[QUOTE="DangerousLiquid"]
[QUOTE="QQabitmoar"]
CoD4. An excellent game. for 2007. I had tons of FUN with it, for about a year. Then it got boring. Next CoD? More of the same. Next CoD? More of the same. And then? You guessed it. More.of.the.same. Didn't even need to buy them to realise they were the same thing. THe genre evolved. Standards in graphics and gameplay changed. Yet CoD refuses to use a new engine, refuses to allow true player freedom and most importantly refuses to change. Why? Because it CAN. By cashing in on yearly rehases, grabbing the money of uninformed and easily swayed brainless consumers who don't know better quality products are out there because they are too braindead to look into it more.
CoD is driven by marketing.
Battlefield is driven by quality.
FACT.
QQabitmoar
CoD is driver by marketing... Lol. Why change it, if it's not broken?
>True. For 1 or 2 sequels. The 5th time you release the same game though, it's downright pathetic.
CoD4 being more influential than any BF game, is something you seem to ignore.
>Oh. That's why CoD4 ripped off Battlefield 2's leveling system and the modern setting?
And with the exception of graphics and visuals, MW3 improves on as much as BF3 (at least).
>That's why the internets have exploded over how similar the games looks to MW2?Not talking only visually, but gameplay wise as well.
1) 5th time? MW3 is the second sequel after COD4.
2) BF2? It sold like 5 million? Nobody cares for that game, nobody remembers it? Who the **** plays that waste of time?
3) As I said, except for graphics, it evolves just as much. And haters like you are not going to change it.
Log in to comment