Activision Pres Vows to Track Down MW3 Leaker

Page 2 - Seeking answers? Join the Tom's Guide community: where nearly two million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
Status
Not open for further replies.

Raidur

Distinguished
Nov 27, 2008
115
0
18,640
70% of the views were people bashing each other.

MW3 looks like yet another sad let down in the CoD series.

You can thank consoles for that. :)
 

smashley

Distinguished
Jul 29, 2009
48
0
18,580
This just reeks of an intended leak by activision to draw attention away from BF3. Both are slated for release around the same time and they're trying to get an early start on promoting it. The sad thing is it will probably work. Activision has this model lately of milking franchises dry a la guitar hero. They killed that franchise off if I'm not mistaken, because people got sick of it and stopped buying. Wonder how many more COD/MW releases before people (console players) realize its just a different skin on the same game. Between MW2 and BO the storyline IMO is the only thing significantly different, and is NOT strong enough to warrant shelling out $60 a year.

I'm very sad to say this but I bet MW3 will beat BF3 in sales figures by a great deal, even though BF is a much better and more innovative franchise IMO.
 

alidan

Distinguished
Aug 5, 2009
1,681
0
19,730
ok lets run this down

1) the engine of mw3 takes advantage of consoles, where the game sells more, and to be honest, is graphically a damn good console engine. now i dont know what the pc side has, as in how the engine would run there, because i believe its just a port, so no real enhancements there.
2) activision is an crap company, well known for funning ips into the ground, and tring to ride the corpse a bit further even after the fact, thats not disputed.

now lets get onto this.
i will be able to play mw3, but not bf3 because i hate vista and 7. so i only get mw3
but i hate the mw series, and most of the cod games, so that doesnt matter.

i would bet bf3 if i could run it, but i refuse to play a fps on a console, just as much as i refuse to go to 7 due to its ui and unchangeable things i despise about it.
 

fireaxxe

Distinguished
May 11, 2009
1
0
18,510
The thing about COD games is that you have to buy one every other year or every two years. Doing so will prevent you from feeling that it is too similar to the last one. It is a fun series, but when you get too much of it can easily become repetitive.
 

RogueKitsune

Distinguished
Jul 29, 2009
27
0
18,580
The only good COD games were the first one and Modern Warfare, world at war was meh, and everything else sucked. As a person that primarily games on a PC, I am tired of all this console ported trash and i am thoroughly excited about BF3(KARKAND WITH DESTRUCTIBLE ENVIRONMENT)
 

hemi7382

Distinguished
May 11, 2011
4
0
18,510
Wait ... there's going to be a THIRD Modern Warfare game? ... hmmm ... Yeah I don't care, sorry. I must reiterate what the majority has said: BF3 on PC is going to be one billion times better than MW3 could ever hope to be. Especially, since the guys who made MW1 and MW2 aren't involved at all with making this one.
 
G

Guest

Guest
"Who cares about a game that is using an updated gfx engine that is 4 years old."

It's more than that.

The Engine COD runs on is based on IDTech3.

Yes.
3.
And they've been using it since CoD2
 

rantoc

Distinguished
Dec 17, 2009
550
0
18,930
If publishers and developers are willing to pose as regular gamers and boost the overall scores of their game by writing five-star reviews, who's to say they won't pretend to "leak" assets to see how the gamers will react to a new product?

Ofcourse they do, anyone who don't think this happens all the time is naive. What better way is it to get up the excitement than this? Maby two benefits come out of this for the publisher, point the fingers at some guy they want to get rid of and at the same time get the marketing for free! I wouldnt put that behind Activision with their management who even brag how they instil fear just to get some extra out of their employees!
 

wooodoggies

Distinguished
Feb 13, 2011
35
0
18,580
who gives a _____. CoD is for brat ass kids now. Used to be the staple for a realistic shooter. now its no more realistic than an episode of seaseme street
 
G

Guest

Guest
The first 3 call of duty games were pretty good, and even the less than well-recieved world at war was decent. But modern weapons just make for a boring game. Sure, there was a flood of WW2 shooters when they decided to go for a modern setting, but there were so many WW2-based shooters because it's simply a more interesting setting. Modern weapons are just too powerful to make for interesting gameplay, except possibly at the RTS level. I'm disappointed they're sticking with a modern setting, call of duty and battlefield are both decent franchises and the market has shifted from being over-saturated with good WW2 based shooters to being over-saturated with bad modern shooters. A company the knows what it's doing could probably get a lot of success out of a shooter not based on current events or the distant future, as there simply aren't any good ones out there right now.
 

thearm

Distinguished
Dec 18, 2008
81
0
18,580
Activision has managed to release the same game over and over and over just by giving it a new name and skin. People seem to be ok with it. I've never liked the game.
 

wcooper007

Distinguished
Nov 23, 2006
37
0
18,580
I think its time for Valve "steam" whatever it is to come out with a new version of counterstrike so we can get back to the root of playing a first person shooter and thats killing each other... Not these stupid perks and all that crap
 

billcat479

Distinguished
Mar 19, 2006
9
0
18,510
70% of the views were people bashing each other.

MW3 looks like yet another sad let down in the CoD series.

You can thank consoles for that. :)

While this has it's own truth to it there are other factors involved and the reaction I see from people here is a large part of a problem with a lot of new games. And it's been a on going trend for many years now.
Bitching before even playing. OH it looks sooooo last year. OH, it doesn't have some new eye popping eye candy so why buy it ect, ect. ect.
Man is this shallow or what? Where is the priority for the game overall if the makers get this kind of feedback. It's going to go to making it pop and zing and look OHHH so cool but they are still on a time limit and/or money allocated to the game so they are getting OHH so much shorter play time or just a poor plot and AI programming.
. So we get what made everyone mad at the last games. They looked nice but the game was so short people felt they got the shaft paying a LOT for so little. This is a fact. The games are getting shorter play time with less imagination put into them.
And the game review sites also feed this illusion that the game makers have better make them more and more fancy or else they get poor rated scores that have nothing to do with how much fun the game really is.
And/or the games AI sucked. Lots of things that make it into a fun game to PLAY. This is why a lot of people buy them. Because they are fun. Get it?
No, you don't or I wouldn't be reading this kind of Jr. high school crap and I can agree that this kind of mentality goes hand and hand with the prevailing owners of the damm consoles...
And what is real funny is the very old Atari type of games that were so simple and yet they made games that people could play for months and months and not get tired of playing because even though they look like crap compared to today's games they were fun to play. They put their priority's where it counted. People act like coke junkies that they got to get their fix of eye candy and are so whacked out they don't get it that they are getting bad dope that only lasts a few days. I can live with their last years graphics because they were not bad at all.and if they put some good work into the games AI and make it a real fun game to play I'll take the fun factor every time.
I can't live with a very expensive game that is only good for a couple of days worth of playing on the single player side and get tired of playing hacked multilayer cheaters. I don't know how people get so screwed up in their priority other than they have made one hell of an illusion that they crawled into and can't see past it anymore and get burned for the sake of eye candy that people value as going forward. That is just plain crazy.
All it really does is keeps the hardware folks happy that they get to sell more expensive video cards and cpu's to keep up with short fancy programs on a 6mo to 1yr. cycle. It would be real nice for you to wake up now and try to face reality now.
 

feroxus

Distinguished
Nov 14, 2008
4
0
18,510
Looks fun i look forward to it. P.S. Activision doesn't sell the hardware you decided to buy expecting people to make games on that only .001% of PC's would run. I enjoy a decent computer as well but I don't expect anyone to make a game thats recommended specs are my PC since at the moment there is no money in bleeding edge state of the art computer games.
 

calibrah

Distinguished
Nov 5, 2009
5
0
18,510
Will it have dedicated servers? that is the question. Probably not. bf3 here i come. i need a damn quad core now. my e8600 isnt cutting it anymore.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.