Do we need another COD Modern Warfare game?

Recommended Videos

Worgen

Follower of the Glorious Sun Butt.
Legacy
Apr 1, 2009
15,526
4,295
118
Gender
Whatever, just wash your hands.
I was thinking about cod lately and while cod 4 Modern Warfare certainly didn't need a sequel, after MW 2 and 3, I think we need another one. Mostly because the story doesn't really end. Russia had just invaded the US and Europe, there is absolutely no way the west would not end up invading Russia and I think there is actually a good story there. It would be easy to have a story similar to the American campaign in the first MW game, where it becomes more about being stuck in a really bad conflict that just eats up bodies and had no real though behind it, since if an invasion did happen, then that's what kind of conflict would happen.
 

TheSapphireKnight

I hate Dire Wolves...
Dec 4, 2008
692
0
0
I would like to see another modern warfare game, but I would rather see it not be attached to the already existing storyline. I think there is a lot going on to create an exciting and relevant game without relying on the over the top explosion fest.

I'm not saying CoD4 was all that restrained, but it still feels a lot more subdued than later titles.
 

ExDeath730

New member
Mar 13, 2012
150
0
0
No, we need another Bad Company game.

Why? Have you played the single player on those games? It was awesome. It was fun, the main characters were funny as hell, the situations, and how they reacted to it made everything hilarious. They made fun of stuff that nowadays it's the backbone of Battlefield, really, i still remember the joke about "special forces guys who overcomplicate everything" that was directed at Modern Warfare at the time.

Anyway, we need Bad Company 3, we need a good single player that makes us follow a group of fuck ups with genuine personalities while dealing with megalomaniacal terrorists or warlords.
 

Worgen

Follower of the Glorious Sun Butt.
Legacy
Apr 1, 2009
15,526
4,295
118
Gender
Whatever, just wash your hands.
ExDeath730 said:
No, we need another Bad Company game.

Why? Have you played the single player on those games? It was awesome. It was fun, the main characters were funny as hell, the situations, and how they reacted to it made everything hilarious. They made fun of stuff that nowadays it's the backbone of Battlefield, really, i still remember the joke about "special forces guys who overcomplicate everything" that was directed at Modern Warfare at the time.

Anyway, we need Bad Company 3, we need a good single player that makes us follow a group of fuck ups with genuine personalities while dealing with megalomaniacal terrorists or warlords.
On one hand I would love a new bad company, on the other, it would be stuck with origin so I wouldn't get it.
 

MirenBainesUSMC

New member
Aug 10, 2014
286
0
0
Even if someone felt this way...

You will get one anyway, just like you'll get a bunch of Assassins Creed games too!
 

Johnny Novgorod

Bebop Man
Legacy
Feb 9, 2012
19,347
4,013
118
Nobody needs a game. The real question is, "Wil people buy another COD Modern Warfare game?". The answer is yes.
 

ffronw

I am a meat popsicle
Oct 24, 2013
2,804
0
0
Johnny Novgorod said:
Nobody needs a game. The real question is, "Wil people buy another COD Modern Warfare game?". The answer is yes.
It's even simpler than that. Will people buy another CoD -INSERT SUBTITLE HERE- game? Yep, so they'll make one every year until people bail on it like they did Guitar Hero (and that's coming back, apparently).
 

Evonisia

Your sinner, in secret
Jun 24, 2013
3,257
0
0
I say no, if only because I don't trust Infinity Ward to not fuck it up like they did the story of Modern Warfare 3. MW2, as ridiculous as it was after CoD 4, did mostly hold together as a story. MW3 did not.
 

remnant_phoenix

New member
Apr 4, 2011
1,439
0
0
Evonisia said:
I say no, if only because I don't trust Infinity Ward to not fuck it up like they did the story of Modern Warfare 3. MW2, as ridiculous as it was after CoD 4, did mostly hold together as a story. MW3 did not.
Uh...

MW2 may have held up on a surface level--and that's a big maybe--but any sort of real-world sociopolitical or war strategy logic tears that story apart in seconds.
 

Evonisia

Your sinner, in secret
Jun 24, 2013
3,257
0
0
remnant_phoenix said:
Evonisia said:
I say no, if only because I don't trust Infinity Ward to not fuck it up like they did the story of Modern Warfare 3. MW2, as ridiculous as it was after CoD 4, did mostly hold together as a story. MW3 did not.
Uh...

MW2 may have held up on a surface level--and that's a big maybe--but any sort of real-world sociopolitical or war strategy logic tears that story apart in seconds.
I'm never going to maintain that they are remotely possible in the real world (though MW3 still manages to be worse than MW2 in that regard), but given that the latter Modern Warfare games are just power fantasies I'd say MW2 works fine. Then MW3 tried being more serious in tone with the British and that ruins the constant power fantasy parts of the American campaign.
 

senordesol

New member
Oct 12, 2009
1,301
0
0
We definitely need a Modern Warfare game...
...not this "Russia Invades EVERYONE" tripe, but a game about actual modern conflict.
 

NoDamnNames

New member
Feb 25, 2009
374
0
0
Call me crazy but I miss the days before yearly release schedules (i know cod has franchise rotation but still). Games used to have more longevity in their life span, people would actually invest time into mastering all of the features of the game so we would get our moneys worth. now games just feel disposable, and if you have the audacity to NOT buy at launch the value is further depreciated by potential non-existence of online support. look at what happened with people who bought pokemon black2 and white 2, I don't think the metagame got much more than a year out of nintendo!
 

Elvis Starburst

Unprofessional Rant Artist
Legacy
Aug 9, 2011
2,821
805
118
Nope. We have enough CoD games as is, I don't think trying to set the world ablaze with another Modern Warfare is gonna make a difference in anything ever. It'll just be another CoD with another slight thing added, with the same yearly releases to make it not relevant in the eyes of the game companies that spewed it
 

Shadow flame master

New member
Jul 1, 2011
519
0
0
But didn't the story in Modern Warfare 3 say that after the Russian president was rescued he sent out an order to stand down? Thus basically ending the war that Markarov started and General Shepard instigated. If you want them to continue from that then I could see them having the story be about the last of Markarov's men trying something funny and deadly like always, or they could make it about how there are some rouge Americans that are trying to utterly destroy the Russians after all that happened in Modern Warfare 2 and 3. Or they could, like TheSapphireKnight said, make it a standalone title that has no relation to the previous titles, but still have some easter eggs (a piece of intel talking about some guy called McMillian and Captain Price).

What I would really like is something that Black Ops 2 experimented on; having a traditional COD campaign with some RTS thrown in, but better (I never really learned how to control the drones so I always fucked up the "Protect the Delegate's transport's mission". And also diverging story lines, different cutscenes depending on what happened/your choice, and, like the Modern Warfare series, have the story be divided into two (or more) protagonists (your standard US infantry man/marine/RAMIREZ and some other friendly force like Price).

To answer your question, I don't think we need another Modern Warfare game but I won't complain if they give me one. I will complain if they decide to scrap another cool idea like their third-person COD set in the Vietnam War. I know we kinda delved into that war back in Black Ops, but this could have taken the series in another direction.
 

MysticSlayer

New member
Apr 14, 2013
2,405
0
0
Worgen said:
I was thinking about cod lately and while cod 4 Modern Warfare certainly didn't need a sequel, after MW 2 and 3, I think we need another one. Mostly because the story doesn't really end. Russia had just invaded the US and Europe, there is absolutely no way the west would not end up invading Russia and I think there is actually a good story there. It would be easy to have a story similar to the American campaign in the first MW game, where it becomes more about being stuck in a really bad conflict that just eats up bodies and had no real though behind it, since if an invasion did happen, then that's what kind of conflict would happen.
Some of my details may be off, but here is what I remember of why that probably wouldn't work:

For starters, the invasion of Europe wasn't really a result of the Russian president. It was the result of Makarov, a well-known terrorist who had capture the Russian president. Pretty much every world leader figured out about this by the end of the game, and the player even spends at least one mission rescuing the Russian president, after which he makes peace with the rest of Europe and America. There's no reason to really invade Russia at this point because the invasions from Russia were not reflective of the Russian government. They were reflective of the most dangerous terrorist in the Modern Warfare universe.

Furthermore, at least one person (Price) managed to live and maintain the information about the terrorist attack in MW2 (i.e. "No Russian"). While I'm not sure exactly what he could do without hard proof, given that Shepard no doubt destroyed the information you got for him towards the end of the game, Price was generally seen as a respectable guy who at the very least had good connections. Chances are, it was revealed that the terrorist attack on the airport was a collaboration of Makarov and a rogue American general, not something authorized by the American government itself.

So essentially you have a world where the rulers have made peace and enough information to understand that all of the terrorist attacks and invasions were the result of people who didn't reflect leadership or ideals of the countries they were from. As a result, unless there's a leader that just doesn't accept all of this and believes there's some conspiracy going on, I doubt that any resulting invasions will occur.

Also, most of these nations are broken. All of Europe and the United States have been invaded by Russia, which resulted in countless civilian deaths and was a massive blow to their militaries. Furthermore, I doubt Russia has much more of a military left, given that they were all wasted on the numerous invasions. I guess you could come up with a story where another nation attempts to take advantage of this, but I don't see them going here. Besides, if I remember correctly, it was implied that the peace between the nations was going to be very strong, so they could at least work together to deal with anyone who came after them. It also isn't like other countries weren't absolutely torn apart by the fighting as well, given that the conflict spanned the entire world.

And yeah, I understand that Price implied that what happened throughout the trilogy could happen again, but I think them killing Makarov was sort of their way of saying that there was nothing to worry about the time being. He was the most dangerous terrorist after Zakhaev, so with him out of the way, it is at least implied that we don't have to worry too much about anyone else.
 

Worgen

Follower of the Glorious Sun Butt.
Legacy
Apr 1, 2009
15,526
4,295
118
Gender
Whatever, just wash your hands.
MysticSlayer said:
Worgen said:
I was thinking about cod lately and while cod 4 Modern Warfare certainly didn't need a sequel, after MW 2 and 3, I think we need another one. Mostly because the story doesn't really end. Russia had just invaded the US and Europe, there is absolutely no way the west would not end up invading Russia and I think there is actually a good story there. It would be easy to have a story similar to the American campaign in the first MW game, where it becomes more about being stuck in a really bad conflict that just eats up bodies and had no real though behind it, since if an invasion did happen, then that's what kind of conflict would happen.
Some of my details may be off, but here is what I remember of why that probably wouldn't work:

For starters, the invasion of Europe wasn't really a result of the Russian president. It was the result of Makarov, a well-known terrorist who had capture the Russian president. Pretty much every world leader figured out about this by the end of the game, and the player even spends at least one mission rescuing the Russian president, after which he makes peace with the rest of Europe and America. There's no reason to really invade Russia at this point because the invasions from Russia were not reflective of the Russian government. They were reflective of the most dangerous terrorist in the Modern Warfare universe.

Furthermore, at least one person (Price) managed to live and maintain the information about the terrorist attack in MW2 (i.e. "No Russian"). While I'm not sure exactly what he could do without hard proof, given that Shepard no doubt destroyed the information you got for him towards the end of the game, Price was generally seen as a respectable guy who at the very least had good connections. Chances are, it was revealed that the terrorist attack on the airport was a collaboration of Makarov and a rogue American general, not something authorized by the American government itself.

So essentially you have a world where the rulers have made peace and enough information to understand that all of the terrorist attacks and invasions were the result of people who didn't reflect leadership or ideals of the countries they were from. As a result, unless there's a leader that just doesn't accept all of this and believes there's some conspiracy going on, I doubt that any resulting invasions will occur.

Also, most of these nations are broken. All of Europe and the United States have been invaded by Russia, which resulted in countless civilian deaths and was a massive blow to their militaries. Furthermore, I doubt Russia has much more of a military left, given that they were all wasted on the numerous invasions. I guess you could come up with a story where another nation attempts to take advantage of this, but I don't see them going here. Besides, if I remember correctly, it was implied that the peace between the nations was going to be very strong, so they could at least work together to deal with anyone who came after them. It also isn't like other countries weren't absolutely torn apart by the fighting as well, given that the conflict spanned the entire world.

And yeah, I understand that Price implied that what happened throughout the trilogy could happen again, but I think them killing Makarov was sort of their way of saying that there was nothing to worry about the time being. He was the most dangerous terrorist after Zakhaev, so with him out of the way, it is at least implied that we don't have to worry too much about anyone else.
Oh sure they signed a peace thing but that wouldn't matter, people would want blood. Hell, we invaded Iraq because 12 idiots crashed planes into us, even if there was a peace treaty, it wouldn't last long. If the current pres didn't want to invade he would be impeached and removed. People would want blood, a lot of it.

And that is why it would be make for an interesting plot, every cod game has america on the defensive, this would finally be one where we started out purely on the offensive and pretty much doing all the things that the bad guys in cod games do. Because we would want blood.
 

MysticSlayer

New member
Apr 14, 2013
2,405
0
0
Worgen said:
Oh sure they signed a peace thing but that wouldn't matter, people would want blood. Hell, we invaded Iraq because 12 idiots crashed planes into us, even if there was a peace treaty, it wouldn't last long. If the current pres didn't want to invade he would be impeached and removed. People would want blood, a lot of it.

And that is why it would be make for an interesting plot, every cod game has america on the defensive, this would finally be one where we started out purely on the offensive and pretty much doing all the things that the bad guys in cod games do. Because we would want blood.
I don't think there's really anything to say concretely that that's how the politics would go in the aftermath.

For starters, over three months passed between rescuing the Russian president and the final mission to kill Makarov. From what I remember, Price's speech presumably came shortly before the events of taking out Makarov, and I'd imagine three months would give him the chance to gauge how stable the peace was. Considering it looked relatively bright, I think we can say there wasn't some massive coupe in the U.S. to overthrow a government that wanted peace, nor was there some attempt by Congress to force a war the President didn't want. At most, the concern was on a single terrorist, which at the time was simply Makarov. Now, there could be an American terrorist who plans to attack Russia, but they sort of already explored that option in Modern Warfare 2, and any future story would seem somewhat redundant.

Second, there's a very good possibility the U.S. was tired of war. We've seen plenty of this in the last decade: Many people become tired of being at war. In the Modern Warfare timeline's span of about six years, we know of the U.S.'s invasion of a Middle Eastern country that ended with 50,000 soldiers being killed in a nuclear explosion, a war in Afghanistan that had been going on for who knows how long, an invasion by Russian forces that at the very least left the entire East Cost in shambles, a war in Europe that claimed even more lives in a short amount of time, and a few other minor skirmishes that we either saw or heard about. Heck, we don't even know if America has enough of a government to properly function, considering no one knows how the politicians in D.C. fared after the invasion. And that's not even counting all the members of Shadow Company that were either killed or certainly labeled as traitors. Provided the U.S. even has the manpower to launch another invasion, it is very possible that most, though certainly not all, people in the U.S. would want to just see an end to war.

Now, it is possible that other stuff could go on in the Modern Warfare universe. I think it would be nice to see a spinoff game that explored what happened during the invasion on the West Coast a little more. It's also never fully explained what happened to the members of Shadow Company (at least from what I remembered), and that really disappointed me. However, I just don't see a future invasion of Russia. If anything does happen post-Peace Treaty (outside of Price and Yuri launching a final mission to kill Makarov), I'd imagine it would have to do with either a third-party nation trying to take advantage of everyone else's weakened states, or we'd see a group of extremists who do want blood creating a problem in one of the weakened nations. Seeing anything on the scale of MW2 or MW3 seems unlikely, which is also probably why we may never see another game from the series. The Modern Warfare trilogy was built around taking set pieces to the extreme, and after how far they went with MW3, they would probably have a hard time taking things further.
 

Dalisclock

Making lemons combustible again
Legacy
Escapist +
Feb 9, 2008
11,286
7,086
118
A Barrel In the Marketplace
Country
Eagleland
Gender
Male
Evonisia said:
remnant_phoenix said:
Evonisia said:
I say no, if only because I don't trust Infinity Ward to not fuck it up like they did the story of Modern Warfare 3. MW2, as ridiculous as it was after CoD 4, did mostly hold together as a story. MW3 did not.
Uh...

MW2 may have held up on a surface level--and that's a big maybe--but any sort of real-world sociopolitical or war strategy logic tears that story apart in seconds.
I'm never going to maintain that they are remotely possible in the real world (though MW3 still manages to be worse than MW2 in that regard), but given that the latter Modern Warfare games are just power fantasies I'd say MW2 works fine. Then MW3 tried being more serious in tone with the British and that ruins the constant power fantasy parts of the American campaign.
MW2 worked both in the set pieces and the fact the whole thing was built off the idea "The cycle of revenge just makes things worse". The problem is, MW3 didn't really know what it was doing in so many ways(the submarine mission in NY is just painful to play through) and never really resolved anything. It just went for "Kill Makarov, rescue the Russian President. All is good", which is so unsatisfying after the previous games sense that everything was spiraling out of control.

I was also really annoyed by how the games flipfloped back and forth wether Makarov was fighting for or againest the Russians. In MW2, it seems like he was doing his best to poke sides in cooperation with Gen. Shepard but it also wanted by the Russians. In MW3, he's pretty much running the Russian military with no real explanation.

Granted, the fact it was an entirely new studio by the time MW3 was made explains pretty much all of this.
 

Evil Smurf

Admin of Catoholics Anonymous
Nov 11, 2011
11,597
0
0
Enough people buy it to justify making it, you don't have to like it, that does not mean others will not.