Dear Sledgehammer...

[Undead]

Please at least include all NEW content for your map packs instead of just slapping a new coat of paint onto an existing map from a previous title. Instead of being forced to basically pay for the same map twice just to get my hands on the new maps with each DLC, at least make a 5th/bonus DLC specifically catered to "Top Hits" maps all in one place as an added option instead.

 

Sincerely, 

 

Undad

 

(Ironically I tell them how to make more money when I complain how much Activision already makes off over priced and petty micro-dlc packs, but hey! All the more reason for them to listen then, right?)

[FatedTitan]

Luckily, the only other title Sledgehammer has worked on was MW3, and technically that's IW property.  So I don't we'll see any old maps.

[DeathBringerZen]

Completely agree with this. When BO2 first gave us Nuketown 2025 I though... "This is pretty cool!", but then it became an epidemic. Every DLC had at least one reskinned map, some even had two and by the end I think there was a total of 7 old maps brought back. Now Ghosts is doing the same and it is just terribly lazy if you ask me.

 

"We can't think of anything new or innovative so let's just release an old map and say we are bringing back another fan favorite but have Vonderhaar claim it is his favorite map of all time to give it an additional selling point"

 

What kind of bullshit policy is that? If you want to bring back a ton of "fan favorites" then release a compilation game, don't make us pay for the same map twice! When MW3 gave fans the Terminal remake that was fine, but it has now become common practice. The only thing that may be in Sledgehammers favor is the fact that they don't have any CoD titles of their own behind them, so if they were to bring back old maps it would need to be either IW or 3arc maps and I don't see that happening.

 

I expect AW to be completely original this time, or at least hope that is the case.

[lead_psychopath]

Completely agree with this. When BO2 first gave us Nuketown 2025 I though... "This is pretty cool!", but then it became an epidemic. Every DLC had at least one reskinned map, some even had two and by the end I think there was a total of 7 old maps brought back. Now Ghosts is doing the same and it is just terribly lazy if you ask me.

"We can't think of anything new or innovative so let's just release an old map and say we are bringing back another fan favorite but have Vonderhaar claim it is his favorite map of all time to give it an additional selling point"

What kind of bullshit policy is that? If you want to bring back a ton of "fan favorites" then release a compilation game, don't make us pay for the same map twice! When MW3 gave fans the Terminal remake that was fine, but it has now become common practice. The only thing that may be in Sledgehammers favor is the fact that they don't have any CoD titles of their own behind them, so if they were to bring back old maps it would need to be either IW or 3arc maps and I don't see that happening.

I expect AW to be completely original this time, or at least hope that is the case.

You know, it wouldn't be so bad if they did bring back maps like terminal for free. But it is mental that every single DLC now has a remade map.

As Bo2 was out, I was all for remade maps, and certainly on the Activision forums, many people were like " no, I want new maps!!!". At the time I couldn't understand it, I'd love any map, new or old. But having played remade and new maps, I'd take new over old any day!

[Rissole25]

Yeah, they may as well have made a separate map pack because there's that many it fills one. In terms of BO2, they could've even thrown in an old zombie map if they wanted, call the map pack Rememberance or something weird.

So yeah, these remakes whether changed or not need to be free or entirely in their own map pack. I can already tell Hijacked is the new Nuketown though. Expect that remastered in Treyarch's new game.

As others said though AW should be relatively safe unless they stupidly do MW3 maps.

[Undead]

Maps like Terminal (and Nuketown 2025 I believe) that we're given out for free as a bonus is one thing. Hell, it certainly wouldn't break the bank to throw in a freebie now and then, especially if it's just a map from a previous CoD title. 

 

Don't get me wrong, I dig playing some of these remakes of popular maps. But I'd rather have the option to pay for them if I want to, not need to in order to get the rest of the DLC that comes with it. That's just downright lazy IMO. If I'm paying extra money for extra content, the content should all be well, extra original. Frankly I'm surprised they haven't done this yet given they basically did already with the classic zombies maps. It was it's own DLC to have the previous zombie maps equipped with Blops weapons and all in one location.

[Lenne]

I rather take a decent old map than 4 bad new maps.

Although I do agree that paying for it... again is kind of a bummer.

 

But who am I to talk I haven't played Ghosts in 6 months.

[Slade]

"Remastered" maps should come with the disc, like Gridlock From Gears of War 3.

Vote with your wallet folks. 

[way2g00d]

I love Favela. I actually think all their new maps are shit anyways, so I don't mind playing old map. And wait, is that an AC-130? I also love the pirate ghosts from Mutiny. New extinction map looks good too. Lots of cool shiny things cryptids and a boss that flies. I think you guys are over reacting.

[GRILL]

I wish they'd sell the extinction maps separate, but - that'll never happen (just like they won't sell zombies separately).

I don't like having to $15 so I can just play one map, don't really care about MP anymore : /

[Rissole25]

I think you guys are over reacting.

Well not really. For me at least, if I wanted to play old maps, I would go and play it on the original game. All this does is fuel the argument that CoD is always recycling stuff. The time could've been put to better use IMO.

[DeathBringerZen]

 

I think you guys are over reacting.

Well not really. For me at least, if I wanted to play old maps, I would go and play it on the original game. All this does is fuel the argument that CoD is always recycling stuff. The time could've been put to better use IMO.

 

 

Agreed. I hardly think seven (I believe) recycled maps in Black Ops 2 is an over-reaction to be honest. Some of the recycled maps were poor the first time around as well, so why should I have to pay for them again? Ghosts is no different in this instance.

 

Still, it is a pointless debate as I believe the communities reaction to these poor reskins is what promted Activision to make the Dev cycle 3 years so as to give the Devs a better chance at being innovative, and this is one of the reasons why I believe we will not see any (or maybe one at best) reskins.

[way2g00d]

Well it is as simple as this. If you don't like what you see don't buy it. $15 asking price is bit too much I agree, But I think it's totally worth it if you enjoy multiplayer and extinction experience like me.

[Undead]

I've heard I don't know how many times from different people claim or admit they even buy the map packs JUST for the Zombies/Extinction DLC. I personally find that insane, so you'd think they'd at least consider making that an option to be separate DLC since it basically is separate from the main game anyways. 15 bucks for a map pack is one thing, but that's just one more thing to add on my view; If I JUST want the latest Zombies/Extinction, I HAVE to buy the entire map pack. If I wanna try out the new MP maps, I'm stuck also just getting a recycled "favorite" and they use a fresh coat of paint just so it feels new as a crutch, IMO.

[DeathBringerZen]

Well it is as simple as this. If you don't like what you see don't buy it. $15 asking price is bit too much I agree, But I think it's totally worth it if you enjoy multiplayer and extinction experience like me.

It is not as simple as that though! I bought the BO2 DLC for zombies, and I had no choice but to pay over the odds for recycled MP maps that I would have preferred not to have to pay for for a second time, so as a paying customer it is my given right to compain about it.

I get that you are a fan of Ghosts and Extinction Way, and you are right to an extent... I have not and will not buy any DLC for that game, but to tell me to simply not buy DLC for a Treyarch game is not good enough. I am a zombies fan so will obviously buy 3arc DLC but If they want me to pay top dollar for their DLC then I want original content with it!

[way2g00d]

Yes, as cruel as it sounds, it's just another marketing scheme to bring in people to buy their sh*t for several reasons, in this case, if you hate multi-player you will still buy it for extinction.

[DeathBringerZen]

I don't really hate MP though. I still played MP throughout BO1 and early in the BO2 season, but I got turned off by the poor maps on offer, and then to see them recycling maps in the DLC was a real off putter, for me at least.

The Firing Range and Summit remakes showed a complete lack of imagination and innovation if you ask me. Take two fan favourites and reskin them, then make them pay for the pleasure. Yeah... good one.

[way2g00d]

I agree the remakes are so bad, summit, firing range and now Dome. Like what the flying f*ck.

[mralways1]

I've heard I don't know how many times from different people claim or admit they even buy the map packs JUST for the Zombies/Extinction DLC. I personally find that insane, so you'd think they'd at least consider making that an option to be separate DLC since it basically is separate from the main game anyways. 15 bucks for a map pack is one thing, but that's just one more thing to add on my view; If I JUST want the latest Zombies/Extinction, I HAVE to buy the entire map pack. If I wanna try out the new MP maps, I'm stuck also just getting a recycled "favorite" and they use a fresh coat of paint just so it feels new as a crutch, IMO.

I've never played a multiplayer DLC map.... They are bought strictly for zombie content, so I figure I've played "call of the dead" at least 2,000 times...... It works out to be less then $0.01 (a penny) per play... Hopefully they wouldn't be greedy and charge bulk per play.... Example "I bought the 50pac of origins, it costs me $10.00"

Chow

Edited June 2, 2014 by Mralways1

[lead_psychopath]

I personally wouldn't be that bothered if they remade really old maps. WaW would be ok, and Cod 4, maybe as old as cod 3, because I didn't play any of those maps as they came out.

But remakes from MW3 and Black Ops are a bit thoughless for sure. Dome really did annoy me.

[83457]

I'm happy to see Favela, because i do play bots/rarely mp/ safeguard and it was fun to see that map again, but that's about it for me liking reprints. (no bots in mw2, so no reason to play a cod that old at this point, with bots, you can always throw the older cods in).

That being said, a couple in mw2 were from mw, which i didn't have. So that was kind of cool except that Vacant was so unbalanced.

Did bo1 do reprints? Bo1 original maps were almost all garbage, they could have used some reprints...

I find the ghost reskin maps annoying, but they tried to change them enough and add gimmicks, so it's almost a new map (even dome/unearthed).

For the record though, i would prefer new content, not rehashed. And again, sledge doesn't have any previous cods to fall back on.

Edited June 9, 2014 by 83457

[DeathBringerZen]

Did bo1 do reprints? Bo1 original maps were almost all garbage, they could have used some reprints...

 

I completely disagree on that one. BO1 had some very decent MP maps in my opinion, but that is all it is... opinion, so with that aside I go on to the main point I have. Just because a game has garbage MP maps in ones opinion does not necessarily call for reprints. It is down to a lack of imagination and innovation on the programmers and would maybe then call for a rehiring of staff with better ideas, but to resort to reskins is extremely poor in my opinion and has partially led to the downfall of CoD as a franchise. BO2 and Ghosts were generally poorly recieved for the most part and they are littered in reworkings.

[83457]

Did bo1 do reprints? Bo1 original maps were almost all garbage, they could have used some reprints...

 

I completely disagree on that one. BO1 had some very decent MP maps in my opinion, but that is all it is... opinion, so with that aside I go on to the main point I have. Just because a game has garbage MP maps in ones opinion does not necessarily call for reprints. It is down to a lack of imagination and innovation on the programmers and would maybe then call for a rehiring of staff with better ideas, but to resort to reskins is extremely poor in my opinion and has partially led to the downfall of CoD as a franchise. BO2 and Ghosts were generally poorly recieved for the most part and they are littered in reworkings.

I can't argue this at all. Well said. I retract my view that reprints would have been better as it was said facetiously.

If i could redo history, i would have taken villa, kowloon, hanoi, rather than firing range/nuketown.

Again, it's opinion, but people screamed and raged when firing range or nuketown got picked, so why reprint something that was so reviled by so many players? Pick a fan favorite, not a troll map to reprint. That seems obvious, doesn't it? Why purposefully add to the rage that cod induces?

Oh wait...Trollarch...it's in their name.

[DeathBringerZen]

Again, it's opinion, but people screamed and raged when firing range or nuketown got picked, so why reprint something that was so reviled by so many players? Pick a fan favorite, not a troll map to reprint. That seems obvious, doesn't it? Why purposefully add to the rage that cod induces?

 

I thought the reskinned Nuketown was ok at first. A novel introduction to the main games setting... 2025. The reimagining of Firing Range was a terrible idea though. I was a great map on BO1 at first but it became overplayed and tedious. To bring it back one game later was a joke and I did not enjoy it at all. Same with the Summit remake. Great map on BO1 but pointless on BO2.

 

Even up to BO1 I played a lot of MP still having been a huge MP fan since the first MW, but BO2 although fun at first really killed it for me. I got so bored with it so fast which was a shame seeing as zombies was not altogether inspiring either.

 

I really just can't get into Ghosts at all. I think it is the downscaled graphics on current gen from next gen that let it down for me. Tough to spot enemies in the distance and as I prefer to play hardcore, it usually ends up being a friendly I shoot before seeing the GT. Not that keen on Extinction either.

[Hells Warrrior]

Call of Duty: Dawnvile                                         = Call of Duty 2: St Mere Eglise

Call of Duty WaW:  Cliffside                                = Call of Duty BO: Hazard

Call of Duty Modern Warfare 2: Wasteland         = Call of Duty Modern Warfare: All Ghillied Up

Call of Duty BOII: Uplink                                      = Call of Duty  BO: Summit

Call of Duty Ghosts: Ignition                                = Call of Duty Modern Warfare 2: Scrapyard

 

These are just some of the multiplayer maps that have been reskinned and then included with DLC. Remember, we have already paid for the map irrespective of the map being reskinned or not. DLC should be for new downloadable content, not reworks of previous maps (unless free).

 

Innovation, not saturation.