Bookmarked for when you buy MW3 then bitch about it on the forum.

3 sentences isn't much if a rant. I'm disappointed

3 sentences isn't much if a rant. I'm disappointed

Bookmarked for when you buy MW3 then bitch about it on the forum.

I don't group Battlefield with the rest of the military shooters, because it gives me a grand multiplayer experience with diversity, whereas other games give me good scripted action. 
 
So i'm in the boat with you, i'll be passing on military shooters soon, but not Battlefield because the BF mp is a lifestyle and a hobby on it's own

Nice banner
I don't know if I'm going to even make it to MW 3, i can't stand shooters now

@Ahmad_Metallic: Reality check: Battlefield is a military shooter.

It's too bad, the Modern Warfare campaigns are six hours of stupid fun, and I love playing them, even if I've only been renting them lately (there's still a Family Video in business in our town, yay!). I know EA and Activision have used the "If it ain't broke, don't fix it" philosophy when it comes to these shooters, but as long as they keep providing me with a few hours of quality fun, I'll keep playing them.

But what about ARMA 3?
 
that game looks pretty badass.

ya a majority of military shooters are boring but i think battlefield will be better then mw3 but i wont be getting either

His name was Solemngène.

Some people in this thread have a questionable understanding of finality.

@Jimbo said:

His name was Solemngène.

I get it!

@TooWalrus said:

@Jimbo said:

His name was Solemngène.

I get it!

*high fives*

Mililililitary shoooters.

But what about ARMA 3?  that game looks pretty badass.

Mililililitary shoooters.

I need to ask what constitutes a military shooter, because 50 Cent Blood in the Sand had many of the basic trappings of a military shooter even though the story was about some skull and jumpin' big ass ramps.  I had as much fun with it as I did Battlefield: Bad Company 2.  I'm still mildly interested in MW3 because I like the Michael Bay-ness of the spectacle, however $60 for 6 hours of entertainment doesn't appeal to me anymore, so I tend to wait until the prices are cut in half.  Since I don't do online competitive play anymore, I don't worry about empty servers or a hardcore player base that can kill me three times before I hit the ground (most people can do that 3 days after release).   
 
I, too sort of wish there was something to enrich the genre again, but I'm not sure what that could be.  I mean, just like WW2 games got stale, so it happened to the modern era games.  Both seemed to be confined by their time period.  M-16s are M-16s and an AK-47 still shoots the same bullets across all games.  I know a number of people who want that recognizable (psudo) realism and shy away from sci-fi shooters because they can't go to a rifle range and practice with a railgun.  The enemies also have a sameness to them since they reflect real world politics.  Russians, North Koreans, terrorists, etc... I sort of wish that game makers would be a little more creative and imagine some new histories.  How about a game where the colonies lost the Revolutionary War to the British and 200 years later and launching a second revolt?  Or maybe a game where the Roman Empire never fell and 1500 years later coexists with an expanded Mongolian Empire?  There just needs to be something to change the setting a bit to breathe some life back into it. 

i highly respect your decision to do this i myself have been trying to quite because im tired of all the norms i wanna go bcak to the pre COD days with games like kirby that we're bucket loads of fun btw anyone else notice when you play so much COD that eveything else feels weird and you suddenly suck at everything else?