Chris wrote:
> "boodybandit" <allaboutgamez@comcast.net> wrote in message
> news
dmdnUIV7vjOXq7bnZ2dnUVZ_jidnZ2d@comcast.com. ..
>>
>> "Alan" <aye@right.com> wrote in message
>> news:g9-dnU4TYO1yka7bRVnytgA@bt.com...
>>>
>>> "AirRaid" <airraid22@gmail.com> wrote in message
>>> news:1177743932.695086.10770@n59g2000hsh.googlegro ups.com...
>>>>
>>>> 720p HD
>>>> http://download.activision.com/callo...t24FPS720p.mov
>>>>
>>
>>
>>>> 480p SD
>>>> http://64.158.29.57/90webStereoFastStart24FPS480p.mov
>>>>
>>>> right-click, save as
>>>>
>>>
>>> Looks ok, but all they've done is turned COD into GRAW/Rainbox Six
>>> - only time will tell...
>>
>>
>> You say that like it's a bad thing.
>> GRAW and RS are very popular games on LIVE. More popular then COD.
>> Maybe this is what Activision needs to move the series forward.
>> Damned if they do, damned if they don't.
>
> This is not what they needed to do to move the series forward. They
> are simply going from one "safe" setting to another and copying GRAW,
> R6 and BF. There are tons of things they could have done to "move the
> series forward" that would have been breaking new ground for
> shooters, like setting it in the Pacific during WW II (MOH: Rising
> Sun was crap) or going to Korea or Vietnam. The Korean war has never
> been done before on consoles and Vietnam has been done twice, neither
> of the quality that COD has brought to previous games. Instead
> Activision decided people wanted modern shooters and gave them one.
> The video game industry is an industry largely of copycats and COD 4
> is going with the flow. Now we have a glut of modern shooters and
> some people will be saying the same things about modern shooters in a
> year or two that they said about WW II shooters.
> Also, why did they have to make this a fictional war? I have a
> problem with video game companies refusing to push the envelope even
> a little bit. Instead of GRAW, Splinter Cell or R6 going to Iraq or
> Afghanistan, they're always set in some "future" conflict that
> doesn't exist. Six years after September 11 we have ONE game that
> features Al Qaeda as the enemy, that stupid PS2 game where you fought
> Osama kung-fu style at the end. COD could have pushed the envelope
> there and actually done something totally new even as a modern
> shooter but chose not to.
> This isn't moving the series or gaming forward, it's moving it
> laterally. Hell, the only game that might be doing something to move
> gaming forward is that WW II shooter due to be released in 2008 where
> the background changes as you liberate the town as a fighter in the
> French resistence. Hopefully that might stimulate developers to use
> the surroundings and background in their games in new ways.
The problem is, we fought to a standstill in Korea, for me anyway, sandbags
a bit of the interest in the game. Vietnam was morally ambiguous. We
already have too many people trying to rewrite history on that one. There
was no ambiguity about WWII which is one of the reasons why its such great
fodder for a game.
While I have mixed emoutions but no real objections to moving into a more
modern battlefield, even a fictional battlefield if it's done well, I agree,
WWII still has a lot of great stories and battles to be fought and no one
has really done a good job on the war in the Pacific. I'd certainly like to
see COD move to the Pacific theater.
--
Nomad