Follow Slashdot stories on Twitter

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
×
First Person Shooters (Games) PC Games (Games) PlayStation (Games) XBox (Games) Games

Modern Warfare 3 Released 201

Activision released the latest iteration of their blockbuster first-person shooter franchise yesterday, Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 3, narrowly avoiding a whole year-long gap between this one and the last Call of Duty game. Still, analysts estimated pre-orders at 9 million worldwide, and expect the game to generate another billion dollars in sales, give or take. Reviews for the game range from "amazing" to "slightly less than amazing." Eurogamer sums it up simply: "Modern Warfare 3 is exactly the game you expect. It's conservative in every sense of the word, a paean to military superiority which never ventures far beyond gameplay parameters that were set in stone in 2007. ... With such a well-rehearsed recipe to follow, there's more room here for innovation than there is for improvement. There are plenty who would love to see Call of Duty dragged through the mud for its lack of new ideas, but the game itself is too confidently constructed, too generous with its pleasures, to deserve any lasting vitriol. This is a ferocious and satisfying game that knows exactly what players expect, and delivers on that promise with bullish confidence."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Modern Warfare 3 Released

Comments Filter:
  • by Tukz ( 664339 ) on Wednesday November 09, 2011 @04:42AM (#37996654) Journal

    The game-play is.. well, MW.
    Not much have changed, a few new game modes and so on.

    I won't comment of the actual game-play, but I do have a huge beef with MW3:

    Matchmaking.

    What...the...fuck... is IW thinking?
    After all the crap they got from MW2's matchmaking and lack of dedicated servers, they fuck people over AGAIN with the same P2P matchmaking, but with a twist.
    They gave us dedicated servers. UNRANKED.

    Why can't they do it like BO? That worked perfectly.
    Ranked dedicated servers.

    Why do we have to endure this P2P Matchmaking if we don't want to?
    Already in my second round, there was huge host advantages, everyone else "was 3 bars or less" (again, ignored the community asking for a real ms indicator).

    Fine, I get it. On unranked dedicated servers, we can control everything.
    Server admins can decide which unlocks you get, or let you progress normally (only on that server of course).

    But please, COD is about the progression, why take that away on dedicated servers?

    Sorry if this comes off as bitter, but I kind of am.

    Eventually, when people have progressed through the first few prestiges, it probably won't matter any more, as they won't care about progression and will must likely end up on a handful of dedicated servers where they've gotten to know people and the server settings and rules are to their liking.

  • by Tukz ( 664339 ) on Wednesday November 09, 2011 @04:47AM (#37996680) Journal

    2 very different games, I don't understand why people compare them in the first place.

  • horrid scores... (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday November 09, 2011 @05:29AM (#37996892)

    Metacritic, (the user side, not the pathetically biased and bought critic side) is giving the damn thing a 2...at best. The whole game is built around a so-so multiplayer with a few maps, with the option to pay absurd money for more maps. I don't know about you guys but this game and the map-packs (usually what...2-4 maps and a gun) that will roughly cost half of the original game sounds a big 'fuck you' to your player base and to gamers in general. Activision/Blizzard is starting to act like EA with this mediocre gaming pay-for-the-privilege nonsense.

  • by elrous0 ( 869638 ) * on Wednesday November 09, 2011 @10:23AM (#37998816)

    How does it compare to Madden Warfare 12?

Lots of folks confuse bad management with destiny. -- Frank Hubbard

Working...