First MW3 multiplayer trailer escapes CoD XP

Friday, 2nd September 2011 20:30 GMT By Brenna Hillier

This is it, chaps, chappettes and chippies – the first in-game footage of the shooter set to dominate multiplayer for the next year. Feast your eyes on Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 3.

This trailer was debuted at Call of Duty XP in Los Angeles, and we’ve been patiently awaiting an embargo to show it to you.

You’ve probably seen our other coverage of the event around the site, and there’s loads more to come. Steph’s going to be running around madly all day getting the scoop, so stay tuned.

Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 3, as everybody everywhere should know by now, is expected to be one of if not the biggest releases this year, and launches on PC, PlayStation 3 and Xbox 360 on November 8.



  1. Peetry

    I’m just not feeling it I’m afraid. It still hasn’t differentiated itself sufficiently from the CoD I got bored of two years ago. Perhaps the gameplay I’ll see in the next few days will change my mind

    #1 3 years ago
  2. HeavyD-Love

    ^ I must agree. I’m more excited to see B3 frostbite 2 engine cause it’s something new and never seen before. This looks ok, but just….more of the same. I will try it eventually, but B3 is a day one purchase for me, and that’s purely based on graphics engine alone. Yes, I am a graphics whore.

    #2 3 years ago
  3. YodaJokerBacon

    Meh…..might as well be a MW2 expansion pack.

    I’ve been a Battlefield fan since the beginning. Until Call of Duty lets me tape 5 bricks of C4 on a Drone helicopter and fly it into a building and take down an entire team AND the building with the click of a button, until then I will stick with BF series.

    #3 3 years ago
  4. Fin

    Hope they don’t unbalance it – Blops was balanced much better than MW3, I’d be concerned Infinity Ward’ll unbalance it by trying to change it up.

    #4 3 years ago
  5. Gekidami

    Looks like death streaks arent making a return.

    I’m not really seeing much of interest in this trailer, its pushing the “new stuff” aspect you’d expect from a sequel but its not giving us the ‘new features’ side. I want to see if they’re building up on the character customisation Blacks Ops started, not a new weapon or kill streak.

    Also the heartbeat detector is lame, MW2 became a bit of a mess because of some poorly balanced items and kill streaks, its understandable Blops decided go with less fancy stuff in that regard, i’m all for more content, but they have to keep it balanced, and the heartbeat detector -at least as it was in MW2- just wasnt.

    #5 3 years ago
  6. Ireland Michael

    Oh look, it’s… the exact same game I’ve been seeing rehashed for the past five years.

    This doesn’t just look boring, it looks like a relic. Why would I want to choose this over Battlefield 3? It’s like comparing a child’s scribbles to the Mona Lisa.

    #6 3 years ago
  7. Dr.Ghettoblaster

    ^ “Oh look, it’s… the exact same game I’ve been seeing rehashed for the past five years.”

    Well said Michael. I couldn’t possibly agree more. Bring on B3 please.

    #7 3 years ago
  8. Yoshi

    An assault rifle then a sniper for his secondary… please tell me that wasn’t his class and that he just picked it up :/

    #8 3 years ago
  9. Gekidami

    ^ He had the OverKill perk which gives you 2 primaries.

    And lol, sorry but how exactly is BF3 not just a rehash of Bad Company 2 with some BF2 thrown in? Because its using a new engine? Is that really enough?

    #9 3 years ago
  10. Gama_888

    I imagine the cod bashing in this is going to get pathetic.
    But really it is embarrassing. It looks so exactly the same its pathetic.

    I did love how they were shooting all the glass at the start to try and make it look more impressive.
    Windows are their only destructible environment **facepalm**

    #10 3 years ago
  11. Big_Boss

    They want me to pay $60 for a game I’ve played before and got bored of? I don’t think so.

    #11 3 years ago
  12. Fin


    BF3 isn’t made by Activision y’see, which makes it TOTALLY TOTALLY DIFFERENT IN EVERY WAY.
    Yis all are hypocrites.


    I pretty sure you just said “cod bashing is for losers” and then subsequently bashed it? Did I get that right?


    Nah man, they want people who’ll actually enjoy it to pay $60 for it. I’ll quite happily do so.

    #12 3 years ago
  13. HeavyD-Love

    I think a brand new graphics engine is enough. On top of that though there’s vehicles, destructible environments, it just looks like a fresh new experience. That’s why I’m excited for B3 and ho-hum for MW3.

    #13 3 years ago
  14. ItsFade

    In actual CoD the dude in the trailer would have been instantly killed by a sniper sitting in a corner the second he took a step out in the open lol. Game looks rather meh, it looks like more CoD. (while to be fair the franchise has done that for the last three games)

    More guns, more maps and more unbalanced kill streaks. I’m not really interested any more. I think this will be the first Infinity Ward Call of Duty game I pass on. Considering most of the original developers are not with the studio any more i’m not surprised at how mediocre this looks.

    #14 3 years ago
  15. God

    Strangely echoes some of the Guitar Hero vs Rock Band memories doesn’t it..

    #15 3 years ago
  16. Maximum Payne

    Picture worth 1000 word

    #16 3 years ago
  17. DSB

    It doesn’t really strike me as a trailer so much as a concept video. If that’s what the replays are gonna look like, count me in.

    @8 What’s the problem? Sniper rifles are pretty useless up close. That’s why every sniper team includes at least one assault rifle, and why a lot of special forces snipers (which are usually the focus of CoD games) tend to carry an assault rifle along with their sniper rifles.

    @13 So you’re saying that all games should add vehicles and destruction, or be disqualified? The way they’re applied isn’t important at all?

    Personally I look for a bit more than a feature list on the back of my games.

    #17 3 years ago
  18. Yoshi

    @16, because unfortunately they don’t need to as people will still buy it. The thing I don’t understand about IW is that, even though they know it’ll sell like hotcakes they still don’t use that to help themselves. It’s like, they win the lottery but then live life doing nothing. I would prefer to win the lottery and then LIVE LIFE XD instead of do nothing. It’s so bloody depressing to see developer talent just being wasted.

    #18 3 years ago
  19. HeavyD-Love

    @17 “So you’re saying that all games should add vehicles and destruction, or be disqualified? The way they’re applied isn’t important at all?”

    No. Not at all. Primarily what I said was there’s a new graphics engine. THAT’S the key difference ;)

    The added vehicles and destruction is a nice bonus that one game has over the other. Those THREE reasons are why B3 will be getting my money this year, and not MW3.

    #19 3 years ago
  20. DX2Texas

    I am looking forward to Skyrim and Mass effect 3 but this i don’t know

    #20 3 years ago
  21. ASBI

    ill copy what I said earlier

    change change change , FFS stop it !!

    we all saw what happened to DMC, PES, RE and many other games

    change is NOT good in video games

    graphics is not a factor, saints row and dead rising suck in terms of graphics, but theyre still fun to play

    as for the BF3 trailer, it looks boring despite the high technology theyre using

    #21 3 years ago
  22. DSB

    @14 I’m gonna go ahead and guess that you died a lot when you played CoD last time. There are quite a few ways to avoid that.

    @18 Actually a proper analogy is that they’re consecutively winning the lottery each year, with some people wishing they’d throw away the winning ticket. MW3 is set to be the biggest one yet.

    Why would you change what you’re doing while you’re still outdoing everybody else?

    I really don’t think you’d silence the whining simply by upgrading the graphics engine. And if you went and built a new game from scratch, then they’d have 20 million angry customers on their ass.

    @19 To each their own I guess. Tech is nice and all, but I can’t think of a game that became more fun to play based on the pixelcount.

    #22 3 years ago
  23. majicship

    @cartman Lame.

    #23 3 years ago
  24. Ireland Michael

    @22 True. Pretty much explains why they put absolutely no effort into the Twilight movies either, and why *every* single Nickleback song sounds exactly the same.

    Because people are stupid enough to buy it as is.

    Yes, sure, it’s an easy way to make money. Nobody is denying that. Doesn’t make it look any less shit though.

    #24 3 years ago
  25. stretch215

    So, anyone who buys mw3 is stupid? Generalize much? What a ridiculous comment.

    #25 3 years ago
  26. HauntaVirus

    Honestly was excited to watch this trailer but wasn’t at all impressed. I’m sure the game will be fun as always though.

    #26 3 years ago
  27. DSB

    @24 That’s not really how I look at it. If anything Twilight is a pretty horrible example, since it’s pretty dependent on production values, which is exactly how DICE are marketing BF3. They’ve said very little about gameplay, and a whole lot about the lighting.

    People are in love with the game in the same way that people are in love with Robert Pattinson. To any vaguely rational person he’s just another coked up Jason Priestley-lookalike with an accent that gets American tweens wet, but ultimately nobody bothers to look beyond the face.

    Fair enough though, Twilight also survives on cheap tricks, which is certainly not unlike how CoD plays in singleplayer I suppose. But the way I see it, it doesn’t have to be pretty (or high brow) as long as it plays well, which in my opinion it does better than most other shooters out there. You don’t hear Counter-Strike players whining that they’re stuck in a decades old engine, and that’s one that hasn’t recieved nearly as much attention as the IW 5.0.

    #27 3 years ago
  28. onlineatron

    Everything shown for MW3 so far seems to be severely lacking in identity. Modern Warfare had the tanker, MW2 had the snow infiltration, Black Ops had Vietnam; all those things seemed to be fresh and visually identifiable. Modern Warfare 3′s goto iconography is “everything’s gone to shit!”, which doesn’t appeal to me, I’ve seen it before.

    Perhaps it’s just the lack of change gameplay-wise, and reused tropes — turret sequence, wait for guys to breach door sequence — but this game just isn’t capturing my attention at all.

    #28 3 years ago
  29. ItsFade

    @22 Actually no which is why I pointed out the faulty strategy in the video. Its not really a wise move when playing COD (or really any online shooter) to run around in open areas like a dumb ass.

    #29 3 years ago
  30. DSB

    @29 Fair enough, my bad.

    It’s just pretty often you hear people bitching about killstreaks, mostly because they don’t get enough of them. That’s not a veiled insult, some people wouldn’t enjoy them anyway, but it just seems to me like some people never clear the rookie hurdle.

    When I jumped into MW2 for the first time, with some hours in MW under my belt, I got slaughtered 24/7. Most of what I did revolved around losing in the most humiliating ways, but people were nice enough about it, and I got XP for toughing it out, and once I got better myself I certainly gained a new appreciation for things like killstreaks.

    That’s why I get a bit iffy when people go “Njar, killstreaks are so unfair” – Not that you put it like that, but you know, it’s easy to generalize.

    @28 I agree with the whole “ruined world” thing, but then again, considering the Washington DC level of the last game, I’m interested in seeing what’ll happen to Dubai, London and New York.

    The New York Harbor scene doesn’t look short on the big setpieces, even if it is all getting very familiar at this point.

    #30 3 years ago
  31. ItsFade


    I find kill streaks to be sort of a double edged sword. While they are great in most cases and well deserving for the players it was fairly easy to abuse them in MW2 (mostly due to the fact that they stacked not that they were overpowered). Granted they rectified this in Black Ops so I hope that will persist over to MW3 in any case.

    #31 3 years ago
  32. DSB

    Yeah, I thought that was one of the reasons why Black Ops was pretty boring. The killstreak system was virtually the same as it was in WaW, with a few borrows from MW2, and that makes it somewhat of an anticlimax.

    I like that it’s over the top in MW2. You can always argue whether it’s too easy to chain them together, and that’ll still sometimes depend on the people you’re up against, but with the autobalance of the matchmaker, I thought it was pretty good on the whole.

    Nukes are silly. I can see how an end reward for annihilating everyone is cool, but every other person in that lobby is going to feel cheated out of a match.

    #32 3 years ago
  33. Gama_888

    Erm no i did not say cod bashing was for losers.
    When a game becomes the biggest selling game ever year after year despite not actually innovating or even changing mostly it fucking deserves to be criticized imo.

    Yes, The success of Cod is genuinely one of my pet peeves. When great games get overlooked and badly reviewed, and then activision does nearly NOTHING but add a few maps and guns to their massively outdated engine, and get 10/10 and sell like hot shit,well pffft it just seems like insanity to me.

    Hell when one of the cars explodes in the trailer its the exact same exploding animation they used in Mw2.

    And yet this game will still be one of, if not the, biggest thing ever. Sad, Just Sad

    Rant over :)

    #33 3 years ago
  34. Dr.Ghettoblaster

    BF3 please

    #34 3 years ago
  35. HeavyD-Love

    @22. “Tech is nice and all, but I can’t think of a game that became more fun to play based on the pixelcount.”

    Gamers that blatantly deny the importance of graphics advancements make me laugh.

    *goes back to playing Outlaw on Atari2600*

    #35 3 years ago

    Dog tags!? LOL!!

    Looks amazingly intense! This type of gameplay is infinitely better than the boring, slow paced, stroll along stuff IMO.

    @ All the haters:

    I’m pretty sure that not a single one of you are/ever have been regular CoD players anyway, in fact, you probably don’t even own a copy of any of the recent versions right now, so you’re lack of a purchase almost certainly won’t be missed.

    #36 3 years ago
  37. Erthazus

    Anyway, this game is not just a reharshed previous game… No~O~O~O, but even Models are from the previous Modern Warfare games. They basically did absolutely nothing new or better (except for maybe DOG TAGS idea from CRYSIS 2 which is a very good idea reducing clusterfuckness with these stupid and retarded killstreaks).

    anyway, they are trying to show So much with this… I mean seriously. They are trying to show something awesome with 1999 year old upgraded engine and can’t do it. Of course they can’t. It looks really bad right now.

    But screw the graphics engine or crappy old sound engine system. Real frats can play CoD4 as long as it is “fun”. Wii Fit is fun too.

    They don’t even have any kind of physics so shooting is so unsatisfying. Just straight bullet spread at best.
    they don’t even have HAVOK, just old 1999 year old Id tech proprietary physics technology that is super crap right now.

    Even for a console game, it’s not great in any way. This game does not offer something better than the competition (GeoW3, Uncharted 3, Battlefield 3) this year.

    Oh yeah, Robert Bowling, so where is my DESTRUCTION? You promissed. Ahh… you mean when glass is broken? Oh my god, well just as i predicted “Pre-scripted crap”. Or… what can be done since 1998. Great work guys. Maybe next generation your destruction abilities will be like in RED FACTION 1.

    @36, you can check out my STEAM account if you want.

    There is BLOPS – 400 hours (the only reason why there are so many hours is because i had nothing to play at summer except for inFamous 2, Witcher 2) and MW2 probably 50 hours at best. MW1, i don’t remember how much i played so keep up with your blah blah blah. CoD Games are reharshed crap in most cases for frats. CoD didn’t do something new since Call Of Duty 2. From the gameplay to the engine it’s the same game. it was not even good to begin with.

    I played Call Of Duty multiplayer in 1999. It was called Quake 3: Arena. Great game for it’s time, but that time is over. It’s 2011.

    #37 3 years ago
  38. OrbitMonkey

    ^ So you hate COD, but you put 400 hours into Blops? That statement kinda detracts from your credibility o_O

    #38 3 years ago
  39. Erthazus

    All my FPS shooters in most cases i play for 50-500 hours and that has nothing to do with the quality of the game. I enjoyed Black Ops like i enjoy eating burger at Mc Donalds. I said that before already. But i played it with my friends for few hours a day at summer. If i had something to play i would definetily play something else.

    MW3 i will probably try for 50-100 hours and thats it. If i will try it after BF3 of course thats still a question. There is one friend that wants me to try it out. So i will probably buy it a bit later.
    MW2 i played only for 50 hours for example and it was enough for me. I was tired to death.


    My hours. MW2 is not even 50h in multiplayer. Lol.

    #39 3 years ago
  40. Christopher Jack

    Man, you have too much free time, I mean I have 0 obligations & I don’t even play that much, I’d think that the only 2 games that I spent over 500 hours on would be Dawn of War: Soulstorm & possibly but less likely, Halo 3-playing custom made infection maps with tonnes of friends was legendary, now they’re all addicted to CoD :(
    The time & effort spent into making some of those glitch maps must have been extraordinary, in Reach it’s 1000* easier but it gets dull playing on the same map.

    #40 3 years ago
  41. Erthazus

    @40, 500 hours is too much? Come on. IF the game is playable like you just said “I’d think that the only 2 games that I spent over 500 hours on would be Dawn of War: Soulstorm & possibly but less likely Halo 3.”
    than it’s cool time spent for you.
    also, these 500 hours is spent at summer, before summer it was … 50 hours at BEST maybe.

    I played Battlefield:BC2 much more (two accounts (i bought BC2 two times LOL) 2x 50 level general) and i know guys who played MW2 for like 1500 hours on STEAM. Yeah, it’s true. I can even show that guy time and i’m sure that there are more guys with these hours.

    I just play and i like to play. few hours a day at one game and you can easily get 500 hours.

    #41 3 years ago
  42. Ireland Michael

    If you put 500 hours into a game you dislike, you need to get off the fucking computer. 500 hours is nearly 25 whole days of your life. That would take a lot more than “a few hours a day”. That’s nearly a third of the whole summer. That’s at least 7 hours a day.

    And that’s only one game…

    Anyone with his 1500 hours in their game is probably going to end up dying of diabetes in the near future. It would be impossible to remain fit and healthy with that kind of lifestyle.

    Playing a shit game because you’ve “nothing better to play” is fucking ridiculous. Is your life so utterly devoid of any other meaning or interests that the *only* thing you can do with it is play video games?

    Good fucking lord. I didn’t even put that much time into WoW in FIVE YEARS!

    #42 3 years ago
  43. Fin


    Hello, I’ve just realised you can check peoples BC2 accounts online (, so would you mind telling us both your account names, so we can see that you’re not lying? Thanks!!
    And while you’re at it, what’s your Steam account name, so we can see the fabled 500 hours on Black Ops (a game you’ve repeatedly said was shit).

    #43 3 years ago
  44. Erthazus

    @42, you clearly know shit about gaming if you think that 500 hours is too much or 1500. It’s not much if you like gaming and you can stay fit everyday.
    also, I enjoyed black Ops. I said it here in this thread.

    I have a good friend for example that plays ALIEN SWARM (there are only 5 maps)
    1800 hours and he only started to master this game with his friends. there will be eventually 3000+

    If you think that 2000 hours is too much than sorry, you never saw people who like Cybersport. These guys play only one game for 2 years ONLY every day. (They don’t play any game except for “that” game. It’s their work and they like it), but they watch movies, they have GF’s and have good social life (with his CybS team or others), it’s just you don’t know how it is. Because you sit at home and use Wii Fit or kinect to make yourself “better” LOL does not mean that others who play a lot of games are fat or something.

    My girlfriend. I am with her 3 years she played Team Fortress for 437 hours with one class (Scout), i’m sure she just started. She lovs that game and she will play even more. 1000+ for sure.

    By the way, when you are at the Cybersport, staying fit is very important. Good CbS team go to the gym 2-4 times a week and if someone miss the gym he won’t survive in big tournaments.

    So sorry, 500 hours is nothing for the multiplayer game. If you are a casual gamer than of course 500 is too much. But you are a casual gamer. It’s your only problem.

    @43, you realized only now? Congratulations, you learned how to use the internet. Also, don’t worry, i won’t show to trolls like you my account names, especially to console children like you. you can go now and play Halo with your stupid online friends.

    #44 3 years ago
  45. Fin


    That’s cool bro – the only reference I can find to you is this – – which shows you only spent 21 hours on it. So you must be lying.

    You also said this above:
    “@36, you can check out my STEAM account if you want.”

    So you must’ve been lying there too.

    But don’t worry about it, par for the course.

    #45 3 years ago
  46. Erthazus

    @45, thats not my BFBC2 account. I don’t understand why someone thinks that thats my account.

    Erthazus nickname i use only for a WOW Account (blood elf character.. he is 80 level if i don’t remember) and in VG247. Erthazus is a famous Magic The Gathering character so no surprise here that someone use it. All my nicknames are from that famous “Wizard of the COAST” card game.

    I have 3 nicknames that i use, but you don’t know it anyway and thank god. :D

    “So you must’ve been lying there too.”

    who played TF2 with me know who i am ^_~

    #46 3 years ago
  47. OrbitMonkey

    Lol, I was going to start taking the piss about spending so much time online gaming, but realised i’ve spent 16 days on Blops…

    16 * 24 = 344 hrs… Damn I need a life o_O

    #47 3 years ago
  48. Erthazus

    @47, absolutely normal time spent on gaming. You probably prestieged… 5-6 times no?

    #48 3 years ago
  49. viralshag

    Yeah to be fair I have dropped 397 hours into Rift so I can’t claim to not be spending too much time gaming haha. I haven’t even played much it in the past two months either.

    #49 3 years ago

    Oh dear, oh dear…

    What kind of a lunatic spends 400 hours playing a game, while continually slagging it off, then claims that they actually “enjoyed” said game, while simultaneously claiming that “all” games under that brand are actually “reharshed [sic] crap”??

    It’s this sort of schizophrenic behaviour that’s made me stop communicating directly with certain visitors to this site.

    #50 3 years ago
  51. OrbitMonkey

    @48, No I prestiged the full 15… A fact that doesn’t get me as much action with the ladies as I hoped -_-

    #51 3 years ago
  52. Ireland Michael

    @42, you clearly know shit about gaming if you think that 500 hours is too much or 1500. It’s not much if you like gaming and you can stay fit everyday.

    It’s called “having a fucking life”.

    The most I’ve ever clocked up in one single game was something in the region of maybe 200 hours, and that was the over span of over 3 years. You see, my brain isn’t so simply wired together that I can find the same, exact repetitive shit entertaining for days and days on end.

    It’s not my problem that you and your friends are simpletons.

    So no, you cannot make a valid argument about 500 hours being normal… unless you’re fucking paid for it.

    Some of us have responsibilities, jobs, social lives, and things other than video games to entertain us. My life is so busy with children and family commitment I wouldn’t even be able to clock up 500 hours of gaming in a year, even if I wanted to.

    You’re one of those people who actually think that playing a bunch of derivative and generic games for thousands and thousands of hours somehow makes you more of a valid gamer than the rest of us.

    It doesn’t. It just means you have no life.

    #52 3 years ago
  53. Ireland Michael

    Here’s a good place to start:

    #53 3 years ago
  54. reask

    Well in all fairness Michael its no worse than spending mindless hours watching crappy TV. :)

    #54 3 years ago
  55. DSB

    I’m glad we had this talk.

    @54 Yeah, watching the same fucking show for 500 hours.

    #55 3 years ago

    500 hours is 1.36 hours per day over the course of the year.

    Nobody plays daily, so lets imagine that a regular hardcore gamer plays almost every weekend (42 weekends out of 52 available per year, or 84 days) and the majority of weekdays (4 days out of 5 available per week, or 208 days). That leaves a total of 292 days gaming per year.

    That’s an average of 1.71 hours per day over the year. Also consider that the hours for the weekdays are likely to be considerably less than weekend hours, when you factor in all night gaming sessions and waiting for MOTD gaming sessions (for example) that will probably happen during a good amount of the weekends.

    I don’t see the difference between playing one online game that you really enjoy, with your good friends, and playing 1.71 hours a day of boring, bad AI, predictable, been there, done that, 10 hour SP campaigns of a handful of overpriced different games on your own.

    Oh wait… I do.

    #56 3 years ago
  57. Ireland Michael

    @54 And that’s why I don’t want mindless, crappy television either. I don’t even have a TV service set up in my house.

    @56 And he said “over the summer” in his post, so you can automatically qaudruple your number right there. That would require roughly 6 hours a day of play-time to do, and you’d have to do it almost every single day to manage it.

    #57 3 years ago
  58. OrbitMonkey

    ^ Personally I reckon Erz has made a slip here & revealed himself as a major COD junkie… Wouldn’t surprise me if he was in LA over the weekend ;)

    #58 3 years ago
  59. DSB

    I think he’s a retired Soviet chessplaying computer, that was thrown in the dump, only to gain a mild form of self-awareness feeding off the trash, eventually turning the dump into his secret lair from which he tries to sabotage the internet.

    But that’s just a theory.

    #59 3 years ago
  60. Ireland Michael

    @59 And he’s clearly only running on about 64KB of RAM and a 5khz processor.

    #60 3 years ago
  61. DSB

    @60 Maybe that’s how he spent 500 hours playing CoD, he was just waiting for the maps to load.

    #61 3 years ago

    No question about it.

    6 hours a day, every day, is terribly unhealthy, not to mention almost certainly psychologically damaging.

    Explains a lot.

    #62 3 years ago
  63. Fin


    Yup – I get home from work ’round 6 or 7 each day, so playing until midnight or 1am every single day with no break on a game I hate and constantly bitch about. Sure of course someone in their right mind would do that! Don’t know why I’ve never considered doing it before!

    #63 3 years ago
  64. stretch215

    I love Cod. I play on a regular basis (at least to me) with my friends (both real and online) and we have a blast. I just checked my time on blops and it’s just over five days. Since last November . I cannot fathom how anyone could rack up five hundred hours in a SUMMER. I’m actually kind of jealous, I wish I had that much free time ( though if I did I wouldn’t spend ALL of it gaming). This guy needs an intervention. Take a walk, or a hike, ride a bike if you like. There is so much more to life. I’m pretty sure what little credibility he had is gone.

    #64 3 years ago
  65. Fin


    This is true – even when I had nothing to do all summer (gotta love summer holidays when in school/uni!), I still didn’t play six hours every day.

    The man needs help.

    #65 3 years ago
  66. M. K.

    When I was out of work I played very much Black Ops. The difference is, I liked it almost as much as CoD 4 :)

    /e: Oh yeah I forgot, always funny if those “grown ups” are hatin against people who play games most of the time and tell them they have no life and stuff, seriously, this is even more ridiculous than playing Black Ops 24/7.

    #66 3 years ago
  67. DSB

    There’s a pretty big difference between telling people that videogames are bad, and telling people that playing one for 500 hours is bad.

    #67 3 years ago
  68. M. K.

    Maybe, still it’s none of our business ;)

    #68 3 years ago
  69. DSB

    Of course it is. If you choose to expose that sort of thing to the public, then it’s everybodys business.

    This is a comment section. Comments will be made. From petty to poignant, people are gonna express their opinions, and they’re very likely to do that on something as contradictory as some guy saying he hates a game that he’s spent 500 hours on.

    I enjoy the fuck out of MW2, but I still haven’t spent more than 200 hours on it.

    #69 3 years ago
  70. M. K.

    You got me wrong.

    Sure you can comment on that, if someone played a game that he hates for hundreds of hours, but why should you tell him that something’s wrong with him or his life? Even then, when you don’t know him.

    #70 3 years ago
  71. DSB

    Why shouldn’t you? Your morals aren’t my morals, just like my morals aren’t Michaels morals.

    Expression. It is free.

    And of course you’re just as free to judge people on the things they say.

    #71 3 years ago
  72. M. K.

    Oh come on. I hate it if people come up with stuff like that :D

    So, to change the topic: What do you think, how would you judge about this whole “I played a game that I hate for 500 hours “dilemma”"? ;)

    #72 3 years ago
  73. DSB

    I can only refer to my above theory that Erthazus is in fact identical to the Ertha ZUS 19/17 Sovereign Socialist Chess CPU. Invented and programmed by Viktor Ertha i 1981, who was later found dead, seemingly killed by a stroke, caused by fatal exposure to pointless arguments.

    After being defeated in 1987 by Imran Zakhaev, the machine was tossed for scrap, explaining his vicious distaste for all things Call of Duty, his love for the Russian language, while at the same time explaining why he can’t stop playing the game for hours on end. That’s what he’s programmed to do!

    #73 3 years ago
  74. Ireland Michael

    And lets not forget that Call of Duty is, apparently, one of his less played games…

    #74 3 years ago
  75. Dimaco

    Same ol’ s**t…

    #75 3 years ago
  76. Fin

    Just as a closing thing, we’re totally within our rights to say spending 500 hours on a game you don’t like is unhealthy and stupid – just like if someone said they only chips and nothing else, well that’s unhealthy and stupid; or if someone smokes two packs of cigarettes a day, well that’s unhealthy and stupid.


    That was one of the more witty original creations I’ve seen.


    What’s s-star-star-t?

    #76 3 years ago
  77. DaMan

    Ask yourself, would a person be able to spend 500 hours on their least favourite game if he put about as much into posting on this website?

    Hardly unless they never sleep.

    #77 3 years ago

Comments are now closed on this article.