Oh the hate!

Pre edit: Having just typed and read the content below, I just want to say first that I kind of just started typing and rambled the thoughts in my head, so it might jump around a little :-D

Since the 2nd video game came out there have been arguments over which game is better. Naturally.
My dad's bigger than your dad mentality.

I've done it, you've done it, we've all done it.

But just lately I have seen, read and heard soooooo much hate towards..... come on, you know what game I'm talking about

Yes, Call Of Duty: Modern Warfare 3.

I was just reading an article on IGN about Hard games, at no point did it say anything about COD or BF3 , yet the first comment was "MW3 is hard, I can't play it for more than 5 minutes"
Then "You get to 5 minutes, I can't stand it for more than 2 minutes"

And it continued.
I've seen this kind of thing many times, Halo used to be a target by these same guys when they were all "COD 1337" and it was the most realistic thing out there.
I joined in with this to some extent but mainly because I always hated Halo and never understood what the big deal was. I was never a big fan of old skool mega-jumps or putting an entire clip into someone and having to reload and do it again to get through their uber-armor.
COD MW to me was something fresh and whether you like to admit it or not, changed the face of FPS online gaming forever.

Clearly it's popularity has risen it to ultra hate that seems nothing more than a mental "Fashion".

So, now the guys who hated on Halo because COD was GOD are now hating on COD because BF is GOD.

It's almost like watching gamer evolution before our very eyes.

Now, my opinion is simple, while I may have a laugh and joke with you because you play Halo, it's purely in jest because I know Halo is as big as it is for a reason, crap games don't gain that much momentum no matter how good the marketing is.
Gamers are some of the harshest critics on earth, most of them have absolutely no idea how games are made or how incredibly painstaking it is.
Yes it's annoying when a new game has bad bugs, but something frequently overlooked is that the Devs are not usually the ones who dictate when things happen, they are often pressured to get a game out on time.

So, you like whatever game you like for whatever reason.

The hate hurtling towards MW3 is astounding and lets be perfectly honest, those who have played it (myself included) can't honestly say there's anything wrong with it, it's a great game, fast paced, good story, awesome cinematics and great graphics with that engine that is possibly one of the best FPS engines ever made.
The general complaint is repetitiveness, you know, that engine and graphics they thought were the greatest thing since Pong are now considered garbage.
Not entirely sure how that works to be honest.
The same comments came for Fallout New Vegas , "It's just more Fallout 3 with different stuff"...... well no sh*t sherlock, I loved Fallout 3, Vegas WAS more with a few upgrades (personally I preferred 3 because I liked the setting more) , it was awesome. What? you didn't like Fallout 3 so you were expecting a different game from the sequel?

These guys want a new game every year, trouble is they expect a NEW game every year, well sorry to disappoint you guys but the true greats usually take several years to complete.
So with Halo and COD:MW in mind, we have 2 great games that worked so well even your granny has heard of them.
Why would a game dev want to change it so quickly? surely you would try to improve on it before simply starting again?.... Oh... Oh wait.... that's what sequels are!

Now, look at Skyrim, the Elder Scrolls, look how long it is between games and look at the result, every one of them GOTY, same with Total War and Civilization.

Back to topic, so BF3 is the ultimate realistic experience and COD is a kids arcade game.... which would make Halo... "You have to use your hands? ... that's like a babies toy" (movie reference lol )

Well I've already said I didn't care for Halo, but the COD's (especially those by IW) have been some of my favorite games, wasn't a big BF fan until BF:BC and from then on.

MW3 vs BF3?......both are great, both work well and both have grat ideas. BF3 is a bit fresher due to the enviroments and new modes etc... but realism....please, BF3 is more realistic than MW3 yes, but it's still pretty arcady, especially online. My boy goes on and on about how it's soooo tactical.
Sorry, I don't see it, I see a junk load of players running around a very large map, the tactics are different to COD because you always played TDM in COD and now you are playing objective based matches.

Socom is a fine example of a tactical FPS but still has a fair majority just running round killing others, which is great fun.
I remember a troll came into a forum I used to frequent and basically said anyone who plays Socom and gets good could wipe the floor with COD players.
This intrigued me to Socom, so I got it, played it and to be honest it just seemed slower paced, more Rainbow Six stlye but still not very tactical given only 20% of players used mics, although I'll take that over 75% of players just shouting BS into thier mic and 5% playing music through it lol.
So after playing Socom for a few days and getting used to it I posted my opinion and he came back pretty aggressively and challenge me to a match. I accepted with the agreement we play both Socom and MW. 3 Matches each.
Needless to say I won the MW 2-1.. interestingly enough I also won the Socom 3-0. He blamed it on my connection, of course that's what it was lol
Don't get me wrong, I'm no gaming god and have lost many, many...many times lol.... but I have my moments

So for all you out there who argue this realism point.

Halo, COD, BF, Socom, ... are all placed in the arcade catagory compared to Arma. But the funny thing is I've invited several friends to play this game, I even had a mate come over a few weeks ago and try the mission I made.
I loaded it up, he made his way to the first enemy conflict... dead, tried again... dead. I then showed him how he needed to do it.
So he tried again... and again. So I loaded a different mission and once again his run n gun tactics just don't pull it.
He shut it down saying "This game is garbage, it's broken, you die in like 1 hit and when I shoot it's off target, the hit detection is broken"

I laughed and explained that THIS is a military simulator, not a FPS arcade game. It shows you that if you get shot in the chest... you die. It also shows you that things like distance and wind need to be taken into account when firing a projectile weapon.

So, it breaks down like this.
At this point in time, Halo is for kids, COD is for... slightly bigger kids, BF3 is perfect because it's ultra realistic yet Arma is too realistic.

Good one.

 

Ok you've convinced me, I'll have to get Arma. :-o I've never been a HUGE FPS gamer, I do own Socom, and COD all but the second one, never played Halo.. but alot of people like it, much like WOW, I can't see the point in gathering 75 bat wings and cow dung for the alchemist "studies." BUT, alot of people disagree with me.
As far as realism goes.... I'm a 30 yr/old kid that likes D&D, immensely powerful mages, and dark elves that can summon a mythical panther to aid him in his battles against evil/anyone who disagrees with him. :-D I haven't like realistic things since I opened my first forgotten realms book 20+yrs. ago.
All that being said, I'm gonna check out your Arma.... what can I say, true to your profession, your quite the sales man. :cool

 

Nice read but I'm not into FPS. I tried a demo of Crysis(sp) and though the graphics were nice the repeated killing got boring quick. I tried it because an e-friend loved it, not my style. Give me a role playing game like Sierra used to make, then my brain is engaged in trying to solve the puzzles. I guess I'm too old yet my friend is the same age, go figure eh? Wasted money too as I blew my 20GB bandwidth for the month. Cost me some $12.:cry

Anyways, to each their own and happy hunting! Enjoy!:guns



(I'm obviously bored as I hardly ever come in here but Ned attracts me like a moth to a flame.):-D

 

I think i agree??? (alot of rambling as you admit ) . Okay so I will give you my 2 cents FWIW (not much probably ) . Some of this will be a history lesson and don't ask me for proof, cause i'm just quickly using google for this :-D
My first online shooter was (the great) Medal of Honor: Allied Assault. Had that Saving private ryan cinematics in the single player, and the multiplayer had some good points as well, I spent a long time playing this one. The successive expansions didn't really get me that good, but all in all it was the defining WWII shooter for the time. The developer for this game was 2015, Inc. but was distributed by EA. Some of the development team left 2015/EA and started Infinity Ward. There they created the first Call of Duty which was what they wanted as a sequal to Medal of Honor, but weren't given the chance (or just didn't want to work for ea anymore) Call of Duty was another game changer in the WWII shooter genre, and they went on to make Call of Duty 2. These were distributed by Activision (EA's rival). Mind you, all of these were developed for PC. Then activision (after acquiring infinity ward somewhere along the line) went and let another studio create a console version of call of duty, Call of Duty 3, which was never released for pc. So I stuck with COD 2 until Infinty Ward/Activision released Call of Duty 4: Modern Warfare. Again a great PC game (and consoles)
Just after Modern warfare 2 was released, alot of the infinity ward employees left activision and are now in a new company, Respawn Entertainment (funny, they have funding from EA now rolleyes but i'm guessing they will not be so quick to sell their company this time)

I did play modern warfare 2 and subsequently black ops, and i liked them a little bit. I had fun playing, but things just started to get a little stale. And to top it off, only a couple of my friends bought the game, so it had a short life with me. We decided to change pace and try out battlefield bc2. yes, i've heard all the stories, that this is ea's response to call of duty, and it's a toned down, arcady version of battlefield. so what, it was fun to play.
In the mean time, my oldest son has gotten older, and I've let him play these game, on the ps3. He's a call of duty nut. I've tried with little luck to play shooters on the ps3, it's hard. Anyhow, I've also since started playing battlefield 3. WOW is it pretty. The new frostbite engine that was developed for this game is awesome. I've also seen mw3. I don't really see that much improvement from black ops, not that there's anything wrong with it.

I know i've lost track of my "history lesson" but the point is, I now play BF3 because it's more (slightly) of a team based game, compared to the way cod has become. larger maps, vehicles, helo's, it's just more fun (for me)

I'm anxious to see what the original devs come out with, so keep an eye out.

 

There use to be some great Sierra games, some of my earliest memories of Pc games was kings quest, and not sure if your heard of it, but, Shivers, also made by Sierra, is one of my fav. puzzle games, it came out in... I dunno prob almost 5 yrs ago. :cool

 

Ya King's Quest was good, especially AGDI's fan based efforts. Quite impressive actually for fan based written games, KQII was a rewrite with new puzzles and was enjoyable, KQ I was a 1:1 VGA remake. These folks spent close to 10 years making these excellent remakes, THAT is dedication! It's all free if you wish to retry them, voice and music modules available too. I never heard of 'Shivers'.

 

Two of my buddies got MW3 and they brought it to my place. I enjoyed it, Though I didn't get to try the campaign like I desperately wanted too. The split screen multi player was very good.
(Not sure if that even fits to this thread).

 

@Lego... lol from RPG to Military Simulator?... that's quite a jump. Arma is an aquired taste, if you read some of my other posts about the game I have talked quite extensivley including pro's and con's.
If you find it a little too realistic you can step down to Operation Flashpoint which is still leaps above the mainstream for realism but not quite as in depth as Arma. Either way I hope you enjoy.... more to the point I hope you don't blame me if you don't :-D

@Auggie... It's nice to know I spark some interest here and there
As for Crysis (Not Crysis 2 cos it's different), this game blows me away. Not because it's a really good game because it's actually not that great as you say. But this game is the only example I can think of where the difference between low and high graphics settings actually changes the gameplay a lot!
The physics engine is 2nd to none (although somewhat unreliable and glitchy), when you play on low-med/high settings you just run around shooting people and barrels. When you jack it up the world is your oyster. It's only here where you really see the gameplay in effect, instead of shooting guys you pop a barrel to the left which takes out a tree which falls on a building which collapses on the 4 guys inside, then you speed run over to another guy and grab him, jack up strength and throw him into the side of another building killing the guy insie as well ... etc etc.
Very creative but it still feels more like a test engine with little to no thought really gone into story or direction. It's also the game that brought us proper physics and the wonderful "God Rays" in all their glory.... there's a reason they didn't release it on consoles, I remember they said they could release it but would have to release a lower end version. I actually think they were a little ahead of technology because you can now get the same/better FX at lower power usage.

I think I rambled that reply :-D

@Smokingun... Yeah I remember reading all about that, for me the first one was Medal Of Honor (the first one) and when Frontline came out, it was only a couple of years after Saving Private Ryan and the 1st mission was exactly that scene. Then Allied Assault did it and did it much more intense obviously. COD2 was an awesome game and I still play it from time to time. Black Ops was ok, better than W@W but still Treyarch and to be honest I don't think I've ever enjoyed a Treyach game that much, although the Black Ops cambat training is an incredible idea, unfortunately IW didn't do it for MW3, but the Survival mode is similar and I've been having a blast doing it, it's just like Zombiesbut they are guys with guns and dogs and helos etc lol.
I also read a few moths ago (and I may have this not entirely acurate) about the whole Activision sueing EA for industrial espionage after IW aparently delayed the release of DLC for MW2 until after the release of the New MoH.
And aparently letters/emails were found between EA and IW conspiring this exact effect and laughing about it. It was then rumored that IW would be doing MW3 but no more and would be terminating their contract with Activision, especially after the whole IW sueing Activision for non payment of COD4 and once they have left Activision they would possibly be heading home and doing the next Medal of Honor under EA.

All very complicated and like I said, I may have some of that wrong, it was before MoH was releaed so it was actually close to a year ago lol.

But IW doing a MoH would really turn the tide on COD series... think about it, IW vs Treyarch in a FPS showdown.... no contest really lol

Wow I typed a lot again, hope it makes sense :-D