Concept Fatigue?

[BTCGuru81]

Given the Black Ops/Modern Warfare dichotomy the series has used, to decent effect I admit, did anyone sort of feel disappointed that the next game looks so familiar? I know little is really known about it, but it all sounds MW3/BlackOpsII-ish. I'd really like to see the series focus on a different military campaign. The Korean War is an untapped resource and, while Vietnam had some air time in Black Ops, it wasn't thoroughly explored. It's the second longest war we fought and there's plenty of untapped potential.

The same fatigue people were feeling from WWII based games is starting to seep in to the Modern/near future genre.

 

[RetJoSek]

I don't really think there was enough combat in the Korean War to make a game, however I doubt the game designer would care really. I do kinda agree with you in the essence that the modern is getting overused. I think the main reason it hasn't changed is because of the whole Activision vs Infinity Ward meaning the new staff wouldn't want to do a risk move that would result in another mass-firing. Maybe in another couple of years the CoDs will come up with a new format but in my honest opinion, Activision are way too stuck up their own ass to actually be innovative.

In my opinion I think the war that should be focused on by CoD as a trial is a future war. Like a far future war. Either that or maybe a smaller based civil war. Well I guess that would be Korea. Hell I'm kinda hoping for Korea war now that you said. But yeah I completely agree, I just hope we don't go back to WW2.

 

[thethirdeye]

A World War 2 game would be so stale. Also, I somewhat agree with you with modern war getting stale. However, they go with that sells, and that is modern war. In my opinion, a new approach would be awesome, like a game set, not all the way in the future with crazy lazers, but only 50 or 100 years or so in the future.

 

[GreenCamino]

I was very disappointed by the last two Call of Duty games. I think it's stupid how they tried so hard to make things seem futuristic and all. The Korean war might make for an interesting game though I think Vietnam is still for the most part an untapped resource since the first Black Ops was more about secret operations and the government and Russians and this and that. If they made a game solely about the war itself, I think it would be good. A game about the first World War might be interesting as well since a game about WWI hasn't been made since the real old Call of Duty days. Come to think of it, I actually don't know if there are any World War One games and I'm sure that they could make one 1000 times better nowadays with how games have changed over the years.

 

[RetJoSek]

I was very disappointed by the last two Call of Duty games. I think it's stupid how they tried so hard to make things seem futuristic and all. The Korean war might make for an interesting game though I think Vietnam is still for the most part an untapped resource since the first Black Ops was more about secret operations and the government and Russians and this and that. If they made a game solely about the war itself, I think it would be good. A game about the first World War might be interesting as well since a game about WWI hasn't been made since the real old Call of Duty days. Come to think of it, I actually don't know if there are any World War One games and I'm sure that they could make one 1000 times better nowadays with how games have changed over the years.

I agree with the Korean and Vietnam wars, it could be quite interesting. And as for WW1 games here is a list: Click here. So the WW1 hasn't been covered all that much, however, I think most of CoD's audience would just see a WW1 game as they would WW2 just because they're clueless over history, plus the guns wouldn't be all that different to most people.


There is one idea that I would love to see done; we play as the enemies. Well i'm 99% sure Activision will never do that because they would rather bore people than try something new. But anyway my ex is Vietnamese and it just now made me think about how interesting it would be to play the enemy. So play as the Vietnamese. Play as the Germans. Play as the Taliban. It would be awesome. (I know it was kinda done on MW2, but I want more)

 

[Danblu]

It is a bit natural to feel like the concept of Modern Warfare games is worn-out. I think the main reason for this is that the settings can't change much without turning Modern Warfare into a different kind of game and developers know we don't want that. They can only use either historical wars, for example Wold War 1 and 2, or take known lesser conflicts and add a fictional plot to them. The concept may be fatigued, true, but as long as they invest in the games' plots the Call of Duty franchise lives on!

 

[BTCGuru81]

A World War 2 game would be so stale. Also, I somewhat agree with you with modern war getting stale. However, they go with that sells, and that is modern war. In my opinion, a new approach would be awesome, like a game set, not all the way in the future with crazy lazers, but only 50 or 100 years or so in the future.

We already have that in Black Ops 2 and the forthcoming title.

I wouldn't necessarily be very interested in a far future conflict either as, then the CoD franchise would be just like everyone other shooter on the market. Do we really need another "hyper futuristic soldier with fantasy weapon fights mutated/alien/demonic/supersoldier monstrocity game? For me anyway, CoD was always at it's best when it was sourcing historical material. Hell, I wouldn't even mind if they went BACK in time. Why not a WWI game? There's a topic no one has really touched.

 

[apriapism]

I see where you are coming from. It isn't much of a huge leap but I expect that since they practically release a game just about every year. I would like to see an incredible change.

 

[BTCGuru81]

There is plenty of material left unmined in the cold war, as well. Black Ops touched on the broad strokes but there were bizarre covert campaigns across the whole world. I often wonder if historians will consider it world war three because frankly, it was. Black ops didn't even begin to touch on our behavior with the northern allaince in the middle east, a subject so rife with controversy and drama that this particular wing of the franchise loves.

 

[Frostae]

I'm somewhat disjointed, of course, but you have to think about it, it wouldn't be CoD if they changed it too much and the community would absolutely hate the companies and developers if the completely changed it, it can't be changed too much, it has to stay CoD.

 

[CemeteryGates23]

I don't like the "near future" setting at all. Honestly the concept of some of those technologies being available within the next 20 years or so seems quite far-fetched, but nitpicking aside, I don't enjoy the aesthetics and I'd discard most of the concepts easily. I thought Black Ops II was mildly interesting, Advanced Warfare pulled it off pretty well in my opinion, but by Black Ops III I'm ready to abandon the setting.

I agree, there's still tons of stuff they could explore. Even the modern setting, I believe a lot could be done with it. It was a little disappointing to me how "Cold War" unoriginal Modern Warfare 2 and 3 seemed to take it, although I was liking the terrorist angle. Still, you could do China, North Korea, Iran and many war ideas more on that setting and put an interesting spin on it.
Still, I think indeed the Korean War, even Vietnam, both offer plenty of unused potential. Or even a fictional war but set 30 years ago or something, could be a cool concept, if unusual (then again, perhaps better for being so).

 

[pwarbi]

I'm not sure if its the different and new storylines that are the problem or the fact that it seems like the actual gameplay isn't changing.

While I agree there's not much you can do with this type of first person shooter, a little variety would be possible and would make things a bit more interesting.

 

[CemeteryGates23]

I don't think it's so much the gameplay getting stale as it is the settings and concepts. Basically every game has two characters that feel as leader and second-in-command that you follow for most of the missions, the same type of gunplay, etc... many enduring concepts that have been there for a while, but I don't even think those are to blame for a decline. I think the same way several Medal of Honor, and yes, Call of Duties, among other games, overpopulated the WWII setting, Call of Duty is doing that mostly on its own with these near-future settings.

Even Advanced Warfare added verticality to gameplay, to great effect (also controversial), and Ghosts added the dog companion. I really think it comes down to setting more than gameplay.

 

[zuulspaceman]

To me, the series is like a sports game. It's going to just be updated and I really doubt the engine will change that much. They'll repaint it and then re-release it. That's a shame because that's going to make the whole series a little bit difficult to keep paying for. I tend to wait until all DLC is out and everything else to buy into a game like this so I don't spend hundreds on the experience.

 

[Yosostupid]

In my opinion, as long as people are gullible enough to buy the same old game over and over nothing will change. I'm sure the guys at Treyarch and Activision have lots of creative, new, refreshing ideas in storage that they can use for a rainy day, but Call of Duty is going with the good old "If it's not broke don't fix it" formula.

 

[pwarbi]

While to a point I agree with them not changing the feel of the game too much, I do think they could maybe incorporate a few more elements in to the game to freshen the new release up.

Then again, that would involve spending money, and why bother when people are still happy enough to buy the new games anyway, even though they aren't changing them.

 

[TellerMorrow34]

I would be thrilled if Infinity Ward went back to the Modern Warfare model of gaming. Ghosts was okay but the community ruined it by refusing to move at all because you could actually die in that game.

SledgeHammer put out, easily, the worst CoD of all time. It even managed to find a way to worse than MW3, which I thought was absolutely impossible, but AW was able to do it.

Thankfully Black Ops 3 has brought back the fun factor and the playability of CoD. Treyarch always does a damn good job and that is a great thing.

Unfortunately IW is going to go with Ghosts 2, I'm sure, and the multiplayer will likely wind up being useless in short order because the people playing will just refuse to play it properly.

 

[GTK48]

In Call of Duty Ghosts the younger brother is dragged off by Rourke and I thought that maybe Activision would have a Ghosts II , but maybe not.

I thought that AW was a great game for SP and that Black Ops 3 was terrible.

 

[andy720]

Given the Black Ops/Modern Warfare dichotomy the series has used, to decent effect I admit, did anyone sort of feel disappointed that the next game looks so familiar? I know little is really known about it, but it all sounds MW3/BlackOpsII-ish. I'd really like to see the series focus on a different military campaign. The Korean War is an untapped resource and, while Vietnam had some air time in Black Ops, it wasn't thoroughly explored. It's the second longest war we fought and there's plenty of untapped potential.

The same fatigue people were feeling from WWII based games is starting to seep in to the Modern/near future genre.

I just realize AW platform on PSN
, well mainly PS3 is quiet. Barely see three to four games each fay. Sorry off topic.

 

[Carlos]

I just realize AW platform on PSN
, well mainly PS3 is quiet. Barely see three to four games each fay. Sorry off topic.

It's because AW on PS3 sucks. Everyone moved on from that game, or PS3 for that matter.