I thought it was worth to check this one out
http://media.ps3.ign.com/media/801/801848/vids_1.html
Call of Duty 3 trailer (console)
Moderator: Moderators
Is it only going to be for the PS3?
If so...
...That's ridiculous! What happened to PC games? Every game company seems to think that the market will just be a million times better on consoles than on PC. What a bunch of crap. So many new first-person shooters are coming out with only support for 16 or even just 8 players online because they're only console games (or they're PC AND console games), yet somehow they're really popular as if they were actually good games. Which they're NOT.
I hope Call of Duty 3 won't be like Call of Duty 2 (not that I'll be able to play CoD3 if it's going to be console-only). Call of Duty 2 wasn't any better than Call of Duty 1 with multiplayer much, much crappier than United Offensive (COD1 expansion)- the multiplayer of CoD2 is the equivalent of Allied Assault or COD1 multiplayer- yet somehow CoD2 got to be way more popular than any other Call of Duty, and some people seem to think that there never was a Call of Duty 1.
"COD2 MULTIPLAYER IS SO AWSUM!!!1!!!1"
"You ever played the first one? It's even better. There are tanks*, jeeps, artillery strikes*, more levels, more weapons and more gametypes."
"LOL FOOL WUT 1ST 1 IT STARTD AT 2 WTF #1 DUMASS ROFLOL"
What's all that nonsense about? CoD2: Big Red One was better than CoD2, because it was made in the spirit of United Offensive, and even gives out akimbo pistols! I only got one kill with akimbo pistols, but they're still super-awesome.
* Some people don't appreciate the tanks in Call of Duty: United Offensive because they say that tanks are unfair and only "noobs" use tanks. Which is stupidly oxymoronic, because they absolutely love the unbelievably unfair artillery strikes.
- - - - -
Sorry for my lengthy ranting. CoD2 single player was great, at least. But I do so hope they make CoD3 for the PC. They'd get much better business that way.
If so...
...That's ridiculous! What happened to PC games? Every game company seems to think that the market will just be a million times better on consoles than on PC. What a bunch of crap. So many new first-person shooters are coming out with only support for 16 or even just 8 players online because they're only console games (or they're PC AND console games), yet somehow they're really popular as if they were actually good games. Which they're NOT.
I hope Call of Duty 3 won't be like Call of Duty 2 (not that I'll be able to play CoD3 if it's going to be console-only). Call of Duty 2 wasn't any better than Call of Duty 1 with multiplayer much, much crappier than United Offensive (COD1 expansion)- the multiplayer of CoD2 is the equivalent of Allied Assault or COD1 multiplayer- yet somehow CoD2 got to be way more popular than any other Call of Duty, and some people seem to think that there never was a Call of Duty 1.
"COD2 MULTIPLAYER IS SO AWSUM!!!1!!!1"
"You ever played the first one? It's even better. There are tanks*, jeeps, artillery strikes*, more levels, more weapons and more gametypes."
"LOL FOOL WUT 1ST 1 IT STARTD AT 2 WTF #1 DUMASS ROFLOL"
What's all that nonsense about? CoD2: Big Red One was better than CoD2, because it was made in the spirit of United Offensive, and even gives out akimbo pistols! I only got one kill with akimbo pistols, but they're still super-awesome.
* Some people don't appreciate the tanks in Call of Duty: United Offensive because they say that tanks are unfair and only "noobs" use tanks. Which is stupidly oxymoronic, because they absolutely love the unbelievably unfair artillery strikes.
- - - - -
Sorry for my lengthy ranting. CoD2 single player was great, at least. But I do so hope they make CoD3 for the PC. They'd get much better business that way.
call of duty's movement has never been my style. i like faster more Quake and MOH style movement where dodging is actually a factor, not this "you jump and cant move for 20secs" crap. i don't want to factor in how slow my guy is going to be after a manuever when i'm choosing what tact to use against an enemy... it's a game and i'd rather have a superhuman than a semi-realistic tired wannabe.
however teh SP in both the PC CoD's was superb, which is the only reason i bought the second one.
the reasoning behind a console is to provide cheap, but high quality equipment for the gamer. it's the oinly reason they're popular, because you only need pay about $300-$500 for the newest hardware and the games are still priced the same. it's mostly noobs who buy them, and we all know that noobs cant be bothered to shop newegg and get new vid cards / mobo for cheaper than that.
PC is superior in every game and type except adventure and fighting, which is where consoles really shine. but we know how old the Tomb Raider and Mortal Kombat series are don't we?
especially making shooters for consoles... there've been cross-platformed tests with a PC player and an Xbox player in Halo.... guess who won?
the real gamer of course.
plus you can MOD PC versions, how cool is that!?
my 2cents.
however teh SP in both the PC CoD's was superb, which is the only reason i bought the second one.
the reasoning behind a console is to provide cheap, but high quality equipment for the gamer. it's the oinly reason they're popular, because you only need pay about $300-$500 for the newest hardware and the games are still priced the same. it's mostly noobs who buy them, and we all know that noobs cant be bothered to shop newegg and get new vid cards / mobo for cheaper than that.
PC is superior in every game and type except adventure and fighting, which is where consoles really shine. but we know how old the Tomb Raider and Mortal Kombat series are don't we?
especially making shooters for consoles... there've been cross-platformed tests with a PC player and an Xbox player in Halo.... guess who won?
the real gamer of course.
plus you can MOD PC versions, how cool is that!?
my 2cents.
Moderator
۞
Abyssus pro sapientia
Olympus pro Ignarus
۞
AND STUFF™ © 2006
۞
Abyssus pro sapientia
Olympus pro Ignarus
۞
AND STUFF™ © 2006
Well, the movement of any game has never bothered me, whether it be slow or fast. But I mean paced, not literal movement. I can't stand games where your character walks one MPH.
In Call of Duty, although it does suck how you have to hide and peak around corners sometimes, there are a lot of occasions where you can just jump into the middle of a mess of enemies and mow them all down in a second. Or, you can get shot to death in a second. Depends on the difficulty.
Quake absolutely blew my mind with all of the speed involved, but I was never a big fan of Free For Alls. In a Free For All, it's much easier to be really, really good, because all reliance goes upon oneself and it really brings out the beast.
THE BEAST
But, you know. I like "slow"-moving teamwork without all of the annoying jumpers* hopping all over the map and somehow avoiding bullets in an unrealistic fashion.
Anyway, if they don't make CoD3 for the PC, which would suck to the max, we'll still have Medal of Honor: 82nd Airborne, which will hopefully be more compatible for modern computers than Pacific Assault was.
What I fear about 82nd Airborne is it will be the first MoH game to be on PC and consoles... Though the single player will surely rock, the multiplayer might end up sucking.
Allied Assault? You can have as many players as you want, whether it be four or one-hundred!
Pacific Assault? You can have thirty-two players!
European Assault? You can have four players!
82nd Airborne? No multiplayer!
WEEEEEEEEE
This is merely a comparison of the multiplayer of the MoH games in order...
* Sorry to any annoying jumpers out there!
In Call of Duty, although it does suck how you have to hide and peak around corners sometimes, there are a lot of occasions where you can just jump into the middle of a mess of enemies and mow them all down in a second. Or, you can get shot to death in a second. Depends on the difficulty.
Quake absolutely blew my mind with all of the speed involved, but I was never a big fan of Free For Alls. In a Free For All, it's much easier to be really, really good, because all reliance goes upon oneself and it really brings out the beast.
THE BEAST
But, you know. I like "slow"-moving teamwork without all of the annoying jumpers* hopping all over the map and somehow avoiding bullets in an unrealistic fashion.
Anyway, if they don't make CoD3 for the PC, which would suck to the max, we'll still have Medal of Honor: 82nd Airborne, which will hopefully be more compatible for modern computers than Pacific Assault was.
What I fear about 82nd Airborne is it will be the first MoH game to be on PC and consoles... Though the single player will surely rock, the multiplayer might end up sucking.
Allied Assault? You can have as many players as you want, whether it be four or one-hundred!
Pacific Assault? You can have thirty-two players!
European Assault? You can have four players!
82nd Airborne? No multiplayer!
WEEEEEEEEE
This is merely a comparison of the multiplayer of the MoH games in order...
* Sorry to any annoying jumpers out there!