207
Modern Warfare 3 is on track to be the lowest-rated Call of Duty ever
(www.videogameschronicle.com)
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 13 Nov 2023
207 points (97.7% liked)
Games
16741 readers
543 users here now
Video game news oriented community. No NanoUFO is not a bot :)
Posts.
- News oriented content (general reviews, previews or retrospectives allowed).
- Broad discussion posts (preferably not only about a specific game).
- No humor/memes etc..
- No affiliate links
- No advertising.
- No clickbait, editorialized, sensational titles. State the game in question in the title. No all caps.
- No self promotion.
- No duplicate posts, newer post will be deleted unless there is more discussion in one of the posts.
- No politics.
Comments.
- No personal attacks.
- Obey instance rules.
- No low effort comments(one or two words, emoji etc..)
- Please use spoiler tags for spoilers.
My goal is just to have a community where people can go and see what new game news is out for the day and comment on it.
Other communities:
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
I know it's been easy to dunk on the COD series for almost a decade now, but what made this one different? I thought they had MTX for the last few games and the gameplay always seems to be the same as the annual sports games, but did it finally hit the wall where the majority of their fan base sees all the issues?
Fans are also suspicious that the game requires MW2 to launch making the entire game seem like a $70 DLC
Seems like COD should just be a service at this point and you pay for the new yearly xpac. I hate suggesting that but that's what the series seemed to be since OG MW2. Guess it's just milk the money until enough people say enough
They'd probably make more money that way. Which I think is why they're moving towards it.
Even if it was the same money, people buy it when it comes out so they spend money making it for a year, and get all the profit at once.
Skins sell constantly, and keeps them profitable everyday. With a hyper focus on "quarterly earnings" this keeps stock up all year even if total profit on the year is the same. They want that sustained profit.
I think Black Ops 2 was the last best all-round CoD game. Had a good campaign, great multiplayer and fantastic zombies. Black Ops 3 was good for the zombies. Treyarch were CoD's final hope after the other studios games fell of a cliff and they also fell apart after BO3.
I personally think BO2 has amazing ideas, but stunted execution. It was held back by being part of COD instead of a stand alone game. There were development time limits, and certain gameplay limits that couldn’t be pushed.
The ideas in the game included branching mission outcomes with later repercussions, side missions controlling an AI squad, picking loadouts for missions - including being able to replay missions in the past using future weapons, and social stealth areas. There’s more but, that game really makes me wish it had been spun off into something new.
Yeah, Treyarch had some great devs honestly, it's a shame. They always brought new ideas to the franchise and a lot of them stuck around.
CoDaas? Amazing!
$70 to have access to the gun skin shop.
The article says that early reviews are let down by the campaign. Egregious asset reuse on a rushed campaign.
I know a lot of people don’t care about campaigns in COD, but I do. Once a game’s one year MP cycle is over, all that’s really left is the campaign.
The asset reuse in the campaign doesn’t bode well for multiplayer either, since that means more than likely obvious asset reuse there too. Which makes the whole thing look and feel like an overgrown, overpriced DLC, which is apparently what it is.
FWIW I played all console/PC CODs from the very first game to the first Modern Warfare reboot (except for Black Ops 3). Lot of highs and lows in the series, but each game had something to memorably set it apart. MW3 seems to have nothing to draw people in.
Does COD actually release on a yearly basis? That's insane if they do.
Starting in 2005 there has been a mainline COD released every year.
It’s made slightly better by the fact the studios rotate, which gives the games a two year development cycle instead of one, but it’s still pretty tight.
Jeez, that's crazy, even with multiple studios.
Yes and no. A two year development cycle is pretty reasonable for a linear game where the engine and foundational mechanics and elements of design are already in place and well understood by all involved. Even animations and assets are to a certain degree acceptable to reuse. Given those constraints, there have been some pretty good COD games.
That’s just the development side though. The crazy part is selling a new game where multiplayer is a large element to people every year. I don’t know if I’m more baffled by the publisher for deciding to do it, or for audiences for putting up with it. I’m personally very sluggish to switch away from an MP shooter that I like. Which is the reason why I stopped trying to keep up after MW2, and only played the other games on a delay and primarily for single player.
If they asset reuse that much then wtf is in that file size lol
They copied it to reuse it, still left the original.
First reviews are about the campaign.
This one was about 4 hours, but you can do it faster.
And absolutely sucked balls.
The new zombies is really fun, but pisses of zombie fans for not being the same thing, and pisses off dmz fans because it's not dmz. It's like both smashed together