Modern Warfare 3: 'There's Lots of Innovation Here.'

[Eagle101]

In all fairness, BF3 is the true sequel to BF2, i see some bits added in mods to BF2 to improve game play such as Allied intent Xtended with added weaponry/arsenal, and handheld AA. BC is a spinoff series of BF, i like BC. Battlefield though has changed in terms of graphics, animations, destruction i mean come on, its a full rebuild of what BF2 was, so yeah it is a sequel. it added destruction, anti air guns, brought back jets, prone, 64 players, large maps, both rural and urban! squads, server browser is there (consoles too!) dedi servers. It is a true PC game. I believe the only reason they did a console version is purely marketing and sales, i mean a company has to survive hence expansion of market, and consoles is a huge market. Look at black ops, reeling in a billion in profits, better than Hollywood. So really Battlefield will be a great game, it might not make the sales MW3 will but in the long run this will be the game to play, its ranking system is what keeps it alive, its graphics is what makes it long term. CoD you hit level 50 in a month lmfao, i have seen y friends play it, specifically one of them as soon as he maxed out his level..he leaves the game. I mean really, i put near a 100 hours in Bad Company 2 and still did not make level 50 (lvl 29) but i had the time of my life playing it. BF2, i wasnt very active online back then but i made level 16 in BF2, thinking of it now, i enjoyed the ranking system, it gave the game a longer life line not to mention modifications, something that makes PCs unique, and i am a crazy mod guy..trust me, everything from counterstrike to half life to GTA to Battlefield, and the Command and Conquer games i have been mod crazy. I hat to drift off that happens with me (i have A.D.D.) but in conclusion BF3 is a brilliant game and i will be there for the midnight release! TLR version: BF3 is awesomesauce, and i will has it beleivez me! it will be minez!

[Anarchy1]

Re: Modern Warfare 3: 'There's Lots of Innovation Here.'

I am curios, what decides if a game belongs in the BC or BF series?
As far as I can see, Infantry combat has evolved continuously through both BC and BF, each new release building on experiences from the previous regardless of it was BF or BC.
So I don't see a need to label BF3 as a BC game just because its soldiers have things in common with BC2.

BC - PS3 lead platform, more consoley and cartoonish
BF - PC lead platform, more realistic and serious

Basically. BC also has a separate story line.

[Eagle101]

dont forget, BC is a spin-off of the BF series.

[Cantina_Fly]

Re: Modern Warfare 3: 'There's Lots of Innovation Here.'

Derail much?

For a news item about MW3, only the first 4 replies are about it.

CoD hasn't been about innovation since CoD4. It's now the Madden NFL of first person shooters. I also seriously don't understand why so many people rail on them for this. It's not like it's a secret. The only CoD game I didn't really like was MW2, and that was only because of no dedicated servers. I like BF and CoD. Shocking I know. How do I live with myself?

[Vreki]

Re: Modern Warfare 3: 'There's Lots of Innovation Here.'

BC - PS3 lead platform, more consoley and cartoonish
BF - PC lead platform, more realistic and serious
Basically. BC also has a separate story line.

I dont think BC2 MP is significantly more cartoonish or unrealistic than BF.
At the beginning it was very infantry focused, but the later maps added more vehicle action.

Derail much?

For a news item about MW3, only the first 4 replies are about it.

That is because we stopped caring about new COD games a couple of releases ago.

[Lordsethonan]

Re: Modern Warfare 3: 'There's Lots of Innovation Here.'

Well looking at it, it's def BC3 and not BF3. It's Bad company up scaled with a more serious mood. It's the same war as BF2 yet a whole faction is gone...odd no? More was taken from BC2 than BF2. BF3 will still be a great game, but innovation for a true BF2 game should mean adding, not subtracting. (Commander, 6 man squads, etc) We held our breadth hoping for atleast 64 players and we got it, the way that we were left guessing and hoping was enough info to know it isn't a "true sequel." Imagine a PC only BF3, you can picture it and you know that BF3 is a beautiful game but gameplay wise it's missing things because of consoles.

I beg to differ, greatly.

While going form 1942/vietnam over to BF2 was a huge leap in additions, including reworking the refractor engine, adding bigger maps, giving a boost to vehicles and introducing several key elements( commander, squads, commrose, commander assets) you can't dsmiss the streamlining in BF3.

You don't have the numbers and statistics DICE has, some of them you can extrapolate from experience on the field: very rarely were there full squads of people, most were around 3 or 4 and then locked; i did run more than once into a game where I couldn't join a squad and was left to rot.
Very few people ever used the built in VoIP mechanic introduced on BF2, whining about losing it is hypocrisy. clans had their own ventrilo servers anyways and the built in was not very good to begin with.

The commander position was a neat idea, but was never properly implemented; there is very little you can do as a commander and in the grand scheme of pub play it means squat (and then again, if playing with clannies, why limit yourself to only being able to talk to SL instead of your whole army? Commander is just a title)

SL were much more reduced than the commanders too, you were either a moving spawn point, and you could relay orders in BF2, and issue very simple ones in 2142; it's a bit more boring but seriously, if you got people to heed you, why would you set up orders anywhere except on objectives? that's what you do in BC2 and BF3.

And the last one, the commrose. Spammed to hell and back, clannies would rely on voice chat instead of that. Yes, it was th emost innovative thing ever but after a while it got bothersome in a bad way, it was just kind of there. I miss it, but it's not ESSENTIAL. I would like it to come back tough as it's handy to me since I don't like to talk to strangers over the internet, specially not the armchair generals I usually get.
I play seriously, but this game series is not serious business to mean.

And regarding the "true" sequel thing: it is a true sequel, it's named battlefield and has a big 3 slapped behind the name. I understand it is very different from BF2, but calling it a not true sequel is a bit much.

You could say you don't like the direction it took, and I could agree with you on that, even tough I am loving it.

why is it a true sequel for me? Because it dared to change enough stuff around so as not to be jkust an incremental upgrade with prettier graphics relative to BF2. Get your nostalgia goggles off; the tools to get teamplay are there, the mechanics to facilitate teamplay are there, the new system creates situations where you have to work as a cohesive force in order to dominate.

I need the guy in the tank and th echopper and the plane, and they need me; I need my squadmates and they need me, we can all provide support that is meaningful to each other and receive it. It's not just the points and the ribbons.
Ever got a working squad on the alpha or beta? Classic BF gameplay right there, updated for the new decade.

Ask yourself this: if th egame didn't bombard you with score points on the screen, but still worked the same, would you like it more? Are you just focusing on the herpderp points while ignoring the gameplay additions? Or do you resent the fact you no longer able to solo a tank or chopper and be a "force multiplier"?

I am kinda amazed people use the team play card when BF2 allowed you to lone wolf it very effectively in a vehicle of any kind, even against squads and whole teams; yt both BC2 and BF3 "force" you to stick together to have an upper hand, and it doesn't have teamplay? Are we criticizing the content, or the way the content is delivered?

^Team play. On BF2 if you got in a chopper property of a flying ACE, all you got was getting pushed to the edge of map to die so he got his chopper back.

and this is one of the more basic team work available.

[Lordsethonan]

Re: Modern Warfare 3: 'There's Lots of Innovation Here.'

Derail much?

For a news item about MW3, only the first 4 replies are about it.

CoD hasn't been about innovation since CoD4. It's now the Madden NFL of first person shooters. I also seriously don't understand why so many people rail on them for this. It's not like it's a secret. The only CoD game I didn't really like was MW2, and that was only because of no dedicated servers. I like BF and CoD. Shocking I know. How do I live with myself?

the news article is about MW3 "innovation". Sticking C4 to attack dogs is not innovation. Trying to copy BF is not innovation. CoD as a franchise has not innovated in ages post CoD 4 (and that was borderline minimal).

So we are discussing another big franchise that has continued evolving, even if not in the direction the most rabid fanbase wanted.

Hell... the noob tube "innovation" was done first and better on BF2142, it's called PK rockets.

[Eagle101]

Lordsetonan +1000 rep dude you are an exceptional winrar!

[Cantina_Fly]

Re: Modern Warfare 3: 'There's Lots of Innovation Here.'

That is because we stopped caring about new COD games a couple of releases ago.

Then why even have a news section or forum dedicated to the franchise? I'd get flamed to hell and back if I started talking about CoD in a BF3 news item. Whether you care about CoD or not is irrelevant. It still deserves the same level of respect.

the news article is about MW3 "innovation". Sticking C4 to attack dogs is not innovation. Trying to copy BF is not innovation. CoD as a franchise has not innovated in ages post CoD 4 (and that was borderline minimal).

So we are discussing another big franchise that has continued evolving, even if not in the direction the most rabid fanbase wanted.

Hell... the noob tube "innovation" was done first and better on BF2142, it's called PK rockets.

Go back and read what I wrote. I'm 100% agreeing with you. There hasn't been innovation in CoD in years.

I just don't see why everyone thinks that's a crime. You don't need a bunch of new features to make a great game. Actually the opposite. You can get away with a much poorer overall game if you're doing a bunch of new things and really pushing the envelope. CoD4 did a bunch of new things, combined with high production values and a Blizzard like level of polish. It set the bar really high.

MW2's only mis-step was no dedicated servers. People like to say how hacked the game was, but that's a direct result of no abilty to Admin your game. I've gotten more than my money's worth out of every other CoD title. If they aren't your cup of tea, that's fine. There are plenty of games I don't care for either. I don't buy them.

[CptainCrunch]

Re: Modern Warfare 3: 'There's Lots of Innovation Here.'

Alright everyone. I guess Im to blame for letting it go as I found the conversation relevent to the discussion as there is a HUGE debate in BF about how innovative it really is. It fits and compares well with this topic. So yes, it is derailed in the sense that its not CoD talk, but its not in the sense that it relates to innovation and what really is.

So with that said, please continue to keep the chat on topic, which everyone has, and be mindful of the topic and where we are discussing it.

I dont think anyone has said that its a crime to not be innovative, but is it a crime to say you are when you are not? When is it that way when someone has said that?

Also, no one has read my mind yet and I feel you all are missing something bigger.

So anyway, please forgive me for letting this go.

Crunch

[Cantina_Fly]

Re: Modern Warfare 3: 'There's Lots of Innovation Here.'

My crystal ball says Bowling and Schofield have parroted pretty much the same 3-4 items in every interview they do. Lack of innovation only hurts you when you have no real competition. BF3 has all the core CoD things: bazillion unlocks, ranks, good infantry play. Oh, and Tanks, Planes, larger maps, etc.. They are worried enough of their core audience is ready for a change too.

Lack of innovation didn't hurt the sports franchises because EA bound up all the rights to actual team names via contracts.

Oh, and I love playing Devil's Advocate if you couldn't guess.

[RangerXML]

Re: Modern Warfare 3: 'There's Lots of Innovation Here.'

The Modern Warfare series just works, adjustments have been minimalist to make sure that the core of the game stays intact. We know the core of the BF2 engine would not work in a modern game, with big changes come growing pains and this from a company with a history of having games in perpetual beta.

[Anarchy1]

Re: Modern Warfare 3: 'There's Lots of Innovation Here.'

Also, no one has read my mind yet and I feel you all are missing something bigger.

Crunch

What are you thinking?

One more thing I noticed is that they really seem to be taking a lot of things from BF. Vehicles in the next CoD?

[CptainCrunch]

Re: Modern Warfare 3: 'There's Lots of Innovation Here.'

OK, what I got out of this interview is that Sledgehammer knows nothing about CoD. Maybe that was obvious, but look at the statements about a storyline and the trilogy comment. Thats one thing CoD always did right was getting you into the story. Yeah, MW2 had a lot of plot holes and some confusing parts and maybe thats what they were refering to, but I just dont think so. Activision some time back mentioned the trilogy. Not that its the end of CoD or Modern Warfare, but that this series of stories will come to an end and a new exciting adventer will begin.

Also, Sledgehammer is running the show. 402 has been nothing but "Yes sir" and "No Sir" and only answered any questions after Sledgehammer released information. I wouldnt be surprsied if he is out next. I know the majority of IW is gone, but I think they are trying to play this charade that IW is still doing it and I just dont think it is the case. I suppose it doesnt matter on that though, but if you see the storyline have some weird twist or something that never happened before, Id say thats why.

Then the "how long is the single player" His answer of IDK then the next question, its too short, but not this game, its perfect, but IDK. I mean, what was that all about? "OMG, I told the truth, better CMA and then have amnesia again." I understand if he plays them all over and over and over and they are constantly adjusting, but you cant give a rough estimate?

I understand that Glen Schofield is Co-Founder and big whig and all, but this guy needs to stick with his main job and put 402 out there. He reminds me of me if I was going to be a CM. Just a big bumbling goof. Maybe thats why I dont like him, that and his incoherent tweets.

So anyway, Im sure they had a script to go by and have adjusted it for a better story, but MW3 is not an IW game (not that it matters) and I dont think SH, or maybe just Glen, knows the story and history of CoD.

Am I off on this thinking? Am I the only one that sees all this in this article? Maybe Im digging too deep.

Crunch

[CptainCrunch]

Re: Modern Warfare 3: 'There's Lots of Innovation Here.'

Here is a video interview of some of the same questions and a couple other new ones:

http://www.eurogamer.net/videos/modern-warfare-3-video-interview

One thing to note is he did not tune out the EA taunts, he ranted and raved on twitter about them.

Crunch