The Best Way For Call of Duty To End

[HobbesMkii]

Most people buy COD for the multiplayer, which is fast paced, silly, OTT and explosively lively.

I think the best way for it to die is with fire and tears. No more CoD.

Who didn't see a post like that coming?

Well when I wrote it it was meant to come across as a stereotypical Escapist, but I stand by my opinion. The monopoly CoD has is bad for the industry, and now we have a over saturation of modern fps's trying to cash in. If CoD died fast and brutally it would send a strong message to other devs and publishers. Fun fact, EA has 5 shooter series now: Crysis, Battlefield, Medal of Honor, whatever the Infinity Ward guys are makimg, and Crytek bough Homefront, so that should count too.

I'd hesitate to say that any game that rakes in a billion dollar is bad for the industry. I'm not going to suggest that Activision pours all that money back into development of other more interesting projects, because I doubt it. But overall, giving game publishers more money to spend publishing games is probably a good thing.

Sure, you do get bandwagon people. In fact, Call of Duty has its genesis in following the bandwagon for WWII games (already easily beaten by both Medal of Honor and Battlefield at the time of its debut). But, see, it's not "let's all climb aboard the bandwagon" that rockets a game to fame. It's innovation. Call of Duty 4 actually proved that: it took a genre (FPS) littered with stodgy and stale WWII shooters and provided us with a huge update. The corollary to any innovation, in my opinion, is that you hit long periods of stagnation because it becomes generally held opinion that the innovation is what works, so why improve upon it? But you need those periods precisely in order to innovate over again: you need people to come and accept the innovation as the default, and therefore strive for something better.

WWII shooters existed for at least eight years (I'm counting from Medal of Honor to CoD4. "Realistic" or "Modern" shooters have been around for five. So, I'd guess we can expect maybe three more years of this genre before it too falls by the wayside and we go fight Call of Duty: 1776 or 2050 something.

 

[DarkRyter]

War Ends. All war. Mankind finally resolves its conflicts peacefully for eternity.

To all you folks tired of CoD and other modern shooters, there was once an age when there was nothing but WWII shooter after WWII shooter. This is a logical evolution of that trend.

 

[Westaway]

Most people buy COD for the multiplayer, which is fast paced, silly, OTT and explosively lively.

I think the best way for it to die is with fire and tears. No more CoD.

Who didn't see a post like that coming?

Well when I wrote it it was meant to come across as a stereotypical Escapist, but I stand by my opinion. The monopoly CoD has is bad for the industry, and now we have a over saturation of modern fps's trying to cash in. If CoD died fast and brutally it would send a strong message to other devs and publishers. Fun fact, EA has 5 shooter series now: Crysis, Battlefield, Medal of Honor, whatever the Infinity Ward guys are makimg, and Crytek bough Homefront, so that should count too.

I'd hesitate to say that any game that rakes in a billion dollar is bad for the industry. I'm not going to suggest that Activision pours all that money back into development of other more interesting projects, because I doubt it. But overall, giving game publishers more money to spend publishing games is probably a good thing.

Sure, you do get bandwagon people. In fact, Call of Duty has its genesis in following the bandwagon for WWII games (already easily beaten by both Medal of Honor and Battlefield at the time of its debut). But, see, it's not "let's all climb aboard the bandwagon" that rockets a game to fame. It's innovation. Call of Duty 4 actually proved that: it took a genre (FPS) littered with stodgy and stale WWII shooters and provided us with a huge update. The corollary to any innovation, in my opinion, is that you hit long periods of stagnation because it becomes generally held opinion that the innovation is what works, so why improve upon it? But you need those periods precisely in order to innovate over again: you need people to come and accept the innovation as the default, and therefore strive for something better.

WWII shooters existed for at least eight years (I'm counting from Medal of Honor to CoD4. "Realistic" or "Modern" shooters have been around for five. So, I'd guess we can expect maybe three more years of this genre before it too falls by the wayside and we go fight Call of Duty: 1776 or 2050 something.

Hm, very good points, make me rethink my position a little bit.
One thing I didn't bring up how bad CoD though. It's certainly not the. It's not awful. But it pales in comparison to pretty much every other AAA game coming out. Lets face it; if the new CoD got one trailer a month before it was released, atleast 3 million people would buy it. That tells me something has gone wrong regaring standards.

 

[The_Blue_Rider]

CoD will go when people stop buying it, until then, theres no point in complaining, great games are still coming out, Skyward Sword, Skyrim, Deus Ex, Arkham City, Assassins Creed, Mass Effect, just to name a few. Its not detracting from the industry at all, and clearly people still find it appealing, you may say the majority of the gaming community is sick of it, but the several million people playing Modern Warfare 3 at any given time seem to disagree with you. And before someone tries to say, "Oh but they play Call of Duty, they arent real gamers", Yes they are, theyre just as much of a gamer as you are.

I think the series is still going strong, going from Modern Warfare 2 to Black Ops is actually a quite different experience, the campaigns are vastly different, Black Ops having an actual attempt at a story, which I thought was quite interesting, the multiplayers play different, Black Ops is a much slower paced game in comparison to MW2. Just by changing up the guns and the perks, the game suddenly becomes very different in feel.

I havent played Modern Warfare 3 just yet but from what i've seen it looks to be a solid title, with enough differences to warrant a purchase.

 

[Tufty94]

I don't think it's that bad, after Call of Duty World at War I took a break from them and so far I'm liking this one. It got terrible metacritic scores because one of the developers asked people to bump it up on his Twitter account, which pretty much had the opposite effect.

One thing I hate about it though is that I've counted at least 30+ assets at the minute that have been taken from previous Call of Duty games, yet they have the cheek to raise the cost of the game. That was just off the top of my head too, there's probably as many as 50.

Also, WTF Captcha.

You only need to type in the verification word, ignore the other one.

 

[])rStrangelove]

I've got an idea (sorry if it was mentioned already):

Part 1: Intro (action cutscenes where you need to press in order to make the cutscene continue)
Part 2: Short combat scene in some dusty, ruined city. After a short while everything blends to white when some a-bombs are going off in the distance.
Part 3: You're awakened by your wife who says:

"hey, you're having nightmares again. Wake up, war's over!"

player: "Yeah, yeah... "

 

[MiracleOfSound]

Fun fact, EA has 5 shooter series now: Crysis, Battlefield, Medal of Honor, whatever the Infinity Ward guys are makimg, and Crytek bough Homefront, so that should count too.

I agree completely that other devs need to stop copying COD. Because none of them are copying the right stuff from it...

We don't need a million military shooters. What would be cool though is more games with a constant 60FPS on console and the same fluid, responsive controls that COD has. Not one of EA's clunky (although fun) shooters have those two absolutely essential features.

Respawn will be the COD killer if anyone is. Looking forward to seeing what they come up with.

 

[dimensional]

I dont see why it has to end as such I mean I have played MW and MW2 and enjoyed the multiplayer on a gameplay level single player bored me but I can say the thing about almost any shooter singleplayer with the exception of Halo 2 which for some reason which I liked.

It will end in people getting burned out on it if they dont stop milking it sure it makes sense on a short term basis but it isnt sound long term planning to oversaturate the market with your product so people eventually get sick of it and it generally dosent sit well with people either because they see their favourite franchise/game/whatever is just cashing in on them or they dont like the franchise/game/whatever and it is constantly being shoved in their faces making them actively rather than passively dislike it.

Story wise I dont know how it should end I think it would be better if they treated each installment as totally different i.e different characters, story even setting maybe and not as a continuation. Whatever happens if sales do start to slow I am sure it will end in a remake of MW to try and boost interest.

 

[Westaway]

Fun fact, EA has 5 shooter series now: Crysis, Battlefield, Medal of Honor, whatever the Infinity Ward guys are makimg, and Crytek bough Homefront, so that should count too.

I agree completely that other devs need to stop copying COD. Because none of them are copying the right stuff from it...

We don't need a million military shooters. What would be cool though is more games with a constant 60FPS on console and the same fluid, responsive controls that COD has. Not one of EA's clunky (although fun) shooters have those two absolutely essential features.

Respawn will be the COD killer if anyone is. Looking forward to seeing what they come up with.

I agree about Respawn. I'm afraid they're gonna make a really awesome game, because I'm doing a personal boycott on all EA games. I just really don't like them

 

[Jesse Billingsley]

Infinity Ward must have Micheal Bay as a consultant because ever since MW2, the games seem like a wannabe Bay Film. Explosions every half a second, heavy metal soundtrack in the background, conspiracy based plots, American flags flapping irritably in your face while trying to shoot at a bunch of Russians in an alleyway.

 

[Lucian The Lugia]

One way i think it could end , whichis somthing i know money grubbing activision will never do is to make a C.O.D. game exclusivley for the PC and offer free updates that could include new maps, new game modes, and new weapons. Also in this edition they should put in some ways to customize your characters. Also they should make the graphics less realistic and go for a stylized look so the graphics will never look too dated. Finnaly they should make all of the characters steryotypes of different races.

Oh, hello, Team Fortress 2.

Personally, I don't care what happens to the series itself, but I would rather have everyone shut up and stop proclaiming it the "best game evur," but even after COD is dead, you'll still have the fanboys who still consider it the "berst gam OVAAAA" so I'd say the damage is already done.

 

[Thaluikhain]

I reckon the last mission should be Harry killing Voldemort, and then you realise all the fighting had been created by Death-Eaters stirring things up behind the scenes.

C'mon, it'd be awesome.

 

[The Wykydtron]

I suppose it can only end with Activision running it into the ground a la Guitar Hero.

It'll happen sooner or later...

As for the story mode of this fabled last CoD i just hope it takes absolutely no inspiration from Black Ops' campaign.

Seriously there are no words to describe how bad the pacing was in that game.

[sub]So single line paragraphs, ve meet again...[/sub]

 

[Geekosaurus]

It's no secret that the gaming community is starting to get, or rather has been for a while, tired of Call of Duty.

I'm sorry, but I only needed to read the first sentence of your argument to nullify the rest of what you said.

I don't think the sales figures behind the Call of Duty games indicates that "the gaming community is starting to get... tired of Call of Duty".

I'm sure you made some interesting points, but if they're supporting your opening sentence then I'm not sure how seriously I can take them.