Remember the bf 2 special forces expansion , where we got these awesome zip lines and other cool stuff. Doesn't every dlc (except karkand) fail horribly compared to that ?
In a way everything is a copy from each other indeed. But for example the ORCS are verry diffrent in tolkien his stories then the warhammer 40k ones or even the warcraft ones.. But in starcraft there is TO much wich is almost identical to warhammer 40.000. So you got a huge ripoff. And thats why we 40k fans can never accept this.
lolmao if they wouldt spent half as much time and money in the actual game itself instead of these awesome cinametics, Maybe just MAYBE.. starcraft would have been a kickass game
the single player from cod is awesome but in the end its multiplayer that matters in shoot games . And 64 player maps whit flying, driving, crushing action will blow the sh%t out of cod. So why are they even comparing these games...? and saying bf needs more single player. Sigh.. fcking amateurs the more i hear from these fools the more i want to hurt them. Just let dice focus more on awesome maps and balance then a singleplayer campaign of 4 hours gameplay . And about being rewarded as a player whatever it means.. nothing in cod feels so awesome as when you shoot a chopper down whit a rpg full of enemys. So i ask again WHY COMPARE THESE GAMES ? Cod is a joke and cod 2.5 wont be any different
smookert010's comments