Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 3 reveal trailer released

that trailer...was sexy.
I dont give a crap about the graphics, the gameplay looked straight out freakin INTENSE.
 
red1776 said:
Greatest graphics of all time!!...oh wait, that's Crysis 2.

Obvious troll is obvious. Crysis 2 looks mediocre. Not CoD awful(seewhutididthar?) but it was pretty bad.

that trailer...was sexy.
I dont give a crap about the graphics, the gameplay looked straight out freakin INTENSE.

Yah doing the recycling is pretty intense huh?
 
Obvious troll is obvious. Crysis 2 looks mediocre. Not CoD awful(seewhutididthar?) but it was pretty bad.
I saw...
Hey don't one-up my smart-assery....:stickout: :) I still have the bad taste of Cervat....or it might be this $12.00 Shiraz.
 
red1776 said:
Obvious troll is obvious. Crysis 2 looks mediocre. Not CoD awful(seewhutididthar?) but it was pretty bad.
I saw...
Hey don't one-up my smart-assery....:stickout: :) I still have the bad taste of Cervat....or it might be this $12.00 Shiraz.

Meh. I knew from the minute they announced that xbox 360 MMO(Just like the Crysis 2 demo I was universally flamed) that it would be the end of great crytek games.
 
Meh. I knew from the minute they announced that xbox 360 MMO(Just like the Crysis 2 demo I was universally flamed) that it would be the end of great crytek games.

The problem is:
1) I think your correct..
2) I think the entire industry is watching Crytek/EA's little stunt to see if it will fly (port everything) and it may be the beginning of the end of Great/good/decent PC games period. Xbox and 3-D glasses, and that will be about it.
 
Yeah its the same as previous games... appears to be the same engine and a lot of the same models and textures. No way in hell i'm paying $50 - 60 for an "expansion pack" which is kind of what it really is.

I've never been a big fan of CoD and this isn't helping it. The games have always been the same old boring action action action, no time to think or use strategy. The same boring, linear gameplay. I prefer sandbox games... but I know most people prefer the linear, set story gameplay. Hence why they sell so many copies of this game.

Everyone is a robot.
 
That's a nice action-packed trailer, like something out of a Jerry Bruckheimer / Michael Bay movie. Crappy game or not, come November 2011, I bet they'll sell another zillion copies of this latest COD sequel. For me, I treat each Call of Duty game like an interactive action movie which is the best way to enjoy this type of game. When I want the realistic military stuff, I break out my copy of ARMA 2. If you have the patience and can live the bugs and wonky AI of BI's creations such as ARMA, ARMA 2 and the coming ARMA 3, then you'll be rewarded with a game play experience that COD, in its present form, cannot give you.
 
red1776 said:
Meh. I knew from the minute they announced that xbox 360 MMO(Just like the Crysis 2 demo I was universally flamed) that it would be the end of great crytek games.

The problem is:
1) I think your correct..
2) I think the entire industry is watching Crytek/EA's little stunt to see if it will fly (port everything) and it may be the beginning of the end of Great/good/decent PC games period. Xbox and 3-D glasses, and that will be about it.

I'll never give up PC gaming. Someone on the EA forum made a great analogy about game development for PC/console. Check out the post.

http://forum.ea.com/eaforum/posts/l...nid=0D93DF9E93E71E2FD75EDB5991BDB466#12321754

This is completely correct. The only excuse is lack of talent in the artistic department of a studio and or laziness when it comes to texture and model work.
 
To be honest I predict a video game market crash in the future, just like in 1983. The 1983 crash was mostly due to over saturation of poor quality rushed games resulting in a loss of consumer trust.

Now I know many of the *****s on consoles will still buy MW3 like sheep, but soon consumers are going to stop buying because games like Crysis 2 and any of the past three CoD games have left a bad taste behind.
 
yRaz said:
example1013 said:
With all that Billions they made from this franchise, one would think an upgrade to the engine is warranted, mix with a lil creativity in gameplay this time round! This trailer looks like *****.

BF3 is a definite pick for sure... after seeing this piece-O-shyte.

Yeah, BF3 looks great running on an $8000 machine with like 4 Radeon 6990s.

The 6990s only have one crossfire connector so you can only have 2... You'll will have to settle for a $6000 machine.

But seriously, upgrade the engine. The texture and polygon count in MW2 and Blackops(even though they are different engines) is retarded low. With being the BIGGEST money maker of any game 3 years in a row I think they just MIGHT be able to spend a few million on better graphics. I guess they know people will buy it either way, after all, graphics aren't important to console gamers.

If it's $60 with $15 paid DLC I'm not touching it. They've learned they can milk everyone dry with the CoD franchise, I wont buy into it.

Black Ops is only a bit different than MW2, because the Black Ops engine is a modified WaW engine (which was a modified CoD 4 engine) while MW2 was a modified CoD 4 engine itself. MW3 is likely a modded MW2 engine, so now we've basically got 2 CoD 4 engine mods, one for Treyarch and one for IW.

Also, I'm not going to say anything about Black Ops' poly count. If anything, it should've been lower, because that game breaks to sub-30 FPS on a console with just a napalm strike. Honestly the Black Ops engine isn't all that great since it can't even handle the multiplayer (nevermind the awful netcode) on a console.

MW3 looks like the engine will be different, but I think they've been working on physics modifications, rather than graphical ones. Which I'm fine with, to be honest. Looking pretty is great, but I don't require it as long as the game looks decent. And honestly, I'd rather just have it be really playable, which Black Ops is not.

Unfortunately most people who play MW3 won't even be able to take advantage of better textures and higher polys, because PC gaming is starting to become sort of a niche due to the barrier of entry that is the cost of purchasing a gaming rig. It's why they don't put Crysis graphics in CoD games--no one's going to see them!

Honestly, though, the whole thing is going to need a new engine soon. The entire MW line of games is running on essentially Quake 3 right now, and it'll only last for so much longer.
 
This is the first time where I am more excited to play a Battlefield game than a Modern Warfare game. Battlefield 3 seems more realistic and dramatic than the new MW3. I hope the new MW team is up to the task, but I can at least say graphically Battlefield 3 has this game whipped.
 
cmbjive said:
This is the first time where I am more excited to play a Battlefield game than a Modern Warfare game. Battlefield 3 seems more realistic and dramatic than the new MW3. I hope the new MW team is up to the task, but I can at least say graphically Battlefield 3 has this game whipped.

How can you say that when you haven't seen a single frame of battlefield 3 on a realistic machine?

I'm not arguing that BF3 won't likely have amazing graphics, since it's likely going to be PC-optimized (also MW has **** textures regardless of anything else), but we still haven't gotten to see what it looks like on even a top-range gaming PC. The gameplay footage has been recorded on a $6000 workstation, which nobody here has, I'd imagine.
 
example1013 said:
cmbjive said:
This is the first time where I am more excited to play a Battlefield game than a Modern Warfare game. Battlefield 3 seems more realistic and dramatic than the new MW3. I hope the new MW team is up to the task, but I can at least say graphically Battlefield 3 has this game whipped.

How can you say that when you haven't seen a single frame of battlefield 3 on a realistic machine?

I'm not arguing that BF3 won't likely have amazing graphics, since it's likely going to be PC-optimized (also MW has **** textures regardless of anything else), but we still haven't gotten to see what it looks like on even a top-range gaming PC. The gameplay footage has been recorded on a $6000 workstation, which nobody here has, I'd imagine.

The debut trailer was running on a GTX 580 paired with an i7.
 
example1013 said:
cmbjive said:
This is the first time where I am more excited to play a Battlefield game than a Modern Warfare game. Battlefield 3 seems more realistic and dramatic than the new MW3. I hope the new MW team is up to the task, but I can at least say graphically Battlefield 3 has this game whipped.

How can you say that when you haven't seen a single frame of battlefield 3 on a realistic machine?

I'm not arguing that BF3 won't likely have amazing graphics, since it's likely going to be PC-optimized (also MW has **** textures regardless of anything else), but we still haven't gotten to see what it looks like on even a top-range gaming PC. The gameplay footage has been recorded on a $6000 workstation, which nobody here has, I'd imagine.

I know this is primarily a PC board, but I was referring to the console versions, but I think PC-wise the comparison still holds. When Game Informer had their exclusive first look at Battlefield 3 I was thoroughly impressed and those were still pictures. When I saw the "Faultline" trailer, I knew the pictures didn't do the game justice. The lighting, poly count, and frame-rate is impressive. Compared to the "Reveal" MW3 trailer, Battlefield 3 is years ahead. Also, as Princeton said, the Battlefield 3 was demoed on a capable PC. At the beginning of the "Faultline" trailer it states it is actual in-game footage.
 
it all comes down to money and thats all iw wants it is just plain sad i loved the First MW game but have not liked the following game in the franchise.
 
PC gamers are always trash talking console gamers. It just goes to show how big their self esteem is.
 
First of all whoever said Crysis 2 graphics were good, they suck in comparison to previous Crysis games. The game was an obvious port from console to PC which completely ruined the graphics. Graphics really shouldn't be in discussion anyways, we're taking about console games from 5 year old consoles running 5 year old hardware.

Do you still have the same laptop from 5 years ago? Why would you have the same gaming platform? Technology gets updated, unless you're a console gamer.
 
Guest said:
First of all whoever said Crysis 2 graphics were good, they suck in comparison to previous Crysis games. The game was an obvious port from console to PC which completely ruined the graphics. Graphics really shouldn't be in discussion anyways, we're taking about console games from 5 year old consoles running 5 year old hardware.

Do you still have the same laptop from 5 years ago? Why would you have the same gaming platform? Technology gets updated, unless you're a console gamer.

To be fair, console technology gets updated too. Console updates happen much less frequency, and for a much lower premium.
 
princeton said:
red1776 said:
Greatest graphics of all time!!...oh wait, that's Crysis 2.

Obvious troll is obvious. Crysis 2 looks mediocre. Not CoD awful(seewhutididthar?) but it was pretty bad.

that trailer...was sexy.
I dont give a crap about the graphics, the gameplay looked straight out freakin INTENSE.

Yah doing the recycling is pretty intense huh?
i have to watch this 20 times to even notice anything that is the same.
 
No dedicated servers = No Sale

If they omit dedicated servers I will not buy this game, just like I skipped MW2.

You PC Gamers out there do NOT purchase a game without dedicated servers period.
 
i have to watch this 20 times to even notice anything that is the same.

Then you have bad eyes and you should probably have them examined. Look at the hands for ****s sake. Literally at the beginning of the video you already see recycled textures and models.
 
Back