cpt_freedom
...or do they? I was reading this article on (http://games.ign.com/articles/121/1217539p1.html), and it was talking about how Cod is getting stale and blah blah blah whatever. As I was reading this I found my self agreeing with most of the stuff the author said, but then I realized this was written three months after they gave MW3 a 9, indicating it is "amazing' which is certainly not my opinion, but the point being WHAT THE HELL TOOK THEM SO LONG!!! and the next part that I read infuriated me even more. The author is talking about how "certain deaths" should have some effect to the storyline, and the first thing I thought was Patriots. Then a couple of sentences later I read this: "If Spec-Ops: The Line and Rainbow Six: Patriots can't achieve this as intended, Call of Duty could be the first military shooter FPS to make us think about the implications of the actions we're enjoying..." Wait, wait, wait IGN honestly thinks that if Cod decides to make some adjustments to it's gameplay elements by taking something from another game it will be great? Are you kidding? **** off IGN! This is why I don't like you. Patriots has been in development for over 5 years, and don't forget that almost every R6 game has been innovative while it took Cod four freaking years to do something different. I know the author never actually said Patriots will fail, but its as if he implying it almost hoping that the Patriots idea will fail so Cod can just swoop in and take the throne. Honestly if Cod wants to be different go ahead, but don't try to persuade me into buying your games by stealing an idea that another franchise used, and try to iterate it into one of your terrible games, especially when it's a franchise I hold in high regard. All this article tells me is that IGN is still biased and still on the Cod bandwagon.
Reply With Quote
PsychoNite
Originally Posted by deltaops12345
