I said it way back when and I'll say it again, Call of Duty is Infinity Ward's brand. They created it so they should use it. CoD:MW2 or MW2, as long as the gameplay is the same, I don't see what all the fuss is about.

It's not the fact that the call of duty logo is small. It's the fact that it doesn't fit. It doesn't blend well. But yeah I heard about this and Some people were thinking with out the call of duty part on it that the game might choke a little. So I hope that they fix the title.

It's still COD6, I don't care if they call it War in Present: Honor of Duty...my friends and I will still call if COD6, just like World at War was COD5. Modern Warfare 2 or Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 2, I don't care, it's just another FPS game, unfortunately I'll be picking it up because it's all my friends will be playing when it comes out.

I am fed up with everything Activision does. They really aren't very nice.

They've (Activision) have it made eitherway, the golden brand name that is Call of Duty or create their own title, with the awesome design that was used in Modern Warfare 1.
It won't affect gameplay, so why should this matter to us mere mortals?

looks quite a bit stupid

I'm confused, we're confused, and I'm pretty sure Activision is confused. It seems like Activision wants to seperate from the COD name, but at the last minute they get scared to be going off all alone and scramble back for it.

If they do end up keeping the COD part, it's probably a decision made just to sell as many copies as possible. Having the name of the successful series on there has got to be good for business.

I assume this is due to that public poll that displayed negative results regarding the publics awareness that Modern Warfare 2 was a sequel to COD4. This was a clever money-making move on Activition's part, and although I fully dislike the box art, I'm glad they've finally decided on a name...

Now if only they'd give us some more details regarding the actual gameplay...

That Call of Duty title looks like they just photoshopped it onto an existing box. Anyway, as long as it's as good as/better than COD4 i'll be happy.

D_987:
I assume this is due to that public poll that displayed negative results regarding the publics awareness that Modern Warfare 2 was a sequel to COD4. This was a clever money-making move on Activition's part, and although I fully dislike the box art, I'm glad they've finally decided on a name...

Now if only they'd give us some more details regarding the actual gameplay...

Have you played Call of Duty 4? Well, pretty much the exact same gameplay will be in MW2.

On topic, how BLOODY STUPID can people get? Consumer awareness of one of the biggest releases dropped when they dropped the CoD name? You need a special kind of idiot for that sort of thing to happen.

Clashero:

D_987:
I assume this is due to that public poll that displayed negative results regarding the publics awareness that Modern Warfare 2 was a sequel to COD4. This was a clever money-making move on Activition's part, and although I fully dislike the box art, I'm glad they've finally decided on a name...

Now if only they'd give us some more details regarding the actual gameplay...

Have you played Call of Duty 4? Well, pretty much the exact same gameplay will be in MW2.

I'm sure there will be some changes, I was thinking more to do with multi-player; as I will be disappointed if they stick to the awful system used in CoD4.

D_987:

Clashero:

D_987:
I assume this is due to that public poll that displayed negative results regarding the publics awareness that Modern Warfare 2 was a sequel to COD4. This was a clever money-making move on Activition's part, and although I fully dislike the box art, I'm glad they've finally decided on a name...

Now if only they'd give us some more details regarding the actual gameplay...

Have you played Call of Duty 4? Well, pretty much the exact same gameplay will be in MW2.

I'm sure there will be some changes, I was thinking more to do with multi-player; as I will be disappointed if they stick to the awful system used in CoD4.

And what was wrong with the persistent ranking system of 4?

Salem_Wolf:
It's still COD6, I don't care if they call it War in Present: Honor of Duty...my friends and I will still call if COD6, just like World at War was COD5. Modern Warfare 2 or Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 2, I don't care, it's just another FPS game, unfortunately I'll be picking it up because it's all my friends will be playing when it comes out.

callofduty MODERN WARFARE 2 isnt COD 6, neither was COD World At War COD 5.

D_987:

Clashero:

D_987:
I assume this is due to that public poll that displayed negative results regarding the publics awareness that Modern Warfare 2 was a sequel to COD4. This was a clever money-making move on Activition's part, and although I fully dislike the box art, I'm glad they've finally decided on a name...

Now if only they'd give us some more details regarding the actual gameplay...

Have you played Call of Duty 4? Well, pretty much the exact same gameplay will be in MW2.

I rather liked CoD 4's system. Even though some of the perks were pretty unbalanced or downright annoying if you had friendly fire on (Martyrdom, the grenade launcher), it gave you a very tangible incentive to play ("OK, 10 more kills with the Dragunov until I get the ACOG sight"). I think it was done better in WaW, where the the best all-around weapons were available from the start, and you only got more specialized weapons as you leveled up, which allowed a level 1 skilled player to beat a level 65 relative newbie.

I'm sure there will be some changes, I was thinking more to do with multi-player; as I will be disappointed if they stick to the awful system used in CoD4.

DriveByLawsuit:

And what was wrong with the persistent ranking system of 4?

It benefited those that played for long periods, not those that were genuinely good at the game. It also over-powered said higher levels. There was also no point in prestiging as no additional benefits were gained.

I was talking more about the mechanics. The whole, automatic claymores, the helicopters and the hit detection need to be re-vamped.

Keenanr1234:

Salem_Wolf:
It's still COD6, I don't care if they call it War in Present: Honor of Duty...my friends and I will still call if COD6, just like World at War was COD5. Modern Warfare 2 or Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 2, I don't care, it's just another FPS game, unfortunately I'll be picking it up because it's all my friends will be playing when it comes out.

callofduty MODERN WARFARE 2 isnt COD 6, neither was COD World At War COD 5.

Technically, no. But most of the people I know call it that, and that's what we're still calling it.

I suppose its a good thing. If this game is going to be as successful as they say it will Activision will want the Call Of Duty franchise on it to keep it alive!

That box art looks really awful on every account. I really hope that's just a preliminary mockup/photoshop job.

This was inevitable.

I don;'t mind if it had CoD on the front of not. I will still pick this up on launch day. I am surprised consumer aware actually dropped though. How the hell does that happen?

i like it better this way.

Salem_Wolf:
It's still COD6, I don't care if they call it War in Present: Honor of Duty...my friends and I will still call if COD6, just like World at War was COD5. Modern Warfare 2 or Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 2, I don't care, it's just another FPS game, unfortunately I'll be picking it up because it's all my friends will be playing when it comes out.

im with you in this one... to me is COD6

Oh please, who didn't see this coming?

They want the next instalment to be the highest selling game ever made. They could get five million alone from the fact that it's call of duty. Taking that away means the die hards would still buy it, but other average gamers probably would give it a pass, not knowing if it's good or not, and not knowing it was a sequel to CoD 4.

It was inevitable.

Why would they waste money getting the brand when they don't need it? I guess even the tiny bit of consumer awareness drop is enough to gamble on getting the franchise name, it's not like they're not going to make boatloads of money anyway. At least it fits more when I call it Call of Duty Four Two now.

They want the CoD name to be fixed after Treyarch took a huge shit on it.

Clashero:
[quote="D_987" post="7.123891.2534877. I think it was done better in WaW, where the the best all-around weapons were available from the start, and you only got more specialized weapons as you leveled up, which allowed a level 1 skilled player to beat a level 65 relative newbie.

I'm sure there will be some changes, I was thinking more to do with multi-player; as I will be disappointed if they stick to the awful system used in CoD4.

Uh... the best weapons were given to new players in COD4. M16, MP5, M40, etc... IW made it so that a completely new player can still get some kills, while allowing skilled players to dominate.

I don't care. So they took CoD part off, found that interest in it dropped. They then stapled it back on to make it so more people paid attention to it. Why is it I should be caring about the subtle changes in the name and box art instead of aspects like gameplay and story? I think people are getting a bit too worked up over nothing.

It was pretty obvious they'd have to put the CoD name on there somewhere just so people who don't constantly read gaming news sites would know it was connected to CoD4. Still, it was fun guessing how they'd do it...

I'm sort of disappointed. I thought it was hilarious when they'd thoroughly owned Treyarch by disassociating themselves with 'em entirely.

D_987:

DriveByLawsuit:

And what was wrong with the persistent ranking system of 4?

It benefited those that played for long periods, not those that were genuinely good at the game. It also over-powered said higher levels. There was also no point in prestiging as no additional benefits were gained.

I was talking more about the mechanics. The whole, automatic claymores, the helicopters and the hit detection need to be re-vamped.

Wait wasn't the CoD:WaW ranking exactly the same, except longer?
And really, the weapons weren't OP at higher levels. Look at the Snipers for instance, since they are the only ones I can all remember. You get the most accurate sniper in the beginning, the fastest sniper in the beginning/middle ( which is in my opinion, the best), a sort of combo of the first two snipers at the middle/higher levels, and a powerful sniper at the last couple of levels, but it isn't very accurate and has a huge kickback. So from my perspective this seems really balanced. You get a good sniper in the begining, then a better one, especially if you play hardcore, then a third option, then a rather sucky sniper that you prefer to use anyways just because its so insanely sic when you headshot someone with it.

Finally, the whole point of prestige is just that: a little bit of recognition for how much time you've put into the game. Nothing more, nothing less.

Jsnoopy:

Wait wasn't the CoD:WaW ranking exactly the same, except longer?

I never said the WaW ranking system was ideal...?

And really, the weapons weren't OP at higher levels. Look at the Snipers for instance, since they are the only ones I can all remember. You get the most accurate sniper in the beginning, the fastest sniper in the beginning/middle ( which is in my opinion, the best), a sort of combo of the first two snipers at the middle/higher levels, and a powerful sniper at the last couple of levels, but it isn't very accurate and has a huge kickback. So from my perspective this seems really balanced.

Not really, the problem with CoD is the lack of variety in the weapons, the only difference between the snipers were the firing rates. They were all to similar in my experience.

Finally, the whole point of prestige is just that: a little bit of recognition for how much time you've put into the game. Nothing more, nothing less.

Something it shouldn't be, I'm claiming I don't like the prestige system, and you've just tried to tell me what its there for; I know why its there I'm expressing my contempt for it.