OFFICIAL COD4 DL content previews

[WARLOCK]

the other thread about maps caused me to search the net for any leaks or unofficial sneak peeks. the first site i checked was 402's and he's got a little info and links to a couple of pics of the new dl maps. if i understand correctly he works directly with infinity ward so i'd count him as an "official" source.

enjoy.
First Call of Duty 4 DLC Preview + Screens IAMfourzerotwo

[Blargian Toast]

Should be cool. I imagine they'll be bringing the pack out after R6 to keep interest, spring 08' will be about then won't it?. The ravine map looks like it's going to be sniper city.

[OME6A]

Originally Posted by WARLOCK

if i understand correctly [fourzerotwo] works directly with infinity ward so i'd count him as an "official" source.

You are correct.

"Broadcast":


"Creek":


From Gamespot:

There will actually be four maps in the final pack, though we can only really tell you about these two. The other two will be Chinatown, which is pretty self-explanatory, and Killhouse, which is a "bonus" map that we didn't get any hard details on (though we were told to think of the single-player campaign's initial training level as a reference). The map pack will be available on the Xbox 360 and PlayStation 3 in the coming months for an unspecified price.

They look ok. Not enough to keep me playing COD4 when I'll be playing R6V2 though. Why do they wait forever to do this stuff? These should have been out at least two months ago.

[Cylon]

Anyone have an idea of how the new maps will work into the rotation of games, considering not everyone is going to be purchasing them?

Hopefully they have a separate game mode with just the new maps (Such as "New Maps") That way, it would be very easy to find a game with others who have purchased them.

I say $10.00 would be a fair price for the four maps, but for some reason I think it is going to be much more than that.

[OME6A]

Originally Posted by Cylon

Anyone have an idea of how the new maps will work into the rotation of games, considering not everyone is going to be purchasing them?

Oooh, that's a good question.

I'd imagine that when you're joining a game from the playlist selector, it'll put you in a game with the new maps if you have them, and in a game without them if you don't.

That'd be the proper way to do it. That, or they'd need to duplicate the playlists to say "these have the new maps, these do not", which would be pretty weak.

[.Nameless.]

Originally Posted by OME6A

Why do they wait forever to do this stuff? These should have been out at least two months ago.

The game came out in November last year, so according to you, the maps should have been available just ONE month after the game was released. Now, I don't know about anyone else, but that just doesn't make sense to me.

Anyway, "Creek" reminds me of that one map on Combined Assault that had that little encampment where the Mercenaries spawned, sometimes with a Technical nearby. "Breach" looks like a cross of LVU Campus (the one with the two skybridges in RSV) and the first level in single player that you play as a Marine (has a s**t-load of TV's).

[.writer]

Originally Posted by .Nameless.

The game came out in November last year, so according to you, the maps should have been available just ONE month after the game was released. Now, I don't know about anyone else, but that just doesn't make sense to me

Omeega believes that if a game is going to have DLC, it should be released within a month or 2 of the games release. I agree with him. If there is going to be DLC, they should release it while the game is still good/popular.

[OME6A]

Originally Posted by .Nameless.

The game came out in November last year, so according to you, the maps should have been available just ONE month after the game was released. Now, I don't know about anyone else, but that just doesn't make sense to me.

The entire idea of DLC is to enrich the gaming experience. In order to do that, you need to have people that are actually still playing the game.

In this case it's a shooter, that while it has been wildly successful, is at the end of it's line. All the people that matter, which likely excludes you, are fed up, tired, and generally bored with this game because they've been stuck playing the same maps over and over since November.

Now we're on the eve of another popular shooter (Rainbow Six Vegas 2), gamers are going to do what so many of my exes have, and move onto the next best thing. When they do that, the majority of them are likely going to trade Call of Duty 4 in because they've been playing it for months, and at sixty bucks a pop for a game, every trade-in dollar helps.

So, what doesn't make sense to you is that they need to strike while the iron is hot. This means they need to get the content out as soon as possible, so that interest is maintained. In maintaining this interest, you not only give gamers more enjoyment in playing, you also turn a mind-blowing profit that will likely ensure a weekend getaway for all of your staff with Eliot Spitzer's favorite call-girl.

Infinity Ward did a spectacular job with Call of Duty 4. If they had put out a DLC map-pack within a month of release, and continued to do so every month, then this game would've had a lot more life in it.

*Thanks for the back-up, E .

[WARLOCK]

Originally Posted by OME6A

lots of words

all that is true for the most part, but the other side of that coin is that people like me will buy the pack (if it's relatively cheap) just to have it in case i want to play it during downtime for the other big games around that time or in the future.

yes it would be spiffo if every shooter got new content released monthly immediately after release, but that aint gonna happen. it works for genre games like guitar hero where there's litterally an infinite supply of personal prefferences that are quick and easy to satisfy like single songs, but for something like shooters and new maps it's just too difficult to get off the ground that soon. then there's the issue of the games success or possible failure. it would suck to go through all the trouble of putting out a brand new game AND new content the following month only to have the game tank and waste all that time and effort. if a game comes out and hits the big time like call of duty did then the developers know it's worthwhile to produce new addons for it once it has an established fanbase and will actually benefit them and the developers themselves.

that's the way i see it anyways.

[.writer]

Eliot Spitzer's favorite call-girl.

No ****ing way. I refuse to believe that she is a hooker. Wow...

*Thanks for the back-up, E .

No problem

[.Nameless.]

Originally Posted by OME6A

All the people that matter, which likely excludes you, are fed up, tired, and generally bored with this game because they've been stuck playing the same maps over and over since November.

Oooh, that was harsh. I just don't see the point in realeasing content for a game pretty much immediately after it's release. Why would you put new maps into development before a game is even out? Wouldn't you want a little input from the people who are playing the game before you make a map? That way, you would know what the players want in a map. Do they want a huge snipe-fest like Bloc (? the one with the two buildings across from each other), or do they want a huge rape-pit like Shipment (for example, kill everyone with an airstrike). But hey, to each his own, right?

[Unwritten Law]

I'm with nameless on this one. There are still TONS of people still playing this one. It's STILL the most played game online right now. I don't know what will happen when RB6V2 comes out... I prob wont even be getting it because it looks like COD4 is still better.

Its a money thing and it is trying to get people to continue playing for longer. New maps aren't about what we want the most, its so that we keep playing which is what the makers want the most. If the DLC maps came out a month after the game was released then why not just have them included in the game?

Also they used player feedback to come up with the maps. I think they said people wanted another really open one (prob creek) and another close quarters one (tv one) and something completely different (chinatown/killhouse?)

[tedstryker]

creek looks really good BUT camping and sniping will control the game play . broadcast no comment I'm a little disappointed from what I've seen so far from the 3 screen shots. where is a snow map give me a map like blizzard.

[Unwritten Law]

creek seems like it will be played just like overgrown or pipeline... which I'm fine with.

There weren't any snow maps on campaign so it's prob hard to make a multi player level based on completely new elements and textures. Socom (2/1??) had a snow map.

[OME6A]

Originally Posted by .Nameless.

Oooh, that was harsh.

Sorry, I had just watched the latest Zero Punctuation video and those usually get me worked up. Plus, saying it excludes you, I was referring to new content not being a big point for you.

When a game is as good as this one, I play it a lot. The sheer fact that so many people play the game is even more cause for more content on a regular interval. If COD4 got new maps on a fairly regular basis, it would be played for a long time by a lot of people.

Also, consider Mass Effect, which was one of the best games of last year. That came out before COD4 and is only now getting DLC. It's a wasted opportunity for both us and the developers.

Originally Posted by Unwritten Law

Also they used player feedback to come up with the maps. I think they said people wanted another really open one (prob creek) and another close quarters one (tv one) and something completely different (chinatown/killhouse?)

Any developer worth their pay would know all of these things before needing community feedback because they basically cover all the bases in terms of playing style (sniping, run & gun, etc).