Frankly, I'm content with anything that isn't WW2 by this point. I'm flat-out refusing to by another WW2 game for the rest of my Earthly days. And future warfare would be awsome! They've clearly shat on the idea of "realism" by this point, so who would object to a few lunar rover chases?
I would really like to see someone take a stab at the American Revolution or Civil War...if anyone could pull that off, IW could, and it's definitely subject matter that isn't touched on a lot. People need to quit being so sensitive.
As long as the military in Infinity Ward's future have FINALLY ditched cased bullets, I'd have nothing against a futuristic MW game.
Everything from Halo to GoW to whatever in the future, most if not all the human weapons could have come from now or even 20 years ago. It would be nice to see a game with a reasonable estimation of infantry combat in the future, but that's impossible, so I'd settle for at least somewhat scientifically accurate.
The funny thing about that? We're actually ridonkulously close to invisible laser beams which make everythingin their path explode.
Honestly. The first models will be attached to planes and will act as mini-Death Stars, and will be released in 2025. If there are plane models, I can see a handheld version in the near future.
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.
...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.
Most of the people quoting you are addressing your first sentence, which i think everyone agrees, lacked intelligence. In case you forgot your sentence went like this, "No, absoulutely not, all of my friends say they like the WW2 better than Modern Warfare, so that means it sells more"
Sorry what? Your friends like the World War 2 games better than Modern Warfare, so it MUST outsell it? Sorry, i wasn't aware that your friends bought a million copies each of the World War 2 games........
Also, the fact is, it DOESNT have to be Star Wars or Mass Effect to have sci-fi. Or even be slightly futuristic. I think that it would be a step in the right direction, as IW has to be running out of ideas for MW.
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.
All era's of war: Past, Present, and Future, are over flooded. It's only a matter of time before alternate dimensions are flooded too (There have allready been a couple of alternate timeline games). Soon, we'll just run out of creativity and everything will fall into spacific catagories.
I think all War games need to stop using the WW2 crutch, if they fall on hard times they just make another WW2 game that tells the exact same events of every other WW2 game, why not move onto other wars hmm? Vietnam? WW1? any will do but come on WW2 has been used so much it's not even acceptable anymore, we all get it, Nazis bad, English and America good...
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.
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.
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.
Call of Duty in space?
I'm not sure where that ranks on the "Top Ten Ways to Ruin Your Franchise". Probably somewhere between "Make a live action movie based on it" and "Change your key demographic to 'Under 12'"
Although in retrospect, the latter is pretty much the same thing as Call of Duty in space...
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.
Oh yeah they plan to make the next game in the near 1000 year future. Hence why they finished Modern Warfare 2 with the obvious need to continue the story. It didn't end with killing Sheperd. You still gotta kill Makarov and get the Russians out of Washington before they fly 100 years into the future and make CoD: FW.
Can you guys use spoilers if you're going to give away plot information? Go and read the forum rules.
I don't think there will be a "future" Warfare, although I disagree about infantry disapearing as some are talking about. You will always need a presence on the ground. The Americans thought they could do it without soldiers in the Balkans and again in Iraq but air power alone will not win or hold ground.
They are onto a good thing with MW, it won't be changing soon. Just look for different locals and enemies. China, South America etc. Its much better than WW2, which has grown boring, You could do other historic war zones though, maybe even get a bit controversial.
Imagine the Ghilies in the mist stealthing set in Vietnam but you are dodging Americans from Tiger squad who are executing whole villages. I'd buy it, although Americans get touchy about Vietnam, particularly if they are not portrayed as whiter than white.
yeah Americans killing whole villages, that totally happened like everyday, doing our research here
but no seriously, a game set in Vietnam (that is done well, the game that is) could be pretty beast
or heck, like you said, there ARE other wars that have lots of source material
This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
