Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 3: Overview

The economic approach of Activision is shamelessly simple. They do not change anything until what worked before brings money. This, in principle, is not news. Not only in the gaming industry, this approach is true. The consumer votes in dollars, and if the amount of these dollars does not decrease, then you can not look at the reviews of individual citizens. Businessmen do not try to please everyone - businessmen make money. And this is not news either.

Activision and Robert Kotick, as they say, "did everything right." Modern Warfare 3 broke the first-day sales record. The game has already paid off. As an economist, I can only praise the publisher. As an economist, I look at numbers. As an economist, I would like to adopt something from Kitty. But as a player I feel that I have been raped. Play best Y8 Games at the website.

And yes, it offends me that in general, users ate what they threw into the Activision bowl . This demotivates other developers. Those developers who are trying to come up with something new in order to surprise us and in order to make money on this surprise. Modern Warfare 3 shows that money is drawn to money. A huge budget, a loud advertising campaign - and already IGN puts the project 9 points. Then this figure can be used for PR Modern Warfare 4 . When Activisionthey ask if the publisher is going to change something, they will hear in response: “Why? The game brought phenomenal income, people paid money, they want to buy our product. And the press gave very high marks; few games get these. Then what is the point of changing something if everyone is happy? ”But, alas, I am not happy. That's why I am writing.

Activision does everything to get a monopoly in the genre. When a company is confident that it is guaranteed to earn hundreds of millions of dollars, then spending even half of the amount on development and another third on advertising is not a problem. Can someone do something like this? No. Economists of any other company will say that investing in the development of one hundred million is absurd. There is no guarantee that this money will be returned. But Activision has them. Therefore, dropping the Eiffel Tower is not a problem. When she crashed, the publisher paid back all the costs. How? After that, the players will buy the fourth part. In what other game is Paris so colorfully destroyed? Where else can they do something like that? And in the conversation everyone will notice: “Yes, the little shooters are stupid. But damn it, the tower fell so steeply! ”

I myself do not argue - the tower crashed great. I even told my friend about this. However, there were other vivid scenes. I’m not so aesthetically, in order to deny it and stretch out in a nasal voice: “Just think, fights on the streets of London, Paris, New York ... We haven’t seen this in cinema. And if you read books ... In the same "War of the Worlds" everything is much more colorful. " To hell. Modern Warfare 3 is really sometimes spectacular, even on the old engine.

But like the game Modern Warfare 3 is a dummy. All the highlights are interactive screensavers. Moreover, most of the interactivity is that we simply can rotate our heads. And sometimes this is not allowed to us.

It doesn’t matter what task we perform - whether we defend the president’s plane, whether we go on a secret special operation in camouflage uniforms or if we simply fight on the streets of the United States against invaders - all this turns into a shooting gallery. Moreover, the shooting range is the same, absurdly the same. The Russian military fights in the same way as the African natives. American special agents cannot be distinguished from warehouse guards.

Have the developers thought about the gameplay? Did they have any ideas to make the shootings interesting? I doubt. Yes, and why should they? “We will drop the Eiffel Tower,” one says. “Eiffel?” Another asks. “Yes, the Eiffel. In Paris, ”says the first again. “In that same Paris? The very Eiffel Tower? ”The second one asks again. “You're damn right!” Ends the first. “This is win,” concludes the second.

I am not against entertainment. I am in every way for her. The wow effect is cool. But I am against the fact that they do n’t give us anything more than him in the game . There are almost no interesting gameplay moments. And if they appear, they last about fifteen seconds. Next - either something bright again, but where we are not taking part, or a boring monotonous shooting gallery.

And do not say that this genre is such that it does not happen otherwise. This is absurd. Make fights interesting - you can. Otherwise, the genre of action movies would have died long ago, because in many other games there is no entertainment, but there are interesting skirmishes. They can be tactical, like in Brothers in Arms , they can always be different, like in Half-Life 2 , they can be using various features, like in Crysis 2 .

Who claims that the shooting range is normal, is abnormal. A shooting gallery is a painting of developers in their helplessness. “Sorry, we did not want to think about the gameplay. But we will drop the Eiffel Tower, ”the developers tell us. “That same Eiffel? Agreed! ”- the players answer and run to the store.

Someone will definitely tell me: “Well, if Modern Warfare 3 is such crap, then why won't anyone do anything better? Once there is a shooting range, let them do it without a shooting gallery, and everyone will buy that game and score on Activision with their post-shootings on the same engine and without new ideas. If someone does something cool, they will definitely buy it. ” You are mistaken. Buy what is advertised well and for a long time. And for a number of reasons. And Activision , as I said, is doing everything to get a monopoly in the market. In such a local market for the genre of cinematic action movies.

Imagine the situation. You are the big boss of a relatively large company that makes games. A group of developers comes to you and says that they are ready to make an action movie better than Modern Warfare 1 - 3. You nod your head - an excellent idea, your company just needs such a game. Ask the developers to continue. They first tell a long, beautiful story about what they want to do and why it will be better than Activision . You approve of all ideas; you do not lie; You yourself know what the flaws in Modern Warfare are and how they can be avoided. Even if you are Bobby Kitty, you understand that you are not making a masterpiece - you are making money. Now it's your turn to speak; and you ask what the developers want. They call the amount of the budget. It is ten, or even twenty times more than all your spending on any other game. You begin to figure out guarantees: will the amount be returned exactly? Will it be possible to work at least to zero? There are no guarantees. Moreover, other companies have already tried to do something similar. They did not reach the MW level . You refuse.

Remember Crysis 2? Crytek worked in the same genre as the creators of Modern Warfare . The guys made a vivid action movie, where there are many memorable interactive scenes and where you can actively shoot enemies. In Crysis 2beautiful picture, great music (the authors even hired Hans Zimmer - the composer of “Pirates of the Caribbean”) and a variety of varied gameplay. And the corridors were not so narrow. The gameplay of Crysis 2 is a thousand times more fun.

Here is an example. The developers made a game that is in many ways much better than MW3 . And if she loses somewhere, it is insignificant. At the same time, Crysis 2 is a continuation of the highly publicized action movie, Crytek is one of the most famous studios ( Far Cry is not for you), and the advertising campaign was large and beautiful. Success?

No. Two times less people bought Crysis 2 per month than Modern Warfare 3 in one day. And do you still think that the one who makes the most interesting games wins? Take a look at what circulations very, very good projects diverge. Starcraft 2, which was done for five years, honing everything that can be honed, sold less in circulation than Modern Warfare 3 , which was done quickly, on the old engine, with absolutely the same multiplayer. And let me remind you - so far we have counted only one day of sales.

Once again, as an economist, I am ready to applaud. The company did everything right. It's just amazing how profitable Activision has invested in development. If shares were sold on Modern Warfare 4 , I would have invested all the money in it. I would even borrow from the bank.

Therefore, I declare a monopoly. Players want a spectacular action movie with super cool scenes and can only choose Modern Warfare. It seems that even the gameplay is not very happy, and the shooting gallery lifted up, but there is no choice. I want entertainment - I pay Activision . And until users stop voting with the dollar, we will receive what we get. And let the players even scold the project, spit and write on the forums that it is bad. But they pay. So, all is well. However, most do not even think of cursing - she is happy.