best come strong, BF strong not like a CoD bitch
November 25th, 2011
Base Camping and Flag Camping require your WHOLE team to be pushing and team coordination
Spawn camling is ONE person annihilating everyone just by standing in one area…..
November 25th, 2011
Yeah, I see you still have nothing.
Couple things you won’t admit, and it’s glaringly obvious from the way you are sidestepping with your straw mans. That’s cute.
“Lol it came up 3 times”
I’ve never really taken you much for a liar, but your statements in this thread are appalling. By my count, Battlefield comes up at least 6 times (did a quick count, could be more, but there is definitely six mentions of it).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Camping_(video_gaming)
“See its easy to link videos”
It’s just as easy to watch them…for those of us that have internet-enabled computers.
You obviously didn’t watch the one I posted, because you’d realize it was a shot at MW3.
If you have access to Google from a computer, and it has the auto function on, try typing “Spawn camping in” and see what Google autofills
November 25th, 2011
“Most of the spawn camping gripes come from TDM and if you read the forum, you will see bf should not be played in tdm, it should be played in ruah or conquest mode ”
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
November 25th, 2011
I just thought of this but, perhaps when you say “spawn camping” is more prevalent in Modern Warfare, don’t you mean “camping”? Because then, I’d agree with you. BF has always been a more objective based game rewarding teamwork, whereas CoD is more lone wolf so people camp to try to get killstreaks and up their K/D ratios.
CoD has revolving spawns, and the Modern Warfare series in particular has it so you can spawn anywhere on the map, normally away or (much to the chagrin of gamers) or behind enemies, so it is actually pretty difficult (albeit not impossible) to spawn camp. The last iteration of Call of Duty (Black Ops) was far easier to SC than any MW game, and even then it wasn’t particularly easy to SC. Except on Nuketown, which is literally the worst map of all time in any game.
In BF, you spawn in your base, or on a teammate (which is usually not advisable as teammates are usually in combat, unless you spawn on a sniper–who is usually spawn camping
) so it is far easier to SC, and this has been a staple of the BF series. I really cannot fathom how you know nothing about this…I’m not a fan of BF, and I know this.
November 25th, 2011
“Shall I continue?”
Let me this straight. You actually believe Uncharted 3 does not have improved graphics over 2? Well, at least I got you to exclude Skyrim off the list
Dead Space 2, Resistance 3… not sure on these, but you are saying the graphics in game were not more detailed over their predecessors and had no improvement? Interesting.
I’m fairly sure Dragon Age 2′s graphics were improved also, at least on 360 they were when I played it.
Sports games? I don’t know, but if you want to relegate MW3′s updates to the significance of a sports game, I think you are getting warmer, but even in these aren’t the characters and environmental details enhanced somewhat year to year?
November 25th, 2011
“You actually believe Uncharted 3 does not have improved graphics over 2?”
Well, let “me this straight”. You asked were the graphics significantly improved, my answer is no. Improved, yes. Significantly improved, no.
“Dead Space 2, Resistance 3… not sure on these, but you are saying the graphics in game were not more detailed over their predecessors and had no improvement?”
Again, you posited that MW3 had no significant improvement (which isn’t entirely true), so in that vein, no– not significantly. Try not to put words in my mouth (keyboard?). I didn’t say ANY improvement, as your question was relegated to “significant”.
“I’m fairly sure Dragon Age 2?s graphics were improved also”
I’m fairly sure they were not. At least, not significantly
” I don’t know, but if you want to relegate MW3?s updates to the significance of a sports game, I think you are getting warmer”
Getting warmer to what? Your and the jaded anti-MW populace’s opinion? Ha.
“aren’t the characters and environmental details enhanced somewhat year to year?”
Are you saying MW3 isn’t? I’m pretty sure you’re going by what you have heard opposed to what is fact. Whist I wouldn’t say the changes are significant, there are a lot of notable changes to the game and a few enhancements. Didn’t you read Digital Foundry’s text I posted? The improvements were clearly in that post, yet again, you ignore that and attempt to weasel out of clear and concise points.
Besides, graphics don’t make a game, and even if they did, there is nothing wrong with Modern Warfare’s, even on the technical side, at least not much.
November 25th, 2011
“Improved, yes. Significantly improved, no.”
Fine. Do you believe MW3′s improved as much as the games you mentioned?
“you ignore that and attempt to weasel out of clear and concise points.”
Not at all, I’m just asking you questions about what you think of the subject.
“graphics don’t make a game”
No, yet they can make a difference in the experience, either immersing you more into the world or less. Since you mentioned Elder Scrolls, I can tell you the difference between Skyrim and Oblivion is significant enough that I appreciate it more overall as a gaming experience, even though it doesn’t look nearly as good on PS3 compared to PC (as is the case with most games now).
But that is a single player game, and from what I have gleaned so far, any sacrifices in improved graphics for MW3 have been made in order to keep multiplayer fast and smooth.
In any case, I appreciate you discussing the topic with me in such a civilized manner throughout this thread.
Happy Holidays.
November 25th, 2011
Birdman
You just explained why spawn camping is harder in BF than in MW….
Also, really lol at TDM bf? I lol atbbf TDM bf too, its not, it MW….no vehicles, small ass maps, no vehicles….no destruction……no squad tactics..just typical MW gameplay…
Who the hell really plays TDM over conquest or rush….
You have problems differentiating a lot of things… expacs from dull releases, spawn/base camping…….now your on another losing topic with carlb…just stop…
November 26th, 2011
“Fine. Do you believe MW3?s improved as much as the games you mentioned?”
Yes. Improvement is improvement, and as those games I listed haven’t shown markedly significant improvement, they are on the same tier as MW3.
“No, yet they can make a difference in the experience, either immersing you more into the world or less.”
Again, I ask you to tell this to the people that play Minecraft. Or Zork
If a game has a good enough story (MW3 does), great controls (MW3 does), a healthy community (MW3 does, in spades), then I truly do not see a problem. For those that care for reviews, it’s received nothing but positives.
But no prob Carl, I heard you’re in 29. Happy Holidays to you too.
“You just explained why spawn camping is harder in BF than in MW….”
No, I explained why it is EASIER. Say, for example, BF had a Zombie mode a la Black Ops. If the Zombies spawned from the same spot, or on other Zombies, how difficult is it to set up shop, and kill these Zombies?
Now using MW as a model, Zombies can spawn anywhere, usually behind you or far way. How easy is it to kill these Zombies?
“Also, really lol at TDM bf? I lol atbbf TDM bf too, its not, it MW….no vehicles, small ass maps, no vehicles….no destruction……no squad tactics..just typical MW gameplay”
No I laughed because your logic was that the game should not be played on a mode the developers included with the game. It’s kind of like saying people shouldn’t use Yun on SSF4AE just because he is easy mode. That’s why I laughed.
“You have problems differentiating a lot of things”
I disagree. I, however, posit that you still haven’t admitted to being incorrect in saying Modern Warfare is a yearly release though.
November 26th, 2011
Also, if your gripe with MW3′s MP is it’s team deathmatch, then I suggest you play Hardcore Domination, CTF, or Ground War.
Objective and team based gameplay, and the noobs normally stay away from these modes. I guarantee you couldn’t handle it.
Or maybe you could.
November 26th, 2011
“Again, I ask you to tell this to the people that play Minecraft.”
Again, I ask you:
Is Minecraft a sequel?
If the community is that good as well as the reviews, perhaps what “hate” that is there isn’t really significant, or even worth discussing?
In any case, thanks for answering my simple questions.
November 26th, 2011
“Is Minecraft a sequel?”
In the context of what we’re talking about, does that even matter? I said graphics don’t make the game good, and you said they immerse you in a world further. My question to you is, what about the people that play Minecraft? Are they not engrossed in their world? It doesn’t have to be a sequel. Graphics don’t make a game better. If a game had stick figures but played exactly like Mass Effect 2, I’d be very interested in it.
November 26th, 2011
Yes. Because MW3 is a sequel that is being compared to it’s predecessor graphically. Minecraft is not. If Skyrim had the same graphics as Elder Scrolls Arena, it wouldn’t be nearly as good overall as a gaming experience.
http://mimg.ugo.com/201111/8/6/2/213268/cuts/the-elder-scrolls-arena-10_528_poster.jpg
If Mass Effect 2 did have stick figures instead with no differentiation visually between NPC’s and companions, and you couldn’t distinguish them between the environment several times throughout the game because there wasn’t enough color or variation, do you really think it would be just as good a gaming experience? Seriously?
November 27th, 2011
“no differentiation visually between NPC’s and companions, and you couldn’t distinguish them between the environment several times throughout the game because there wasn’t enough color or variation, do you really think it would be just as good a gaming experience? Seriously?”
Off kilter, and a straw man.
Not going to bother with a response. Seriously.
November 27th, 2011
You are the one who first mentioned “stick figures” first cap. If you can’t be bothered explaining the difficulties of what you have posited, then don’t even mention it in the first place. Seriously.
November 27th, 2011
*strike one “first” from first sentence, sorry*
November 28th, 2011
No, I can’t be bothered to explain something to someone intentionally misinterpreting an exaggeration. What the fuck man, I thought you were more mature than that. When you act like an arsehole, I don’t want to talk to you.
That’s why I can’t be arsed.
Seriously.
November 28th, 2011
Captain
You lying through you teeth, if you were perfectly happy with mass effect stick figures, then why did you purchase an hd machine….sorry my friend, but we are all graphics whores here….do graphics make a game?nope, but, they can make a crappy game more bearable….
Id say graphics make up 60% of the game, story 20% and gameplay 20% …..
There are exceptions, like Zelda, GoW, R&C, Jak, Metroid…..
November 28th, 2011
No, YOU are a graphics whore.
Remember:
I thought Killzone was ugly.
I think MW’s graphics are good enough.
I thought GoW was good, but not ZOMG GRAFIKS KEENG!
(this is new) Uncharted 3′s graphics are vastly overrated.
Battlefield 3 is not on my must play list.
I like shiny things too but I’m not going to sacrifice gameplay just for overdone bloom effects and plastic looking skin. I’m in it for the story and ease of control. Keep your graphics to yourself.
I bought a PS3 because I’ve always been a Sony guy, and they had franchises I wanted continue purchasing. And you keep saying graphics is why I bought my system. Get out of here dude, you’re talking like they still release SNES games and (good) PS2 games.
Graphics make up less than 10% of a game. Story is 40% and gameplay is 50%. What the hell kind of gamer are you?
November 28th, 2011
I am a REAL gamer Captain
Your lying through your teeth if you truly believe you think graphics make up only 10% of the game….
Else why the medium is ALWAYS pushing the graphical boundaries..
Like i said, you bought the Sony system, you support the move to make graphics better…if you truly thought gameply and story were that high on percentage man your high as fuck and i want what you are smoking!
Look im not saying Graphics are the end all be all of everything game related, but your lying if you don’t judge games by their graphics…
Look, i play WoW <—the lore behind that game is fucking amazing…thats why i have a hard time even looking at other games of the same genre…the graphics at the same, were also fucking awesome…but in this day and age, its time for them to up the ante and im sure they will if they release another iteration <—if the game played the same with "improvements" that would be fine and dandy, but if the graphics WERE NOT PUSHED <—guess what? I probably most likely wouldn't buy it? Why? because it would be the same damn game with "improvements" which isn't good enough for my money…does that sound like a familiar franchise….
Thats all im saying..if your making a sequel, graphics are most likely the number one aspect of improvement, THEN gameplay tweaks and improvements…
If your trying to make a splash on a brand new IP, guess what? Graphics got to be at least as good as what is out there or better…
Gamers, ALL FUCKING GAMERS, are graphics whores, we like pretty things man….<—to deny this is to be lying to yourself…
Tell me, did you buy Street Fighter 3 Online? I did so don't give me that crap that i hold graphics are everything to me…but, IIRC, when i brought it up, you pretty much talked shit about it LOOKING like crap nowadays, and you didn't think it was the best playing street fighter <—which you would be wrong again….
November 28th, 2011
Because exaggerated ridiculousness is the height of maturity.
Have fun with your stick figure Mass Effect, I’m sure someone can write a Vectrex version just for you.
http://www.classicgamecreations.com/
November 29th, 2011
“Like i said, you bought the Sony system, you support the move to make graphics better…if you truly thought gameply and story were that high on percentage man your high as fuck and i want what you are smoking!”
I don’t do drugs (or drink), so you can’t have “what I’m smoking” mate. Also, I don’t really “support” PS Move. I think it has potential, and I loved using it in Resident Evil 5, but further than that, I’m not sure.
“Your lying through your teeth if you truly believe you think graphics make up only 10% of the game”
Nope, I just live in a magical land where gameplay and story are the forefront of video games. You know, reality.
“Tell me, did you buy Street Fighter 3 Online? I did so don’t give me that crap that i hold graphics are everything to me…but, IIRC, when i brought it up, you pretty much talked shit about it LOOKING like crap nowadays, and you didn’t think it was the best playing street fighter <—which you would be wrong again…."
Jojo come on bud, where has your memory gone? I was on about it costing $15 over PSN, which is a rip off for a PS1-era game.
Anyway 3rd Strike plays very differently from other SF games, almost exclusively due to the parry system. I agree that it's one of the best, but I'm personally a SFII Turbo guy.
Shoryuken
"Because exaggerated ridiculousness is the height of maturity."
Well, it is of course, and exaggeration. Intentionally misinterpreting what people say, however, is the true height of Mt. Maturity.
I suggest these shoes for the climb.
http://www.backcountry.com/evolv-hera-rock-climbing-shoe-womens?CMP_SKU=EVL0006&MER=0406&CMP_ID=GAN_GPLA&mr:trackingCode=C44B50DB-F061-DF11-9DA0-002219319097&mr:referralID=NA&origin=pla&mr:adType=pla
(Note exactly WHO these shoes are made for
) LMAO
November 29th, 2011
“which is a rip off for a PS1-era game.”
Try PS2 era….and why is it a rip ? because it looks dated?..
November 29th, 2011
3rd strike came out in 97, definitely in the PS1 era. It was on Dreamcast. I remember this because I still have it.
No its a rip off because it’s a 14 year old game going for 15 dollars.
November 29th, 2011
“Intentionally misinterpreting what people say, however, is the true height of Mt. Maturity.”
Congratulations, I’ll let you stay on that summit.
November 29th, 2011
Hehe cap, end of dreamxast, early ps2….still, $15 isnt worth the great gameplay…i thought gameplay trounced everything…
November 29th, 2011
“Congratulations, I’ll let you stay on that summit.”
I’ll be in the cabin playing MW3 mp shouting obscenities in my American accent, thank you very much.
@Jojo
Well I thought I explained that
A. I already have it
B. I’m a SF2 Turbo guy (hence my current disdain for SSF4′s overly defensive nature)
C. $15 is STEEP for a 14 year old game. I bought Resident Evil Code Veronica on PSN for $10, and I thought THAT was a rip-off, and I got it at a discount for being a Plus member.
November 30th, 2011
Why is it a rip off?
Is not the gameplay still the same? and going by your disdain for SSF4s defensive style, BETTER than current gen?
By your logic, the gameplay to SSF4 is inferior to SF3, yet, you agree the gameplay is better, but prefer SF2 turbo, but still not worth $15 but SF4 with its inferior gameplay, and to you, gameplay super important, is worth $60 ? Why?
January 14th, 2012
I’ve had MW3 for over a month now and have only played it a few times. I am at about 25% through the campaign, and while good, it is just not that compelling anymore. Even my daughter and her friends like the older versions better. This was a case of good marketing, not necessarily innovation.