And u said opinion doesn't matter
Yeah -- but it isn't opinion that says those are sequels, they are undisputeable facts. The interpretation only need be seen as the title of the game: Modern Warfare THREE.
Thus, a sequel.
And even if its position were as a spiritual successor or something like Crysis 1 after Farcry you would expect lessons learnt.
I personally think it has improved even if u don't.
What I think is what I see as the most reasonable / logical backup. As I've said -- opinion doesn't matter.
So many people said oh I love cod 4 it was the best, so mw3 I think has a cod 4 feel to it.
*Sigh* The balance in CoD4 wasn't even totally done, only ProMod was the competitive scene.
The balance in MW3 is almost certainly worse.
And consider what's happened to the Dedicated Servers.
When it comes down to it, opinion is all that matters.
And so does caring -- I just lost that part..
In my opinion mw3 is great and just what I wanted.
Whatever that was.
Fundamental basics is something I'm straightup saying YOU lack. Is quick brainless adrenaline rushing fun that is actually done poorly -- especially for a triple A title what you want? I actually wouldn't care that much would it be for the negative affect on the game industry as a result of CoD's idiotic actions that many people have FOLLOWED with.
I also don't think BF or halo r good.
Are you trying to meet the definition of fanboy?
I think infamous is great too.
Add another irrelevant statement?
It's all opinion highfire
You're not possibly saying that what you just said were attempting to be examples. *Facepalm* -- think whatever the hell you want dude, but unless you adopt a logical / reasonable mindset of a high level you mays well just continue doing the things you're doing now. In which case, thanks for stopping better games being made. >.>
Huh? It's not in bold for me.
you obviously aren't getting someone's own opinion if they are doing this.
Can you elaborate on what you originally said then because i don't think i understood it.
Critics and reviewers are unreliable because of their deterring positions. The only deterrance for a player would be the cost and if anything is done beyond their morality -- considering most "gamers" are spineless cowards that barely adds into the equation. It was the reason I wasn't going to get Battlefield 3 -- the Physical Warfare Pack... they 'fixed' it as much as they could but still it wasn't an ideal situation.
"They will construe the game the reviewer set it as... which is a bad thing to do -- as it makes you vulnerable."
If the reviewer sees Dead Rising 2 as with a great story -- then bam, a lot of your average gamers would already be under the idea that that's one of its focuses.
Which I think we all know picking up foam hands and killing zombies with it is the main idea of it all.
You're saying that "The sequel should be judged on how much it did clean up", that's not a given fact.
Then what's a point of a sequel? To draw money from the previous game's success? No. The INTERPRETATION of a sequel is exactly what I just said, and anything less has no real reason to it -- that doesn't mean I don't accept games that have some flaws, of course they bloody do. But MW3 fixes NOTHING, relative to all of its previous games. If you can't see that it's in a different position and is called upon BY THE DEVELOPERS as a sequel ("Modern Warfare THREE"
then what the hell are we doing here?
I could say the sequel should be judged based on how much innovative it was,
Which is one aspect you could actually consider. You also have to consider how alike it is to the previous, if it keeps well with story development, if it maintains the same atmosphere or if it's trying to, and if the goal of the game has changed.
and that would be my opinion on this.
And where is your reason to back that up?
To be honest i seriously have no idea what you are saying
It's perfectly laid out for you to read, but fine.
Battlefield 3's campaign is considered awful by most people I know -- the reason for that is because it's horrendously unoriginal and has the same key trait that all other FPS' of this time do. It's linear. It makes it boring, it takes away immersion and does so by shoving you through a corridor of quick-time sequences. It's essentially an interactive movie.
Now imagine if it had the freedom of Crysis 2 and acted as a brilliant prelude to the Multiplayer? It would go much better.
Then consider what would happen if OTHER games had massive amounts of freedom. The quick time events, "Interactive-movie"esque campaign would be very new to most people and thus would be very good, or at least "different". The idea of it isn't as good -- but the amount of those ideas flying in the air would only belong to that one game, and thus would add variety.
Others may just want more gameplay or more features.
Guess I'll argue what a sequel should be then.
All of those are your opinion, which (I may be wrong) aren't the general opinion.
Other people don't know about the plot holes. Why don't you just argue that killing someone for money is right as well? This is ALL subjective and you can just as reasonably argue that as you are this. The foundation was idiotic -- combat my bloody arguments for WHY it is instead of what you
think I'm saying.
Also, how do you have terrible balancing in campaign...?
Pshh. The multiplayer is the core part of the game -- that's what I was talking about. The singleplayer shows it's already broken being as the foundation of MW2 is utterly stupid.
I already said the story didn't make sense.
Thus is a bad thing to include in a sequel.
Guess they wanted that Three on the end, huh.
Once again i have no idea what you're saying.
Basically -- you don't look at things the same way. Problem with difference? No. Problem with what blatantly appears to me as a worse way of seeing games... or stuff in general possibly? Yes.
You would be surprised by how much you can see in what people say. Their focus of oration and their points -- and how much they've been explained / elaborated on illustrates a lot of their character.
I get angry fast when it comes to arrogant people, so if i thought you were arrogant (i don't)., you would know it.
I've been called arrogant and furthermore have a huge disbelief in the general populace compared to what I think of myself. If that isn't arrogance then it's reasonable. I honestly think it is -- I've been around these forums for two years and I've hit a lot of different situations throughout that time. What am I NOT equipped to deal with on a philosophical level?
No, I'm not saying I know it all -- but this is me going around the same ring of "CoD is bad".
Not going to argue with that part, only petty little features.
And no fixes.
If they balanced Black Ops, fixed the hit registration and that was it -- and they did it properly, it would be worth twice the cost of MW3 for anyone with half a sense of what the games objectively are. Subjectively? Maybe still useless. I don't know.
- H
