gaming Rumor: Call of Duty 2016 to be set in 'very far future', feature 'space combat'

[Kyoshi Frost Wolf 40,278]

 

http://wccftech.com/rumor-cod-2016-full-scifi-future-space-combat-bo3-feel-stone-age/

 

As if COD wasn't absurd enough already. It seems Infinity Ward might be trying to go as crazy as possible with the next title in the over-saturated COD series. Apparently, according to rumors, the next title will be set in the 'very far' future, making Black Ops 3 feel like the 'stone age'. Supposedly it will even feature space combat. 

 

So essentially, any chance of COD making any sense at all is now gone. With the absolutely horrendous campaign and story in Black Ops 3, the hopes of the COD series actually have a decent story are destroyed. Of course, most people buy these games for the multiplayer, but we all know it is gonna be relatively the same, with the 'space combat' being merely a gimmick that they will market heavily to get sales, only for the feature to be lackluster. Yay. 

 

So what do you think? Do you like or hate this idea? Or do you just think the series needs to die? I am on board with the latter. 

[Spark Thunderbass 1,395]

At this point, I don't give two flying fucks about this godforsaken franchise anymore, no matter what direction it takes.

[Luna the Great of all the Russias 2,700]

I still enjoy the series quite a bit so I prefer to not have the series die.

 

I'll start off by saying that, supposedly, the majority of COD players actually buy it for the singleplayer considering total sales vs people who play online (only about 1/3 of the players play multiplayer which would make sense why they keep making campaigns).

 

The point about COD being relatively the same every year, isn't that why people continue to play the games? Games in a series having relatively the same gameplay is not something unique to COD yet it seems to me a unique criticism for the series. If anything, radically changing the gameplay of COD could potentially be terrible for the series. And I thought it was generally understood that COD isn't meant to be realistic.

 

As for this year's release, the problem is that Infinity Ward is making COD this year and the last two games they made are MW3 and Ghosts; having played all main COD games (except 3), I consider all of them to be at least good except for Ghosts which is the only COD game I wish I could refund. So because of the particular development team, I'm not sure if I'll buy this year's game.

[Nuke87654 1,849]

 

 

http://wccftech.com/rumor-cod-2016-full-scifi-future-space-combat-bo3-feel-stone-age/

 

As if COD wasn't absurd enough already. It seems Infinity Ward might be trying to go as crazy as possible with the next title in the over-saturated COD series. Apparently, according to rumors, the next title will be set in the 'very far' future, making Black Ops 3 feel like the 'stone age'. Supposedly it will even feature space combat. 

 

So essentially, any chance of COD making any sense at all is now gone. With the absolutely horrendous campaign and story in Black Ops 3, the hopes of the COD series actually have a decent story are destroyed. Of course, most people buy these games for the multiplayer, but we all know it is gonna be relatively the same, with the 'space combat' being merely a gimmick that they will market heavily to get sales, only for the feature to be lackluster. Yay. 

 

So what do you think? Do you like or hate this idea? Or do you just think the series needs to die? I am on board with the latter. 

Sounds like Call of Duty: Warhammer 40k ripoff starring spess merehns

[Megas 27,063]

Not really in the mood for anther futuristic CoD, especially since I'm both warn out from futuristic shooters and pining for the days of another old-school World War II shooter again

[Ziggy + Angel + Rain 11,298]

Why not go in the other direction with it?  Set a Call of Duty in the distant past; like before there were guns. xD  Call of Duty: Let's Throw Rocks.  I assume this is them (further) having a go at competing with and / or borrowing from other shooters that haven't limited themselves to historical conflicts or modern weaponry.  Which is fine.

 

But if it still feels like Call of Duty...  I still won't be interested.  As much as I despise the soul-devouring quagmire of misery that is Destiny, the shooting itself (ignoring absolutely everything else about that game) was more solid and initially satisfying than anything I've experienced in CoD.

[Double Clutch 435]

Not really in the mood for anther futuristic CoD, especially since I'm both warn out from futuristic shooters and pining for the days of another old-school World War II shooter again

 This.  A thousand times, this.  Even in the original black ops with its cold war era setting, it felt far more visceral than any of the new titles from Treyarch.

[Once In A Blue Moon 894]

Given that the single-player, although fun (well, I've only played MW2 and Black Ops) aren't really about the story and stagnation will kill a series eventually, going in a new direction is probably a good idea.

 

To give a separate example, the original Red Alert (an RTS game, so again less of a story focus) had some fairly serious aspects. True, the premise of Einstein going back in time to kill Hitler, resulting in an unchecked USSR invading Europe is hardly alternative history at its best, but with bits such as the USSR intro sequence (in which the results of a sarin gas attack are discussed) and missions such as hunting down a spy (the outro victory sequence showing his execution by firing squad) or rescuing a special forces commando (where there is a FMV sequence mid-mission where they are rescued in mid-interrogation) it was far from comical.

 

Fast forwards to Red Alert 3, where the Allies missions in particular... well...

 

 

...one mission has you stop the president of the United States (later discovered to be an android doppleganger) from using a number of laser super-weapons built into the heads of Mt Rushmore to destroy the USSR, your then-allies. The final mission involves destroying a Soviet rocket before the communists can escape to the moon by shrinking your command centre down to a tiny size and sneaking into the fortified city the rocket is being prepared in...

 

 

... so not exactly serious.

 

The point I am getting at is that a series needs to change in order to keep going, and if story isn't a strong point then switching up the mechanics to make something a bit new isn't a bad thing, even of the story goes all wibbly-wobbely-timey-wimey. Especially not with so many similar games in the series (if the new multiplayer isn't popular then the last iteration with a popular multiplayer should remain well populated) and a sense of fatigue with the current formula (same as Assassins' Creed - I remember when Brotherhood was blasted for being more of the same, but apart from Black Flag apparently they are still at it.)

 

I would also express the view that if the multiplayer isn't changing, then selling a 'new' version of it every year is more than a touch exploitative (it kills the multiplayer of the previous iteration, forcing someone who wants the MP to buy the new game) so to justify a change they really need to do something new (more than a re-skin too.)

 

As to the singleplayer, I'm trying to work out whether they will be shooting space-mercenaries, space-russians, space-chineese, space-terrorists or just jump the shark and go for an alien invasion plot. 

[Kyoshi Frost Wolf 40,278]

I still enjoy the series quite a bit so I prefer to not have the series die.

 

I'll start off by saying that, supposedly, the majority of COD players actually buy it for the singleplayer considering total sales vs people who play online (only about 1/3 of the players play multiplayer which would make sense why they keep making campaigns).

 

The point about COD being relatively the same every year, isn't that why people continue to play the games? Games in a series having relatively the same gameplay is not something unique to COD yet it seems to me a unique criticism for the series. If anything, radically changing the gameplay of COD could potentially be terrible for the series. And I thought it was generally understood that COD isn't meant to be realistic.

 

As for this year's release, the problem is that Infinity Ward is making COD this year and the last two games they made are MW3 and Ghosts; having played all main COD games (except 3), I consider all of them to be at least good except for Ghosts which is the only COD game I wish I could refund. So because of the particular development team, I'm not sure if I'll buy this year's game.

If that is the case, then why have the campaigns been absolutely terrible as of late? Black Ops 3's campaign and story are absolutely awful, and I gave it a big chance on that. Nothing about it was good, and the story was cliched nonsense that made no sense. Is that just what people want then or something?

 

And you say changing anything drastically would be a bad thing ,then what is the point of releasing a new game every single year? If almost nothing is going to be unique or polished, then what is the point of annual releases? Doing so while changing not anything major only showcases the series many, many problems. 

 

I can answer my own question actually: The money. Activision knows that people will buy this stuff every year, so it is best to milk the cash cow as much as possible I guess. That doesn't mean these games are good. 

[Photon Jet 5,489]

 

 

http://wccftech.com/rumor-cod-2016-full-scifi-future-space-combat-bo3-feel-stone-age/

 

As if COD wasn't absurd enough already. It seems Infinity Ward might be trying to go as crazy as possible with the next title in the over-saturated COD series. Apparently, according to rumors, the next title will be set in the 'very far' future, making Black Ops 3 feel like the 'stone age'. Supposedly it will even feature space combat. 

 

So essentially, any chance of COD making any sense at all is now gone. With the absolutely horrendous campaign and story in Black Ops 3, the hopes of the COD series actually have a decent story are destroyed. Of course, most people buy these games for the multiplayer, but we all know it is gonna be relatively the same, with the 'space combat' being merely a gimmick that they will market heavily to get sales, only for the feature to be lackluster. Yay. 

 

So what do you think? Do you like or hate this idea? Or do you just think the series needs to die? I am on board with the latter. 

 

Looks like Call of Duty is trying to act like Halo. Wonder if aliens will be in this game too like the Covenant. LOL. 

[FlitterFlutter 1,568]

 

 

If almost nothing is going to be unique or polished, then what is the point of annual releases?

The point is very simple... Money!

[Mand'alor Dash 2,224]

@@Tsaritsa Luna's post makes an excellent point about single player in Call of Duty. The campaign isn't the afterthought that everyone says it is. It's actually very important to the game's userbase.

 

For the record, I quite liked Black Ops 3's campaign and story. When I played it, I hadn't played a new CoD in three years, and it felt fresh again. It was an utter mindfuck, but it's possible to make sense of the ending if you check the tvtropes page. It's actually pretty clever in many regards, and I'm glad that Treyarch is usually on top of that. Obviously, you can still call it a short game all you want, and a 5-8 hour campaign is in no way worth a $60 purchase, but just powering through it one day at a cousin's house was pretty fun.

 

That aside, it sucks that all three CoD developers are trying to push their setting date as far into the future as they can. It was novel when BOII was set in the 2020s, then Advanced Warfare pushed all the way into the 2050s, Treyarch came back and claimed the 2060s, and now it looks like Infinity Ward is going for the 2180s. I just want another historical CoD. Hell, even Ghosts' alternate history setting was a pretty good idea, even though I've heard that game was horrible.

 

I recently played Wolfenstein: The New Order, and that game scratched an itch I didn't know I had. It was a breath of fresh air to see something original and well crafted again. Something that gave me a fair challenge, varied gameplay, an excellent story, and decent length for the money. We need more lengthy, story-based, single player shooters, because there aren't that many these days. Hell, the first two CoDs were very long games, so there's no reason why they can't be again. There's no reason every campaign needs to be 5 hours, and why most of their stories need to be Michael Bay gun porn.

 

CoD can be awesome again. All the components are there. They just need to give it an honest try.

[Luna the Great of all the Russias 2,700]

If that is the case, then why have the campaigns been absolutely terrible as of late? Black Ops 3's campaign and story are absolutely awful, and I gave it a big chance on that. Nothing about it was good, and the story was cliched nonsense that made no sense. Is that just what people want then or something?

 

And you say changing anything drastically would be a bad thing ,then what is the point of releasing a new game every single year? If almost nothing is going to be unique or polished, then what is the point of annual releases? 

 

I can answer my own question actually: The money. Activision knows that people will buy this stuff every year, so it is best to milk the cash cow as much as possible I guess. That doesn't mean these games are good. 

I personally enjoyed the campaign though; the way campaign worked in BO3 I found was definitely better than that of previous CODs. As for the story itself, I will say that I prefer the previous Treyarch titles over this.

 

With each iteration of a game in a series, the tendency seems to be that the core gameplay mechanics remain the same with some changes. This also applies to games like Assassin's Creed and Battlefield. Also, each COD game goes through a three year cycle though timed in such a way that there's a new title every year; when I compare between COD games, I more tend to compare COD games made by one of the particular developers (I would look at what changed between BO2 and BO3 rather than AW and BO3). But then again, I will agree that I would prefer that a new COD game would be released every 2 years or longer rather than being an annual series (though I suppose it technically is with each of the three development team taking 3 years to develop a game) but I would also say the same for the aforementioned series.

 

But other than Ghosts, I have enjoyed playing all COD games which is what leads me to say that they're at least good in my opinion (not claiming that all COD games are masterpieces or anything like that) and, currently, I certainly wouldn't want the series to die.

 

That aside, it sucks that all three CoD developers are trying to push their setting date as far into the future as they can. It was novel when BOII was set in the 2020s, then Advanced Warfare pushed all the way into the 2050s, Treyarch came back and claimed the 2060s, and now it looks like Infinity Ward is going for the 2180s. I just want another historical CoD. Hell, even Ghosts' alternate history setting was a pretty good idea, even though I've heard that game was horrible.

 

I would highly recommend you avoid Ghosts unless perhaps you can get it at a big discount... at least if you're a PC player; Ghosts was terribly optimized for it. I don't know about consoles.

Edited March 29, 2016 by Tsaritsa Luna

[Vennax 58]

I'd like another WWII shooter, I know they're all over the place but we haven't had a good one in a while! (If there is a good one that I've missed please tell me)

 

Hell maybe even a WWI shooter would be a great change (I know the circumstances of the war, not exactly FPS gold but the game Verdun pulled it off perfectly)

 

The chances of either of those happening are relatively slim, as the games follow trends to please the majority and its all about the future now I guess.

[Rappy0 338]

Not really in the mood for anther futuristic CoD, especially since I'm both warn out from futuristic shooters and pining for the days of another old-school World War II shooter again

I agree futuristic shooters are getting really stale with trying to mix it up with more gimmicks that make the experience a lot more confusing. I'd much rather go back to WW2 or even a Modern Warfare 4 than another future shooter.

[Luminance 2,181]

"Call of Halo: Beating of the Franchise edition"

[Dark Horse 12,799]

Personally, really feel as though futuristic shooters have worn out their welcome for now and need to just take a breather. Especially in CoD's case. The storylines and settings are becoming ridiculously convoluted. I couldn't make heads nor tail of what was going on in Black Ops 3, it was a serious mind fuck, even for the likes of previous Black Ops games.

 

Call me old fashioned, but I'm starting to miss the days where war games were just about that: War. Not some secret Illuminati plot to take over the world or technology run rampant or an action drama twist to the ending that leaves you on a perhaps never ending cliffhanger. Too much to ask for a bit of simplicity again?

 

Ah well, if this is the direction they're looking to stay, guess we better buckle up for some more alien warfare in the near future!

 

Space Zombies!

[Flutter's lover <3 8,204]

This is gonna be a spin-off of Ghosts IIRC, which was fucking horrible. Ghosts was Hands down the worst CoD. I've only played a bit of Black Ops 3 at a firends and felt very at home, compared to Black Ops 2. Which was one of my fave CoDs....I still play it occasionally.

 

 

But CoD in generally is getting way out of hand...I miss the old CoD.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Like, what the actual fuck?This is far from being "military" which is what CoD was originally about....Military, Spec Ops, BlackOps...Not THAT above.

 

 

They need a more modern FPS or set in WW2/Cold War era again, no more of this future crap. You want future? Go play Halo or Destiny.

Edited March 30, 2016 by Flutter Baby <3

[Scrubbed user 3,415]

All the MLG pr0s are probably pulling on themselves over this. I didn't really care for CoD, even during the WWII heyday, and I have even less of a reason to care now.

 

 

Are you seriously suggesting that if given the opportunity, you wouldn't want to be a military-trained gingerbread man?

[Luna the Great of all the Russias 2,700]

This is gonna be a spin-off of Ghosts IIRC, which was fucking horrible. Ghosts was Hands down the worst CoD. I've only played a bit of Black Ops 3 at a firends and felt very at home, compared to Black Ops 2. Which was one of my fave CoDs....I still play it occasionally.

 

 

But CoD in generally is getting way out of hand...I miss the old CoD.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Like, what the actual fuck?This is far from being "military" which is what CoD was originally about....Military, Spec Ops, BlackOps...Not THAT above.

 

 

They need a more modern FPS or set in WW2/Cold War era again, no more of this future crap. You want future? Go play Halo or Destiny.

At the same time, people were complaining about COD being the same because the games were being set in a modern military setting. Now that COD is set in a future military setting, people are still complaining that COD is being the same.

Edited March 30, 2016 by Tsaritsa Luna

[Codelyy 1,281]

I don't know how they can keep going further into the future without getting to the point where they are fighting with sticks and rocks considering how many wars happen in the call of duty world.

 

Also what do they mean by space combat?, like spaceships? or basically shooting at each other in SPACEEEEEEEEEEEE which seems like a really boring idea considering the game would just be silent...

[Shadow _Destruction 19]

I want the old cod like MW3 back.

[Drunk Not I Am 1,069]

The fact that it's far future instantly turned me off, this scifi future crap has gotten old real fast

[Jonny Music 3,308]

I myself play CoD games for both the single player campaigns and the multiplayer. Usually I first play the single-player before I continue with the multiplayer.

 

The CoD games I mostly enjoyed by far were from Treyarch, then Infinity Ward.

 

My most favourite CoD game of all time would be Black Ops 2, and I still play it to this day (still yet to give Black Ops 3 a try, as I would like to try it before I ultimately judge it instead of just judging it by its cover (as my experience with the Beta on PC didn't do much justice)).

 

Now back to the topic at hand:

 

With respect to Kyoshi's opinion, how someone may like how a story in CoD is in terms of interpretation, may differ from your own. So that would be debatable.

 

What I have to say for this is that we will have to wait and see how the Devs will explain themselves with their CoD games. One Dev will have a different vision for the series than the other. Considering that there are now 3 Devs working on the CoD series in order to let each of them have at least 3 years to work on their next CoD compared to 2 before Sledgehammer joined in, for much higher chances of a higher-quality game overall, compared to a rushed 2 years.

 

I personally really like the arcadic, fast-paced gameplay in general. And I do not worry too much about how I get killed in multiplayer. As long as I am having fun with any game franchise, that is all that matters to me in the end.

 

As for how the series will end up, that all depends on how the Devs explain what their future is like for the CoD games. I wouldn't really care too much if the series were to continue or die (though the chances of the series dying is pretty slim, seeing how popular the series still is, especially in China with their exclusive free-to-play CoD game).

 

 

In conclusion, I would always look at user reviews as soon as they come out to see what they liked and didn't like about the game and find ways to trial the game out before I make the final decision to make the purchase or not.

[Rarity Is Best Pony 634]

If this turns out to be true then COD has officially jumped the shark.