I don't understand why you keep bringing BF3 up. At what point did I say "BF3 is worth the money over MW3?" All I've said is that MW3 is a 60 dollar expansion pack. If anything, it should have been priced like Ultimate Marvel, at 40 dollars to make it more justifiable. You list all the good things MW3 has done, but did you know how lazy they actually were? They even took buildings from previous CoD games and copy and pasted them into the stages for MW3. I'm not talking about buildings you can look at from far. I'm talking about buildings you walk into, where you run into enemies and fight. How lazy can you get? Oh wait, that kind of laziness comes when you know fans will run up and buy your product no matter what.
I bring up BF3 because that is A) By far the most common game brought up against MW2 and B) I rarely if ever see anyone complain about it being an "expansion pack" when it calls in the same category.
I haven't seen every map in the game yet, but I have not seen copy + paste buildings. You're gonna have to show me a video and point out which buildings.
It's not a matter of MW3 being "closer to a new game." The fact you don't want it to change that much also shows you don't want progress. Are you telling me that you will continue to spend 60 dollars every year for minute changes? What's the point then? Don't you bash games like Madden for the same thing? At least Madden has a justifiable reason to it. They are copying a REAL LIFE SPORT. There is only so much change they can bring, until the sport changes itself. What is CoD copying? Real life military warfare? Yeah right. It's an arcady shooter, which opens it to several more changes than simply fixing bugs and adding new perks.
I don't care about Madden at all, but they are without a doubt changing even less. It's just player rosters, tweaking the engine slightly, and adding in a new mechanic every now and then.
CoD does change things, just very slowly
as it should. CoD1-3 was basically no changes at all except for regenerating HP being introduced in CoD2. CoD4 introduced game type, perks, and killstreaks. WaW introduce/reintroduced tanks (which were quickly discarded because the majority hated it), more gore (which was again removed), War game type (the one thing that should have stayed for the MP), and Zombies (which people went crazy over). MW2 introduced Pro Perks, killstreak options, more variety in secondary weapons, more attachments/equipment, titles/emblems, final kill cam, and Spec Op missions (which was overall treated positively).
Black Ops introduced the CoD Point system (which most people were neutral about at best), dolphin diving (neutral at best), wager matches (which people did enjoy but it was tied to the meh point system), custom emblems (AKA ****s everywhere, thank goodness it's gone) and two new attachments/even more equipment. MW3 introduced various branches of killstreaks (which people so far like), Survival Mode (which people love), Weapon Specific EXP (which is being received better than CoD Points), and yet even more attachments/equipment.
They do change things, but if you look above, a very large portion of the stuff they change the fanbase rejects. Particularly if it's added in by Treyarch and isn't called "Zombies".
The game does not need a massive overhaul, but the lack of innovation or new additions is getting stale. You THINK they can't do much, but that's what they want you to think. You are satisfied with the current product that has been around for years and years, because they know you will run up and spend your money on it.
I'm not against games improving on the old formula, but when you've been doing it for what...10 years now? It gets old.
It has nothing to do with what I "think", the fanbase it self has decided that there isn't much they can change without backlashing them. This goes across
all FPSs. Halo 2 was loved because it added Live, but only changed the maps and a few weapons. Halo 3 was less loved because of the equipment. Halo Reach is considered the lowest point of the series because they added bloom and armour abilities. A good number of people don't like BF3 now because of the lots of very small changes they added. For the upcoming Homefront 2 game, its fanbase doesn't want much more than minor tweaks. MoH died away quickly because they changed too much.
People
want the same formula. It's not just FPSs that are like this. People don't want drastically new racers, they want what they know. Zelda games don't change much most of the time for a good reason: versions like Phantom Hourglass weren't received as well. Sonic is forever trying to find a new formula that the majority of their fanbase likes but will never find it because they had to change from 2D to keep up with the times. The changes from MegaMan Battle Network to MegaMan Starforce put an already fairly polarizing version of MegaMan into the trash heap for most MegaMan fans. Heck, even the changes from Melee to Brawl are seen as problematic to some.
The majority of buyers simply want what they know, with minor updates for a new game. That's it. Give us a new storyline, tighten up a few weak areas, take one or two small risk with new ideas to see if they fly as a new mainstay for the series, but don't do anything else. That's what CoD has been doing, and frankly has been doing the best, which is why it sells so well. If people want to play something any more different then that, they will go to a different series, not the one they are currently playing. That
is what makes a new game now, and if you really think about it, almost always has made a new game with a series.
inkiepie:
