Then... don't buy it

@onarum said:

umm.. just like mw2 before it? and yet it still sold 8 million or whatever copies so.. yeah you see when people buy this crap they are only sending a message to kotick saying "yes, this is what we want, give us more"

This argument is false CoD is a bridge game, Means it's a game people that usually don't play videogames buy. Once they get tired they most likely move into another hobby. Personally I'm getting tired of this same old line. Halo fans were also "destroying" the industry when Halo was at it´s peak..

Funny thou I have a 254 video game collection among all platforms since Atari time, I remember a guy calling me a dudebro in a Halo tournament because I was playing Halo.. dumass didn´t even know what Shadow of the Colossus was back in the time.

couldn't care less. i still think MW2 is a ton of fun, so a glorified expansion pack sounds fine with me. though this'll probably be the point where i burn out on the series until they milk COD to death, or reinvent it. 

My face is the universe. Period. 

COD is the Madden of FPS.

7 years ago this was released. Please take a look at the features. How is MW3 different? It's arguably a bigger leap over the original CoD than MW3 is to MW2.

Lets wind the clocks back 8 years ago. Pc gaming is still going strong and games actually get expansion packs. Now what would an expansion pack get you might ask. Well first a new single player. Secondly more content. Finally it might get a new mode.   The game might also have a slightly updated look. THIS IS EXACTLY WHAT THIS IS. New mode, more weapons , perks, maps and such, new single player.

You are the reason the violin factory stays in business.

MW3 will be awesome. The people bitching about it are the same people who whine when I own them online.

New maps, new singleplayer, spruced up graphics, new multiplayer, totally redone spec ops, new weapons, i guess that's the definition of an expansion to you.....

@Potter9156 said:

@pieman32 said:

Lets wind the clocks back 8 years ago. Pc gaming is still going strong and games actually get expansion packs. Now what would an expansion pack get you might ask. Well first a new single player. Secondly more content. Finally it might get a new mode.   The game might also have a slightly updated look. THIS IS EXACTLY WHAT THIS IS. New mode, more weapons , perks, maps and such, new single player. I cannot say im surprised, but it is still blatant as hell. If this came out 8 years ago, it would be called a glorified expansion pack. Lets take a look. 

  MW3 in all its glory.    

 So, it's like every other sequel this generation of consoles?     K.

This. This. THIS! Except instead of a K it should be 'KAITHXBAI'

New maps, new singleplayer, spruced up graphics, new multiplayer, totally redone spec ops, new weapons, i guess that's the definition of an expansion to you.....

@Dyram said:

@cide: If the base game plays very similarly, then a new one has to have something new, right? At the very least it would make the game look more cared for than a blatant copy job of old content with no care to at least reflect how far the game itself has come.

So you would rather have a shallow, surface level change than new maps, modes, weapons, perks and whatever else? Is that what you're saying? Because of course it's going to play like the last games. It's COD, it's going to play like a COD game. Just like Halo is going to play like Halo, Battlefield is going to play like Battlefield. They may tweak how the controls feel but it's going to play pretty close to the last game. So If new maps and modes aren't good enough for you or anyone else, then I guess stop buying sequels.

Thanks for this. No, seriously; I always love reading CoD hate threads <3 I don't even care for the series, though the bile people spew for this franchise is ever so entertaining to read and makes for some of the most enjoyable nerd-ragin' around.

People are saying this looks exactly like Modern Warfare 2, but I just went back and played that and it does not look this nice at all. A lot of small touches in the graphics have been improved to make it look better. 

@fallen_elite:

Oh man you're so right, how could i not have seen that. Obviously this is an expansion since it checked all the boxes! Single player? Check! Multiplayer? Check! Oh wait expansions and full games can have all of the content i mentioned before it's just a matter of the amount of it and the quality, so even though an expansion and a full game might have single player, the full game will have a much larger single player of a higher quality, like MW3 (presumably since the game isn't out so it's to early to judge).

It's not about checking all the boxes to make sure everything is there, it's about the quality of the content that is shown like i said before, this is why games can be single player only and still be better than other games that include both singleplayer and multiplayer and it's too early to tell if MW3 will deliver on these fronts, but if you look at the past CoD games and the promises they have made you will see that there is no reason to fret over this being an expansion.

@fallen_elite said:

@UnrealDP said:

New maps, new singleplayer, spruced up graphics, new multiplayer, totally redone spec ops, new weapons, i guess that's the definition of an expansion to you.....

It sounds like one to me.

So, Diablo II is an expansion pack for Diablo? Or Bad Company 2 to the first Bad Company? Wait, scratch that. I totally forgot the Battlefield series is completely exempt from every kind of criticism.

You are arguing semantics. An "expansion pack" is nothing but more content that needs the base game to run. It can range from a couple of items to a new full-blown campaign and everything in-between. The way the developer decides to present that content, either as an expansion or a stand-alone product, is not intrinsecally related to the quality of said product.

Is CoD iterative? Sure, but the TC is blatantly ignoring all the new features MW3 has in order to make his "point". He is clearly biased towards BF3, even though both games can be judged on the same grounds, and both games will have to be seen in a similar light afterwards.

Thanks for this. No, seriously; I always love reading CoD hate threads <3 I don't even care for the series, though the bile people spew for this franchise is ever so entertaining to read and makes for some of the most enjoyable nerd-ragin' around.

@NinjaHunter said:

@Dyram said:

@cide: If the base game plays very similarly, then a new one has to have something new, right? At the very least it would make the game look more cared for than a blatant copy job of old content with no care to at least reflect how far the game itself has come.

So you would rather have a shallow, surface level change than new maps, modes, weapons, perks and whatever else? Is that what you're saying? Because of course it's going to play like the last games. It's COD, it's going to play like a COD game. Just like Halo is going to play like Halo, Battlefield is going to play like Battlefield. They may tweak how the controls feel but it's going to play pretty close to the last game. So If new maps and modes aren't good enough for you or anyone else, then I guess stop buying sequels.

Exactly what ninja hunter said. Call of Duty is a sequel driven franchise that refines and changes after every new game and ofcourse there are new things, just look at zombies or spec ops! Both of those are things added to call of duty in recent years and even though zombies won't be in MW3 (because that's Treyarchs thing) Spec ops is being redone and multplayer is being tweaked and changed. I'm not saying that change is a bad thing and i am getting a bit burnt out on how similar the progression can be, but i still love me some Call of Duty and i hope some major changes will be implemented in the next iteration or this iteration.

I thought it was generally accepted at this point that MW is stale and needs some serious changes and balancing to actually be good? Judging from this topic everybody loves it all of a sudden again.

@pieman32 said:

@Fobwashed: im not a troll, im legitimately pissed that it dont look all that different. After getting excited about a few trailers, this game play footage immediately evaporated all the hype and confirmed my fears. Its an expansion pack and corporate interests have hijacked any sort of creativity to make more money. Sort of reminds me of the first video game crash.

You keep throwing things out there without giving any examples or evidence to back what you're saying. Frankly, it just makes you sound like an idiot. How exactly does this remind you of the first video game crash? Here, I'll find it for you. What in there mirrors what's happening now in relation to either Call of Duty, or what you said about corporate interests hijacking any sort of creativity to make more money? Even if you're comparing it to what people commonly point to when they refer to the video game crash (Terrible E.T. game that was overproduced and ended up in bargan bins and landfills) it doesn't make sense because this is a franchise that sells incredibly well and aside from being overly popular and garnering hate from gaming elitists, is pretty solid and reviews well even on sites like this one.

I'm saddened that I've fallen for it again. Either you're a diabolical genius troll, or just like to say things without any real knowledge of what you're referring to.

@pieman32 said:

Lets wind the clocks back 8 years ago. Pc gaming is still going strong and games actually get expansion packs.

PC gaming is still going strong. Maybe stronger than ever. Even if games are graphically being held back by consoles, the gaming community seems to be larger than ever before. Throw in World of Warcraft, facebook games, casual games, free flash games, indie games and all other manner of games and it dominates consoles. Not to mention the kinds of pro pc gaming leagues out there now compared to your fantasy 8 years ago where there were no sequels and only expansion packs. I'm totally exaggerating here but it's only because wild baseless statements seems to be the way you communicate. I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and just assume you're a genius troll.

I'm surprised you didn't realize this when World at War came out.

See its these kinds of comments that really get to me. I mean I get thats its your opinion but honestly what did you expect from MW 3. Call of Duty is  pushed out on a yearly cycle and they make minimal changes , and they've been doing it for years, and just now people seem to be flipping out that its an expansion LOL.
 
Its the Madden of fps shooters, The graphics were already pretty amazing in my opinion and as for multiplayer they've seem to have added some pretty neat ideas.
 
And yes. I do buy Call of Duty every year, but I'm not biased because I've played many shooters including Battlefield.

@TaliciaDragonsong: This is the sort of attitude that makes me die a little inside.

I can confirm that you put a period at the end of that sentence.

Yeh, there's very little ingenuity in each successive one but hey, they're making money. It's sad but I accept the state of things. 

@fallen_elite said:

@UnrealDP: @JoeyRavn: I'm not saying MW3 won't have enough content to justify the full cost of the game. I agree the game isn't out yet so we don't know yet, but it's certainly looking like an "expansion" to MW2 based on what I've seen so far. Who knows maybe it does have a ton of new content that makes it worth it. It just seems like this generation we've been getting less value with $60 games and paid DLC.

You're not saying that MW3 won't have enough content to justify the price? But thats the entire point of your "It's just an expansion." arguement and it's looking like an expansion from what you've seen? New multiplayer, new singleplayer, new spec ops, polished graphics, redone leveling/guns, how does that look like an expansion? This generation we're getting less bang for our buck? What are you even saying? Look at Oblivion and Deus EX and Dragon age and.....Well i could list these all day, but the point is that CoD games might not seem like a good dollars to hours proposition to you because you're not looking in the right places. Look no further than the new spec ops mode and the multiplayer. You're not supposed to play on a single map once and say "Well i guess i'm done with this map forever!" you're supposed to get to know the maps and get better at the game!

As I return from work, I see this going nowhere fast, but flaming me:) 

The multiplayer is, but everything around the MP is gettign significant upgrades/changes/at least a change of venue and all that shit.

THEN DON'T FUCKING BUY IT

IF PC GAMING WAS STILL MAINSTREAM TODAY EXPANSION PACKS WOULD STILL BE SOLD @ $60!

I really envy the clairvoyant among us who can determine the quality of games not only without playing them, but before they are even released. 

I really envy the clairvoyant among us who can determine the quality of games not only without playing them, but before they are even released. 

Who cares? If the people who play Call of Duty almost exclusively want to pay $60 a year for a whole new set of maps, new campaign and a slight gameplay improvement, what do I care?

Who cares? If the people who play Call of Duty almost exclusively want to pay $60 a year for a whole new set of maps, new campaign and a slight gameplay improvement, what do I care?

@pieman32 said:

Well first a new single player. Secondly more content. Finally it might get a new mode. The game might also have a slightly updated look. THIS IS EXACTLY WHAT THIS IS. New mode, more weapons , perks, maps and such, new single player. I cannot say im surprised, but it is still blatant as hell. If this came out 8 years ago, it would be called a glorified expansion pack.

HOW DARE THEY OFFER A NEW GAME THAT OFFERS NEW THINGS!!!!

Wait, I'm confused. Are you saying this Call of Duty game looks like a Call of Duty game?

The truth always hurts. Feel sorry for call of duty "gamers" and "fans" for constantly paying for shit, being duped into "new" games, and shitty support (pc support for mw2)

Look at it in the perspective of the heads of Activision. They've done the graphs and read the charts, releasing these games brings them money and pays their salaries and bonuses. YOU WOULD DO THE SAME THING IN THEIR POSITION. We live in a free market economy where your goal is happiness, you really have to stop with the Activision hate, it's not like they are polluting the earth and must be stopped. It's a waste of time....

Let people have their fun and make their money.

IF PC GAMING WAS STILL MAINSTREAM TODAY EXPANSION PACKS WOULD STILL BE SOLD @ $60!

The truth always hurts. Feel sorry for call of duty "gamers" and "fans" for constantly paying for shit, being duped into "new" games, and shitty support (pc support for mw2)

Here we go again...

You're right but it shouldn't be surprising. COD has become the sports games of FPSes with constant releases that add a tiny amount of content that can make the game worse in some cases. I've lost all interest in the series and more people will as time progresses. I still think COD4 was a good enough game that the later games would have to really screw up to be horrible games but I just can't care about a game thats incrementally being made worse with constant sequels. This isn't the first time an FPS series has gone this way, either.

You're right but it shouldn't be surprising. COD has become the sports games of FPSes with constant releases that add a tiny amount of content that can make the game worse in some cases. I've lost all interest in the series and more people will as time progresses. I still think COD4 was a good enough game that the later games would have to really screw up to be horrible games but I just can't care about a game thats incrementally making a game worse with constant sequels. This isn't the first time an FPS series has gone this way, either.