The $60 Expansion Pack
Modern Warfare 2 gets new maps, new guns, and a new title.
 |
| A hockey mask! Wow! What a change up! |
MODERN WARFARE 3 REVIEW BY PETER FRANKO
Modern Warfare 3 came into the gaming world boasting a bold statement, that very well could have been true. They called their game "The most anticipated game of all time" (in all caps of course for increased effect), and two weeks after it's release I wonder if the script has been flipped. For now I feel this was the biggest let down of all time. Mainly due to one thing: the game could have been made in three f*cking months. They know they could sell a disk labeled "Modern Warfare 3" when in reality it was Minesweeper, and still make $10 billion. I feel they made this game right after Modern Warfare 2's release, the moment critical feedback/ death threats came flowing into their inboxes. Because what is see is not a brand new game; what I see is literally a patch of Modern Warfare 2.
Players know that the jump from Call of Duty 4 to Modern Warfare 2 was absolutely massive. Gorgeous new graphics, a new engine, smooth fast paced gameplay, and everyone was hooked. It was the most addicting, satisfying first person shooter experience.. ever. So much so that even when the next installment was released, many stayed with it because Black Ops lacked the "allure" of Modern Warfare 2. But on Modern Warfare 3's highly anticipated arrival, nothing new was brought to the table. They essentially copied Gears of War's "Horde Mode" into "Survival Mode", released another Michael Bay campaign mode with sh*tty story and heaps of napalm, and of course patched the multiplayer. But believe me when I say this game is frighteningly similar to it's predecessor.
What Infinity Ward (the developers) did with the multiplayer is absolutely fantastic. They decided to get rid of almost every element of Modern Warfare 2 that made you want to smash your face into a bowl of broken glass. Commando, infinite noob-toobs, danger close, zero recoil guns, all that jazz is out permanently. Therefore you may be thinking "well if the multiplayer is nice and dandy, then whats the problem?" Well, the problem is that Infinity ward could have issued this "new" multiplayer, in its entirety as an expansion pack or patch two years ago. A patch is a new version of the game automatically downloaded upon startup, typically dealing with gun, perk, or map balancing issues. They even could have added the new maps and guns as an expansion pack/DLC, which Battlefield did with Battlefield Bad Company 2: Vietnam. But Activision is a sleazy tycoon, so they had to drag out the release, make it into a new title, hype it up, and essentially resell us a game we already bought... with the appropriate changes we should have gotten two years prior.
In the end, Modern Warfare 3 expands on what Modern Warfare 2 did, and it is guaranteed fun for 2 to 3 weeks (the honeymoon). Yet afterwards I feel many will tire from it rather than get angry, because of the fixed balancing, but also the sheer lack of new content. So if you're a die hard C.O.D. player I say go for it, and get as much as you can out of the game. But I still encourage you to take a step back and look at what you're doing before you buy. And if you are a shooter addict who's burnt out on the C.O.D. franchise, look in to Battlefield 3.
Oh, and to the rest of you, look ahead to the great games that 2012 will bring like Bioshock: Infinite, and Mass Effect 3... along with the apoclypse.
6 / 10
(buy Skyrim instead!)
Here's the problem. This is amazingly well written, and i commend you on that, but did you do your research before? no offense meant, but this game was exactly what people said they wanted. And, i personally thought the Story was pretty good. The multiplayer, as you said is perfect. But there are many reasons that it couldn't be a DLC, considering it's restyle of the mw2 engine, and the graphics did get better, but yes they are like MW2, but it can't get much better with the technology they are working on. Remember, these are machines released in late 2005, not super computers. You must take into account what they had to work with, and what they made it into. It's a beautiful game that supports many players, and more people love this than hate it. it's a good game, was created well, and plays well. Some people just expected a huge jump, which in all realism they could not, and no one else could do. BF3, isn't too different from BFBC2, except for faster deaths, and a tad better graphics. the Battlefield games have been the same (gameplay wise) since 2009.
ReplyDeleteYou raise good points.
ReplyDeleteThough Battlefield 3's gameplay got a HUGE revamp in gameplay, so much so that I dared go near it. And one of the larger points of the article is to say that realistically they could have done this whole game's multiplayer as a patch/expansion of MW2 (new maps + weapons). This game would be my ideal COD experience, 2 years ago when I was obsessed with the game. But now, it seems like nothing I havent seen or played.
Plus the game is having weird server issues that I've never had in any other COD game.
Lets just agree to disagree, and play Skyrim.
Agreed
ReplyDelete