Modern Warfare 3′s story will “build up on the key themes,” started in MW2, says Bowling

First time I hear there’s a “story” in the 4h-long solo mode of this game… “Shoot the terrorist and save the world” it is ?

Makarov is the bad guy? Never felt this way. Sure he killed a lot of innocent people. So did you. And you’re an american CIA Agent, who has been a normal soldier 3 days earlier and didn’t stop him from doing it. Instead you participated. I see only one bad guy here to be honest.

serious question is raven soft doing the multilayer in this game? if so and infinit ward are making the campaign surely the campaign is going to be longer then the previous games?

‘No Russian was a key story point in MW2′

Oh yeah. That was why you made it completely optional?

And yippee-kay-yay, let’s bet that CoD 10 will be just killing innocents, since that’s the way to go storywise. I seriously have to agree with YoungZer0. The American was the badguy there, not Makarov. Could’ve saved us one and a half terrible game if you shot him right there, right then. I mean, isn’t Makarov the bad guy you’re supposed to go after in MW3?

@4: http://youtu.be/foh7unT2l7A

The character who you play in ‘No Russian’ is only in 3 missions in the entire game before being shot in the head.

The real bad guy in the game is obviously supposed to be General Shepherd, who basically started the entire war and double crossed Task Force 141 in order to try and take power in the US and rewrite history.

Makarov is almost just as bad, though. He and Gen. Shepherd both wanted ‘No Russian’ to happen for their own aims.

best campiagn in all multiplayer based FPS games

The key themes? Shouldn’t it be ‘key plot holes’ started in mw2??

@7 I see what you did there.

As long as “learning new ways to tell stories and learning new ways to deliver experiences,” doesn’t involve the medium of mime i’m cool.

Plus am I the ONLY guy who played through “no Russian” & didn’t kill any civilians, unless you count the police?

I don’t think there’s any way you can defend the story of those games, but actually, it’s almost one of the things I look forward to. It’s so incredibly stupid and over the top, that you just have to see what happens next, not unlike 1980′s action movies.

After finishing the MW2 campaign I would’ve scored the game a 4 or 5/10 though. It’s one thing to have a silly story, but to actually recycle things from the last game is too much. For one there’s the whole “death in the first person” schtick which is used twice in the same game for the second time in a row, and then there’s the ending sequence which is pretty much point for point exactly the same as the last game.

“No Russian” was just a cry for attention. It’s not as if there aren’t a million other scenarios that would work better, but this one would simply get the biggest reaction, and for the easily baited, it had that exact effect. The fact that we’re still talking about it affirms as much.

There were themes in Modern Warfare 2?

@DSB: I think you’re being a little hard on 1980′s action movies. Nothing Arnold did was ever this incoherent.

@11 I don’t think you’ve watched a lot of those movies from the 1980′s

Everything was pretty much a prelude to a cheap stunt sequence or overcomposed “DRAMATIQUE MOMENT”.

Pretty much like your average Modern Warfare campaign.

CoD 4 was the last good CoD game. A bit to over the top, but still reasonably OK.

Don’t know why it’s still named “Modern warfare” though. Should almost be “Sci-Fi Warfare”, or just “Unrealistic Warfare”.

I’m not saying it should be extremely realistic, but this kind of game has to be kept within some sort of box with a certain degree of realism.
Looking at the MW3 Gameplay from E3 made me laugh. Tons of helicopters flying IN the city, the helicopter you’re in getting hit by a rocket and still being able to keep in the air.
The weapon arsenal overall is just stupid and so far from reality anyone who worked on it should be executed immediatley, or at least castrated to stop the gene of extreme stupidity from spreading to the next generation.

How’s the weapon arsenal far from reality? The weapons that are confirmed so far do exist in reality. Don’t make up crap pal. It’s also still a game and it is realistic enough with what it delivers. I don’t know what kind of realism you want.

To be honest I think people are just trying to badmouth the game because it’s Call of Duty. I don’t see people complaining about movies and the over the top explosions and typical loves stories in every action movie. But when there’s over the top scenes in CoD it’s a bad thing of course. I lol’d, really.

Also who cares if you have to kill civillians or not. It’s still a game. You can do whatever the fuck you want in there. That won’t make you a murderer in reality…

*puts flameshield on*

Most people don’t realize that you don’t fly combat helicopters in the city, for the same reason that these games don’t kill you instantly when you fire an RPG in an enclosed space. It just wouldn’t be fun. GTA IV and Prototype does the same thing.

If you were to start applying real-world restrictions and hazards to an action game, then it would need some considerable twists and turns to accomodate what you wanted to do in the first place.

And the fact that CoD never really had a pretence of being realistic makes that a lot easier to swallow, than when ArmA 2 or the last Medal of Honor makes a mistake. If you establish a relationship with reality, then reality becomes a lot more relevant.

It was silly that the characters in MW2 had nothing resembling coherent loadouts.

IW have never claimed that CoD was supposed to be ‘realistic’.

‘Realism’ in games is for an ultra hardcore, tiny minority, and has never been a successful selling point for the mainstream. It always gets thrown out of the window if it interferes with gameplay in any way, shape or form.

Gaming in itself has always been looked at as an escape from ‘reality’, anyway.