Would you play Call of Duty Future Warfare?
- Thread starter Zeema
- Start date
I don't even like the COD franchise
Problem is that's all my friends play. So I pick it up used a week later.
Problem is that's all my friends play. So I pick it up used a week later.
to be realistic, the days of massive armies clashing with conventional projectile weapons is long over. super powers will use technology, gps, guided missiles, bio weapons, nukes ect ect ect. there will never be another d-day, never be another massive tank battle, and the chance of manned aircraft clashing in large numbers is really small.
i don't think people are bored of ww2, there bored of the exact same re-telling of ww2
i don't think most Americans realize how small the war they saw was. the battle of Stalingrad alone was as large as the entire western European and north African campaign together.
what about the crack soviet troops who fought the Japanese in eastern Siberia?
what about jewish ghetto resistance in Germany?
how many people under the age of 40 have even heard of the Turkish genocide of Armenia. videogames are becoming the active narrative medium of this generation. war games are easy and sell well. so if we are going to tell the story of war, lets tell the whole story.
i would love to play as the mujaheddin fighting the soviet invasion of Afghanistan. or the German non ss Germans troops attacking the much more vicious much more desperate equally genocidal soviet army. not just shooting them but the whole story of war. a game that would try and convey time and what it was like to fight under equipped or without coats or exactly why people behaved the way they did in soviet Russia or Hitlers Germany, remember the first act of half life 2? running from civil protection while they arrest people, the fear and desperation of living under a totalitarian state? so how about smuggling jews or making the Schindler list type choices, or being a treasonous German officer?
ever see the movie gataca? its sci-fy but there are no flying cars or robots, its about how society changes to reflect new technology, modern sci-fi games often consist of "hey look! we have space guns, lets get in our space cars or space pods and shoot other space marines! we have to preserve space freedom! and defend our space ... space!"
so, getting back to the original point, do we want call of duty is space? sure, why not. but is not the step forward the industry needs.
i don't think people are bored of ww2, there bored of the exact same re-telling of ww2
i don't think most Americans realize how small the war they saw was. the battle of Stalingrad alone was as large as the entire western European and north African campaign together.
what about the crack soviet troops who fought the Japanese in eastern Siberia?
what about jewish ghetto resistance in Germany?
how many people under the age of 40 have even heard of the Turkish genocide of Armenia. videogames are becoming the active narrative medium of this generation. war games are easy and sell well. so if we are going to tell the story of war, lets tell the whole story.
i would love to play as the mujaheddin fighting the soviet invasion of Afghanistan. or the German non ss Germans troops attacking the much more vicious much more desperate equally genocidal soviet army. not just shooting them but the whole story of war. a game that would try and convey time and what it was like to fight under equipped or without coats or exactly why people behaved the way they did in soviet Russia or Hitlers Germany, remember the first act of half life 2? running from civil protection while they arrest people, the fear and desperation of living under a totalitarian state? so how about smuggling jews or making the Schindler list type choices, or being a treasonous German officer?
ever see the movie gataca? its sci-fy but there are no flying cars or robots, its about how society changes to reflect new technology, modern sci-fi games often consist of "hey look! we have space guns, lets get in our space cars or space pods and shoot other space marines! we have to preserve space freedom! and defend our space ... space!"
so, getting back to the original point, do we want call of duty is space? sure, why not. but is not the step forward the industry needs.
Eh... The closer CoD gets to the future the closer it'll start getting into Halo's territory.
And CoD won't be able to be as good as Halo if they go the same era vs era. Compare Bungie to Treyarch. No contest. Props for Treyarch trying to be more like Bungie in the community interaction department but they still got a long way to go before I hold them in as high regard as Bungie.
But modern shooters are heavily saturating the market right now. MAYBE one more to close up Modern Warfare's story but any more than that are going to definetly be a "Sigh... another modern shooter?" game. They already are becoming that.
And CoD won't be able to be as good as Halo if they go the same era vs era. Compare Bungie to Treyarch. No contest. Props for Treyarch trying to be more like Bungie in the community interaction department but they still got a long way to go before I hold them in as high regard as Bungie.
But modern shooters are heavily saturating the market right now. MAYBE one more to close up Modern Warfare's story but any more than that are going to definetly be a "Sigh... another modern shooter?" game. They already are becoming that.
No. FPS games are way to similar for me to care anymore. Who can afford 3 games a year that are almost identical to their predecessors and only marginally different from each other. I like BO so I'll stick with that for my FPS to play. I won't buy another FPS for more than %20 for quite a while. Think I'll stick with RPG's like DA2, Skyrim, and maybe the Witcher series, for this year.
Sounds more to me like a symbolism of the iraq/Afghani war the US is involved in then anything else. Mod 1 starts with a "terrorist" like party that wants to destroy the Russian gov. that is in an allied and somewhat peaceful relation with the US. So the US goes in and supports the gov that is in the more favorable alliance and props up a gov under them (Support of Bin Laden during the, um... 70s(?) or was it 80s? either way). Mod 2, the guys that you helped support are PISSED cause their gov and country are gutted out because of the debt. So they see the only option is the same as what Japan's was before ww2. Either you let the opposing figure crush you and take you over (the follow the sanction route) or you attack and issue war, hoping you can beat your opponent and be the one on top this time (bomb Pearl Harbor).SteewpidZombie said:
Then again, maybe I missed something in the story, but I thought the whole thing about Russia being bad was an American set up all the dominos to fall the way they did, and the main bad ruusian guy was a disciple of the main russian "terrorist" baddie from Mod 1. So really the message is one of two things:
1) dont trust people of really high power with connections, and make sure they are checked and balanced.
2) When you put a problem like this down, make sure you destroy ALL of it, or it will come back to bite you in the ass later.
At least, thats what I took away from it. Then again, I also saw that Americans were largely incompetent in solving things an needed to take a BIG OL' SLICE of humble pie and accept that the UK is our ally for a reason, and hopefully will be trusted to help fix our messes and not leave us out to flop like a fish out of water.
Price actually started the launch, and detonated the missile in order to let the EMP wipe out the electronics in D.C., making the Russians lose their armor and air superiority and give the Americans a fighting chance. The Russians weren't planning on launching that nuke (why would they? They still had an entire army in Washington), and the entire attack was a preemptive attack orchestrated by Price. It foreshadows as much in the opening cutscene to the mission ("Are you willing to do WHATEVER is necessary to win?")SteewpidZombie said:
Did you even play Modern Warfare 2? The entire story revolves around an AMERICAN general collaborating with a terrorist to cause both countries, Russia and America, to go at it. No one was the good guy or the bad guy in that scenario, except Shepard and Makarov. You play as the Americans because, believe it or not, they thought having you play a defensive role in a CoD game would be an interesting twist in the story. In every other one, you are on the offense to some degree. The American campaign in MW2 is actually really unique in that regard. But in terms of story, they actually accomplish quite little. The main plot still revolves around the UK dream team of Price, Soap, and whoever is being voiced by Gaz.
As for Modern Warfare 1, Zakhaev was an outsider even with his own country. He hardly represented ALL Russians. Hell, the main Russian army shows in up several missions to assist you. As for "Getting the Marines into gear to kick ass", remember the dramatic conclusion of the American campaign in MW1? Kaboom. Attacking the middle-east proves to be a very short-sighted, and ultimately ill-fated plan that ends badly for everyone, America especially. Not incredibly jingoistic by anyone's standards I'd say.
The only group in the CoD series that has really gotten off smelling like roses are the British and the rest of the UK, with the exception of a 10 minute section of Black Ops. And likewise, the only groups that are consistently portrayed as "the bad guys" are Op-For and the Axis Powers. Everyone else gets time on both sides of the fence.
no, they fucked up too bad on black ops and I don't think I will be paying 60 dollars for another failure. but hey if it turns out to be good I'll buy it when its around 20 dollars and I know no money will be going back to COD
Funny how you say that i was thinking its about time we get to play as the germans,or the japaness or the italians,or missions based in the sahara,or as the polish fleeing/fighting the germans(or any other european countries) during the early stages of the war.There is so much potential and the funny thing is i hate WW2 games, i really do there all the same(storywise) and they never try unconvetional weponry.Trezu said:
Not saying I wouldn't play it, because in all likelihood I would, but I would much prefer MW3. Present day to near (as in forseeable) future would be my preference. I really like what Splinter Cell does in setting their games in a time roughly 5 years after the game's release. Next best would be semi-recent past like Black Ops. Future would be after that for me, but still considerably preferable to WW2. After the abomination that was COD: WaW I will absolutely NOT play another WW2 game.