@sonicnerd14: Agreed, it's a disservice for anything other than future timelines to be named "Battlefield 5". If upcoming Battlefield titles revolve around past era's (Vietnam, 1944, etc), it might as well be named as such or given a new subtitle (similar to "Bad Company").
@bdrtfm: It might not change dramatically, but that's CoD for you. It's been like that way before they introduced future timelines, and probably remain more or less the same (whether it's set in the past or not). People still buy it & play it regardless. Personally though, I'd rather have options to play the "same old shit" through different era's and different technologies - both past and future - to welcome everyone & keep things interesting, than through strictly WW2/Modern-only direction as some people seem to be advocating (others are still reeling from the time when nearly all shooters were WW2-based). If Activision can make 8 WW2 & 5 Modern/Cold War style games consecutively, I'm sure they'll find a way to keep the future genre just as interesting. If they choose to take that potential to add different gameplay mechanics (as Advanced Warfare did, even if it was similar to Titanfall) that's an added bonus.
The problem with Destiny, Halo, Planetside, Titanfall, and countless others games today is they all tend to focus on multiplayer-only, largely or entirely excluding the single player/PvE crowd. While CoD is big on MP as well, not once has it ever failed to deliver a full fledged campaign in a franchise that always did, & later with some sort of extra PvE mode, even bringing back split-screen in BO3 (as someone who played Halo since #1 specifically for those reasons, Halo 5 was a huge letdown). This shows they're willing to stay open to two different audiences in that respect, and tbh I'd choose them over all those other games. So, why can't CoD have a shot at it the future given they balance it out with past era's too? There's nothing wrong with options.
At the end of the day, we all have our preferences. Some want to stay in the past, others want go into the future. Better for everyone to support a series we can all enjoy and encourage Activision to do the same.
@Fernin-Ker: I completely agree with you guys. Having grown up in an era where practically every game was WW2-based, the thought of returning to that is chilling. With that said, I wouldn't mind some new WW2 shooters as long as it's equalized with other time periods (and of course, good development). Not once have I seen anyone whining about the latest CoD for example advocates both era's between Infinity Ward & Treyarch (future this year, past the next). Instead, they'd rather everything go back to Modern/WW2 and nothing else. Truly a shame.
Glad Activision recognizes their whole audience (not just the whiners). If they develop only old-style CoD yet again, the series will become stale, yet again. The ever-present complaining after each and every title is really vexing for those of us who likes to consider both crowds. Seeing how they went from Advanced Warfare, to Black Ops 3, I completely agree a modern or past era should have been this year's project. But some of us (at least 190K on the IW trailer currently) still prefer the sci-fi/future genre over past ones. Good news is Call of Duty is not restricted to one timeline.
So here's an idea; why don't we all support future & past trilogies going at once? Infinite Warfare by Infinity Ward this year, a Modern/WW2 trilogy by Treyarch next year, and repeat. Activison is more than capable of pleasing both crowds, so how about we encourage them to do so instead of throwing out all-or-nothing demands for specific timelines - as we had recently - which doesn't do the franchise or it's diverse fanbase any good. A vastly different CoD experience each year delivering different gameplay styles & themes sounds great to me, and would keep things fresh and exciting for all.
@rosinmonkekyx17: It's one of the best CoD's in your personal opinion. Joke or not, in practical terms a 2016 remake of a game made 9 years ago isn't worth more - in quality or in price - than a brand new title released the same year.
Otherwise we all have our preferences. Clearly some of us are more considerate of that than others.
@rosinmonkekyx17: It's not garbage because you personally don't approve of it. It's not even out yet.
IMO they're both worth $60. One's a completely new installment, the other is a high quality remake of a 9 year-old game. $80 is a great deal for those who want both, and I'm sure the remake will be sold separately by the time it comes out.
People need to chill. If they just want to buy the MW remake, I'm positive it'll be sold separately by the time the game comes out. It makes zero sense not to.
There's the catchphrase, "conspiracies". Often times when talking heads for historically B.S organizations like "The Worst Company in America" two time award winner EA wants to silence dissent, they'll use terms like that to to try and demonize any would-be criticism. Theorizing - or knowing - that more than one individual has conspired to do something (aka conspiracies) for their own benefit, or having the balls to question statements of known liars, is something today's establishment mouthpieces have managed to slander for far too long. Thankfully this tactic is losing power as more people grow past the mindless "conspiracy theory" put-down stereotype, which may spell disaster for companies like EA who constantly sacrifices quality and marketer-to-consumer decency for the sake of more online-dependence and power of their customers' purchase - all the way up to the psychopaths in government, who would like nothing more than to insert evermore control over every single facet of our lives.
Sn0wGl0be's comments