# Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 3 Reveal Trailer



## alexsubri (May 24, 2011)

Watch it while it`s hot. The graphic`s look a little bit more polished compared to MW2


----------



## makwy2 (May 24, 2011)

nice.  301 views, 9,268 likes.


----------



## alexsubri (May 24, 2011)

it`s 301 because once it reach`s over like 500 views within an hour I think, Youtube people`s investigate to make sure it doesn`t conflict with their TOS. I would say by tomorrow it will have over 20,000 views


----------



## Volkszorn88 (May 24, 2011)

Not surprised, exactly what to expect from a COD title (every single year), more flashy trailers.


----------



## Raijian (May 24, 2011)

If it has no killstreak rewards, and balanced guns, no akimbo shotguns or smg's, then I'll buy it.


----------



## MxPhenom 216 (May 24, 2011)

Raijian said:


> If it has no killstreak rewards, and balanced guns, no akimbo shotguns or smg's, then I'll buy it.



I agree. no kill steaks, balanced guns and maps i may consider this. but then again, I kind of want ot just stop buying activisions games since itll just keep giving them a reason to release them.


----------



## TheMailMan78 (May 24, 2011)

They really need to retire that engine. Its dated as hell. The lighting was crap to what we have seen in BF3.


----------



## MxPhenom 216 (May 24, 2011)

TheMailMan78 said:


> They really need to retire that engine. Its dated as hell.



yeah that too. same old Quake Engine or whatever the hell it is. itsl ike 8 years old


----------



## Volkszorn88 (May 24, 2011)

Raijian said:


> If it has no killstreak rewards, and balanced guns, no akimbo shotguns or smg's, then I'll buy it.



Remove:
Kill streaks
Campers
Exploiters
Activision

Add:
Battlefield 3

Then, I would buy it.


----------



## MxPhenom 216 (May 24, 2011)

Volkszorn88 said:


> Remove:
> Kill streaks
> Campers
> Exploiters
> ...



WIN!!!!! except i like going into cod and just relaxing having fun. But when i want to try hard and work as a team and all that i play BF. i play BF a lot more. the only cod game i play now is Cod4


----------



## Volkszorn88 (May 24, 2011)

Ye, honestly. COD4 is the only one I STILL play. After cod4, it was all down hill. No need to pay $60 every year for the same exact game. COD = NFL Madden, NFL Madden = COD


----------



## MxPhenom 216 (May 24, 2011)

Volkszorn88 said:


> Ye, honestly. COD4 is the only one I STILL play. After cod4, it was all down hill. No need to pay $60 every year for the same exact game. COD = NFL Madden, NFL Madden = COD



yeah MW3 will be a rent for me. Bf3. WILL BE A BUY! I got my other friend off his console fanboyism and convinced him for college not only get a office type laptop for college work, but a Toshiba Qosmio for gaming on BF3


----------



## Volkszorn88 (May 24, 2011)

I actually want all the retards to buy MW3, so they stay away from BF3. 

I can see it now, 12 yr old buys BF3 and says "this game is dumb, no kill streaks!" lol


----------



## Yukikaze (May 24, 2011)

Meh.


----------



## BigMyke (May 24, 2011)

BF3 will smash this game!  This is my first post here too! Mark my words, BF3 will smash this game.


----------



## Volkszorn88 (May 24, 2011)

BigMyke's 1st post is his best post.


----------



## BigMyke (May 24, 2011)

Thanks Volkszorn!


----------



## MadClown (May 24, 2011)

I dont see why BF3 will smash this game when we will all be too busy playing Duke Nukem to care.


----------



## xenocide (May 24, 2011)

MadClown said:


> I dont see why BF3 will smash this game when we will all be too busy playing Duke Nukem to care.



While I do look forward to Duke Nukem, it doesn't really seem like a game that will have lasting appeal.  More like a game that you play through one or two times and shelve once something better comes along.  Battlefield 3 on the other hand, looks like an amazing modern first-person shooter with a lot of promise, and a lot of lasting appeal


----------



## hbk123 (May 24, 2011)

I think it looks quite good!


----------



## xenocide (May 24, 2011)

hbk123 said:


> I think it looks quite good!



I watched it during my break and here's what I could come up with;

The visuals were nice, but the trailer wasn't that interesting, especially compared to the BF3 trailer.  With the MW3 trailer it was a mixture of CGI\Pre-Render and a small amount of what might have been actualy in-game footage (still not entirely sure since I saw no HUD, etc.) but the overall feel of the game just didn't seem as good as that of BF3.  With the MW3 trailer it was mostly a lot of explosions... actually it was basically entirely explosions.  The BF3 trailer was a nice mixture of ambience, with a build-up to a suspensful action sequence.

I think the contrast is necessary to really build realism and immerse you in the game.  With MW2 it very much felt like they were marketting a Video Game, and that took a lot away from the gameplay in my opinion.  BF3 by comparison, seems to be selling an experience, and the trailer for it is a lot more theatrical, and less gimmicky.

The overall aesthetics of the game also concerned me.  MW3 looked very... plain.  Can't quite put my finger on it, but it just didn't look very vibrant.  The only scene I remember that really wow'ed me was when they were running through the building that was half on fire, the rest of it was just a black and grey mash-up of City-based firefights and some random underwater sequences.  When I first saw the BF3 trailer, I remember being blown away by how vivid the environments were.  The light shining through windows and off the walls in the alleys, the scene with the bridge cracking apart underneath their feet, the blood splatter for a fallen teamate splashing onto the screen, the light reflecting off of the windows of the buildings during the rooftop sequences.  Everything seemed perfectly placed and natural, not forced and chaotic.


----------



## treehouse (May 24, 2011)

its cool these days for 'knowledgeable' computer folk to bash the newer COD games. they are the best selling games of all time for a reason, my opinion fwiw is that its because they dont have any competition. BF3 & MOH for example are completely different games if you ask me. COD is more personal and it takes a couple bullets to kill someone. (BC2 takes many more bullets which ruins the fun for me)

i really tried liking BC2 but i just could not do it. for example in hardcore mode it takes 2 SNIPER bullets to the chest to kill someone, that means hardcore mode is not actually hardcore, just little things like that make COD superior in my book.

and yes i know its 'cool' to hate COD games and the players but you have to ask yourself, why is it the best selling series of all time?


----------



## Raijian (May 24, 2011)

ITT: Treehouse tries to defend his 12-year-old CoD MW2 veteran status.

Jk, but in all seriousness, I won't be buying this game. After the nightmare that was MW2, I'll pass!


----------



## Yukikaze (May 24, 2011)

treehouse said:


> and yes i know its 'cool' to hate COD games and the players but you have to ask yourself, why is it the best selling series of all time?



That's easy: It caters to the lowest common denominator.


----------



## Animalpak (May 24, 2011)

love me or hate me... But i still love ALL Call of Duty series !  And im soo exicted of this like every year now.


----------



## Raijian (May 24, 2011)

The teleporting-homing knife is another thing that would have to go.


----------



## treehouse (May 24, 2011)

Yukikaze said:


> That's easy: It caters to the lowest common denominator.



we get it, your superior and cool and clever...


----------



## treehouse (May 24, 2011)

Animalpak said:


> love me or hate me... But i still love ALL Call of Duty series !  And im soo exicted of this like every year now.


----------



## Yukikaze (May 24, 2011)

treehouse said:


> we get it, your superior and cool and clever...



Which was not nearly what I was saying, but I'll take the compliment, thanks.


----------



## treehouse (May 24, 2011)

Yukikaze said:


> Which was not nearly what I was saying, but I'll take the compliment, thanks.



well what else could you have meant? you used a derogatory phrase against all COD players lol


----------



## Yukikaze (May 24, 2011)

treehouse said:


> well what else could you have meant? you used a derogatory phrase against all COD players lol



Actually, you just turned it into a derogatory comment against every CoD player. My meaning was simple: CoD sells so well because it is designed to appeal to the largest possible audience. This comes at the cost of many, many other things (hence "lowest common denominator"), but leaves it successful nonetheless. It is not a bad thing, in general. After all many other things (in food, in sports marketing, and in consumer culture overall) do the same thing.

You have concluded that if you are able to enjoy something which aims lower, then you are automatically implied to be inferior. This is obviously not the case.


----------



## treehouse (May 24, 2011)

Yukikaze said:


> Actually, you just turned it into a derogatory comment against every CoD player. My meaning was simple: CoD sells so well because it is designed to appeal to the largest possible audience. This comes at the cost of many, many other things (hence "lowest common denominator"), but leaves it successful nonetheless. It is not a bad thing, in general. After all many other things (in food, in sports marketing, and in consumer culture overall) do the same thing.
> 
> You have concluded that if you are able to enjoy something which aims lower, then you are automatically implied to be inferior. This is obviously not the case.



well then please accept my apology as that is a derogatory term from where i come from


----------



## treehouse (May 24, 2011)

1 thing that COD ALWAYS manages to get right is the mouse movement, dunno if it was just for me but BC2's mouse movement was unbelievably bad for me no matter how much i tweaked it.


----------



## erixx (May 24, 2011)

as we say in Holland, COD-Zen....


----------



## horik (May 24, 2011)

I'm sure BF3 will be 734563847 times better than MW3 Now seriously,i used to play all CoD games to MW2,but when i found BC2 i never again played CoD,so i'm not excited about MW3 being launched.


----------



## DannibusX (May 24, 2011)

It's funny.  The entire SP campaign is actually shorter than the trailer.


----------



## Volkszorn88 (May 24, 2011)

Also lets not forget the amazing IW.net that MW3 will be using. We all know how amazing IW.net is. lol


----------



## DannibusX (May 24, 2011)

I'm pretty sure that the PC version will use Steamworks.


----------



## chris89 (May 24, 2011)

Looks ok.

But looking more forward to Red Orchestra: heroes of Stalingrad mostly and the less cod fanboys/ 12yrolds playing that the better, as the forums will be bugged with asking for crosshairs etc.

Chris


----------



## Bjorn_Of_Iceland (May 24, 2011)

m-e-h



Volkszorn88 said:


> Also lets not forget the amazing IW.net that MW3 will be using. We all know how amazing IW.net is. lol


I f*ckin love IWNET! 
/slitswrist


----------



## treehouse (May 24, 2011)

does anyone know if it will have dedicated servers?


----------



## HookeyStreet (May 24, 2011)

It looks awesome!


----------



## Mindweaver (May 24, 2011)

I can't wait!.... for BF3.. hehehe and this! I can't help it.. I like COD games..  WOO check it out if you turn the M upside down... It spells WW3!     hehehe


----------



## TheMailMan78 (May 24, 2011)

HookeyStreet said:


> It looks awesome!
> 
> http://www.voucherfreebies.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2011/05/callofdutymw3.jpg



You just don't learn do you.


----------



## HookeyStreet (May 24, 2011)

TheMailMan78 said:


> You just don't learn do you.



Nope!


----------



## TheMailMan78 (May 24, 2011)

HookeyStreet said:


> Nope!



Need I remind you that BF3 looks a 1000 times better then this and will have 1,000,000 times the depth?


----------



## HookeyStreet (May 24, 2011)

TheMailMan78 said:


> Need I remind you that BF3 looks a 1000 times better then this and will have 1,000,000 times the depth?



BF3 should be epic.  Hopefully the SP campaign is longer/better than BC2   I've always liked the Modern Warfare storyline (and over the top arcade style) and the idea of WWIII kicking off should be good.  So I'm looking forward to both titles really


----------



## DanTheMan (May 24, 2011)

I can see into Activision's future .... 2012

COD 4 (End Game) - Coming to a store near you - Nov xx,2012

Play it before the world ends


----------



## TheMailMan78 (May 24, 2011)

HookeyStreet said:


> BF3 should be epic.  Hopefully the SP campaign is longer/better than BC2   I've always liked the Modern Warfare storyline (and over the top arcade style) and the idea of WWIII kicking off should be good.  So I'm looking forward to both titles really



This isnt even IW doing this one. I would be excited too if it was IW......but its not.


----------



## HookeyStreet (May 24, 2011)

TheMailMan78 said:


> This isnt even IW doing this one. I would be excited too if it was IW......but its not.



That is a worrying fact. Only time will tell what Sledgehammer did with the franchise *crosses fingers*


----------



## TheMailMan78 (May 24, 2011)

HookeyStreet said:


> That is a worrying fact. Only time will tell what Sledgehammer did with the franchise *crosses fingers*



FYI Sledgehammers lead is an accountant.


----------



## HookeyStreet (May 24, 2011)

TheMailMan78 said:


> FYI Sledgehammers lead is an accountant.



Oh well, hopefully he knows what type of game makes big money


----------



## Yukikaze (May 24, 2011)

HookeyStreet said:


> Oh well, hopefully he knows what type of game makes big money



I think that's exactly what everyone fears


----------



## HookeyStreet (May 24, 2011)

Yukikaze said:


> I think that's exactly what everyone fears



LMAO!!


----------



## EastCoasthandle (May 24, 2011)

That video has created over 2 million views in less then 24 hours.  I don't recall BF3 trailers getting 1/10th of that in that time frame.  Let alone get that many "likes" in that other promotion (again in that time frame).  Hate MW3 if you want but it is what it is, the giant gorilla in the room.  You gotta respect it for what it is even if it's not your preference.


----------



## xenocide (May 24, 2011)

HookeyStreet said:


> That is a worrying fact. Only time will tell what Sledgehammer did with the franchise *crosses fingers*



MW3 is being developed by about 1/3 the original IW staff, Sledgehammer Games (Single-Player assistance) and Raven Software (Multi-Player).  What could possibly go wrong with having 3 different studios all working on the same game? :shadedshu



EastCoasthandle said:


> That video has created over 2 million views in less then 24 hours.  I don't recall BF3 trailers getting 1/10th of that in that time frame.  Let alone get that many "likes" in that other promotion (again in that time frame).  Hate MW3 if you want but it is what it is, the giant gorilla in the room.  You gotta respect it for what it is even if it's not your preference.



Of course it got more attention.  Call of Duty has better brand recognition.  All the 12 year olds and frat boys wanted to check out the Michael Baysplosion Trailer.  In all seriousness though, all BF3 has to do is sell well, and be a good game.  I don't think anyone honestly expects BF3 to just dethrone CoD\MW in 1 strike...


----------



## EastCoasthandle (May 24, 2011)

xenocide said:


> Of course it got more attention.  Call of Duty has better brand recognition.  All the 12 year olds and frat boys wanted to check out the Michael Baysplosion Trailer.  In all seriousness though, all BF3 has to do is sell well, and be a good game.  I don't think anyone honestly expects BF3 to just dethrone CoD\MW in 1 strike...



And how exactly did CoD get it's attention?  CoD didn't become the mega triple AAA blockbuster until COD4.  The others before it were never as popular until CoD4.  As for BF series, yes there were 1942 but if you look at the stats BF2 still has at times around 9K player based to this very day vs 1942.  As you can see games before COD4 and BF2 are just not as popular.  So again, where is this attention coming from?  It's certainly more recent then you imply.  

BF2 was released on June 21, 2005
COD4 was released during the week of Nov 5th 2007.  

Nearly a 2 year gap.  I don't think it's the attention that's the issue as BF series has much more consumer exposure in that regard.  What I think is going on is that people on mass are getting tried of hit registration and other polish and fit issues.  When they point and shot in COD they hit.  With BF series, not so much.  Regardless of the bugs presented once the game is at a playable state for them they are usually sold IMO.


----------



## WarhammerTX (May 24, 2011)

Typical single player polished footage I want to see the Multi player footage I dont care about the single player will never play it. As to be expected we probably will not see any footage till about September. And it will not look anything like the single player which is always to bad


----------



## EastCoasthandle (May 24, 2011)

The biggest bombshell is yet to come if they announce 64 player support.  Or at least 32 player support on console.  Lets see how things unfold.

Edit:
Video Comparison between the 2.  Nothing more can be taken from this then the video themselves at this time.


----------



## Volkszorn88 (May 25, 2011)

Best way to describe people who play COD and BF is...

COD: "hmm how can I be gay as sh*t today and make others rage?"

BF: "Hopefully the cod kids aren't online so we can have some good games."


----------



## MatTheCat (May 25, 2011)

xenocide said:


> In all seriousness though, all BF3 has to do is sell well, and be a good game.  I don't think anyone honestly expects BF3 to just dethrone CoD\MW in 1 strike...



On the PC, BF3 will blow MW3 out of the water (in terms of sales). As for the consoles the CoD series has a very strong following and for good reason. CoD is about the only console shooter that runs at 60FPS. All the others run at 0 FPS with screen tearing to boot. So even though CoD offers the most unoriginal FPShooter gameplay imaginable, it also offers the most smooth arcade experience. If I had to play on a console and I had the pressing need for a shooter, then it would have to be CoD (and I dont even like any of the games...CoD4 was pretty good...but by no means amazing).

Of course, there is far more behind the franchises success than smooth framerates, but I would suggest that the devs aimed for smooth framerates at the expense of resolution for a good reason (they even said so themselves).

Edit: If BF3 doesn't turn out to be the biggest selling PC shooter of all time, then I will eat my graphics card.


----------



## xenocide (May 25, 2011)

EastCoasthandle said:


> And how exactly did CoD get it's attention?  CoD didn't become the mega triple AAA blockbuster until COD4.  The others before it were never as popular until CoD4.  As for BF series, yes there were 1942 but if you look at the stats BF2 still has at times around 9K player based to this very day vs 1942.  As you can see games before COD4 and BF2 are just not as popular.  So again, where is this attention coming from?  It's certainly more recent then you imply.
> 
> BF2 was released on June 21, 2005
> COD4 was released during the week of Nov 5th 2007.
> ...



CoD4 was not the first popular CoD game.  That defintely was the work of CoD2.  Now to add onto that, the first 2 big CoD titles were critically and PC-user acclaimed for being fantastic for their time.  CoD4 was the first massive commercial success, and that was because the original IW Staff fought tooth and nail to have creative control over it, realizing people were getting sick of WWII shooters, and wanted something different.  You could even go so far as to say without BF2, CoD4 probably wouldn't have been the game it was.

I also refuse to believe that the popularity\sales of a game instantly translates into the quality of the game.  I played MW2 for a bit on PS3, and it was only entertaining for about a month or so.  Compare that to BFBC2 on the PC, and I still pick that game up and play it now and then.  I played Black Ops at a friends house and hated it because it was basically MW2, just reskinned with crappier mechanics.

Don't even get me started on "Hit Registration" in recent CoD Titles, because that is basically a paradox.  The reason it's so much easier in MW2 to land shots is because the guns have no recoil, and the guns do not react to external actions.  Take Counter-Strike for example, if you run and shoot, good luck lol.  In MW2, if you do the same thing, you're basically the worlds greatest marksman.  CoD4 wasn't nearly as bad (I played it both on PC and PS3) but really started the trend.  The entire game is basically a close-range on rails shooter, where you just run and gun as fast as possible.  In BC2, the guns act like actual guns, not the Rail Guns that exist in the CoD-verse, so you are required to apply significantly more skill and intellect to your play.

I have paid pretty close attention to the last several CoD launches, and to say they are a better experience out of the box is also nothing short of laughable.  Remember the massive problems with MW2?  Some of which are still present in the game, 2 years later?  And those same EXACT issues were present at the Black Ops launch.  Let's not forget the several glitches that have gone unaddressed for months at a time.  On the PS3, the Javelin Glitch was around for about 6 months after it was exposed.  I consider stuff like that unnacceptable.  When I first popped in my copy of MW2, I had to patch for 10 minutes, got in game, the servers crashed, waited half an hour, patched AGAIN for 10 minutes, and by the time even got into a match with some friends, it was unbearably laggy for everyone.

I'm sure there are plenty of people that have had great experiences with recent CoD games, but when I compare them to games like UT2K4, Counter-Strike, Quake 3, and now games like TF2, the experience just isn't there.


----------



## EastCoasthandle (May 25, 2011)

xenocide said:


> CoD4 was not the first popular CoD game.  That defintely was the work of CoD2.  Now to add onto that, the first 2 big CoD titles were critically and PC-user acclaimed for being fantastic for their time.  CoD4 was the first massive commercial success, and that was because the original IW Staff fought tooth and nail to have creative control over it, realizing people were getting sick of WWII shooters, and wanted something different.  You could even go so far as to say without BF2, CoD4 probably wouldn't have been the game it was.


No need to contradict yourself by arguing what I said earlier to imply the same thing.  COD4 to this very day is still a popular game.  I'm specifically implying how well the game is received today which is why I provided you the link to the stats.  Your just mince words for the sake for arguing here.  Also, I didn't make mention that COD4 was the 1st popular game.  I did say it was the most popular one (among it's other COD titles).  If you don't think so, by all means provide a link staying otherwise (a COD title).  But from what I recall COD2 didn't sell 10 million units in the same time frame.



xenocide said:


> I also refuse to believe that the popularity\sales of a game instantly translates into the quality of the game.  I played MW2 for a bit on PS3, and it was only entertaining for about a month or so.  Compare that to BFBC2 on the PC, and I still pick that game up and play it now and then.  I played Black Ops at a friends house and hated it because it was basically MW2, just reskinned with crappier mechanics.


This portion of your post has nothing to do with the content in which I posted.  If you haven't noticed already I will spell it out for you.  Higher quality of a game does not always equal higher sales/popularity.  What my post contends is that it is my opinion that the main reason for MW3 popularity is because people have a easier time in playing it.  I've proved an example to show that:
1. They hit what they point at
2. Polish and fit is inline to what they want.  
Nothing more should be implied by that.




xenocide said:


> snip


A lot of what you provide in your reply is simply not relating to what I posted (albeit long winded).  I can't even say we agree to disagree when you are talking about something completely different to what I posted to you about.  But to bring this back on course the facts remain the same.  The popularity of MW3 is much higher then BF3 and there is a straight forward reason for it.  I think it has something to do with how well some can play it.    Just saying, or imply, it sucks is simply not enough to dismiss (currently) the number of views the 2 received when announced.  What the actual game will be will be a different topic of discussion.


----------



## Wile E (May 25, 2011)

EastCoasthandle said:


> And how exactly did CoD get it's attention?  CoD didn't become the mega triple AAA blockbuster until COD4.  The others before it were never as popular until CoD4.  As for BF series, yes there were 1942 but if you look at the stats BF2 still has at times around 9K player based to this very day vs 1942.  As you can see games before COD4 and BF2 are just not as popular.  *So again, where is this attention coming from?*  It's certainly more recent then you imply.
> 
> BF2 was released on June 21, 2005
> COD4 was released during the week of Nov 5th 2007.
> ...


This has already been covered: Marketing it to the lowest common denominator, and huge advertisement campaigns. 

But overall, better selling =/= better product, so until the CoD franchise actually makes another unique and great game like the first MW, it's all just gonna be the same rehashed garbage that cost $60, plus another $40 in stupid DLCs.


----------



## EastCoasthandle (May 25, 2011)

Wile E said:


> This has already been covered: Marketing it to the lowest common denominator, and huge advertisement campaigns.
> 
> But overall, better selling =/= better product.



It's never that cut and dry.  Which brings us back to the MW3 vs BF3 viewer usage in the Utube video (which is how this conversation came about).  BF3 had a fairly earlier advertising campaign which didn't result in the number of viewers vs MW3 which came out only a few hours ago.  So one can, and will, say that better/more advertisement campaigns =/= better popularity.  At this point, this discussion isn't about what the product is.  This is because no know knows what the 2 games will offer in any details yet.  But if it's true that MW3 will have premium online features this time around (have no idea of what that is yet) then that's another topic of discussion.


----------



## Wile E (May 25, 2011)

EastCoasthandle said:


> It's never that cut and dry.  Which brings us back to the MW3 vs BF3 viewer usage in the Utube video (which is how this conversation came about).  BF3 had a fairly earlier advertising campaign which didn't result in the number of viewers vs MW3 which came out only a few hours ago.  So one can, and will, say that better/more advertisement campaigns =/= better popularity.  At this point, this discussion isn't about what the product is.  This is because no know knows what the 2 games will offer in any details yet.  But if it's true that MW3 will have premium online features this time around (have no idea of what that is yet) then that's another topic of discussion.



BF3 may have started advertising sooner, but not with the same budget and media exposure as the Call of Duty franchise. Advertising isn't just about getting ads out there before the other guy.


----------



## MxPhenom 216 (May 25, 2011)

What people seemed to not understand is that CoD will always win in sales, however just because something sells well(being popular) doesn't mean its good. Look at Justin Beiber he is retardly popular, but doesn't mean hes good.


----------



## MxPhenom 216 (May 25, 2011)

xenocide said:


> CoD4 was not the first popular CoD game.  That defintely was the work of CoD2.  Now to add onto that, the first 2 big CoD titles were critically and PC-user acclaimed for being fantastic for their time.  CoD4 was the first massive commercial success, and that was because the original IW Staff fought tooth and nail to have creative control over it, realizing people were getting sick of WWII shooters, and wanted something different.  You could even go so far as to say without BF2, CoD4 probably wouldn't have been the game it was.
> 
> I also refuse to believe that the popularity\sales of a game instantly translates into the quality of the game.  I played MW2 for a bit on PS3, and it was only entertaining for about a month or so.  Compare that to BFBC2 on the PC, and I still pick that game up and play it now and then.  I played Black Ops at a friends house and hated it because it was basically MW2, just reskinned with crappier mechanics.
> 
> ...



great post. CoD is just too generic. ill play it if i feel like being layed back and having some easy fun. Ill go to BF for my realistic warfare experience that i love.


----------



## EastCoasthandle (May 25, 2011)

Wile E said:


> BF3 may have started advertising sooner, but not with the same budget and media exposure as the Call of Duty franchise. Advertising isn't just about getting ads out there before the other guy.



We are only talking about the utube videos here.  This is the only media I know of right now with over 2 million views vs what BF3 did at the same time (which is what my op was referencing).  Budget in this case really has nothing to do with it.  I understand what you are implying if we are talking about commercials, ads, etc. But in this case it's safe to assume that more people are currently interested in MW3 (for now).

Edit:
Opps, it's 3 million now.


----------



## Wile E (May 25, 2011)

EastCoasthandle said:


> We are only talking about the utube videos here.  This is the only media I know of right now with over 2 million views vs what BF3 did at the same time.  Budget in this case really has nothing to do with it.  I understand what you are implying if we are talking about commercials, ads, etc. But in this case *it's safe to assume that more people are currently interested in MW3* (for now).



Yes, they are, but they shouldn't be.


----------



## EastCoasthandle (May 25, 2011)

Wile E said:


> Yes, they are, but they shouldn't be.



You underestimate the power of "good enough".


----------



## Wile E (May 25, 2011)

EastCoasthandle said:


> You underestimate the power of "good enough".



I didn't underestimate it. I already admitted MW3 is more popular. It just doesn't make that fact any less sad.


----------



## Funtoss (May 25, 2011)

makwy2 said:


> nice.  301 views, 9,268 likes.



more like 3 million + views now and 39 thousand + likes lol

i still didnt like black ops, but thats just me...
i would still get this game :L


----------



## hellrazor (May 25, 2011)

I'll just leave this here.


----------



## Volkszorn88 (May 25, 2011)

hellrazor said:


> I'll just leave this here.



I remember seeing this trailer last november.


----------



## BigMyke (May 25, 2011)

hellrazor said:


> I'll just leave this here.



Lmao, thanks for that link.


----------



## bbmarley (May 25, 2011)

anyone else or just me thinking kind of looks like crysis2


----------



## EastCoasthandle (May 25, 2011)

Wile E said:


> I didn't underestimate it. I already admitted MW3 is more popular. It just doesn't make that fact any less sad.



Then prepared to be disappointed.  According to Amazon, MW3 has reached the top 10 best selling pre-order game.  I can't even find BF3 yet.  So the number of views for the utube video does seem to correspond with amazons stats on best sellers.  And we have no idea what's being offered nor is there any information on what this premium packaging is all about yet.


----------



## TIGR (May 25, 2011)

Looks awesome. But there have been awesome trailers for [IMO] crappy games too many times before to buy it based on anything but post-release reviews; unfortunately it's the CoD franchise (since CoD4) that taught me not to pre-order.


----------



## H82LUZ73 (May 25, 2011)

EastCoasthandle said:


> Then prepared to be disappointed.  According to Amazon, MW3 has reached the top 10 best selling pre-order game.  I can't even find BF3 yet.  So the number of views for the utube video does seem to correspond with amazons stats on best sellers.  And we have no idea what's being offered nor is there any information on what this premium packaging is all about yet.



Mostly moms getting a head start on Christmas shopping thinking their little angel will like it.I might pick it up if it has a special like 66% off on steam,I already got BF# and will stick with that this NOV,Why should i buy a cod game and get it installed like BLOPS last year and have aim botter same day as release.That should tell you this game is for ,The 8-14 olds that want cheats in a game.


----------



## boise49ers (May 25, 2011)

Volkszorn88 said:


> Ye, honestly. COD4 is the only one I STILL play. After cod4, it was all down hill. No need to pay $60 every year for the same exact game. COD = NFL Madden, NFL Madden = COD



It is the last COD Multi-player I really enjoyed. I was disappointed in 
MW2 and BO. I'm not making that mistake again. Same old crap. 
Just different maps. Until they catch up with current 
abilities of new engines I'm through with COD's.


----------



## alexsubri (May 26, 2011)

They haven`t really discussed MW3 engine yet. Any thread on it yet? 

I know it look`s pretty much the same as MW2


----------



## TheMailMan78 (May 26, 2011)

alexsubri said:


> They haven`t really discussed MW3 engine yet. Any thread on it yet?
> 
> I know it look`s pretty much the same as MW2



Same engine. Highly modified Quake 3 engine.


----------



## EastCoasthandle (May 26, 2011)

It's amazing what a fresh coat of paint can do...
I'm sure others wish they could do the same.


----------



## TheMailMan78 (May 26, 2011)

EastCoasthandle said:


> It's amazing what a fresh coat of paint can do...
> I'm sure others wish they could do the same.



Carmack is a god.


----------



## lilkiduno (May 26, 2011)

well. from the this. it dose not look to be a must have purchase for me... hell i wasnt going to buy BO other than for a game that I could play with family..... and that was 2 months after the release. The story sucked so I lost intrest in that. Zombies... meh it's basiclly the same a W@W so not a big selling point for me there. and MP... that was a joke... I will much rather play CoD4 still....

but to compair CoD to BF is like compaining apples to oranges.... yes they are both FPS but apples and oranges are both fruit.... CoD has it's Pro's and Cons just as BF....

Now I am not saying I like on title better than the other, but after spending the $$$ on the last two $H*T titles CoD has released I will much rather spend the $$$ on a game title of which I have yet to be dissapointed with.... yes thats right BF3 hurry up already!

P.S. From the trailer the story looks like it may be a good one. Hell just don't do no BO BS!


----------



## treehouse (May 27, 2011)

EastCoasthandle said:


> When they point and shot in COD they hit. With BF series, not so much



 so true


----------



## Volkszorn88 (May 27, 2011)

lilkiduno said:


> but to compair CoD to BF is like compaining apples to oranges.... yes they are both FPS but apples and oranges are both fruit.... CoD has it's Pro's and Cons just as BF....



Only con BF3 has is that it isn't out yet.


----------



## chris89 (May 27, 2011)

I know my brother is getting MW3 on 360 :/

Looking at the pricing in the UK the current moment from amazon the PC verison is £34.91, From Play.com it is: £35.99 :/ so more expensive then nearly all other PC games. But then isn't supprising for CoD 8?

Most likely a better game to compare BF3 is would be the new RO when it's released, but then that concentrates a lot more on realism.

Chris


----------



## EastCoasthandle (May 27, 2011)

With COD they know what they are getting.  And don't have to question if there are any major game play changes that they may not like (at least not yet).  With BF3 we have no idea what we are getting or what to expect.  They are adding elements to BC2 and subtracting game play elements from BF2 and call it BF3 .  This has confused me as to what direction BF3 is heading.  Is it a real BF2 squeal or not?  When I have to ask myself this question then look at COD which do you think people will relate to the most?  COD of course!  

This isn't the only answer.  But when I look at this from a consumer's point of view that's the impression I get.


----------



## TheMailMan78 (May 27, 2011)

EastCoasthandle said:


> With COD they know what they are getting.  And don't have to question if there are any major game play changes that they may not like (at least not yet).  With BF3 we have no idea what we are getting or what to expect.  They are adding elements to BC2 and subtracting game play elements from BF2 and call it BF3 .  This has confused me as to what direction BF3 is heading.  Is it a real BF2 squeal or not?  When I have to ask myself this question then look at COD which do you think people will relate to the most?  COD of course!
> 
> This isn't the only answer.  But when I look at this from a consumer's point of view that's the impression I get.



I don't. BC2 blew away CoD. BF3 is going to be far better then BC2. CoD is EXACTLY the same. Simple logic really. Only reason CoD even sells anymore is hype.


----------



## EastCoasthandle (May 27, 2011)

TheMailMan78 said:


> I don't. BC2 blew away CoD. BF3 is going to be far better then BC2. CoD is EXACTLY the same. Simple logic really. Only reason CoD even sells anymore is hype.



The numbers in viewership do speak for themselves right now (which may or may not change later on).  I wasn't implying that no one go it.  Just one of the reasons why some seem to prefer COD over BF3.  It's because they have some idea what they are getting.  With BF3, we really haven't a clue.  We can guess and be right or wrong but the mixing and matching of BF2 vs BC2 and call it BF3 has at least left me confused.


----------



## TheMailMan78 (May 27, 2011)

EastCoasthandle said:


> The numbers in viewership do speak for themselves right now (which may or may not change later on).  I wasn't implying that no one go it.  Just one of the reasons why some seem to prefer COD over BF3.  It's because they have some idea what they are getting.  With BF3, we really haven't a clue.  We can guess and be right or wrong but the mixing and matching of BF2 vs BC2 and call it BF3 has at least left me confused.



Its more popular because of hype and console players are sheep. As a matter of fact you know LESS about this CoD then any other in the past. Its not being made by IW or Treyarch. Its being made by Sledgehammer and its "founder" is an accountant.

BF3 is being made by DICE and all the original crew. When have they made a dud? Yeah I think I trust them a LOT more then an accountant making a game.


----------



## EastCoasthandle (May 27, 2011)

TheMailMan78 said:


> Its more popular because of hype and console players are sheep. As a matter of fact you know LESS about this CoD then any other in the past. Its not being made by IW or Treyarch. Its being made by Sledgehammer and its "founder" is an accountant.
> 
> BF3 is being made by DICE and all the original crew. When have they made a dud? Yeah I think I trust them a LOT more then an accountant making a game.



As far as value of who is making the game they really don't care.  People have establish a relationship with what to expect from the game be it true this go around or not.  With BF3 we have no idea with some of the leaked information we have so far.  I do recall when BC2 was released many thought BC2 was BF3.  But the air was cleared and we were told that BC2 was not BF3 (BF3 was in development, etc).  But yet we now see that BC2's game play is in BF3 with prone added from BF2.   

I just don't agree that calling them sheep to hype is the best answer here.  Even though we don't know what COD will offer.  There is something else going on here.


----------



## Wile E (May 28, 2011)

EastCoasthandle said:


> As far as value of who is making the game they really don't care.  People have establish a relationship with what to expect from the game be it true this go around or not.  With BF3 we have no idea with some of the leaked information we have so far.  I do recall when BC2 was released many thought BC2 was BF3.  But the air was cleared and we were told that BC2 was not BF3 (BF3 was in development, etc).  But yet we now see that BC2's game play is in BF3 with prone added from BF2.
> 
> *I just don't agree that calling them sheep to hype is the best answer here.  Even though we don't know what COD will offer.  There is something else going on here.*



I disagree completely. I think Mailman nailed it. People only buy COD because they don't know any better, and think that it's the pinnacle of fps, just because their buddy says so. AKA: Sheep.


----------



## treehouse (May 28, 2011)

Wile E said:


> I disagree completely. I think Mailman nailed it. People only buy COD because they don't know any better, and think that it's the pinnacle of fps, just because their buddy says so. AKA: Sheep.



well guess what? i own BC2 and blackops, i prefer blackops 

so your theory has already been disproven


----------



## EastCoasthandle (May 28, 2011)

treehouse said:


> well guess what? i own BC2 and blackops, i prefer blackops
> 
> so your theory has already been disproven



, thank you.


----------



## RejZoR (May 28, 2011)

Looks like a nice game really. I don't care about the graphics all that much for as long as single player campaign will be as memorable as it was in CoD1 and CoD2.


----------



## treehouse (May 28, 2011)

MatTheCat said:


> If BF3 doesn't turn out to be the biggest selling PC shooter of all time, then I will eat my graphics card.



oh i am confident you will be shitting green or red colours, very confident


----------



## xenocide (May 28, 2011)

treehouse said:


> oh i am confident you will be shitting green or red colours, very confident



I am holding him responsible for that statement lol.


----------



## cheesy999 (May 28, 2011)

i might buy it just cause the daily mail's description of 'An ultra-violent computer game which features explosions and scenes of destruction on the London Tube and at the Houses of Parliament is to be released later this year' makes it sound awesome


----------



## xenocide (May 28, 2011)

cheesy999 said:


> An ultra-violent computer game which features explosions and scenes of destruction on the London Tube and at the Houses of Parliament is to be released later this year



I guess if you ignore the fact that it lacks actual destructible environments that might hold true.  That could just be me nit-picking, but it's hard to say anything features destruction if you can shoot a rocket at a wall and it remains intact.

http://arstechnica.com/gaming/news/...battlefield-3-the-difference-is-in-the-pc.ars

Articles like this remind me of why I love Arstechnica.  Pretty much sums up how I feel about MW3.  It was the only Preview for MW3 since that London Screening that wasn't basically a fap-fest of praise.  Ars actually critiqued the Engine, something most sites didn't even mention, and even considered the difference in communities between the two games.  Favorite quote;



			
				Arstechnica said:
			
		

> One of these war games will deliver what I like in action games, and the other is Modern Warfare 3.


----------



## TheMailMan78 (May 28, 2011)

cheesy999 said:


> i might buy it just cause the daily mail's description of 'An ultra-violent computer game which features explosions and scenes of destruction on the London Tube and at the Houses of Parliament is to be released later this year' makes it sound awesome



I lol'd at that. Thanks!


----------



## Wile E (May 28, 2011)

treehouse said:


> well guess what? i own BC2 and blackops, i prefer blackops
> 
> so your theory has already been disproven



You hardly account for an entire majority. BO is steaming pile of shit. Most CoD fanboys I talk to are console only gamers, and don't know of titles like BC2, or the upcoming BF3. Of all the ones I let play BC2 long enough to get used to it, most liked it better. More challenging and less kiddy. The only ones that didn't like it were the ones that either sucked at it because they have no sense of strategy, or because "my buddies all play CoD".

Again, just because more people like it, it is not a better game, just better advertised and/or easier for kiddies.


----------



## treehouse (May 29, 2011)

Wile E said:


> You hardly account for an entire majority. BO is steaming pile of shit. Most CoD fanboys I talk to are console only gamers, and don't know of titles like BC2, or the upcoming BF3. Of all the ones I let play BC2 long enough to get used to it, most liked it better. More challenging and less kiddy. The only ones that didn't like it were the ones that either sucked at it because they have no sense of strategy, or because "my buddies all play CoD".
> 
> Again, just because more people like it, it is not a better game, just better advertised and/or easier for kiddies.



but you used the word 'only'... which means no other reason is possible.

ye BO is lesser than cod4 or mw2 even but dya know why i play it over bc2? because the mouse controls in bc2 are the worst i have ever seen in any game, maybe not for you, but yes for me. i couldn't even tweak them as the options kept getting defaulted every time i entered a match. 

and doesn't 'easy' work both ways? if a games easy for kiddies then its easy for you too na? maybe you got tired losing to 'kiddies' so now you play bc2 so you can take it easy on ur ego? 

just pulling your leg, but please dont make the mistake of assuming ALL players who prefer COD are lesser than you are, intellectually and taste wise


----------



## Wile E (May 29, 2011)

treehouse said:


> but you used the word 'only'... which means no other reason is possible.
> 
> ye BO is lesser than cod4 or mw2 even but dya know why i play it over bc2? because the mouse controls in bc2 are the worst i have ever seen in any game, maybe not for you, but yes for me. i couldn't even tweak them as the options kept getting defaulted every time i entered a match.
> 
> ...



Of course not all of them are. I'm not insinuating that it applies to every single person that plays the game, just that most that I meet are.

I'm not bad at CoD at all. Actually better at it than I am BC2 most of the time. I just think everything after CoD4 has been a pile of rehashed, aimed at kids, garbage.


----------



## Easy Rhino (May 29, 2011)

please no trolling.


----------



## erocker (May 31, 2011)

How could one possibly troll this wonderful game?

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052702304563104576355310423496054.html#ixzz1NszYydbm


----------



## EastCoasthandle (May 31, 2011)

erocker said:


> How could one possibly troll this wonderful game?
> 
> http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052702304563104576355310423496054.html#ixzz1NszYydbm



The problem is not what they do with MW3 that would be an isolated incident.  What I'm concerned about is other publishers following suite if they believe they were profitable enough.


----------



## Easy Rhino (May 31, 2011)

if it does happen to be profitable than other companies will do it. but it wont work with all titles as most kids get bored of their games after 2 weeks. personally, i see this failing hard.


----------



## Volkszorn88 (May 31, 2011)

Call of Duty Elite? lol

This is no surprise, actually if anything I'm shocked it hasn't been impleneted sooner since console gamers are so eager to buy every unnecessary pointless item on xbox marketplace/psn.

Oh lets pay for a new gamertag, new profile, new gamer pictures, new skateboard for the avatars, new background theme, new $15 cod map pack...etc

Console players have proved that they will buy anything if it makes them cool online. 

Dumb consumers + greedy publishers = $$$$$$$$$$$$ and that's exactly what COD is.

Play COD4, WaW, MW2, BO and when MW3 is released and tell me, with pure honesty that it doesn't feel exactly the same. Just because they change the theatre to every game, doesn't mean they can slap a $60 price tag on it

What it comes down to is peeps can't complain, whine, be angry, make some dumb online petition that will never work, make a bunch of rage threads or quit the game entirely because they decide to charge. You've done it to your self. You kept buying the same game every year and created a monster.

For anyone who plays any RTS game, lets take Star Craft2 as an example, would you buy a new SC every year? Knowing there's no way in hell a game like SC could be balanced and fixed in one year? Of course you wouldn't.

By releasing a new one COD every year, it's Activision's way of saying "our games really do start to suck after a few weeks and have absolutely no replay value. BUT THAT'S OK!!! WE WILL HAVE A NEW ONE NEXT YEAR!!!!"


----------



## TheMailMan78 (May 31, 2011)

erocker said:


> How could one possibly troll this wonderful game?
> 
> http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052702304563104576355310423496054.html#ixzz1NszYydbm



Hot damn I was right again!

http://www.techpowerup.com/forums/showthread.php?t=115281&highlight=pay+Cod


----------



## xenocide (May 31, 2011)

Activision instituting a revenue-oriented idea, you don't say?

But in all seriousness, this won't exactly go over with the gaming community too well.  This amounts to paying $60 for the game, say $5 a month for CoD Elite, and $15 each for 2 different map packs.  That means in a year, Activision wants to get $150 from you, for basically the same game you bought 2 years ago...

I remember seeing an interview with Bobby Douchedick about how they no longer wanted to get people to just buy their game's, the real money was in getting them to pay a ton of extra money for seemingly arbitrary items.  His example was Guitar Hero, sure the game itself is only $40-60, but you need all the instruments, there's $100-150, you're gonna want some more songs, that's anywhere from $5-100, and the list just went on.  Then what if when the next game comes out your old instruments don't work anymore?  You're back to square one.

This is just another way for Activision to maximize profit while running a [semi-]respected franchise into the ground.  Sadly, I guarantee a lot of people buy into this crap.  Hopefully EA capitalizes on this by offering similar services for Free for BF3. It can be done, I've read that most of the features listed Bungie has been doing for Free for quite some time, but I'm not certain how accurate that is.


----------



## qubit (May 31, 2011)

erocker said:


> How could one possibly troll this wonderful game?
> 
> http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052702304563104576355310423496054.html#ixzz1NszYydbm



Ewww... shit, no.  They're not milking me with a monthly sub. I can just see this business model becoming popular.  ...and me boycotting all those games.



erocker said:


> So what if they are going to charge to play, they aren't forcing you to buy the game. MW2 in my opinion is awful. Any sequel wouldn't be worth paying for anyways.
> 
> I will pay a monthly fee for a game under these circumstances:
> 
> ...



These are all very fair requirements, but I still wouldn't pay a recurring fee for a single product; talk about money for old rope. They should provide this as standard. The only case where I feel it's ok to pay a recurring fee is with antivirus protection, because the company has to work around the clock to update the signatures for new threats. I get all this protection for a very cheap £20 or so per year, so I sure as hell am not gonna pay several times that to get a whole lot less.


----------



## EastCoasthandle (Jun 1, 2011)

Call of Duty Elite explained using MP rounds of BO.  Watch the video.  Looks like they are going for some sort of social networking thing.

The group feature reminds me of steam.


----------



## HookeyStreet (Jun 1, 2011)

I need this game NOW!!


----------



## treehouse (Jun 2, 2011)

TheMailMan78 said:


> Hot damn I was right again!
> 
> http://www.techpowerup.com/forums/showthread.php?t=115281&highlight=pay+Cod



ermmm no you weren't http://news.softpedia.com/news/Acti...-Multiplayer-Will-Always-Be-Free-203375.shtml

the new online pay monthly service has nothing to do with the actual multiplayer gaming element, its only for an enhanced social experience (pc players have steam anyway)


----------



## TheMailMan78 (Jun 2, 2011)

treehouse said:


> ermmm no you weren't http://news.softpedia.com/news/Acti...-Multiplayer-Will-Always-Be-Free-203375.shtml
> 
> the new online pay monthly service has nothing to do with the actual multiplayer gaming element, its only for an enhanced social experience (pc players have steam anyway)



How was I wrong? To get the full experience you will have to pay. Even says so in that article you posted.


> It seems that the cost for Elite will be under 7 dollars for one month and that those who join up can expect to get a *fuller multiplayer experience*, specifically designed for those who have been following the series for a long time and are looking for something extra.


----------



## MilkyWay (Jun 2, 2011)

I feel terrible for 360 owners who buy this game, you have to buy xbox live and then this crappy Elite thing on top. I just watched the posted video and the dude says Activision wont charge you to play online, so it seems like its another extra thing.

I cant see them charging for multiplayer, its just some maps and gameplay types. They don't host servers either which means that doesn't cost anything either.

EDIT: We will have to see exactly what this Elite offers first. Im not even sure wtf it is yet.


----------



## treehouse (Jun 2, 2011)

TheMailMan78 said:


> How was I wrong? To get the full experience you will have to pay. Even says so in that article you posted.




but, but, but you have to pay for maps in BC2 too, so you have to 'pay to get the full experience.' so whats your point?

and the comments in that thread are of people who thought that activision would charge for multiplayer...


----------



## treehouse (Jun 2, 2011)

MilkyWay said:


> I cant see them charging for multiplayer, its just some maps and gameplay types.



http://news.softpedia.com/news/Acti...-Multiplayer-Will-Always-Be-Free-203375.shtml


----------



## TheMailMan78 (Jun 2, 2011)

treehouse said:


> but, but, but you have to pay for maps in BC2 too, so you have to 'pay to get the full experience.' so whats your point?
> 
> and the comments in that thread are of people who thought that activision would charge for multiplayer...



Pay for what maps in multiplayer for BC2? PC players never paid for any maps so whats YOUR point?


----------



## treehouse (Jun 2, 2011)

TheMailMan78 said:


> Pay for what maps in multiplayer for BC2? PC players never paid for any maps so whats YOUR point?



so your saying that the vietnam pack was free for pc gamers on multiplayer? if so why is steam charging £10 for this? for single player?

and what about this? http://store.steampowered.com/app/24963/?snr=1_5_9__13


----------



## TheMailMan78 (Jun 2, 2011)

treehouse said:


> so your saying that the vietnam pack was free for pc gamers on multiplayer? if so why is steam charging £10 for this? for single player?
> 
> and what about this? http://store.steampowered.com/app/24963/?snr=1_5_9__13



Vietnam was an expansion pack (new game) which CoD hasnt had since UO and the skins added nothing to the game just eye candy. However ALL THE MAPS for BC2 were free. Theres your difference.


----------



## treehouse (Jun 2, 2011)

TheMailMan78 said:


> Vietnam was an expansion pack (new game) which CoD hasnt had since UO and the skins added nothing to the game just eye candy. However ALL THE MAPS for BC2 were free. Theres your difference.



seeing as you ignored it i will ask again;

and what about this? http://store.steampowered.com/app/24963/?snr=1_5_9__13


----------



## TheMailMan78 (Jun 2, 2011)

treehouse said:


> seeing as you ignored it i will ask again;
> 
> and what about this? http://store.steampowered.com/app/24963/?snr=1_5_9__13



I didnt ignore it. Ill quote myself......



> Vietnam was an expansion pack (new game) which CoD hasnt had since UO and the *skins added nothing to the game just eye candy*. However ALL THE MAPS for BC2 were free. Theres your difference.


----------



## treehouse (Jun 2, 2011)

TheMailMan78 said:


> I didnt ignore it. Ill quote myself......



i will quote you again "_To get the full experience you will have to pay_"

so to get the FULL experience from BC2 you have to pay for this SPECACT upgrade, true or false?


----------



## TheMailMan78 (Jun 2, 2011)

treehouse said:


> i will quote you again "_To get the full experience you will have to pay_"
> 
> so to get the FULL experience from BC2 you have to pay for this SPECACT upgrade, true or false?



False. As even if you didn't buy the skin pack you could still see it in servers and the skins themselves added nothing to the game. Unlike the maps that were free.


----------



## treehouse (Jun 2, 2011)

TheMailMan78 said:


> False. As even if you didn't buy the skin pack you could still see it in servers and the skins themselves added nothing to the game. Unlike the maps that were free.



i would have thought that a man with a reputation (on this forum) and as many posts as you have would know better than to lie. you are obviously a massive DICE fanboy as you deny FACTS.

i will give you an example, first you make a big hoohaa about how mw3 will have an online subscription service which you cleverly did not detail what that service was, instead you let the posters assume that the service was for a multiplayer fee (i bet you probably thought that too) and now it comes to light that in fact the service has nothing to do with being able to play multiplayer but its a value added service for social purposes (video upload etc), then you complain about how activision want you pay 'to get the full game experience' . i then asked you why you were targeting activision and not EA (bc2) when they charge extra for camo kits, you then said that camo does not affect the game experience.

so i say this- if like you said camo does not affect the game experience for bc2 then why would not having the ability to upload movies and talk to players in mw3 affect my gameplay? especially seeing as how i can do all those things through steam anyway?

i am not being awkward, i would genuinely like to know why you think camo does not affect gameplay and uploading movies does, because i dont know about the rest of you but for me, camo DOES effect my gameplay and social tools do NOT..

EDIT- dont get me wrong, i hate activision (probably more than most) for what they have done to the series but they should not be vilified for something which other companies are doing too and the other companies not get vilified in the same way (i.e BC2 and DLC)


----------



## BumbleBee (Jun 2, 2011)

glad Activision isn't charging to play online. I am shamelessly addicted to Terraria lol


----------



## erocker (Jun 2, 2011)

treehouse said:


> seeing as you ignored it i will ask again;
> 
> and what about this? http://store.steampowered.com/app/24963/?snr=1_5_9__13



Pay to change the appearence of your soldier. It doesn't do anything to change the game. It is nothing that is needed to play the game. It is not some monthly subscription. Then again why do I care? If someone wants to pay monthly subscriptions for games that I would never play in the first place.. More power to them.


----------



## treehouse (Jun 2, 2011)

erocker said:


> It is nothing that is needed to play the game.



you dont need the mw3 subscription service to play the game either (single or multiplayer)


----------



## erocker (Jun 2, 2011)

treehouse said:


> you dont need the mw3 subscription service to play the game either (single or multiplayer)



Yes, I know. I personally feel the game and the subscription will be a waste of money and nothing more than a spit shine on a popular yet aging turd. That's just me though. Obviously there are millions of people who like this game and don't care that they are paying for the same product over and over again. Btw, online reputations are nothing more than what is made up in one's own mind. TheMailMan definitely has a reputation here... that's all I'll say. I love these threads though.. people trying to convince other people to change their tastes. What a noble cause.


----------



## treehouse (Jun 2, 2011)

erocker said:


> Yes, I know. I personally feel the game and the subscription will be a waste of money and nothing more than a spit shine on a popular yet aging turd.



your right, its going to be a total waste of money especially seeing as how we have steam, even if we didnt have steam it would still be a waste of money.

but the point i am making is that the MAILMAN said and i quote "To get the full experience you will have to pay" 

either his quote is true for both bc2 and mw3 or its untrue for both as extra camo and extra social services are both unneeded (along with being cheeky methods to extract more money)


----------



## treehouse (Jun 2, 2011)

erocker said:


> people trying to convince other people to change their tastes. What a noble cause.



well me and MAILMAN both, are guilty of that futile task


----------



## erocker (Jun 2, 2011)

treehouse said:


> but the point i am making is that the MAILMAN said and i quote "To get the full experience you will have to pay



I don't see your point? So what if he says that. It's his opinion. Are you afraid he's going to turn potential customers away?


----------



## TheMailMan78 (Jun 2, 2011)

treehouse said:


> i would have thought that a man with a reputation (on this forum) and as many posts as you have would know better than to lie. you are obviously a massive DICE fanboy as you deny FACTS.
> 
> i will give you an example, first you make a big hoohaa about how mw3 will have an online subscription service which you cleverly did not detail what that service was, instead you let the posters assume that the service was for a multiplayer fee (i bet you probably thought that too) and now it comes to light that in fact the service has nothing to do with being able to play multiplayer but its a value added service for social purposes (video upload etc), then you complain about how activision want you pay 'to get the full game experience' . i then asked you why you were targeting activision and not EA (bc2) when they charge extra for camo kits, you then said that camo does not affect the game experience.
> 
> ...



Lie about what? The fact you will have a monthly subscription to have features other developers give to you for free or at the very worst charge you a one time fee for things that do not effect the game at all? How is this a lie? Its a FACT. Also I didn't detail the service because the service was not known.......in fact WE STILL DON'T KNOW.

What we do know is *they have confirmed they are charging a monthly fee* for something that only MMO's used to do. *NO FPS ever did this before*. MW3 is and its a lot of fail. Talk about being a fanboy.  You can't even see the forest from the trees.


----------



## treehouse (Jun 2, 2011)

erocker said:


> I don't see your point? So what if he says that. It's his opinion. Are you afraid he's going to turn potential customers away?



i dont see your point either.

so what if he says that? well so what if i say what I say?

no i am not afraid, are you afraid i will RE-turn potential customers back?


----------



## erocker (Jun 2, 2011)

treehouse said:


> i dont see your point either.
> 
> so what if he says that? well so what if i say what I say?
> 
> no i am not afraid, are you afraid i will RE-turn potential customers back?



No, I'm saying your points don't matter. People will buy what they want to buy based on something personal.


----------



## treehouse (Jun 2, 2011)

TheMailMan78 said:


> Lie about what? The fact you will have a monthly subscription to have features other developers give to you for free or at the very worst charge you a one time fee for things that do not effect the game at all? How is this a lie? Its a FACT. Also I didn't detail the service because the service was not known.......in fact WE STILL DON'T KNOW.
> 
> What we do know is *they have confirmed they are charging a monthly fee* for something that only MMO's used to do. *NO FPS ever did this before*. MW3 is and its a lot of fail. Talk about being a fanboy.  You can't even see the forest from the trees.



but other developers do not give this for free.. in fact i dont know of other even offering a similar service (apart from the steam platform)

and in fact we do know what the service is 

how am i being a fanboy when i have already said that this service is the utterly useless?? and that activision have ruined the series??

EDIT- fwiw, i will not be buying the game on release, i will see how it performs, and i will definitely will not be using the monthly subscription service


----------



## treehouse (Jun 2, 2011)

erocker said:


> No, I'm saying your points don't matter. People will buy what they want to buy based on something personal.



well shouldn't you be saying the same to the MAILMAN 

it is obvious (to anyone with a few brain cells) that MAILMAN and erocker despise activision and the newer COD games hence the teaming up against me..


----------



## erocker (Jun 2, 2011)

treehouse said:


> well shouldn't you be saying the same to the MAILMAN



I'm not?


----------



## TheMailMan78 (Jun 2, 2011)

treehouse said:


> but other developers do not give this for free.. in fact i dont know of other even offering a similar service (apart from the steam platform)
> 
> and in fact we do know what the service is
> 
> ...



Yeah because most developers use Steam, Xbox live or PSN for the same damn thing.


----------



## treehouse (Jun 2, 2011)

TheMailMan78 said:


> Yeah because most developers use Steam, Xbox live or PSN for the same damn thing.



i dont understand, i have always stated that this service is useless 

the point i am making is that you dont need this service to PLAY the game. you suggested that we did


----------



## treehouse (Jun 2, 2011)

erocker said:


> I'm not?



i apologise, i thought you were targeting me specifically


----------



## TheMailMan78 (Jun 2, 2011)

treehouse said:


> i dont understand, i have always stated that this service is useless
> 
> the point i am making is that you dont need this service to PLAY the game. you suggested that we did



I suggested what I did based off of the facts given at the time. If you took it as the gospel thats your own issue.

Also and I do not mean this disrespectfully but English is not your first language is it?


----------



## treehouse (Jun 2, 2011)

TheMailMan78 said:


> I suggested what I did based off of the facts given at the time. If you took it as the gospel thats your own issue.
> 
> Also and I do not mean this disrespectfully but English is not your first language is it?



please see attached picture, info was available before you made the post

and lol yes, english is my first and only language, i am england born and raised 
but yes i know my grammar and spelling is terrible, might be to do with the fact that i am autistic 

but anyway, i am done with this thread for various reasons.

have a nice day, enjoy BC3


----------



## TheMailMan78 (Jun 2, 2011)

treehouse said:


> please see attached picture, info was available before you made the post
> 
> and lol yes, english is my first and only language, i am england born and raised
> but yes i know my grammar and spelling is terrible, might be to do with the fact that i am autistic
> ...



Um no. The thread I made was well over a year BEFORE that link.

And what I said now is very true. To get the experience that you would normally have free in steam, PSN or part of the yearly subscription of Xbox live you will have to pay EXTRA to use in MW3. So yeah Ill enjoy BF3 and the fact I was right. Thank you.


----------



## cheesy999 (Jun 2, 2011)

TheMailMan78 said:


> And its very true. To get the experience that you would normally have free in steam, PSN or part of the yearly subscription of Xbox live you will have to pay EXTRA to use in MW3. So yeah Ill enjoy BF3 and the fact I was right. Thank you.



They don't even need to charge a fee, most of the battlefield servers are independently operated by other people so i'm sure cod could do the same - its just a way to make people pay far too much for a rubbish game, part of the reason no one i know plays Black ops


----------



## Easy Rhino (Jun 2, 2011)

erocker said:


> No, I'm saying your points don't matter. People will buy what they want to buy based on something personal.



you mean arguing on the internet is pointless  im going to jump off a building now


----------



## treehouse (Jun 2, 2011)

TheMailMan78 said:


> To get the experience that you would normally have free in steam, PSN or part of the yearly subscription of Xbox live you will have to pay EXTRA to use in MW3. So yeah Ill enjoy BF3 and the fact I was right. Thank you.



at no point have i said that you still cant use steam, PSN or xbox live. so you dont need to pay extra to use steam, PSN or xbox live. so you were wrong..

this is a value added service, not a replacement service


----------



## erocker (Jun 2, 2011)

Honestly, I hope this never ends. Please keep going back and forth on this as your ( the partakers in this argument) interwebz respectablility is vital to all.


----------



## TheMailMan78 (Jun 2, 2011)

treehouse said:


> at no point have i said that you still cant use steam, PSN or xbox live. so you dont need to pay extra to use steam, PSN or xbox live. so you were wrong..
> 
> this is a value added service, not a replacement service



What value did they add? They are charging for things normally accepted as free.



erocker said:


> Honestly, I hope this never ends. Please keep going back and forth on this as your ( the partakers in this argument) interwebz respectablility is vital to all.



I'm having my usual fun


----------



## treehouse (Jun 2, 2011)

TheMailMan78 said:


> What value did they add? They are charging for things normally accepted as free.



how many times!?? i KNOW that this service is useless. it might add a few extra things here and there but its useless at best and stealing at worst.

the point i am making is that you said you needed this service to play the game 'in its full form'  AFTER i pointed out the fact (with a link) telling you that you didn't! man you have such a big ego.. you never know when to admit defeat, instead you just change the heart of the topic and have the moderators back you up in the vilifying of your disputers because you have a mutual hate for the game

EDIT- your sig says it all really..


----------



## erocker (Jun 2, 2011)

treehouse said:


> how many times!?? i KNOW that this service is useless. it might add a few extra things here and there but its useless at best and stealing at worst.
> 
> the point i am making is that you said you needed this service to play the game 'in its full form'  AFTER i pointed out the fact (with a link) telling you that it didn't! man you have such a big ego.. you never know when to admit defeat, instead you just change the heart of the topic and have the moderators back you up in the vilifying of your disputers
> 
> EDIT- your sig says it all really..



Oh relax. No moderator is backing him up. I think anyone who gets worked up over an argument that has to do with a nuance of a game needs to get their priorities straightened out. Anyways, if this is the way you feel, what's the point of the argument to begin with? You both have your opinions why be so dead set on changing them? Here's an idea. Don't!


----------



## treehouse (Jun 2, 2011)

erocker said:


> Oh relax. No moderator is backing him up. I think anyone who gets worked up over an argument that has to do with a nuance of a game needs to get their priorities straightened out. Anyways, if this is the way you feel, what's the point of the argument to begin with? You both have your opinions why be so dead set on changing them? Here's an idea. Don't!



i am not trying to change MAILMANS opinion, or anyone else's for that matter. i am only pointing out a factual error which MAILAMAN made which he has still not acknowledged or admitted

probably because of his sig lol..


----------



## TheMailMan78 (Jun 2, 2011)

treehouse said:


> how many times!?? i KNOW that this service is useless. it might add a few extra things here and there but its useless at best and stealing at worst.
> 
> the point i am making is that you said you needed this service to play the game 'in its full form'  AFTER i pointed out the fact (with a link) telling you that you didn't! man you have such a big ego.. you never know when to admit defeat, instead you just change the heart of the topic and have the moderators back you up in the vilifying of your disputers because you have a mutual hate for the game
> 
> EDIT- your sig says it all really..



You pointed out nothing. I even used a quote your link that proved I am right. You are the one that keeps changing the topic of the thread. First you say I said you needed it to play multilayer and when I proved you wrong there you change it to the fact I said you need it for the full experience. Which is true. An experience that used to be free. So who's the one that cannot admit defeat?

Also the mods haven't done anything but point out the obvious.


----------



## erocker (Jun 2, 2011)

treehouse said:


> i am not trying to change MAILMANS opinion, or anyone else's for that matter. i am only pointing out a factual error which MAILAMAN made which he has still not acknowledged or admitted
> 
> probably because of his sig lol..



How do you suppose we can get him to admit it? I'd love to beat it out of him, but I've seen pictures. He's a mountain of a man.


----------



## cadaveca (Jun 2, 2011)

erocker said:


> How do you suppose we can get him to admit it? I'd love to beat it out of him, but I've seen pictures. He's a mountain of a man.




...that wears panties on his head. you expect rationality from that?


----------



## treehouse (Jun 2, 2011)

TheMailMan78 said:


> You pointed out nothing. I even used a quote your link that proved I am right. You are the one that keeps changing the topic of the thread. First you say I said you needed it to play multilayer and when I proved you wrong there you change it to the fact I said you need it for the full experience. Which is true. An experience that used to be free. So who's the one that cannot admit defeat?
> 
> Also the mods haven't done anything but point out the obvious.



ok MAILMAN, for the sake of your ego, yes you are right and i am wrong.

to all other readers, actually read this thread from the beginning and make your own minds up 

good day

EDIT- MAILMAN takes cadaveca's sig to the extreme


----------



## TheMailMan78 (Jun 2, 2011)

treehouse said:


> ok MAILMAN, for the sake of your ego, *yes you are right and i am wrong.*
> to all other readers, actually read this thread from the beginning and make your own minds up
> 
> good day



Finally you realize it. Good for you! Welcome to TPU.


----------



## CDdude55 (Jun 2, 2011)




----------



## treehouse (Jun 2, 2011)

TheMailMan78 said:


> Finally you realize it. Good for you! Welcome to TPU.


----------



## treehouse (Jun 2, 2011)

CDdude55 said:


> http://i665.photobucket.com/albums/vv12/JackoTheDweeb/MichaelJacksonPopcorn.gif?t=1250501904



that actually made me spit out my tea

hahaha thanks for that! 

EDIT- although its a bit too late for the popcorn lol. MAILMANS ego is stronger than my patience


----------



## TheMailMan78 (Jun 2, 2011)

treehouse said:


> that actually made me spit out my tea
> 
> hahaha thanks for that!
> 
> EDIT- although its a bit too late for the popcorn lol. MAILMANS ego is stronger than my patience



My ego is from constantly being right. Its a curse really.


----------



## qubit (Jun 2, 2011)

erocker said:


> You both have your opinions why be so dead set on changing them? Here's an idea. Don't!



Yes, quite. I'm an atheist and sometimes find myself in this situation with religious people.

There's no way I'll ever convince them to be atheists and I'm happy to accept it ie "live and let live", which is very important for avoiding pointless confrontations. Yet, these muppets just _insist_ on trying to convert me to their point of you and hang on like a bleedin' rottweiller. Or perhaps I should say a small, annoying, persistent dog you can't quite shake off.


----------



## TheMailMan78 (Jun 2, 2011)

qubit said:


> Yes, quite. I'm an atheist and sometimes find myself in this situation with religious people.
> 
> There's no way I'll ever convince them to be atheists and I'm happy to accept it ie "live and let live". Yet, these muppets just _insist_ on trying to convert me to their point of you and hang on like a bleedin' rottweiller. Or perhaps I should say a small, annoying, persistent dog you can't quite shake off.



Its because G-d loves you and that constant annoying, persistent little dog is G-ds little hugs showing you the way.


----------



## qubit (Jun 2, 2011)

TheMailMan78 said:


> Its because G-d loves you and that constant annoying, persistent little dog is G-ds little hugs showing you the way.



Ah, thanks, now I know. lol


----------



## treehouse (Jun 2, 2011)

TheMailMan78 said:


> My ego is from constantly being right. Its a curse really.



i am ashamed at my self for debating you for so long, always being right is not the cause of your ego, having nothing better to do than pummelling your debating opponent with pointless points and forcing them to exit the debating arena because they have a life and therefore better things to do IS the reason for your ego 

thank you for making me appreciate the choices my brain makes, seriously, thank you


----------



## TheMailMan78 (Jun 2, 2011)

treehouse said:


> i am ashamed at my self for debating you for so long, always being right is not the cause of your ego, having nothing better to do than pummelling your debating opponent with pointless points and forcing them to exit the debating arena because they have a life and therefore better things to do IS the reason for your ego
> 
> thank you for making me appreciate the choices my brain makes, seriously, thank you



And the lesson you learned is how to be wrong. Its important lesson to accept the facts given to you and not try to justify your opinion because you lack reading comprehension.


For me the lesson is I will burn in hell for trolling someone autistic.


----------



## Easy Rhino (Jun 2, 2011)

treehouse, many men have tried to out-troll the mailman and have failed. join the club.


----------



## treehouse (Jun 2, 2011)

TheMailMan78 said:


> And the lesson you learned is how to be wrong. Its important lesson to accept the facts given to you and not try to justify your opinion because you lack reading comprehension.
> 
> 
> For me the lesson is I will burn in hell for trolling someone autistic.



i will never admit defeat lol, i will admit defeat when i actually am defeated, in fact today at work i said "jack (my work colleague), you were right" 

i lol'd at the autistic comment. please do not underestimate the mind of an autistic person, it is a unwell known fact that most autistic brains can think in way unique to autistic people which can enable them to solve problems unsolvable by most 'normal' brains 

hence why i am still a free man


----------



## erocker (Jun 2, 2011)

This thread can go back on topic now. This isn't a suggestion. If you two want to battle it out via PM that's fine, but your time is done in this thread.


----------



## TheMailMan78 (Jun 2, 2011)

treehouse said:


> i lol'd at the autistic comment. please do not underestimate the mind of an autistic person, it is a unwell known fact that most autistic brains can think in way unique to autistic people which can enable them to solve problems unsolvable by most 'normal' brains



I see that! I had no idea an autistic brain could take facts and change them around completely to create an argument that wasn't even being had! Amazing!



erocker said:


> This thread can go back on topic now. This isn't a suggestion. If you two want to battle it out via PM that's fine, but your time is done in this thread.



Edit: Will do!


----------



## treehouse (Jun 2, 2011)

erocker said:


> This thread can go back on topic now. This isn't a suggestion. If you two want to battle it out via PM that's fine, but your time is done in this thread.



aww just when i was starting to enjoy it.

understood


----------



## CDdude55 (Jun 2, 2011)

So...did they just copy and paste the same game and change the title like always or what can we expect to be different this time around?


----------



## TheMailMan78 (Jun 2, 2011)

CDdude55 said:


> So...did they just copy and paste the same game and change the title like always or what can we expect to be different this time around?



Judging by the trailer it looks like we have another Madden sadly. I miss early 2000's IW.


----------



## Easy Rhino (Jun 2, 2011)

thank god for the battlefield series. without it, an entire generation of gamers would grow up thinking that modern warfare is a good FPS series.


----------



## cadaveca (Jun 2, 2011)

Easy Rhino said:


> thank god for the battlefield series. without it, an entire generation of gamers would grow up thinking that modern warfare is a good FPS series.


----------



## TheMailMan78 (Jun 2, 2011)

Easy Rhino said:


> thank god for the battlefield series. without it, an entire generation of gamers would grow up thinking that modern warfare is a good FPS series.



All hail DICE and iD.


----------



## cadaveca (Jun 2, 2011)

TheMailMan78 said:


> All hail DICE and iD.



Bleh, you're just a fanboy. 




A justified fanboy, but still a fanboy.


----------



## TheMailMan78 (Jun 2, 2011)

cadaveca said:


> Bleh, you're just a fanboy.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Yup. I'm a fan of well made games. Sue me. DICE and iD have never made a bad game.

Edit: How could I forget Valve! Valve too! WIN!


----------



## qubit (Jun 2, 2011)

TheMailMan78 said:


> Yup. I'm a fan of well made games. Sue me. DICE and iD have never made a bad game.
> 
> *Edit: How could I forget Valve! Valve too! WIN!*



You may want to eat those words... have you tried the freebie Alien Swarm by Valve? I did today and to be honest, it wasn't what I'd come to expect from Valve. It's got a top down third person view and I played it for under 5 minutes before I couldn't hack it any more.


----------



## TheMailMan78 (Jun 2, 2011)

qubit said:


> You may want to eat those words... have you tried the freebie Alien Swarm by Valve? I did today and to be honest, it wasn't what I'd come to expect from Valve. It's got a top down third person view and I played it for under 5 minutes before I couldn't hack it any more.



Valve published that. They were not the developers. Also the game was free. What did you expect? lol Anyway its a fun game with friends.


----------



## cadaveca (Jun 2, 2011)

uh...





> Alien Swarm is a game and Source SDK release from *a group of talented designers at Valve who were hired from the Mod community*.


----------



## TheMailMan78 (Jun 2, 2011)

cadaveca said:


> uh...



Yeah ok......hired from the mod community. Not their main team. Ether way it was free smart ass.


----------



## CDdude55 (Jun 2, 2011)

Didn't care for Alien Swarm since it came out, but all the other of the games they created that are considered their ''main games/series''(Team Fortress, Half-Life, Left 4 Dead, CounterStrike, Portal) are all kick ass.


----------



## cadaveca (Jun 2, 2011)

TheMailMan78 said:


> Yeah ok......hired from the mod community. Not their main team. Ether way it was free smart ass.



Actually, we crossposted...that wasn't in response to you.  Troll.


----------



## qubit (Jun 2, 2011)

TheMailMan78 said:


> Valve published that. *They were not the developers.* Also the game was free. What did you expect? lol Anyway its a fun game with friends.



They were the developer! Click the link.


----------



## Easy Rhino (Jun 2, 2011)

thread is closed due to the topic being clearly exhausted.


----------

