MW3 Multiplayer: I Feel So Old

Yeah, I can't hear now either

Oh my word, I need a nap after this. I feel like an octogenarian who’s just been played a Lil’ Wayne record. It’s so noisy, so fast, so violent. COD multiplayer has become increasingly excessive over the years, and Modern Warfare 3’s looks as though it’s thrown in everything it can think of – it looks so very far away from simply sniping dudes in one-storey buildings. I can’t keep up with all that! I’d need to mod DX3’s invisibility aug into it, just so I can hide in the corner, terrified and weeping.

What a lot of ways to kill people. Looks quite exciting, mind, but I’m pretty sure I wouldn’t be its match. Me, I’m more excited about Space Marine, which I’ll be playing later this week – Orks + chainfist is a formula I can get my head around.

Apparently, modern warfare involves soldiers shooting two machine guns at once. Did they really do that in Afghanistan? I’m pretty sure I would have seen it on the news or something.

There are probably loads of important new things in that video somewhere. I don’t know. I DON’T KNOW.


  1. godgoo says:

    In MW2 MP I spent an awful lot of time hiding in the corner, terrified and weeping.

    • Askeladd says:

      MW3 is no hardcore FPS. Play RO and you can weep.

    • Rii says:

      I was interested in RO2 until I heard about its COD-esque unlock nonsense.

    • DrGonzo says:

      The completely optional unlocks put you off?

    • wengart says:

      I would take a look at it still. I’m in the beta and it looks like you get marginally better/different (honestly from what I’ve seen it’s more what do you prefer rather than this is better) stuff later on, but nothing you have to have to do well. There of course will be the option for servers to turn off unlocked items or unlock them for everyone I forget how that works.

      Also all the stuff is still class limited so you’re not going to suddenly see everyone running around with a STG 44.

    • Coillscath says:

      It makes me sad that people associate the unlock system with COD, when Battlefield 2 was the game that pioneered it…

  2. Kelron says:

    Not shown: being shot in the back 5 seconds after every kill.

    • Kaider says:

      The best explanation for why CoD is so popular: eventually, you’re going to spawn behind someone.

    • DevilSShadoW says:

      You kind sir just made me laugh very very hard. Thank you.
      Internet cookie you get, yes.

    • noom says:

      True this. If TF2 is a hat-simulator, CoD is a getting-shot-in-the-back simulator.

      That said, if you play enough I think you begin to develop a good sense of where the enemy is likely to be spawning and position yourself accordingly.

  3. Dyst says:

    As long as it’s more like Black Ops than Modern Warfare 2, I’m certainly looking forward to this.

    • Culden says:

      Are you… delusional? I think I’ve had enough of Brown-Grey and all of the guns feeling equally pathetic while moving feels like walking through syrup.

    • Walsh says:

      Are you delusional?

      Black Ops multiplayer was far more balanced than MW2. No more super stacking of killstreaks, chopper gunners were much harder to earn. And of course, DEDICATED FUCKING SERVERS!

    • Culden says:

      No, I’m not. Treyarch took a formula and balanced the fun right out of it. And trust me, I had a much, much easier time getting high kill-streaks in BLOPs. I’m just tired of Brown-Grey (and snow… god, never again) and really samey guns (saving grace is the Mac11… my god is that a fun gun to ruin somebody’s day with). At least playing MW2 actually left me with a sense of power and a desire to give all of the guns a little love (and maps that have actual colors!).

      Also, heresy, but I played on 360… my time with CoD on PC was spent logging into servers and realizing that winning against teams of wallhackers was not going to happen.

    • Radiant says:

      You guys are hilarious.

    • DrGonzo says:

      I found Black Ops to be pretty unbearable to be honest. Haven’t enjoyed any of them multiplayer since MW1. All of em since feel like I’m repeating the same game. The maps feel suspiciously familiar, and I’m almost certain I already unlocked all these weapons in the last game.

    • Devec says:

      All of em since feel like I’m repeating the same game. The maps feel suspiciously familiar, and I’m almost certain I already unlocked all these weapons in the last game.

      What you meant to say was I’m almost certain I already unlocked all these weapons several times in the last game.

    • wengart says:

      I played BLOPS during the free weekend and while I could see it being fun I was bothered by the seeming uselessness of the guns and the terrible sound quality.

      It doesn’t even feel like their shooting bullets and every gun had this lack of any sort of bass at all. Coming from Bad Company 2 and Red Orchestra 2 the sound of the weapons was simply appalling.

    • ghiest says:

      Most if not all the players I spoke to preferred MW2 over black-ops (and World at war). If it had dedicated servers I would probably still be playing it, but being in the UK and pc based I can’t usually get a decent game below 120+ ping now so I give up most of the time. But it is STILL a far superior game.

  4. enobayram says:

    It seems that the amount of points they reward for frags is inflating like the currency of a third world country.

    • jon_hill987 says:

      How else to keep people buying the game year after year?

    • Nallen says:


    • Lars Westergren says:

      Yeah, it’s like some pinball machines. Just managing to launch the first ball out on the playing field gives you 100 000+ points. Or most JRPGs. Level 1 character hits level 1 monster for a MILLION BILLION HP in damage!

    • JackShandy says:

      Gamers worldwide were amazed by the numbers in MW2, so we knew we had to push the limits for MW3. We’ve put 980% more numbers in this game; that’s more than 500 times the value. Not only that, but each number is also bigger and better than any number we’ve seen in a game. We think gamers are going to be really impressed when they look at the numbers.

    • Koozer says:

      Don’t believe me? It’s all in the numbers.

    • jon_hill987 says:

      MW1: That’s terror.
      MW2: That’s terror.
      MW3: That’s terror.

    • BooleanBob says:

      Well done!

  5. JustAndrew says:

    Kotick: We’ve added a new replay angle. 60 USD please.

    • SLeigher says:

      or $100 Australian, which is about US$105 currently

    • BoneyD says:

      @SLeigher at least on Steam you can pay $100US, that’s only a MERE $94.70AU!

  6. trigger_rant says:

    Would probably buy it if MW3 had a reasonable pricetag, like lets say Valve games, and no additional costs for map packs and subscription non sense. Same goes for Battlefield 3 and EA. Portal 2 did cost me 35€ on preorder, has free DLC and Mod tools. MW3 costs 60€, plus a subscription and additional costs for map packs, around 15€ each. I think thats absolutely nuts.

    • Kaira- says:

      Um, correct me if I’m wrong, but MW3 doesn’t require a subscription (at least one with payments).

    • Calneon says:

      $10 every few months if you want the complete game feels like a subscription to me.

    • trigger_rant says:

      The subscription is optional, still it restricts you from content that should be free, and is free elsewhere. Its the same as with payed DLC, like map packs. Of course you can always choose not to have it, but if you want the full experience you have to pay up. Thats what I call to practice usury.
      Its the beginning of a new trend we might see in the industry. Develop a game, cut the content up and feed them to the customer in little pieces, charging extra every time you release a tiny new bit.

  7. mejoff says:

    “Apparently, modern warfare involves soldiers shooting two machine guns at once. Did they really do that in Afghanistan?”

    You can play as a Gurkha?

    • Corrupt_Tiki says:

      @You and Alec.

      Uh, yes, yes they did
      link to
      Iraq actually.

    • Groove says:

      Yeah, because that video showed him running, jumping and easily reloading those guns.

      As opposed to him barely being able to hold them and being forced backwards by the recoil.

      Genuine LOL

    • Radiant says:

      Aaaah taxes.

    • Baines says:

      To be fair, I don’t recall Call of Duty games letting you dual wield weapons that large. I think Akimbo is only an option for pistols, machine pistols, submachine guns, and the slower/smaller shotguns (like the Ranger in MW1).

      In the MW3 video, the guy is dual wielding the FMG-9, which is a lightweight submachine gun.

      The prototype shown in the 2008 promo video seemed to pretty much be a Glock semi-automatic pistol in a folding body with a shoulder brace and a place to stick a flashlight:

    • bear912 says:

      I think you meant MW2, as MW1 did not feature Ranger shotguns or dual-wielding.

      Also, that FMJ-9 is pretty slick.

  8. Bilbo says:

    Aww, have a cup of tea and a biscuit, Alec.

    I’m very much looking forward to the fast-paced slightly-nonsensical unlock grind that MW3 promises, and I not only realise this makes me a category-5 scorn target but also couldn’t give a crap! :D drum mags and laser sights and sticky bombs oh my

  9. Koojav says:

    I spent over 500hrs in MW2 but I doubt that I will pay that much for a new skin/map pack.

  10. FieldOfTheBattle says:

    It’s mean to be chaotic with people spawning and running all over the place so any retard will end up behind someone sooner or later and score a kill. Structured multiplayer modes like CTF are too much for average console gamer’s brain to process they would have to give up breathing to play that.

    • Bilbo says:

      Call of Duty has CTF. Halo’s multiplayer had it too, amongst a constellation of other modes that would make Battlefield 3 wince, and Halo is like *the* archetypal console multiplayer game. Hell, Call of Duty’s not exactly a slouch in the multiplayer modes department, Black Ops had a ton. You don’t know what you’re talking about.

    • Magnetude says:

      CoD’s CTF mode is actually quite good, and one of the best modes for levelling up fast as well. I can’t justify buying this game for the fourth time though, so I’ll be BF3-ing it this time.

    • Bilbo says:

      I’m a big fan and even for me it’s a tough call. I think they’ve done a couple of nice things but I’m not at all surprised people are skeptical. The decider is probably my morbid curiosity over what kind of shape the game is in given it’s been developed by a disembowelled, embattled studio. Too interesting to pass up.

    • Magnetude says:

      It’s also because I don’t want to fund a series that gets away with such minimal changes every year. Say what you will about BF3 being unoriginal or derivative or whatever else people might call it, but the devs put a tonne of work into it, and it’s looking really impressive for it. Supporting the Activision model of releasing an expansion pack at above the price of a full game, every year, isn’t something I can do, no matter how fun I know it will be.

    • Bilbo says:

      Long as I’m enjoying it, I don’t really care how much work was involved. If someone gives me a brick and a piece of paper and I honestly have fun with it for ten hours then it’s worth £40, and I’m grateful to the person who brought it to my attention. The rub comes when something is so passé that I’m not actually going to enjoy it, and that’s most likely where the notion of work = quality = value has come from, but if I were to agree that call of duty isn’t worth the money because it’s easy to make, even though I’ll enjoy it, I’d be putting the cart before the horse, or throwing the baby out with the dishes, or something. I wouldn’t buy a boring but meticulously crafted game for the same reason. I don’t really wanna drag BF3 into this, but if you ask me it’s basically that – lots of work has gone into the technical side of it, but it’s offering no new gameplay innovations whatsoever from what I’ve seen. Same old battlefield. Might aswell play BF2. I’m not interested.

      Enjoyment = value. Enjoyment is subjective. Therefore value is also subjective.

      Kinda wish people would just accept that instead of persecuting eachother over their different tastes all the time.

    • Magnetude says:

      You’re a cheap date, Bilbo.

    • Bilbo says:

      I’m not likely to enjoy a brick and a piece of paper for ten hours. Unless you hit me really hard with the brick first, and then I have a cool coma dream. The point is complexity doesn’t drive value for me.

    • Felix says:

      @Bilbo: You’re saying they’re doing lots of new things in CoD and nothing new in BF3? That’s a laugh, considering I have yet to see anything *really* new in MW3 whilst BF3 has shown that it’s doing many new things with the series as a whole, not just from BF2 or even BFBC2 to BF3.

      The core gameplay of MW has never changed while BF3 looks to be a solid evolution of it’s series’ formula. Though I admit it’s fun to point at someone and hold down a button till a number pops out, I much prefer the more substantial feeling of Battlefield’s gameplay. Sure, it’s tougher and requires more effort and skill, but it feels great. That said, I concede that CoD is great at parties.

    • Bilbo says:

      I honestly can’t think of one new thing in BF3, all the coverage I’ve seen has extolled the virtues of more of the same and not actually explicitly mentioned any new features. Meanwhile, MW3 has a new game mode – admittedly it’s an expanded version of one of the challenge missions from MW2, but they’ve expanded it into a whole mode.

      I’m glad you feel like you can laugh about it though, I’m obviously spreading joy through my expression of facts

    • MisterT says:

      I can.
      Some new BF3 features (compared to previous games):
      -Man-portable robots that can even arm objectives with operator in safety (EOD bot)
      -ability to support weapons with bipods dynamically on terrain
      -Massive unlock system for both infantry and vehicles.
      -9+attachments MINIMUM for primary weapons (although unlike BF3, this MW3 has RDSes on ACOGs and togglable magnifiers, which look almost cool enough to justify buying it to me on their own)
      -3 attachments per weapon, some special new ones include blindingly-strong flash-light, explosive shotgun rounds.
      -TDM, rush, 24 and 64 player conquest, as well as a squad rush and squad DM modes supported on all maps, and airpower/armour-focused gamemodes may be coming later on.
      -Apparently some actual effort put into the singleplayer and a 2 player co-op mode.
      -Team chat for all platforms (Voice) and can choose your chat channel in-game
      And the gunplay feels totally new and improved compared to BC2, BF2.

      Both BF and MW3 have new stuff, but MW3 is much more like an overpriced (overpriced is obviously subjective) expansion pack in terms of its new content, BF3’s technical improvements and surprisingly different (and fantastic) gunplay make it a worthwhile

      I’d pay $40 for MW3, but BF3 earns my $60 (well, actually $45, thank you origin promo code)

    • Bilbo says:

      So they’ve finally added some weapon attachments? Good. Can’t say I’m interested even so, though – the gunplay has always been fucking shocking in battlefield games, the fact that you can stick a torch on your “fucking awful gun” doesn’t really do much to get my juices flowing. You say it’s improved, I guess I’ll have to wait and see, because if so then maybe, just maybe, it’ll be worth looking at. I’m still not at all excited about using a slightly-more-fun-M4-with-a-RDS-scope when the other guy is in a self-healing tank, though.

      Nothing else you mentioned is new, except for these “robots” – sounds like an annoying gimmick – and weapon bipods – BF2 had static heavy machineguns everywhere you’d want one to be anyway

    • Baines says:

      It isn’t so much meant to be chaotic with people spawning all over the place as much as it is that some of the games have bad spawn determination.

      There was a MW2 YouTube video a while back of a sniper (using a sniper rifle for one-shot kills) who stayed almost motionless, pressing the fire button maybe once a second, because the game just kept spawning guys in the same spot around 20 feet in front of him. A better game would have realized that perhaps you shouldn’t spawn someone in the same spot where 15 people have died in the last 20 seconds.

      MW2’s spawn system in particular had a lot of issues. (I can’t speak for Black Ops, not having much experience with it.) There weren’t enough spawn spots. It became possible to predict where people would spawn, and to a degree possible to guess where people were around you due to where you spawned. (For example, if you spawned away from the action in free-for-all, then it was probably putting you near an enemy sniper.) There were also some spawn spots that were just badly placed. (There were places where you could set a claymore upon spawning and almost be guaranteed a kill, unless the next enemy to spawn there either had the delay claymore skill or started running immediately upon spawn.) And you were about as likely to be respawned directly behind someone who killed you as you were to be respawned directly in front of them. I remember getting three or four deathstreaks from being repeatedly killed by the same person, simply because the game kept spawning me in front of him as he ran around the map. The saddest part is that I once stopped the death streak by turning 180 and firing immediately on respawn, hitting him first…

  11. Bishop99999999 says:

    Really? In addition to snipers, shotgunners hiding behind corners, claymores, autoguns, helicopters, noob toobers, air strikes, arty strikes, nades, AC130s, predator missiles, and that one jackass that just keeps knifing everyone, I have to keep another eye out for little flying helicopters?

    Fuck you IW. Just…Fuck you.

    • thepaleking says:

      Infinity Ward has nothing to do with these sequels; in fact Infinity Ward no longer exists.

    • sneetch says:

      They do you know, they’re the ones making MW3. It’s being made by Infinity Ward with the assistance of two other studios (which doesn’t bode well for the final product IMO, too many cooks and all that).

    • mejoff says:

      What thepaleking means is that while the name Infinity Ward is still attached, none of the team that made the previous games are now associated with it. It may have the same name, but it is not the same studio.

    • Aemony says:

      Infinity Ward that created MW and MW2 do not exist, no matter what you say. Not only did 48 employees leave the company in 2010 (of which 38 of those created Respawn Entertainment) but Activision also reconstructed the whole company following the massive amount of leavers.

      If a name itself is the soul of a company, then yes, IW still exist. But if it isn’t, and the soul of the company lies in its employees and leads within each team, then no, IW do not exist anymore. Only a new, very different, IW exist today.

    • sneetch says:

      Yeah, I know all that but what he (may have) meant and what he actually said are too different things. Infinity Ward do still exist despite the fact that they’ve been massively restructured and lost a lot of people since West and Zampella left (hence needing help from two other studios just to create this new iteration of MW two years on). However, it’s still to soon to write them off: although a lot of people left, some stayed for reasons of their own and new people have been hired. I’m curious to see if they can spark something new in COD.

  12. CaspianRoach says:

    11.8.11 — so the game is out for a month already?

    • Kollega says:

      American date format. Yet another thing to throw on top of the huge pile of americanisms appearing in CoD.

    • jon_hill987 says:

      No, but when it is finished they are going to send it into the past and release it then. this is so the profits can fund it’s own development and earn more interest. It’s what the shareholders would want. Or wanted… It’s so hard to get tenses right when it comes to time travel.

    • jp0249107 says:

      Jesus Tap-Dancing Christ Kollega, it’s made by Americans so it’ll have an American date format. Do you want them to start eating tea and crumpets while saying “It’s elementary my dear Watson”?

    • mejoff says:

      Bethesda seem to have found the best way around this issue :P

    • Balobam says:

      That’s totally the same thing. Comment on the fact America is the only place on the planet to use that date arrangement (which when the numbers aren’t high enough, can be confusing as I don’t know if it’s actually an American arrangement or the normal one), whilst those who don’t are all Sherlock Holmes

      It is definitely the best resolution, just hit the 1 key until it’s clear to everybody

    • thegooseking says:

      It also has an ESRB rating at the beginning, but no-one’s complaining about that Americanism.

      I love when games tell me online interaction is not rated by the ESRB and I can shout at the screen, “Do I LOOK like I’m in North America? Go on, ask me if I care. Ask me if I care. Ask me- DON’T care!”

      And then I laugh maniacally between shouting obscenities at random strangers while I shoot them in the face. And in the game.

    • Carra says:

      It’s those strange Americans.

      At least you can’t go wrong with 11.11.11. One point for BF3.

    • westyfield says:

      Uh, BF3 comes out at the end of October. It’s Skyrim that is 11.11.11.

    • sneetch says:

      Surely Skyrim is coming out on Tuesday the 8th in the US? So that’s 11.8.11 in the US?

    • Unaco says:


      What are you talking about? A games chosen release date gets it a +1 from you? Even when you’ve got that release date wrong? BF3 is out 25th, 27th or 28th of October, depending on your region… “a mysterious and intractably evil force is preventing exactly the same collection of ones and zeroes from unlocking on PCs in other parts of the world”.

      Where as MW3 is out 8th of November… 1 date across the world, no Oceans! Point for MW3 there?

      Really, I think the whole “CODMW3/BF3 is the spawn of Satan, and MW3/BF3 is the nectar of the Gods” thing is getting a bit ridiculous when people think the arrangement of numbers in a games release date makes that game better than the other.

  13. nubbuka says:

    I liked the end of the video.
    Using a AC-130 to take down one enemy solider is all the point in MW… :P
    I prefer the single player to be honest. This is getting too repetitive for me.

  14. michal.lewtak says:

    link to
    Because aiming by adjusting the camera’s angle and velocity is so much easier than performing the actual translation.

  15. Greg Wild says:

    link to

    It’s not realistic until they let you dual wield LMGs.

  16. hungrytales says:

    Take heart, man. You’re not bloody alone.

  17. abigbat says:

    The recent CoD games have had superb multiplayer so long as you play on Hardcore mode – makes it more akin to counterstrike but with more responsive player movement. I don’t prefer it by any stretch of the imagination, but it’s a lot of fun and definitely well worth playing.

    Plus throwing knives are the biz.

    • Bilbo says:

      This times a thousand. Hardcore mode is brilliant, and yes, very reminiscent of CS

    • pepper says:

      I miss knife throwing in games. Anybody Remember The Specialists(Half-Life 1 mod) in which you could dive down a three story building and throw a knife in the passerby and end in a cool landing drawing a akimbo of Golden Colts to unload at that one guy in the doorway?

    • Koozer says:

      Hardcore mode just means everyone picks the most accurate gun and ignores the damage ie. unbalances everthing even more.

    • Bilbo says:

      Yes, because in real life accurate guns aren’t useful and people shrug off nine-millimetre bullets to the face all the time.

      It’s more realistic.

      Besides, it’s actually all about getting a happy medium between accuracy, firing rate, magazine capacity and a good sighting mechanism – red dot sights suddenly become much nicer than iron sights and use of either is much more pivotal when you’ve no crosshair.

    • Petethegoat says:

      Yep, I loved hardcore too. It was nice being able to snipe people with the M9.

      Also, The Specialists is AMAZING!
      Like Action Half-life but more polished. And without the bleeding, admittedly, which is a shame.

    • sneetch says:

      Regarding damage I notice that the merest touch of a knife still kills people, I love how you can shoot someone three times and it doesn’t even slow them down before they stab you with their magical life stealing knife +5.

    • abigbat says:

      again, in hardcore mode you’ll be extremely lucky to survive a single bullet. Plus try and imagine how effective you would be in combat after being stabbed.

      In many ways it’s akin to golden gun mode in Goldeneye. Which can only be a good thing.

  18. Tarqon says:

    Same old garbage killstreaks, same old bullshit knife, same old spray ‘n pray terrible shooting mechanics.

    Is this really what people want these days? It makes me so sad to see this being the best selling shooter franchise of a generation.

    • Petethegoat says:

      Correct me if I’m wrong, but isn’t BF3 going to be the same old Battlefield formula? No one seems to have any issues with that.

      It’s quite the thing to be sad that people are having fun.

  19. Gnoupi says:

    About Space Marine, the demo was great, it looks promising, but there is obviously an insane review embargo on it.

    I mean, the game released today (for people who are not in UK, apparently), and there is no review. Nothing. Only previews and “reviews of the demo”.

    • SLeigher says:

      is this true, how could they impose a review embargo on something that people are actually playing right now?

    • wengart says:

      They could to refuse to send review code or whatever to the larger sites if they ran a review.

  20. Burning Man says:

    That was a surprisingly nice trailer. It looked like there were a lot of things I hadn’t seen before.

    • StuffedCabbage says:

      It’s obvious to me that you haven’t played CoD 4, 5, 6 or 7.

    • Petethegoat says:

      It’s equally obvious that you’ve not played them, or maybe you’d know what you were talking about.
      Burning Man has a valid point.

    • StuffedCabbage says:

      Same guns, same look and from what I see from these videos being released, the same feel. The only new thing I saw was the mini helicopter, which, by the way was in many games before this one (Frontlines: Fuel of war – just to name one). So please educate me and tell me what is so new in this game.

    • Wraggles says:

      @Stuffed cabbage

      Whats new to the genre of shooters or whats new to CoD?

      New to CoD;
      – Shiny new Killstreaks (Too many to list here)
      – 3 Separate Killstreak trees, of which specialist is particularly interesting
      – Different methods of obtaining killstreaks between tree’s
      – The fixing of a large quantity of unbalanced features from the previous titles (may introduce its own problems but it looks promising)
      – New perks
      – A move to add proficiencies to the game, much like BFBCs specialisations, just with a bit more to them, also means more class differences, this is never a bad thing
      – It “looks” as though killstreak loadout can be altered per class
      – A new SpecOps mode (Survival)
      – A new Multiplayer mode (Kill Confirmed)
      – a new campaign (regardless of length, which is pointless to speculate on right now, as we have no information)
      – New Maps (15)
      – New Equipment (Trophy, bouncing betty, emp grenade)
      – New Weapons (many favorites return of course)

      New to the genre
      – Exploding Dogs
      – All the particulars that make any game different from another
      – Hybrid Sights (at least I can’t remember the last AAA game to have them)
      – Trophy System (a personal ASPRO-A, rather than mounted on a tank)
      – That’s about all I got
      – oh and Exploding Dogs

      Ultimately, who cares, why does the game have to be groundbreaking, can’t it simply be more of the same with a side of extra chips. There’s enough here that clearly if it was a game you loved, you wouldn’t argue and would happily purchase it (then again L4D2 boycott suggest maybe otherwise). That you don’t simply means this is not your cup of tea, not that this will, in anyway, be a bad game (although who knows, it hasn’t been released yet, maybe it will be terrible).

  21. Rii says:

    It has always struck me as kinda stupid to take the “kitchen sink” approach to game design in such an inherently limited setting, i.e. modern infantry combat.

    • Kollega says:

      Here, here. I second this statement. For what they are trying to do – the ridiculous rollercoaster of singleplayer and the militarist kitchen-sink of multiplayer – the pseudorealistic, “just-around-the-corner” setting seems like one of the worst possible ones.

    • Bilbo says:

      The title is misleading – the game isn’t really about modern infantry combat, it’s about michael bay horsecrap. Think “The Rock” rather than “Jarhead” and you won’t be far off.

    • Rii says:


      To illustrate one sense of what I mean: they can offer 1 MILLION GUNS + 1 MILLION MODS = 1 BAJILLION POSSIBILITIES!!! but with scant few exceptions they’re stuck within the expanding-gas-propels-invisible-physical-projectile-in-straight-line model because … that’s what they’ve chosen to limit themselves to through the setting they’ve chosen.

    • Bilbo says:

      There are some provable differences between the weapon types and weapons on offer, but I agree it’s a much harder justification than say, Quake 3. There’s no confusing a railgun with a plasma gun.

  22. kulik says:

    Those weapon sounds are pathetic, what are these guns shooting? Needles?

  23. Dana says:

    Looks fun. Games are supposed to be fun, right ?

  24. Kollega says:

    Oh look, the evilly vile enemies of brave Americhun soldjas use a Soviet red star with hammer and sickle instead of bastardizing the real Russian flag in some way. And it was the same in MW2. Because the USSR can, like, totally resurrect itself in scant five to ten years if it needs to, dude!

    I call BULLSHIT on this whole storyline. Not that it hasn’t been done numerous times before, but i still felt i needed to do that. (And sorry for the German dub, it’s the best i could find.)

    • Balobam says:

      I’m not sure what you’re getting at here, as it’s fairly obvious Russia are the ultimate bad guy. I also find it funny how that was a German dub, what with them being the other worldly evil. And China. Korea aswell. So most of Asia. Europe are probably in the wrong somewhere too.

      I do wonder why there are so few games in which you play as the English soldiers though.

    • Magnetude says:

      The reason we always get Russians as bad guys is because it’s the most foreign you can get while still being white. If studios weren’t worried about looking racist we’d see a lot more variety in our enemies, but Resident Evil 5 was a lesson learned.

      Also, the cold war.

    • Balobam says:

      Well true, but it’s not like Activision are any strangers to controversial moves. What with IW making that entire “No Russian” level for what I assume to be the sole purpose of creating controversy.

      So to possibly be as crazy as to realise there are other races on earth that don’t exactly love America. Or even some future country that formed out of sheer hatred for the US. Wouldn’t exactly be outlandish

    • frenz0rz says:

      He’s got a point, though.

      I’d love a game (not necessarily an FPS) where I played as something other than an American. Maybe even a game where America was the main enemy? Although that would probably never happen as a) it wouldnt sell, and b) the US media would be all over it.

    • lijenstina says:

      In Capitalist America Soviet Russia attacks You.

    • Kollega says:

      @ everyone here: The point i was trying to make wasn’t about “Russians as bad guys”, or “Americans as good guys”, no. What i’m facepalming at is the resurrection of the Soviet Union that this game seems to imagine, because IT. IS. NOT. POSSIBLE. If they really want to use USSR as an enemy, they should’ve created an alternate history where it still exists and acts a lot more hostile! It worked just fine for World in Conflict. Along with this, the developers could think up an explanation for why the conflict between the US and USSR dosen’t turn into a global thermonuclear war – like an enforced disarmament treaty, a way to divert the targeting, defensive railgun arrays, or something to that effect. And throw in some amphibious battleships, teleporters, weaponized Tesla coils, and armoured bear paratroopers while they’re at it.

    • lijenstina says:

      Mecha Putin with Grad launchers instead of hands.

    • Shooop says:


      Resident Evil 5 was basically the KKK’s official game. In the first 20 minutes of the game there was a completely out-of-place white woman who’s only purpose is to be attacked: link to

      And then it just got even worse: link to

  25. Enzo says:

    Why the hell does this series has the worst weapons sounds in the entire game industry? They sound like cap guns, worse even.

    • MisterT says:

      Well, as far as the likes of IGN is concerned, MW2 sounds were near perfect, unlike BC2’s 8/10 sounds, so IW figured, why fix what isn’t broke?

  26. Mooglepies says:

    Good lord, a lot of people seem annoyed at this game. The released footage of the game from the CoD event and the changes that the developers have discussed lead me to believe that this is going to be at least decent, for those among us that enjoy a very arcadey modern manshoot.

    • Balobam says:

      I think it’s more the fact that if somebody wants to play a modern manshoot, they could play MW, WaW, MW2, BLOPS and now the entirely original MW3!

      With the exception of WaW (even then, only barely), they’re all pretty much the same, and MW3 doesn’t show any signs of changing that winning formula.

    • Unaco says:

      “With the exception of WaW (even then, only barely), they’re all pretty much the same, and MW3 doesn’t show any signs of changing that winning formula.”

      Except for, you know, all the new things it’s bringing, and all the changes it includes… like new perks, replacement for the killstreak system (with PointStreaks), encouragement to play for Objectives rather than just killing, the 2 new game modes, the new maps, the new weapons, the new class system, the new weapon upgrade/unlock system, integration with the Elite thing, Dedicated servers and a pretty decent sounding server browser, the Universal Player Card system, the new Co-Op mode. But yeah, apart from all that, they don’t seem to be changing the winning formula.

    • Mooglepies says:

      Except the games you have listed are in fact all different from each other, although I will accept that some are less different from the others than might be healthy.

      I’ll concede that the basics of the games (fast-paced arcadey manshoot) remain the same, but if you go to any person that has played them for a decent length of time and say, for example, that MW1 is the same as MW2 is the same as Black Ops, they will laugh you off the face of the internet. I won’t list the ways in which they differ for the sake of brevity and the differences really aren’t apparent from trailers, especially to a layman, but to the people that play these games they might as well be as different as apples and oranges. They’re both fruits, but you eat them in different ways and they taste completely different. And thus, because I have used a fruit analogy, I am now going to shut up.

    • Balobam says:

      Unaco – New perks aren’t exactly a major change in any respect, that’s like saying a game is entirely different because it has a powerup that lets you jump higher instead of sprint. Replacement for the killstreak system is basically still killstreak, except now it rewards actually playing the game aswell, something that should be expected, not applauded. Encouragement to play for Objectives rather than just killing, this is only encouragement, the actual gameplay will remain the same.

      But yes, I’ll admit that MW3 does add a lot more than the previous iterations did, but I have played all 4 of those previous games, and I noticed almost NO difference between gameplay from MW to MW2, except weapons being different (which does not require the making of a new game) and some variation on killstreaks.

      The differences seem like something Valve or so would put in an update and add to the already existing game. The guns and killstreaks only really change because of when they’re set, at the base of it all the guns are pretty much carbon copies, except different skins to allow for the whole not existing yet thing.

    • Balobam says:

      Mooglepies – First of all, typing your name physically pained me. Secondly, I have played each of those games, and find such minor differences between each of them that I can’t see how people can justify buying each one.

      The major differences only stem from the fact they couldn’t include X because it didn’t exist yet due to being set in the past, whilst the Modern Warfares (1 & 2) are in terms of the multiplayer the same game. Sure new killstreaks are great and all, but when the new one does the same amount of damage, or allows for as much carnage as the one it replaced, what’s the point?

      But I will admit, the addition of dedicated servers is very nice, horribly overdue, but nice nonetheless.

    • wengart says:

      The thing is there are new additions to the game, but they are only noticeable by people who play each iteration 50 hours or something like that. For casual players/followers of the COD games there isn’t any tangible difference.

  27. says:

    Am I the only one who would prefer to pay half price (or less) for a single-player only version? I’ve never really enjoyed CoD multi-player.

  28. rebb says:

    Modern More Of the Same 3

  29. Mooglepies says:

    Edit: Forgot to hit reply. Please ignore.

  30. aircool says:

    There was a bloke in the Falklands War that fired two SLR’s from the hip. That’s pretty hardcore as they each weight about a billion kilo’s each.

    But yeah, Space Marine is where the real action is gonna be.

  31. bonjovi says:

    I always liked the fast paced combat, small maps, close encounters in COD games.

    Last one i played was COD4 and WaW loved both, and must have clocked 200+ on each.

    however after these two I burned out. Each new game for me consisted of:
    1) learn the maps
    2) learn best camping spots, so you can avoid or clean.

    However after a while the game come down to the reflex, it’s like physical sport. there is some tactics involved, but mostly it’s about reflexes, the whole game favours the fast running.

    I’m not saying it’s bad, just that there is nothing after that if you don’t’ want to get into clan battles and such.

    so yeah, for me there is no point buying it, but hell it was 3 years of fun for me :-)

  32. Rossi says:

    Heres my 2p.

    I’ve always liked CoD even though now it’s dominated by pre-cogntive super teenagers from the future who I can’t beat, but my only problem is the stupid rules that most admins insist on their servers! Theres always some kind of weapon they don’t like because it beats them. The Grenade launcher is one example.


    I hate that. And thats why, even though BF is guilty of it too to some extent, I will be mostly playing that.

    • Bilbo says:

      Think you can get around that by playing on official servers. Annoys the piss out of me too.

  33. Cyampagn says:

    And this will be the best selling game on history…of course, until next year’s edition outsells it.

  34. bill says:

    I don’t remember FPS multiplayer being that insta-death.

    Course, I haven’t really played an MP FPS since Quake, but in that game you could have a running duel across half the level, trying to defeat your foe.

    Here it seems like half the time you’d be dying without even seeing your foe, and the other half you’d have a milisecond to react before dying.

    Plus, Ironsights are the most ridiculously annoying thing ever invented for PC FPS games…. gah!

  35. JackShandy says:

    How can a game this successful be hated this much?

    • Cyampagn says:

      The old hipster is the new mainstream, baby. Plus it is a reality that this game hasn’t changed pretty much anything since mw2, we’re still being charged 60$ for it+paid dlc, it’s Activision, and there is a some really strong comptetition out there which still doesn’t have a chance to stand against the sales MW3 is gonna get.

      Hate is understandable.

      Edit: And yes, commenting on how awesome BF3 is going to be against MW3 is something I cant stand either.

    • nrvsNRG says:

      Q: How can a game this successful be hated this much?

      A: It isnt hated this much.

    • MisterT says:

      It’s success is has made very linear quasi-realistic modern man-shooting popular, and made every other type of game less desirable to publish.
      If COD4 and Crysis swapped sales figures (and via magic it runs medium-high on consoles) then we’d very likely see much more open and more “fun” games all over.

      That’s why some hate on it, because of the effect on the industry.

      At least, it’s why I don’t like the series anymore, not hate, but also not willing to shell out the dosh each year for a marginally different ruleset and skin.

    • lijenstina says:

      Because argumentum ad populum is a b*tch.

  36. Trashcanman says:

    Dunno, it all looks like good old fun but there is something nagging me. Black Ops multiplayer levels were pretty much all of the same constricted kill corridor type. No wider open spaces and no real alteration from the corridor to small open area to corridor recipe. I thought it was all incredibly dull and frankly, I don’t see much chance of this being any different.

  37. Monchberter says:

    ‘Guns Wot Shoot Fast’ anyone?

  38. PoulWrist says:

    BF3 trailer was cooler.

  39. Mechorpheus says:

    Does anyone else not think that trailer footage looks EXACTLY the same as MW2??? I mean, right down to the hud icons? I remember these fabled things called Expansion Packs way back in the day. I suppose, why charge people £10 or £15 for maps/weapons when you can wrap the whole thing around a 4 hour campaign, with a story written by Koticks 5 year old son after a 4 season 24 marathon, and charge then £50.

    Got to love the world we live in, ay?

  40. thecat17 says:

    I can’t be the only one who thinks those giant spinning fluorescent dogtags hovering over the dead bodies looks both really fucking stupid and ill-suited for a game that’s supposed to be as realistic as possible?

  41. jaheira says:

    All of the experience point gains are multiples of ten. Oy Infinity Ward! Divide your xp by ten please!

  42. Shooop says:

    Oh come on, there’s plenty to criticize here, but the action overload is not it. Quake deathmatches are nothing but twitch-killers. Serious Sam is all about killing everything that movies. You guys love those as much as everyone else.

    The problem with CoD is that the non-stop twitch-killing with ridiculous things like A-10 gunships is it’s only trick – there is really nothing new that’s noteworthy in here. You could easily just play MW2, imagine the guns look different and have about the same experience. There is nothing in here that makes this an actual full retail game when compared to its predecessors.

    The series needs an infusion of new ideas. Fat chance that’ll ever happen this decade though.

    • scatterbrainless says:

      I concur with this lots. Lots and lots. It’s the poverty of new gameplay elements that’s really depressing in terms of franchise exploitation.

  43. scatterbrainless says:

    I think every article in the world should be tagged “old men”….
    I will never stop laughing.

  44. Tetragrammaton says:

    Let’s all go to war and let’s all die