f13.net

I know, I'm the only one who likes this game. I like my thread. It's my guilty pleasure.

They just talked about their Call of Duty: Elite package, where you pay $50 bucks a year subscription to get access to all the DLC, plus TV content? And increased video storage? And leveling clans? And enter tournaments to win a Call of Duty Jeep?

I dunno. If you're gonna buy the DLC, it ends up being cheaper, and they split out the content like an MMO for those subscribers - they're putting it into monthly content drops, and also adding new game modes instead of just maps.

All the new Multiplayer stuff looks interesting - No more Last Stand, no more Commando, Kill Streak 'packages', individual guns level up to get 'Proficiency' perks.

If I must buy another twitch shooter (which I may), it'll like be CS: GO, but the most interesting part about MW3 is watching who is going to alienate more people, BF3 or MW3.

Eh, they'll both be making moneyhats.

Not gonna subscribe to this shit. BF3 has a healthier community than this on PC.

I'm more a Battlefield MP guy myself, though I'll pick up MW3 in a couple of years to play through the SP. I recently purchased MW2 for that, and hope to play through it sometime in the next year.

Buy Pepsi Products, get Double XP time in MW3.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/insertcoin/2011/09/28/modern-warfare-3s-pepsi-cross-promotion-steps-over-the-line/

I think it is brilliant, though I accept it with resignation. Brilliant way to take advantage of Double XP / RMT Buffs for cross-promotional purposes. The resignation is from the fact that the progression curve is being affected by outside influences, but that curve is already different for every player dependent on their skill and history with the franchise, so I guess they decided to say screw it and make money off it. That's in addition to the points the article raises.

Sigh.

As I was saying...

And as last time, new game modes will be old maps with ... :rimshot: ..."new" game mods

It's not like progression really matters in COD anyway; once you get to max level you Prestige and restart anyway so people who buy tons of Dew will just get there a little faster. If this were something like an MMO where getting to the cap was a big deal I could see the rage, but everyone Prestiges over and over anyway.

Pepsi's got what gamers crave. It's got electrolytes.

Saw this trailer on Gamespy and thought it was pretty funny.  Its a trailer featuring actors Sam Worthington as "The Vet" and Jonah Hill as "The nOOB".  I didn't recognize Hill at first.  Looks like he lost a shit-load of weight, which must be fairly recent since he was fat as fuck in Moneyball.

Edit: I think Dwight Howard is in this as well at the end.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=zuzaxlddWbk

I caught that ad on tv and wasn't sure if that was that (formerly) fat kid.

It's a good ad, but it doesn't change my mind about the COD series. I'm a Battlefield guy.

I borrowed MW2 from the library because I don't give a rats ass about multiplayer FPS.   It was actually a tolerable system for a console shooter and I enjoyed the 4-5 hours it took to play the SP campaign.  I can't say I felt the same about Bad Company 2 when I played it. There I Liked the story and characters but hated the interface.

I might just check out MW3 based on that experience alone.

This. Only CoD I played was 4, which was mildly amusing, but BF series does almost everything better.

Except single-player.  :awesome_for_real: Which is exactly what I DON'T play a modern military shooter for.

I haven't even loaded BF3 single player yet. COD4 was a decent campaign, however. I will just task my 9 year old nephew with completing it for me and getting the unlocks next time he visits  :awesome_for_real:

So, I'm thinking of picking this up tonight, since I've found a trade-in deal that will have the game cost half of RRP - and I'll get it eventually anyway - just like I got both MW2 and Blops 2 weeks ago .

Anyone here played it yet? What's the feedback and thoughts from the non-14-yo, non-CoD-fanboi brain trust here on the game?

It comes out tonight at midnight so I dunno how anyone could have played it yet.

I can give you my 15 year old nephew's impressions in about 3 hours.  He doesn't have school tomorrow because of the election and his mom is dumb enough to have agreed to take him to the midnight release.  :awesome_for_real:

Ah, okay. I just assumed you guys were getting the release before we do (as is usual). Also, street dates were broken left and right yesterday here as well.

The PC version runs great, obviously an iteration of the MW2 engine.

Only got a couple matches in, but god damn does this game still feel incredibly solid. The work they've done on the weapon sounds is great, everything has a really chunky feel to it.

I picked it up through my trade deal. Haven't had a chance to open the shrinkwrap yet. 360 version since they don't do trades involving the PC versions.

edit - just checking out some of the non-spoiler reviews around the net, I found this awesome quote from Game Informer:


Perhaps he's disappointed that a Phased Plasma Rifle in the 40-watt range isn't included in the loadout in this Modern Warfare game set after the world has gone to shit.  :awesome_for_real:

"Internet connection required for activation." I guess not. :oh_i_see:

As to the sounds, from what I hear from the videos, they've got nothing on DICE's weapon sounds. That's one of the things that impressed me the most about BC2, and by extension I suppose BF3 as well.

Doritos Double XP code for the first taker-


Had to try the Fiery Fusion flavor. They were pretty good, surprislngly- really had some actual heat to them, which I didn't expect.

This game truly is on the cutting edge of the industry.

I washed them down with a Diet Dr Pepper (which had a BF3 code, my secret reason for stopping at 7-11 in the first place).

The mass appeal of Battlefield, Call of Duty and their army of clones makes me realize yet again that I just don't understand people.

I try one of those games every other year hoping that I might 'get' it in the newest incarnation of the game but I still don't understand why people spend days on end to play one of maybe a hundred different variations of tag, while being fucked over by EA and Co. more each year.

I can't help it but I find multiplayer in shooters to be utterly boring and repetitive. That 12 Million people seem to enjoy just that and even so much so that they agree to be groped and fucked over by EA and Activision for every dollar they've got is absolutely mindboggling to me. If I was still in school I'd procrastinate with homework to avoid playing multiplayer in shooters that's how it bores me  :why_so_serious:.

It's also sad because single player in those games is no longer a viable playing option but just an alibi feature because the publisher don't yet dare to just release a multiplayer game. This makes single player in all of the games released over the last few years to be a short and half-assed experience. I also don't like the precedent it creates when publishers introduce the harshest DRM measures, DLC that milks you for very penny and game clients that practically work like trojans and collect more personal info from you than Google would have imagined in their wildest dreams possible.

All this + 70 dollars per game just for the opportunity to be called 'fag' by a 12 year old on x-box live. That even games like Uncharted or Mass Effect feel the need to include multiplayer to appeal to that crowd shows me that we're heading to yet another console crash as every game studio tries to "out-Battlefield Battlefield".

That was my "get of my lawn" old age rant for today, thanks for reading.

Seriously does anybody of the Battlefield or COD fans care to explain to me the appeal of repeatedly shooting people in the face in deathmatch or capture the flag? There must be a huge appeal to put up with all of the publisher bullshit but somehow it eludes me completely.

Well, in CoD W@W and BC2 there was a je-ne-sais-quoi about the gameplay. The larger maps in particular were keen, since here were different approaches and strats that would work to get close enough to ambush the enemy. That said, I think I can empathize with you regarding the more closed circuit shooter maps, which just seems a matter of memorizing the limited terrain.

That's why I've been playing WoT, since it does reward a strategic outlook a bit more, and its not entirely twitch based.

Sorry, I don't play it on X-Box, maybe that's why I don't encounter 12 year olds.  :awesome_for_real: Oh yeah, I'm not getting MW3 - There's just so much difference between it and BF3, I might as well just settle for one and never look at the other. I don't know about your community or country or server, on my side, there's no one talking in the game chat. Everyone's just shooting each other, capping objectives, coordinating on teamspeak. Just because public server is the den to leet kids, doesn't mean a grown community doesn't exist. I've seen 2 clan tags matches executed well in Battlefield games, I wasn't part of their clique but I enjoyed tagging along as a public guy and join their teamspeak to know what's going on in some open servers because they don't have enough members for a 24 v 24 maps.

Like you, I don't see the appeal of Dota and LoL even. Or Guild Wars even. It was too team-focused and I can't be bothered to focus so hard on working with 3-4 other people to achieve in games. Battlefield had the right blend of solo brilliance and some teamplay that can turn the tide of matches pretty easily. And that's what make it fun for me.

Its no different from repeatedly kicking a ball through some sticks, or even stranger, paying money to watch other people kick a ball through sticks while Sepp Blatter gets bribed to offer world cups to grossly rich middle eastern countries.

Its a competitive team sport.  Young men (on the whole) like competing against each other, with some way of keeping score to show a winner.  The fact it includes playing with guns just increases the appeal.  Adding in unlocks just adds a skinner box component that WoW did so well.  I'm not at all surprised its like crack cocaine to young men.

Why do I enjoy BF3 (as a not-particularly-young man)?  Because I enjoy playing soldier without having to worry about making my wife a widow.  Because its fun to hop on vent with some friends and work as a team towards an objective (ie killing other internet men).  Because I can play 10-15 minutes if I want.  Because I enjoy running around in a tank blowing stuff up (not much of a CoD fan here).  And I'm not a particularly competitive person - the whole joining clans thing is all too srs bsns for me.

I'm not saying that someone who doesn't enjoy this is broken - but thats why they're popular.

Nice summary pants. And not to turn this into a 'lets lynch Jeff' convo, but it does beg the question whether Jeff enjoys any group sporting activity, or if he can describe some type of game on the internets he does enjoy playing cooperatively, and how its different than CoD.

Someone point to a group sporting activity where purely by investing time you can accrue advantage.

That's really the secret sauce in COD. Unlocking stuff is fun and unlocking stuff that makes you more powerful has a lot of appeal to certain folks. Compare that to the fighting game community where such a feature would most likely be rejected. COD is not a fiercely purely competitive game. Which a lot of people obviously like a lot, though personally I'd much rather play a purely competitive game.

Seriously. Who didn't play fuckin Army Man as a kid with little tanks and soldiers and shit, or run around with toy guns. Battlefield is just getting to play Army Man and still pretend you are all grow'd up. Much moreso than CoD it's just a playground, with guns and tanks and airplanes.

The thing I hate the most about the current breed of competitive FPS games is how it's so infested with achievements and unlocks. I'm not playing a competitive FPS game to get unlocks just so I won't completely suck at it, I play it to compare my own skill against others.

Or, I would've, if it hadn't been for a few other ... aspects of them. :oh_i_see:

"Competitive."

Sorry I was probably a bit too harsh. Feel free to skin me alive I can take it :D.

It's not the competitive aspect or the team aspect (although I actually do like individual sports more than team sports), it just bores me. I probably can't explain it better than that.

It's usually fun for five minutes until I know the map, where all of the gun's locations are and I have killed my friends for 20 times (or get killed instead) then it just get's to be the same and I think "what's next?". I usually run through all of the maps and all of the play modes in an hour or two until I'm bored with it, especially since most mechanics haven't really changed from Quake DM or Counterstrike.

I feel like I'm missing out on something though because those games seem to be so insanely popular (Dota or Starcraft is nothing compared to 12 million copies of BF3 at launch).

You don't even like to push leetle cart?

I don't see the problem. I mean releasing more maps could add more and more interesting stuff to do, even some unlocks severely changes the game play. You might as well call every single player out there boring because it's all about going to set location, clear objectives, then what next?

Battlefield 3 campaign might be beyond retarded, but at least online play is considerably fun and will take time to drain. You cannot say you have mastered Jet, Tank, APC, Helicopter game play in all the one month it's been released. And it's all good variety.

Yea, I really really hate this.  I used to buy a game, and I'd just get access to the game...and then I'd play the game.  Now its like a fucking project to unlock the entire game before you can play it.  If your game needs unlocks to keep people interested, then you're game mechanics are shit to begin with.  I played 1000s of hours of CS and Quake, and I never once felt like I needed some goal besides just to play the game for itself. 

Achievement systems brought this in. There used to be a linear progression in this unlock system for Battlefield 2. Not many people mind. But I do agree, past Bad company 2, things started to go crazy and over-blown in unlocks that they start attaching sub-unlock to every unlocks. It keeps people occupied past the first month, but it could be a major source of irritant to those who started late. I also think it serves as a warning to cheaters and such, if they are caught with hacks, permanent ban would result in loss of $60 box copy usage (you cannot login to origin at all, maybe just play offline solo) AND the account tied to it. Quite a huge blow IMO.

BF2's unlock system was a bullshit grind that would make Vanguard's dev's blush.

Any update on the driver situation? Do you still need to use beta drivers to play BF3 or have NVIDIA updated? I can't seem to find a "proper" update...

The unlocks aren't for the competitive gamer types. They are for the non-hardcore: sets clear goals to shoot for with trackable progress, gives a tangible sense of progression to their playtime (not in skill), and to give additional, individual rewards beyond team victory. They are for casuals.

The game is more addicting when you are given positive feedback on a schedule, even if the feedback is from a machine and not a real-life friend or mentor.

wrong thread! derp!  :oh_i_see:

The unlocks and achievements are introduced to those games to keep gamer types like me entertained who wouldn't bother just playing MP. See WoW for how effective achievements and unlocks are to keep causals entertained.

Clear goal limited time frame necessary for completion and a small achievement even non-basement dwellers can obtain. 3. Profit

Ummm no. These achievements offers tangible reward, not just title or flaunt records type. You can unlock high powered scopes, and such if you played with certain rifles more than the other. It's not even fluff anymore with camo affecting your heat signature on IR scope vision. Imagine if WoW offered weapons that gives additional burning effect after 1000 pvp kills and that is what Battlefield unlocks has devolved into. You are simply not as competitive as the others if you aren't maximizing that sword damage output. Personally I've quit WoW before achievements are in, so maybe I'm seeing it wrong. But BF3 isn't achievement trackers - it's unlocking better gear with points gain and that's my major complaint. It has even spread to vehicles, your F18 can't fire a missile until you scored 2-3 gun kills. Nor can it fire flares right off the carrier. And that's what I don't like.

Don't we have a thread for Battlefield 3?

Did anyone pick up MW3? I'm debating it for my PS3, but I realize I'm not going to play it much once Skyrim comes out and $60 is a high price tag for ~2 days of entertainment.

As to the unlocks and not being competitive, that's more or less exactly what I mean. I didn't feel like playing BC2 enough to get more than the first few unlocks when I could be arsed to play it online. It's a fun enough game if you discount the fact that you can from time to time unload a full damn clip into someone and they just seem to shoot you 3-4 times and you die. I'm assuming the combination of you having suckassed guns and the other guy having heavy armor unlocks etc have a lot to say in this, but god damn that is frustrating as fuck.

But to get back to MW3, I've been looking at it for a bit, and I'm wondering if IW haven't actually learned some sort of lesson, what with them promising that there is indeed dedicated servers etc (but no lean, I don't think). There's also promises of it being steamworks only, yet there's a line on the steam store page saying online is needed for activations. I can't seem to find any particular info on what this activation entails. Has anyone else seen any info on this? Does anyone know whether or not the SP sucks just like it did in MW2, and whether or not the MP is marred with the same suckass unlock system BF3 is?

Whups - I thought this was the BF3 thread for my last post. I'll delete and repost..

I'm interested to see what sort of DRM systems and so forth MW3 on PC has - and what you lot have to say.

Maybe too many years of playing MMOs has gotten me into this mindset but I enjoy the unlocks, they are like little dings as you go along.

I'd personally just rather have them you know, let me actually play the entire game from the beginning.

I'm a Goon.  Playing with Goons on Mumble makes any game a lot of fun.

You killed me yesterday on Seine Crossing,  bastard. Tank v infantry too, you big bully.  And yes, the goon mumble is about 90% entertainment, 10% pure torture. I even log in and listen/chat when I play on other servers (where I do far better than vs goons).

Yea the skill level on Goon Servers is extremely high.

:Love_Letters:

The dedicated servers are for unranked play only  :uhrr: You want XP? Then it's IWNet.

I'm not sure if I can possibly convey how little I'd care for XP in multiplayer, I'd just care for being able to play it on the yearly/twice-yearly LAN party I go to, which may or may not have internet access. That, and singleplayer, but none of the games in that genre has had good singleplayer the last few years.

Or, in the words of a better man:

:Love_Letters:

Different strokes. The few shooters I'd played in previous generations I enjoyed the story, but multiplayer never had any hook for me because it was the same thing over and over and it just felt pointless. By adding XP, unlocks, levels, etc. I can play for a night and maybe get access to a few new weapons, attachments or something instead of just (failing to) get better at the game.

The other reason I prefer unlockable weapons is the common alternative is the "find the gun" style, where if you want to use something other than the default assault rifle (or whatever) you have to hope you can get to it before someone else does and camps it. You also end up with a much better weapon selection this way, instead of whatever 5 weapons the devs decided should spawn on any given map. CS is sort of the exception here, and until R6V or MW2 it was my preferred shooter, but the problem in CS was that weapon unlocks were tied directly to in-match performance, creating a 'rich get richer' scenario and making the first round the only one that really mattered.

Find the gun has the added benefit of being a tactical element, though. I've seen more than once on q3a videos etc where they take things, not because they need it, but to keep it away from the other guy. And by doing so he also tells the other guy where he's at.

Unlock the gun just means "suck ass the first few days, then get better weapon/more armor as time goes on". I just don't see the point behind it. vOv

Different strokes and all that. I prefer unlock-the-gun to find-the-gun. And CS' system sucks worse that either.

This is exactly why it is there, because it gives people who are bad something to feel good about.  I mean that in the nicest way possible.

Nice expansion pack, Activision!

(http://playstationlifestyle.net/wp-content/uploads/2011/11/ModernWarfare3_Error-685x428.jpg)


 :why_so_serious:

I'm right there with you. The unlock-the-gun does give playtime incentives to players who are "bad" players to keep playing. The Achievement/Leveling/XP/DINGGRATS feeling is an addiction mechanism. It especially makes sense in a business environment like today where DLC is not only profitable, it's expected. More guns to unlock? That means you'll buy the DLC and you can do it as a company in such a way that it doesn't segregate the player base like a map pack does.

Also, did anyone think COD:MW3 was anything BUT an expansion pack for MW2? Has it even been 2 years since MW2 was released? Didn't the COD franchise just release a "Black Ops" game as well?

Haven't played CS in forever crew checking in.

In other news: how is MW3's SP and MP? Still shorter than hell, and filled with dinggrats? Only activation needed is actually just steam?

Yeah, Black Ops is only a year old, its pretty clear they are going for the sports franchise yearly release schedule at this point.

Exactly. It's an improvement path that every has access to and has no ceiling (beyond unlocking everything), whereas actually improving at the game has a low ceiling for some people.

Personally if I am playing a good multiplayer game I don't need any incentive to keep playing. Having fun, competing and improving are enough. I can have fun with competitive games with unlocks but I classify them as casual non-competitive experiences really.

See, I found the starter AK in BC2 to be quite a good weapon - and once you unlock a scope that you can slap onto it, it's damned nice. Magnum rounds made a difference, and I don't know how prevalent heavy armour was either, since I always found something more useful to choose in that particular slot...

They've been doing that for awhile now - like 5 years. Alternating between IW and Treyarch releases. It's not new at this point.

COD4:MW - CoD: W@W - MW2 - COD: Blops - MW3

Next year will be Treyarch's turn again...

I loved the shit out of BF1942 and Desert Combat both. BF2's grind was a soul-crushing one, but since before EverQuest, I've always liked persistant games, or games that have some persistance to them. I enjoy jumping onto BC2 and shooting some fools, but I also enjoy(ed) the fact that pretty much every kill was also counting towards some bigger goal - the pavlovian skinner-box ding-grats of a new gun/scope/doohickey.

I was playing really simple RPGs with my older brothers since my age was in the single digits, so I've always liked being able to "improve my character". Adding it to FPS, as long as it's not in the BF2 form is something I do enjoy. I liked BC2's version especially since I could still do well with the early gear against veterans. Haven't played a recent MW or BF3 yet to compare them..

edit -
I like unlock systems where there's a relatively even playing field and things are achievable without needing to go onto a private server and grind 600 headshots against your non-moving friends. I'd also be pretty much as happy with cosmetic unlocks as rewards (rule of cool). Have a "prestige" option for those who care about such things, but don't make the grind painful and horrible. (some of the stuff in Space Marine for example, of bloody ridiculous).

What I really hate though are things like the overpowered and annoying perks and killstreak rewards in CoD4 - the grenade drop after dying was incredibly annoying BS, and that bloody helicopter killstreak.

I love games where you can improve your character, I just don't think it mixes particularly well with competitive play.

Enemy Territory did a good job, you could power up over the course of a campaign but then you reset at the start of the next one.

I get you, but then it's not persistant. Like I said, minor unlocks that are effectively cosmetic or offer alternative weapons without making them overpowered are my favourite types. I thought BC2 was overall pretty good in that regard, though not perfect.

ie - slower ROF, but more damage per shot, etc - giving variety without making one gun the BEST one.

Not to interrupt the conversation about FPS in general, but has anyone actually bought and played this yet?

Yeah, playing it as I type this. Single player is typically short, weighing in at about five hours. MP is not as tactical or as slow-paced as BF3.

I take it SP is more or less exactly the same formula/setup as MW2? I remember seeing something about being in a plane high up, where you sit with the 105mm cannon etc.

As someone who clocked 240+ hours into MW2 multiplayer on PC, this game is a worthy successor in multiplayer in my eyes. From my 16 hours or so I've clocked in it so far, I prefer the individual leveling of weapons much more to the currency system of Black Ops. It forces me to make interesting choices on weapon and equipment selection, and I actually end up enjoying myself more because of it.

They took out a lot of the dumb stuff, and while you'll still have the occasional dumb air support or killstreak death, they put in an incredible amount of counters to air support and killstreak rewards. Right from level 1, you have access to a perk that makes you invisible to air support and turrets. In the Support killstreak tree, you have access to a SAM turret, that will automatically shoot down air support that shows up for a little while, or until someone destroys it.

The changes to perks and the introduction of weapon proficiency bonuses make some interesting changes to play in super subtle ways that make it interesting when fine-tuning loadouts. The removal of Stopping Power (as in Black Ops) leaves that slot open to more interesting choices. They also smartly removed Lightweight (faster move speed) as a perk, forcing some more interesting choices. The replacement for that is the Speed weapon proficiency, which just makes heavier weapons like Sniper Rifles and LMGs not weigh down your move speed as much.

Sure, it's still the same peer-to-peer matchmaking for ranked matches and leveling up, but dedicated servers are available as an option for unranked play, with all the weapons and stuff unlocked, as well as custom game modes and mod support (eventually).

I played the original Call of Duty, hated it, then played COD4, hated it too. Stupid, linear, transparently scripted shams that lack everything I've liked about FPS games since Doom and Quake. Is this more of the same?

I don't think that question really deserves an answer. You knew what it would be before you posted, but you just wanted to bitch about scripted games from a holier-than-thou position to an audience.  :roll:

Not really. I haven't followed this at all, so its release and popularity took me by surprise. I actually wondered if there was something different about it and I have my answer. Thanks.

If you have CoD:

MW3 = MW2 map pack with tiny shitty cramped maps.

If you like CoD:

Refined the formula and fixed some balancing issues, well worth the money! Also I like Justin Beiber.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sAozpepj8hw

what the shit?

I'm completely sold bros. I'm totally not playing it. Cause I don't own it.  :awesome_for_real:

WOAH, Jesus, woah, slow the fuck down for a minute, okay?  Nobody, I'm pretty sure, nobody here is suggesting we actually stop giving them money.  We'll just do something that mildly inconveniences us, which is the important part of a boycott because it involves Me, and they'll HAVE to change their policy from "don't fix game" to "fix game."  With any luck, they'll do it during the boycott, and we'll be able to play the fixed version on Saturday, which works out well for us since we'll be strung out following our prolonged MW3 withdrawl.

That'll show them!

I enjoyed the top comment:

:awesome_for_real: