Slashdot Mirror
Modern Warfare 3 Released
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."
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.
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.
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.
- Don't do what I do, it's probably not healthy nor safe. -
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?
moox. for a new generation.
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
His channel in case he changes stuff around: http://www.youtube.com/user/SSoHPKC
It's worth a watch if you haven't got the game yet and want to see someone playing it for a bit.
Modern Warfare 1 map pack that costs 60$.
Have you tried ArmA II?
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).
How is this news for nerds? It's another console shooter (with a bigger buget than most). Pure slashvertisement.
I think, therefore you are.
... until they will start selling overpriced Mappacks again.
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.
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.
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.
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.
...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).
"We know what happens to people who stay in the middle of the road. They get run over." - Aneurin Bevan
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.
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.
I'm wondering why almost no one mentions two aspects of these games when comparing them:
I'd like to note that this is from someone who has enjoyed both games.
What next, you'll lump together Israelis and Palestinians, North and South Koreans, or Nuns and Clowns?
If you were blocking sigs, you wouldn't have to read this.
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.
Brain surgery - it's not rocket science!
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).
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.
Just get BF3 instead... been a while coming but my it's good and essentially designed for the online multi-player experience.
Try reading the entire post next time and not just the first two sentences before replying.
Since a lot of people are responding to me, any BF3 gamers, please check the below out.
http://tinyurl.com/42mjw4c
(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.
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.
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.
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*.
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.
I have excellent Karma and I am not afraid to Troll it.
...and this would be a typical brainless MW player...
At least this brainless MW player can recognize a good game.
Keeps all the retards off the rest of the Internet
I write bullshit
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.
THat one is not as off base as you might think, as genetic research showed those two populations are very related. Sorta cousins.
Huge Steam sale on all things ArmA on now, btw.
Troll is not a replacement for I disagree.
Vi and Emacs users?
sag
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.
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.
Oblivion Awaits
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.
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.
"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.
The preceding comment is my own, and in no way construes an opinon of the Emperor of Mankind.
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.
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.
Slashdot social media options: AIM, ICQ, Yahoo, Jabber and Mobile Text. Why no MySpace?
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.
Oblivion Awaits
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.
You may think me a tired, old, cynic. I'd have to disagree about the tired bit.
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.
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.
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.
Post anonymously - For when your opinion embarrasses even you!
MW3 has dedicated servers now too, but you have to enable the server browser in options.
I already have several videos of Nuns and Clowns "lumped together". The others might be more challenging.
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.
Oblivion Awaits
that pretty much sums it up
Most casual gamers used to be hardcore gamers before they grew up.
I was married with a kid when PacMan was released in 1980, I've been a casual player since I first played (arcade) Pong in the early 70's, favourite game at the moment is World of tanks. There are lots more old farts like me, even my dad plays video games every now and then. Currently I'm training the fourth generation of gamers in my family not to eat the hardware.
And did you exchange a walk on part in the war for a lead role in a cage? - Pink Floyd.
Life is too short to get caught up in a single place and daily routine. I am so glad that I never allowed myself to get anchored down like that. It must suck.
You're right... but it doesn't mean he's wrong. I was a "hardcore gamer" in highschool and university (until I took uni seriously). I graduated and have almost everything you list to care for but it doesn't mean I still call myself "hardcore" because I *know* that's a lie. The torch has been passed. These 14 y/o squeeky things I find online are the new hardcores and as much as it pains me to say it... they're better.
So yeah I'm a casual. Most of my friends are too. We want instant gratification, not 50hrs of learning curve before "enjoyment" starts because 50hrs of play can be upwards of 6 months to a year and by then another game we're interested in has been released.
How does it compare to Madden Warfare 12?
SJW: Someone who has run out of real oppression, and has to fake it.
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.
Genocide Man -- Life is funny. Death is funnier. Mass murder can be hilarious.
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.
Then you go through the divorce still have kids (hardcore gamers in training) still have a job, and you start turning back into a hardcore gamer. while there are always draws on time the older you get I'm finding there is still time to enjoy yourself, while COD style games are not my favorite and my skills are lacking in this genre with practice I hope to get better then my scurrent 5/26 kill/death ratio
"They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety."
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) 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 at this point.
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).
-- toolie
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.
No, Pong was a mindless action game. If you try to play CoD mindlessly, you're going to sit at the bottom of the leaderboards with all the other clueless newbs.
SJW: Someone who has run out of real oppression, and has to fake it.
If the ye pirates and ye ninjas can establish a peaceful two-state solution, then anyone can, by gard!
SJW: Someone who has run out of real oppression, and has to fake it.
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.
Oblivion Awaits
Are you really trying to compare the level of complexity between Pong and Call of Duty?
Oblivion Awaits
You are not only telling that you don't like other games, you actively bash people that do not share your mindset. It is no miracle that with a "higher than thou" attitude like this, you see every other argument as a "circle jerk-off" by obviously bad gamers that are stupid. No matter how you twist your grammar, that is how you come across, and that counts.
Playing a mindless game might be EXACTLY what i want to do when i need to defragment my brain after a long day of hard work. CoD might be shallow and far from realistic, but i can enjoy it without devoting endless hours of learning its intricacies (?). I did that back in the Q3 times already...
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 there's absolutely no voice chat. You can /try/ to type at them, but you can be sure that no one will notice.
Presumably they will patch the PC version to catch up with the console versions, but until then potential buyers might as well just wait it out.
Great game, but just a pure shit interface with some of the worst design decisions I've ever seen. Technically brilliant, but with little to no thought put into it's design. (Who thought it'd be a good idea to disable ALL player controls upon death so that you can't do any of the controls/kit customization/option/in-game chat/origin chat/party management/etc. that you'd want to be doing instead of just staring at some guy's face for 15 seconds? You can't even hit escape to access menus with no in-game impact!)
The dedicated servers are only unranked if that matters to you.
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 it as a game, the PC version is clearly where you go to see the demonstration of the next generation of engine technology. I was very impressed with Frostbite 2. It handles large but detailed areas very well - with none of the pop-in and other issues that characterises idTech5 (even with the latest Nvidia drivers, which do help quite a bit). There's lots of fancy lighting other special effects getting thrown around without having a massive impact on performance (though my PC is possibly overkill for it). As a piece of technology, the PC version of BF3 is very interesting. It's just as a game (particularly a single player game) that it is a depressing mess. But with Unreal Engine 3 looking like it's been taken about as far as it's going to go, it's interesting to see what comes next (particularly as it seems that the current gen console hardware can't handle it in anything but its most minimalist form, as the various platform comparisons make clear).
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.
Fantastic , I want to program it as a Flash Game to my website http://www.cromba.com/ It will be Great :DDD
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'.
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
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.
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
Battlefield 3 is that game I can't get on Steam. Not interested.
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.
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
"alt-tab (i.e crash the game) s"
you complain about no chat, but the just toss out alt-tab crashes it?
Wow.
For me the crash is a bigger deal.
Yes, now in game team chat is unforgivable.
As is locking all the controls.
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
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.
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
*yawn*
"If any question why we died, Tell them because our fathers lied."
Yeah, they really do just change out a couple tiny little things and call it a day. Which makes sense, because everyone buys the next one every year either way.
The series goes back and forth a little though, based on the the company that made it. Kids who play as snipers tend to hate the Treyarch games, because they nerf the rifles. In IW games, the rifles are magic guns that can kill all the way across the map, never have to be sighted, etc. Treyarch games are pretty good about spawning logic. IW games just throw you back into the line of fire. IW also usually introduces 5-10 glitches that make the game unplayable, but they'll fix them over the next 5 months.
But IW does a better job with looks and adding fun new widgets, where Treyarch makes everything really dark and adds very little (if anything) in the way of new game elements. They're the same.
They're really very minor differences though. Each game is basically same as the last.
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! =(
Random Thoughts From A Diseased Mind (Not For Dummies)
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 his chopper to the destination 9 times out of 10, that's a really valuable skill in a game like Battlefield.
Random Thoughts From A Diseased Mind (Not For Dummies)
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.
There is no -1 Disagree mod. Slashdot.org/faq defines mod options. USE IT.
you're likely to be called all kinds of names playing it, beggining with "F" or "N"
In case you aren't into FPS's, that stands for FUCKING NOOB...
Fool me 5 times, eh?
These 14 y/o squeeky things I find online are the new hardcores and as much as it pains me to say it... they're better.
It's these squeeky voices that reaffirm to me that they are better when I hear screams of, "Oh God YOU SUCK! Get off my team you NOOB!!!"
There was a time I remember I could say that, but now it's... "Oh Karma, you really didn't forget about me... and yes, you are a bitch!"
Live forever, or die trying.
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.
MAG is 256 players on a very unique server architecture which is truly more of a site to behold.
You are obviously missing the point. I just mentioned that these guys are nothing more than mindless fun, they are bassically the same thing year after year, and I don't get why people STILL get excited about them. Not too much strategy or ability involved. If you love them, good for you, I don't. There are more innovative games out there which don't force you to suffer an aneurysm "after a long day of work".
Oblivion Awaits
I do realize I really made myself look bitter and angry. I could have left out the "ADD" bit out. I stand corrected, but I stand by my point. Of course you can enjoy all kinds of games. I just think there is a target audience for these, one I'm not part of.
Oblivion Awaits
You need competency to do well no matter how you play, but you don't need to be skilled at 'frags' to win a round as support roles are equally rewarding. The first match in which I received an MVP ribbon I was 0:4 (K:D), not because I can't kill anyone but because I never fired my weapon. In fact half-way through the round I didn't even bother to draw my weapon, I just kept the 'defibs' out since I was reviving someone every couple of seconds.
Do we really need to repeat Eurogamer's uninformative gush piece ?
Don't get me wrong, I bought the damn game at midnight (though I didn't line up 3 hours early like the 100 or so twits at my local Best Buy). I like it. It's MW2 with new, busier maps and just a tiny infusion of the stupid UI stuff Treyarch did in Black Ops, but it plays almost exactly like MW2. That's a good thing.
I do think that everyone who's interested in that kind of shooter either already owns the game, or is getting it as a gift for their birthday or the holidays or "9 months since I fucked my cousin" day if you're from Alberta. Nerds don't need to be reminded of this product's existence, we've known for a long time.
What I would love to read about is stats about the game. How many copies sold in the first 24 hours, which desperate attention whore first reached level 70 or 80 or whatever the cap is this time, and how many people were mugged/killed/injured on launch night. I'm know there's at least one, because I one excited dweeb drive into a light pole, right in the parking lot - he way too busy heckling the line and flashing his limited edition package to watch where he was going.
Another thing that would be relevant is what West and Zampella's new company are up to, after the nasty tiff between then and Activision. Now that all eyes are on MW3, this would be a great time for those guys to come out of the woodwork and promote a new game, especially since MW3 is the same old game with a new set of tires, it's a great opportunity for blood rivals to come out with something fresh.
-Billco, Fnarg.com
Hey, if it can blow up a tank, it can blow up a person, too.
Why is this on slashdot?
Why does that kind of shitty game sell so much?
2142's Titan mode is the deepest BF game mode to date IMO. I've been in so many close games that have had the momentum shift back and forth, with Titans literally blowing up seconds apart. Its sad to see the BF franchise abandon this great game mode and instead lower the bar with game modes like TDM, although TDM does get rid of some of the KDR focused people from Conquest mode.
I classify myself as both but I'd say ME is far closer to Star Wars than Star Trek. Bioware has never been good at making anything except generic "save the universe" plotlines (with the corresponding "evil" choice as well). Star Trek was good because it was intellectual; Bioware's games are not intellectual in the slightest. KotOR 2 was, but that was Obsidian, not Bioware. And it was glitchy as hell, too.
An ugly argument between UID brothers. :(
Can't we all be friends?
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 RPGs even after most people get laser designators to make javelin worth taking. The only other meaningful unlock is anti-tank mine, which you also get pretty quickly. Everything else for engineer is either a piece of fluff like EOD bot or just plain useless like the rest of the weapons engineer gets.
TDM is good for short, mindless fun when you have only a few minutes to play.
Conquest and rush are for moments when you have much longer, usually an hour at least to kill.
And I very much agree on Titan mode. I loved it, and I would love to see it again (perhaps conquer bases, like amphibious assault on enemy aircraft carrier?)
Thanks for reminding me why I shouldn't buy MW3.
O please, both the PS3 and the Xbox lock up, so does my iphone from shitty software. How do you crash a console you say? by releasing buggy code and saying 'we'll fix it later"
Good-bye
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).
I've played BF:BC2, and I don't know what's even remotely sim-oriented in a game where team work boils down to medics running madly across the front line with defibrillators and clicking at any body, preferably before it hits the floor. Or where you need to waste 1/3 to 1/2 (depending on the specific gun) of magazine of your assault rifle onto the enemy to kill him. Or where there's no way to go prone, so snipers have to crouch all the time, as that's the best you can get.
Teamwork-oriented, yes, perhaps - in the same way as WoW is. But having bullet drop doesn't make it sim-oriented, not any more than MW.
Despite being open worlds, heaven forbid that you should venture too far away from what the developers think the right path should be.
I don't know, Morrowind was pretty decent in that regard. Sure, if you killed an important NPC, the storyline could be borked, possibly even at some point much later in the game - which is why you got notification to that effect - but you could still keep playing, and even pursuing storyline to the extent that remained possible if you wanted.
You have a huge vagina.
It's a general comment that older gamers generally have less time. Infact in general older people have less time than younger people. You can be a fucking retard about it or you can just ignore it. Clearly you've opted for the retard route.
I never said it was a sim. I said it moves toward that, more so than MW. And yes, having bullet-drop DOES help. How can you even say that it doesn't? It is one important step towards realism. Another being destructible environments, something MW fails to have (40mm M203 fired at a wall just leaves a stain, whereas in BC2 for example, it makes a hole).
I played CoD4 and I thought it was really good. I like fast paced action, i.e not having to travel 2k to get to the battle. I am not sure whether to get this or not? Play-wise, I am definitely a rambo but if this is gonna be exactly the same as CoD4 (stale maps), then I probably won't get it. I think I would have enjoyed the CoD4 series a bit more if they did not have the ridiculous UAV crap spamming you from above.
Thanks for re-enforcing my point. The only buggy code that has ever locked up my PS3 was published by Bethesda. The point I was making is that a console is a lot harder to lock up than a computer, or even a phone. A console is running one application at a time. If that application locks, it is 100% on the shoulders of the developer for failing to properly QA their app.
Just finished first round of MW3 - awesome, just plain awesome. Still working on BF3 - not as awesome. Good, but doesn't knock your socks off like MW3 does. Haven't tried the online game play yet and not sure if I will. The single player has plenty of challenges some really good fire fights.