Well the thing im disappointed is that about the campaign. Every CoD is about busting ****ing doors, same gameplay, and take out this dude and get that dude. The E3 demo looked like MW2 with a new storyline.
You know at a certain point games pretty much reach a graphical limit, especially if using the same graphical engine so you couldn't expect it to look better. I know everyone automatically assumes the graphics must be 100% better for a sequel every year. As far as story...well it does take place directly after the events of MW2 in which the USA was invaded. All bitchin and moaning aside CoD's single player has always been about the "ohshi!" moments and not about a cohesive plot. So while this should be expected its still worth it to see those moments. That helicopter scene in the demo was pretty sweet. I guess when it comes down to it I just don't understand peoples' problem with it. I mean what were you expecting out of a CoD game?
It's not necessarily a bad thing, no. And they've done a little improvement, in terms of lighting and whatnot, but you'd think there'd be just a little more difference between games in some way. Couldn't care less really, I'm still buying it.
A graphical limit? First of all, games are not at their graphical limit, and I'd guess they aren't even close. Second, if CoD has met it's graphical limit on their current engine, then it's time to make a new ****ing engine. Also, just because MW3 has a story does not mean it really has a story. The plots in these games, and you cannot deny this, are only there to take you to certain locations and see certain set pieces. For me, CoD campaigns have completely lost their "Oh ****!" element because they never dial it back. Everything is always on 11 and I've just become desensitized to anything they've thrown at me. It stopped being "Oh ****!" and started being "Really? An even bigger explosion?" Overall, CoDs are not bad games, but they're stagnant, unchanging. All I want is for the largest piece of entertainment history to be the one to take a few chances or strive to actually be the best, because it's the only one which can afford to do so.
"Bond films are stupid, all he does is blow stuff up, have sex with women, and defeat stereotypically nefarious bad guys".
First, you'd be surprised how close games are to that limit. Epic released a trailer a whiles back showing what is is not currently capable on current gen consoles, even in blu-ray format. Also, your second statement shows the clear distinction between fan who plays games, and fan who knows how games work. Making a new engine is a very costly thing and if the market doesn't call for it there is no point in making such an expenditure. The game sells, A LOT, so while that is the case Activision is going to keep CoD just the way it is. The developers will always make minor improvements here and there but that is just the way it is. And I completely agree with that plot assessment, doesn't mean the journey to those set pieces is any less cool. There's a word for that...it's called cynicism. I'm sorry you can't enjoy cool things anymore. Again, you and millions others will keep buying it so they won't change much. That's the video game business. There needs to a reason to take risks, as Infinity Ward just went through some major staff remodeling and other developers needed to step in MW3 cannot handle to much risk because if it doesn't sell that would effectively be the end of the new Infinity Ward, (Kotick more or less stated this as well.)
Just because Epic releases a demo of graphics possible on next generation consoles does not mean that is the peak. That was CG, and I'm convinced that in the future we'll be playing Pixar level graphics in real time. I realize that the market is not demanding a better graphics engine, and that building a new engine is costly, but that's the biggest problem with Activision and these games. If any developer in the world can afford to make a kickass engine, it's Infinity Ward. Like I said, Call of Duty is not a bad game, but it has the potential to be so much more. You're justifying Call of Duty's engine by saying that it'll cost a lot and the market doesn't demand it, but Games are works of art. The market didn't demand Picasso to paint strange, abstract pieces of art that creepily portrayed real life objects and people, but he did and then people realized that was what they wanted. The point is, with all their success and revenue, Activision and IW should be pushing the limits of gaming. But they aren't because, and this is a direct quote from the CEO of Activision, their only goal is "to take all the fun out of making video games." Activision only cares about money, not about games, and that's why CoD hasn't and won't meet its full potential. It's not cynicism, its desensitization. Explosions are cool. Guns are cool. First person action sequences are cool. Everything CoD does in its campaigns are inherently cool, but they overdo it. There's literally no sense of pacing in the games, never a time for you to reflect on what just happened. I actually won't be buying MW3. That's the only way consumers can speak, with their money. Trust me, I understand where you're coming from. Companies have to make money to stay in business. But that's not what video games should be about. It should be about bringing a vision to life in an engaging, interactive experience. Video games are art, Call of Duty is a product.
octopussy was on TV today, all i could do was cringe and wtf at roger moore getting gash LRAC. i pretty much did the same at MW2. ghillies in the mist was 'oshi-' but there werent any big explosions
I'm pretty sure they took a step backwards; or at least just ripped the bot matches straight out of Black Ops.
should've just cut the bullshit and given us zombies. anyhow, that presentation looked awful. do they even try anymore or just package the same horseshit every year and claim it different?