What would make you play CoD again?


New member
Aug 6, 2009
They would have to do a good single player story well again. The multiplayer hasn't been that good in a long time (and was never remotely skill-based or balanced), but CoD4 had a strong story as well. It would probably look a little ridiculous post-Spec Ops, though.


New member
Feb 22, 2009
I really enjoyed CoD up until Black Ops and then I grew tired of it because it changed too much. I would like them to go back to basics, have maps like they did in Modern Warfare where there's a decent mixture of open, large maps and smaller ones (shipment again anyone?). Also would it kill them to include Australians in the campaign and as a team for multiplayer?


Censored by Mods. PM for Taboos
Mar 1, 2009
A setting with single-shot bolt-action rifles and pistols. Could be future or past.
I'm not much for "spray'n'pray" as it's jokingly called but rather prefer that which feels more skill-based.

Emphasis on a solid Singleplayer mode with Multiplayer for longevity and having fun with friends.

Changeable controls and ~console for advanced options.

I'm wondering if added rpg elements would help or hinder..It would probably mostly hinder unless done exactly right.

No fps lock, no cover based shooting, no regenerating health, no quicktime events, no escort missions, not so US Centric, no enemy respawning, no rails.

I've only played CoD (1) and CoD:UO, so my grievances will be mostly from rumor or things I don't want to see in it.


May 26, 2009
Captain John Price.

If he's in the more recent games then I've just not seen him... nothing else would make me go back.

Was never in to the MP as it was. Think of that what you will.


Noble and oppressed Kekistani
Nov 8, 2010
Only the infinite power of Jesus Christ, Himself.

The effect CoD has had on the industry as a whole and the way it's undeserved Scrooge McDuck moneypits have caused numerous developers to follow them down the mediocrity sinkhole have turned me against the series on principle. I don't care what they do at this point, because it wouldn't change the game that much. Anyone remember Titanfall? Not even slapping mechs on the CoD formula could make that thing any more interesting than any other CoD. And if mechs can't make something good, then nothing can save this thing.

RJ 17

The Sound of Silence
Nov 27, 2011
I'd get back into CoD if they actually bothered to re-balance the multiplayer. By that I mean get rid of the bajillion killstreaks and going back to what it was in Modern Warfare: Everyone get's three killstreaks, the SAME three killstreaks. One UAV, One Airstrike, One Attack Chopper. No more until you die.

These days there's so many ridiculous killstreak rewards that when building a class you often have to decide "Alright, do I actually want to be able to kill other people? Or do I not want to get fucked in the ass by the 30 things in the air that can kill me without me even knowing what the hell hit me?"

If they get back to basics with the killstreaks, I'd be willing to give CoD another go.


Making lemons combustible again
Escapist +
Apr 18, 2020
United States
As other people have said, the things that the early games in the series did well:

1.) Make the player feel like they are part of a larger war. It's fine to have some of the mission be part of a commando unit but put some larger scale battles in there.

2.) Along the same lines, the first game was really, really good about making the missions feel like they were in some way important but at the same time they weren't vital for success of the war. It's hard to do but try to replicate that. Even if it means sacrificing plot to so, it would no doubt cut down on making everything SUPER OVER THE TOP! MW2 started this trend and it got incredibly Obnoxious in BO(especially the ending).

The ending to the first game is the capture of the Reichstag in Berlin, followed by a Russian soldier writing home about meeting an American soldier and briefly celebrating the wars end. Not "America! Fuck Yeah!" but "We did this together".

3.) Drop the bravado. The first few games in particular were fairly good about making you Joe Everysoldier, who is really just some guy who is doing a shitty, dangerous job and trying to survive. Like most people in the armed forces.

Seriously, go back and look at the first couple games in the series. The first game's tagline was "In war, No one fights alone". Try to recapture what make those groundbreaking. Obviously you can't just remake the first few games but the last few games have gone completely off the rails and need to be reigned back in.

The Random Critic

New member
Jul 2, 2011
I'll just a give a TL:DR verision

If most of Treyarch comes back making it. Black-op 2 single player was excellent. (For a CoD game)

Chaos Isaac

New member
Jun 27, 2013
A less painfully cliche story where you can't call the shots five hours before they happen.
As someone else mentioned, less me being the hero, and more being part of the force. This is something I loved in the earlier ones. (Like CoD4.)
Better characters and scenarios. Better stealth mechanics. Good co-op modes and awesome level design.

A couple year break in the series.


New member
Feb 16, 2011
I played Modern Warfare 1 and 2, didn't really like them, and haven't even considered the franchise since. Why?

- My perception of CoD is that its a multiplayer game and I primarily play single player. I love single player FPSes. But CoD's single player campaign is usually very basic, very short, and honestly just there to tick a box. So I would want to see some evidence that whichever developer is doing it this time had put some effort into the single player campaign.

- I'm an old school FPS gamer, so I want to see old school mechanics. I absolutely despise regenerating health because it kills the tension. You don't have to avoid getting hit, you just have to avoid getting hit too much in a short space of time. When you've got limited health packs, every hit feels like a massive mistake. And then you get situations where you're down to 10% health and there are 5 guys in the next room but you kill them all without taking damage and you're like "how did I pull that off?". And I'm not a fan of weapon carry limits. Anything less than 4 feels too restrictive. Part of the fun of a FPS is figuring out the best weapon to use against each type of enemy.

I could probably mention a few other things but honestly I don't really care anymore. The last 2 years has seen lots of other FPSes that are a better fit for my preferences, so I don't need CoD.


Shark Girls are my Waifus
Jan 9, 2012
WW2 CoD is my Fetish, so if they make a new game base on this count me in!!!
Also not hate, because I REALLY liked the old CoDs games. I just stopped because I like to try new things. Also too expensive for my taste.


New member
Apr 14, 2013
I'm not sure. I don't think that there is much CoD can do anymore for me outside of hit the reset button. The games have become saturated with content, but none of that content has added anything to the series since MW2. Well, I guess Advanced Warfare did have the power armor, but I found it so poorly implemented that the game probably would have been better without. Really, hitting the reset button, going back to basics, and maybe changing the system entirely could help them recapture what made CoD4 so great: a simple enough game that was more concerned on offering the best experience with what it had than with drowning the player in 50 different guns that only offer 12 real options.

As for singleplayer: Don't care. It stopped being relevant in CoD around CoD4 (minus Treyarch's attempt in BO2 I guess). Actually, even back at the original CoD, and especially by CoD2, it was easy to see that the series would probably start going down a multiplayer route sooner or later. And honestly, I don't feel like trying to recapture something that lost relevance almost ten years ago, especially when the fans have clearly pushed it towards a multiplayer-focused series. Actually, I think I'm sort of surprised it has stuck around this long. I would have thought that at least one of the developers would have tried just scrapping it and using the extra resources to add to the co-op.

Techno Squidgy

New member
Nov 23, 2010
Let's see.
Well, the single player would have to tone itself back, drop the ridiculous OTT nonsense that's been building up since MW2. Get back to a story that was more real, more focussed, where you're once again just a soldier on the battlefield, not the chosen one as others have mentioned. I'd appreciate a CoD game that either explored a relatively untouched aspect of World War 2, maybe North Africa and the Italian campaign or something.

To fix the multiplayer to my liking, they'd have to bring back dedicated servers for PC, and let us run them again. I miss my clan, I miss the community run leagues, and I miss having a home server and a few favourites with a good bunch of regulars. They'd also need to take it easy with the killstreaks, they've gone way overboard.

You know what would be a really interesting CoD setting? The Falklands. Politically difficult though. There were mobs chasing the Top Gear guys over a number plate, so I doubt a game about the Falklands would go down well in Argentina.


New member
Aug 24, 2013
Sniper Team 4 said:
Those moments in the game when I feel like I'm part of the force, not THE force, going in to get things done. I don't want to be the hero. I want to be soldier number six again. A few examples:
Amen. One of the problems with CoD is that they've tended to try to crow-bar a story in there, complete with villans and red-countdown timers and one-man armies. I much preferred it when it was simpler - you are a soldier, here is your objective. In part I guess it was easier with the WW2 setting, everybody knows (or should know) what the D-Day landings were, so you don't need so much context. With the modern one's they always have to explain why America and Russia are fighting and its always some ultra-nationalist (usually on both sides for balance) who has to show up to monologue at some point.

But to answer the OP, I've never stopped playing CoD however I do tend to wait until they are £5-10 pounds and then play through the single player campaign once and then maybe play through again on a harder difficulty setting a few hours later. They're enjoyable 5-6 hour diversions, especially as I don't play multiplayer.


New member
Dec 17, 2011
I'd love it if CoD took a look at what is, in my opinion anyway, the best game in the series (United Offensive) and built upon what make that game good: big battles over large areas, nice covert op missions that focus on parts of the war we never see, and mission chains that are dynamic and go in interesting places (in UO, there's a mission where you're in a bomber fending off the Luftwaffe, but you get shot down and spend the next couple of missions helping the Dutch resistence).

Along with that, having a campaign that's more than 5 hours long would be great. And dialing down the extreme tone back to more grounded levels.

Not advertising the game as "THE MOST PHOTOREALISTIC GAME I'VE EVER SEEN" would be a big help as well.


New member
Jan 29, 2010
I don't do multiplayer, so if there was a Call of Duty that was focused exclusively on its single player campaign, maybe I'd show some interest. I'm hoping that would lead to far less railroading and more depth of decisions to be made in the game. If I can play the game twice and have it feel like a unique experience the second time then I'll be impressed.

Tuesday Night Fever

New member
Jun 7, 2011
I genuinely enjoy the Michael Bay-esque stupidity of the Call of Duty franchise single-play games this past decade... but what really keeps me playing is the multiplayer. If I don't like the multiplayer, then I have a hard time justifying spending full-price on the game.

The last CoD that I played a lot of was Modern Warfare 3. I've been less and less enthusiastic about each release since then, primarily because of all the SciFi crap that keeps getting put into the games. I didn't pay full price for Black Ops 2 or Ghosts, but I still bought them to at least play the single player. Advanced Warfare on the other hand I've had zero interest in. If the Advanced Warfare shtick is the direction that they'll be going in from now on with jetpacks and lightning guns and whatnot, I think I'm done with the franchise.


No Zaku
Dec 25, 2008
Add another name to the Treyarch bandwagon. Not much for me to say that hasn't been said already, IW/Sledgehammer have been either shitting the bed (MW2-3, Ghosts) or unjustifiably prairie dogging it too much for comfort (Advanced Warfare) for a while now.

AW had a few sequences that showed SH can actually do a good job with the franchise and do interesting gameplay toss-ups well (see the broken arm level and non-scripted VTOL boarding action moment) as far as single player is concerned, and I absolutely fucking loved Extinction to death, but generally their writing and inflexible linearity leaves far too much to be desired.

Also, Gaz was about as flat as a character could be and Reznov was a much better captain then Price was too. Yeah, that's right, I said it, want to fight about it?

I could not give less of a fuck about the multiplayer aspects from either developer that don't involve Extinction.

FC Groningen

New member
Apr 1, 2009
I loved the CoD series until Modern Warfare. I liked that game, but then it went downhill fast and I wouldn't pick it up anymore. My worst gripe is the "we-are-the-greatest-syndrome" that's hanging over the current series. What I liked about the earliest games, was the fact that you played likely scenarios based on historical accuracy instead of some paranoid fantasy of the stereotypical redneck American.

I actually would prefer they would go back in time like World War 1, instead of diving into further modernised fighting with drones and other gimmicks.