Well, at least their prices are better than Steam with its $1= 1 Euro. It's $5 for anyone interested :P

Why do I find it more difficult to equate a cheap end-of-carreer back alley hooker with Steam than with, say, Impulse ;-p

Maybe my metaphor was off??

Maybe not. Steam might be in a bit higher in the range, that's all...

They way I see it the hooker is initially cheap but you still have to pay for the 1 hour hotel room. Steam game are cheap but you have to pay in the long run very similar.

And it still hangs around the back alleys :P

I suppose we may even discover one day that steam has "something" that makes it (unpleasantly ) different from what it pretends to be ....

( nb : sorry for me being cynical, I had a couple too many glasses of Burgundy this evening)

Yes, it's a digital STD known as the DRM. It's like the HIV but affects computers. Sad really but the only cure is nuclear fire from orbit :D

I've just realized that my greatest contribution to the GOG community was turning a topic on buying games on release date into a discussion about cheap hookers....

it happens

So we proven the money/sex ratio is faulty when buying game.

So how do people choose if they want a new game for full price?

I think a lot of folks forgo that expense and use a car or something else convenient (like a nearby bathroom, never understood that one, personally).
Well, a lot of answers early on gave some pretty good methods.

I really do tend to wait a few months or until a good sale comes on before i spend hard earned money on games, myself...Of all my games on Steam, i think 95% of them were bought on sales...THAT BEING SAID, for the first time in years, i actually pre-ordered a game....i couldn't help it, Skyrim hooked me

I've only ever pre-ordered two games, Dead Island and Arcania. The former was a solid decision, the latter was an impulse purchase due to my love for the first games and possibly the biggest gaming let-down that I've ever had. I also tend to get most of my titles from sales, but that's probably because of my backlog.


Anyway, I'm almost done with the campaign in MW3 and I've been doing some spec ops. I've also played some MP with a friend. Thus far it's kind of meh, a bit like Black Ops. I guess I'll finish the campaign and do some spec ops, but thus far the latter were better in MW2 than in this one.

So for me:
WaW > MW2 > MW3 = BOps
I've yet to play 1-4.

I managed to restore my WaW MP profile yesterday and fired it up for some awesome fun. Definitely my favourite MP shooter after 1.6. It's actually the 2nd game (after CS 1.6) that I consider good enough to be played in MP. Great stuff. Not many servers left though, unfortunately.

Was MW3 worth the 40 pounds? Decent game, but probably not. Pick it up for 20.

I've read a lot of comments along the lines of the single player having little in the way of actual gameplay, like you're just along for the ride. The multiplayer is said to be exactly the same as MW2.

What's your take on that?

Admittedly, I didn't play much of MW2 MP, because I found the guns very boring. It's all basically assualt rifles vs sub machine guns, all of which have slightly different penetration, bullet damage and spray patterns. Just found it boring.
Had the same grievance with BOps and MW3. I played a fair amount of BOps MP because my friend likes it and we had a go whenever he came around (Steam shows 37h), but it's really just bland and the weapons feel very boring. The maps are also quite poor, in a full server expect to be killed a lot by people spawning right behind you. Simply not fun. Also, MW3 is a setback in terms of mechanics (i.e. BOps had the 'leap' maneuver).
BOps and MW3 I've both found to be games where you die very often just because. Random kills, poor level design, random spawns, etc, things over which you have very little control. As an avid FPS player, this kind of shit drives me nuts. I simply don't enjoy it, no matter how much I want to.

On the other hand, MW3 seems to have a couple (or maybe just one) interesting additional game types (something between CTF and Domination).

WaW in MP is far better than any other CoD game that I've tried. The weapons are unique and interesting. The level designs are awesome (actually, this is mainly due to map pack 3, but this provided some fantastic stuff and of course back then it was also free). Also, there's no nonsense with looking for new hosts in the middle of a game (yet the downside is that there are very few servers around these days).
Steam shows 106h played. Back then, I stopped playing because my motherboard fried and I didn't have a PC for over a month. As I got it back, my profile was lost due to a format so I lost interest (managed to recover it from the old drive last night). I'll probably still sink the occasional hour into WaW, but unfortunately the game seems to be slowly dying.



As for the single player in MW3 - yes, it's on rails. To be honest I haven't really enjoyed it all that much. However unlike what SimonG said, it's getting better and I'm enjoying the latter bits more than the first half (better level design). I'll finish it, but probably won't ever replay the campaign. Also, I only play on Veteran and there are a couple of verrrrry frustrating segments, created mainly due to lack of polish and testing.
Basically, your squad says: "XYZ (whoever you're playing as at that moment), take the ABC (mounted machine gun, mortar, whatever), we'll cover you." Except that they provide no cover whatsoever and you will absolutely get shot to bits over and over and over and over. The enemies completely ignore your squad and beeline straight for you, with your teammates occasionally even simply running past them to their next scripted location. Basically, if it weren't for this stupid scripted moment, you could just have taken cover and taken all of the enemies out one by one, rather than having your ass handed back to you out in the open with 0 cover.

Despite that, it's ok. Wouldn't want to completely rate it yet since I've yet to finish the campaign.