Activision Did Not Want Modern Warfare - Polidicks

[quote=chunkymonkey;17704510]you know nothing. The original cod and it's expansion are still some of the best wwii games there are.[/quote] <3 coduo.

Story matters to me as much as authenticity in a war game and as dynamic as the modern setting is, I haven't seen a single game which tells a good one. They're usually set against conflicts which last less than a month and have a pretty much throwaway cast of token characters who don't change much as a result of it. Brothers in Arms, the first Call of Duty and Medal of Honour: Pacific Assault all have the best characters in my opinion. Rather than making it strictly about the battles or events (nearly all of which have been done to death), they put more emphasis on the soldiers who fought.

First them dropping brutal legend and now we have this shit. Really Activision's management needs to just fall off a cliff they clearly have no idea what they're doing dumping ideas that are original and innovative for bland and monotonousness shit and endless sequels on games that have lost their appeal long ago (with CoD being one of the few exceptions, well the ones made by IW anyway) there worse than EA in some aspects at least EA picks up new shit every now and again (I must admit picking up Brutal legend made me gain some respect for them). really I see MW2 as the last game I'm buying from these people for the foreseeable future. short response : Activision is the new EA

EA sucks

[QUOTE=Zips;17704324]You might want to keep an eye on this one: [url]http://www.heroesofstalingrad.com/[/url][/QUOTE] Oh crap I forgot about that game, heheh

IW should definitly join Valve. They could get the action from CoD and the story telling from HL in one game.

Nah, IW are much more console-oriented, now they might be delaying the PC version of MW2 in favour of the consoles :argh:

how about a WW1 game, that would be awesome.

Call of duty 2142? Please... Im waiting :D

[QUOTE=Zips;17704324]You might want to keep an eye on this one: [url]http://www.heroesofstalingrad.com/[/url][/QUOTE] Thanks mate.

[QUOTE=elevator13;17701636]dum dum dummm[/QUOTE] Ahahaha, oh god. And all this time, I've been seeing people blaming Activision on the Call of Duty Series focusing on consoles these days.

God, I've just lost respect for Infinity Ward.

Its funny, in the world of electronics, one big guy always says "NO IT WONT HAPPEN". The little manages to do it anyway and it is a huge success.

Well I myself don't mind the world war 2 but what matters for me is the game's style.For example Cod Waw was a fuckin copy of cod 4 to get publicity.I am sure you guys noticed,what made cod waw Popular was the zombie mode which gets boring after a while.

[QUOTE=nerdygamer;17701549]Thank god. WW2 games are way overrated.[/QUOTE] Agreed

console deving is fine, just so long as they release it on everything. they stand to make the most moolah that way. Still MW was a good game. this just proves my "activision are twats" theory.

Cod 2 Had way better multiplayer, cod mw had more classy SP, but really shitty MP..

[QUOTE=chills2;17707829]God, I've just lost respect for Infinity Ward.[/QUOTE] Why, because they like working on consoles? They're honestly not so bad. Why people have hate for consoles I'll never know.

[QUOTE=Rankzerox;17708432]Cod 2 Had way better multiplayer, cod mw had more classy SP, but really shitty MP..[/QUOTE] I found COD2's SP better than COD4. Maybe I'm just a WW2 fan or something (incoming disagrees D:)

It sucks that developers have to listen to publishers. I wonder if IW actually wanted to make Modern Warfare 2 then.

[QUOTE=Evil_Toaster;17702011]If by "Join Valve" you mean let EA publish their games, then that would be a great idea and the right move. You don't just 'join' Valve. they won't publish games for you. Valve has EA to publish their games, and IW should let EA publish their games too because Activision is dumb and EA is also dumb, but a little less dumb that Activision[/QUOTE] fixed

I don't think CoD:Modern Warfare being released around the time CoD 2 was would've worked out, CoD 2 was still quite a strong WW2 title in its own right [editline]06:04PM[/editline] [QUOTE=thisguy123;17708277]console deving is fine, just so long as they release it on everything. they stand to make the most moolah that way. Still MW was a good game. this just proves my "activision are twats" theory.[/QUOTE] Not particularly, training/hiring people to get up to speed on the console development workflows isn't cheap any, and if it's a bad port it can be disastrous

I hate it when distributors tell developers what to do

[QUOTE=Simplemac3;17708473]Why, because they like working on consoles? They're honestly not so bad. Why people have hate for consoles I'll never know.[/QUOTE] It's not that, it's just that CoD was originally a PC game.

A Vietnam game would be pretty fucking cool.

[QUOTE=Zips;17704324]You might want to keep an eye on this one: [url]http://www.heroesofstalingrad.com/[/url][/QUOTE] I was expecting a game where the singleplayer is where the Axis powers actually win in an alternate reality or something. Seeing the Axis win and playing as them would be pretty awesome.

[QUOTE=Vasili;17705256]The problem I have with WW2 games is that they are never accurate enough and they are too arcade themed, I like the COD series and COD2 was a very good game because they seem to try and get close to accuracy, I really enjoy WaW. I don't think its a problem with too many WW2 games, I think its a problem with too many WW2 games staring yankey boys in their glorious American ways slaughtering hundreds of Germans with gas masks carrying MG42's. [editline]09:50AM[/editline] If you to find an accurate WW2 game it will be outdated in graphics and the engine will be lame or there is no single player campaign (Red Orchestra for example).[/QUOTE] I agree, history shows that there was always one guy in every squad who had to do [b]everything.[/b]

Needs more vietnam

Activision is dumb.