scotth266 said:
COD 5?
Isn't it COD 6, considering that World At War was number 5?
Anyway, this is atypical "cry some moar" behavior over a game that hasn't even been released yet. Wait and play it for yourself before making judgments about it.
I have to admit. I'll be the first to bow down if it does anything that the last 30 FPS's didn't already do. (To be fair I won't clump TF2 into that because it really did knock my socks off when I played it)
I hate to sound like one of those 'moar cryers' but it really doesn't seem like FPS's have been expanding on anything since the ole rare days.
The original FPS era seemed to be like game after game of improving on what the previous's had done poorly and securing what they did well. Now it just seems like doing the same thing with a different skin over the map and characters. That's my two cents on the matter at least.
Not that it really matters. You figure if Jonas Brothers and Miley Cyrus can make millions, no matter how bad a game is it'll make a few mil with the right advertising and multiplayer (since people love competition).
Or to quote someone more recent:
-Seraph- said:
Played the first one, thought it was a pile of generic crap and was grateful I borrowed it instead of spending 60 bucks for something 2 years after it came out. The multiplayer in the second one looks okay despite some of the retarded things I have heard, but if it's anything like the first game, it's a waste of money and something I will likely borrow once and then forget it's existence among all the other dry and vapid FPS's.
If you like Multiplayer just get Combat Arms. It is free and has just as much functionality as most new 60 dollar (or more) FPS's

.