Modern Warfare 3s Story to be dumber than last.

[Ritterin Sophia]

SPOILERS APLENTY HERE

So yeah, according to this the game is going to be dumber than the last one. With one of the only good things I can find is that you will play a variety of characters in this game including with the main one being Spoiler

one of Nikolai's Russian Loyalists.

Additionally there's going to be fighting in Spoiler

Hamburg and Berlin, Germany and Paris, France. Unfortunately we don't get to play any Bundeswehr troops.

There's also Spoiler

another AC-130 mission and a mission where you're the gunner on a tank.

[FaxModem1]

I just can't believe how stupid this looks.
Spoiler

So, Russia is going to be fighting a world war against Germany and the UK in addition to invading the US? How is that even possible? What are the Russians hoping to accomplish with the destruction of the New York Stock Exchange?

I was baffled at MW2, I'm not just as baffled at what looks to be MW3.

[Ritterin Sophia]

According to the MW fanboys it all makes sense internally and you're a stick in the mud who wants hyperrealism if you say otherwise.

[Mr Bean]

MW1 was a very summer blockbuster plot, MW2 was that same plot as retold by Michael Bay except he only has half the script and he just got done watching Red Dawn. MW3 it seems they gave Bay some schrooms and took down the result as the plot.

The worst part about the whole thing is it seems that the MW writers have no concept of the idea of "combined arms" everything happens because of super special forces or less special but still special forces.

[Commander 598]

I don't think even Bay would produce Russian armies literally from nowhere.

[Jawawithagun]

Thanks but I think I'd rather wait for the Uwe Boll version.

[Sarevok]

I could ignore the plot if the single player gameplay was better which sadly is not.

[Srelex]

Meh, at this point complaining about a lack of realism in a modern-set FPS storyline is like complaining that ice cream melts. At least it's not as loony as Homefront.

[Zixinus]

Meh, at this point complaining about a lack of realism in a modern-set FPS storyline is like complaining that ice cream melts. At least it's not as loony as Homefront.

And Homefront looks like a carefully-thought-out prediction next to the sheer conspiracy-theory-mumbling, tinfoil-hat-wearing, polishing-a-gun-under-a-nuclear-bunker insanity of Black Ops.

[Ayrix]

Meh, at this point complaining about a lack of realism in a modern-set FPS storyline is like complaining that ice cream melts. At least it's not as loony as Homefront.

And Homefront looks like a carefully-thought-out prediction next to the sheer conspiracy-theory-mumbling, tinfoil-hat-wearing, polishing-a-gun-under-a-nuclear-bunker insanity of Black Ops.

To give Black Ops credit, I never got the idea that it was trying to take itself very seriously. Sure it was completely out there and took tropes from pretty much every part of the cold war, but it was fun and felt James Bond-y compared to MW2 silly OPERATING OPERATORS and Russian invasions.

[Stark]

Serious. Anyone who thinks Infinity Ward are even aiming at REALISTIC TECHNO THRILLER is a moron. They may even consider the SP a giant joke, since they know damn well what sells their games. Homefront is waaaaaay more amusing because they made a series of outrageously amusing videos about how PLAUSIBLE AND FRIGHTENING their scenario was.

I could ignore the plot if the single player gameplay was better which sadly is not.

Isn't better than what? MW3 will almost certainly be tuned from MW2.

[Tasoth]

Jesus fuckin' Christ. Do they even consider what real politicians would do? I would imagine engaging continental Europe in a war while you have a good portion of your military forces in and around the North American continent would be suicidal. What happened to NATO, the UN and the EU?

Also, I'm no expert or anything, but I would assume chemical weapons would be a deal breaker for the other side fighting conventionally, especially on such a wide spread scale of use.

[CaptHawkeye]

Jesus fuckin' Christ. Do they even consider what real politicians would do?

Yeah you can tell they're going for a realistic tacticool thriller.

The story jumped the shark a long time ago. Literally no one cares what they write even if it involves a Bond villain and his army of mooks hiding in their mountain doom fortress.

Wait a sec...

It'll just be Modern Warfare 2 again. Who actually looks forward to any shooter that is 60% cone fire 40% kill scan anymore? Bad Company 2 was a totally superior shooter and if Battlefield 3 shows even an inkling of the same level of design competence it'll blow MW3 away.

[Commander 598]

BC2 has a more believable story.

No really. I'm serious.

[Sarevok]

Isn't better than what? MW3 will almost certainly be tuned from MW2.

I don't judge games relative to x,y,z but their individual merits.

The CoD series gameplay is rotten from start. There is no replayability. Enemies spawn from monster closets, allies are invincible while you are not and the levels have become the industry definition of "rail shooter".

Frustration and rage at the cheating bastards with infinite spawns/invincible rage pretty much sums up my experienced playing CoD SP.

[Stark]

Oh so you mean 'what you want', not 'better'. PS, I don't think you know what a corridor stroller is, or why its bad. The MW series' problems are barely (if at all) related to their linearity, unless you're some kind of idiot who automatically jumps from 'is linear' to 'is bad', and its certainly an irrelevant complaint when people are talking about how dumb the story is.

The BF3/MW3 thing will probably end up just like MW/BC2; one is better than the other, but doesn't have the critical mass of imported fanbase and so never attains the success of the other. BC2 has, what, 1/8th the playerbase of Bloppo? Turns out the market for running in circles shooting at random is huuuuuge, just like the market for linear, chestbeating toughguy technothriller rubbish SP games.

[Skgoa]

With CoD, I always had the impression the "story" was just an excuse to string wildly different but exciting "scenes"* together.


* Which they mostly stole from a wide variety of movies and other games.

[Sarevok]

Oh so you mean 'what you want', not 'better'.

The same could be said of you.

PS, I don't think you know what a corridor stroller is, or why its bad.

Of course I do, I design FPS games for a living.

The MW series' problems are barely (if at all) related to their linearity,

Linearity is 80 % of their problem. There is no space for tactical decision making.

unless you're some kind of idiot who automatically jumps from 'is linear' to 'is bad'

Excessive linearity is bad because it funnels you in same bad experience again and again. Frequently in CoD series you would run upto a difficult area with enemies preset in exact same places. Survival is down to luck rather than trying an alternative strategy.

its certainly an irrelevant complaint when people are talking about how dumb the story is.

Of course its a relevant complaint. The story is weakest part of MW3 and the game is going to fail or suceed purely based on gameplay. And despite being a top selling multiplayer game singleplayer is still a part of MW3s overall gameplay package.

[weemadando]

I play CoD and BF:BC for the SP.

Why? For the same reason I watch Transformers or read Matthew Reilly.

No STRAK. Not because I'm a terrible loser/fattynerd. But because there's nothing inherently wrong with them.

They might be dumb, irrational and full of guys called "Chad McSquarejaw" who are total archetypes, but hey, sometimes that's fun.

[SpaceMarine93]

I agree with the statement that the story of MW3 is stupid - realistically speaking. Sure, Russia hardly got the manpower and the industrial base left today to do any real damage like this to the United States (the only redeeming property is that in various areas their weapons and arsenals are superior to other nations). Even if it was the Soviet times they are significantly outmatched by the United States, economically, technologically, militarily and socially, despite how everyone back then had imagined it to be (F***you, Richard Pipes and the B-Team you worked with).

Theoretically speaking, not so much.

Consider - MW3 IS part of a fictional VIDEOGAME series - it is fictional. And in a fictional world its author could alter any aspect of reality which it claims to reflect and reflect. And even certain plot elements in the MW series could make perfect sense:

1) Russia of this setting could have sufficient military might to pull that thing off, considering the fact that in MW1, the old Russian government had been fighting against the Ultranationalists for a number of years - Ultranationalists who have access to large amount of military hardware such as helicopters, BMPs and NUCLEAR MISSILES. Against this magnitude of a threat it would be inevitable that the Russian military budget and power would had to be enlarged and reorganized by a number of magnitudes just to force a stalemate in a short period of time (they pulled that off successfully back in WWII), which means by the time the Ultranationalists took over they would had inherit a powerful military force that could pose a real challenge to the United States. And don't forget, they can get high tech military hardware by trading their unimaginable large amount of mineral resources.

2) The United States military forces, both in real world and in game universe, would still face the fact that being the most powerful doesn't mean it could effectively face off all the possible threats thrown at it - The United States had shown to had failed, time and time again, to fight against forces far weaker then they are, such as the Vietcong in the Vietnam War (and don't you frakking throw in the 'Defeated at Home' argument. A defeat is a defeat, psychologically or militarily), and in the two middle eastern wars over the last decade. In MW1 they got NUKED once and in MW2 they are still stuck in the Afghanistan debacle. Granted, before the Russians invade in that universe most opponents they fought were ingenious guerrillas, but even so if they are ONLY NOW winning against an opponent who they outnumber and outgun by magnitudes I don't think it should be surprising that they could find themselves barely holding back a massive surprise attack from their old foes

3) America is being invaded, but even then it would be impossible for the full might of the US army to be brought to defense - remember they are still stuck in two Middle East debacle in the story, its naval forces spread out, and its military probably soften up by domestic reforms over the years between MW1 and MW2 (I mean, would a shell-shocked society want to continue to fund the military, which they no longer have any confidence in after that nuclear incident in MW1 killed around 30000 US marines and showed how much weaker they actually are? I certainly won't). It would take time for the US military to ship its forces from bases worldwide to homefront. And don't forget that it is possible other nations hostile to the USA would not take advantage of USA's one moment of weakness to attack its allies, forcing them to leave troops to defend as well e.g. North Korea invading the South, Iran and other hostile states invading Iraq and Israel, China may want Taiwan back etc.

4.) And there's a lot more

It still probably isn't quite realistic. But hey, its a game, so why worry? Beside, we should rather hope Sledgehammer games (this game's developers) don't screw up in the characterization, dialogue and script and putting us off the story.

[SpaceMarine93]

Oh, did I forgot to mention that nobody in the US in that story seen it coming because General Shepard allowed the Russians to crack the satellite code to their NORAD warning grid? Or that the Russians had been preparing to pull this shit off for some time, just needing an excuse? Or that this whole invasion is probably limited in scale (i.e. they take the 'Thousand American lives for every Russian dead' clause seriously) and is merely just trying to kill Americans and capture key symbolic structures (e.g. the White House) as a show of force, gaining diplomatic bargaining chips with hostages, key infrastructure and landmarks and a propaganda declaration to the world "HEY! The Old Bear is Back in the GAME!", rather then causing America's total defeat with a full invasion, thereby eliminating logistics as a possible obstacle to pulling shit like this off?

[Stark]

With CoD, I always had the impression the "story" was just an excuse to string wildly different but exciting "scenes"* together.


* Which they mostly stole from a wide variety of movies and other games.

That's pretty clear, given the emphasis on setpieces and cutscenes; given that a level where you do nothing but stumble around or press buttons to crawl etc are now almost de rigeur, it's pretty successful.

[PeZook]

I always thought of CoD as a slightly interactive movie. It's even similar in length, usually having at most 3-4 hours of SP gameplay

They may have stolen most of the setpieces, but I still remember storming the Reichstag in the first game as a very emotional moment (despite it being really nothing that original). It's all in the music and voice acting.

The problem is of course that a movie becomes bad when it's so totally out there you can't suspend disbelief even for a moment, which MW2 pretty much was 90% of the time. It's not that it's not a totally realistic portrayal of future events, it's that the events are illogical and insane and apparently supposed to be taken entirely seriously.

Did everybody forget how Russia was being torn apart by civil war throughout the first game, to the point they were unable to defend their airspace from intrusions by Dramatic Helicopter Rescues and AC-130 gunships? Yeah.

[Lord Woodlouse]

I have to say I am marginally more inclined to play it now it's even more ridiculous, it would otherwise be an entirely bland and by the numbers FPS.

Not sure I wanna pay top dollar for it, though. Might borrow it off someone.

[Lagmonster]

According to the MW fanboys it all makes sense internally and you're a stick in the mud who wants hyperrealism if you say otherwise.

I don't actually enjoy the MW games (I'm a Battlefield man, myelf), so I guess it has to be explained to me why we can't suspend disbelief for them the way we would for any other fictional story. Are the game makers actually saying that they're presenting a plausible alternate-future scenario based on actual modern politics and military might, or are they saying, "In our universe, Russia has a military that could take over the world and supersoldiers can turn the tide in global warfare and you should just go with that"? In the case of the latter, does proximity to reality lower the amount of disbelief players are expected to suspend?