Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Modern Warfare 3 Released

Soulskill posted more than 2 years ago | from the now-with-gunnier-guns dept.

First Person Shooters (Games) 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."

cancel ×

201 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

The inevitable comparison, so let's get it over wi (4, Interesting)

AbRASiON (589899) | more than 2 years ago | (#37996620)

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.

Re:The inevitable comparison, so let's get it over (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37996716)

Have you tried ArmA II?

Re:The inevitable comparison, so let's get it over (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37997244)

This.
BF3, CoD3 and others are casual games. they're aimed at people who want to pick up a game pad, press buttons for an hour, then put the pad down and never stop to ask if there could be more to the game than there is. These people don't want to learn to play, they don't want a challenge, they're perfectly happy with the lack of features and content, in a few words they just want mindless fun. Nothing wrong with that, but these are not games, they are toys. A game is complex, it requires quite a bit of learning, it's challenging, it has ambition...

In ArmA II you don't run around making headshots like Super Mario jumping koopas. You devise a strategy, you play tactically. Having the best reflexes when it comes to pressing buttons won't help you much, you need to outsmart your opponent. And the game has a ton more content and is much more realistic than any CoD or BF3. It's not perfect, it could be improved, it has some glitches, but it's also old and at least it tried when others didn't. ArmA III, which is coming out early next year, will improve on ArmA II.
The game is also easily moddable and it's possible for users to create their own maps and missions.

And to ArmA II's credit, the company behind it takes good care of it. They fix issues quickly and they're not afraid to provide new content in expansions. Operation Arrowhead improved a lot of game mechanics and the latest one introduced destructible environment (including buildings). That's much more than just adding new guns/vehicles and reskins.

Re:The inevitable comparison, so let's get it over (2)

NoZart (961808) | more than 2 years ago | (#37997652)

Decrying CoD and BF as "casual" just seems wrong. Both of those games can be played by noobs and pros alike (not on the same server, though), that doesn't make it casual, it just makes it well balanced. You still need a good amount of dedication if you want to climb the ladders. Also, not every game is casual because it uses a different skillset than your preference ;-)

" Nothing wrong with that, but these are not games, they are toys."

The definition of a "game" is not how deep the needed strategy goes nor how hard it is. A game is a set of rules in which you try to achieve a set goal. A toy is an object to play with, without rules or goals.

Re:The inevitable comparison, so let's get it over (1)

dskzero (960168) | more than 2 years ago | (#37998134)

Well, it doesn't takes a great gamer or a great mind to be a "pro" in CoD or BF. It's a pure mindless action game, lazily designed and not really all that interesting or different.

Re:The inevitable comparison, so let's get it over (2)

nepka (2501324) | more than 2 years ago | (#37998524)

So "great gamer" or "great mind" is one of those things you need to have now to enjoy games? While I can agree that deathmatch is quite mindless action, the other game modes are less so. Good team work can gain incredible results in MW3 (and the previous MW's), if you play the objective based game modes like Sabotage or Search&Destroy. They are far from mindless action. The perks, class designing and killstreak choices also add another strategist layout to MW3, is delivered from RPG games and is something I absolutely love, as you can refine your classes as close to your wanted playing style as you want to.

I bet you would also say that Team Fortress 2 is "purely mindless action game" based on it's graphics and sometimes fast game play. Yet, it's one of those games where good team work is absolutely essential and the different classes (and players weapon choices along those classes) affect the game a lot. Especially spies add another highly strategist aspect to game and even that you can play in highly different ways, depending on choice of your loadout.

But yes, do take the elitist "I only play real simulation games, who do otherwise suck", while we others enjoy good games regardless if they simulate real world 1:1. And I can tell you that ArmA doesn't either, so it's a bit silly thing to take into comparison.

Re:The inevitable comparison, so let's get it over (1)

dskzero (960168) | more than 2 years ago | (#37998652)

So "great gamer" or "great mind" is one of those things you need to have now to enjoy games?

I've read my previous post at least 15 times, and still can't find anything that would remotely indicate that I'm even suggesting this. The rest of your post is the same circle-jerkoff I'm forced to read whenever CoD and BF fans read that I don't like those games, so I am valiantly going to ignore it.

Re:The inevitable comparison, so let's get it over (1)

mwvdlee (775178) | more than 2 years ago | (#37998248)

These people don't want to learn to play, they don't want a challenge, they're perfectly happy with the lack of features and content, in a few words they just want mindless fun.

I think you thoroughly misunderstand the casual gamer.
Imagine having a job after graduation, having a house to look after, marrying somebody, having a few kids.
Most casual gamers used to be hardcore gamers before they grew up.

Re:The inevitable comparison, so let's get it over (1)

wisnoskij (1206448) | more than 2 years ago | (#37997742)

Huge Steam sale on all things ArmA on now, btw.

Re:The inevitable comparison, so let's get it over (2)

HopefulIntern (1759406) | more than 2 years ago | (#37996738)

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 to work alone and there is always one clear winner per match. It also tends to be quite liberal when it comes to things like real-world gravity and physics. Firearms, explosives, and their effect on the world varies greatly to the real world. As such, I would describe the experience of playing it as "action movie, Bruce in Die Hard" style. BF3 (or indeed, the BF series) moves away from this, and more toward a military simulator (I know, it isn't a sim in the strictest sense, there are games out there much more sim-oriented). As you say, it encourages teamwork (though you *can* do allright alone, depending on your skill/experience and situation). The physics are also much more real-world, such as gravity (for example, projectiles drop over a distance, so long sniper kills will need to be adjusted for this). I think this is what attracts the more mature gamer (though as you point out, often it does not. I have been called every name under the rainbow; at this point it's water off a duck's back).
At the end of the day it comes down to what you want from a game. I will probably play both to some extent, since depending on my mood I will be interested in both (and I really want to see the conclusion to the MW storyline).

Re:The inevitable comparison, so let's get it over (1)

MrMickS (568778) | more than 2 years ago | (#37998320)

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. Don't get me wrong, in its place its fun, but its not worth an CoD Tax. Activision have got themselves a franchise in the mold of Madden and are going to milk it all they can whilst doing as little actual development as possible.

I bought BF3 because I'd not played Battlefield before. After playing the multi-player I won't be going back to CoD. The experience just seems that bit more.

Re:The inevitable comparison, so let's get it over (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37996840)

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.

Back in the old days when i was just a youg chap....

I'm 38 and you're making me feel old all of a sudden, off to the gamers nursing home with you.

Re:The inevitable comparison, so let's get it over (2)

Durzel (137902) | more than 2 years ago | (#37996856)

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 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.

Re:The inevitable comparison, so let's get it over (1)

imakemusic (1164993) | more than 2 years ago | (#37997092)

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.

Re:The inevitable comparison, so let's get it over (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37997134)

Try reading the entire post next time and not just the first two sentences before replying.

Re:The inevitable comparison, so let's get it over (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37997394)

If you are concerned about Kill to Death ratios, play MW3. BF3 is about team based objective matches, sure, they added team death match for the CoD fans, but the fact remains, it's not about getting the most kills.

In fact, during the ps3 closed beta, most "match winners" didn't have the most kills, they got the most XP for doing support roles like supplying teammates, healing them, spotting the enemy, suppressing the enemy, and such. I leveled up incredibly fast with this, and as a suggestion to beginners or those new to BF entirely, start with rush mode, smaller more contained maps, more akin to CoD and the vehicles aren't there, allowing for close combat fast matches, and tons of XP. Once you start unlocking scopes and such for your weapons, then move over to the full on conquest mode.

I'm quite angry that MW3, which is, like it or not, a few DLC map packs for MW2 sold as a stand alone game, is getting a free ride with great scores, while BF3, with a brand spanking new amazing engine, new modes, new tactics, is getting hammered because the "story seems familiar".

The first time I got a "suppressing the enemy" bonus in BF3 I knew there was no going back to CoD.

Re:The inevitable comparison, so let's get it over (1)

RMingin (985478) | more than 2 years ago | (#37998218)

"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.

Re:The inevitable comparison, so let's get it over (1)

Xest (935314) | more than 2 years ago | (#37996888)

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 far better game, albeit much too short, and Bad Company 2 showed Black Ops up something rotten too.

But this year the stakes are raised, frankly BF3 fucking rocked, I was happy because it was something to make up for the CoD decline, personally I think CoD peaked at CoD4 (MW), was still pretty good with CoD5 (WaW) even though it was WWII yet again, but then steadily went downhill from there. Even multiplayer got silly, nukes in MW2 multiplayer were dumb and Black Ops multiplayer felt half finished, even the zombie mode in Black Ops was shit compared to the one in WaW.

I've only played one level of MW3 so far but not much to go on however it feels to me like the franchise is back, I thought the Battlefield series (including Bad Company) was taking the reigns from CoD with it's repeated decline, and BF3 confirmed this for me, until MW3 arrived last night. So far it's been absolutely brilliant, it feels as good as MW did so far, and is as good as Battlefield single player, whether it'll remain that way we'll see.

The multiplayer is different as you say, BF is more tactical and squad based, MW3 is more solo ninja rambo style. BF3's coop mode was it's weakest part, and I suspect MW3's spec ops mode will beat that, but I think all in all, the BF3/MW3 single player modes will be equally as good, MW3 will win out on coop, but I think BF3 has the edge on multiplayer if not only because of it's massive maps, and not just the variation that vehicles brings, but the way different maps are populated with different vehicles, from the french subway station maps with their complete lack of vehicles giving the close quarter combat fast action infantry only CoD style combat to the open warfare of operation firestorm, kharg island and so forth with their cobras, a10s, f18s, M1s, aircraft carriers and much more.

Or to really sum it up, they're both good games, EA's return to competitiveness in the military FPS arena seems to have really pushed Activision to stop being sloppy this year and stop releasing ever worse crap. They've turned it around and I'm glad.

Re:The inevitable comparison, so let's get it over (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37996942)

Honestly I can't believe how badly they messed up the match making system in MW3.

The match making service is constantly picking hosts with huge network issues resulting in everybody teleporting around the map or the game migrating to another host (who may or may not lag as well). It also seems to love grouping players with vastly different ping together with all the fun that entails.

Finally (this may differ for your region) but in Australia there are really only three playable game modes, TDM, TDM-Tags and (sometimes) Demolition. There are maybe 15 other game modes available but they are simply not being played.

If you're trying to make a decision between BF3 and MW3 I would strongly suggest avoiding MW3 for multiplayer at this time unfortunately.

Re:The inevitable comparison, so let's get it over (1)

nepka (2501324) | more than 2 years ago | (#37998620)

MW3 has dedicated servers now too, but you have to enable the server browser in options.

Re:The inevitable comparison, so let's get it over (5, Funny)

Rogerborg (306625) | more than 2 years ago | (#37997074)

Star Wars and Star Trek nerds

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

Israeli/palestinian comparison (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37997692)

THat one is not as off base as you might think, as genetic research showed those two populations are very related. Sorta cousins.

Re:The inevitable comparison, so let's get it over (1)

queBurro (1499731) | more than 2 years ago | (#37997930)

Vi and Emacs users?

Re:The inevitable comparison, so let's get it over (1)

AbRASiON (589899) | more than 2 years ago | (#37998198)

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.

Re:The inevitable comparison, so let's get it over (1)

dskzero (960168) | more than 2 years ago | (#37998296)

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.

Re:The inevitable comparison, so let's get it over (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37998630)

I already have several videos of Nuns and Clowns "lumped together". The others might be more challenging.

Re:The inevitable comparison, so let's get it over (1)

RogueyWon (735973) | more than 2 years ago | (#37997094)

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 pack).

Re:The inevitable comparison, so let's get it over (1)

AbRASiON (589899) | more than 2 years ago | (#37997196)

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 it should've been as default.

Re:The inevitable comparison, so let's get it over (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37997366)

Go eat a dick. Nobody cares you whiny as bitch. MW3 is and always has been a better game than ANY BF game.

Re:The inevitable comparison, so let's get it over (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37997592)

...and this would be a typical brainless MW player...

Re:The inevitable comparison, so let's get it over (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37997630)

At least this brainless MW player can recognize a good game.

Re:The inevitable comparison, so let's get it over (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37997950)

Well, there in lies the paradox. The CoD games are pretty decent games, and I would have fun playing them if I didn't have to play with brain damaged neanderthals such as yourself.

Re:The inevitable comparison, so let's get it over (1)

AbRASiON (589899) | more than 2 years ago | (#37998224)

Yep, this post is exactly, precisely why I don't play Modern Warfare - absoloutely on the money why. If you want to play games with these people, feel free to.

On that note, I had my best BF3 session this evening yet - all 4 guys in the squad completely supported each other, not 2, not 3 - the full damn squad for a change and it worked out exceptionally well, we dominated, supported each other, had significantly more fun. Great stuff.

Re:The inevitable comparison, so let's get it over (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37998464)

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.

You know you are getting old when you start to read sentences like this one and it makes sense.

Re:The inevitable comparison, so let's get it over (1)

nedwidek (98930) | more than 2 years ago | (#37998526)

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 Combat mod, BF2, BF2142, and now BF3.

No pre-orders from me anymore (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37996636)

For some time I bought the games on at last on launch, but due to declining quality of games I have stopped that. It is quite annoying to fight with simple issues such as installation and activation with a game that has been in development for years. It seems that the marketing on launch date is more important than the software quality and the games are playable through only after first few patches.

Re:No pre-orders from me anymore (1)

feepness (543479) | more than 2 years ago | (#37996706)

You know I had the same epiphany. In 1997.

IW completely ignoring the community (3, Insightful)

Tukz (664339) | more than 2 years ago | (#37996654)

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.

Re:IW completely ignoring the community (1)

L4t3r4lu5 (1216702) | more than 2 years ago | (#37997026)

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!"

Re:IW completely ignoring the community (1)

Sponge Bath (413667) | more than 2 years ago | (#37998532)

I predict a further boatload of cash! Hookers and blow all round!"

Modern Warfare 4: The Streets of LA, accepting preorders now.

Re:IW completely ignoring the community (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37997080)

"COD is about the progression" CoD is about repeating itself....over and over and over again.

Re:IW completely ignoring the community (1)

flimflammer (956759) | more than 2 years ago | (#37997186)

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".

Re:IW completely ignoring the community (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37997944)

This IW is not the same IW....

How did you manged to not compare it to BF3? (2)

Hadlock (143607) | more than 2 years ago | (#37996656)

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?

Re:How did you manged to not compare it to BF3? (3, Insightful)

Tukz (664339) | more than 2 years ago | (#37996680)

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

Re:How did you manged to not compare it to BF3? (3, Interesting)

Spad (470073) | more than 2 years ago | (#37996978)

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.

Re:How did you manged to not compare it to BF3? (4, Interesting)

BondGamer (724662) | more than 2 years ago | (#37997056)

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.

Re:How did you manged to not compare it to BF3? (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37997558)

Not on this planet. Apple and Microsoft actually do make things to fill the same role. Want to browse a webpage? A Mac or Windows machine will do it. Listen to music? They both have you covered. Wanna get sued? Make a web browser and call it Internet Safari.

Battlefield is a team oriented, combined arms game where squad cooperation wins matches on maps where if you are good, 800m sniper shots are possible.

Call of Duty is a run and gun game. Break out your anti-armor weapons to take out those opposing team's ............. infantry? On maps where 800m shots could cross the map twice.

Both types of game have their places. But comparing the two of them is just fucking dumb. There are uniforms and guns. Thats about the end of the useful similarities.

Re:How did you manged to not compare it to BF3? (1)

Shoten (260439) | more than 2 years ago | (#37998692)

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 like EA has some kind of inferiority complex over the whole thing, and is overcompensating...

Re:How did you manged to not compare it to BF3? (2)

syousef (465911) | more than 2 years ago | (#37996752)

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?

Re:How did you manged to not compare it to BF3? (1)

flimflammer (956759) | more than 2 years ago | (#37997262)

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

Re:How did you manged to not compare it to BF3? (1)

flimflammer (956759) | more than 2 years ago | (#37997338)

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.

Re:How did you manged to not compare it to BF3? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37996824)

How did you manage to go through the entire post - commentary included - and not mention it's direct competitor?

Money.

Re:How did you manged to not compare it to BF3? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37997160)

If you read the article you will see that they do in fact mention Battlefield 3.

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. Where COD wins out is in its coherence.

Away from online, Battlefield 3 felt uncertain, its half-baked campaign and co-op modes dictated by the sudden marketing-led rebranding as the multimillion-dollar David to Activision's billion-dollar Goliath. Modern Warfare 3, on the other hand, feels like a complete package from the start; the three gameplay areas - solo, co-op and multiplayer - all feeling like parts of a cohesive whole, driven by a clear and honed declaration of intent.

Gameplay viewing for mw3 (1)

hajus (990255) | more than 2 years ago | (#37996678)

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.

This is a.. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37996714)

Modern Warfare 1 map pack that costs 60$.

talking about bias (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37996728)

when did advertisement got into the newsfeed?

Re:talking about bias (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37997508)

You must be new here.

Stuff that matters... (0)

deimios666 (1040904) | more than 2 years ago | (#37996748)

How is this news for nerds? It's another console shooter (with a bigger buget than most). Pure slashvertisement.

Re:Stuff that matters... (0)

blahplusplus (757119) | more than 2 years ago | (#37996780)

"How is this news for nerds?"

Many nerds like shitty mainstream videogames.

Re:Stuff that matters... (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37997340)

The summary reads like a lovers tale.[

Re:Stuff that matters... (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37996866)

I like how it's even a day or two late, just to make it feel more like a real slashdot article.

Only a matter of Time ... (1)

Henour (1513727) | more than 2 years ago | (#37996814)

... until they will start selling overpriced Mappacks again.

Re:Only a matter of Time ... (1)

Xest (935314) | more than 2 years ago | (#37997834)

No it's even better this time, you can already buy a pass for something like £40 which will give you access to all and any map packs they release in the future!

Yes, that's right, they haven't even released the map packs yet and they're already overpriced. Genius no?

horrid scores... (3, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#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.

Re:horrid scores... (1)

Spad (470073) | more than 2 years ago | (#37996984)

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...

Re:horrid scores... (1)

Kahless1121 (2503906) | more than 2 years ago | (#37997022)

I would, as its more like 10% not 90. Lot of people seemed to have only made accounts to rate MW3 but even still the 1:1 MW3:BF3 ratings are few and far between.

Re:horrid scores... (1)

hansamurai (907719) | more than 2 years ago | (#37998422)

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

The office nickname... (0)

fostware (551290) | more than 2 years ago | (#37996936)

...is "Call of Doody" mainly due to the urge to shower that dirty feeling off, afterwards.

Especially since Activision charges the "Australia Tax" (AUD=(USD*1.5)+10%GST).

Please just die (5, Interesting)

RogueyWon (735973) | more than 2 years ago | (#37996950)

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.

Re:Please just die (1)

Spad (470073) | more than 2 years ago | (#37997024)

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 games (because consoles struggle to do decent FPS controls) has reduced their number somewhat.

I bought BF3 but I have no interest in the "CoD-Lite" single player campaign; I might run through it if I'm bored at some point, but I got it for the multiplayer and so far that's been excellent. Honestly, I would have preferred it if they'd shipped it without a single player component rather than half-ass something just to try and compete with MW3 even though there's a negligible audience crossover.

Re:Please just die (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37997640)

You do realize they left the killing of macarov in pt 2? They needed to bring out this edition as they conveniently left us all haging.

I agree they should let it die now, no mw5, please.

Re:Please just die (1)

Fackamato (913248) | more than 2 years ago | (#37997910)

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 match clone.

Re:Please just die (1)

RogueyWon (735973) | more than 2 years ago | (#37998056)

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).

Yes, the multiplayer emphasis is slightly different. And yes, I will grant you that BF3 is perhaps ever so slightly less loathesome than Modern Warfare. But the fact remains that both of them conform to the same basic gameplay tricks and have similarly fundamental flaws.

Arguing about Modern Warfare vs Battlefield is, so far as I'm concerned, an epic waste of time. What we need isn't the definitive game in this genre; it's a break from the constant grind of boring modern-military shooters starring Shouty Soldierman with the same 2-or-3-weapon limits, corridor-based campaigns and designed-by-the-marketing-department feature sets.

Still, at least BF3 has a pretty engine. Maybe somebody can make a decent game with it one day.

Re:Please just die (1)

nepka (2501324) | more than 2 years ago | (#37998698)

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.

Re:Please just die (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37998348)

There's some magical feeling in BF3 like you're actually in a _war_

No.

Stop glorifying war. There is nothing wrong with enjoying some mindless (Or well thought out.) fragging every now and then but please avoid saying that it actually is anything like real war, some idiots might actually believe you and think that it's OK to go to war against another nation.

Re:Please just die (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37998508)

Oh please. Never ever compare that piece of crap CoD to one of the best FPSes of all time - Quake...

Re:Please just die (1)

microTodd (240390) | more than 2 years ago | (#37998030)

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 had bought them and felt compelled to finish them. But once I figured out, if I don't finish Gears of War but stay forever at 60%, who the hell cares? Just play what and when you want to play. Its about personal enjoyment, not a job or task. I just couldn't finish GoW so I watched the ending cutscenes on youtube. Life is just fine for me.

You gave an awfully long list of games that you "had" to play. Either you've got WAAAY too much free time and need to self-examine your reactions to peer pressure. Or, as I suspect, you actually enjoy these games more than you're willing to admit. Which is perfectly cool.

Re:Please just die (1)

RogueyWon (735973) | more than 2 years ago | (#37998170)

"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 came out. Take the maximum estimate of 8 hours per game and that gives you 64 hours over 2 years. That's... not a huge amount of time (though it is a fairly large wodge of cash, I guess). Unless my maths is out, that's not much more than 35 minutes per week.

And you know what, in the murky world of office politics, taking some time and effort (and a bit of cash) to share your co-workers' interests (which is largely "casual" gaming around this office) to at least a basic extent can be a very, very good move.

Re:Please just die (1)

Raenex (947668) | more than 2 years ago | (#37998498)

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

Re:Please just die (1)

Will_TA (549461) | more than 2 years ago | (#37998172)

>>I'm sick of the being asked which two of the same collection of over-exposed "real world" guns I want to carry THIS. OH SO MUCH THIS! I've served. I've fired an M4. I've fired an SA80 in anger. Playing with a mock one, on screen does nothing for me. Give me the gravity gun. give me the portal gun. Give me something creative. Don't give me something real world which is skinned, which I'll tell you why it's not realistic enough.

Re:Please just die (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37998278)

CoD4 was the only non mediocre one? my favorite is still 2 which sucked on console but was an absolute blast on PC. if only I could find my key T_T

Re:Please just die (1)

RogueyWon (735973) | more than 2 years ago | (#37998366)

My recollection of 2 is that it was competently enough executed, but based on obsolete (by the standards of the time) technology and very heavily dependant on "cinematic" set-pieces which insta-killed you if you strayed even an inch from the approved path. It also had a very floaty and imprecise feel from the controls, which is something I've noted about other installments in the CoD series (most notably World at War and Black Ops - though very much not with CoD4). Given that it launched some time after Far Cry, Half-Life 2 and Doom 3, all of which were doing much more interesting things with the fps as a genre on the PC, I couldn't honestly think of why anybody would want to lavish praise on it.

I confess to having not played CoD3. When even the gaming press, which has always had a fascination I've never understood with this series, decreed it as a sub-standard effort, I decided I absolutely couldn't be bothered with it.

Re:Please just die (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37998376)

Man you do stuff just to talk to your colleagues. What a tool.

2 aspects I do not see often discussed (2)

yourtallness (1183449) | more than 2 years ago | (#37997028)

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 think I can remember them ever reloading...

I'd like to note that this is from someone who has enjoyed both games.

Re:2 aspects I do not see often discussed (2)

imakemusic (1164993) | more than 2 years ago | (#37997290)

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?

Re:2 aspects I do not see often discussed (1)

yourtallness (1183449) | more than 2 years ago | (#37997556)

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?

Guess the BF team missed that memo then ;-)

Re:2 aspects I do not see often discussed (1)

imakemusic (1164993) | more than 2 years ago | (#37998014)

So, what, all games must either be realistic war simulators OR fun arcade shooters? Can't we just have one of each?

I'm done with both franchises (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37997108)

There is almost no effort being put into the single player campaigns for either BF or MW. So I guess we are now at the point of paying $60 for a map pack.

Poor online.. get BF3 instead (2)

nickrjsmith (1407237) | more than 2 years ago | (#37997112)

Just get BF3 instead... been a while coming but my it's good and essentially designed for the online multi-player experience.

Re:Poor online.. get BF3 instead (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37997392)

So you've never played COD then?

Meanwhile the starving indies stay starving. (1)

IronSight (1925612) | more than 2 years ago | (#37997414)

Pretty sure in 6-12 months or so we will see another COD game, and it will sell 20 million copies on the first day, and we'll get another Battlefield, and the same will happen with it. And 400 new and catchy indie games will come out then have to be donated to the humble bundle because no one is buying them. 1 or 2 Indie games might catch on and make the creator millions like minecraft. Maybe someone will actually finish a mod for a game that will catch on like Counter-Strike did or DoTa and take these CoD/BF games out of the news with something new. One can only hope. Hrm, maybe a mod for rage *drools*.

Re:Meanwhile the starving indies stay starving. (1)

Spad (470073) | more than 2 years ago | (#37998168)

Frozen Synapse made over $1 million during its "donation" to the Humble Bundle, so I don't really think you can call it a failure. Sure, it's no Minecraft, but that's an outlier like WoW and it's stupid to compare other games to it.

Corridors (1)

ThirdPrize (938147) | more than 2 years ago | (#37997536)

2004 - Half Life 2 came out and I was disappointed. That was one long corridor (albeit of different widths and with different textures) from beginning to end. At least from what i have seen of the first 15 mins, MW3 makes it a Hollywood block buster of a corridor. That is progress.

Re:Corridors (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37997658)

I'd strongly disagree here. HL2 was in my opinion one of the best FPS' ever released. Great storyline, tension in the right places, puzzles and atmosphere. I replayed it several times over the last few years. The MW series just kind of bored me in single player - it's just one "go go go !!!!" mission after another. Good for what it is - aimed at "twich" players with limited attention spans, or limited time. BF3 has by far the better graphics engine now - on PC at least, but hey, if you're interested in graphics performance you won't be on a console anyway.

Re:Corridors (1)

heathen_01 (1191043) | more than 2 years ago | (#37998482)

A corridor is a corridor is a corridor. They are not really games, just stories when you click to continue.

Whatever happened to the real games like close combat and swotl? Every decision you make in a game should affect the end result, instead decisions in games like this are aggregated into "show next cutscene" [yes]/[no].

Re:Corridors (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37997854)

Yeah, halflife made it a story of long corridors. In my opinion, more fun then a stupid action packed blockbuster.

It's Great news (0)

Joe Jay Bee (1151309) | more than 2 years ago | (#37997632)

Keeps all the retards off the rest of the Internet

Not Enough (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37998178)

Call of Duty has always been a good game, but in light of Battlefield 3 coming out this game just doesn't cut it. The game is over flowing with 11 year olds who play 15 hours a day, the maps are to defined and lack the ability to openly switch positions and flank opponents, and the gun system allows for to much of a difference between the best and worst guns making starting out a complete pain in the ass.

The game itself becomes nothing more than a shooting match and lacks a lot of the in depth game play of larger more complex FPS games. Although this can be a good thing, having a good death match in the what, the 6th release of this series?, doesn't make it worth buying. You could just keep playing older Call of Duty's and save yourself the money.

Meh (1)

james_van (2241758) | more than 2 years ago | (#37998662)

that pretty much sums it up
Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?