This year's Call of Duty will be a Black Ops 4 and will be Boots on the Ground "Modern Times".

http://vgculturehq.com/call-of-duty-2018-is-black-ops-4-coming-ps4-xbox-one-pc-nintendo-switch/

Modern Times being roughly this current decade I assume so probably set in the Middle East with Russians being the big bad?

On the one hand, Modern Times again?

On the other hand, no more halo space jumpy nonsense in Future COD games.

Though again AK-47s and M16s?

Than again its TREYARCH!!!

But its gonna be likely in the Middle East again, on the other hand Treyarch does make the better campaigns and multiplayer Maps.

Yeah you can see the point of how conflicted I am in this. Because I truly believe Treyarch makes the better Call of Duty games than Infinity Ward and Sledgehammer and thus the only CODs I look forward to. Though I was burned a bit by Black Ops 3.

These are the guys that gave us Nuketown, these are the guys that gave us Nazi Zombies, these are the guys that gave us imo the better COD campaigns that are character driven, I still do not know why people keeps putting Moderrn Warfare on such a high pedestal when later games have already eclipsed it campaign wise.

I gotz opinions, so:

-It's coming to the Switch? These are interesting times indeed.

-If it's going back in time, why's it being called Black Ops 4? Or maybe it's framed as a flashback. If not, we're probably going to get a lot of confused players.

-The idea of a modern CoD seems...eh? WWII, I can understand, even if I'm not enthused. But what would really distinguish the context of a 'modern modern' CoD when opposed to the Infinity Ward trilogy? The Middle East is still a shithole, Russia is still the boogeyman of the US/NATO...maybe China or North Korea could feature, but if it's the former, Activision is going to be shooting itself in the foot saleswise, and in the latter, didn't Homefront already do this?

-As someone who's a casual observer of CoD, I'm actually more curious about Infinity Ward, because those guys can't seem to catch a break. People dislike Ghosts, then they shift to Infinite Warfare, which people hate for reasons that have little to do with the actual game (far as I can tell, most people who've played IW seem to like the campaign), so you just know that they're going to have to shift setting again.

I didn't mind the "future" games so much as a lot of people did(Infinite Warfare was fine if a bit stupid and I'm one of the 3 people on earth who liked Advanced Warfare), but I also rather liked the MW series as well(aside from the fact MW3 felt like 15 different scripts all sewn together in a wierd patchwork thingy).

So yay? or boo?

I don't know. If it's good, I'll give it a try. If it's not, there are plenty of other games out there to keep me busy.

After seeing the atrocity that is the Black Ops 3 multiplayer, my enthusiasm for this series, even with Treyarch, has greatly abated.
And Zombies isn't enough of a reason for me to buy this.

When you release a franchise installment every bloody year, there's only so many places you can go.

Actually, there are a lot more places they could take it, but probably nothing the fanboys and girls would like.

I mean, weren't the original Modren Warfare games Black Ops in a sense? I mean sure, in MW1 and 2 you had parts where you were US Army (Ramirez, do everything!) but the other half of the games was "black ops" shenanigans, and MW3 was all "black ops" so I dunno what the heck they'll do, but I trust Treyarch not to bungle it up horribly.

Wouldn't mind some Korea though, that'd be nifty.

Another modern war game? what is this? 2009? lol

another year, another COD get hype, then fail. cycle repeat every year.

Makes sense, WWII was by far the most successful CoD game of this generation. And it achieved it by saying go fuck yourself to all the Titanfall aping that started with Advanced Warfare. It's funny, CoD started pre-emptively ripping of the movement stuff from TF, even though it wasn't even proven to be the next big thing for FPSs yet. Turns out, fuck no it wasn't. People got sick of it by the time TF2 came out. It lead to the biggest slump in sales in CoD's history.

Hell, the only reason it even happened is because there was a time post Ghosts that every vocal internet asshole, be they reviewer or just a forum pissant, was shouting how 'boring' modern and classic war settings were. Squeaky wheels and all that, they(Acti) thought since Titanfall pandered exactly to that crowd, it would be the next big thing. Lol. So, good on them for giving people what they actually want, instead of listening to pissbabies on the internet who feel sm?rt for hyperbolically shitting on a thing people like.

Only thing I'm not keen on is Treyarch doing it. Slegdehammer's 2 and 0 for good games now, while Treyarch made Blops 3. The shittiest campaign since, I wanna say, 3. As in Cod 3, from 2006. I'd even take Infinity Ward, IW can atleast make decent campaigns now.

Well, it can't be worse than Blops 3. That was a rancid pile of dogshit. The direct reason why Infinite Warfare got such huge shit was because Blops 3 was so underwhelming. And, going back, the reverence for Treyarch is kinda asinine. Big Red One and Cod 3 were shit, World at War was a sloppy mess, Blops 1 has good multi, but a really weirdly inconsistent campaign. Blops 3 was shit, as already mentioned. Blops 2 I'd call the only legit good game from them, all things considered.

MC1980:
Makes sense, WWII was by far the most successful CoD game of this generation. And it achieved it by saying go fuck yourself to all the Titanfall aping that started with Advanced Warfare. It's funny, CoD started pre-emptively ripping of the movement stuff from TF, even though it wasn't even proven to be the next big thing for FPSs yet. Turns out, fuck no it wasn't. People got sick of it by the time TF2 came out. It lead to the biggest slump in sales in CoD's history.

Hell, the only reason it even happened is because there was a time post Ghosts that every vocal internet asshole, be they reviewer or just a forum pissant, was shouting how 'boring' modern and classic war settings were. Squeaky wheels and all that, they(Acti) thought since Titanfall pandered exactly to that crowd, it would be the next big thing. Lol. So, good on them for giving people what they actually want, instead of listening to pissbabies on the internet who feel sm?rt for hyperbolically shitting on a thing people like.

Only thing I'm not keen on is Treyarch doing it. Slegdehammer's 2 and 0 for good games now, while Treyarch made Blops 3. The shittiest campaign since, I wanna say, 3. As in Cod 3, from 2006. I'd even take Infinity Ward, IW can atleast make decent campaigns now.

Well, it can't be worse than Blops 3. That was a rancid pile of dogshit. The direct reason why Infinite Warfare got such huge shit was because Blops 3 was so underwhelming. And, going back, the reverence for Treyarch is kinda asinine. Big Red One and Cod 3 were shit, World at War was a sloppy mess, Blops 1 has good multi, but a really weirdly inconsistent campaign. Blops 3 was shit, as already mentioned. Blops 2 I'd call the only legit good game from them, all things considered.

For me at the time, Treyarch games had a better package.

Black Ops 1 and 2 has multiplayer against Offline Bots and all the weapons, gear, and abilities are unlocked in the offline mode. So I can still play Blops multiplayer myself long after thier online services go dark.

They started featuring Zombies mode and WaW was at its best imo though Blops 1 and 2 were fine.

And the campaigns are much more memorable and better acted. And brutal as Modern Wars should be portrayed.

Samtemdo8:
all the weapons, gear, and abilities are unlocked in the offline mode. So I can still play Blops multiplayer myself long after thier online services go dark.

Actually, if you're on PC, you're screwed. Black Ops (without a mod of any kind) requires that you sign in to their servers to play offline against bots. Black Ops 2 and 3, same thing. Black Ops 1 made you earn your weapons and gear in training mode as well. (Although this quite thankfully can be bypassed somewhat with with a console hack.) Black Ops 2 gives you all your gear and weapons in Custom Games although Black Ops 3 changed this again and makes you go through their progression bullshit, and this time without any in-game way to bypass it.

And as if all of that wasn't enough with Black Ops 3, they decided to make you watch that STUPID victory screen EVERY TIME a match ends, and you can't turn it off.

What I learned from CODWW2 is that a game isn't automatically better just because it's set in another time period, I preferred Black Ops 3 and even Infinite Warfare over WW2. WW2 singleplayer was just so mediocre and cheesy, it's basically the d-version of band of brothers.

And the multiplayer, God. They brought back quickscoping and SMGS can take up to 5-6 bullets to kill someone, it's ridiculous.

Considering how badly Treyarch shit the bed with "Black Ops III"'s campaign and both the zombies and multiplayer lost me much faster than any of their other offerings, I don't even think the fact we're getting another Treyarch game can get me interested in this series anymore.

But at the moment the information we have is so vague. They've got 9 months to make this game seem interesting.

Arnoxthe1:

Samtemdo8:
all the weapons, gear, and abilities are unlocked in the offline mode. So I can still play Blops multiplayer myself long after thier online services go dark.

Actually, if you're on PC, you're screwed. Black Ops (without a mod of any kind) requires that you sign in to their servers to play offline against bots. Black Ops 2 and 3, same thing. Black Ops 1 made you earn your weapons and gear in training mode as well. (Although this quite thankfully can be bypassed somewhat with with a console hack.) Black Ops 2 gives you all your gear and weapons in Custom Games although Black Ops 3 changed this again and makes you go through their progression bullshit, and this time without any in-game way to bypass it.

And as if all of that wasn't enough with Black Ops 3, they decided to make you watch that STUPID victory screen EVERY TIME a match ends, and you can't turn it off.

Than I made the right choice in getting Black Ops 1 on Xbox 360 than because I was contemplating on getting it on PC.

BabyfartsMcgeezaks:

SMGS can take up to 5-6 bullets to kill someone, it's ridiculous.

Dude I play Rainbow Six and SWAT games where you get shot once, your dead and that was the point. And they factor if you do get shot but live, you suffer a penelty of limping movement and lowered accuracy depending on where you are hit.

So what's the beef with COD's guns being able to one shot you when I thought that was the point of guns in COD?

infinite warfare was the best chance the series had to interest me, and Titanfall 2 walked all over that, though I tried. Battlefield (and now Wolfenstien) just does the shooty fun times better IMOOOOLIO

I don't get why Treyarch is put on some pedestal as the better COD dev. I remember when Treyarch didn't like quickscoping and nerfed sniper rifles into the ground ruining a playstyle instead of, you know, actually fixing the core issue of quickscoping, which is/was the exploitation of aim-assist. Just remove aim-assist, it's not needed on a controller. Treyarch didn't even understand basic gun mechanics and balance yet are considered good at making shooters, that doesn't make sense.

COD has been a "lifestyle" game for years now, just one you buy every year like a sports game instead of buying expansions for like a Destiny.

Phoenixmgs:
I don't get why Treyarch is put on some pedestal as the better COD dev. I remember when Treyarch didn't like quickscoping and nerfed sniper rifles into the ground ruining a playstyle instead of, you know, actually fixing the core issue of quickscoping, which is/was the exploitation of aim-assist. Just remove aim-assist, it's not needed on a controller. Treyarch didn't even understand basic gun mechanics and balance yet are considered good at making shooters, that doesn't make sense.

COD has been a "lifestyle" game for years now, just one you buy every year like a sports game instead of buying expansions for like a Destiny.

Call of Duty has never been favorable to Snipers in Multiplayer.

None of thier maps has featurered favorable camping spots where your not in danger of either being shot or stabbed from behind, and has a goot angle on most of the map where you can see a good number of enemy players?

I want those camping spots to exists so that the enemy has to force me out by either supressing fire on my position so a guy can throw a grenade my spot.

Thats tactics.

Samtemdo8:
Call of Duty has never been favorable to Snipers in Multiplayer.

None of thier maps has featurered favorable camping spots where your not in danger of either being shot or stabbed from behind, and has a goot angle on most of the map where you can see a good number of enemy players?

I want those camping spots to exists so that the enemy has to force me out by either supressing fire on my position so a guy can throw a grenade my spot.

Thats tactics.

COD and most shooters are lean heavily towards run and gun action. And sniper rifles need to be able to be used as run and gun weapons to be viable (but also least effective run and gun weapon). Sniper rifles can fit in that environment just fine too because by playing a sniper you're choosing high risk and high reward gameplay, which fits pretty much any type of game. An automatic gun obviously has the most room for error with aiming and accuracy but requires the most bullets for a kill, then you have your 3-shot burst and semi-auto guns being riskier (less room for error) but providing faster kills (if you don't miss) over automatics, and then you have your sniper rifles that are the highest risk because if you miss the 1st shot, you should be dead.

Okay, I don't really have a horse in this race, but:

MC1980:
Makes sense, WWII was by far the most successful CoD game of this generation.

Black Ops III: 26.46 million sales
Infinite Warfare: 12.69 million sales
WWII: 12.19 million sales

(As of January, 2018)

Now, that's an imperfect method of measuring success, since the other two games have had head starts on WWII, but I'm not sure how one could call it "by far the most successful" CoD game.

MC1980:
And it achieved it by saying go fuck yourself to all the Titanfall aping that started with Advanced Warfare. It's funny, CoD started pre-emptively ripping of the movement stuff from TF, even though it wasn't even proven to be the next big thing for FPSs yet. Turns out, fuck no it wasn't. People got sick of it by the time TF2 came out. It lead to the biggest slump in sales in CoD's history.

Didn't Titanfall 2 fail because of its release window, sandwiched between Battlefield and CoD?

MC1980:

Hell, the only reason it even happened is because there was a time post Ghosts that every vocal internet asshole, be they reviewer or just a forum pissant, was shouting how 'boring' modern and classic war settings were. Squeaky wheels and all that, they(Acti) thought since Titanfall pandered exactly to that crowd, it would be the next big thing. Lol. So, good on them for giving people what they actually want, instead of listening to pissbabies on the internet who feel sm?rt for hyperbolically shitting on a thing people like.

I don't actually recall there being much backlash against the historical and modern settings were at the time. Nor do I recall any kind of clamour to actually recall to WWII.

Course this is just in the scope of personal experience, but...I'm sorry, but WWII (the game) peaves me just by its mere existence. I don't think going back to WWII is inherently a bad idea, but from what I understand, the entirety of the game is set in the '44/'45 period, exclusively in Europe, exclusively with US forces bar side missions with the British and French. Sledgehammer had six years of war to choose from, in a conflict that was also fought in the Pacific, North Africa, and Asia, and what does it do but go to the most oversaturated time period in the most oversaturated location? I get why they did it from a marketing perspective, but from a creative standpoint, it feels like a regression for the series that started out depicting WWII on a global scale. There's only so many times I can see the beaches of Normandy.

Course, this is admittedly grandstanding, but, well, yeah.

MC1980:

Well, it can't be worse than Blops 3. That was a rancid pile of dogshit. The direct reason why Infinite Warfare got such huge shit was because Blops 3 was so underwhelming. And, going back, the reverence for Treyarch is kinda asinine. Big Red One and Cod 3 were shit, World at War was a sloppy mess, Blops 1 has good multi, but a really weirdly inconsistent campaign. Blops 3 was shit, as already mentioned. Blops 2 I'd call the only legit good game from them, all things considered.

COD 3 imo had the best looking and feeling World War 2 guns at the time, especially the M1 Garand and Kar98k.

How was World at War a sloppy mess?

How was Black Ops 1's campaign inconsistant?

Black Ops 2 was Treyarch's Magnum Opus.

Samtemdo8:
Black Ops 2 was Treyarch's Magnum Opus.

Meh. I really don't think so. BO2 did not have the personality at all that BO1 did. It also didn't bring as much new stuff to the table as BO1 did and finally, although I guess this is personal opinion, the campaign of BO2 really didn't hold my attention at all. Oh and Zombies for BO2 wasn't as good as BO1's either. And it didn't have Dead Ops. In fact, you know what? The only thing I really liked about BO2 over BO1 was that even though it didn't have the personality of the first one, the Multiplayer was indeed better in pretty much every single way besides. In terms of pure PvP, BO2 is the better entry for sure. But that's really about it.

Arnoxthe1:

Samtemdo8:
Black Ops 2 was Treyarch's Magnum Opus.

Meh. I really don't think so. BO2 did not have the personality at all that BO1 did. It also didn't bring as much new stuff to the table as BO1 did and finally, although I guess this is personal opinion, the campaign of BO2 really didn't hold my attention at all. Oh and Zombies for BO2 wasn't as good as BO1's either. And it didn't have Dead Ops. In fact, you know what? The only thing I really liked about BO2 over BO1 was that even though it didn't have the personality of the first one, the Multiplayer was indeed better in pretty much every single way besides. In terms of pure PvP, BO2 is the better entry for sure. But that's really about it.

This didn't have the same personality as Black Ops 1? Though to be fair, I like to Cold War era parts of the campaign more than the futuristic campaign especially Raul Menendez:

@hawki sales performance relative to time period, WWII is above Blops 3, long term is unsure, Infinite Warfare's failure lead to players migrating back or not making the jump from Blops 3, and it resulted in significant sales and dlc revenue for Blops 3, in 2017 even, WWII might not have enough time in the limelight if the next game is desireable

TF2 failed for many reasons, the fucked up release didn't help, but TF1 also turned out not to be the must have, essential new experience it was made out to be, neither the character movement, future setting nor other additions to the mix(ai adds, mechs) turned out to be the new hot thing,

also, lacking a proper campaign in the first game didn't help, 2 might've had the best campaign in any of these fps' we're talking about, but that can't makeup for the bad impression made by the first one, it takes twice as much effort to get people to care about you after you fuck up, as opposed to not fucking up to begin with,

think of it this way, you start at 0, you end up at 1 if you do what people expect, if you don't, you end up at -1, next time comes around, you do what people expect, you don't end up at 1, you end up at 0

please, you're on the website where a guy coined the phrase spunkgargleweewee for shooters, and pretends that doesn't make him and the people that quote it with reverence look like donkeys, the incessant shitting on modern settings as being dull and boring was brewing back during the blops 1 days already, and became really vocal around MW3

oh no, don't get me wrong, I'm incredibly salty that the game doesn't have Russians(and we won't see them as main good guys for a while thanks to current day politics) or British campaigns, which is the CoD trifecta going back to 1, 'Mumarica being the savior of the world grates my tits

but rather that than 'train go boom'

Samtemdo8:
This didn't have the same personality as Black Ops 1? Though to be fair, I like to Cold War era parts of the campaign more than the futuristic campaign especially Raul Menendez:

Well, personality as in like a certain charm that the game has. A distinctive style of art and gameplay together that captures the imagination. BO1 had that in spades from its campaign to its zombies. BO2 had a distinctive lack of it. It feels like this super-generic grey slightly techy theme, and it's just blah to me.

Arnoxthe1:

Samtemdo8:
This didn't have the same personality as Black Ops 1? Though to be fair, I like to Cold War era parts of the campaign more than the futuristic campaign especially Raul Menendez:

Well, personality as in like a certain charm that the game has. A distinctive style of art and gameplay together that captures the imagination. BO1 had that in spades from its campaign to its zombies. BO2 had a distinctive lack of it. It feels like this super-generic grey slightly techy theme, and it's just blah to me.

But gameplay wise the whole fact that the campaign and events can radically change by the decisions you make and actions you do with multiple endings.

And I like the fact you can choose your gear loadout prior the mission.

Also the music is great, especially this track:

 

Reply to Thread

Log in or Register to Comment
Have an account? Login below:
With Facebook:Login With Facebook
or
Username:  
Password:  
  
Not registered? To sign up for an account with The Escapist:
Register With Facebook
Register With Facebook
or
Register for a free account here