Tree man said:
No, we want them to put a bit of innovation into the same game, even if it's just something simple like a squad command system, or hell the ability to set traps, wouldn't be that hard to implement and would make a lot of sense, they're supposed to be fighting an urban war, so make it seem like it.
Claymores :V Already have traps. Unless you want trap doors or falling ceilings in which case I would love to live in the urban life you do. How would a squad command system work in MP, the main focus? That's always something to consider. Introducing bots in MP is a bad idea as their will always be tonnes of salt to go with it and that makes things less enjoyable. For commands to humans, that's what we're supposed to use headsets for, not singing. I'm certainly not saying they couldn't be MORE innovative, but that applies to just about everything.
Frostbite3789 said:
If one of your biggest arguments for a full release of a game is 'balance' I cannot take you seriously. That should be something that's patched. Patches are something the CoD games are historically bad at, on purpose. They want the public to think they need this new game because it's more balanced. Balance can easily be patched in. It's what multiplayer game patches are for.
Like I said, LoL. Go look up the average patch notes for that game. It's all about trying to balance it.
Soon, more developers and publishers see this and think, "Why aren't we charging for balancing the game?" That's where it starts to become a problem.
I was talking about balancing new features. There's nothing really unbalanced in the COD games because everything dies so easily. Even stuff like One Man Army and noob-tubing had counters and are more just annoying to people who weren't using them.
LoL is a different genre. You don't balance CoD by changing values, you need new stuff or changes to the gameplay. The former is limited due to disc space and glitches, the latter would cause them to lose business.
Zachery Gaskins said:
While not realistic, Team Fortress 2 is doing that very "as-you-go" balancing act. They've also gone F2P and are supported by hat sales and other micropayments.
As for pricing...I'm actually OKAY with the idea of paying for a subscription to a game if I know that subscription goes towards 1) funding future development and 2) maintenance of servers. In some ways I feel better spending more on it in the long run than I would with a one-time purchase title because then I know when I'm done with it, I'm not left with a product that is now obsolete and won't fetch me a wet fart in a plastic baggie at GameStop.
(Although, I'm told I can trade in 10 wet fart baggies for a Wii peripheral until 12/1.)
Hmm, does that apply to console TF2? I play it on the PC where patches and big changes are easy to apply. That being said, TF2 plays very differently from CoD and leaves itself open for easier patching. Oh, and it's straight up class-based making it easier to deal with problems. You can't fault CoD for not being as good as TF2. Basically everything is.
Horrors of console gaming I'm afraid...
