The COD franchise - we need changes akin to COD4

r3nu4l

Following on from some discussion in the MW3 Elite thread I thought I'd ask you guys where you want to see the COD series go, particularly in terms of the campaign rather than online.

In the MW3 Elite thread, I actually think Twilightning has a point about the COD series but I also want to have my cake and eat it too.

COD4 was a real breakthrough in the COD series, a proper milestone. I'd like to see one of the developers of this series make that sort of leap again in really making the series stand out from everything else around it. However, I also just want another COD game similar to everything since and inclusive of COD4

I'd feel much happier about the direction of the COD franchise if they did something to change the campaign and make it more interesting.
I'd like to think that Activision are just bashing out MW3 while their development teams are working on a brand-new version, perhaps using a new graphics engine and with sandbox or free-roaming gameplay enabled. The linear format of the campaign is a real limiting factor in enjoyment with only the difficulty level adding any challenge or 'variety'.

I'd like to see some 'Karma' options or a version of the game where the campaign has different endings depending on the missions you choose to do. Perhaps a "COD: Mercenary Group" game where choosing one set of missions pits you on one side of the war while choosing another set pits you on the other side. A load of side-missions (called 'Commando' perhaps?) would be great too.

I'd also like to see them implement some DLC missions that could be integrated into the campaign. I'd feel more excited about buying the game if I thought it was going to be a completely new (yet still familiar!) experience

What changes to COD would you like to see?

gimli2112

I'd love to see the Single player to be Co-op online. Pretty sure Resistance 3 has this feature. I think the COD SPL is very good. True it's linear but some of the scenes have a real cinematic feel to them. Vorkuta in Blackops was a real rush on Vetern (FK off Juggernaughts) and I'd really like to have played that online with mates

yimrsg

It's unlikely that a franchise like COD in particular IW's parts will move too far away from it's history. Very few series that have reached the popularity of COD have managed to re-invent themselves successfully as time goes on. It's natural that games makers and developers be pragmatic and reluctant to change formulas that have worked in the past. The only one that comes to me is Mass effect changing from a more turn based action adventure rpg to a 3rd person shooter.

With regard to multiple endings in a FPS I think that COD is never going to go that way. It's not the most cerebral of games and it would be in direct competion against makers with far more experience in that particular genre. COD stories for the most part aren't great truth be told, compare it to Deus Ex on the pc which is 10+ years old and you can see how far they'd need to go. For the campaign story mode I'd imagine that we'll all be left hanging again and I just can't see an ending that satisfyingly resolves the MW series. They'll hint at Makarov escaping or someone else being behind him all along. And then it'll go into Mw4. It's too hard to finish the series off succinctly.

My real hope for single player is that we see Soap, McTavish et al come back in the special ops mode, the mile high club at the end of COD 4 was tough as hell to complete on veteran but I still loved trying. If we have flash backs to past missions like the Pripyat level included in a horde mode that would be amazing, combining the fresh feeling of a new game mode with the unbridled joy of playing some of the finest levels in a FPS campaign. Chuck in bits of Gaz/Ghost and the rest and people will fawn over it once more.

It's far simpler to imagine once off set piece levels and use them for a special ops campaign where disjointed missions are accepted and even welcomed. You're a part of Task force 141, able to be on the ground anywhere within 6 hours. Hostages taken off the coast of Somalia, sabotage a Syrian Nuclear facility, Raid on the Kremlin. You'll be there for all of it.

Were these missions integrated into a cohesive campaign would be near impossible as the story would make no sense. Imagine if Task force 141 did a Heat style raid on a bank or fought Dragons like in Reign Of Fire. Yes they're beyond the realms of possibility in reality but people don't mind playing Zombies. My only concern is that I think it's restricted to 2 players so it's already behind black ops zombies in terms of mutliplayer features. I feel this is the real area for COD to expand it's horizons where whatever situation real or imaginary, Task force 141 are sent in. Chuck them alongside King Leonidas in 300, send them into Jurassic Park to restore order. Endless possibilites.

Likewise I'd hope there is arcade mode, rescuing Yuri from the house using night vision after sniping at a small army was another great mission that was great fun in arcade mode, all those 100's popping up after each headshot, ah bliss. I know it's paying for something that I've already paid for but when that experience is that good you'd be a fool to deny yourself the chance of reliving it all again. Halo had a scoring challenge for it's campaign and was open to 4 players so why can't COD follow?

Without wishing to offend anyone but if you've not experienced COD 4 single player then you've denied yourself some of the best moments in video gaming. Honestly I can't see the new MW3 beating the rose tinted ideal that I hold in my head but I hope it approaches it. If it does that then I'm sure I won't care whether someone complains about lack of originality, ultimately COD is meant to be enjoyable, if it does that then Mission Accomplished.

CORaven

Short and sweet:
Kill Americans. It is a little tiresome paying as the good guys the whole time. Yes we had that Airport level, but you knew that was just you trying to fit in. I would like to be the antagonists in the storyline, even for just a few levels or Spec Ops missions.

I would be +1 for arcade mode in Single Player.

Not sure about the whole Karma thing as you are a solider and you do as you are told in all the games so far.

Co-op campaign I would be +1 for too.

sierra117x

r3nu4l wrote: »

Following on from some discussion in the MW3 Elite thread I thought I'd ask you guys where you want to see the COD series go, particularly in terms of the campaign rather than online.

In the MW3 Elite thread, I actually think Twilightning has a point about the COD series but I also want to have my cake and eat it too.

COD4 was a real breakthrough in the COD series, a proper milestone. I'd like to see one of the developers of this series make that sort of leap again in really making the series stand out from everything else around it. However, I also just want another COD game similar to everything since and inclusive of COD4

I'd feel much happier about the direction of the COD franchise if they did something to change the campaign and make it more interesting.
I'd like to think that Activision are just bashing out MW3 while their development teams are working on a brand-new version, perhaps using a new graphics engine and with sandbox or free-roaming gameplay enabled. The linear format of the campaign is a real limiting factor in enjoyment with only the difficulty level adding any challenge or 'variety'.

I'd like to see some 'Karma' options or a version of the game where the campaign has different endings depending on the missions you choose to do. Perhaps a "COD: Mercenary Group" game where choosing one set of missions pits you on one side of the war while choosing another set pits you on the other side. A load of side-missions (called 'Commando' perhaps?) would be great too.

I'd also like to see them implement some DLC missions that could be integrated into the campaign. I'd feel more excited about buying the game if I thought it was going to be a completely new (yet still familiar!) experience

What changes to COD would you like to see?

the problem with this isnt just developers though its gamers as well. with all the new releases every year you dont want to be spending your hard earned dosh on every pile of garbage thats thrown out on the shelves. so developers get stuck in a rut of making games that are safe and in peoples expectations rather than risk bankruptcy trying to be new and edgy.

@Coraven didnt EA try something along those lines for medal of honor and nearly lost a huge market from the US armed forces because they didnt want to see US troopers getting blown away by taliban

r3nu4l

CORaven wrote: »

Not sure about the whole Karma thing as you are a solider and you do as you are told in all the games so far.

So far yes but that's why I'd like a difference, I think it would be good to be faced with the dilemma of torching a jungle village with the villagers in it or allowing them to escape before torching it (Yeah, I know...the complaints would be similar to those of the airport scene ) and there being repercussions of that action. For example, letting them escape means that you get good karma but end up letting a really bad guy get away or killing them all results in another unit being wiped out and you having less support in a later mission.

Anything to mix up the format a bit would be good but as I said, I'd also like to keep the current format

Unless they kept the current format going and also released an offshoot format with free-roam and multiple endings as a tester...

CORaven

sierra117x wrote: »

didnt EA try something along those lines for medal of honor and nearly lost a huge market from the US armed forces because they didnt want to see US troopers getting blown away by taliban

Mainly because it was a recent war where their friends and colleagues died along side them. MW3 is a fictional war.

r3nu4l wrote: »

So far yes but that's why I'd like a difference, I think it would be good to be faced with the dilemma of torching a jungle village with the villagers in it or allowing them to escape before torching it (Yeah, I know...the complaints would be similar to those of the airport scene ) and there being repercussions of that action. For example, letting them escape means that you get good karma but end up letting a really bad guy get away or killing them all results in another unit being wiped out and you having less support in a later mission.

Anything to mix up the format a bit would be good but as I said, I'd also like to keep the current format

Unless they kept the current format going and also released an offshoot format with free-roam and multiple endings as a tester...

It could be interesting then. Seeing how most troops today actually do not aim to kill in war, it would be a nice addition.

cherryghost

The games mechanics will not change for the forseeable future. Fact. It sells way too much to even consider a change in direction for the franchise. As long as people keep buying, they'll keep rolling out the same thing, just like the FIFA franchise. FIFA realized their sales were dropping and vastly improved the system recently though, I think the COD series is still some years off from that.

But if they did change the direction of the game, what could they do? WWI? Even more futuristic? Possibly. They seriously need to rethink the map designs in relation to perks and tube spam. For me, they've taken the edge off the game that used to be 'fun'. I'm not saying its still bad, but I don't find it as 'fun' as I used to. Some people are too serious about the game and some rants just scare the bejesus out of me. It's just a game! Sure COD4 back had the same problems but nowhere near as much as recent games. I mean some people don't play for the game anymore, they just play to get gloating rights in videos.

MW3 is a vital point in the franchise. If it sinks it'll still sell a buttload but people might realise the COD fad of re-rolling and re-skinning a 5 year old formula, and sales might decline in the following years. I'm hesitant to what MW3 will bring but I really hope they bring out a very balanced and well presented game. Only time will tell.

sierra117x

CORaven wrote: »

Mainly because it was a recent war where their friends and colleagues died along side them. MW3 is a fictional war.

thats a fair point but i do still think it could damage sales a bit by switching sides .i mean there was only a pc version of the game launched in russia and even then it was never a massive seller from what i can gather so hardly a political **** storm putting them as the bad guys.

dont get me wrong i love the idea. not so much the bad guy side of things(although im all for that) but as far as the russians are concerned their the good guys. I mean it was makarov who started the whole thing not either country. So if you take things entirely from their side your still a good guy.

Magill

They're never going to make CoD a great single player game, fact is IW + Treyarch are not good story tellers... i consider them the michael bays of gaming... and i hate transformers. I personally just get stuck into the MP and get my SP fix from actual good single player games.

krudler

Magill wrote: »

They're never going to make CoD a great single player game, fact is IW + Treyarch are not good story tellers... i consider them the michael bays of gaming... and i hate transformers. I personally just get stuck into the MP and get my SP fix from actual good single player games.

what? COD4 has an awesome SP mode, its the franchises SP crowning moment. MW2 is silly, but it knows it, you're essentially playing a summer blockbuster movie.Its big epic cinematic moments and very little deviation from a fixed path, so its what COD has become. I genuinely want to see how the Makarov storyline ends if it does end with MW3. Games arent written by screenwriters so its not a fair comparison. But games as a medium are definitely more well written than they used to be, like Uncharted 2, thats the definition of an interactive movie for me.

hightower1

Magill wrote: »

They're never going to make CoD a great single player game, fact is IW + Treyarch are not good story tellers... i consider them the michael bays of gaming... and i hate transformers. I personally just get stuck into the MP and get my SP fix from actual good single player games.

Seeing as this is the only game franchise I have ever seen quoted directly as being similar to a movie directors work by name then I think for better or worse its a very good example of movie style story telling in a video game.

Magill

krudler wrote: »

what? COD4 has an awesome SP mode, its the franchises SP crowning moment. MW2 is silly, but it knows it, you're essentially playing a summer blockbuster movie.Its big epic cinematic moments and very little deviation from a fixed path, so its what COD has become. I genuinely want to see how the Makarov storyline ends if it does end with MW3. Games arent written by screenwriters so its not a fair comparison. But games as a medium are definitely more well written than they used to be, like Uncharted 2, thats the definition of an interactive movie for me.

I thought it was average at best, some of the missions were good no doubt but it didn't really impress me overall. And yeah, like i said... im not into the whole "Micheal bay" typed games.