Call of Whoopsie: Modern Warfare 3 Spoilt?

By Alec Meer on May 13th, 2011 at 4:19 pm.

The guy on the left leaked it. I have PROOF

Someone’s getting a) bollocked b) fired c) executed tonight, I’m sure. If Kotaku’s sources are right, basically everything about this year’s Call of Duty has just been blown wide open and revealed to John Q. Public some six months before likely release. It’s Modern Warfare 3 and it’s…

Nah, I’ll stop there. Well, spoiling spoilers would probably be pretty wretched behaviour on my part, so I shall leave any decision as to whether you go to the below link to discover the game’s entire plot months before it’s released to you. I read it, because my own experience and tastes suggests that caring about a Modern Warfare game’s plot is pretty much up there with caring about what colour toilet paper the Queen uses, but I guess it’s pretty rotten that those who are into it are going to find it bloody hard to avoid hearing it about for the next half-year. I’m not going to add to that risk, fear not.

What I will say is that, if all of this is as true as it appears to be, it’s a direct sequel to MW2 from a narrative perspective and deals with the various plot threads left hanging. Good-o.

Kotaku are splitting their frightening amounts of information into various posts, some of which are spoiler-free – here’s the broad overview, which is relatively safe to read, here’s details of the multiplayer, and here’s all the God-damned spoilers.

There’s various screenshots, artwork and even audio scattered throughout. Activision are going to be aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaangry: essentially, another company is controlling the flow of information about their game. Who was responsible for the leak? Someone internal, an outsourced media company, or someone with a vendetta after all that mucky business with Infinity Ward’s bosses a few years ago? Or just a lucky janitor? We may never know. Unless someone tells us. Then we’ll know. That’s how it works, see.

With several months to go until likely release (presuming they stick to their usual early Winter CoD schedule), I guess it’s possible Activision can change a whole bunch of stuff so not everyone knows exactly what to expect.

Here’s one spoiler for you though: there are GUNS. And AMERICANS.

__________________

« | »

, , , , , .

140 Comments »

  1. kyrieee says:

    I don’t give a crap about MW3 or its story, but I think it’s a bit distasteful of Kotaku to post the entire story of the game. Show some respect to the people working on it, Activision employees or not.

    • Lewie Procter says:

      Except their job/responsibility is to pass on news to their readers, not keep stuff a secret because it might upset devs/publishers.

    • kyrieee says:

      I’m sure you’d feel the same way if it were Mass Effect 3

      /sarcasm

    • sonofsanta says:

      You can’t blame a website for running with a story that will net them enormous amounts of traffic. TBH, by splitting the main story plot off into a page heavily prefaced with spoiler warnings, they’ve done more than a lot would.

      With regards to the work of the employees – they’ve not spilt any code here, and, well… I doubt Kotaku stole the stuff themselves. The person who gave it to them would be the guilty party there.

    • Ricc says:

      Lewie is right. I know that comparing games coverage to journalism is often a vague proposition at best, but you can’t have journalistic independence and a responsibility to your readers and not step on anybody’s feet at the same time.

    • kyrieee says:

      This is not journalism and them choosing to not publish it would have nothing to do with journalistic freedom.
      It’s not a huge deal either, but I don’t think it’s tasteful and if someone emailed RPS the entire story of [insert anticipated game here] then I hope, and think, that they wouldn’t publish it just for cheap clicks because RPS actually has integrity.

    • Lewie Procter says:

      I’d probably chose not to read the story if it was a game I cared about, but I would still say that kotaku is in the right to publish it if they think it is newsworthy.

    • abhishek says:

      All the people saying it’s okay for Kotaku to post the entire campaign online would probably be seething in rage and anger if the spoilers had been for Portal 2 for example.

      Kotaku have gladly traded in ‘journalistic integrity’ for hits because this benefits absolutely no one but them. Not the people who are working on the game. Not their readers. No one but them.

    • TillEulenspiegel says:

      I’m the last person in the world to defend Nick Denton and the slimeballs who work for him.

      But I’m really not understanding the angry spoilerphobia. Didya know that A Game of Thrones was leaked in 1996, yet somehow millions of people are watching and enjoying the TV series without having been spoiled by those spoily books? More to the point, I’ve played several popular games years after release with no prior knowledge of the plots.

      This really is a case of Just Don’t Read It.

    • Laephis says:

      Give it a rest, Internet White Knights. The story is news, and websites publish news. If you don’t want your experience of a yet another military FPS ruined, then *don’t read the damn spoilers.*

    • Antsy says:

      Its Call of Duty, just how shocking can the spoilers be?

      *SPOILERS* The Terrorist/Renegade former Soviet General/Turncoat American Guy antagonist is your father! Your squad mates see dead people…everywhere! You are, in fact, Keyser Soze!*SPOILERS*

      I own Modern Warfare 1&2, and I still have no idea what happens in them.

      Nooo don’t tell me! LALALALALA.

    • Deano2099 says:

      News is either:
      a) something someone wants you to know; or
      b) something someone doesn’t want you to know.

      Videogame news is almost entirely from group a), so it’s nice to see something from group b) even though some people are getting quite confused by it.

      It’s the job of a journalist to report things that would be of interest to their readers. This would be. And it’s not like the spoilers weren’t highlighted.

      You can only question their journalistic integrity if they actually used subterfuge or broke the law to get the information themselves. Or if they paid for it (thus encouraging ‘that sort of thing’). Assuming it was just an anonymous tip-off from a ‘leak’ there’s no integrity issue here.

      If you want to attack someone, attack the guy that leaked it.

    • JoeX111 says:

      This is the old “name the rape victim” argument: If the news media publishes the name, they are hurting the victim while hiding behind people’s right to know. But if they keep it a secret, then they’ve broken their promise to honestly and accurately report all the facts.

      It’s just a question of how you’d like to vilify the journalists.

    • jamesgecko says:

      @JoeX111
      A bit of a false dichotomy, because news media never reports all the facts anyway.

    • Deano2099 says:

      Except (at least in the UK) rape victims are legally entitled to that anonymity unless they or a judge decide otherwise. I don’t know of any circumstances where the ban on naming them has been lifted, and the newspapers decide not to print it anyway.

      Journalist’s job is to report the facts as far as the law allows it.

    • Simon Hawthorne says:

      I’m just annoyed that it’s Kotaku who have this. After alienating their readership with that ridiculous format, I don’t think any serious discussion around integrity can be had. This is possibly the best business decision they’ve made for months and it’s still sullied by that one stubborn refusal. /rant

    • kyrieee says:

      I hear it’s nice to read the comments you’re replying to.
      I’m not angry about getting spoiled, I’m not white knighting IW and if you think this is a step forward for games journalism then I don’t know what you’re thinking. This isn’t blowing the lid on a corporate cover up, there’s no moral or journalistic obligation to post it, it’s purely egotistical and distasteful. The fact that it happened to be MW3, which no one here (me included) likes is completely beside the point.

    • Zacqary Adam Green says:

      @JoeX111
      Are you comparing the Call of Duty franchise to a rape victim?

      Because…well…I’m not sure I can disagree with that.

    • qrter says:

      I think the term “white knighting” isn’t that unfair, as it’s not really clear why reporting on a leaked plot is supposed to be immoral/distasteful etc. Surely any such leak is a matter between the developers and the person who leaked it, not the press reporting on the leak, or the people reading about the leak.

      To me it’s the kind of ethical vaguery that I tend to associate with “.. won’t someone please think of the children!”.

    • Peggle20 says:

      The one guy who cares about the call of honor: medal of duty single player narrative would be devastated if he wasn’t imaginary.

    • Glycerine says:

      I’m incredibly confused by the whole thing, because to me it seems like the approach which shows integrity is to break the story, but do so in a way that doesn’t completely ruin it for any gamer who goes near their site.

      But, this is Kotaku, and that’s what they’ve done…the whole thing makes absolutely no sense.

    • sebmojo says:

      Oh fer godssake – if you don’t want to be spoiled, don’t read it. Simple enough.

    • madbird-valian says:

      Oh for fuck’s sake. You know what would solve the problem, if you were someone who cared about the plot of Call of Duty 194? You could possibly not click on the link that says “Warning, there are huge spoilers in here. The spoilers. They’re here. You’ve been warned, of the spoilers, so if you don’t want to see spoilers, don’t read this page”.

      If all the details of Mass Effect 3 got leaked (which I am hugely looking forward to), I simply wouldn’t read it, and I would kill any of my friends stupid enough to tell me any of it with a a trowel. “Journalistic integrity” is an oxymoron; Kotaku has absolutely no loyalty to game companies, or to it’s readers. It’s job is to provide a story. I, for one, think the story of Modern Warfare 3 getting leaked is both hilarious and newsworthy. By seperating hte spoilers into a seperate article, they’ve already satisfied whatever conscience they may have. Stop white knighting.

    • quantum36 says:

      Whaaaatttt!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! YOu mean Modern Warfare has a story!!!!!!!!!! Maybe we all have been playing a different game because that narrative that comes of like a screen play written by a retarted Michael Bay is not a story. It some plastic cut scene that goes blah, blah a couple of explosions and some music by Hans Zimmerman for good measure. If you call that a story then the dumbing down of society is even more severe then previously thought

    • Aankhen says:

      All the people saying it’s okay for Kotaku to post the entire campaign online would probably be seething in rage and anger if the spoilers had been for Portal 2 for example.

      You’re kidding, right? Why would I care if some site I don’t read posted clearly-demarcated spoilers for Portal 2?

      More to the point, why would I care if some site I do read posted clearly-demarcated spoilers for Portal 2? I’d just, y’know, not click. (Assuming this were to happen before I played the game, of course.)

    • Shih Tzu says:

      Um, as if Gawker Media would hesitate for a second to print anything likely to result in massive, massive linkage and page hits. Have you forgotten the day they made hundreds of thousands of dollars off of a stolen iPhone and took care to publicize, simply for the purpose of public ridicule, the entire online and offline social life of the Apple employee who owned the phone?

      I frigging hate Apple, and that still got me to swear off the Gawker group for good.

  2. Groove says:

    There’s an army man in it?! But Alec, you said you weren’t going to spoil it =(

    • MadTinkerer says:

      Major spoiler: You shoot a gun at an enemy soldier, who is also trying to shoot you. The sound the gun makes is suspiciously similar to Cliff Bleszynski yelling “Boring!”. I played a secret beta leaked earlier this year. ;)

  3. woodsey says:

    Saying it has spoilers implies somebody cares about its story. And for my own sanity, I can’t let that be true.

    • Stranglove says:

      But, but, but, there are explosions! Story integral explosions!

    • McDan says:

      Which the character cannot look at because they are far too cool!

  4. Schaulustiger says:

    They seem to stick to the same formula again, so I’m pretty uninterested. The last CoD that got me excited was the first one in the series, because it had an excellent multiplayer mode (well, until they destroyed it with some patches).

  5. mjig says:

    I don’t actually care about COD or anything Activision does really, but I like to imagine Kotick as Kingpin from Spider-Man. Anything that may send him to into a rage is always good for an amusing daydream.

    • Felixader says:

      I really liked BLUR, goddamn shame what they did with the team.

  6. Milky1985 says:

    Have they made the story like they made the last one, by first making the multiplayer levels then figuring out a story to link them all together for the SP?

    (before anyone complains they even admitted doing it this way in interviews last time :/ at least with black ops it looks like the SP and MP levels were done at least partially seperate!)

    Not holding out a lot of hope for this one, know it will sell well reguardless tho :(

    • Dances to Podcasts says:

      I actually got the feeling that on the last one they were deliberately jumping the… well, jumping twenty sharks on a monocycle juggling chainsaws on fire. Became an even more interesting theory considering what happened afterwards. :)

  7. Daniel Rivas says:

    So it’s still not in space, then?

  8. Conor says:

    What a shame.

  9. RaytraceRat says:

    How you can spoil a CoD game? It will be about men running around with guns and shooting each other.
    Oooops, I think I just spoiled CoD:MW 5, 6, 7…14…

    • Thants says:

      You could spoil it by giving away some of the surprising and clever events that happen, like in CoD 4.

    • woodsey says:

      I don’t think we should start regarding CoD 4 as clever just because its the least stupid of the bunch.

  10. TechRogue says:

    I suppose it’s too much to hope for that this will result in the project being canceled?

  11. Hunam says:

    The pics of the guns do get me excited though. Even in the G-36 is the G-36K rather than the original battle rifle version.

    • Stranglove says:

      Surely you mean assault rifle? Technically, the K is still an assault rifle, just a carbine (Karbiner) version, a bit like the M4.

      But yes, more games should have G36 variants in.

    • Hunam says:

      Ah, you are correct, I got it confused with the G3 which was it’s predecessor which was a battle rifle. The full fat G36 is such a nice looking gun, the K however looks a bit less awesome with the shorter barrel which makes it look like a toy gun.

    • Keymonk says:

      Eff, wrong place! Sorry.

    • YourMessageHere says:

      This. Story details being leaked are of no real moment to me; I’ll play it through to get some sort of context for the MP maps, but probably not touch it again. The gun list is much more interesting.

    • Felixader says:

      Hehehe, lucky me beeing German and all and having served in the German Army and having use the G36, wich would be really awesome …. well if it wouldn’t have been overshadowed by me maning a Leopard 2. X-P

  12. Protome says:

    Spoilers. You shoot a lot of respawning enemies.
    Then two hours later you finish the single player.

  13. Flappybat says:

    Shouldn’t Kotaku not release this information out of journalistic integri… ahahahaha.

    • Daniel Rivas says:

      Why would appeasing a large company instead of doing their jobs show more journalistic integrity?

    • Flappybat says:

      What does anyone gain by them giving the story away? The other details can at least build hype but telling everyone the ending and twists isn’t a good thing in my opinion.

    • Outsider says:

      Personally, I think this is a dick move, and it’s troubling to see so many excited about it. If Skyrim was handled this way, or the Witcher 2, or some random Obsidian game we’d be wading through a river of tears right now.

      I guess the people that make games that other people enjoy playing had it coming though.

    • Daniel Rivas says:

      Then be annoyed at the person who leaked it.

    • Laephis says:

      No, Outsider, if this happened to any other game that we actually cared about, we wouldn’t read the story that has huge “SPOILER ALERT” warnings. This isn’t rocket science, jeeze……………

    • Outsider says:

      Daniel – I didn’t say I wasn’t, and I view the people that made the decision to publish it as directly complicit in the release of information not meant to be released.

      Laephis: The principle of it is more what bothers me, and as I said, I have a feeling some opinions on this sort of thing would change rather severely if the title was not Call of Duty. That has nothing to do with clicking on the link or not. (Though I appreciate that RPS clearly labelled the links :)

    • Keymonk says:

      Gonna have to agree with Laephis. I really wouldn’t care much if a game I was interested in got spoiled; I’d just avoid the spoilers in question. Especially helpful are RPS and Kotaku’s way of covering it where they neatly label spoilers for our avoiding convenience.

    • Deano2099 says:

      I think there’s some reveling in this as:

      a) CoD is considered derivative and uninspired by many; and

      b) The plot to the last MW game was so convoluted and all over the place you’d need something like the article Kotaku published to make any sense of it.

      But were it Portal 2 or something else people cared about… people just wouldn’t read it.

      There’s a horrible underlying but unspoken argument here that goes “they shouldn’t have published it as some people won’t be able resist looking it and spoil the game for themselves” or even “I couldn’t resist looking and spoiled the game for myself” in some cases.

      That’s your problem, not Kotaku’s. If you have issues, get them looked at. Don’t try and make the world bend to your personal taste.

    • sebmojo says:

      Look, I’ll run an in-depth simulation in my head of what I would feel if Witcher 2, Portal 2 and ME3 were spoiled in a clearly marked spoiler section that I could read or not read.

      Nope, I wouldn’t give a crap about that either.

      The moment a game comes out you can spoil yourself by going to gamefaqs, so I really don’t see the difference.

    • Outsider says:

      Deano,

      There’s a horrible underlying but unspoken argument here that goes “they shouldn’t have published it as some people won’t be able resist looking it and spoil the game for themselves”

      Is there? That might be the argument you’re having by yourself, but not with me.

      Personally, as I’ve said above, the principle of it is what I find distasteful not the fact that people cannot resist looking. You can still find an action distasteful even if it doesn’t hurt anyone, yes? If someone spends their time being an absolute twat without really hurting anyone, people might still find their actions distasteful and disapprove of their twattery on principle. That’s where I am and I think that’s reasonable.

      That’s your problem, not Kotaku’s. If you have issues, get them looked at. Don’t try and make the world bend to your personal taste.

      You should have placed that useless, ill-aimed, condescending claptrap at the beginning of your reply, then I’d have known right off not to bother reading the rest.

    • Erd says:

      I haven’t played portal 2 yet, and at some point I plan too. Whats stopping me from going on wikipedia or a half-life wiki and spoiling the plot for myself? Should sites like these not be allowed to post a synopsis in case I read it? I’d like to give people a little credit in regards to self control.

  14. aldo_14 says:

    I’ve pretty much given up on the series after the first Modern Warfare (which I actually quite liked, to be honest, it was just the pricing strategy after that), but I read the Kotaku stuff out of curiosity. And it basically seems they made the storyline through a complex, involved process of throwing darts at a map.

  15. terry says:

    Someone with a grudge against Activision? Perhaps they should make a list of suspects. Might need to order in more paper, though.

  16. BwenGun says:

    I was spoilered and all I can say is Meh. The story is idiotic, just like MW2. Which is only really a shame as the original Modern Warfare’s singleplayer story was really rather good. I still remember the opening as being one of the best introductions to a manshoot ever. But to be honest the story being idiotic isn’t really a surprise. The real reason I’ll not buy the game, short of a steam sale, is that I’m bored of the current generation of Manshoots that CoD has spawned.

  17. LazerBeast says:

    As an American I’m glad to see a game representing both Americans, and guns. To often these two elements are neglected in the gaming world. Now is our time to shine/shoot.

    • Ergates_Antius says:

      Now all we need is some kind of game where the Americans get to point the guns at other people, and maybe even pull the trigger now and then.

  18. smi1ey says:

    I felt bad about all this info being leaked, until I remembered it’s Activision.

  19. Mike says:

    what colour toilet paper the Queen uses, but I guess it’s pretty rotten

    Oh, Alec. Alec, come on. Act your age.

  20. Jorum says:

    urh, having read the spoilers the campaign sounds like even more awful mash-up pointless mess than MW2.

  21. mondomau says:

    While I agree that releasing this information doesn’t necessarily impugn Kotaku’s ‘journalistic integrity’ (cough cough), it does speak volumes about their lack of integrity generally and their increasingly desperate page-view whoring. They could have just easily dropped a few hints, maybe thrown out a few pics / sound-bites to prove they aren’t full of shit.
    But no, they just shot the whole lot all over the front page with no regard for the developers, the fans or the franchise itself. I say this as a staunch hater of MW2 and Acti in general.
    Pah.

    • Deano2099 says:

      Who is this hurting exactly?

      The fans? They can choose not to read it.

      The developers? Well if people are saying “that sounds shit” there’s still time to change it.

      The marketeers and their ability to build hype by drip-feeding information bit by bit? Yes well okay, but why should I care? And more importantly, why should the press care? They constantly have to kow-tow to the marketeer’s timetable that has no regard for their publication dates, why should it work the other way?

    • mondomau says:

      I never said it hurt anyone. It just struck me as unnecessary to post quite so much exhaustive detail.

  22. Jad says:

    Well, at least this time I won’t be disappointed by the story. I actually liked the story in the first Modern Warfare; sure it was larger than life, but in that (early) Tom Clancy-ish geo-political thriller, semi-plausible kind of way. Americans caught up in war in Middle East, Russian ultranationalists get hands on loose nukes, special forces team saves world. Not particularly nuanced, but grounded in some kind of reality. The nuke scene was surprising, and the AC-130 bit was chilling and an eye-opening look into almost sci-fi capabilities of modern militaries (for me at least).

    Then MW2 went utterly batshit crazy with undercover agents perpetrating airport massacres and Russia somehow invading the US and the good guys launching nukes over the East Coast and high-ranking US generals betraying America with private armies for ludicrous reasons and just tons of pure fantasy bullshit.

    I haven’t read the whole spoiler thing, but even just going by the screenshots, it looks like MW3 will be more along the lines of MW2 than MW1. Ah well.

    • dysphemism says:

      @Jad: My thoughts exactly! After MW2, I feel like nobody remembers that MW1 actually did some really interesting things for first-person narrative (for me, too, the nuke scene and the AC-130 stand out), despite it being a manshoot. And the presentation, while obviously pro-militarism, had its fair share of moments that were off-putting enough to make you think it actually had something to say about violence and conflict in the modern era.
      MW2 was an incoherent mess by comparison, and an over-adrenalized, jingoistic one at that. MW3 seems poised to follow on that trajectory, while upping the free-world-under-siege quotient. It seems so silly as to be unworthy of comment, but it’s troubling to me that games are capitalizing on real fears that the West is besieged, our Way Of Life fragile and the next 9/11 imminent. It’s a military-industrial mythology propped up by, like you said, “just tons of pure fantasy bullshit.”

  23. Kaihekoa says:

    A disjointed, illogical story whose purpose is to merely provide a setting for a short, but thrilling and high action single-player campaign? It can’t be, not in a COD game! Seriously, this isn’t really a spoiler at all. The hoards of Xbox/Playstation gamers whose thirst for yearly arcade/modern military shooters prefixed with “Call of Duty” that cost $60 (and $15 for four new maps!) is greater than their sense of frugality would buy it if the story was the colonial-era European superpowers reclaiming their lost colonies or a zombie-mech Hitler bent on world dominance and the genocide of all Caucasians. Activision will happily take their $60 again and again for the same, essentially re-skinned (design wise) game with new textures and perhaps a twist or reimplementation of a feature from a previous game, year after year.

  24. Icarus says:

    Yeah, I never especially cared about Call of Duty, and after reading the plot spoilers, now I know why.

  25. sidhellfire says:

    USA is dominate again!

    • Teddy Leach says:

      Blah, blah, blah, secret base.

      Boring Boring. Boring. Boring. BLOODY SCREEN! SO REAL!

    • Outsider says:

      Why is it that the two main characters are British special ops then? All the US managed to do in the last game was get its ass kicked. You should be cheering.

    • rivalin says:

      Oh joy, childish anti-americanism!

      In case you hadn’t realised America has military spending equivalent to the next 19 largest nations, which means, shockingly, that they tend to “is dominate” bloody everything.

      To be honest it’s fairly staggering that the biggest game in American history places so much emphasis on British characters. It also features a multinational special ops team with Australian, Canadian, British and American members, again, the only western countries that actually still know how to fight, so pretty based in reality there too.

      If you want to complain is suppose you could say anglos is “dominate”, because the last game certainly didn’t glorify the American military by itself, what with it using elements of the US Army to provide the ultimate antagonists and all.

    • Felixader says:

      Hahaha, and here i was thinking that in the end US Soldiers had still to figth dirty and awfully figths down on the floors and in the streets of foreign countrys, cause down there all that High Tech is useless anyway and a bullet doesn’t need to be hightech to rip your body apart.
      Silly me.

    • Bret says:

      Well, high tech makes those bullets a lot less lethal, if you bothered to, well, read anything. Ever.

      Top shelf tech isn’t omnipotence, but it lets you trade bodies for bodies at a hell of a lot better a rate. It’s like X-Com. Sure, your power armored supermen with lasers still can die in one shot, but less of them do it than the schmucks in BDUs and overalls, and they’re better at icing hostiles fast then they would be otherwise.

      As for this game, the American jingoism arguments are finally right! They’re apparently phasing out Soap and Price for Delta force jerks, as opposed to British jerks. So, that’s a nice removal of the few positive factors.

      Game looks like tosh. Who here is surprised?

    • erhebung says:

      @rivalin – I think there are special forces soldiers in the Norwegian, French, and Polish armed forces, among others, who would argue that they “know how to fight”. I read something about a fairly hardcore SF team from New Zealand, too. Fairly sure a large number of Western armed forces know what they’re doing.

    • sidhellfire says:

      @Outsider Well, since Brit soldiers are the US Slaves, it does not matter who’s uniform is showed.

  26. Stranglove says:

    I like that Alec spells angry with many a’s, it really gives me a feeling of how aaaaaaaaaaaaangry activision will be.

  27. jimjames says:

    OH EM JEEZ TOTALLY POSTING ON WIKILEAKZ

  28. Teddy Leach says:

    Not the President’s daughter. Again? Really?

  29. Kaira- says:

    Jeesh, could you people be any more mad at Cowwaduuty even if you tried?

    • Daniel Rivas says:

      I enjoyed call of duty four. I thought the most recent modern warfare had some horrendously difficult bits and didn’t make much sense.

  30. man-eater chimp says:

    PLOT TWIST some men got shot.

    I care not for CoD, I liked modern warfare but not to the extent where I would buy the same game again with a number one higher than the previous title on the end, i’ll leave that for Football Manager.

  31. Rii says:

    Meh.

  32. Ginger Yellow says:

    If Kotaku’s sources are right, basically everything about this year’s Call of Duty has just been blown wide open and revealed to John Q. Public some six months before likely release.

    So, when exactly did this become unusual? Because Rockstar aside, it used to be the case that you’d know everything about almost every game 6 months ahead of release. And you’d know quite a bit a year ahead of release. Obviously spoiling the entire story is not the norm, but total media blackout on story and content this close to release is a new thing.

  33. Darkelp says:

    Anonymous did it.

  34. Zorganist says:

    I’m looking forward to the level set in the London Subway. Not enough FPS’s have firefights that take place in restaraunts, if you ask me. And an attack on the House of Parliament? OH NOES!

    I wonder which House they’re referring to…

  35. Poppis says:

    I wonder how many peoples MW3 gaming experience is now ruined.

  36. Mario Figueiredo says:

    Just out of curiosity (really, no sarcasm intended), what motivates an editor like Brian Crecent to turn a website like Kutaku into “Wikileaks for Gamers”?

    I’m asking because, as a service to their readers, this type of information is actually a non-service. So it cannot be in the name of a desire to inform that this is done. Or, if it is, it is largely misplaced. There are basic deontological rules journalists tend to know about. Making a piece where the exact compounds and fabrication process of the poison that killed one Mr. Johnson, is agreed to be unacceptable. But significantly more damaging than spilling the guts on inside information of a game, for sure. However, within the domain of gaming journalism, it sort of could be said that the poison formula and fabrication process were revealed. These professional rules in fact exist to level the desire to inform to acceptable ethical standards within every journalist domain. Basically that not everything goes. And what isn’t acceptable is largely a function of the journalist moral integrity.

    As such, pieces like these speak very little of those that write them. Very little indeed. Regardless of the importance each and one of us may give to the information (I for instance, don’t give a crap about MW), I concentrate my attention on the fact “if you did that to them, you’ll do it to someone else I care about”. Just like that friend you see hurting everyone around you; despite not having hurt you, you just can’t trust him.

    The only rationale I can make of these type of news (and I’m speaking particularly of the more damaging of the 3 articles linked above) is one, some, more possibly all of:

    a) Irresponsibility and lack of proper education in journalistic ethics
    b) Not caring for readers as being the recipients of information that will damage them, instead of help them staying informed.
    c) The realization that this type of news generate traffic and ahead of any desire to produce quality news, there’s the desire to make money. Or more specifically, quality news will be ditched every time there’s a possibility to make more money.

    • Deano2099 says:

      Can I just ask how you square:

      “I’m asking because, as a service to their readers, this type of information is actually a non-service. So it cannot be in the name of a desire to inform that this is done.”

      and

      “The realization that this type of news generate traffic and ahead of any desire to produce quality news, there’s the desire to make money.”

      ?

      What do you think ‘traffic’ that ‘makes money’ is? Magic elves? ‘Traffic’ is ‘readers’. If readers don’t want the information then they won’t visit the site and there will be no traffic.

      The very fact that a story like this will make the site money means that people are interested in reading it, in which case it’s a valid service to be providing surely?

    • Keymonk says:

      Just gonna note that people can just choose to not read the spoilers. News sites are supposed to give news, and a leak of a game’s story is news. If you don’t want it spoiled, you can just not read it. If a headline is ‘ALL CoDMW3 DETAILS LEAKED’, you’ll know to like, not read it if you don’t want it spoiled. That’s all I’m gonna say.

    • RakeShark says:

      I’d be inclined to muse about journalistic integrity in the medium of video games if it wasn’t basically 75% free advertising for upcoming games. No offense to the RPS writers, of course.

      Someone gave/leaked all this information about MW3 to the press, and I doubt Kotaku was the only recipient of that info. If you’re given a hot shit story, and you ain’t the New Yorker, don’t sit on it. A blog like Kotaku doesn’t have much to fear about losing any internet or real integrity because when the original content runs out, there’s always link dumps with 3 paragraphs telling you what it is, what it’s about, and what they think of it. Video gaming news is so global and viral that exclusivity vanishes within hours.

      It’s spilled milk. It’s a lot of spilled milk, mind you. But it’s still spilled milk. The industry itself has a ways to go before such a comprehensive leak like this becomes MacBeth-level betrayal between critic and artist.

    • Mario Figueiredo says:

      @Deano2099, no. I don’t think it is for these type of cases where information that actually damages readers, more than helps them is published. I think you are just simplifying the whole thing into a simple formula that reads more or less like “more readers means we did well publishing this story”. That simply isn’t necessarily true. And it doesn’t in fact reflect the reality.

      @Keymonk, just because you produce a disclaimer at the beginning of an article that doesn’t necessarily exonerate you from any wrongdoing. It just means you produced a disclaimer at the beginning of the article.

      @RakeShark, unfortunately that’s about it, isn’t it? The the journalistic process isn’t just about individual integrity of a news publisher or a news professional anymore. I could argue that RPS choose a much more benign path of informing users of the incident and letting them decide what to do with that information, whereas Kutaku chose not. In my view RPS served its readers, whereas Kutaku didn’t. So while I definitely agree with you from a general point of view that these things are unavoidable, it is however clear they can be avoided and dealt with more care. My point, you ask? That denouncing bad journalism wherever possible is more useful than complaining bad journalism is inevitable.

    • Deano2099 says:

      @Mario

      No-one has to read it! Do you grasp that concept? I really don’t think you do. They’re not ‘harming’ readers. They’re not deceiving them, they didn’t put spoilers in the middle of the front page, they put them on a page clearly marked spoilers.

      Do you understand that? If someone doesn’t want to read it, they don’t have to. Obviously lots of people do want to read it because the page is getting a ton of hits.

      If I buy you a knife for your birthday and you slit your wrists open with it on purpose is that my fault, or yours?

    • Gonefornow says:

      They leak and I run with it and I spill my milk ALL OVER MY JOURNALISTIC INTEGRITY!

    • Mario Figueiredo says:

      I don’t think you understand it, Dean. If you want to attribute journalistic irresponsibility to readers fault (because “oh, they can chose not to read it”) it’s your own problem. Not mine.

      The fact people read doesn’t mean no bad was done. Can you understand that concept? I won’t even gift you with an analogy on this because it’s just too damn easy.

      Also, this isn’t about some news coverage with game spoilers. This is about a game that has to launch yet, was leaked, and this site (at least this site) spilled the whole beans doing a wikileaks ninja stunt on it. And definitely this has nothing to do with whether “people” read it or not. For pete’s sake, “people” will watch Jerry Springer mounting an orangutang if they can.

    • Deano2099 says:

      Journalistic responsibility is to report the facts. That’s it.

      Being ‘spoiled’ is the only harm I can possibly see this doing anyone, and even then, they’d have to be an idiot.

      Because I fail to see the difference to the average joe of all this information coming out at once, or it being drip-fed to them over six months by the game publicists.

      Sucks for the publicists sure, but then, they should have been more careful leaving their briefings lying around. None of this stuff could be classed as trade secrets so it’s fair game.

      The only journalistic irresponsibility here is if the info was obtained illegally (likely) and Kotaku paid for it (unlikely). That’s how journalism works.

      Now, one can argue that videogame journalism isn’t actual journalism if you want, but in that case you also have to stop bandying about “journalist responsibility” as you’re acknowledging the rules don’t apply.

      I can’t speak for any other countries but under UK law, this was entirely legal, and under the UK PCC guidelines, entirely ethical.

    • Deano2099 says:

      “And definitely this has nothing to do with whether “people” read it or not. For pete’s sake, “people” will watch Jerry Springer mounting an orangutang if they can.”

      And if that’s true it also has nothing to do with money either. Because Kotaku only get the extra ad revenue when people click on the story and read it.

    • sebmojo says:

      Mario you’re entirely begging the question (in the proper sense) of whether the publication is a bad thing. Frankly, it’s not. Or if it is, you haven’t made the case that it is.

      Why is this different from the story being laid out all over the internet after release (as it obviously will be)?

  37. lamzor says:

    “Sources tell Kotaku that Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 3 will have as many as 20 multiplayer maps, though it’s unclear if some will be cut before release or perhaps sold later as expansion packs.”

    8 maps in release, then 5 DLC map packs, 10$ each. i cant wait. .. NOT.

  38. Althilor says:

    Oh well, I guess I should say it was nice knowing Kotaku…but y’know. Afterall when Activision are done with them they’ll not only have crushed the staff of Kotaku’s dreams, but the children and future grandchildren of said staffs dreams to. I mean, hardly anyone likes Activision, but at least the majority of people are sensible enough to not publicly humiliate them.

  39. jealouspirate says:

    How can you possibly spoil a Call of Duty game? It will be the same as every other CoD game with a few token variations thrown in for a $60 price tag.

    The entire purpose of the franchise is to release a full-priced game every year with the minimal amount of effort. I honestly do not understand why CoD is so popular.

    • Althilor says:

      1) Guns.
      2) ‘Splosions

      There’s a third thing that is almost guaranteed to get most guys attention, but bizarrely Activision haven’t actually decided to use that in CoD yet.

    • Dances to Podcasts says:

      Is it trains? It’s trains, isn’t it? I love me some trains!

  40. GenBanks says:

    Guns and Americans in a video game? It’ll never sell.

  41. Bilbo says:

    Have just read it, largely because I decided I’d rather choose to read it than have it inevitably spoiled any time in the next six months. Thoughts and implicit SPOILERS:

    a) hugely fucking obvious plot
    b) entirely fucking stupid plot
    c) i don’t care
    d) i really don’t care

    I’m a lot more interested in the plots Treyarch are putting out than Infinity Ward’s attempts, these days. They really jumped the shark with MW2 and 3 looks to be more of the same crazy bollocks.

    • FunkyBadger3 says:

      If you thought MW2′s plot was bad, you clearly haven’t played BLOPS…

    • Bilbo says:

      BLOPS’ plot was awesome compared to MW2. As in, it had one. MW2 was a fucking mess and no mistake. Captain Price is nuking DC? The russian government consider one dead american at the scene of a massacre grounds for an invasion? A few rehashed tricks from the original MW? Oh my god, my player died, that’s so original and clever, oh and then it happened again in the final act, punch my ticket now IW because you don’t write bullshit a child would be ashamed of.

      Seriously, a lot of people seemed to just pan Black Ops because it wasn’t developed by IW and we all live in our little PC Gaming Safety Net Where We Know It All And EA Are Bad And Activision Are Amazing Oh Wait And Treyarch Are Shit And Infinity Ward Are Amazing And Stealing Corporate Secrets Is Cool And Being Overbudget And Late Just Means You’re Amazing And Duke Nukem Forever Won’t Suck Balls etc. It’s bollocks, Black Ops is undeniably superior in basically every way to MW2. I’ll argue the toss on that one with anybody, there’s literally nothing MW2 does that Black Ops doesn’t do better and the sun has set on IW’s reign of the franchise

  42. apa says:

    That’s just a marketing stunt because EA says that BF3 is going to be better. Now nobody remembers BF3 for a few days.

  43. Colthor says:

    They’re going to give it a plot? Now that *is* a spoiler.

  44. porschecm2 says:

    Ok, so I read it, but I don’t feel spoiled.

    It’s just a mess of “and they go here and shoot someone, after which they way over there and shoot someone else.” It’s really quite pathetic. I would make some statement about this bit of information being too early to judge the finished game, and perhaps if the plot is well presented it might work, but I’ve had the unfortunate honor of playing MW2, so I know that’s probably not true.

    And that’s a pity, because I actually thoroughly enjoyed both SP and MP in MW1 and CoD5, and have had loads of fun playing MP in BLOPs.

    • Outsider says:

      It’s just a mess of “and they go here and shoot someone, after which they way over there and shoot someone else.” It’s really quite pathetic.

      Well, First Person Shooter is not just a clever genre name. You can boil any FPS down to going someplace and shooting people.

    • Felixader says:

      Amd you can boil down every platformer to “gom there and jump around in it”.
      That doesn’t make every shooter the same.

      Mass Effect 2 is not the same as Battlefield Bad Company 2 (and seriously here, Mass Effect 2 IS a Shooter albeit a very nice one with an actual Plot.).

    • Outsider says:

      My point is not to deliberately over-simplify stuff just to make it sound dumb and to service an already held bias.

      I liked the plot for Mass Effect and 2 as well. I could just say it’s about shooting aliens or people here, and then shooting aliens and people there. Also, making a team to help you shoot them.

      The plot? Original. Save mankind from aliens. Almost everything will sound trite, shallow and unoriginal when you reduce it to its core elements.

      I’m not trying to argue that MW 1, 2 or 3 have brilliant and deep writing, but there is definitely more there than just trigger pulling. This also ignores the fact that most people buy the games just for multiplayer which in the case of many FPS is devoid of story and focuses solely on shooting people. The singleplayer campaign seems to be more of a novelty, really.

  45. andtriage says:

    “Give it a rest, Internet White Knights. The story is news, and websites publish news.”

    basically this. personally, i’m glad kotaku published it. the multiplayer details alone are fantastic- and wonderful news for CoD fans. i read the campaign spoilers, and it hardly seems right to call them ‘spoilers’ since it’s basically the same shit. though i do have to say, fighting in brooklyn sounds fucking awesome.

  46. wazups2x says:

    I don’t plan on buying another Call of Duty game for at least the next 5 years so I couldn’t care less.

    They should have stopped at MW2 or at least only release a COD game once every two years, not once every freakin’ year. I wish people would stop supporting that crap.

  47. D3xter says:

    Let me spoil the next 10 Call of Doodies for you: You shoot a bunch of people over and over again to advance; you win the game!

  48. rocketman71 says:

    I wish Modern Warfare 2 had been spoiled. Perhaps some guys would have realized how full of shit Infinity Ward is, and wouldn’t have validated with their money the no dedis, no mods, no LAN, etc, etc stance.

    Let the console boys play MW3.

  49. SteveHatesYou says:

    Great, now could somebody leak the plot to modern warfare 2? Maybe then, I could make sense of it.

  50. Apocalypse 31 says:

    Cod. No care ever.

    Same shit, different name. Terrible game to begin with. I wish this franchise would just die out.