Death_Korps_Kommissar said:
Well then play MW2. Why should you have to fork out $60 for what is the essentially a map pack then?
People made that 'why am I paying full price for what is essentially an expansion pack?' arguement for Halo 3: ODST but I played it at a friends and thought it wasn't too bad (it had a full campaign, added new game modes and included all of the map packs for those of us who don't have the spare cash to get them seperately, overall it was a pretty good deal) so that petty arguement rings a bit hollow to me.
I'd argue that this probably will amount to more than 'just a map pack', after all, we have a campaign included (I've also heard there will be a return of Special Ops as well as a survival mode of some kind), will most likely have new additions to the arsenal avaliable to us in multiplayer (as well as new perks, equipment and killstreaks) and will probably feature a few tweaks and changes to fix some of the balance issues found in previous games.
Overall this doesn't really sound like 'essentially a map pack' and does cross into what I would call a full game, otherwise, does this mean I can rip into Left 4 Dead 2 for essentially doing nothing but adding a few levels and melee weapons?
That one
was an expansion pack marketed as a full game.
What you are saying is that it's fine to just completely milk a series and never change because it may "scare" the fan base.
That's not what I said at all, there are changes that make sense and actually add to the experience the player is expecting (new weapons, maps, equipment, campaign, killstreaks, perks etc.) and then there are changes which come from completely out of left field, sure, they're 'innovative and unique' but at the same time probably wouldn't add much to the game.
That way we never innovate anything and it's just the same thing over and over again. I would be interested in MW3 if they were taking whole new things to the game, to try and push boundaries of FPS.
And what exactly are your suggestions to 'push the boundries of FPS' (whatever the hell that is actually supposed to mean, these are shooting games, not post-modern abstract art) and what innovations would catch your attention?
Because, frankly, if you're going to complain about a lack of innovation but have no actual suggestions as to what would be innovative then it sounds to me like you're just looking for something to complain about.
The way I see it with that multiplayer video, which it wasn't it was just another cutscene.
To me it just looked like multiplayer (did you not like the bit with the chicken? Is that it?) although maybe we just have different definitons of what a cut-scene is.
Right now I'm only seeing this with BF3.
How exactly? I'm not even paying attention to BF3 to be honest, Bad Company 2 sort of turned me off of the Battlefield series, my first experience with it and it's first chance to try and impress me and...it
openly ripped off of Modern Warfare 2 (it was the joke in the jungle level about the special forces guys with fancy heartbeat monitors on their guns that kinda tipped me off to the fact that they were trying to be clever about it...and failed completely).
If CoD could try and mix it up more with their games like with Blops (good ideas, poor execution) I'd certainly buy it.
Again,
examples of what you thought were good advancements. It doesn't add any validity to your arguement to just say 'it was unoriginal',
why was it unoriginal? What would you add to freshen it up? What potential issues would your additions have? How would you sell your idea to Infinity Ward? (if you must, pretend that I'm Robert Kotick)
