Opinion – Demand and Rushed Development is Killing Call of Duty

If MW3 is evidence of anything in particular, to me at least, it’s what happens when you rush a game’s development.  As a long-time (since WaW) CoD player, I can say not just with certaintiy, but also years of experience, that MW3 was not made well enough to meet even CoD’s cookie-cutter standards.  At this point, hopefully everyone is familiar enough with MW3′s problems to recognize that at its core, it is fundamentally flawed.  While I agree that it’s still fun to some extent and still feels like a standard CoD game, my level of frustration with it’s issues (balance, design, and bugs) is worse than it has ever been for any FPS game, ever.  I genuinely dislike MW3, not because it’s “harder” or “less rewarding” but because it is just not as good as the games that have come before it.  MW3 is an inferior CoD title and any long-time CoD player will tell you that.

Now, all that said, MW3 is still a better FPS game than a lot of FPS games, so it’s not like it ranks down there.  But overall, I expect a level of quality from the CoD franchise that MW3 didn’t meet.  You are, of course, welcome to enjoy and love MW3.  You are welcome to have hated BO1 and thought MW3 was the savior of CoD.  But I simply don’t feel that way.  MW3′s development was marred by IW and Activision’s continuing legal battle that started when Vincent West and Jason Zampella abandoned MW2′s support/development to bet their futures on a game that hasn’t even been released yet.  In fact, rumor has it that MW3 was put together in just 8 months, which is about 2 years too fast for a game of its scale and market share.  Most video games are in what’s called the “development cycle” for 3-5 years, with the actual work of designing and coding the final product taking place during the last 1-2 years.  Compress that cycle into 1 year, and you get MW3.

Why the drive to crank out games so fast?  Well, the answer is two-fold.  Firstly, us gamers demand a new experience every year, knowingly or not, by complaining about being bored with the current game 6 months after its release and pre-ordering the new one 4 months before it comes out.  Secondly, in CoD’s case, the DLC isn’t all that dynamic or interesting.  Face-Off and Chaos Mode were probably the only MW3 DLC that I had any interest in, at all.  Now, don’t mistake me for some guy that thinks Half-Life 3 is coming out in my lifetime, I don’t like waiting years for a follow up to a game.  In some cases, games are worth waiting for, but BF3 and DICE (as I’ve said before) have proven there’s a way to deliver DLC that can dramatically and fundamentally offer a new experience on the same platform (BF3) for more than 1 year, without that content feeling more and more recycled over time.

The key to good DLC is to make each release different from the ones that came before it.  BF3′s offerings thus far have been Urban/Nostalgic combat (B2K), CoD-styled Close Quarters chaos (CQ), and dramatically enhanced, large-scale vehicular combat (AK).  Whether you’ve enjoyed every DLC release for BF3 isn’t as important as is the fact that each release has been radically different not only from the other DLC, but from the original game experience itself.  BF3 “vanilla” is almost like an introductory crash course on what all the post-release DLC offers.  There are hints of all that is to come from DLC in the stock BF3 maps, with the subsequent DLC expanding on those hints 10-fold. Op Metro smacks of CQ’s gameplay, Grand Bazaar is like a mini B2K map, and Caspian Border gave us a hint of what AK is like.  All things considered, each DLC release for BF3 has renewed my interest in it and greatly expanded the overall possible game experiences to include things that BF3 on its own could never offer.  MW3′s DLC on the other hand all feels exactly the same with little to no deviation from the stock experience, which makes it feel boring and doesn’t hold or renew my interest in MW3.

A lot of the critiscim levied against MW3 was that it plays like MW2.5 or MW2 DLC.  I even made a video to that affect after I had played it for a while.  That feeling of sameness and similarity to MW2 that MW3 has is an indication that maybe, MW3 should have been MW2′s DLC.  As it stands, the CoD engine is too outdated and obsolete to offer that level of depth and revision.  Current-gen consoles can also barely keep up with the games running on them.  But in my opinion, that’s exactly what needs to happen to keep CoD going.

We as consumers need to stop demanding a gaming revolution every year and game developers need to stop expecting us to pay top dollar for everything they release.   CoD in particular needs to shift to having 1 major release every 2 years with maybe a Halo:ODST-style standalone “sub game” filling in the 1 year gap and DLC that is dynamic and meaningful enough to keep the major game popular for more than 6 months and relevant for at least a year.  That kind of shift would give IW and Treyarch roughly 3 years to develop each game (exactly how much time David Vonderhaar has suggested it would take to make a perfect CoD game).  It would also result in better games that we get bored of less often, which extends each game’s life cycle.

Tall order?  Yeah, I think so too.  In fact, I don’t see it ever happening.  What is going to happen though is Battlefield is eventually going to surpass CoD in sales, demand/rushed development is going to strip the BF franchise of it’s qaulity, and another game is going to rise to fill the gap left by yet another dying franchise.  Such is the gaming cycle of life, assuming indie games and next-gen consoles don’t manage to shake things up, which they probably will.

So what are your thoughts?  Do you feel like CoD is slipping from its solid footing at the top of gaming mountain?  Let us know in the comments!

If you’re interested in my in-depth opinion of what I think makes MW3 bad, let me know and I’ll consider writing an article about it.

Thank you for reading.

  • http://twitter.com/DeltaCanuckian Sandro Desaulniers

    This is all why MoH Warfighter will get most of my time this fall/winter. After playing it at PAX, I can say it feels like COD with actual teamwork and the new engine the series desperately needs. Activision, IW, and Treyarch better get on that fast or MoH and Battlefield will continue to gain ground on them.

    • That Guy

      I don’t know who you play COD with, but I play it all the time with friends and we use teamwork. And i own Battlefield and 90% of the time no one has mics.

      • https://www.twitter.com/#!/PR0TENTIAL Shawn Kegarise

        … or those guys could be using mics in a party chat.

      • http://twitter.com/DeltaCanuckian Sandro Desaulniers

        I play COD with some pretty damn good players. But it’s easy enough to lone wolf it and win. With Warfighter, you NEED to work with your Fire Team buddy to succeed. I dragged a few COD-loving buddies to the booth at PAX, and they left just as impressed as I am.

  • http://www.facebook.com/nepsizo Petru Plop

    It’s all Activision’s fault!

  • ah6 little

    Granted COD MW3 has issues but all games have issues. Why don’t you base this on facts like top 20 games in XBL, MW3 is still on top since release, BOP 2 3rd and a week ago MW2 is ahead of BF3. And a couple of weeks ago, COD has 5 games in the top 20. And the number one preordered game now is BOP 2 and tops Halo 4 in Xbox alone. Is COD slipping? Nope.

    • https://www.twitter.com/#!/PR0TENTIAL Shawn Kegarise

      Where is your proof that BO2 is out-selling Halo 4 on 360 at?

      • ah6 little

        VGCharts, BOP 2 Xbox has now over 100K preorders more than Halo 4 in US.

        • https://www.twitter.com/#!/PR0TENTIAL Shawn Kegarise

          VGCharts has been known to display inaccurate information.

      • Mnb

        Amazon and play.com have Blops2 higher than Halo in their preorder charts too

    • sgt_mofo

      Keep in mind Guitar Hero was an extremely popular franchise and then yearly over-saturation ultimately led to its demise. The decline was drastic and sudden (as opposed to over an extended period of time).

      CoD could face that fate at some point. This topic will more than likely be revisited for the next-gen systems.

    • Your Lame

      Thats because people are muliplying like rabbits in the world and the kids are getting older and they want to play COD. BF games are way to advance for kiddies minds. Its like the IPHONE there is phones way better than that but everybody buys a IPHONE anyway. They are ill informed and followers. COD is the cancer of videogames and it needs to die soon.

    • http://twitter.com/Omega8Trigun Chris Stacy

      It’s dying for gamers. WoW is still a very popular mmo, but it’s shit for gamers who want a skill rewarding game because, like cod, once they realized they could sell more by catering to casual/social gamers, they basically said “fuck you” to the hardcore gamers that made it popular in the first place.

      So it still sells and is still high on the most played list, but only because 8-13 year olds buy (or have their parents buy) whatever everyone else is playing at school, and because it’s simple and easy.

      tl;dr Another “oh but top 20 says/sales say that CoD is still better” flawed argument.

    • Oblivion_Lost667

      Both Chris and sgt_mofo are right, just because it’s high on the most played doesn’t mean it’s actually a good game, it just means that people play it, and if you base how good a game is off of that, then you’re essentially letting yourself accept ratings and reviews of games be done by a ten year old who hasn’t experienced enough of good games, or of the world in general. I’m not saying the only ten year olds play CoD (Though I’ve still run into a good number), but I’m saying that with the amount of people playing it, the average intelligence could easily be equivalent to a ten year old. (And I’d easily believe that with the amount of people I’ve talked to that play CoD consistently and as their most played game)

    • BOSS jediZOHAN

      Popularity and quality aren’t the same thing.

  • jahladagaming

    I agree that MW3 is poor, even that it’s terrible. I hate it, I only get any enjoyment when playing with friends online and even then we’re all screaming at the hackers, campers and ridiculous spawns. I really do have faith in Black Ops 2 though, Treyarch really are the top developer now, they listen to the community and I have had numerous direct replies to my questions from David Vonderhaar on Twitter. They care.

    Black Ops 1 became my favourite ever COD as soon as COD4 was unplayable due to the hackers ruining what was in my opinion a nearly flawless game; Black Ops 2 hopefully surpasses the experience, and if there are problems, they’ll be patched.

    Roll on November 13th.

    • http://twitter.com/blondbassist blondbassist

      Lag compensation? can someone please explain to me what this is that everyone is complaining about? IS it getting killed around corners or shots not registering?

      • BOSS jediZOHAN

        Lag Compensation is software figuring out the difference in your ping time to the host and everyone else in the game and compensating for the differences by adding delay to registration and player location. On a decent connection, it shouldn’t be noticeable, but MW3′s lag comp is too heavy handed and adds “lag” to everyone’s connection.

  • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=100002367454310 Jonathan Stoffregen

    personally COD needs to take an extra year and make a new COD4

    • sgt_mofo

      If they re-released CoD4 on a new engine for $20 on next-gen consoles, I would definitely buy it.

      EDIT: And they would only need to include the multiplayer portion.

      • Slenderman

        20$? Shiiit most people I know would pay 60 for that XD

      • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=100002367454310 Jonathan Stoffregen

        i think you misunderstood me i meant make a COD game that is like COD4 was in 2007 new, fresh, etc.

  • PS3Nicka

    good article – agreed

  • Cameron

    I personally like them coming out every year. I dont get bored of them, I just enjoy them instead of criticizing them. I have to say, though, Treyarch is waaaaaay more creative and fun than IW. Like Zombies for example. They made Zombies, IW made a rip off called Survival LOL.

    • CODisOLD

      Survival is a rip off of ghost recons (ps2) survival imo.

    • guest

      I think IW is more creative since they changed from ww2 to modern times and personally i like cod 2 4 and mw2 i dont count mw3 because the main people of IW left due to legal reasons. cod 5 zombies was the only good part the multi was crap compared to cod 4 and treyarch didnt even try to upgrade the engine from cod 4 same with bops same as mw2 it seems IW made the game look better and treyarch just put their spin on the game

  • newagewolf

    when are you people going to get tired of crying about COD its a good franchise and each one that comes out is fun not perfect yes but fun fucking deal with it

    • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_D3UO5JXRTDMSRBBYY63EKFUF4U James K

      Players shouldn’t have to kick the can if there’s a problem with Call of duty. If we find a fault in the game, do you ignore it and hope that the next installment will fix or ask the developer to fix and make a stand? If you agree with everything about the game, then the developers will believe that they’re doing a great job and assume that few problems need fixing.

    • openmind

      ^this is what is wrong with part of the COD community. too many of you have allowed this franchise to make you content with mediocre. too many of you support a crap game like mw3 and are satisfied with it when you really shouldn’t be. a true COD fan would be able to see the flaws and realize how stale the franchise has gotten and would want nothing but for the developers to actually push out the best product with great gameplay, no matter how long the development cycle. as someone who enjoys COD, you should want the best for the franchise you’ve supported for years and have the right to complain when they push out crap like mw3. it’s not people crying about COD, it’s people asserting their right as fans to want what they deserve and what’s best for the community and the franchise.

      • Oblivion_Lost667

        This is right, for the most part. You shouldn’t allow a developer or a publisher to keep publishing a sequel that doesn’t meet the standards set by the previous game, let alone publish a sequel game that doesn’t meet the standards set by a game released 3 releases back, or 5 releases back. If you keep supporting them, they’ll consider this okay, and more and more publishers will start doing it, and then what? You’re inadvertantly causing games to have less and less creativity per release.

  • ChimpanzeeThat

    I take issue with 3-5 years being the norm for development time. That’s simply not true anymore. Look at Battlefield, BF3 and Bad Company 2 came out in an 18 month period. Assassin’s Creed has had a new title every year for the last 3 years and continues that tradition with AC3. Sports games notoriously get a new release every year. Criterion put out a new Burnout or Need For Speed every 2 years. Volition have developed 6 games for THQ in the last 5 years.

    There are so many more examples i could use. CoD having 2 years is about the normal nowadays, and in comparison to what most devs have to deal with, that is quite good.

    The only reason why MW3 is such a fractured and disjointed game is because it was made by effectively 2 new teams (no-one at Infinity Ward now who done CoD4 apparently) and it launched a new experience in ELITE too, making the state of it even worse. Black Ops 2 will no doubt be a much better experience and a more polished game overall.

    FYI playing since WaW does not really make you a long-term CoD player LOL.

    • rebelliusnigglet

      AC3 has been in development since a bit after ac2 was released. Brotherhood and Revelations were put together by multiple studios. The core of the studio that made AC2 has been developing ac3 for 3 years.

      • ChimpanzeeThat

        The point is though that the developers have been working on the same games at the same time. Brotherhood and Revelations were worked on by the same devs so they had a 12 month dev cycle, which is still less than CoD gets.

        Also, AC3 hasn’t been in development since 2 came out, the Anvil engine has, BIG difference. The game itself started production when Brotherhood came out, at which point the skeleton team behind Anvil had finished their engine.

        • Slenderman

          Just because they don’t have the engine and aren’t programming doesn’t mean they aren’t developing the game.

          It takes much time to create an interesting story, bring us new ideas/concepts, create the art/theme of the area, and much more.

        • http://www.facebook.com/nicky.vandenbussche Nicky Vandenbussche

          IMO AC3 is a special case, cos ubisoft visits the places AC games where in. so they were developping AC3 before the engine was ready

    • Oblivion_Lost667

      Just so you know, for the most part, you only listed mainstream games that have good funding, large development studios, and some just run on the same engine with small updates. There are a LOT more gaming studios than just this that take longer for their development cycles, especially when they have to create an engine from scratch.

    • BOSS jediZOHAN

      MW3 was made in roughly a year, which is half the normal amount of time for a CoD game.

      • flu

        And it shows. I am not happy at all with it, and can’t wait for Black Ops II. The first Black Ops blew this POS game away.

    • http://www.facebook.com/awkenney Aaron Kenney

      I would argue 3-5 years is too long for development simply because the concept of the game or even the entire genre can become irrelevant in the same time. Also, name one game in the past 3 years that was good enough to warrant 3-5 years of development. MAYBE Skyrim. Maybe.

      • BOSS jediZOHAN

        Borderlands 2 baby.

        • http://www.facebook.com/awkenney Aaron Kenney

          You might as well have said Team Fortress 2. Playable comic books need not apply.

          • Guest

            You’re an arrogant Asshole, you know that? I mean, I believe that everyone should have their own opinion, but only when it can be voiced in such a rude manner. -.- That “Playable comic book” is using an art known as Cell Shading and is quite beautiful and unique- Add that with a high replay value, great Solo AND Co-Op Gameplay and an overall amazing RPG experience, and you’ve got an excellent game. As for the rest of your comments, (Especially regarding Mr. DiFiori’s fine work (His writing and beautiful photographs)) they quite honestly appall me.

            Long story short, if you’re going to voice your opinion, do it without being so rude- You’ll see a lot more respect and intellectual conversations/compliments coming your way.

            Keep up the amazing work, Mr. DiFiori! :D

            • http://www.facebook.com/awkenney Aaron Kenney

              I am completely aware of everything you mention here, but my gaming experience, especially in MP, will speak for itself every bit as much as Mr. DiFiori’s. Although I’m going to get low marks for speaking my mind, there’s still a group out there who believes in score and/or objectives and I represent that. Cell shading, single player and co-op, RPG-elements and exploration are distractions from that.
              Much of Mr. DiFiori’s work or tone does not present the same image as the name “MP1st” implies. I came to this site originally because it was very in tune with hardcore MP gamers, and that has quickly become diluted. It’s a shame.
              I welcome you to vote down this reply. At the end of the day, I stood for the games and players that inspire competition.

      • jspillen

        Borderlands 1 took 4 years to develop.

  • Adam

    MW3 is just plain boring. There is no variety in weapons, the maps feel the same, the graphics are subpar, the DLC is horrible. Plain and simple is just doesn’t have a good feeling about it. Black ops to me was the best CoD. I loved the DLC as well. The zombie maps added a new experience everytime. To me it seems MW3 was rushed. They weren’t given the time needed to make a great game. I don’t mind CoD being a yearly release honestly. After playing A game for a year I want a new experience. As long as it is done right. Infinity ward and sledgehammer need to step their game up.

    • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_D3UO5JXRTDMSRBBYY63EKFUF4U James K

      No variety in weapons in MW3? What about Black ops?

      • Mmkay

        well they do have wonder weapons

      • adam

        Well, I personally hate the guns in mw3. In black ops I can use every single gun. The commando, famas, ak 47, galil, enfield, aug, mpl, g11, mp5K. I justt feel there are more gun choices.

        • Oblivion_Lost667

          I think that comes down to personal preference, I don’t know the exact numbers on BO1 vs. MW3′s weapons, but I don’t think it’s that far off. I do know however, that the recoil/general feel of the guns between IW games and Treyarch games feels different, and that’s probably what leads you to believe there’s more variety, because Treyarch uses a different animation and sound style than IW. Personally, I prefer IW’s style, sure, I can use every gun in BO1, but they all feel very similar, and I personally dislike Treyarch’s sounds and animations. But, at the same time, BO2 is also interesting looking enough that I might give it a chance and buy it, whereas MW3 was not. (I still played MW3, just never bought it.)

  • Adam

    Also, Love opinion pieces. Please write more on MP1st!

  • Retro

    “As a long-time (since WaW) CoD player”
    That long huh?

    • Slenderman

      Longer than most…

    • swagsaabi

      Does your dick get longer the more “veteran” you are in COD?
      Please tell me.

      • Thomas

        I don’t know. Let me know when your lips reach my balls.

    • NMKsRAGE

      i laughed when he said that. ive been playing since cod4 and not just cod4, I also played another great console game like RFoM Resistance Fall of Man. who ever made this post is just as ignorant as all of us.

      • MikePembo951

        big deal he started playing a few months after you…

      • James

        Since CoD4? That’s not long either… I’ve been playing since CoD2 Big Red One on the PS2… I’d call someone a long time CoD player if they started on CoD WaW.

        • NinjaMuffinLive

          Lol I’ve played CoD since just before CoD2 came out, that’s long time :P Even the multiplayer back then was pretty good for it’s time

          • Rob

            this seems like a silly thread – Cod4 had a long life cycle before WaW (and during) but someone who joined in at WaW and plays alot has still played for a long time. Definitely more than enough time to have a strong understanding of the game mechanics, balancing as well as the direction it ought to be heading (as opposed to the direction it has currently been heading).

    • Angelreborn96

      Lol right on that one

    • http://www.facebook.com/awkenney Aaron Kenney

      He’s been playing FPS games for longer than that, I’m sure. I don’t think anyone has the right to talk about balance in the MP experience unless they’ve played FPS games prior to COD. Alex, this is the only reply I’m giving in your favor. Enjoy it.

    • http://twitter.com/ColonelBoston Joe

      Yeah, nothing sadder than a ‘tenured’ cod player who came alone late & think they’re a vet. I’ve been playing since cod2, so I feel like my opinion holds more weight. The only thing worse than the I’ve-been-here-since-WaW guys are the I’ve-been-here-since-MW2 guys… Cod is dead, move on.

      • hehe

        I have been here since Black Ops. lol

    • https://www.twitter.com/#!/PR0TENTIAL Shawn Kegarise

      Call of Duty 4 was popular, but i think the COD craze picked up uncontrollably once MW2 came out. I think MW2 is when a lot of ‘new’ COD players came into the fold.

      • subj3ct18

        ya i got in to cod in mw2. and i think mw2 is one of the best fps games i have played.

  • JustinD

    WaW was my favorite game for a long time. Still top 5. But now battlefield’s my pussy

  • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_D3UO5JXRTDMSRBBYY63EKFUF4U James K

    One major sequel every year, with each title being “bigger” than the last is going to lead to saturation. COD series need to release in a bi-yearly release so they can get more time developing, or release a small spin-off COD like Halo did with Halo Wars.

    By the way, COD need public beta back. Don’t let the beginning of the game life span be the beta. So major problem or balance could have been remove if we beta test them. For the record, COD XP and Gamescom is not a public beta.

  • AA

    i know black ops 2 will be a new “CoD4″ everyone makes a fuss about multiplayer what about singleplayer or zombies? the singleplayer looks amazing in Black ops 2 and zombies is probably more anticipated than multiplayer. how is CoD dying exactly?

    • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_D3UO5JXRTDMSRBBYY63EKFUF4U James K

      The playerbase is high but the morale is low/moderate in Call of Duty community. I wonder how many people will give the next installment a look if Black Ops 2 bombed for you.

  • Apollo

    Correction for your opinion article, The CQ DLC for BF3 was made from the Inspiration of Counter-Strike, not COD.

    • BOSS jediZOHAN

      CoD took A LOT from Counter Strike.

  • HBK

    Battlefield going to surpass COD in sales? I highly doubt it. I have the last two CODs and BF3, and I can tell you, there is no chance in hell that the general public will be as infatuated with BF more so than COD. BF3 has gotten stale for me, I feel like there isn’t anything to do to spice things up. I mean, people will try it, just to see what it’s like, and having played COD, the greater majority of them will go back to what was once so fun.
    As for solutions to fixing COD…I hate MW3 just as much as the next person, it didn’t do anything substantial, or even half-significant. Maybe add a third studio to give 3 year development cycles? If they have at least a RECENT engine on NextGen consoles it will be great and all the hate will be forgotten. You are right that they need to start having some enticing and game-changing DLC; BF3 DLC looks very promising and makes me want to start playing the game again. Treyarch can do this with zombies, but other than maps, what is there really? Game modes? Weapons? They probably won’t release weapon packs because it could upset balance, which is detrimental with such a large community, and they wouldn’t want people who bought new guns playing against people who didn’t buy them. Even in BF3 I can pick up AUGs and ACRs even if I didn’t purchase DLC. COD wouldn’t want this, and it would be too hard to seperate and filter all these different content.
    Really BLOPS2is as far Activision would probably let a developer change COD. Cookie-cutter style to appeal to the masses. Just look at how noob-friendly MW3 was? Even I, a COD fan, will never purchase COD again if BLOPS 2 MP bombs as much as MW3′s did, or if there isn’t a NEW engine for NextGen. It’ll still sell well, though, because casual players will buy what they know friends and everybody is buying. And that’s

    • http://twitter.com/TechS3ek Aria

      In couple of years Battlefield’s sale are going to be somewhere around COD. Battlefield has so much potential, unlike COD that has no more room left for development and innovation. NextGen consoles will prove that.

      • HBK

        I am a COD player, started with Black Ops. Heard a lot of good things about BFBC2, and got BF3. Was great the first couple months, and if I go on it occasionally it feels fun, but, as a CASUAL gamer, it seemed to get stale and repetitve. It needs to add the little things of COD, like community playlists, private matches, and a lot of other things to make me turn my head again. On NextGen BF4 has a chance, but they have to hit it out of the park. There’s still a lot of issues that need to be fixed. Plus, if there’s over 30 million people purchasing BF4, do you think decent Dedicated Servers would still be available? COD has said it’s way too expensive; do you know the actual figures?

        • http://www.facebook.com/george.sutherlandhoward George Sutherland Howard

          I can understand why someone who enjoys CoD would want things like private matches and community playlists in BF, but there is something that you and other CoD players who suggest things like that need to understand: Battlefield thrives on big battles and standard gametypes (at least, that’s why I like it – feel free to disagree with me). Big battles are practically impossible to do with a private match – you’d need at least 20 or 30 people playing at teh same time, and even if you could get that many people together, the console couldn’t handle it (i’m making that statement under the assumption that private matches are hosted locally – I could be wrong, in which case please disregard my statement about local hardware). Also, Battlefield’s main appeal is that teamwork and strategy generally have a significant effect on how well your team does, and standard gametypes allow the more dedicated players to refine their strategy. Plus, AS FAR AS I KNOW – I’M NOT MILITARY TACTICIAN AND I DON’T CLAIM TO BE – BF has a vague sense of pseudo-realism (real-life tactics sort-of work in Battlefield) and adding community playlists along the lines of MW3′s “Zombies” and such detracts from my enjoyment of the game. As such, I am not a fan of the idea of the whole “Gun Game”-type mode from BF3′s Close-Quarters. Again, you may feel differently, but i get the feeling that many Battlefield fans are in general agreement with at least some of the points I just made (I could be wrong – if so, please let me know and why).

  • yasha96

    I honestly have to agree with you here MW3 was obviously really lacking what a Cod game was suppose to feel like and i really think Treyarch are the big makers now. Honestly i really do have hope for BO2 not just for Multiplayer but for Zombies and even the Single Player looks like its going to be fun. I honestly have to say i can’t wait. They actually take risks instead of recycling the same content over and over like you said. Overall MW3 really did just feel like a $60 add on and don’t even get me started with the Cod Elite..Hopefully treyarch has a better way of utilizing Elite to there advantage.

  • F8b10

    Nice to read these opinion articles. I completely agree. I switched to bf3 and never looked back. It’s actually my fav mp game since smash bros and halo 1. The variety is what keeps me sucked in. I use to love cod so I really hope they eventually figure out how to freshen it up otherwise they will go the way of guitar hero and tony hawk. I’ve been playing cod since cod2 and I really just can’t stomach it any more. The sad part is that I think they will eventually beat bf to the ground as well. It would be nice if more companies where like rockstar and took their time to make a great quality sequel like they do with GTA.

  • Travis

    I appreciate the author’s opinion on MW3 and agree that the lifespans need to be expanded, but Activision is in the business of making a profit. A very large profit at the expense of gullible teenagers and gamers that are better off playing on the Wii.

    If I had a nickle for every Elite subscriber that has a .47- .89 KD ratio on MW3, it would have paid for my Elite subscription and the MW3 disc. It amazes me how many “gamers” pay $100- $110 on a game where they spend most of their time losing each game because they go 3-14 and have low gamer IQ; not using the radar to their advantage; idiotic weapon set-up i.e ACOG on a Ump; running and gunning down the tunnel of death on Hardhat; no mic; complaining about other’s weapon and perk set-up when they could select the same set-up; not evolving their gameplay to avoid deaths and “hot spots” on maps (tip avoid the center of the map and stick to circling the map to avoid being shot); camping in a vulnerable location; you fill in the rest.

    If you don’t use a mic, don’t play in a party of strategic gamers, and can’t evolve your gameplay, you’ll have a .47 KD ratio and .98 Win/Loss ratio. I have a 1.89 KD ratio and a 7.43 WL ratio. Basically the game comes down to your personal IQ level. If you are an intelligent person that has a basic awareness of your virtual surroundings and can execute a strategy winning strategy, you’ll enjoy MW3, BO, BF3, regardless of the game’s faults.

    • Alexmonty

      Where I came from having a KD ratio below 1.00 does not mean you can’t have fun, which is the purpose of a game. And you should’t care how much people spend on elite accounts, unless of course you pay it from your own pocket. If you are an intelligent person that has basic understanding that it is just a game and can play with the simple idea of having fun first, you’ll enjoy MW3, BO, BF3, regardless of the gamer’s faults.

    • Oblivion_Lost667

      Alexmonty is right, not everyone plays to win, most people play to have fun, and don’t think someone has a poor IQ just because they decided they just play casually (Which is what most CoD players are from my experience) and for fun. If you don’t like it, stop playing public matches, if you want to play to win, then play in tournaments, or MLG. And no, just because you can win and have basic awareness of your ‘virtual’ surroundings, doesn’t mean you’ll enjoy a game regardless of it’s faults, if there’s one thing that purely annoys you and grinds your gears, you will probably come to dislike that game over time the more you experience it.

      • http://www.facebook.com/awkenney Aaron Kenney

        I like to think that when I buy a game, I am paying for the overall experience of the game. Unfortunately a diverse set of players ruins that experience for me nearly every time I play. Now the game is not worth the money. I hope you can understand that, and will think twice the next time you go 3-17 on your shotgun, rocket launcher, bouncing betty class. I have no interest in how much cool stuff you think you can discover in the game, or how many achievements you’ve completed.
        And just so you are aware, the purpose of the game is to earn score and attempt to win. You do so by earning kill count and completing any objectives present. The purpose of any game is to complete the objective of the game, so please try to make an effort. Between players that fail to give a shit about the objective and players that hack, the game is already ruined.

        • Travis

          Amen, my brother. However, I’ve only witnessed one weapon “hack” once with a MK14 . But I guess when I roll with a talented group of players, you don’t notice the little kids trying to hack the game to barely scrape together a 1.10 KD ratio.

          I can say little kids, because I’m in the majority of gamers, which are 28 years and older. 31 years young and I have a job, home, wife, child and I’m active in the community. However, I’m very competitive and hate losing, because younger generations are being told that life isn’t always about winning. Well, I hate to break it to you little kids, but life is all about “winning” and using common sense to beat out your peers for the best job and salary.

          • http://www.facebook.com/awkenney Aaron Kenney

            Hacking on PC involves any number of extraordinary things, where I used to play MW3. Wallhacks, aimbots, hacked lobbies, dying and instantly respawning near the aimbotter, maps “fast restarting” then a player becoming host. It is kinda nuts.

            • Travis

              That explains it. I play on the 360. My last PC game was an Aliens vs. Predator game.

        • Oblivion_Lost667

          I do well, and I do attempt to do the objectives and score well (Sometimes as the only person who does so.), but at the same time I accept that other people would like to have fun in their own way as well. I know you’re paying for the overall experience of the game, and in doing so, you should take into account that it’s possible you will run into people that don’t do well, and just want to have fun with it, when buying a MP game.

      • Travis

        It’s obvious to me that your idea of having “fun” by wasting your time losing and getting killed over and over again, shows me that Alexmonty & Oblivion have low expectations of what they consider “fun” in their lives. If you play sports, do you also consider it fun to lose almost all of your of your games and pissing off your teammates because you can’t play defense or score on offense while at the same time the good players on your team are carrying the team, your dead weight, scoring, and doing all the communicating?

        In reality that’s what you are saying; “My mom and dad think I’m a winner even if my team loses and know that I should be cut from the team and from sports all together. They want me to play sports since they think it will help my self-esteem and Ill make friends. My friends mock me I have no confidence, buy my parents give me a gold star after each game because they love me and believe life isn’t about winning and losing, but rather just having fun. I’m special!”

        • Oblivion_Lost667

          Oh no, I don’t think that at all, I just accept that others do, and I’m okay with it. As i said before, if you want to play to win, AND with people that only play to win, try playing MLG or private matches, not public. Not everyone’s super competitive over a game like CoD, don’t assume that.

    • Jay

      I’d say that SnD is the only truly tactical game mode in CoD, and as for a not having a mic, CoD requires little communication at all, and those who do have a mic just argue with each other.

      • Travis

        Really? So having a mic is overrated when your teammates point out the location of the opposing team and coordinating a gameplan for Team Deathmatch and Domination. If you can invest $100 into a game, you can afford a $15 mic.

        Do tell me more…

        • Jay

          I’m not saying mics are overated, in tactical games they are as important as the guns, but in CoD (with the exclusion of MLG matches, though how many of them do you get in!), you just get bloody dubstep and cries of pre-pubescent children

          • Borys

            totally

    • Borys

      lol
      “Basically the game comes down to your personal IQ level. If you are an intelligent person….”

      brilliant insight….just brilliant.
      I listen to those 2+ k/d ppl between matches and intelligence just oozes out of their mics…

  • Mmkay

    to bad iD stopped publishing their own games. iD tech 5+ next cod = major win!!!

  • gra

    CoD is certainly aging, but I think that MW3 was just a bad game. I haven’t enjoyed a single minute of the multiplayer I put into it.

    This wasn’t as much a short cycle as it was poor development. Instakill firepower everywhere, lag comp, every map being not only small, but CLUTTERED with random garbage all over the place too.

    They took the skill, fun and reward out of playing, and instead made it some ADD sprayfest.

    • flu

      ADD Sprayfest … the exact same words that I have used to describe this game while playing it. Do you have my house bugged? Or were you playing online that evening too?

  • http://bf3battlereports.appspot.com/ Robenter

    Who are you to judge whether a game’s
    development was rushed or not? What are your credentials that allow
    you to say that a game at its core is fundamentally flawed? Whats
    wrong with MW3′s balance, design, and “bugs”? I understand that
    this is supposed to be an opinion piece, but you give ZERO evidence.
    Who cares if there was a legal battle 2 years ago and how do you know
    8 months is too fast to build a game and that 2 years and 8 months is
    just about right? How do you know COD’s engine is outdated and
    obsolete?

    Have you ever written a computer
    program? Do you know how incredibly hard it is to write these games
    and how extraordinarily gifted you have to be to do it? Listening to
    and reading regurgitated crap by clueless gamers such as yourself is
    quite disappointing. Do you have an original thought in your head?
    Seriously. “MW3 sucks, its got issues, and so many bugs….oh and
    that graphics engine is soooo old. They shouldn’t release a game
    every year, its too much….etc, etc. etc.,” – Yeah never heard
    that before.

    I rarely take the time to comment on
    anything but almost did after your last swear-ridden piece on BF4.
    After this one, I had to stop what I was doing and stay up late to
    write this just let you know what a poor job I think you’ve done. Do
    you know how juvenile you sound…. complaining about “bugs,”
    “hacking,” and “bad players.” Come on now…

    If you are going to write an opinion,
    have some real facts that back up what you are saying and come up
    with something to write about that we all haven’t already heard or
    read about on every forum or gaming website out there. I was really
    stoked when I discovered MP1st late last year. They went and found
    “news” everyday about games that I cared about that no one else
    would consider “news” and I love(d) it. Then I came across your
    articles, and frankly, I feel let down. You’re obviously a smart
    guy, you make some good points about DLC. But please stop giving
    opinions on things you obviously have no understanding (1st paragraph
    above) of and write something based on experience or fact or anything
    that you might know about. For example, 30 fps is just fine, did you
    know that most movies are filmed at 24fps? It just took Google and
    about 90 seconds to find out.

    • Alexmonty

      ^This, could not say it better, Alex DiFiori = Hardcore BF3 fanboyism.

    • Oblivion_Lost667

      Unless CoD’s engine has some secret graphics power hidden in it that they aren’t using, to most people, it’s outdated. Onto insulting because he’s saying the same things other people do, while I don’t agree with all of what he said, just because it’s not an original argument, does not mean it’s not a true argument, he’s making very valid points, and whether or not he TRULY knows how to code, write, design, animate, model, or do textures for a game, it does not mean he doesn’t have the right to write about it, or that what he says isn’t true.. I do agree he shouldn’t have had a ‘swear-ridden’ piece, but at the same time, some of his complaints were valid there too. Also, 30 FPS is fine, sure, but it’s not optimal, you can notice the difference between a 30 FPS and a 60 FPS game, you can’t tell EXACTLY, but it’s noticable, and it makes a difference, I personally hate running below 40 FPS simpler because it feels choppy, but I suppose that comes from playing at 90+ FPS on the majority of games I play, even if it’s not majorly noticable between FPS rates that high, when it goes down from that to 30, it is noticable.

    • BOSS jediZOHAN

      The legal battle is ongoing and includes IW at this point. When BOII was announced, IW filed a suit against Activision for breach of contract. This is in addition the suit filed by IW against Activision post MW2′s release.

      Activision confirmed they had begun development of MW3 in 2010: http://www.playerattack.com/news/2010/11/04/new-call-of-duty-due-late-2011/

      That’s barely a year of development.

      I don’t pretend to know how to make a video game, but I know enough about the industry and the people in it to know that they need at least 2 years to make a game properly. Like I said, Vahn himself has said as much (when I find a link to where he said it, I’ll reply to this comment with it).

      FPS is the resolution of motion. I work in video and am very, very familiar and educated in the matter. 34FPS is actually the bare minimum amount of frames needed to fool people into thinking they’re watching true motion. Our eyes and brains see at roughly 40-50FPS. The more frames you have in a game, the more detail you get out of motion. 60FPS is a big deal because it’s the point at which motion blur drops off dramatically. More frames are slightly gratuitous, but 120FPS looks incredibly smooth when you compare it to 60FPS. Just because you can’t consciously appreciate the difference doesn’t mean your brain doesn’t.

      CoD’s engine, by industry standards, is incredibly outdated. It is based on this engine: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Id_Tech_3 That’s 2 versions behind the current id engine. Yes, they have modified and built on top of id 3, but the base code is still id 3. id 3 isn’t capable of doing what Frostbite 2 can do: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frostbite_2 such as native DX11 support.

      • Naiden

        Black Ops II also support native DX10 and DX11.

  • I REST MY CASE

    Bottom line is my friends and I are still playing BF3 after all this time and guess what my friends who bought MW3 are not playing it anymore. That is the truth BF3 offers way more fun and replayability. Every BF3 match is something new or something crazy going on it is pure dynamic. COD on the other hand you know what you get every match the same boring round around in circles with no vehicles to spice up the battlefield. How are you going to have a WAR game without vehicles. LAME.

    • mohwartfighter

      funny that, my friends all played bf3 when it came out, but when mw3 was released, everybody was playing it onwards for months with a few occassionally would pop in bf3. in consolles, bf3 is extremely boring and totally unsmooth.

      • Miguel Torres 92

        Funny that with the crappy lag compensation, and cheap ass spawns , MW3 has become totally unplayable take that from a CoD player since COD2…

      • http://twitter.com/TechS3ek Aria

        “in consolles, BF3 is extremely boring and totally unsmooth”
        I know a doctor that can help you, leave me a comment so i give you his number.

      • ASMiTTy56

        BF3 on consoles is alright. It’s just that people don’t know how to play properly on the large maps. Being in the vehicles is the best way to see action. The 2nd is constantly having everyone attacking objectives. But usually you have four idiots in jets trying to dog fight each other, and occasionally helicopter pilots can be useful when their not trying to go after the Jets. And don’t even get me started on snipers that are no where near objectives. It’s not the game that is the problem, its some of the players.

  • hfgjrtyn

    lmao. mw3 shits on all treyarch games. treyarch fanboys can’t play IW games because they are too hard for them

    • HBK

      How is no recoil, low time-to-kill-close, support killstreaks, deathstreaks, terrible spawns, Assassin, and infinite headglitches and lines of sight too hard?

  • MegaMan3k

    I honestly cannot see Battlefield ever surpassing Call of Duty in sales, unless Call of Duty suffers a collapse. I suppose I should say that I cannot see Battlefield seeing the success that Call of Duty has seen in the past years.

    If anything, I can’t see any shooter ever reaching the market penetration that Call of Duty has. Moving forward, I see the shooter market reaching super saturation and collapsing, leading to a multi-year lull. See platformers in the early 3D era – note that N64 is the only Nintendo console to have only one Mario platformer. With that fragmentation, I see developers returning to the drawing board and pushing forward.

    What Call of Duty 4 did so well that other games can only seem to imitate is that Call of Duty 4 did not claim to be revolutionary. It took a simple idea and did it extremely well and added a light little persistence twist to it. Too many shooters now are trying desperately to add their own twist.

    First person shooting gaming needs a return to simplicity. We need the industry to move towards accepting that strong fundamentals will draw an audience. Far too often “____ Killers” are coming out and feeling bloated with too much stat tracking, skill-gap reduction, and persistence and the gamer is drowning in it – this is also one of the reasons that I think Modern Warfare 3 is one of the worst first person shooters I have played this generation.

    Get the fundamentals. Gamers will come. Battlefield does not do this, and I believe that’s one of the reasons that it cannot surpass or match Call of Duty’s sales. Battlefield excuses its sloppy infantry combat with features like “tons of vehicles!” and “Massive destruction!” and “Huge maps!” Now, mind you, I appreciate Battlefield and I think it’s a blast to play, but I cannot say that it has solid fundamentals.

    • http://twitter.com/TechS3ek Aria

      BS!

    • http://www.facebook.com/awkenney Aaron Kenney

      100% agree. I think this is right on target and is the only way to save COD.

    • ASMiTTy56

      Doesn’t matter if BF3 beats CoD in sales. Quality over quantity, casual gamers will pick up a CoD game before they get their shit kicked in for the first 200 hours playing BF3.

      • flu

        I put several hours into BF3 before I decided that it just wasn’t fun. I wasn’t alone with either, 4 of my friends went back to COD with me. It wasn’t fun for ANY of us. It’s a great simulation, but just not a fun game.

        Understand, I think MW3 is a horrible game too, but it has its moments. I play with friends (in groups larger than 4 anyway) and whereas I get my COD rage on nightly because of the aforementioned issues, I still enjoy it more than I did BF3.

    • ASMiTTy56

      But I don’t see what is exactly wrong with the infantry game play. You just need to know on which maps it is a smart idea to play infantry. Grand Bazaar, Seine Crossing, Operation Metro (if the skill level is equal), Noshahr Canals (again if its equal skill level), and even Kharg Island is fine on foot for the most part if you stick near objectives. The bottom line is much like on a real battlefield if you are huffing it from one side of the map to the other constantly you are obviously doing it wrong, hitching a ride on a vehicles goes a long way.

    • kirby

      Don’t forget TF2. I honestly think Valve is the only other developer (though to be fair they don’t make ONLY FPS games) that can keep up in sales/money made overall.

  • http://twitter.com/TechS3ek Aria

    No matter how much they put afford on COD, the formula of it has gotten old >> small maps, bunch of players run n gun until the game finished.There is no more room left for development and innovation in COD and that’s because of nature of the game, As a long time fps player i have to say the feeling of playing Battlefield is way more nicer, cuz you got freedom to have any play style you want. i bought ghost recon:FS and immediately i realized that even that game is another clone of COD in third person view and so called tactics, at the end it felt so shallow to me… no matter how much i wanted to continue playing it but after while i automatically come back to BF3, cuz there is no other game can create that intense feeling and chaotic moment that doesn’t feel cheap. So yes i think BF will surpass the sales of COD eventually but that doesn’t even matter … Hopefully DICE keep the quality of Battlefield franchise as it is a new billion-dollar franchise.

    • Oblivion_Lost667

      On PC, I would have to agree, but on console, I never got that intense or chaotic feeling, it was the same as CoD, it’s still fun, but it never got really intense.

  • http://twitter.com/IMojammer MattW

    Activision has added Sledgehammer and another studio (I forgot the name) to their CoD roster. I think this will result in 3 year development cycles instead of 2, and that will be good for us all. We’ll get better games as well as better and more DLC.

  • bryan

    ive had every COD out and if they don’t get blops 2 right it will be my last

  • John K

    BO2 is going to be the first COD I will not pre-order, even-though I still believe that Treyarch will deliver a refreshing addition to the series. I have been a fan of the series from pretty much the first title. It’s just that MW3 was such a farce with the death streaks, lag comp and horrendous spawns I purchased BF3 and haven’t looked back.

    I’m sure Treyarch will create a brilliant game as they normally do, I mean come on they gave you 5 games in 1 for BO1; BO:Campaign, Zombies, MP, Dead ops arcade and Zork! All MW3 comes down to, was them quickly cashing in on the Modern Warfare intellectual property before the court case as they thought they would lose it to Jason West and Vince Zampella.

    • please tell

      What Is Zork! ? Ive never played that

      • Jay

        It’s an old text-based adventure game from years back, look on YouTube for how to get it..

  • Prodickhead

    1. CoD 2
    2. CoD / CoD UO
    3. BO 1
    4. WaW
    5. Mw2
    6. Mw3
    7. CoD 4
    Never played: CoD 3

    From best to worst :)

    • http://www.facebook.com/awkenney Aaron Kenney

      Definitely the perspective of a pro. In terms of public games however, I’d say W@W is at the top of my list and COD4 is a close second. Black Ops, third. I wouldn’t bother to rate the rest, especially COD2, given that the PC version lacked “run.”

  • http://www.facebook.com/nicky.vandenbussche Nicky Vandenbussche

    I think CoD will keep the trone, cos tha casual gamer is going to buy it. The hardcore gamers arn’t maybe. but many people are going too buy it. but I’m not. Still play CoD but I don’t play the new ones

  • Leadfarmer153

    BF3 is already running on next gen tech. When Xbox 720 and PS4 look for DICE and Danger Close to pull even. But Dice has never had smooth controls on the console. In till they get rid of all lag input COD will be king.

  • Akira2020

    Rarely do I comment on an article, but this one was dead on. Nice job you son of a bitch! :)

  • Mogwai Warrior

    BF3 is easily the superior game IMO and I don’t even play COD anymore, but COD is not dying, not one bit. That’s not me just saying that. Just look at the XBOX Live activity and you will see COD is at the top of the list and several older COD games ahead of BF3.

    • Oblivion_Lost667

      The game’s SALES aren’t dying, no, but the quality of the game is.

  • Mango

    “longtime cod-player” for me that is before COD 4. I myself begun with CoD 2.

    • BOSS jediZOHAN

      Anything before MW2 is long-time to me. Most of the new players online now started with either MW2 or BO1. I also have nearly 70 days played in total across all the CoDs since WAW. So, I’ve played it, a lot.

      • longtime

        Mw2 was only three years ago. I wouldn’t even have said long time. The best you could have claimed is experiencing all current gen CODs, but the fact you didn’t even start at COD4 – well…

        • BOSS jediZOHAN

          So, having nearly 70 days played across all the CoD titles doesn’t make my experience relevant? I have more time played in CoD than a majority of CoD players.

          • You’re missing the point. There is a HUGE difference between playing COD4 when it came out, and when you played it after WaW came out.

  • Mambo-B

    I have to agree with many others, that the COD franchise has become stale so 2000′s era for the Current consoles. Now ther we are in 2010-2020 decade, a updated game engine like Frostbite2.0, and Ubisoft’s new engine, even, naughty dog’s engine, and cliffy B’s new engine is gonna be the games we will be playing. With our new virtual goggles/headsets coming out, etc, COD had a good life, but only one way to go when you’ve been at the top.
    No longer buying a COD game unless they prove it with new engine on next years new consoles. Oh wait, the masterminds behind the COD franchise left to create respawn entertainment , of which Treyarch copied the game engine from anyways. Blame it on Activision for not letting these guys update Modern Warfare2, no more money from me Activision!

  • http://www.facebook.com/hollywoodkills Blaine Reinsma

    No matter how bad COD gets, Battlefield will never overtake COD because it is not optimized for consoles, where the vast majority of gaming takes place. COD is still optimized for the casual console gaming market. Some other console-focused franchise will take down COD, but it won’t be Battlefield

    • http://www.facebook.com/awkenney Aaron Kenney

      The reverse is the case on PC. Just noting that.

    • MyssterNassty

      …until next gen consoles come out, bf3 runs mint on xbox360, it runs like BALLS on ps3, im not a fanboy of either console i own both and play whatever games are fun, not sure what the reason for this is, but im 100% because i cant even play it on ps3 but on xbox it runs perfectly fine for me..minus the 60-90 fps a pc gets, but the game still looks great. i just think when next gen’s come out, theyre going to change the whole ladder of sales because its the perfect chance for companies to change there “game” no pun intended..DICE already has the engine, CRYTEK already has the engine, INFIN…oh wait lol

  • codplayer

    i wish mw3 was mw2.5 then it would have been better

  • http://www.facebook.com/awkenney Aaron Kenney

    Let’s hypothetically say that World at War was the current game and DLCs were being churned out with new game modes and maps similar to MW3, zombies aside. Would lack of deviation from the original experience fail to hold your interest in that game?
    It would hold my interest, because I still find COD4 and W@W to be better than modern incarnations of COD in terms of gameplay. Actually, I think the balance of the game was already overlooked as early as MW2.

  • http://twitter.com/TheSurfNSnow Surf

    Duh and Activison would never ever allow a 2-3 year cycle of COD. Bobby Kotick needs to answer to his stockholders.

  • http://www.facebook.com/patrick.skelly.104 Patrick Skelly

    MW3 was a step backwards in my opinion for CoD. The no skill point streaks for support is just one example. The game is near unplayable from all the EMP and stealth bomber spam. Went back to Black Ops until the second one drops in November. I enjoyed BF3 however as I did not have many friends play the game, as a lone wolf I found it difficult to compete with full teams.

  • Nick the dick.

    Damn there’s nothing more that pisses me off than these “gamers” that claim to be god because they use a damn pc. I dont give a fuck what you use, just don’t log onto sites and treat everyone else like shit because they use a console. I’m glad I don’t play games with these guys because they act like fuckin morons with a small man complex.

    Ps Xbox 360 rulez 4 ever! hehe

  • Mmkay

    my first cod was big red one I think Dident even play it through as I was obsessed with pc rts games at the time

  • Bo2 Captin xD

    How are you going to compare Cod and BF3 there 2 entirely different games -_-

  • I Stun Daily

    This article…… WELL DONE SIR

  • PertAndPopular

    BF3 is a real game…MW3 is just real crap.

  • No

    Sorry, I stopped reading after ” As a long-time (since WaW) CoD player,”. So playing a franchise game for 3 years makes you a “long time” CoD player? Really? That’s like saying “As a long time (since Quantum of Solace) James Bond fan”. No, it just doesn’t work. Next time you wanna go around and flaunt your credentials somewhere think about it first.

    • BOSS jediZOHAN

      So nearly 80 days (that’s days) played across all the CoDs collectively isn’t experienced?

  • The Ese

    I simply stop playing MW3 and start playing again MW2, same shit but with better maps and weapons

  • Amir

    MORE SELLER NOT BETTER … it sales because : kids love it !! little kids will buy it !
    activision is like a Thief !! because spends nothing to make the game but gain a huge money … ! hate all activision thieves !!

  • Big Dave

    I hated FPS games until I played Resistance on the PS3. I played FPS games on a PC and older consoles. Then multi player console games came and saved the day. 1st was Resistance, then I played Gears of War. I decided to buy a Play Station (as they are better than an xBox) CoD Mw came free with the console. A game I had never played, I put the disc in and shortly after sold all my other games. I don’t even play other games anymore, only CoD. Sure the new one didn’t do anything too extra ordinary, same as football games that come out year on year or driving games. I don’t know what people want from a new FPS, its essentially going to be the same as every other FPS with a different ‘skin.’ The game play is essentially the same from game to game, platform to platform.

    A lot of people are on the same bandwagon as yourself, hating the new CoD because it didn’t offer something new.

    Just so you are aware, the new CoD will be the same as the last one but with a different look. The CoD after that will also be the same with a different look and it will continue like this until augmented reality is a feature in games but even then the concept and game play will remain the same.

  • ROTK007

    Hmm…started off as quite an interesting article…however…as other
    users have pointed out…there is a clear lack of insight…your
    hypothesis is that MW3 is less superior to previous CoD titles….I
    would agree with this….but your arguement and the case you put forward
    lacks sufficient evidence to back up you claim.

    Simply stating issues such as balance, bugs and design frustrate you is
    not good enough…surely you could have expanded on these issues a
    little more…

    You say you have 70 days experience online in CoD games and have played
    since WAW…good for you….most serious CoD players have been playing
    long before that. In our clan most of our members racked up over 70 days
    on MW alone never mind all the other titles. I would imagine that most
    of your readers are serious CoD players…

    If you really have 70 days online experience you should have been able
    to expand on why you think MW3 is an inferior product. Simply saying it
    was rushed and you find it frustrating is merely you stating your
    opinion. Comparing the download content in mw3 to bf3 is going slightly
    off topic. I would have liked to have read your thoughts on how you felt
    rushed development had negatively impacted on the actual gameplay.

    For example….kill confirmed was a great addition to the
    playlists….however with big rewards available for collecting your own
    red tags…this spawned a whole host of idiots who used tactical
    insertions to boost their way to the top of the leaderboards…thus
    ruining the experience for the majority and killing CoD a little
    more…was this due to rushing the product? Possibly..but…I doubt
    it…it was more likely a case of the developers not understanding the
    implications of how their decisions would have a negative affect on the
    gameplay.

    Another example….Hard Core Search and Destroy…possible the best and
    most rewarding game mode in the CoD universe. Superb in MW and great in
    MW2 until the hackers ripped them apart…in MW3 it is fundamentally
    flawed…the use a vests has destroyed the otherwise tight gameplay. The
    MW developers made a conscious decision to remove juggernaut from the
    perks when MW2 came out…yet here is a support package reward that is
    quite easily achievable that makes players almost superhuman in the
    HCSND world….leading to a backward step in MW gameplay in my
    opinion….and creating the frustration that you alluded to briefly.

    Was this decision due to rushed development? Again I doubt it. Was it
    due to CoD becoming oversaturated…with the developers pandering to
    casual gamers needs..trying to balance the gameplay so even a total
    freshman can get a cheap kill? More than likely…

    In my opinion what is killing CoD is the developers relentless pursuit
    of making more money and reaching out to more and more punters by making
    the game more balanced. Money talks… By trying to satisfy the
    majority of casual gamers they are potentially shunning the hardcore
    enthusiasts who put them were they now are. I agree that rushed
    development is not good for the gaming industry but it is the conscious
    decisions that the development team make within that timeframe that has
    made MW3 inferior to the products that came before it. Whether they had 8
    months or 2 years to make the game I suspect their decision making
    regarding fundamental gameplay mechanics would have been the same.

  • ROTK007

    why does my post below keep getting deleted?

    • http://www.facebook.com/awkenney Aaron Kenney

      It’s a shame. It was very well thought out and frankly, spot on.

      • ROTK007

        thank you…it was my first post on this website. I would be astonished if mp1st or the author of this thread deleted it intentionally

        • nice comment

          Wow, your comment was hidden for abuse reports… Now I wonder who could have reported it….? Good, thought out comment though!

  • Gannon

    Eh. Everyone hates it. Fair enough.
    I really liked MW3 more than any other CoD though. Sure, it wasnt the most creative, but i just thought it was the most fun. And i do personally like IW better than Treyarch. Treyarch games seem a bit more childish and cheesy to me. After about 20 days of game time on MW3 it got kinda old, sure, so now i moved onto BF3. But i did and do really like it.
    Nothin to hate on here, these are just my opinions.

  • Dtoxz

    I honestly agree. I think that Treyarch puts a bit more love into their games. I think that in general, COD games quality has greatly diminished due to the annual release. I bet if these games had just 6 more months of polish, they would not only look better, but run better. On PS3 AND Xbox

  • FukUAlex

    I come on here for MW3 news, not your baised opinion. gtfo

  • ROTK007

    so your title reads “opinion” but when someone posts their own thoughts on the subject you delete it. Well played sir well played.

    • BOSS jediZOHAN

      I have never and most likely won’t ever delete a single non-spam comment on MP1st.

      • ROTK007

        thanks for your response…I would be keen to hear your thoughts on what frustrates you about MW3….since release there has been patch after patch…attempting to address spawn issues, lag compensation, matchmaking, glitches, weapon balance etc etc….the developers seem happy to alter an overpowered shotgun when the “fans” demand it but seem incapable of fixing or oblivous to the problems with MW3 that significantly impact how the game plays.

    • BOSS jediZOHAN

      Someone keeps flagging it. As I said at the end of the article, if you’d like me to expand on my feelings regarding MW3 at length, I’m more than happy to.

  • face2

    enough band-aids just stop letting them out

  • face2

    been playing cod since before my available memory

  • pieman

    People keep saying COD needs to be saved but its doing fine. Even if BOS sucks (which it won’t) then millions will still buy it first day and millions already have pre-ordered.

    • pieman

      *BO2

  • subj3ct18

    i wonder when fps game are going to slow down

  • MRxDrOpShOtZz

    ive played since cod 1 and ive got to admit cod is geting a bit boreing modern warfares are better for multiplayer and black ops are better for single player and co-op… enough said

  • The Authority in FPS

    Simple as this.
    MW3
    Pros: Awesome close-quarters action, Good weapon balance except for Mp7 Acr and FMG9′s, Innovation coming up with new perks, point streaks, support package, specialist package, and certain maps that i love (Mission, Hardhat, Village, Resistance).
    Cons: Matchmaking, Spawns, LAG, LAG, LAG, LAG, LAG, LAG, LAG, LAG, LAG that renders all of this completely useless cause whether you shoot someones 15 times or 20 they don’t die, Hit-detection is at an all time low, I never ever get one shot kills with snipers or shotguns always 2 shots everytime all the time anytime, LAG, LAG, LAG and did i mention…!

    MW3 would easily be my fav of the series but failed greatly with one simple problem that BF3 MASTERED. DEDICATED SERVERS and you can choose which region you want them to filter to (You live in Texas? Well put the servers to filter to South U.S.A) It’s not that hard to concept. But Activision clearly can’t.
    It is utterly and shamefully pathetic that i can play BF3 64-players mayhem going on everywhere and never ever have the horrible LAG that MW3 presents everytime i join a match. Yea the EA servers are a bit sketchy at times but when it’s good it’s consistent for the 6 hours i’ll play that day, it’s not constantly changing host and having to decide how much lag to give to other players with a poorly coded compensation system.

    BF3>MW3 just for the simple fact it’s consistent and i dont have to spend so much time quiting and joining and quiting and joining games to find a good non laggy match only to have it completely change cause the host changed the next round.

    By the way i’ve played COD from the very start with COD 1 for PC and way before that with BF1942, TFC, Counter-strike 1.0 the original mod from Half-life, i’ve seen how FPS should and shouldn’t be. I can’t recall lagging as bad as MW3 does on 56k modem connection im being serious lol.

settings

close