I agree with this
I've bolded the above that weren't full cost though, that were released either free initially or eventually, and were just sold as expansions/DLC. I think that's what irks some of the folks, that the differences between major CoD releases have become much more like the BF expansion packs, but they still want to sell them annually for 50-60 bucks. And now they've found a way to charge what, $100ish for the 'elite'?
For the people that really like it, that's fine. I can understand. I had sooooo much fun back in the day playing lots of twitch shooters with smallish maps, Quake, Quake2, Quake3, UT, etc. I appreciated the various games that gave more options in terms of vehicles, map sizes, classes, etc. Tribes was a lot of fun, ditto the BF series. One thing that you notice quickly with those type games is how important it is to play alongside people that know what they're doing, and to organize teamwork more. That's a double-edged sword, as a good match might take half an hour or more, and having crappy teammates can ruin the fun pretty quickly. That's hugely different from being able to jump into a DM game like MW and just go on a killing spree immediately within the first few seconds. With the attention span and average player quality ou there, this makes a lot of sense.
Back to CoD, I think everyone but their stockholders would be a little happier if between each release they had a major DLC pack or expansion pack ($25ish) that brought everything but the SP campaign as new, and then every two years you got a full release with a new engine, new SP campaign that's twice as epic, etc. Unfortunately it seems like if anything, we're going the opposite direction, and will end up having to get a new MW game every 6 months that will have even less change to it. I'm sure they're desperately trying to figure out how to EOL past games now so that they can herd more people into each new one more quickly.
On the real, there are millions of fans out there that want a new game every year and are willing to pay for it. They're just feeding the hunger, and making a ton of money along the way. Also, they're feeding all the haters to. I mean, would this thread even exist if mw3 weren't coming out?
I still play BF2 now and again. Are you talking the console servers? I can't vouch for the console version, but on the PC the 'upgraded' guns weren't any more powerful. I spent most of the time with the stock medic rifle and the G3, which you had to watch your ammo on, but it really had some reach-out-and-touch-you power with the 7.62x51.
Anyway, that's 2005. That's right between CoD 1 and CoD 2 ('03 and '05, respectively).
Ugh, I'm wrong, apparently the console BF2 was total garbage. I take back anything I said that might be construed as defending it :
http://www.gamespot.com/xbox/action...t/review.html?om_act=convert&om_clk=gssummary
It seems a little strange that Battlefield 2: Modern Combat should have the "2" in the title, given that this is the first Battlefield game to make an appearance on consoles. The game also, unfortunately, bears little resemblance to its superb namesake on the PC. While Modern Combat does offer some amount of charm with its highly produced interludes and its slick unit-switching mechanism, ultimately this multiplayer-focused military shooter falls short of its promise with design flaws in its campaign and clunky vehicle handling.
Honestly I expect it to go like this :
Console : MW3 sells almost as much as MW2, but maybe off about 10%. MW3 outsells BF3 by at least 3 to 1, probably more like 5 to 1.
PC : BF3 sells massively. BF3 outsells MW3 by at least 3 to 1, probably about 4 to 1 in the end.
On the real, there are millions of fans out there that want a new game every year and are willing to pay for it. They're just feeding the hunger, and making a ton of money along the way. Also, they're feeding all the haters to. I mean, would this thread even exist if mw3 weren't coming out?
And you have to realize IW isn't the same IW, and it's being co-developed by Sledgehammer.you have to realize too that the treyarch games aren't real CoD games. IW is/was the only maker of good CoD games.
If we didn't get a shitty treyarch CoD, on years between MW2, would you still feel the same?
And you have to realize IW isn't the same IW, and it's being co-developed by Sledgehammer.
And you have to realize IW isn't the same IW, and it's being co-developed by Sledgehammer.
Why don't you just generalize like how fanboy's do? A lot of people want something different. To some BF3 might be that. You sound so defensive. How old are you?not sure what that has to do with anything since the hate started way before that happened.
Why don't you just generalize like how fanboy's do? A lot of people want something different. To some BF3 might be that. You sound so defensive. How old are you?
I'm so defensive, I'm buying both games.you sound defensive too. how old are you?
Apparently if you click an eyes rolling emote you think you've won the argument.
Go thread go! We've almost passed the official MW3 thread. Good for you guys!
you have to realize too that the treyarch games aren't real CoD games. IW is/was the only maker of good CoD games.
If we didn't get a shitty treyarch CoD, on years between MW2, would you still feel the same?
Seeing as how the thread title is "MW3: not excited," I'd say probably not.
Is there an echo in here?
Wow.. Is this how we're going to continue discussion of how non-excited we are about mw3?
Wow.. Is this how we're going to continue discussion of how non-excited we are about mw3?
What else are we supposed to talk about? The earth shattering perk system and bomb-proof trees?
*crickets*