The First Modern Warfare 3 Gameplay Trailer Is Here

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?

  • 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.

          • 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.

          • I’m not even talking brand new. But there’s a difference between, even, putting a unique spin on a tried and true concept (like Red Dead’s unique take on the sandbox genre) and something just being exactly the same, but with a new campaign and maps.

            My problem isn’t my standards of originality being too high, it’s CoD being so ridiculously unoriginal. Don’t get me wrong, they’re not bad games — they’re just same old, same old. I might as well just stick to CoD4 and get the same experience to if I were paying $100 a year for games that I’ve already played.

          • They’re using a tried and true method that keeps the majority coming back for more so I think it is your standards that are too high 😛

          • Heh, maybe. No doubt it’s a popular game, but I think that’s because it’s the ultimate non-gamers’ game. With all my sporty friends, non-gaming friends, etc, CoD is the only game that they play, because it’s got such a gravity to it now that makes it the “cool” game to play. And that’s exactly the audience that wouldn’t care about how original a game is, they just want their CoD fix.
            I don’t think that makes my standards high — I just think regular CoD buyers have a different set of standards.

        • 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.

          • For me there have been plenty of times in MW2 on PC when I’ve joined a server and gone through the entire rotation, but didn’t see any new maps. Plus, when partying with a friend who doesn’t have the map packs it gives you a “Map pack 1 disabled” message. Maybe it works differently on PC, or maybe it behaves differently depending on the circumstances (e.g. more players with than without map packs), I’m not sure.

          • 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.

    • 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 😛

    >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.

  • 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.

  • 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…

    • 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.

  • Thank god this game is looking god, now i don’t have to play that god awful piece of crap battlefield with all the 30 and 40 year old men.

    • I cant play COD now out of fear of being slapped with an amber alert (or whatever it is we have here).

    • If you were referring to Bad Company 2, why on Earth were you playing that if you hated it and evidently felt that the other players were too old for you?

      And if you were talking about Battlefield 3, how do you know about how good the game is months before release? All we’ve seen so far from this Modern Warfare 3 trailer is a bunch of scripted events, which makes it impossible to judge its quality.

  • I know it’s not the ‘done thing’, but that looked great.

    Better than 90% of most FPS campaigns out there, anyway.

    • trailers always look good, if they don’t it’s a telling sign that things will be bad.

      If you can’t grab the best bits of your media product and create a neat trailer you have issues

  • Looks fine. Might not be the best most innovative FPS. But if it plays pretty similar to the last few COD games I’ll pick it up for the single player.

  • Battlefield 3 please! This was very underwhelming compared to Battlefield 3’s first game play trailer.

  • Wow…this game is gonna be scripted to the max…like BLOPS…all those vehicular levels..

    Hold down RT and you win.

    COD has failed…it only impresses <15yo, who like explosions and the same old crap over and over again.

    It reminds me of certain movies, that make sequel after sequel, delivering repetitive crap over and over again…think pirates.

    Honestly, the amount of money they made from MW2. Spend some more time….redefine what the game is. Build a new engine, a new experience..

    But it all comes down to silly people, who buy it no matter what, because…lets face it…what else are they gonna be doing in that spare time?

    I know i will be playing BF3.

    • But sometimes I don’t want to watch Inception… or The Shawshank Redemption. Some days I just want to watch a short film where shit gets blown up, guns get fired and the good guy saves the world.

      Isn’t there a market for both?

      • There is a market for both, but…

        COD – October 29, 2003 (PC Only)
        COD:Finest Hour – November 16, 2004 (Console only)
        COD2 – October 25, 2005 (PC Only)
        COD:Big Red One – November 1, 2005 (Console only)
        COD3 – November 7, 2006
        COD4:MW – November 5, 2007
        COD:WAW – November 11, 2008
        COD:MW2 – November 10, 2009
        COD:Black Ops – November 9, 2010
        COD:MW3 – November 8, 2011

        Sometimes franchises should take a breather and recharge the batteries, we don’t need a new dose annually, it can become very stale…

        • I don’t disagree with you… but 12 months is a long friggin time between drinks.

          They’re enjoyable popcorn… they’re like Mathew Reily books. And so long as they’re making money what’s the problem.

          Here’s an example… Mechwarrior books.
          There’s about 40 or 50 of them… over the course of the 30 year span of the license, that’s more than one a year. Is there something about video games that means they shouldn’t be released yearly?

          We’re about to see an 8th Harry Potter film, a fourth Lion, Whitch and Wardrobe, a fifth Fast and Furious, a fourth Bourne movie, another Jack Ryan film and a fourth and fifth Tolkien movie… where’s the complaints about that?

          • Books as a medium are a little bit different, perhaps it’s simply the interactive nature of games which set them apart.

            My case against Harry Potter isn’t that strong, but there were 7 book over about 10-11 years, so it’s not quite that same constant, and whilst the movie side doesn’t fair much better it’s more understandable to have the ‘rushed’ to completion as they wished to keep the same actors, with Harry being a boy wizard, too long and Daniel looks like Luke Perry in 90210, but changing actors could ruin the experience/series.

            Too many sequels can be wrong also and a trilogy is probably the fit for alot of things, you get a beginning, middle and a end. Fast & The Furious hitting 5 movies is a few too many, but again they were at least reasonably spaced out.

            Like you mention, perhaps it is just games that has this same perception of wanting them to be different and provide more surprise for the consumer. Sport games get talked about how they are simply “another roster update” with maybe a minor addition (Madden gets concussion this year, Tiger got Augusta, NBA got canned! lol).

            I have no doubt that MW3 will go close to/ if not break records again… 2 years ago the boycott over MW2 and dedicated servers failed, there is already alot of internet hate on MW3 as being the same shit once again, whether or not this pans out and sales are effected remains to be seen, but a lot more people are getting clued in and Activision maybe forced to radically upgrade the game in the coming years to hold onto these customers.

  • I really think that the new battlefield game is the level of quality Call of Duty should have had 2 years ago…Black Ops was the first CoD I didn’t buy and MW3 looks like the next one.

  • Hmm, fanboy bullshit aside I am not expecting much innovation from the decimated Infinity Ward. I predict that rather than re-invent the wheel they will stick to the formula.
    I actually think while Treyarch are improving the quality of the CoD franchise (better matchmaking options, better customisation, more balanced gameplay) IW really dropped the ball with MW2 and forgot to listen to the community that pays them..

    BF 3 looks very high quality, however BF is a different beast its a far more tactical game set in large environments with vehicles… battles take significantly longer to resolve. The social aspect is also limited. Most of my Xbox Live crew are people I have met, bantered or laughed with in an open CoD channel, in BF (at least on the consoles) you can only communicate with 3 squad members, if they have mic’s…

    I think the social aspect is what keeps everyone coming back for more CoD, despite the fact that it’s not really different or new.

    • The few times I’ve had a mike on in CoD games haven’t been… pleasant.
      But maybe that’s because I play mercinary team deathmatch.

      • It’s taken me years to get a decent (but small) list of friends who don’t scream/whine/whinge/play music/make mum jokes etc… but it’s worth it if you persevere. CoD4 had a fairly small player base initially, so it was easy to hook up with re-curring fellow Aussies. I did the clan thing for a while, then we disbanded and just play for fun as friends.. probably only 8-10 people i play with regularly.

        • You’re probably right in saying BF (in your case, Bad Company 2) is much less of a social game, as it seems like the voice chat is primarily for squad communication pertaining to to the match, due to, as you said, the tactical nature of the game and the large environments. Battlefield is more of a “serious business” multiplayer FPS, at least compared to CoD.

          I’ve watched PC clans use vent or teamspeak on Bad Company 2, and with some groups and clans, they use military-like lingo, referring to each other by squad name (Bravo squad, Charlie squad ect), having some form of a chain of command and so on. It’s quite impressive to see teamwork in action like that.

  • People who argue that MP content makes up for a short single player experience should be aware that while a single player campaign might take five hours to finish, the multi player is a MASSIVE variable, saying that it adds 100′ of hours to play time is naive because a lot of people will also only play it for an hour and then realise that they get a much more polished experience from their older titles (I still probably rack up six hours of CoD4 a week, while I played Black Ops at a fiends house and that was all it took for me to know that I didn’t like the game, at least MW2 got about just over four hours online and since then I haven’t played it for a year).

  • I’m kind of over modern warfare shooters. What do I want now? I’m not sure. Every shooter genre has been exhausted. WW2, Sci-fi and Modern Warfare.

    I also find it impossible to belive that any CoD after CoD4 can be good, given the turnaround time for these games is less than the time i spend pooping.

  • I only play this game because my friends do, if it weren’t for them I would not be touching this.

  • Wow, that was completely underwhelming. If you put the recent BF3 gameplay trailer and this side by side…it’s not even a contest. Obviously the quality of the game remains to be seen, but at least DICE seem to be genuinely trying to push the genre forward.

    Based on this trailer, Activision may as well repackage the levels from the previous Modern Warfare games, put the new logo on the front cover, and then sell it to the 10 million odd sheep that continue to worship this franchise. No thanks.

  • It seems like MW2 with slightly better graphics and a different storyline. I find it stupid that they would release a new game every year with a short single player and slightly different multiplayer because they are really segmenting their community between lots of games and it comes off as quite silly.

Show more comments

Log in to comment on this story!