Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!


Forgot your password?
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This discussion has been archived.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 AbRASiON ( 589899 ) * on Wednesday November 09, 2011 @04:35AM (#37996620) Journal

    I don't know if Battlefield 3 got itself a post at /. but I thought I might chime in here.
    Both of these games aren't what the older (I'd assume slashdot?) crowd are looking for when it comes to single player, there's vastly better experiences to be had with far better told engrossing stories. (Mass Effect for example is perfect for Star Wars and Star Trek nerds, myself included - I didn't realise just how good this was until re-playing it this year, it's REALLY damned good)

    Now, as for multiplayer - if we even have time (not many of us I'd expect) Modern Warfare is generally targeted more at the console crowd, it focuses on "lone wolf" style gameplay where one guy can dominate and well you're likely to be called all kinds of names playing it, beggining with "F" or "N"
    BF3 however is team and squad focused and a real joy to play even if you don't hit the top of the ladder, infact I'd say satisfying is the word. You might also be called "N" or "F" but generally the crowd is at least a little bit older and the teamplay is very rewarding, it promotes it.

    Both are timesink games. I'm not traditionally one for playing MP games at all, however I caved in on BF3 for the social aspect with friends and I must say, I'm very very impressed. Really quite a good game online. 64 players on a decent PC is an absoloute site to behold, it really is.
    Note: I make this recommendation as a 33 y/o gamer who doesn't have the time he used to, so it's surprising I'm even fitting in time for the game at all - really good stuff.

    • I just got BF3 and have not even looked at MW3 yet, but I am in the same boat as you. Not as old, but I still have a full time job, a long commute, and something of a "family" which means time for gaming is a lot scarcer that it was in the university days.
      My two cents is that these two games, whilst both being modern FPSs released at the same time and "competing" with each other, are apples and oranges. As you have pointed out, MW series is a lone wolf style game where, even if you are on a team, you tend
      • by MrMickS ( 568778 )

        Having gone through CoD 4:MW, CoD:WaW, CoD:MW2, and CoD:BO I'm not going to buy MW3. They are all essentially the same game with different guns. There may be one or two wrinkles that change with each version but that's about it. I don't buy for the single player game as again they are all pretty much the same so its only the multi-player. Unless there are massive changes I'm guessing that MW3 will have the same Halo physics of the previous incarnations with people sprinting and bouncing to dodge bullets. Do

        • by Ihmhi ( 1206036 )

          Battlefield 3, likes it predecessors, gives serious advantages to your team - especially when people play to their roles. Some of my mates who were more hardcore about its predecessor specialized in things like piloting a transport helicopter. These were guys who were into stuff like flight simulators, and they're not even into FPS games a whole bunch. It sounds like something that really wouldn't matter too much, but if you have a guy who can consistently evade ground to air fire and get the men on board h

    • by Durzel ( 137902 )

      You've pretty much hit the nail on the head for me.

      I've found myself doing fairly poorly in BF3 in pure kills vs deaths terms, at least compared to my own estimation of my skill and experience with other FPS games, yet I've still done fairly well in points & team contribution terms. I've also found that I've invariably had just as much fun playing whether my team wins or loses (I'm thinking mainly of Conquest mode here). You can have a lot of fun just with a decent squad.

      I'm not so sure I agree though

      • I've found myself doing fairly poorly in BF3 in pure kills vs deaths terms

        Stop thinking like that! Your K:D is not important. It's a team game, that's why your position on the board is determined by points earned rather than K:D. You can die 100 times, never get a kill and still be top of the table as long as you give out enough health packs and revive enough team-mates.

      • by RMingin ( 985478 )

        "There are also a number of items that many consider very overpowered - though I guess DICE will address this in time."

        I doubt that. The Carl Gustav rocket launcher remained painfully OP in Bad Company 2. They tuned it down a little, sure, but only because the "anti-armor" weapon was the weapon of choice for EVERY target.

      • by Endo13 ( 1000782 )

        I'm not so sure I agree though that BF3 is a game if you have very little time - it seems that there are some significant competency upgrades that you get as you level up, and not having much time to do this will probably hamper you. The ability to carry more ammo, and larger weapon magazines, makes a surprising difference in a firefight. There are also a number of items that many consider very overpowered - though I guess DICE will address this in time.

        And that's exactly why I will never buy another BF or CoD game. I have no interest in playing competitive multiplayer where you have to put up with hours and hours of garbage time just to ungimp yourself. It's one thing if you're simply a better player than I am, but it's entirely different if you're "better" only because you get to have better equipment. No thanks.

        Incidentally, this is also why I detest gear-grind MMOs.

      • by Luckyo ( 1726890 )

        None of the perks you listed will be needed in a few weeks, because everyone who played for longer periods will have squad upgrades. These grant the perk to entire squad. I am not the most active of players, and I already have squad sprint, squad ammo and squad flak jackets unlocked.

        In this regard, just play engineer if you have little time. SCAR-H is the single best slot 1 weapon available to the class, available after a couple of games as engineer and starter RPG is likely to remain the most versatile of

    • by Xest ( 935314 )

      I don't think age has anything to do with it really, they're both just good fun games, especially if you like the military setting.

      Personally some years back I was crying out for modern military games like the then WWII CoD, Medal of Honour, Brothers in Arms etc. clones because WWII had been done to death then and now they're here I can't get enough of them.

      Some have been dissapointing though, frankly I though MW2 was nowhere near as good as MW1, and Black Ops was a complete joke, Medal of Honour was the fa

      • by toolie ( 22684 )

        But this year the stakes are raised, frankly BF3 fucking rocked,

        The only people who think that BF3 doesn't suck never played BF2 and thought BC2 was the most epic of Battlefield games. They took everything that was shitty in BC2 and made it shittier in BF3, then added jets. It is hollow in terms of tactics compared to BF2 and even BF2142. They were trying to appease the COD crowd and try to get some of that money (even though they said the PC was the target, it is obvious that the PC is suffering from their focus on the consoles).

    • by Rogerborg ( 306625 ) on Wednesday November 09, 2011 @06:05AM (#37997074) Homepage

      Star Wars and Star Trek nerds

      What next, you'll lump together Israelis and Palestinians, North and South Koreans, or Nuns and Clowns?

      • I'd class myself a fan of both and I'd say Mass Effect 1 and 2 definitely would appeal to fans of both, without question. Exceptionally good storyline and universe. Infact having finished Mass Effect recently, considering it's universe hasn't been tainted with edits and prequels, I'd go as far as to say, the lore / universe is superior to Star Wars.

        Just fucking great - try it if you haven't.

        • by dskzero ( 960168 )
          I hardly believe the ADD generation of gamers really wants to play a game like ME. It is a great game, but it requires time and skill.
          • by nepka ( 2501324 )
            Oh yes, because you obviously can't enjoy different kind of games. If someone plays MW3, there's just no way he could also play other games.
            • by dskzero ( 960168 )
              Of course you can. But as an RTS fan would not be likely to leave out whatever RTS is on fire nowadays to go and play, say a fantasy RPG, a MW fan is less likely to jump out of CoD to play, say, Heroes of Might and Magic. But I'm sure you're just throwing baits and you completely know that.
              • by nepka ( 2501324 )
                Maybe the problem is in your own closed mindset. I play all kinds of games, they're all great in their own ways. Only genre I don't find interesting is platforms, but I don't bash those who do. So loosen it up a bit and try different things (not just with games), you come out as really bitter and angry guy.
              • by geekoid ( 135745 )

                Why is some a fan of only ONE kind of Genre?
                I play TF2, SCII, Batman: Arkham city, Civ V, Blur.

                Pretty much every genre. I like games I find to be fun. Genre doesn't really enter into it. While I like to pretend I'm a person like no other, I suspect there are many others who also give genre less importance then fun.

                Even bad games can be fun with the right crowd.

      • by elrous0 ( 869638 ) *

        If the ye pirates and ye ninjas can establish a peaceful two-state solution, then anyone can, by gard!

      • by geekoid ( 135745 )

        Nuns and clowns have a lot in common, actually.

        Both wear a 'funny' costume.
        Both have an over blown sense of purpose
        Both are 'clown funny' and not 'haha' funny.
        Both want your soul.

        People who join a camp in the SW/ST are, quite frankly, worthless.

        Not saying people have to like both, but claiming one is 'better'? stupid.

    • I've played both and made a longer comment below condemning both as joy-less derivative attempts to cash in on CoD4.

      But if I had to pick between them (and "neither, give me Dark Souls instead" isn't an option) then I'd go for Battlefield 3, on the basis that its PC version does at least try to push the technological boundaries a bit. As an advance in game-engine technology, if not as a game, it is quite impressive (much more so than Rage/idTech5, though I feel the Crytek 2 engine still just about leads the

      • by Kelbear ( 870538 )

        I'd recommend AGAINST buying BF3 on the PC.

        Buy it on the consoles, or don't buy it for now. There's no squad chat, so team play is right out the window. Squad chat is only on the console versions. You can get voice between friends in a webbrowser. But if somebody else signs on after you've already started, that means someone in the party needs to alt-tab (i.e crash the game) so they can go back to the browser and invite them into the party. If you're not already friends with your squad when playing, then th

        • Oh, the PC version is hideous in some ways - the web-browser interface you need to use to launch even the singleplayer campaign in particular is dreadful. It can't even be accused of being consolified - the PC is very clearly the lead development platform for this game and the console versions are missing quite a bit of what is allegedly good about the PC version (such as 64 player matches, if that's the kind of thing that appeals to you).

          But as somebody who played BF3 without any particular enthusiasm for

        • by geekoid ( 135745 )

          "alt-tab (i.e crash the game) s"

          you complain about no chat, but the just toss out alt-tab crashes it?

          For me the crash is a bigger deal.
          Yes, now in game team chat is unforgivable.
          As is locking all the controls.

    • Since a lot of people are responding to me, any BF3 gamers, please check the below out.

      http://tinyurl.com/42mjw4c [tinyurl.com]
      (sorry slashdot refused to accept the URL based on the lameness filter, regardless it is legit)

      That is a legitimate link ran by DICE / EA - despite the dodgy URL it's their feedback forum, I suggest EVERYONE bump / respond to that post and ensure dice is aware that we NEED squad based chat "as default" which will vastly improve the teamplay of the game, causing people to stick together, it's how

    • by nedwidek ( 98930 )

      Except single player is not what this older player or any of my older friends were looking for. None of us have played it, nor do we intend to. As far as we are concerned EA/Dice should have used that time to do more with the multiplayer. More maps, fewer bugs, squad speak, etc.

      As you have found out, multiplayer is what the Battlefield series is all about. The team that does not work together has always lost in every match I've ever played and I've played quite a few. Started with BF1942 and the Desert Comb

    • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

      by elrous0 ( 869638 ) *

      How does it compare to Madden Warfare 12?

    • Both of these games aren't what the older (I'd assume slashdot?) crowd are looking for when it comes to single player, there's vastly better experiences to be had with far better told engrossing stories.

      I guess I'm old, because in two days I'll be playing Skyrim.

      • by geekoid ( 135745 )

        Seriously? A Bethesda game on the day of release?
        There is a strong chance I'll get Skyrim, but not until at least one major patch, and some confidence that they wont, once again, leave the patching to the community.

        Which will give me plenty of time to finish Batman:AC.

        • by dave562 ( 969951 )

          I refuse play any more Bethesda games. They all have the same problems. They are full of glitches and need patches from day one. Despite being open worlds, heaven forbid that you should venture too far away from what the developers think the right path should be. Fallout 3 and Fallout: New Vegas are the only games that actually locked up my PS3. How a game can lock up a console is beyond me, but they managed to do it.

    • by geekoid ( 135745 )

      Thanks for speaking for all of us. I mean, gosh where would us older people be without you to tell us what to like? /. is diverse, stop pigeon holing people.

      Note: I speak as someone much older the 33 who plays new games.
      So Fucking sick of being told what I am supposed to like at 'my age'.

    • by Ihmhi ( 1206036 )

      it focuses on "lone wolf" style gameplay where one guy can dominate and well you're likely to be called all kinds of names playing it, beggining with "F" or "N"

      Yes, I agree! I hate it when people call me Friendly or Newbie! =(

  • 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:


    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.

    • IW were thinking "Ok, so MW2 made us a boatload of cash. Let's do the same thing again with some cosmetic changes, and limit the bad press from the vocal minority by including a dedicated server option. I predict a further boatload of cash! Hookers and blow all round!"
    • I thought the unranked dedicated servers was a cruel joke, honestly. Most people will play ranked until they unlock all they want to unlock, so dedicated servers will be barren except for like minded individuals already feeling like they're "complete".

    • To each their own. In MW2 I never had to worry if I was joining a server with abusive admins, or that had retarded rules (crouch only server! knives only this round! shotguns only this round!). I never had to worry if I was joining a server with stacked teams built to run up their rankings, and I never had to worry if the game was lying about how many players were actually on their server. In MW2 I just click play and a minute or two later I'm playing. Maybe my computer is at the center of the internet beca
    • by Ihmhi ( 1206036 )

      The pirate version is always the better version. How long was it before they had dedicated servers for MW2? A few months, maybe a few weeks. It'll take about that long for MW3.

  • by Hadlock ( 143607 ) on Wednesday November 09, 2011 @04:42AM (#37996656) Homepage Journal

    How did you manage to go through the entire post - commentary included - and not mention it's direct competitor? We discuss apple vs microsoft on a daily basis, but when it comes to games, we won't compare them to their peers? Despite being released 2 weeks apart?

    • 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.

      • by Spad ( 470073 ) <slashdot.spad@co@uk> on Wednesday November 09, 2011 @05:47AM (#37996978) Homepage

        Well that's mostly EA's fault for doing everything they possibly can to compare BF3 to CoD and seemingly forcing DICE to shoehorn a poor CoD copy into the game as its single player.

        That said, I agree with you.

      • by BondGamer ( 724662 ) on Wednesday November 09, 2011 @06:01AM (#37997056) Journal

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

        Yeah, it would be like comparing Apples and Microsofts.

      • by Shoten ( 260439 )

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

        EA seems to act like the BF and COD franchises compete in a zero-sum world, like it is for many durable goods; if you like Company X's dishwasher a little better than Company Y's dishwasher, you'll only buy Company X's dishwasher because it makes no sense to have more than one such object in your kitchen. But that's not really how it goes with this market. If I like MW3 slightly better than BF3, it doesn't mean that I don't want to play (and own) them both...in fact, I do. If you ask me, it almost seems

      • Because they are both contemporary-era FPS shooters?
        You're allowed to compare things that fall into similar categories you know.. that doesn't mean they are the same or equal..

    • by syousef ( 465911 )

      How did you manage to go through the entire post - commentary included - and not mention it's direct competitor? We discuss apple vs microsoft on a daily basis, but when it comes to games, we won't compare them to their peers? Despite being released 2 weeks apart?

      The story was pure slashvertising. Why would they mention the competition?

      • I was not aware that a game review written by an independent gaming media website is considered pure slashvertising.

        • I should note that after reading the whole review, it is particularly and unusually glowing, plus they do mention BF3 albeit negatively. I still think it's hardly pure slashvertisements.

          • by geekoid ( 135745 )

            um, Reviews ARE advertising.

            Independent my ass. You can even BEGIN to be Independent until you buy the game yourself, after release. Anything else require you to be dependent on the very people you review.

            Or there is industry and market pressure to be reviewed by a specific group, even if they give you all 1's in your previous games. That won't happen until every calms down about new games and waits a week before buying; which would make sense anyways.

  • I've found this guy to be funny and entertaining during his gameplays. Disclaimer: it's not me, and I don't subscribe to him.
    First video for MW3 campaign gameplay: http://www.youtube.com/user/SSoHPKC#p/u/6/GtB_6a3vSC0 [youtube.com]
    His channel in case he changes stuff around: http://www.youtube.com/user/SSoHPKC [youtube.com]
    It's worth a watch if you haven't got the game yet and want to see someone playing it for a bit.

  • 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 Spad ( 470073 )

      Yes, well, given that 90% of the "User" scores on Metacritic are by accounts whose only previous rating has been a 10 for Battlefield 3, I wouldn't read too much into them...

    • I've got no horse in this race but not also calling the user side pathetically biased is a disservice to your argument.

    • 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.

      Not here in Australia! On Steam, MW2 and Black Ops were (and still are) priced at 89.99 USD, with all DLC priced at 14.99 USD. We only pay one sixth of the price of the game for MW DLC! Activision is just screwing over everyone but us.

  • Please just die (Score:5, Interesting)

    by RogueyWon ( 735973 ) * on Wednesday November 09, 2011 @05:42AM (#37996950) Journal

    Call of Duty 4: Modern Warfare was a really good game. It was unexpected, it was well-executed, it combined clean, precise shooter mechanics with a campaign plot that felt fresh and different. We'd seen some of the concepts before in the various Tom Clancy branded games, but they'd always been implemented with a kind of clinical detachment that robbed them of any real impact. The CoD4 campaign, by contrast, was a series of highly effective punches to the gut.

    But it remains, in my opinion at least, the only game in the entire Call of Duty series to have ever risen above "mediocre". This is a series that has, CoD4 aside, been about dumbing down and immitation. The original Call of Duty was Medal of Honor (the old one, not the recent reboot) with dumber level design. Modern Warfare 2 was CoD4 without the freshness and the just-about-plausible plot. You get the picture.

    The problem is that because CoD4 and its successors have been so successful, they've set a direction for the wider industry that has just become deeply boring. Over the last few years, I've played through MW2, Black Ops, Homefront, the Medal of Honor reboot, Battlefield 3 and god-knows-how-many-other soul-less mechanical attempts to reconstruct the CoD4 magic. I've not particularly played them because I've had a burning desire to - but because they are the games that all of my colleagues have played and if you want to be part of the "watercooler" conversation, then you've got to play them. My heart sinks as the next 6-hour-boring-corridor-and-cutscenes-campaign and easily-exploited-and-filled-with-swearing-14-year-olds-multiplayer shooter nears release. And the problem is that the undoubted massive success of Modern Warfare 3 is just going to perpetuate the trend.

    I saw the queue outside the branch of Game in London's Victoria station as I headed to work yesterday and I just wanted to grab people by the scruff of the neck and shout "Why are you standing in line for this crap? Don't you know how much better stuff there is out there? Go play Dark Souls - it has a 70+ hour finely crafted campaign with stunning visual designs and some of the cleverest, most innovative and carefully thought through gameplay we've seen in years. And where were you for the Resistance 3 launch? That's even an fps - the only genre you seem to be able to cope with! But it's different, and innovative and it takes chances. Just... please... buy anything but this re-heated trash."

    I didn't, of course. Maybe I'm just getting grumpy in my old age. Maybe 6 hour corridor campaigns really are the shape of things to come. Maybe what everybody really wants deep down is to spend hours in multiplayer getting insta-killed by airstrikes called in by 14 year olds swearing in German. But not me. I'm sick of that. I'm sick of the being asked which two of the same collection of over-exposed "real world" guns I want to carry. My heart flutters whenever something like Ratchet & Clank comes along, which lets me fire rockets from a chaingun which blasts out Ode to Joy at full volume for as long as I hold down the trigger. But such moments are becoming few and far between.

    Please - Call of Duty and all of your imitators - just go away and die.

    • by Spad ( 470073 )

      I've been thinking about it and the last "true" FPS I played through and really enjoyed probably was CoD4.

      Sure there have been other "FPS" games like Portal 2, Deus Ex, Mirror's Edge, Left 4 Dead, TF2, but all of those have something that take them a step away from just being an FPS and mean that even if they are relatively short it doesn't matter so much because they're so cleverly crafted. None of the FPS released in recent years have really interested me, though the prevalence of shitty 3rd Person Action

    • I'll bite. BF3 is not a competitor to MW4. It's a completely different game. MW4 seems like Quake the way it's played online. BF3 seems like... Battlefield. No other game has that feeling.

      There's some magical feeling in BF3 like you're actually in a _war_, when you bring your entire team (32 or 64 players) rushing towards the enemy with tanks, helicopters, jeeps, snipers, infantry etc. MW4 (which I haven't played yet, I did play all the previous releases though) seems more like a console oriented death matc

      • The differences are largely academic. Both of these games have singleplayer campaigns and both of them singularly fail in that respect - the campaigns are both assembled from the same dull, bland collection of cliches. On that basis, I don't see how any honest review site could rate either game above 6/10, given that inevitably a lot of purchases are going to be for offline play only (particularly on the consoles, where a fairly large portion of 360s and PS3s never so much as scent an internet connection).


        • by nepka ( 2501324 )
          I honestly don't think many people are buying MW3 or BF3 for purely single player experience. Those are games you get for multiplayer experience, and on top of that you get a nice single player campaign. Those campaigns are really well done and feel cinematic, even if they are so linear.
        • by anethema ( 99553 )
          I will agree with the grandparent though.

          Having played both, I'm not sure you really got into battlefield to even put them in the same category. I wouldn't even say they are the same TYPE of online game.

          I agree on the single player but who cares. You play that once for 6 hours and you're done. The multiplayer is what both games are really about.

          Battlefield 3 is a game of WAR. You and 31 others in squads accomplishing objectives. There are no cheap airstrikes. You need to work with your squads to get goals.
    • I've not particularly played them because I've had a burning desire to - but because they are the games that all of my colleagues have played and if you want to be part of the "watercooler" conversation, then you've got to play them

      Dude, I learned an important personal secret to gaming a few years ago and its GREATLY improved my enjoyment.

      Play what you want to play.

      If you don't want to play what other people are playing, DON'T. Watch some youtube videos of the cutscenes or read the wikis so you can be in on the conversation. But why oh why would you spend your own personal time playing games that you don't enjoy?

      I learned this because I found that I was forcing myself to play games and not really enjoying them. Partially because I

      • "Playing" each game requires about 6-8 hours, in general. Enough to finish the campaign, plus a couple of hours of multiplayer. Homefront's campaign took me about 3 hours 45 minutes, according to Steam's play-time counter, which is a particular low-point (though in fairness, it was so dull that it felt longer). I listed 5 games. Add in Modern Warfare 3 to make it 6. Add in a couple more that I've probably forgotten and take it up to 8. That gives 8 games, all released in the 24 months since Modern Warfare 2

        • by Raenex ( 947668 )

          If you act like a sheep then don't complain that everybody else is acting like a sheep too.

        • by nepka ( 2501324 )
          You math doesn't work because people don't play multiplayer for just a few hours. I don't play much and yet Steam shows me playing MW2 for something like 200 hours. Team Fortress 2, 500 hours. That's hell of a lot of game play you get for the price of a game. Eventually, I think, all games will move to be multiplayer or coop games because they just are much more fun.
  • I'm wondering why almost no one mentions two aspects of these games when comparing them:

    1. Sound: Guns in BF sound like actual guns, in MW they sound like BB guns, no punch at all (and I don't need to tell you about the recoil...). Quite a disappointment that they never improve on that...
    2. AI shooting: IIRC, in BF the bad guys lay down fire on you in a realistic way, whereas in MW they shoot in repeated bursts in a way too arcadey fashion (reminds me of shooters like Time Crisis to be honest) and I don't thin
    • in MW they shoot in repeated bursts in a way too arcadey fashion

      Yeah, stupid game being all gamey! Don't they know this is a real war?

  • Just get BF3 instead... been a while coming but my it's good and essentially designed for the online multi-player experience.
  • Dedicated servers that might as well not exist because you can't gain any exp/unlocks when playing on them (you have to use P2P matchmaking)?

    Locked down fov 65? In an FPS? On PC? Is this a joke?

  • Just in case people wondered about the infinity ward suit that is still ongoing I looked around and found the case number is SC107757. You can look at what is going on via the LA Superior court (summary link) [lasuperiorcourt.org] I'm curious how that will end up. At least most of the original people that worked on 1 and 2 are in respawn entertainment [wikipedia.org] at this point.

%DCL-MEM-BAD, bad memory VMS-F-PDGERS, pudding between the ears