Modern Warfare 3

[Margalis]

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.

"Competitive."

[Jeff Kelly]

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).

[Ingmar]

You don't even like to push leetle cart?

[rk47]

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.

[Malakili]

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.

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. 

[rk47]

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.

[Azazel]

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...

[LK]

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.

[Azazel]

wrong thread! derp! 

[Jeff Kelly]

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

[rk47]

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.

[Rendakor]

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.

[tgr]

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?

[Azazel]

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.

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.

[AcidCat]

gives a tangible sense of progression to their playtime

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.

[Malakili]

gives a tangible sense of progression to their playtime

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.

[slog]

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

[WayAbvPar]

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).

[slog]

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.

[Sky]

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. 

[snowwy]

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?

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

[tgr]

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:

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. 

[Rendakor]

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.

[tgr]

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

[Azazel]

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

[Malakili]

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.

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.

[rk47]

Nice expansion pack, Activision!




 

[HaemishM]

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

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?

[tgr]

And CS' system sucks worse that either.

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?

[Malakili]

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

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?

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

[Margalis]

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.

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.

[rk47]

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

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?

MW3 was released with the program identifying itself as 'Modern Warfare 2' upon crashing. What do you think?

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

[Azazel]

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.

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...

[Azazel]

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

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...

[Azazel]

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.

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.

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.