Some devs make their games to the same quality as all platforms. Bioshock, Dead Rising 2, Call of Duty 4 and Modern Warfare 2, Just Cause 2, Bad Company and Arkham asylum to name a few. I will judge a game's quality on how it arrives to the platform I got. I even bought Bayonetta, which despite have longer loading and inferior graphics, felt so incredible I didn't care. I do think the devs were lazy, but I also think they made a high quality game. With Black Ops, I don't have the same feeling.Ephraim J. Witchwood said:The quality of a game is subjective. I didn't enjoy my time with TF2, so I would put it WAY under Call of Duty. You obviously enjoy it, therefore you place it on an equal or higher standing.
PS3 versions of multi-platform titles rarely run as smoothly as they do on Xbox 360, as most developers start on the 360 and port from there. This leads to shitty PS3 versions of multi-platform titles which really shouldn't be used to judge the quality of the games themselves, so much as they should be used to judge the developer/publisher's laziness.
I seem to recall the Battlefield team making games before the Bad Company series... what was that one that came right after 1942's expansions? I could have sworn they just recycled content from Vietnam. Sure they built the maps again in the new engine, but it's still recycled content. I would much rather have 5 new maps, than the same maps I played years ago. If I want to go play Battlefield Vietnam I'll go install it on my computer again.Jack and Calumon said:Battlefield Bad Company 2's Vietnam pack gave 5 maps, new weapons and vehicles in a completely different setting for the same price as Call of Duty's map packs. Call of Duty just gives you 5 new maps and says get on with it.
Well, there are some old games you can buy in store that have plummeted in price, but downloadable games is what I'm mainly referring to. Scott Pilgrim vs The World is a fantastic game and I've probably put more hours in that than I have Call of Duty because I just have to get all the trophies.Ironic Pirate said:Wait, where the hell are you getting new games for the price of a map-pack?
Saying "some people" doesn't mean you're talking about the community as a whole. Just thought I'd point that out. These people do exist, sadly. I've known of a few people in my times playing COD who have been signed on playing when, by their own admission, they should actually be at work. Still, their choice at the end of the day....Ephraim J. Witchwood said:Way to generalise the fuck out of the community.Jack and Calumon said:Some people have a serious Call of Duty problem, skipping school or work for it, constantly talking about it, and shunning those who don't find it a good game.
No, basicly the industry is trying to see how much they can rape our wallets, they will keep raising the prices to see with what prices they can get more money/sales ratio.Ephraim J. Witchwood said:He's right, it is a fair price. In this day and age, the price point for FPS map packs is about $3 per map (unless you play TF2, then it's free because Valve wouldn't do anything to piss off the whiny PC fanboys).
Call of Duty map packs give you 5 maps for $15, Halo map packs give you 3 for $10. The Call of Duty ones are not only a batter deal, but they aren't required to enter ranked playlists like the Halo ones.
Quit bitching, people.
Escalation Map Pack. It's right there in the title. My guess, it's supposed to be a gauge of how much people are attached to the idea of buying the packs.C2Ultima said:This better not be a scenario where they say "People don't mind our prices. They're reasonable." And then tommorow "Oh yeah, and the Escalation Pack is $20".