Call of Dooty: Modern Warfare 3

[Warsaw]

It's not about dissuading me, it's about us having totally different experiences because we are playing on two different platforms. I've acknowleged that in the past. The bottom line is that just because it's good on PC doesn't make it good on Xbox, which is what matters to me because that's what I have to work with. There is no excuse for not delivering a quality, polished, finished product across the board.



This isn't even really a debate, more like a comparison of BF 3 on console vs. BF3 on PC. If you spent $60 on a new game and found out that it was inferior to its predecessor in every way that matters on your platform of choice, you'd be pretty upset, too. I hope it does make up for itself on PC, we'll see, though.

[Amit]

Well, I can agree to that. I guess I'm having trouble understanding your concern seeing as PC gamers have been shafted heavily for half a decade and I finally get to see the favour returned to the consoles. Since I'm going to take what you're saying about what happens on consoles as the truth, I sort of feel bad now since you reminded me how consistent BC2 was across most platforms. Quite honestly, though, I would not even care if the console versions dropped deead. BF was always about the PC experience anyways so I'll get over it. I cannot deny that you are completely right for saying that there's no excuse for not equalizing the three games properly. I sometimes wonder what the fuck DICE is doing assuming that EA isn't forcing them to shit out another game and/or DLC within the next 3 months. They have been inconsistent at best. I don't know how Daniel Matros can take his job seriously when he has nothing to communicate to the community when they have everything to communicate to the dev team.

Holy shit, this is the MW3 thread.

[Warsaw]

I prefer PC, but I'm pretty agnostic. I hate console ports as much as the next guy, but BF3 is console native. Come on, DICE, throw us a bone.



This little discussion demonstrates why CoD continues to do better: it delivers exactly what is expected of it and it is a consistent experience wherever you play it.

[Amit]

This little discussion demonstrates why CoD continues to do better: it delivers exactly what is expected of it and it is a consistent experience wherever you play it.

They mastered that back in 2007. Since then they haven't changed a damn thing. They don't take any risks.

[Warsaw]

But nobody is expecting them to, at this point. You either like the CoD formula or you don't. Since Activision is making hand-over-fist the way it is, they can just tell the naysayers to fuck right off and play something else, because they're in the minority.

And that right there is why most of us don't like the CoD series any more. Being a modding community, new mechanics and pretty graphics get us excited. Rehashes just earn our scorn.

[Amit]

Well when you put it that way...

[Pooky]

You either like the CoD formula or you don't.

I liked the CoD formula up until 4. I haven't liked a single CoD since. MW2 was my single biggest disappointment in gaming, ever.

[Warsaw]

Heh, that pretty much sums up my experience with Halo 2. Loved the first one so goddamn much, got to Part Deux, was assmad for the next 7, going on 8, years over all of the changes.

I only played *some* of the campaigns for CoD 2 and 3. They were alright, but they weren't my favourite type of game. I can't comment on the multiplayer.

What I do know is that before CoD 4, Battlefield was king of military multi-player shooters outside of Counter-Strike. One might surmise that DICE's success with a departure from WWII in BF2 is what inspired Infinity Ward to take a gamble by doing the same in CoD 4. If I remember, there were reports of Activision being a bit squeamish about leaving WWII for modern day.

[Ifafudafi]

If I remember, there were reports of Activision being a bit squeamish about leaving WWII for modern day.

That's one way to put it

IW had to develop CoD4 in almost complete secrecy so that by the time they had to show off what they'd done the project would be too far along for the Activision execs to turn around. That's why World at War went back to WWII; Treyarch had already begun pre-production before they even knew what direction IW was going

Cruel irony becomes apparent when you notice that the game responsible for launching CoD's popularity into the stratosphere was the one where AV had the least involvement (except possibly the first maybe)

[Amit]

IW had to develop CoD4 in almost complete secrecy so that by the time they had to show off what they'd done the project would be too far along for the Activision execs to turn around. That's why World at War went back to WWII; Treyarch had already begun pre-production before they even knew what direction IW was going

Call of Duty 4 was developed in secrecy until E3 2007, but it wasn't kept secret from Activision. The dev team approached Activision and voiced that they wanted to do a modern game, but they were met with scepticism. So Activision allowed them to develop the game, but they were very cautious with the information about this new game. So they let Treyarch start on World At War as a kind of backup if COD4 wasn't well received. Well I guess they worried for no reason.