The First Modern Warfare 3 Gameplay Trailer Is Here

The next big Call of Duty game, Modern Warfare 3, is a globetrotting tale of destruction, taking the fight to America, England, Germany and France, bringing huge destruction and battles more ambitious than ever. See for yourself in the game's first trailer using Modern Warfare's new tech.


Comments

    Is this the 11 o'clock trailer or do we get another one? Or is it 11 o'clock and Skynet has taken over all my electrical devices and changed th eclock to make me late for things?

    Very meh. Looking forward to the CoD fad dying down.

      +1

        +1 Is this using the same engine again?

    Looking good, can't wait for the HD version.

    Wonder if it'll take more than 5 hours to get through this campaign... $109 for 5 hours of single player and a PVP patch its getting out of hand.

      $109?

      Sure, if you pay JB HiFi/EB Games prices...or just maybe you could go one of the many other avenues and get a copy for half that.

        Either way they're still expecting 'full price' whatever that is, for what is not a full game. The idea that you pay the same for MW2 as you do for Red Dead or Mass Effect is a joke.

        I don't know why they don't just turn the CoD multiplayer into a subscription service, and then release campaigns as DLC or something, at like $30 a pop.

          So the value of a game should solely be based on it's single player content?

            When multiplayer is copy + pasted from the previous game, making single player pretty much the only new content, then yes.

              That is without a doubt the most ridiculous thing I've ever heard.

              Yes there are similarities but making the claim that the content is merely a "copy and paste" job is stupid and ignorant. Also, if the game delivers many hours of entertainment why does it matter if it's not a totally new experience?

                Obviously I didn't mean a literal copy and paste, but you can't deny that every CoD game since MW has been more or less the same experience with new weapons and maps. Which brings us back to Adam Ruch's point -- $100 for a short campaign and what essentially boils down to a map pack is way too much. I don't have a problem if people want to spend that -- I'd just rather not spend that money something I've already played.

                  If you require a brand new experience to enjoy a game then you're going to run out of options very quickly.

          God i hate it when people try to compare a FPS experience to an RPG or Open World experience like Mass Effect/ Oblivion / RDR to games like COD. THEY ARE NOT MEANT TO OFFER A 30-50 HOUR EXPERIENCE. If you don't like that then don't play FPS's. Simple.

            that's not the point.

            The fact is that the Call of Duty Series has gone out of it's way for the last 2 iterations. To say I'm a Premium Game, you must pay 60 dollars for me(based on the US steam price as well as others)

            and then they deliver a 1/4 of the content that CoD4 or earlier did.

            Sure they aren't the same game but it's no excuse for why there isn't at least 10 hours of singleplayer on normal difficulty

            And the DLC just fragments the community as well since then you have people who play barebones, Map pack 1 Map pack 2 and Map pack 3. instead of having everyone with equal access

              I don't have any MW2 dlc and don't plan on getting it. Same with Blops. I have no issues in finding games.

                Of course you don't have issues finding games, but what you probably don't realise is that for every server you join, you are locking all new maps out of the rotation, denying other players from their new map packs.

                  Clarification: this only applies to matchmaking in MW2 and BlOps, not dedicated servers.

                  I've been kicked by servers twice in MW2 for not having a DLC map so I don't think that's how it works.

                  And in Blops I only play dedicated servers but my point still applies to that as there are TONNES of servers that don't run the DLC.

            I must have spent at least 100 hours in MW2 MP. That's what, 80c an hour when you consider the single player, and spec ops that I've 100%'d

            I call that value, PROVIDED it isn't a step backwards. This will be interesting how the game plays without the leadership of West & Zampella.

      Actually, basically all RRP within AU are $109, but this is Modern Warfare and Activision who have the gall in the past to declare a $10 Premium on versions of Modern Warfare 2.

      Same thing again here, RRP is actually $119 for MW3.

      http://www.ebgames.com.au/search?title=Call+of+Duty+Modern+Warfare+3

      As mentioned, I know there will be sales on of the day, but it will be $119 for a 4 hour campaign (I didn't even make 5 hours).

      Just saying that's all.

        Or again, shop elsewhere and get it for less. Might I mention that you're forgetting to add the hundreds of hours most people who buy it will spend playing multiplayer, hell some people will get 1000+ hours from it.

          Yeah, see you missed my entire point, which was that fact that Activision basically placed a $10 premium on MW2 in all territories on all platforms for no other reason but "just because". "Just Because" they knew people would buy it regardless.

          This isn't an EB Conspiracy which only relates to them, this would be Activision distributing the game at a higher price to any other game they publish, the game stores are simply adding their regular margins on it.

          I know it can be bought cheaper, hell... hopefully Big W will sell under cost and EB will offer ridiculous trade in prices again this year and I'll pick up about 10 and make a small profit!

            No I don't think I did. Sure you made the point about Activision bumping up the price, but you boiled your point down to the price compared with the gameplay time which is why I made the point of mentioning the hours gained with multiplayer.

              Of course the true value of the product is based on what the consumer wants out of it and then in what way they use it.

              COD4 actually provided a great single player experience, but it blew up because of the Multiplayer, ever since then the series (including Treyarch games) have shifted focus to the Multiplayer side of things.

              Just as there are people that probably don't play anything but the Multiplayer side of things, there are still people like me that prefer a decent single player experience. As long as they ship the game with both components, then we should hope they can provide that for both. Personally, I felt that MW2 was severely lacking.

              Activision deem the value of their product as $119, so regardless of what anyone pays for it, they can measure their experience against what Activision deems it's worth.

                So you want a company to create a balance in the quality of SP and MP when it's quite clear that the majority of those buying the game don't really care for the SP?

                  Wait... I shouldn't expect developers to provide quality gameplay components to all aspects of the game? Games which nowdays basically "have" to contain both SP and MP to try and keep the consumer on the game for longer?

                  Bioshock was fine the way it was, but they shoehorned MP into BioShock 2, it wasn't needed and it simply wasn't good, arguably the same can be said for Assassin's Creed also.

                  This ultimately brings us back to what Adam Ruch said about the subscription service. If the COD franchise is basically MP only and that's all they care about, then why bother at all with a SP component?

                  Think of the money they will save if all the teams are doing it creating new maps for multiplayer, with the occasional engine tweaks.

                  Split up the games, I have no problem with that, keep the SP games short (episodic if need be), just price them accordingly (lol, as if).

              I don't have time to spend the 1000 hours playing the same games MP, which is no different than it's last 3 iterations.

              When i want to play cod i still go back to CoD4 as imo it's the most balanced.

              But for people who want to play SP only because they keep only handing out a chapter of their overall story, and just want to see where it heads next is quite the pain.

              I still think that people should be able to buy the SP only aspect of a game if they want, or conversely MP only. at a cost reduction.

              I would just buy my copy for PC finish my veteran run first time through and then sell it but because it's all integrated into steam now i can't do so.

              And i refuse on principle to play with a gimpy controller on a console

        Well i'm prepared to pay twice as much as RRP which is what i do when i get the Collectors Edition. This is the only game that i can continually play for 12 months so the price is well worth it.
        Also its the only game that i like playing through on all difficulties. Play the game on Veteran i'm shore it will take more than 5 hours to beat.
        Another point is i actually want short campaigns that i can finish in 1-2 nights play. There is no way i'm going to play or buy a game that takes 30+ hours to complete.

      I agree with Adam, its not about how much you pay its about the content you get. I'd rather pay more and get a full game than halfprice on an import for 5hrs SP GP.

      It's already been mentioned in these comments, but I'd just like to further point out that a lot of the people complaining about SP value for money really aren't taking into consideration the literally hundreds of hours most users spend in MP. Some people I know haven't even played the campaign and that is fine. I personally really enjoy the campaign and sure, you can finish the game in a short amount of time, but I would argue that you aren't playing it on the more difficult levels or exploring the full extent of the games content be it SP or MP. It would be a real shame if this game turned to a subscription based MP game as when you really think about it, $80–$100 for 1–2 yrs worth of gaming isn't that bad now is it?
      Just my thoughts??

    So much for their "NEW ENGINE STUFFZ!" statement, looks the same as MW2.
    Heck ArmA3 looks better than this, not impressed with MW3 so far.

      Can't tell if troll...

      I could've sworn I was watching a Michael Bay movie.

        Well there were explosions and it did look pretty, so Michael Bay could have been involved.

    I wonder if they only chose those countries because they had an 'E' in their name.

    Official/HD version:
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DEUJJGX7p0A

    We haven't really had a WW3 game yet, have we? This could be good. :3

    Looks like Infinity Ward has been watching Inception

    BRRRRRRRAAAAAWWWWRWRRRMRMRMMRMRMMMMM!!!

      My thoughts exactly!

      It can't be just me in thinking this looks like it just has more explosions? I was expecting more of an engine overhaul but it looks very similar, bar that building falling and the helicopter shooting the glass. Man, the engine is looking grimey..

    Yeah, that message is part of the gameplay. They've decided to shake things up a bit by making MW3 an old-school text adventure :P

    >N
    >look
    There are terrorists here
    >shoot terrorists
    You shoot the terrorists
    >N
    >look
    There are terrorists here
    >shoot terrorists
    you shoot the terrorists
    >reload
    While you were busy reloading you were eaten by a grue.
    Game over.
    Would you like to play again? (y/n)
    >n

      Oh wait it's no longer just a copyright message. Had my hopes up for a minute there that somebody at Activision was actually thinking outside the box for a change...

    Still looks the same...so much for the improved graphics, I can tell they put the hundreds of millions to good use. The overuse of dull grey urban environments hurts my eyes.

    I've always liked an urban setting in FPS so I'm happy with this. Don't know if I'll be buying it though. I just don't care about the franchise enough to fork out $100 every year or so for its latest installment. At the very least though I'll rent it.

      What do you mean $100 every year?

      If the keep the two developers thing going, you'll be shelling out $200 a year....

      Im not a CoD hater, but i really dont see how a mainly multiplayer focused franchise is good to release every 6 months...doesnt that hurt the online componenet?

        Correction.. it's 1 CoD game per year, 2 developers (Treyarch and IW) with a 2 year development cycle for each... so $100 per year is fair

    Meh...I'm looking forward to it. I don't care that it looks like MW2, because that engine looked good and ran smoothly (unlike friggen BLACK OPS on PC). I'm not expecting a Tom Clancy-esque story, but I think it will still be entertaining enough. At least they are sticking with what works, and not trying to reinvent the wheel (like everyone is failing miserably at when it comes to first person shooters). That's my two cents.

      Yep.

      I'll be buying it too.
      They do set piece action exceptionally well.
      That's what CoD (single-player) is built on, and that's what I'll be buying it for.

    I think my problem is this.

    MW2 & MW3 Story (from what I can tell) - Seriously Silly

    BLOPS Story - Ridiculously Silly

    Give me the absolutely ridiculous B-Movie storyline of BLOPS over the Michael Bay's Pearl Harbour style story of the MW games.

    But who am I kidding, of course I'll pre-order this. Probably the ridiculous prestige edition as well.

      I was thinking more The Rock rather than Pearl Harbour.

    This is a brand new Engine? Does not look like it.

    They're not really doing much to freshen it up, ey?

    Hmmm....
    I like how it looks...

    I'll no doubt get it!

    and probably enjoy playing it!

    End of Story....

    It's definitely a new engine. Graphics are improved, only slightly though, but the biggest improvement is clearly the physics which is a smart move. Graphics are fine in MW2 and any improvement is a nice touch, but the fact they focussed on the physics is great and goes to show their not getting caught up in the race for shiniest game.

      You can't say it's "definitely" a new engine. It looks a bit different, but nothing dramatic. You cna easily pass off every supposed "physics" item as a scripted animation. I'll wait until I see some casual players live stream before I make such a big call as that.

      My guess *at the moment* is that they've just changed the engine enough and called it their own.

      But then, based on what you've been posting in here you're clearly a massive CoD fan anyway, so whatever I say doesn't matter. That's cool.

    All I can think of is Yahtzee's review of number 1. They shove bigger and shiner new weapon technology in your face while yelling "PFWWOOOAARR EH?"

    Hi, I'm Activision, I rake in billions from the CoD franchise but I can't spend money to R&D new engine technology.

    This game is a step backwards when it's competing against Crysis 2 and Battlefield 3.

    I wonder... how many of you bagging it out will still actually buy the game...

    This trailer has got me interested in MW3.....and it looks a hell of a lot better than Homefront. I would give BF3 a go too, as long as it doesnt have shotguns that can kill you from 100m away a la Bad Company 2...

    Battlefield 3 will decimate all. The End.

    Is it just me or does the voiceover guy sound like a complete nerd?

      Are you referring to the character talking? It was really bad voice acting IMO.

      But seriously - that trailer was like watching a trailer for Inception.
      They basically ripped off the musical score from the Inception trailer.

      Funnily enough - when I watched Inception I thought I was watching a MW2 movie when they were in the snow.

Join the discussion!

Trending Stories Right Now