Activision doesn't develop the game.

you dont know, you guess.

@rage congratz you know the difference between publisher and developers and you have shown it to us even if you perfectly knew what he meant

damn straight

They are the ones who put the choker on the developers to pump out these games at an unfair rate. They start giving them more time and maybe they will start putting out quality games. Until then, their franchises will continue to lack innovation.

Many people don't know the difference. I've heard many people on this forum say that CoD has a one year development cycle when they've had a two year cycle since at least CoD 2. If the ignorance of the situation wasn't so rampant I would've assumed that's what he meant, but alas it isn't.

Indeed they do have input to how the game turns out actually. I watched the BO preview vid before it came out and there's some head-honcho from Activison who was always checking up on them or something.
Anyway, Activision publish the game and have control over the development cycle, which in turn determines the quality of the game. I suppose you don't know that Activision gave Treyarch 8 months to make
CoD3. Look how that turned out. Meh...okay.

Sure beats the yearly $60 re-skin/expansion pack known as the MW franchise.

BF3 at-least has a new engine, is a true sequel to the godly BF2, and has been in development for a lot longer than MW3.

Read my last post. I'm well aware of who publishes, who develops, and what the difference is. Apparently you don't however.

Activision, the publisher are the ones who give them these short timetables and insist on yearly iterations.

Are you saying they have one year to make each CoD? They have two years and swap the dev teams around. Still, two years is not
enough to make a good game.

A lot of us have been waiting a long time for this game to come out. The other games being released at the same time are meaningless to me. I'll be getting this one first.

I'm not into shooters or crime dramas so that reduces the actual number of games I am interested in. Others like the witcher 2 are being released much sooner so I won't have to worry about any conflicts in that area either.

I am sure that five years from now skyrim will still be selling well, just look at how well morrowind has done. I have purchased at least three copies of it and two copies of oblivion.

I'm pretty sure bethesda isn't very concerned either.

My main point is yearly iterations is what ultimately will kill this franchise and that's nobodies fault but Activisions.

Assassin's creed have a one year cycle and its a very good game and they innovate on every iteration

Exactly, I mean look what they did to Guitar Hero. Massive game at one point and one that you thought would never stop selling.
What did Activision do? They killed it with their over-priced peripherals and yearly updates. I haven't really enjoyed a Call of Duty since
the second one, which I have fond memories of.


I'm not trying to be rude but I thought you were joking at first. Brotherhood, I have not even been interested in since I got it on launch.
It's just AC2, but bigger and much more boring. I think I have done like 34% on it or something. You can see most of the buildings from
AC2 have been plonked in and retextured. At least AC2 had some variety, I'm stuck in Rome all the time in BH. It's just bland.

Your opinion of course. Which you're more than welcomed to. To each their own.

Once again, CoD is on a two year timetable, the same as the last two Battlefields. Like I said, ignorance.

MOST people would agree with me that Assassin's creed games are of high quality.

@rag. again my assassin's creed example. assassin's creed is a true ONE YEAR dev cycle and they dont fail at doing new stuff every year.

When was Battlefield 2 released?

How many Battlefield games gave released in the last 6 years and how many CoD's have released over that same time? Exactly.

And Kenji makes a good point.

They have 2 different developers leap frogging each other.

Ken, I played the first AC and quickly grew bored of it. And won't try it again. The reason Dice is trying new things with Battlefield is because EA wants the sales that CoD has. If Battlefield had the gameplay to get those sales then they wouldn't be bothered by making changes. CoD has a good chance of getting knocked out of their position this year, because of the upheaval with Infinity Ward, not Dice's decision to finally put the ability to go prone into the mp experience.

And they're still not innovating!

BF3 has been in development for years. The FrostBite2.0 engine itself took nearly 4 years.


Meanwhile, MW3 is another yearly retread that will most likely look a generation behind BF3-PC.

Thank you.

Battlefield 1942 - 2002
Battlefield Vietnam - 2004
Battlefield 2 - 2005
Battlefield 2142 - 2006
Battlefield Bad Company - 2008
Battlefield Bad Company 2 - 2010
Battlefield 3 - 2011

Call of Duty - 2003
Call of Duty 2 - 2005
Call of Duty 3 - 2006
Call of Duty 4 - 2007
Call of Duty WaW - 2008
Call of Duty MW2 - 2009
Call of Duty Black Ops - 2010
Call of Duty MW3 - 2011

Edit: Added all major titles in both series.

Of those I'm only getting Skyrim and AC Revelations.


I liked Uncharted 1, but Uncharted 2 lost me.


I hate COD.

There's been a CoD every year since 2005. Yikes.

Regent, BF3 was made alongside the other games.

MW3 was not made along side BO and MW2.