Thread: Recycled content in MW3 and BF3 from past games

source

Seems a little lame huh? I mean I guess it is fine if you have buildings that are similar but the last picture of the rock thing is just a tad bit weird. Sometimes I wish they were a bit more creative or something.

I don't think its unexpected at all. I mean there are only so many different types/styles of buildings & terrain. I've never played either game as they aren't my type of game so I may be in the minority here.

Not really a big problem for me to be honest. It's not like I'm going to focus much on the cars or buidlings. I'm sure there's much more copied media in each new release. Plus you have to look at it like this, these games come out every single year. I know Treyarch and Infinity Ward take turns releasing games, but why change what works is what I'm trying to get at?

Good post! I've heard MW3 is basically just a map pack for MW2. They didn't even add any advancements that Black Ops added for multiplayer.

Originally Posted by Bremaine

Not really a big problem for me to be honest. It's not like I'm going to focus much on the cars or buidlings. I'm sure there's much more copied media in each new release. Plus you have to look at it like this, these games come out every single year. I know Treyarch and Infinity Ward take turns releasing games, but why change what works is what I'm trying to get at?

I also don't have an issue with recycling terrain/vehicles/buildings. If reusing existing material saves a game developer money in man-hours spent on creating all-new material just for the sake of pleasing players who want everything to be fresh and novel.

Originally Posted by Fardreamer

I also don't have an issue with recycling terrain/vehicles/buildings. If reusing existing material saves a game developer money in man-hours spent on creating all-new material just for the sake of pleasing players who want everything to be fresh and novel.

But if the game isn't new in that regard then it must make up for it in some other area in order to not just be the same thing as MW2 just with a 3 slapped on it and then if you buy it you've basically just bought MW2 twice.

[QUOTE=OmarFW;71560]But if the game isn't new in that regard then it must make up for it in some other area in order to not just be the same thing as MW2 just with a 3 slapped on it and then if you buy it you've basically just bought MW2 twice.[/QUOTE

I thought MW3 had a new storyline, though.

All right, fair enough; maybe the designers should add a few new features to the game to make it less a rehash of MW2. But here's the thing: if the game is set in the Third World and lots of the missions take place on a battlefield where vehicles and buildings are already blasted to the other side of Mars, how much of a difference does it make if there are different models of cars, trucks, etc?

The only thing that I can think of is to have the game designers do research into what are the dominant makes and models of vehicles - particularly civilian vehicles- in the region where the MW scenarios take place and add them to the mix. And maybe randomize the rocks and other terrain features.....

Originally Posted by Fardreamer

I thought MW3 had a new storyline, though.

All right, fair enough; maybe the designers should add a few new features to the game to make it less a rehash of MW2. But here's the thing: if the game is set in the Third World and lots of the missions take place on a battlefield where vehicles and buildings are already blasted to the other side of Mars, how much of a difference does it make if there are different models of cars, trucks, etc?

The only thing that I can think of is to have the game designers do research into what are the dominant makes and models of vehicles - particularly civilian vehicles- in the region where the MW scenarios take place and add them to the mix. And maybe randomize the rocks and other terrain features.....

If all they change is adding onto the campaign storyline, why couldn't they have included that extra campaign content into MW2?

To say that an extended and continued storyline is ridiculous. Would you like it if Skyrim was split into multiple games? What if Mass Effect had been split into 7 games rather than just 3? That would piss off a lot of people. Why is it somehow okay for CoD to do it especially when they barely change the gameplay at all with every release?

If someone wants more content to keep themselves entertained then their game of choice should simply contain that much content in the first place. That's why games released in 1999 like Unreal Tournament still have people playing them, because they have long term appeal like games should have.

CoD intentionally provides you with less content so you will get bored of it sooner so you will buy the next sequel more willingly. Activision doesn't want people only playing one CoD game and being content with it for many years or less people will buy the new ones, especially since they are just re-hashed with new titles slapped on them.

Damn ! I've just noticed that, i think that they are like any other businesses which are in the market just for money, so as we can see they didn't bother about making any new innovation to the buildings, they made just some few modification and that's it.