How many of you would buy this for like 40 or 50 dollars or something. If they Rerelease CT mutliplayer. The game would eliminate the glitches, have way improved graphics like single player, good servers with no host advantage, new maps, and since its a new game it would have a flourishing community. And the developers would actually listen to us more : )
I hope Conviction is like this ^^^ but i doubt it. I'm just dreaming. Conviction will probably fail in my book.
[moderator edit]Added a No voting option.[/moderator edit]
This message has been edited. Last edited by: WhiteKnight77,
We'll have something better which is free. But the idea is definately good. I'll probably buy it if it gets proper post-sales support and promotional events like tourneys with prizes. At least 3-4 a year.
Since the disaster that was Double Agent i won't be buying any Ubisoft products ever again. They royaly screwed us PC players by producing a shoddy product and since i wasted 50 bucks on that game i won't be wasting any more.
Probably not. I certainly wouldn't pay to have the glitches fixed as that's something that should be done for free. I also wouldn't pay that much just for improved graphics. The servers could probably be added by an update, and the maps could be added from just downloadable content, so I would rather just pay for them like that. As for it having a large community because it's a new game, it's not a new game so it's community would probably be very small.
Originally posted by DingChavez2005: Probably not. I certainly wouldn't pay to have the glitches fixed as that's something that should be done for free. I also wouldn't pay that much just for improved graphics. The servers could probably be added by an update, and the maps could be added from just downloadable content, so I would rather just pay for them like that. As for it having a large community because it's a new game, it's not a new game so it's community would probably be very small.
I guess i misunderstood his post. I thought he was talking about a new game.
Originally posted by DingChavez2005: He said that it would be a re-release of Chaos Theory. It could be considered an expansion pack, but not really a new game.
Oh ok.
Then yeah, if it had better graphics four new single player missions, three coop, map editor for MP consoles and MP graphics matching SP and COOP.
Originally posted by DingChavez2005: He said that it would be a re-release of Chaos Theory. It could be considered an expansion pack, but not really a new game.
Not necessarily. How many "sequels" come out with pretty much the same features, minor graphical updates and new levels? Yes, they should be considered expansion packs, but they sell them as full games. I mean, you could even consider PT in that way if you never enjoyed multiplayer. And from what I see of Vegas 2 it looks to be exactly that.
Blame consoles I say. This kind of thing used to be an expansion, but nowadays it passes for a full game, no problem.
It's a joke! When you look at me like that, it's a joke.
True, but at least most of them have either an original single-player Campaign or an original Multiplayer game. This idea doesn't have any single-player at all and only small changes to the Multiplayer.
Well, what are multiplayer games to do? Must every new instalment be completely different from the last? I'm not saying I want re-release after re-release of the same thing, not at all. But I mean, look at the Battlefield franchise. From Battlefield 2 to Battlefield 2142, there was a change in context and therefore a change in factions, weaponry etc. But the game still plays almost exactly the same. Sure, there is a new mode, but it isn't really different enough to be considered revolutionary or anything. What are they to do? If they were to change the gameplay, it would hardly be considered Battlefield as there are so many shooters out there just like it that if you so much as touch the features that make it slightly different you are making it indestinguishable from the mob. Maybe not a good example, but you get the point. There is only so much change you can do before it is too different. I guess that's why a certain mod is a better solution than Ubisoft.
About the singleplayer, I don't know if a new campaign is really significant. After all, you would expect an expansion to have a new campaign. I mean, fair enough if it made extensive use of a new feature (although even some expansions do that, such as Age of Mythology: The Titans) but I don't think the same exact thing with a new campaign is any different from an updated multiplayer. I am not particularly condemning or condoning this, although I will say I don't think these games would be so common a few years ago when PCs still reigned supreme.
It's a joke! When you look at me like that, it's a joke.
I don't think that a new Campaign or a few new features to Multiplayer would do very much good for the game, either, but it would certainly cause people to buy the game, and those people would also contribute to the online community.
It's a self-fulfilling contribution to the community, really. People won't buy the game unless the online community will be large, and the community won't be large unless people buy the game. If they just add a few new features and a very basic Campaign and market it as an entirely new game, then I would buy it knowing full-well that all of that stuff won't provide much replay value. As long as everybody else is convinced that the knew stuff will make it good, then the community will flourish and I'll be able to play almost any Multiplayer game on almost any Multiplayer map for maybe years after its release date. If it's the same game with new maps, then the community won't grow.
????
