Would you check out Call of Duty: Future Warfare?

 Pages 1 2 NEXT
 

I know, I know. Call of Duty is evil or something. Whatever.

A lot of what makes Call of Duty so bad, at least for me, is that it has become formulaic. And this is self admitted by Activision themselves. Where their game is based, not off of creativity or bright new ideas but statistics.

This has led to the stagnation that Call of Duty has become. And this is why I say that Call of Duty: Future Warfare would be one last chance to revolutionize the game and go back to its more creatively designed roots.

The future is always in motion. It's impossible to predict and that's why we tend to have games set in the future. Because it gives creative reign over the universe that people are interacting in. If you set a game in modern times or in historic times, you're chained and bound to realism.

In other words, it would be a chance to break free of the stagnation that plagues the series and explore more gimmicky and interesting ideas in the way of ways to make the game fun again.

What do you say? Would you give it a shot? I would.

I'd probably check it out.

I sure would but would Activision? As you said they have a formula and they probably like it how it is.

Wouldn't that just be Killzone?

At this point I want to say I wouldn't, but I'd probably give it one last shot before I possibly decide to never buy a Call of Duty game again.

Dirty Hipsters:
Wouldn't that just be Killzone?

Killzone is a lot different and is pretty much an allegory for World War II.

Maybe, yeah. Its funny to think that, back before CoD 4 came out, everyone was complaining about how WWII games were becoming boring and repetitive. Then CoD really spurred change in mainstream FPS games. So maybe they could do it again. But they don't seem to be trying right now.

Sure, why not? Just because CoD has become the Madden of FPS' doesn't mean there is no hope for future titles. Hell, I'm still interested in Ghost Recon game coming up(though I've heard little about it for a while).

Hmmm, maybe, if it's interesting.

However, personally I'm waiting for Call of Duty: Old Testament; epic chase sequence through the Red Sea, and there are plenty of opportunities for shock controversy.

That's what I thought cod 5 would be before it was announced. I would play it, but only if it wasn't just Modern Warfare with a different skin set.

EverythingIncredible:

Dirty Hipsters:
Wouldn't that just be Killzone?

Killzone is a lot different and is pretty much an allegory for World War II.

Killzone is an allegory for WWII, Call of Duty started it's life as a series of WWII games. I still don't see what's so fundamentally different.

I've played Killzone 3, and I've played all the Modern Warfare games, and other than the class customization the games play pretty much the same way, the only significant differences being the level design and locations.

Does it have tits? No? Then no.

OT: Probably not. I've played Crysis, Resistance and Killzone already. I just don't care about the future any more,

I would not. I mean, before the whole modern shooter trend exploded everyone was complaining about there being too many space-marine and future themed shooters so I feel them moving in that direction would not produce something particularly fresh or exciting.

Dirty Hipsters:

EverythingIncredible:

Dirty Hipsters:
Wouldn't that just be Killzone?

Killzone is a lot different and is pretty much an allegory for World War II.

Killzone is an allegory for WWII, Call of Duty started it's life as a series of WWII games. I still don't see what's so fundamentally different.

I've played Killzone 3, and I've played all the Modern Warfare games, and other than the class customization the games play pretty much the same way, the only significant differences being the level design and locations.

Call of Duty has moved on from World War II and Killzone hasn't.

If they actually take the opportunity to explore possibilities for new kinds of weaponry then it won't just be Killzone.

Totally. Spear me for it but I love the series. It does what a game series is meant to do, it's fun and entertaining, however it's no secret that they have admittedly done the same thing over since CoD 4.

The CoD series will definitely continue but they've already done WWII to death, Black Ops did Vietnam and the Cold War and now the storyline of Modern Warfare is wrapped up completely, so when you think about it Call of Duty: Future Warfare will probably happen. I dunno if (and personally hope it won't be) it'll be all aliens and lasers but I can completely envision mostly the same multiplayer with new weaponry and technologies.

Maybe. Would give them an excuse to go even more over the top.

If it turned out to be anything like Battlefield 2142, I would absolutely love it.

Totally, I want a Future Warfare.

As with all games, I'd take it on it's own merits and judge it by that.

If it looked entertaining and had some interesting weapons or mechanics that made it stand out, I'd probably give it a try. If it looked like Halo with ironsights, I'd probably just pass. But the CoD label on the box wouldn't make me shy away or rush out to pre-order it.

yes, i definatly wast to be spaun killed by laser machine guns and sniped by magnetic Gauss rifles before i have a chance to hit them with my microwave launcher. or getting killed by randomly thrown plasma explosives that kill me by pure luck. Also the invisibility tech land mines that are impossible to see and kill everything within a 30 foot radius when someone steps on them.but lets not foret the instakill holographic knife that somehow does more damage than eveything else for an instakill every time. It would DEFINATLY be such a great change. i mean, it sounds so awesome because of how different it would be, right?

EverythingIncredible:

Dirty Hipsters:

EverythingIncredible:

Killzone is a lot different and is pretty much an allegory for World War II.

Killzone is an allegory for WWII, Call of Duty started it's life as a series of WWII games. I still don't see what's so fundamentally different.

I've played Killzone 3, and I've played all the Modern Warfare games, and other than the class customization the games play pretty much the same way, the only significant differences being the level design and locations.

Call of Duty has moved on from World War II and Killzone hasn't.

If they actually take the opportunity to explore possibilities for new kinds of weaponry then it won't just be Killzone.

Call of Duty moved on from WW2 to WW3, that's not much of a change.

Lets just count off the missions:

MW3 had a stealth mission in Africa that blew up into a massive firefight, Killzone 3 had a stealth mission in a jungle that blew up into a massive firefight.

MW3 had a few missions where you went through wrecked and burned out cities, so did Killzone 3.

MW3 had you rescuing a president, Killzone 3 had you rescuing your commander.

MW3 had you fighting your way through a mine, Killzone 3 had you fighting your way through a mining machine.

MW3 had flying and driving turret sections, Killzone 3 had flying and driving turret sections.

Yup, they're basically the same game, except one takes place in the future, in space. But what's that you say? If the Call of Duty game explores new kinds of weaponry it'll be totally different from Killzone 3 because all killzone has is the same old boring machine guns and assault rifles? Um...lightening gun? Radiation body 'splosion gun? Yeah, those totally aren't new in Killzone, not at all.

EverythingIncredible:
In other words, it would be a chance to break free of the stagnation that plagues the series and explore more gimmicky and interesting ideas in the way of ways to make the game fun again.

I really don't get this idea that every new game has to have some sort of creativity behind it.

Now don't get me wrong, i don't dislike creativity. I enjoy a lot of entertainment with roots in creativity. Specifically, i enjoy Stand Up comedy, for example, which is a genre that couldn't even function without creativity.

With that said, the consumer doesn't necessarily want nor need creativity every single time they purchase a game. Sometimes, all we want is something FAMILIAR. Something simple. Something we can relax with. Something we've tried before in a new package. Something that follows the simple and effective rule of "Don't fix what isn't broken". Something that just continues a story left unfinished. Sometimes we're not in the mood for another Skyrim or Dragon Age game. Sometimes we want to watch a movie like Avatar which takes the medium to new places, and sometimes all we want is another movie where Steven Seagal punches bad guys in the face. And most importantly, sometimes all we want is fixes for minor issues, without changing the formula. I'm very confident that i wouldn't have enjoyed StarCraft 2 as much if they had gone away from the formula used in the first one, because while the formula is the same, it fixes most of it's issues (like 12 unit control limit).

Demanding creativity for every single new release in a series is the equivalent of demanding that a writer changes their writing style every time they release a new book, and it's not always going to be doing the experience a favor. Imagine if someone called the Harry Potter series stagnated because JK Rowling used the same writing style in all 7 books....

Innovation for the sake of innovation is bad, and creativity can ruin something just as easily as it can destroy it. Also, a lack of creativity is NOT the equivalent of stagnation. You wouldn't have called the Modern Warfare series stagnated if they had combined all 3 games into one long game, now would you?

.

Answer me this one question: Why should the series explore new 'gimmicky and interesting ideas' (your description) when it's the most selling game in the world? You say this is to make the series fun again, but people are apparently enjoying it on a mass scale, so maybe the game IS fun (just not for you). Why should the people that are having fun be bothered by YOUR demand for gimmicks?

I suppose it truly depends on how exactly they changed it. If all they did was copy the guns and kill-streaks out of their previous games (i.e. MW3's armory consisting almost entirely of weapons and kill-streaks from older CoD games) and give them a fancy, space-tech skin, probably not. If they added interesting new weapons and mechanics (by which I mean something other than the gimmicky additions to the latest in the trilogy, as in something a little more creative than "now you can have TWO sights on the same gun!") though, then I would be all over it. By something new, by the way, I do not mean something fresh-off-the-dock, no-one-has-ever-even-considered-before ideas.

Even though that would be spectacular, something new to the series in particular wouldn't be amiss either. Say, if they added something relate-able to a relatively realistic shooting game, but still interesting, like adding a weapon similar to the Rivet Gun or Ripper from Metal Arms: Glitch in the System (look them up, but basically a time-charge-shooting tommygun and buzzsaw-blasting cannon respectively), or Laser Rifle (that could see and shoot through thin walls when scoped in) from Red Faction: Guerilla. If it wasn't something relatively new to the series though, Infinity Ward has stolen enough of my money via MW3.

While it sounds exciting the end product would just have 4-5 models replaced and done, so no I wouldn't want that.

How about a call of duty in medieval times?

No, probably not.

I actually think the CoD games are quite well made, at least in terms of multiplayer.

But I'm done with them. Hell, my interest was drained before I finished the first one. (That's the first one, back when they were set in WWII.) Everything since has just felt like more of the same. The very core of the game, the process of aiming down your sights at someone and clicking him to death, has gotten stale a long time ago.

Moving the series into the present day just resulted in more of that, with unsettling amounts of military fetishism and machismo and the occasional overly scripted "stealth" section. And yes, before someone starts berating me, the nuke scene was good. But it wasn't anywhere near enough to redeem the whole series.

What exactly would a future setting bring to the series? Aim at a guy and click him to death with a "pew pew" rather than a "bang bang"? Call in orbital lasers rather than Predator drones and AC-130s? Kill future terrorists or aliens with turbans rather than live out our present day 9/11 revenge fantasies?

In a word, meh.

Nice thought though.

EverythingIncredible:
I know, I know. Call of Duty is evil or something. Whatever.

A lot of what makes Call of Duty so bad, at least for me, is that it has become formulaic. And this is self admitted by Activision themselves. Where their game is based, not off of creativity or bright new ideas but statistics.

This has led to the stagnation that Call of Duty has become. And this is why I say that Call of Duty: Future Warfare would be one last chance to revolutionize the game and go back to its more creatively designed roots.

The future is always in motion. It's impossible to predict and that's why we tend to have games set in the future. Because it gives creative reign over the universe that people are interacting in. If you set a game in modern times or in historic times, you're chained and bound to realism.

In other words, it would be a chance to break free of the stagnation that plagues the series and explore more gimmicky and interesting ideas in the way of ways to make the game fun again.

What do you say? Would you give it a shot? I would.

They are bound to ... what? Since when are CoD games realistic?
But i get what you're on about. CoD stands for action sequences and shooting galleries galore, nothing more. I don't think that would change by just switching the scenario. It would probably look like Starship troopers, same chaos, same gore like all CoD titles.

But yeah, i'd check it out anyway. Only interested in SP though. :D

Yes. There could be fights. IN SPACE.

Also, dropping tungsten rods from space.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_Thor#Project_Thor

Most likely it'd be more of the same except perhaps you might get some different types of tactical support. I'd also imagine that you'd see more tactical information systems and control interfaces for soldiers, and finally you'd have a lot more predator drones and UAV styles.

Didn't Battlefield already do that?

Maybe, I like Sci-Fi a hell of a lot more than I like modern military settings.
Even hard sci-fi not set that far into the future, anything's more fun than plain ol' boring today warfare.

But the game itself would have to be good for me to want to check it out. Moving it to a futuristic setting would give it a few points though.

Call of Duty: American Civil Warfare. Make it and I will try it.

Sounds a lot like halo... I probably wouldn't check it out because with the exception of a few games I am trying to focus on indie games at the moment. The price being a major reason.

I've actually been thinking a lot about this and I definitely would.

Battlefield did it, and from what I remember, that worked out pretty solid for them.

I could dig it. Provided they up the engine a bit, and make sure that the Russians aren't the bad guys. Maybe they could do an strange future where America has either completely lost control, or their government has gone to shit and Democracy failed for them.

GeneralSeasick:
Didn't Battlefield already do that?

Yeah, but Battlefield isn't Call of Duty.

And there was no Singleplayer.

Trippy Turtle:
Sounds a lot like halo... I probably wouldn't check it out because with the exception of a few games I am trying to focus on indie games at the moment. The price being a major reason.

The only thing similar between a futuristic Call of Duty and Halo is the fact that both of them are in the future.

 Pages 1 2 NEXT

Reply to Thread

This thread is locked