Call of Duty will "return to its roots" after Infinite Warfare sales disappoint

[Deleted]

http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/20...les-disappoint





Thank fucken god, There is new a 2% chance ill buy it. SO tired of the futuristic shooter bullshit.

Call of Duty you are not Titanfall, Please stop trying to be Titanfall.

This game has allured me the most out of any Call of Duty. Sadly it ticks every box except price. Overpriced doesn't even come close to describing it.

A return to what CoD originally was - WW2 shooter, I could see myself going for that too. But the constant 6month release of the same game with a slightly different story or more boring "perks" in multiplayer is... laughable to say the least.

[Kudos]

If by roots they mean Modern Warfare - I'll buy it. If they mean WW2 - nope, ain't buying no WW2 themed game, never gonna happen. WW2 theme sucks Hitler's ball.

Sadly, I think this is what they mean by 'roots'. I think they want to chase the success of Battlefield 1. IF they return to a WW2 shooter, I'm not sure it will help the franchise move forward.

[dope_danny]

Eh, i'll buy a 3rd Titanfall, Call of Duty and its creepy faux patriotism shctik can still do one. The setting isn't the problem the tone is. Titanfall 2 was a fun adventure with notimus prime. These lazy 'feel like a hero' power fantasies CoD turned into is so lame like something from the early 360 era that never learned how to grow up. Is that going to change by inevitably trying to follow the BF1 money?

[Kazgrel]

We haven't had an actual good WW2 shooter in almost a decade...

I was about to ask such a question. I haven't really paid attention to FPS in about 15 years, so thought maybe I had missed a bunch of recent ones set in WW2. Ironically enough, that's about how long it's been since I last played a decent FPS.

Just fucking remake the original Battlefield 1942 in Frostbite 2 or whatever they are on at this point. Drop all the upgrade/level up/unlock nonsense (which is cancer upon FPS)...ok, the AI would need some help, because to call the AI in BF1942 comically bad would be an understatement (that happened to be some of it's charm, though).

I suppose I can keep dreaming.

Edit: I am a retard and went from rambling on about FPS in general to #makebattlefieldgreatagain while losing sight of the fact this is about CoD.

[Triggered Fridgekin]

I'd like a solid Vietnam shooter with a bunch of money behind it.

[Varitok]

Vietnam, World war 2 and modern day/"near future" are the best settings for war games. Just saying. Not saying any other setting is bad, just really have enjoyed shooters from those periods.


I cannot wait for Rising Storm Vietnam

[Deleted]

http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/20...les-disappoint





Thank fucken god, There is new a 2% chance ill buy it. SO tired of the futuristic shooter bullshit.

Call of Duty you are not Titanfall, Please stop trying to be Titanfall.

I think CoD needs a break. People are tired of the franchise and I don't think going back to the roots will help it.

[Pony Soldier]

I don't know, I thought this was the most interesting Call of Duty game since the first Modern Warfare. Don't know what people want seeing as how CoD seems to be a yearly release type game. So do people just want the same WW2/modern day setting over and over again? I'm actually planning on getting this at some point especially the Modern Warfare remaster combo pack.

IMO, with games like these you have to keep changing it or else it's going to get old and stale really fast. In fact I got bored of the whole Modern Warfare setting after the first game. After I beat that I was ready for a new setting. Then MW 2 came out then it was the Black Ops series and until Infinite Warfare CoD seemed really boring and uninteresting because it was the same gameplay and the same settings over and over. The same unnecessary sequel after another. "Going back to it's roots" just seems like they are going back to the World War era again and then what's after that? Modern Warfare again? They should just make another decent WW 1 or 2 game and then call it quits after that. CoD has been going on long enough and there's not much else to revolutionize the series. Unless they want to start making the game more open world and have an environment to explore or something instead of being a linear shooter.

So that's my two cents on it.

[dope_danny]

Don't know what people want seeing as how CoD seems to be a yearly release type game. So do people just want the same WW2/modern day setting over and over again?

People are just sick of yearly releases with a year of season pass or dlc afterwards, even Ubisoft has put Assassins creed on a break and admitted the consumer at large doesnt trust season passes finally. Its brain drain on the developers to keep shitting out games constantly like a factory machine and on the consumer who can only buy so many before its same shit different textures. Its not just a CoD problem but Ubisoft, EA and Activision all do this and its why their series get those greasy as fuck "well we guess if UPCOMING RELEASE doesnt sell this series has no fans and we let it die" when the consumer is not in any way bored of the series, just exhausted from too much too fast.
A good sequel to a game should at best be 3 years of hard work after the fact. Yearly releases are growing increasingly stale and the homogenisation of shooters is a prime example.

[Xargoth6634]

Both WWII and space shooters are boring, doubt I'd buy either.

[Yunru]

COD...in old world age.

Kinda makes sense. It was your duty as a citizen of a empire/castle lord land to be recruted into a army.

[Aeluron Lightsong]

Activision with it's yearly releases are a problem. I mean if they followed a different model instead of "YEARLY NEW COD GAMES" people wouldn't be so upset with them and or apathetic. Unfortunately though it's still somewhat profitable.

[Lazuli]

They milk you for every fucking possible cent now. Back during CoD4 on PC I got the DLC maps for free and they all awesome too. I didn't have to fork down $50, the price of an entirely new game.

I'm never wasting money on that scam, and CoD is now 100% cash shop cancer. AW felt like I was playing a F2P game from some nobody company. Add to the fact that the game was garbage either way.

Did not spend money on IW because they didn't sell it separate from the game I actually wanted. Scumbags to the max, seriously... they don't even deserve our money. I haven't bought any since BO2 which I didn't like but it wasn't terrible.

If Treyarch make something like WaW2 I will buy it in a heart beat but all of these companies making CoD (too many I don't even know) suck. Treyarch are the only ones that know at least most of what they are doing.

[Ninjavitis]

I would like CoD a lot more if all their weapons didn't sound like shit. As both a firearm enthusiast and an infantry vet, very few games have come close to accurate weapon sounds. Battlefield 3 has come the closest (at least from all the games I've played) while CoD isn't even in the same ballpark.

[Rennadrel]

It couldn't be that yearly franchises get stale after they're milked for long enough.

Also this just in: The AAA industry chases trends until audiences get sick of them, then change direction to follow whatever new trend is taking off right now.

I look forward to futuristic shooters being the hip cool fresh new idea again in five years.

They aren't even a trend now, most games aren't future based in the FPS genre. Gaming is getting really fucking boring with continual rehashes. There is a reason why I stick to RPG's and play older games that have replay value, because nothing today does.

[Klingers]

They aren't even a trend now, most games aren't future based in the FPS genre. Gaming is getting really fucking boring with continual rehashes. There is a reason why I stick to RPG's and play older games that have replay value, because nothing today does.

The problem I think lies in annualised franchises and 8-hour campaigns. On top of that are DLC map packs and the yearly releases further dividing multiplayer communities.

Games like CS:GO or Overwatch work because they find monetisation options like cosmetics that let them keep all players in a single poo. They continually iterating the game without putting walls up, which keeps them fresh in a way planned DLC packs can't.

Single-player games, I think, work better when you give the developers some breathing space. Assassin's Creed potentially works better when it's not a yearly thing. Mass Effect Andromeda will probably be amazing because they've been allowed to take their time with it. GTA V was in development for almost a decade. Quality takes time.

In terms of shooters, CoD would probably have a better reputation today if they waited a couple years before each game. Give the dev teams a chance to leverage newer technology, develop longer campaigns, flesh out multiplayer more to differentiate between the last game... You know, real evolution instead of a new coat of paint.