{{
`${userDetail.user.displayName}${userDetail.user.cachedBungieGlobalDisplayNameCode ? `#${standardizeBungieGlobalCode(userDetail.user.cachedBungieGlobalDisplayNameCode)}` : ""}`}}
{{getUserClans()}}
Edited by EnbyousNova:
5/12/2016 3:10:26 PM
5
If you mean CoD, people are upset because they are realizing that activision sells each game for 60$ while adding NOTHING to the game itself. Each new COD could have just been a DLC of the one before it. 1 new feature and some new maps, and the same overwhelmingly half-assed story.
English
-
You can say the same for battlefield as well.
-
Battlefield impressed plenty of fans by taking a step back and making their next game about WWI. Huge difference? No. But they had the good sense to realize "hey, maybe people don't want another 'modern' war game, since there are already dozens." But had they not had that idea they'd be guilty too. Then again not as guilty as cod, since there are just a TON of them.
-
Still nothing new in battlefield, just a ww1 setting. The game is still gonna play the same as any other battlefield.
-
Not really. BF3 and BF4 play a lot differently than say... BFBC, or the originals. And they aren't released every year like COD.
-
Every other battle field... With the fighter jets...? And tanks...? Sniper that shoot for miles? Will it be a FPS? Yeah. But there will have to be some inherent differences between this and any other FPS these days. Frankly I think it was a ballsy decision. I hope it works out for them
