Before someone goes off and says this is in the wrong place, let me say this- maybe, but it covers more than one title.

A couple of weeks ago, I got Modern Warfare 3 on PS3 the Thursday after it came out from a nearby GameStop utilizing hard earned wages from my place of employment. I came home, popped it in, and enjoyed spaying people with my PP (they didn't have the PP90M1 link- DEAL WITH IT) all evening long. And you know what? I'm still enjoying it. Sure, the campaign's a little short, the graphics are the same as they were two years ago (if not a little improved), and multiplayer and Spec Ops mode are only slightly better than before. But is that any reason to complain? Not really, no. Why do I say this? Well... sometimes, sticking to the guns that make something popular is a good thing. Does that mean that it will continue to stay like this? No, but change is inevitable. Which is why I'm not purchasing Battlefield 3 quite yet. Sure, the game looks pretty, but at what cost? A rushed launch date to attempt to beat Activision to the punch? A middling campaign that wasn't fully realized? Promised items that didn't ship on-disc as promised? A buggy-as-hell Anti-Cheating/Piracy system that's redundant thanks to Microsoft, Sony AND ValvE? Electronic Arts, I have this to say to you- if you're going to promise something to your faithful customers, stick to it. Don't screw them over like a back alley hooker hopped up on drugs.

already have the "promised" item, so that doesn't bother me. Buggy-as-hell Anti-cheating system? You mean as opposed to the fantastic anti-cheat/hack system in MW3? I hear that game is cheat/hack free! amaaazing.

"Sticking to the guns that make something popular is a good thing," how so?

I definitely disagree with your opinion that popular things are good. I hate games that offer no advancement or at least a slight change over the last iteration, MW3 included. I also think Justin Beiber is a shit musician and that the Twilight Saga of movies are crap.

@RollingZeppelin: As much as I agree with the last two sentiments of yours, also realize that I'm not saying it's good to stick with what's popular. I just said I like to stick with things that work nicely. Besides, the numbers don't lie.

@Makoto_Mizuhara_Sakamoto said:

@RollingZeppelin: As much as I agree with the last two sentiments of yours, also realize that I'm not saying it's good to stick with what's popular. I just said I like to stick with things that work nicely. Besides, the numbers don't lie.

They don't?

@W0lfbl1tzers: Well, better THAT than... I won't even mention its name here again.

@Makoto_Mizuhara_Sakamoto said:

@RollingZeppelin: As much as I agree with the last two sentiments of yours, also realize that I'm not saying it's good to stick with what's popular. I just said I like to stick with things that work nicely. Besides, the numbers don't lie.

Like Wolf said above.They don't?

@churrific said:

@Makoto_Mizuhara_Sakamoto said:

@RollingZeppelin: As much as I agree with the last two sentiments of yours, also realize that I'm not saying it's good to stick with what's popular. I just said I like to stick with things that work nicely. Besides, the numbers don't lie.

Like Wolf said above. They don't?

HOW!? Every time I see something like this, I feel like a fucking minority. Can there really be that many people who think he's a good artist, or is there just a large overlap of people who like Bieber and actually buy music?

i honestly think that some of you are not happy unless your complaining about something. no matter how small.

i honestly think that some of you are not happy unless your complaining about something. no matter how small.

@RollingZeppelin: As much as I agree with the last two sentiments of yours, also realize that I'm not saying it's good to stick with what's popular. I just said I like to stick with things that work nicely. Besides, the numbers don't lie.

What?

Your saying your game is mediocre, you see its shortcomings, yet you defend it?

Anyways, it is sort of like me and horror movies franchises :)

Saw, paranormal activity etc.

les, then I do not recommend Battlefield 3, if you do however a descent computer (medium and low does not look ugly imo) get it.

Also, numbers don't mean shit.

Origin is not anti-cheat, BF3 uses Punkbuster for that.

Calling BF3 rushed yet Battelog works fine, how is Elite doing?

@mosdl said:

Origin is not anti-cheat, BF3 uses Punkbuster for that.

Calling BF3 rushed yet Battelog works fine, how is Elite doing?

Look at it like this- any huge influx of users will obviously bog service down for anything. Plus, Punkbuster screws with my Steam account, which is why I'm not using EA's products on PC anymore.

@RollingZeppelin: He's not saying it is good because it is popular. Also, funnily enough those last two viewpoints are almost universally popular...

"Sticking to the guns that make something popular is a good thing,"... But sticking grenade launchers in said guns is BETTER! 
...What i'm trying to say is: They could've tried something new. It would be a sign that they are actually trying to deliver you a better product, not the same product with a slightly better experience.  "Sticking to the guns that make something popular is a good thing" for business, yes. For the sake of "evolution"? Hell no. 
 It seems to me, duder, --And you should correct me if i'm wrong-- that you're just trying to justify your purchase. You're enjoying the largely unaltered multiplayer? That's cool for you, bro. Also, i think that your stab at Battlefield 3 was unnecessary.

Agree with you, it seems like just because people really wanted a strong opposition to CoD that they will be prepared to defend BF3 to any extent.

(Saying this I have always preferred CoD to Battlefield in general)

@mosdl said:

Origin is not anti-cheat, BF3 uses Punkbuster for that.

Calling BF3 rushed yet Battelog works fine, how is Elite doing?

They still have Punkbuster? Isn't that the thing that got me banned from Counter-Strike 10 years ago? haha

Fuck you, Punkbuster!

I don't think the game should be punished for being unoriginal, but don't expect me to care in the least when a Call of Duty game does come out.

@Makoto_Mizuhara_Sakamoto said:

@mosdl said:

Origin is not anti-cheat, BF3 uses Punkbuster for that.

Calling BF3 rushed yet Battelog works fine, how is Elite doing?

Look at it like this- any huge influx of users will obviously bog service down for anything. Plus, Punkbuster screws with my Steam account, which is why I'm not using EA's products on PC anymore.

I laughed out loud at that, thanks.

@mosdl: No problem broski. EA and Ubisoft just shoot themselves in the feet, ankles, and kneecaps with their "added" level of "protection".

@RollingZeppelin said:

I definitely disagree with your opinion that popular things are good. I hate games that offer no advancement or at least a slight change over the last iteration, MW3 included. I also think Justin Beiber is a shit musician and that the Twilight Saga of movies are crap.

Man, you must really be furious about AssRev.

To each his own. You like MW3? Play it. You don't like Battlefield 3? Don't play it. It's as simple as that amigo, now back to Skyrim. *starts humming* Dovahkiin, Dovahkiin ta-da-da-da-da.

@Example1013: I have a bit of a tolerance for repetitive games. Where AssRev is essentially the first game in that series that didn't really add anything, MW3 is what the 4th CoD game that hasn't changed anything? It just gets a bit boring after a while, I've had enough of aiming a gun with superhuman speed and accuracy and popping off crappy sounding bullets until random dude #1384359 goes down.

You made a blog post to say that you prefer MW3 to BF3?

Brilliant. And why the fuck am I reading it?

@GunslingerPanda: Because you probably didn't have anything better to you. Which is EXACTLY why I'm replying to you right now.

All sequels are unoriginal and basically the same game as their predecessors, it's a ridiculous complaint.

@Prodstep: So you're saying MGS2, MechWarrior 2, and BF2 weren't game changers in one way or another?

@RollingZeppelin: I mean, depending on who you ask, it's the third or the fifth of the "same" game, but I'd also like to say that I disagree with the statement that "nothing" changed over the course of the three Modern Warfare games, either. There were quite a few noticeable differences between Modern Warfare and Modern Warfare 2, enough to call them distinctive experiences. People often forget that MW2 added an entirely new gameplay mode with Spec Ops, besides the heavily expanded perk and killstreak systems for the traditional multiplayer that completely changed the dynamic. Was MW2 iterative? Certainly. But that doesn't mean it didn't come with noticeable changes. MW3 is the first Modern Warfare game that really only builds on what's already there without adding any new modes or features, at least of the Modern Warfare games. World at War was basically Modern Warfare in 1944, and Black Ops was basically World at War in 1969 (right down to Zombies), but since the games have been developed by separate teams, on top of being derivative titles, I don't think it's fair to place those games within the Modern Warfare franchise.

And even if we were going on the premise that MW3 is the fourth game in 5 years where you lock on with inhuman speed and shoot guys with crappy-sounding guns, isn't Assassin's Creed Revelations the fourth game in five years where you stab people in the neck with blades strapped onto your wrists? So following that vein, what makes the Modern Warfare franchise more egregiously repetitive than the Assassin's Creed franchise?

@Example1013 said:

@RollingZeppelin: I mean, depending on who you ask, it's the third or the fifth of the "same" game, but I'd also like to say that I disagree with the statement that "nothing" changed over the course of the three Modern Warfare games, either. There were quite a few noticeable differences between Modern Warfare and Modern Warfare 2, enough to call them distinctive experiences. People often forget that MW2 added an entirely new gameplay mode with Spec Ops, besides the heavily expanded perk and killstreak systems for the traditional multiplayer that completely changed the dynamic. Was MW2 iterative? Certainly. But that doesn't mean it didn't come with noticeable changes. MW3 is the first Modern Warfare game that really only builds on what's already there without adding any new modes or features, at least of the Modern Warfare games. World at War was basically Modern Warfare in 1944, and Black Ops was basically World at War in 1969 (right down to Zombies), but since the games have been developed by separate teams, on top of being derivative titles, I don't think it's fair to place those games within the Modern Warfare franchise.

And even if we were going on the premise that MW3 is the fourth game in 5 years where you lock on with inhuman speed and shoot guys with crappy-sounding guns, isn't Assassin's Creed Revelations the fourth game in five years where you stab people in the neck with blades strapped onto your wrists? So following that vein, what makes the Modern Warfare franchise more egregiously repetitive than the Assassin's Creed franchise?

I guess it just makes MW more boring, not less repetitive. The lack of innovation together with the inexplicable popularity of the franchise is annoying, kind of like how it's annoying that Justin Bieber is popular and that people like watching inane reality shows on TV. People who like things I don't get annoying when there are too many of them. And there are too many of you.

@Anund: Sounds like someone needs to stop visiting 4chan. That shit screws with your mind.

All sequels are unoriginal and basically the same game as their predecessors, it's a ridiculous complaint.

I dont play fps's but watching the QL of Modern Warfare3 I came to the conclusion that it looked like Gumbey threw up on a van gogh

@Dagbiker said:

I dont play fps's but watching the QL of Modern Warfare3 I came to the conclusion that it looked like Gumbey threw up on a van gogh

Pretty apt description, my fellow man with a keen eye for spotting Gumby's puke. I was wondering where that green bastard threw up last night after drinking all my vodka.

I guess the idea is to view COD the same as you view a sports franchise game. Each year comes with additions and tweaks to the core game.

Which is fine by me, I can just use the same policy of buying one every three or four years. This was the first year I didn't buy a COD game since like.. 2 came out. And I'm fine with that, I don't really miss it. Borrowed a friend's copy to see how the MW storyline pans out and that was enough for now. I think in a few years I might go back to it, but it's not like MW2 or Black Ops have become unpopular in the least, so if I want my COD fix I can save some cash and just play those.

@Dagbiker said:

@Prodstep

All sequels are unoriginal and basically the same game as their predecessors, it's a ridiculous complaint.

Fallout 3

Don't you mean Oblivion: Now WIth Guns?

@ez123 said:

@Dagbiker said:

@Prodstep

All sequels are unoriginal and basically the same game as their predecessors, it's a ridiculous complaint.

Fallout 3

Don't you mean Oblivion: Now WIth Guns?

But its not the same game as its predecessor.

@Makoto_Mizuhara_Sakamoto said:

@Anund: Sounds like someone needs to stop visiting 4chan. That shit screws with your mind.

I've never visited 4chan so I don't get it...

@MideonNViscera said:

They still have Punkbuster? Isn't that the thing that got me banned from Counter-Strike 10 years ago? haha

Fuck you, Punkbuster!

Don't be a punk, don't get busted.

For serious, though. PB is still around?

@Ravenlight: For real- it is still around. If you get BF2 from Steam, it'll require you to install that shit before being able to play online. It'll also ask force you to turn off the Steam overlay, since it's somehow considered 'hacking' by PB itself.