'Modern Warfare 3' is loud, flashy, dumb

http://thedailynewsonline.com/entertainment/article_b49b7a4e-9d04-5430-9604-b6c8ad960f8d.html

Activision's "Call of Duty" releases are to video games what Michael Bay movies like "Transformers" are to cinema. They're loud and flashy, they deliver state-of-the-art digital effects, and they don't have a coherent thought in their heads. If playing the latest "CoD" campaign doesn't give you a headache, trying to make sense of its convoluted, preposterous story will.
"Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 3" (Activision, for the Xbox 360, PlayStation 3, PC, $59.99; Wii, $49.99) begins with New York City under attack from Russia. How did we get here? In the previous chapter, an American undercover agent got himself framed in a terrorist attack at the Moscow airport, and now the Russians are retaliating. Both sides, however, are merely pawns being manipulated by Vladimir Makarov, who's bent on destroying the West and returning Mother Russia to its former glory.

So begins a symphony of destruction that lays waste to cities and landmarks all over the world. Wall Street gets leveled. The Eiffel Tower is toppled. In one particularly manipulative moment, a little girl and her mother gawk at Big Ben before London gets its clock cleaned.

One problem with the "Modern Warfare" series is that you cannot do anything to stop this. You control a cross section of elite warriors with seemingly infinite resources at their disposal, yet a surprising percentage of "MW3" missions end in failure. Makarov got away again? Oops.

What do you control? Guns. Pistols, shotguns, sniper rifles, assault weapons, rocket launchers -- if it has a trigger, it's here. Occasionally you get to call in an airstrike or set off explosives, but for the most part it's aim and shoot, aim and shoot until you've killed everyone.

The gameplay falls into the familiar pattern for military shooters: You enter an area filled with enemies, eliminate them, then reload and move on to the next zone. There are occasional breaks -- like an underwater mission tracking a nuclear sub -- but they're just brief diversions from the relentless gunplay.
It all looks and sounds spectacular; developers Infinity Ward and Sledgehammer Games had a lot to live up to with this sequel, but all the behind-the-scenes drama doesn't seem to have diminished the quality of the production. (In brief: Infinity Ward's founders and dozens of their employees jumped ship last year, and Sledgehammer was recruited to help the restaffed studio complete the "MW" trilogy.)

As always, "MW3" offers an exhaustive suite of online, multiplayer modes. There's nothing radically new, but familiar modes like death match and capture-the-flag have been tweaked enough that online fans will definitely want to update. Also returning is Special Ops mode, a collection of brief solo or two-player missions that fill in some of the main campaign's background. And there's the addition of "Call of Duty Elite," a $50 add-on service that promises monthly downloadable content, prize competitions and other treats for the truly hardcore.

The big question for this franchise is: Where does it go from here? Creatively, the entire military shooter genre has shown some signs of exhaustion this year. Sales-wise, however, "Call of Duty" is still doing blockbuster numbers, and Activision has already announced a new "CoD" installment for 2012. Next time, I hope the developers take a few more chances and try to breathe some new life into a series that's at risk of getting stale.

 

cod rules

 

come out with a kinecks COD...that is smooth with a quick response. AND ITS A WRAP!

 

That would be awesome! I know they have something kinda like that for Ghost Recon.

 

[YOUTUBE]QOSR76VHhII[/YOUTUBE]​

And for the record, First-Person Shooters won't work for a Kinect console. If Rise of Nightmares was any indication that a FPS game wouldn't work well, then I don't know what would. However, an On-Rails FPS would work better for Kinect.

 

Horrible review with no depth just to scream I don't like CoD.

 

To be fair, the review does point out the redundancy of releasing a lot of FPS shooters since the sixth generation "console wars". And Call of Duty, while definitely a well put-out game, it's still just another run-in-the-mill FPS that will lose steam in one or two generations to come. Consider a lot of FPS and game series in general that loses steam each new generation. A solid example would be the Splinter Cell games. Great franchise when it first started, but the subsequent games just lack the "oomph" that the first games it had. Plus, it was outdone by a well-respected franchise that continued to deliver - Metal Gear Solid.

 

I actually liked the mw campaign trilogy

if you can't understand what's going on, you don't need to be playing videogames

makarov got the western powers to fight a war with Russia, while doing his best to make sure both sides would obliterate each other. Througout the series you're put into the boots of various units tasked with fighting the war and hunting him

end of story now enjoy the glitz

god I hate fanboys

 

Silly comment.

 

that would be hot. I havent played video games since socom navy seals 2. But FPS kinetic would kick ass

make it work damn it.

well stated and very logical

what are fan boys ? sometimes reviews should be viewed with a grain of salt. at the end of the day....I buyer want nonstop action with a decent goal in mind. Storyline ? who gives a fuck ?

 

ATTN: goodlove "Make it work damn it!"

The attempt for a full blown solid FPS experience utilizing the Kinect would fall short. The possibility is there, but there are so many issues to consider:

1. Movement - In any FPS action games, numerous enemies will surround you dramatically, so there would have to be PC-style sensitivity that wouldn't strain the player. Plus you're moving freely in a large place, so how long would it take for the player to overexert themselves with bullets whizzing past you, while you're crouching, ducking, and sneaking your way around? That would next to impossible to successfully pull off.

Solution: Keep it on-rails.

2. Aim and Shoot - Garden of Eden is an excellent example of a shooting game. A spiritual successor to Sega's rhythm based game, Rez, you were able to use both hands and successfully aim and attack without confusion. Frantic action games like CoD will be harder to pull off unless you decrease the number of enemies in the room, yet increase AI for the enemies. However, you're also presented with the ability to collect an arsenal of weapons and toggle between them and that's hard to pull off without getting into some error.

Solution: Pre-select weapons before any mission. And whatever treasures you can find, you can pick them up during missions.

These are the main issues to address for a Kinect CoD experience.

 

they probably said the samething about football and now .....

henry ford was told they would be able to do a V-6 but he told the engineers to make it work-think and grow rich....napolean hill. still waiting in the karma thread.

 

Ehhh, are there any Kinect games outside "Kinect Sports" that actually demonstrates an effective way to play the game and not simply be used as a gimmick? No.

Try again, bro.

 

LOL. again your argument was shot down because you were discussing picking up this or that and moevment yadayada yada . if they can do it on sports and exercise and dance games then it will not be far for FPR

 

How exactly was my argument shot down? I've delivered a thorough analysis on what it would take to make a Kinect based FPS work. And quite frankly, there hasn't been any. Unlike you, I can deliver an explanation (given my knowledge on games and rationally articulate my points). Again, look to Rise of Nightmares. A full blown First Person action game on the Kinect and it's the most frustrating experience for any player. It's only saving grace is how laughable the game is overall, when it's meant to be a horror game.

If that game has any indication of how bad it would be to create an excellent FPA experience, then EA and the CoD team would be smart to NOT tackle it. Analog sticks were the best thing that could happen to consoles. N64 started it, but the Xbox perfected it.

 

hey dumbass . I stated with henry ford...just because it hasnt been made yet doesnt mean it cant

 

You're comparing apples with oranges. Virtual simulations vs. real world doesn't cut it kiddo. Try again.

 

so when they invented the V-6 thats not real world. the video game is playing but the tech is real. the same thing....both are tech's just different types ....ever heard of the word principle

 

You're comparing an technological engine in the world we live in, which applies to our world as opposed to a piece of technology used in a virtual landscape. The Kinect is a motion based peripheral designed to draw the gamer in the virtual world. I'm saying that certain genres won't work effectively utilizing it. It's simply not feasible when your body is the controller.

An engine for a car is designed to improve transportation usage. So, the principle vs. the actuality is the problem here.

 

again you missed the whole thing. Im telling you...just because they havent invented it now because of what you see as can nots henry ford said lets do it anyway and then it happened. Im telling you tech world is more or less working on it dont be suprised they will figure it out if they havent already. dont you know that marketing works as follows:

when they made the 1st john madden they had the cartridges and shit. you remember that