Call of Duty: Future Warfare

[Goldeneye103X2]

Nnnnnnnnnnnno. Definitely not. Unless they can top Modern Warfare 2 for Pacing, good, tense story, and WOW moments.

 

[teisjm]

No, absoulutely not, all of my friends say they like the WW2 better than Modern Warfare, so that means it sells more. And the whole thing would ruin CoD. Its not Star Wars or Mass Effect.

Lol?

Apparently, what your friends like doesn't dictate what sells more as much as what the world likes. Which sold better? WaW or MW2? seeing as one is the best sellign game of all time, it's pretty easy to answer that.

Ofc i can't say MW2 wouldn't have sold as much if it had been set in WW2.
But what i'm trying to point out is that just cause all of your friends agree one one thing doesn't mean it's the definnite truth. Otherwise you should sell youself to game/movie/etc companies as the ultimate demographics/sales-research group.

 

[Jim Grim]

Call of Duty: Combat Evolved.

...Sorry.

 

[WrongSprite]

Something tells me that SPESS MEHRENES is not exactly Infinity Ward's area of expertise. But wait - what if it were all-American SPESS MEHRENES in shining armour against dirty Russian Communazis taking over border colonies?! Yes, that would sell even better than MW2!

or 1980s Afghanistan.

Great one. I imagine a campaign in this game. Who overly patriotic 20-something Americans would rather play as: Taliban or Soviet army?

I suppose it'd have to be Soviet, Taliban would be too edgy.

Actually you'd probably end up as one of the S.A.S in the country at the time, or something similar.

 

[siffty]

did Any one actual pay attention to the end of mw2 isn't Russia sill in America and wtf happened to soap and that guy with the beard

 

[Dys]

God I hope not, the gameplay of the older games with the slower paced weapons was far superior to the new spammier games...

All the different "True," CoD sequels are from a different time period. As I recall, there should be 2 more CoD games set in future time periods, but that was their Pre Modern Warfare plan. It may have changed since then.

There were 3 different WWIIs were there?

I'm hoping they go back to WWII after MW3, perhaps there wont be as much hype (I know, stupid comment) - The first COD game I got was number 3 in the series and I suppose this could be seen as a shame, as I've heard many great things about Call of Duty 2. If the next game they make is a WWII game, I'm sure it could easily be greater than COD 2, having better graphics and many guns. Also, perhaps if they are "allowed" by Treyarch - to make a Nazi Zombies mini-game. With the combined graphics, guns and new maps - they could have a great seller.

Ironic since 3s MP was the best of them all.

3 was the console exclusive...I rather strongly disagree with that, I'd probably say Cod:UO was the best multiplayer of them.

 

[NoriYuki Sato]

No, absoulutely not, all of my friends say they like the WW2 better than Modern Warfare, so that means it sells more. And the whole thing would ruin CoD. Its not Star Wars or Mass Effect.

i've come across people like that. i personally like both WWII AND MW games. i loved MW2 much better than the first, myself. and i liked WaW much better than MW as well. i liked how it was the same old "go storm Normandy, then we'll make something up" it was getting old, even though Normandy is one of my favorite parts of WWII, it gets old in games, pretty damn fast. WaW was the OTHER end of WWII, which i loved that concept. storm the Reichstag instead, as well as Japan.

MW2 is a better game than MW but i don't like it more or less than WaW. they could go either way, but i think they will go to the future or just make MW3...so it's closer to now, instead. if IW went back to WWII, it would seem like a step backwards to me, but it could be done and still be amazing.

it's as simple as this:

MW3 = people complain about it being modern.
Future Warfare = people complain about it being in the future, and being too flashy and unrealistic.
WWII = people complaining that it's WW2 again.


why not try WWI, or Vietnam, or Korea, or just something different. i will at very least give a good fighting chance to whatever they try next, will i like it? who knows. i guess we'll find out, wont we?

it's a wait and see game now, people. go ahead, pitch your ideas to them. they might listen. it's how game ideas get started anyways, somebody has to come up with them, why not us?

 

[wooty]

Future warfare to me sounds like lazers, lazers and master chief. Cut the crap, a bullet is the way to down people still and in the future, Star Trek First Contact showed us that one

 

[elvor0]

No, absoulutely not, all of my friends say they like the WW2 better than Modern Warfare, so that means it sells more. And the whole thing would ruin CoD. Its not Star Wars or Mass Effect.

What? The Modern Warfare games have outsold the rest of the CoD franchise by a considerable margin, I don't know where you're getting this at all.

I also feel like IW would be more likely to revisit less commonly seen but still historical settings such as Korea, Vietnam, or 1980s Afghanistan. This is all idle speculation, however. None of us have any way of knowing.

Then why are there only 2 MW-s and 4 WW2 games.

...Because the series has been going since 2003 and the Modern Warfare games only started to come out in 2007?

To the best of what I've seen in a bit of googling, the first three CoD titles sold somewhere in the area of 1.2 - 1.5 million units and CoD 5 sold 11 million; Modern Warfare sold at least 13 million, and MW 2 sold 7 million on its first day alone. Modern Warfare gains Activision several orders of magnitude more revenue than the WW2 games.

Correct me if I am wrong, but I said THAT THE MFCKN FUTURE COD WON'T EXIST the thread is about a CoD with LASER GUNS, NOT how much money do they earn.

Ok, I'll correct you, they were correcting you because you did quite clearly say "My friends like ww2 better, so it must sell better" (which is indeed very VERY wrong), then you went on to say "Why is there only 2 MW games and 4 ww2 games then if MW sold better?" Which is again very stupid, because MW is a newer franchise(thus there are going to be less games) yet it has indeed sold considerably better, don't start getting arsey because a load of people corrected you on your blasey statements; a topic you bought up in the first place, and now saying (because you're wrong) "we're not discussing how much they earn".

 

[Mr Snuffles]

Lol, they should get Treyarch to stop making COD games by convincing them that a cold war game would be good.

Then you only get the quality games from infinity ward

 

[Deleted]

Sooo Halo 4?

 

[Who Dares Wins]

I am going to sum up and (hopefully) end these massive quotes, I said: my friends don't like MW because its in present and past (and they don't do that kind of games they do CS), then they don't like the World Wars either because its "them" again. I just said that CoD MW3 won't be in the future (estimating 40-50 years), and if it was in the future its not gonna be called like CoD. I did not bring up the "MW sucks, WW rulez". Also if MW did gain them massive amounts of money they still did make WaW, and there are rumors that the next one will be Vientnam. So they could easily scratched those two games and make more MW so then there would be MW 4, WW 4. Please don't quote me again saying and" you're stupid, you live in a cave", actually don't quote me even if you have positive feedback, those giant quotes are making the thread look bulky.

 

[Dys]

God I hope not, the gameplay of the older games with the slower paced weapons was far superior to the new spammier games...

All the different "True," CoD sequels are from a different time period. As I recall, there should be 2 more CoD games set in future time periods, but that was their Pre Modern Warfare plan. It may have changed since then.

There were 3 different WWIIs were there?

I'm hoping they go back to WWII after MW3, perhaps there wont be as much hype (I know, stupid comment) - The first COD game I got was number 3 in the series and I suppose this could be seen as a shame, as I've heard many great things about Call of Duty 2. If the next game they make is a WWII game, I'm sure it could easily be greater than COD 2, having better graphics and many guns. Also, perhaps if they are "allowed" by Treyarch - to make a Nazi Zombies mini-game. With the combined graphics, guns and new maps - they could have a great seller.

Ironic since 3s MP was the best of them all.

3 was the console exclusive...I rather strongly disagree with that, I'd probably say Cod:UO was the best multiplayer of them.

I liked COD3 more, balanced classes, balance Vehicles, amazing maps and War Mode!

I never liked the class system, I prefered it when you simply chose a primary weapon (no perks or anything like that) and weapons were team specific (an balanced). I'm also one of those people with options as to which platform I game (have every option for current gen games) and far prefer multiplayer games (especially shooters) on the PC to any other platform (largely due to dedicated servers and the unimaginable lag encountered on any of the p2p console systems, matchmaking doesn't work when it's matching accross the pacific).

 

[Cyberjester]

No, absoulutely not, all of my friends say they like the WW2 better than Modern Warfare, so that means it sells more. And the whole thing would ruin CoD. Its not Star Wars or Mass Effect.

o.0 One of the reasons MW1 sold so well was because people were sick of the WWII games, that's all you had cause it was safe to hate Nazis. Now MW2 is out and sales are off the charts. While your friends may like the WWII setting better, and I like the WaW game better, it still doesn't change how the MW series has been selling faster than any other game or movie this century.

As far as I can tell, IW strives to walk the line between plausible reality and fiction. Therefore, if they want to make a kind of future warfare title, they're going to need A TON of research into what a battlefield would likely look like in however-many years. It seem that, at least as far as the US is concerned, that means fewer troops on the ground, which could defeat the whole concept of playing as a soldier. I mean, how much longer are actual infantry going to be an integral part of the military? Anything beyond 10-20 years and the game loses plausibility and playability.

Not really.. Check out some of the science posts on this site, or the Land Warrior system in the USA. 10 years we'll still have infantry, 20.. I'd still say yea. It's when you get to 50 years in the future is when we hit sci fi levels.

 

[farmerboy219]

I personally didn't like MW2 that much despite loving the other games. I think they should give it a few years are bring the next COD game back in 2015 or some time then with a fresh start.

 

[ultimateownage]

So, halo then? I would much rather see "Lesser known warfare" some places rarely done in games, like vietnam. How about world war 1 where you line up in a squad without any guns and march towards the enemy, you die instantly and the game ends, wouldn't be much quicker than any of the other games campaigns.

 

[MercurySteam]

Whenever it's set I know one thing for a fact: Captain Price will be there.

Because he can't die.