- Jun 4, 2008
Sorry to single you out (it was the Silent Hill movie avatar, serously, if you liked that film then it kinda makes this a 'pot calling the kettle black' situation here).Shakaar9267 said:This is nothing more then MW2 repackaged.
Activision knows that people will buy this no matter what, so why take the risk on something new? Make the more money with less effort.
Yeah, I'm done with CoD for now. I may go back if MW4 has something resembling 'innovation'.
You don't think this is anything more than a repackaged MW2 most likely because you aren't a CoD fan, it's understandable if you didn't give the video more than a surface glance and elected that because it looks graphically similar that it must be similar.
It's fine if you aren't interested in MW3 (no-one's saying you have to be) but it would be unfair to say that the Modern Warfare series hasn't had anything in the way of innovation over time. Just look at CoD4 and MW2, both look very similar (both use the same engine I believe) and have very similar gameplay but you'd be outright in denial if you tried to claim that there had been no change or advancements between the two (MW2 added more choices, variety and flexability to the game, it also changed the levelling up system slightly to increase the speed at which you level so that it's less of an uphill battle to unlock the fancier weapons, a problem I frequently had with World at War).
So based on that is it fair to say that MW3 (a game neither of us have played) will be exactly the same as MW2 just because there are some recurring weapons in it?
That'd be like saying games like Silent Hill and Bioshock are instantly boring and not worth paying attention to because they don't involve terrorists or space marines (overall, you're essentially making the same judgement).