Omg... Just been looking at some videos of this game, and I am so disapointed. IT STILL LOOKS the same as the rest of them... I mean its the same graphics as MW1, World at War, MW2, and BlackOps. Same shitty looking engine. which btw was not even the best looking thing when it came out in 2007 by any means.
They are just milking this thing now a little too hard imo.
You realize this now?
Originally posted by socool8520
Well that's pretty much true of any shooter that has a sequel. Halo, Fear, Crysis, MoH, Gears, Resistance,Battlefield, the list goes on and on. All that ever changes are graphics, slight perk/weapon class modifications, and maybe one or two gameplay modes. Yet millions of gamers buy them, namely me. 😛
No.
Wouldn't know about Fear because I only played the first one. MoH just made it to the current-gen last year. Gears...well yes it could be said it is the same, but they do change the game engine. As for Halo...no. Halo Reach is so different to the rest of the Halos some people don't even consider it Halo.
There is just one big difference in that none of those games get yearly releases(excluding Halo, and Bungie/343 admit that ODST and Anniversary are just meant to compliment Halo 3/Reach respectively)
Did you really buy all of those games and their sequels o_O?
Originally posted by socool8520
Well that's pretty much true of any shooter that has a sequel. Halo, Fear, Crysis, MoH, Gears, Resistance,Battlefield, the list goes on and on. All that ever changes are graphics, slight perk/weapon class modifications, and maybe one or two gameplay modes. Yet millions of gamers buy them, namely me. 😛
i'd hardly consider bf3 dlc-like. it's the start of how real or virtual modern warfare, figuratively speaking, will be experienced interactively.
bf3 will be the basis for whatever else'll come out in the future for the genre that's of high quality. Designers and programmers will use bf3 as an example and inspiration.
with bf3 you're fighting in a vast war.
dlc's are just add on's
Originally posted by Bluesteel
Omg... Just been looking at some videos of this game, and I am so disapointed. IT STILL LOOKS the same as the rest of them... I mean its the same graphics as MW1, World at War, MW2, and BlackOps. Same shitty looking engine. which btw was not even the best looking thing when it came out in 2007 by any means.They are just milking this thing now a little too hard imo.
that's what i think. it still has that mw1/2 look still to it. and it looks like it plays the same as well. the engine isn't shitty lookin' though. cod has good graphics running at 60 fps but they should optimize more. it's been what 5 years with kinda the same look.
what's new in mw3 anyway, new perks, new maps and a couple of new guns? it's mw2.5
but hey, people'll buy it and these companies are businesses first so.
the best thing about cod to me is zombies. i'm addicted to zombies, especially blac ops zombies in the theatre of the damned (level 32's the highest i've been)
Originally posted by FistOfThe North
i'd hardly consider bf3 dlc-like. it's the start of how real or virtual modern warfare, figuratively speaking, will be experienced interactively.bf3 will be the basis for whatever else'll come out in the future for the genre that's of high quality. Designers and programmers will use bf3 as an example and inspiration.
with bf3 you're fighting in a vast war.
dlc's are just add on's
Yeah, that what they said about bad company as well. They can hype it up anyway they want. I played the beta, didn't see anything revolutionary. It looked like modern combat 2 with much better graphics. Maybe on PC it's better, but on console it didn't seem like the best shooter ever. Fun, but not leaps and bounds better than its predecessors.
Originally posted by FistOfThe NorthYou said that about Operation Flashpoint. In fact I remember you calling it the Call of Duty killer.
i'd hardly consider bf3 dlc-like. it's the start of how real or virtual modern warfare, figuratively speaking, will be experienced interactively.bf3 will be the basis for whatever else'll come out in the future for the genre that's of high quality. Designers and programmers will use bf3 as an example and inspiration.
with bf3 you're fighting in a vast war.
dlc's are just add on's
lol.
Originally posted by RE: Blaxican
You said that about Operation Flashpoint. In fact I remember you calling it the Call of Duty killer.lol.
i still prefer it over cod. realism, or as close as you can get to it, is my thing, when i comes to war games. and OF came closer than any game at the time and in my opinion, to date, what real tactical war is like on the ground as a soldier. i liked how when you got hit, you had to patch up by wrapping up the wounded area with a bandage because if you didn't nurse or patch up the wound you'd eventually die in a few minutes of blood loss. it had a realistic ballistics system.
the island's based on a real island off alaska that (in game) is 9 hours on foot and 4 hrs by jeep. (that's mega vast for a game, and innovative.) you can go anywhere on it. not even BF3 has that large a map. it was a gorgeous game, as well. you can see for miles out. you can even shoot from miles away and evetually be tracked down, by foot or vehicle, by the enemies you shot from miles away while atop a mountain.
the game introduced alot and is indeed better than cod. i had fun with it.
the sequel red river was garbage, though.
Operation Flashpoint basically bombed. It's not "the basis for whatever else'll come out in the future for the genre that's of high quality." No designers and programmers are using Operation Flashpoint "as an example and inspiration", etc etc. That's why I'm laughing at the parallels between your posts.
Similarly, BF3 won't become the standard on anything. It'll sell well, Modern Warfare 3 will outsell it 2 to 1 like MW always does, and BF3 will be one more addition to the niche market that is Battlefield, and ten thousand CoD clones will be released per year. Such is the cycle of life.
Originally posted by RE: Blaxican
Operation Flashpoint basically bombed. It's not "the basis for whatever else'll come out in the future for the genre that's of high quality." No designers and programmers are using Operation Flashpoint "as an example and inspiration", etc etc. That's why I'm laughing at the parallels between your posts.Similarly, BF3 won't become the standard on anything. It'll sell well, Modern Warfare 3 will outsell it 2 to 1 like MW always does, and BF3 will be one more addition to the niche market that is Battlefield, and ten thousand CoD clones will be released per year. Such is the cycle of life.
it bombed sales wise perhaps but if you're talking about quality numbers are no determiner of quality. the smurfs movie made more than a half billion dollars at the box office, more than most high caliber films that have ever come out. does that make the smurfs a good movie?, no.
Tekken 6, clearly the more advanced fighting game, isn't as popular as street fighter 4.
metacritic gave op:fp a 76 saying that the game is "taking gamers as close to war as they'll ever want to get.
And i never said flashpoint was going to be those things. i wrote it about bf3. (although flashpoint has offered some good ideas mainly, and imo, the levels' vastness.)
and you thinking that bf3 will not set any standards is your opinion, a flawed one, but your opinion nonetheless.
Originally posted by FistOfThe North
it bombed sales wise perhaps but if you're talking about quality numbers are no determiner of quality. the smurfs movie made more than a half billion dollars at the box office, more than most high caliber films that have ever come out. does that make the smurfs a good movie?, no.Tekken 6, clearly the more advanced fighting game, isn't as popular as street fighter 4.
metacritic gave op:fp a 76 saying that the game is "taking gamers as close to war as they'll ever want to get.
And i never said flashpoint was going to be those things. i wrote it about bf3. (although flashpoint has offered some good ideas mainly, and imo, the levels' vastness.)
and you thinking that bf3 will not set any standards is your opinion, a flawed one, but your opinion nonetheless.
No offense, but my opinion is right and yours is wrong because video game companies are for profit, hence, my point about the sales is important because video games emulate successful games. Why is it that there have been a thousand and one Halo clones and Call of Duty clones, whereas there aren't that many Battlefield clones? Because Halo and CoD make shitloads of money, and that's what's important to game makers. They want to make the most money possible, and it's a proven fact that the gameplay you find in Modern Warfare is just flat out more popular to the masses than the gameplay you find in Battlefield.
anyway...
http://www.killermovies.com/forums/showthread.php?threadid=517964&pagenumber=1
I don't know why you'd call it "the call of duty killer" if you weren't implying that it would... you know.. put CoD out of business or something. In what way did Flashpoint beat out CoD, besides you just liking it more?
Originally posted by RE: Blaxican
No offense, but my opinion is right and yours is wrong because video game companies are for profit, hence, my point about the sales is important because video games emulate successful games. Why is it that there have been a thousand and one Halo clones and Call of Duty clones, whereas there aren't that many Battlefield clones? Because Halo and CoD make shitloads of money, and that's what's important to game makers. They want to make the most money possible, and it's a proven fact that the gameplay you find in Modern Warfare is just flat out more popular to the masses than the gameplay you find in Battlefield.anyway...
http://www.killermovies.com/forums/showthread.php?threadid=517964&pagenumber=1
I don't know why you'd call it "the call of duty killer" if you weren't implying that it would... you know.. put CoD out of business or something. In what way did Flashpoint beat out CoD, besides you just liking it more?
first off, Blaxican, opinions can't be right or wrong.
secondly it's always been like that though. like for example usually the best music is the independent or underground stuff but pop music, which is of a lower quality, sells more because we have more sheep than actual thinkers that exist in our society.
but you have to admit that it doesn't take much though to play cod. and that's probably why it's so popular. cause it's practically mindless.
and just in case you thought so, high sales numbers does not mean quality. mc donalds is the most popular restaurant in the world, doesn't mean it's cause it has good food.
and actually i asked a question, more than anything rather. (call of duty killer?)
and i've already stated the reasons, more than once, on here and on the older thread. look it up.
cod's just a rehashed annual and bf3 will probably be the start of the end of cod's lone reign at the top. unless it becomes a game that's not practically the same as it's predicessor.
even cod heads are complaining about mw3 being "the same 'ol sh*t" again. google it. in fact that complaint has been an issue for years. not that infinity ward or activision cares. which is why the game remains the same, cause they're making money hand over fist because sheep like cod fanboys keep buying it no matter how supbar or repetetive the games gets every year, year in year out. and i also because there's nothing else. until now.
bf3. which will change things.
I hope BF3 does switch things around because it looks like they have put a lot of effort into the game.
I will finish Black OPS's campaign and trade it in. I don't know why I bought it in the first place, though I'll admit I had some fun in MP when I wasn't played in that god forgotten Nuketown.
I'll get both games. Wanna finish Soap's story and want to try Special OPS.
Originally posted by FistOfThe NorthWhoever told you that was wrong.
[B]first off, Blaxican, opinions can't be right or wrong.
secondly it's always been like that though. like for example usually the best music is the independent or underground stuff but pop music, which is of a lower quality, sells more because we have more sheep than actual thinkers that exist in our society.
So then in the end you agree. What difference does anything else make? I fully believe that Battlefield 3 is a more complex and well made games than MW3, as BF:BC2 was to MW2. That's irrelevant though, as quality doesn't dictate what sets the standard; popularity does. History has shown this with games time and time again. Every Halo game ever sold has essentially just been a rehash of the first game; and yet it is one of the highest grossing video games of all time; and has 1 million wannabe Halo clones at its footsteps; same with Modern Warfare. You've already gone of your way to explain why this is. So how do you think this will be any different?
Tomorrow night is the midnight release party of Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 3 at my local Gamestop, and I get to attend as part of my job.
My company is providing two 82" Mitsubishi televisions for Gamestop to display MW3 on since we can "legally" start playing the game at 8 pm until it is authorized to be sold at midnight. The plan is to have mini tournaments and matches for everyone to enjoy until the people eventually start buying the game and going home. The attendance is expected to be 250+.
My general manager and I will be representatives of our store and will be getting paid to hang out and play MW3. It sounds like it's going to be an exciting event.
haermm