- Jul 6, 2011
No seriously. I mean the CoD franchise has gone through CoD 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 and Black Ops with not much in the way of change other than graphics updates and a new excuse to fill people with lead. Not saying thats a bad thing, I'm just saying it can't really come as a surprise that the next game in the line follows the same formula as the othersOne Hit Noob said:
Well then play MW2. Why should you have to fork out $60 for what is the essentially a map pack then?Iron Mal said:It looked new enough to me but perhaps I just haven't been blessed with the eagle vision of the Gods that you have (silly me).Death_Korps_Kommissar said:But it's just MW2.1
It's the same game with like little bits added on. I just.... ugh...
Vote with your wallets people!
If you're going to get technical about it then you could probably argue that all shooters haven't really changed much since the 90s, after all, almost all of them feature a gun and hands holding them in the middle of the screen and have mechanics centred around you going around and shootng people over and over again until you 'win'.
A large number of people enjoy the gameplay forumula offered by Call of Duty, odds are on that the devs are going to try and satisfy those people above all else (why should they shake things up and go out of their way to try and impress people who probably aren't going to be interested in it anyway and when there's no gurentee that any new innovations or changes they make will even be appreciated?).