Oh, I'm sure Activision would ask. Bungie is not owned by Activision so Bungie would never do it.The Last Hunter said:
Poll: Bungie = Modern Warfare 3?
- Thread starter The Last Hunter
- Start date
Recommended Videos
They probably wouldn't, but still, makes you think what it would be likeTheSapphireKnight said:
Quit acting like MODERN Warefare 3 being developed by Bungie would equal aliens and energy beams. For fucks sake.
However, no. I don't want it. I don't even want a Modern Warefare 3. Yes, Halo 3 and MW2 online is fun but I prefer Uncharted 2 online.
However, no. I don't want it. I don't even want a Modern Warefare 3. Yes, Halo 3 and MW2 online is fun but I prefer Uncharted 2 online.
I think ya'll should read more, considering this very website has posted an article quoting Bungie's community manager saying they're not considering Call of Duty at all.
http://www.escapistmagazine.com/news/view/100364-UPDATE-Bungie-Call-of-Duty-Conversation-Might-Come-Up
http://www.escapistmagazine.com/news/view/100364-UPDATE-Bungie-Call-of-Duty-Conversation-Might-Come-Up
They both have the kinda floaty shooting mechanics too. It could work. They'd need to get in new writers though, humour isn't Bungie's strongest area...razormint21 said:
*swats analyst with a frozen rolled-up newspaper*
There aren't enough ways to say NO to that. Considering how far the persons at Bungie have their heads shoved up their asses, it wouldn't come out any better than Infinity did; in fact, I think it would come out depressingly much worse.
http://www.gamespot.com/xbox/action/shellshocknam67/index.html
So has your later suggestion... sort of; while not near-future, it does have North Korea being a bunch of dickwads and whatnot, and blowing stuff to kingdom come with airstrikes.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Allied_Nations
There aren't enough ways to say NO to that. Considering how far the persons at Bungie have their heads shoved up their asses, it wouldn't come out any better than Infinity did; in fact, I think it would come out depressingly much worse.
Correction: Vietnam has already been done... and it wasn't that great either:Daipire said:
http://www.gamespot.com/xbox/action/shellshocknam67/index.html
So has your later suggestion... sort of; while not near-future, it does have North Korea being a bunch of dickwads and whatnot, and blowing stuff to kingdom come with airstrikes.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Allied_Nations
And there was the Battlefield Vietnam game, as well as Conflict Vietnam, which i didn't bother to mentionswytchblayd said:
EDIT: I think, in all snerioush-ness, that multiplayer shooters are becoming a bit old news. I reckon they'll branch off into rpg/shooter hybrids (like global agenda and borderlands) or 4+ co operative shooters (like l4d and also borderlands). Think about it, most modern shooters are either: camp-happy or run-and-gun-happy
Hey, why not? It'll get all the teabaggers into one place. Currently, there seems to be a problem of screechy 12-year-olds overrunning both Modern Warfare and Halo games. Just one can ruin a match. Why not get them all playing one game? That way, it's something to keep them under control, so people can play Modern Warfare and Halo for their merits as games, instead of getting crushed by hackers, aimbot-users, and boosters.
Seriously, I think the different graphic styles of Halo games and Call of Duty games would make this too much of a transition. Modern Warfare 2 had beautiful visuals in single-player campaign, and I think Halo's more industrial look wouldn't translate effectively.
Seriously, I think the different graphic styles of Halo games and Call of Duty games would make this too much of a transition. Modern Warfare 2 had beautiful visuals in single-player campaign, and I think Halo's more industrial look wouldn't translate effectively.
