Originally Posted by Shogun
i don´t get, why developers try to dumb down their games to make them more like Cod!
you can´t compete with the king by trying to copy it! how often did this work? how many clones of successful games managed to be better than the original, or at least as good?
the only way to make a successful game is by delivering something new and innovative! if you aim for the cod crowd, you will lose them to the next cod or bf game that has better graphics and physics.
ps2 offered 2000 players and giant maps. but that was the only thing that cod didn´t have. all other things the cod people like are better in the original for sure. (i never played cod, but i guess ps2 can´t compete in terms of graphics and gunplay)
if ps2 still had all the cool concepts from ps1, the players would be hooked up by those unique gameplay features. and there would be no other game for them to run to for a long time.
|
CoD's formula of accessible, casual, and rewarding (but unbalanced) gameplay coupled with an explosive, cinematic campaign is what makes it sell.
that formula attracted allot of attention, and sold extremely well. developers and publishers saw this formula and think "look how much money they made, maybe if we do the same thing we can make lots of monies too!" and thus you have the "CoD clones".
you see, it is all about money. same thing happened with the iphone, it sold like hotcakes, and other companies followed. this is why we have been getting the same crap.
now, if only CoD's formula was a good one, it wouldn't be as bad....