Poll: Should Call of Duty Stop?

[thestig1214]

I know a lot of you "hardcore" gamers are immediately reacting to this thread with "WTF is this guy nuts?" But, hear me out. The Call of Duty franchise, as we all know, has been getting worse and worse with every new release, and not just online either. We all know the cheating and cheap "n00b tubes" is very prominent in the online but the story has been getting less emmersive and as soon as the newness wears off everyone can agree that most new CODs suck. Honestly I don't think Trearch or IW has put out a good COD since 2007 with COD4, and despite it being the biggest FPS franchise to date, I think they need to put this cow they've been milking dry for 10+ years to rest.

I personally would rather play a good single player game like Fallout that keeps me hooked for months than have to deal with some of the a$$holes online in COD and debatably Battlefield or HALO. Maybe the next COD should just be an outstanding career and no online, or selective online like the new Combat Training feature.

 

[Onyx Oblivion]

I think that it should take a break. 3 years sounds right. To give people enough time to miss it.

Reinvent itself, like it did with 4.

4's multiplayer was a revolution, even if the core gunplay was barely different from 2.

It's time for the next step.

 

[Gahars]

Yes, and I'm a huge fan of Call of Duty.

However, with what Activision will probably do with it as the years go by, the future doesn't look to bright. Black Ops was great, end it on a high note, and give new franchises a chance to emerge.

 

[matthudson]

It'd be great if the entire games industry stopped making COD4 again and again and again.

 

[kwagamon]

As much as I like Black Ops, the series has definitely hit a point where I wouldn't care if it were to fade off into oblivion.

 

[bak00777]

maybe for a while, having 1 a yr is making it feel like they have no other ideas.

 

[WanderingFool]

I think that it should take a break. 3 years sounds right. To give people enough time to miss it.

Reinvent itself, like it did with 4.

4's multiplayer was a revolution, even if the core gunplay was barely different from 2.

It's time for the next step.

God... there are a number of series and franchises that could benefit from this approach.

 

[Good morning blues]

Modern Warfare 2 was really short and I would have been really dissatisfied if I had paid for it rather than just borrowing it from my roommate, but while it lasted, the single-player game was really, really great. I don't play online games. I haven't played Black Ops yet, but as long as the games continue to be good, why stop the series? They make tons of money, and while Treyarch's games haven't really lived up to Infinity Ward's in my opinion, I've always enjoyed the games.

 

[T8B95]

It should just go away for a few years, give everyone enough time to forget about it, and spend that time making a game that's actually new and innovative.

We've had seven (more than that with spin-offs) games in as many years, its time we jsut stopped.

Although I won't care, I haven't bought a Call of Duty game since World at War, and that won't change any time soon.

 

[Luke5515]

Should they? Probably. Get some time to build a really nice game for the last modern warefare.
Will they? God no. Cod is better then the treasury department at printing money, and I see no reason why they'll stop, no matter how buggy, broken, and boring the games is. People will buy it anyway.

 

[PhunkyPhazon]

Or you could just, you know, not play it. It sounds to me like a ton of people like these games, so why the hell should they stop being made?

This is kind of a general response, btw. I haven't played CoD since the second game. I just hate it when people think a franchise should stop just because they don't like it. No one is forcing anyone to play anything.

 

[parasyteFMA]

I don't think they should stop, but I think they definitely stop doing a game yearly. Too much overkill.

 

[Master Kuja]

I think that it should take a break. 3 years sounds right. To give people enough time to miss it.

Reinvent itself, like it did with 4.

4's multiplayer was a revolution, even if the core gunplay was barely different from 2.

It's time for the next step.

Exactly this, give people enough time to actually stop and think "Hey, whatever happened to CoD?" and then use that time for development to bring out a new CoD game that ends up being as revolutionary as the first Modern Warfare ended up being instead of just pumping out games year after year to the point where people get sick of it.

Put it to rest for a while, then bring it back with a renewed sense of visor.

 

[Danish rage]

well, sales numbers indicate half the planet has bought it. I say, keep on giving people what they want and go play something else if a annual COD game displeases you. I for one wish for a competetive tier 2 COD with a monthly fee. Just to get rid of the final winers.

 

[thestig1214]

Geez, you should pitch that to an IW rep. That was really professional sounding.

 

[maddawg IAJI]

As a person who despises what CoD has become, no. They make a lot of money off of those games and I see no reason why they shouldn't continue it. I may not like it, but if you broke back to back sales records, I doubt you would wanna quit either.

 

[ImprovizoR]

No CoD shouldn't stop. But what should stop is releasing it every year. If it was every 3-4 years it would probably be an awesome game. Longer campaign, more throughout multiplayer. But Kotick couldn't care less about that. He only cares about money. Which is why I wanna shoot him in the knees.

 

[Nick Angelici]

Stop all warfare games at least for 5 years, please.

people need to focus on story, characters, originality.

Seriously Im done hearing about shooters let alone playing them