I was referring more to the more diverse choice of weapons, the vehicles, and the maps, which, along with the gametypes, allowed for a more broader choice of play and would guarantee that there'd be a lot more variation in the games than what CoD has to offer.42 said:1. What is there left to innovate in the FPS Genre? name one thing
2. Battlefield 3 wasn't that good, and it was marred by the fact the EA released maps that could've been on the disc from launch, so i ask what did it innovate on? aim gun at person and shoot? wow that is an insane innovation. i mean it looks so fucking real.
The way I see it is that these games can just keep getting bigger and grander rather than reusing the same old hackneyed concepts again and again with better polish. CoD has "Point at shoot", "Camp", "Snipe", and "Quickscope". In Battlefield, you can be the driver of a mobile troop transport, lead a charge in a tank, stay from afar and lay havoc with a sniper or a mortar, or get in a jet and provide aerial support whilst trying not to be turned into a new addition to the dirt.
Sure, it's definitely not changing a whole lot 'yet', and it's still definitely showing some of the obvious signs of cashing-in (Karkland DLC), but given the last few shooter titles that have been released in the last few years, I consider this, at least, an attempt by someone to take something old and at least try to add some new wheels on this, and if they keep going at it, they could really make some of the best damn online battlefield experiences possible.
However, I do also concede the notion that these games are stagnating the market. I want Battlefield to continue doing what it is and making FPSs more polished and grander than they are now. At the same time, I want companies like Bethesda to keep making titles like Skyrim to boost the diversity in the market, and perhaps I'd also like Squeenix to return with a decent fucking JRPG.