I just hope it's genuinely irrational polishing the game up rather than say, 2k finding the material covered in it too controversial and forcing them to tone it down.
Det1's forum posts
As i said in the chat. I don't understand people saying "I wonder what Apple will do now". They will do what they've always done. Apple is not some incredibly innovative corporation. What they've mastered is marketing techniques. Google, & Microsoft in this decade alone have been a lot more innovative and moved industries forward. Far more than Apple, with all that said, RIP. Though i'm atheist so.....yeah.
I always hesitate to reply to these comments, but here I feel I must. You couldn't be more wrong. I realize its fashionable for people to buy into the claim that all Apple does is market retreaded technology - but that opinion is utter bullshit. Apple has moved the needle forward on technology more that Google ever will and possibly even Microsoft. You are confusing the words "innovation" and "creation". See, they are different. Was the iPod the first digital music player? No. Was it even the _best_ on all accounts? No. Did it sell the best? Yes. Did marketing alone cause this? No. A simple, approachable, easy to use product was the cause. Not faster. Not bigger. Not shinier. Just easier to use. If Apple hadn't managed to sell the shit out of the iPod, where would we be today in regard to music online? Do you still buy CDs? Do you miss CDs? No? Thank Apple. That's innovation. Moving the needle. You live in a world made better by Apple, and by extension, Jobs. I could list many examples where this is true. Hate on them and their fanboys all you want, but make sure you take a look around before you sell them short. You are thinking small. "What have they made faster, what have they made bigger, what have they made shinier", (well, ok, I'll give you that last one :) - You need to think larger than that.
Are you kidding? Please name this technology they moved forward. Please don't let it involve MAC or Ipod.
Even their MAC operating system has changed & innovated little since Unix. Their Ipod software was not even developed in house. They are a company who overcharge on products that do much less than their contemporaries. Its something the Apple fanboys can never accept. Marketing is EXACTLY the reason Ipod sold so much, nothing else, not innovation. Not even close, Apple simply found a great way to make lesser technology "for dummies", overcharge for it and sell it to the masses.
Both Microsoft & Google have done much more innovation in this decade alone.
Like it or not, people do need usability in their software.
Is apple a deplorable company that overcharge for foxconn (read: mass produced at the cheapest cost with no regard to quality) hardware, perhaps going as far as to designing them to break within a certain amount of time to force more sales when it comes to certain products? Yes.
Do they market the hell out of their products to be contrary to what the products are actually made of (see: above) through pretty wrappings? Very much so.
Is this deceitful and worthy of scorn? Definitely.
Does this make people need usability any less? No. At the end of the day, products do need to be used by people. Usability and looks(software) are fair game.
As much as I hate apple (and steve jobs' role in creating/transforming a company into, well, apple), credit due where it's due. Usability and visual is important, and they brought it into perspective. Whether apple overcharges for their closed off market is another issue.
Besides, for all the bad things that apple does (and there's a lot of them), jobs himself actually believed in his products and talked to tech press (even the ones critical of him) despite his success. I can respect that. The rest of the things he did after his return to apple, not as much.
This has got to be one of the most boring games I have ever had the displeasure of touching.
slow day in the news?
I guess this IS an interesting way to approach reward/punishment in games though.
This sounds like one of those talks from one of those higher-ups who don't get the details on things or is just trying to make things sound good.
The truth is that while it's easy to just say "we're gonna hire a bunch of guys and make them innovate", simply forcing them to focus on one franchise limits the amount of space and direction they can wriggle in. Take the GTA series - another franchise with ridiculous staying power that made COD level profits. After GTA 3, they had to make everything bigger, crazier and better - vice city. After that, SA. After that, they got flaked HARD for GTA4 precisely because it didn't feel like GTA. COD is pretty much stuck in the same spot - it's precisely because people have an expectation that innovation would be difficult, and there's only a similar array of directions for the franchise to head toward while other franchises that put more time inbetween releases (team fortress)/is straight up fresh(portal) can innovate and create gameplay that is unrestricted by previous interpretations of their genre.
Think about it. The multiplayer in BLOP mainly extended itself over MW2 mainly by its inclusion of new modes, new weapons/killstreaks/killstreak handling/weapons/maps/etc. None of these are revolutionary in the sense that they don't change the feel of the game - you don't feel the difference you felt moving from halo to COD or TFC to TF2 or even COD2 to COD4. And if a next-big-thing comes along, all the staying power is just gonna vanish (see: how UT3 died). They're gonna have to change their game eventually, and it'll ruin their staying power.
Then again, maybe COD players really are just that dedicated. who knows?
I spam USA over and over again after I win/lose a match.
Well, at least before bad company 2 had those damn spam filters put in place. Asshats.