🎉 Celebrating 25 Years of GameDev.net! 🎉

Not many can claim 25 years on the Internet! Join us in celebrating this milestone. Learn more about our history, and thank you for being a part of our community!

How to save Call of Duty

Started by
15 comments, last by swiftcoder 6 years, 4 months ago

I'm going to start this one off with a simple disclaimer: I don't want to hate Call of Duty, but I do. I used to be a fan of this game, back in the mid-2000s. I entered it with the first Modern Warfare, I gave up on it with Modern Warfare 3, and I developed a deep and lasting resentment for the franchise when Ghosts came out. But ultimately, no matter how much I hate what the series has become, how formulaic and paint-by-numbers it is, and how it has completely refused to innovate, I never wanted to and I think that the right game could immediately bring me back into the fold. I also don't think I'm alone. While it's easy to say the franchise doesn't deserve saving, I definitely have my moments when I think that, I would be happy to see it change and go back to being a good, innovative series like it was for a whopping 2 1/2 games in the 2000s. I know it seems strange to say now that Call of Duty was ever good or innovative, but it was for a brief period of time and its fans, while a bit stubborn for sticking with it after years and years of samey garbage, aren't entirely insane. (Though that level of dedication seems at least a little crazy to me.) So, tonight, I sat back and thought about what it would take to make me stop hating Call of Duty, and go back to being a fan. (All of this also applies to Battlefield, an equally vapid series for all the same reasons that could also employ this exact strategy to fix its issues.)

The game, as it is, needs a a new setting, and a new feature tied into it that completely changes the gameplay in practice, without seriously changing the gunplay or the controls. Something that would allow old players and current players to pick up the new game and immediately intuit how to work it, but would make the game new and interesting, and give the game more depth than it has ever had. (Because honestly, we weren't there for deep gameplay in CoD's golden era, we were there for the stories of Modern Warfare 1 and Black Ops 1.) That's... Hard to do, I know, but there are ways that can be done. I came up with one example, because I'd be loathe to say "you need to be more creative" and not to try being creative on this issue myself, and that's the following: Powers. Set the game in a way that special powers and abilities would be available without disrupting the seriousness of the franchise. Maybe paranormal would work, but more likely we're talking about a science-fiction entry that adds powers of some variety. They need to feel really sci-fi, they should be entirely from gadgetry but as long as they give a very wide range of effects and have a profound gameplay impact, they'll do the job.

I kinda played around with this idea, and I have an example pitch for what such a CoD game would be like. It's just one idea, and while it is pretty detailed I'm not saying either that this idea is perfect how it is or that this is the only thing that could possibly save the franchise. Nor is it complete, Call of Duty and Battlefield have far more issues than just staleness and a lack of innovation. The handholding, the inconsequential nature of combat, the cutscene-heavy and gameplay-light gameplay, the lack of any real challenge, the gunplay having actually lost the weightiness and active participation they used to have for mega-ultra-auto-aim that lets you just point vaguely at the enemy and win, they all need addressing too and they're honestly more important, but most of that comes down to "backpedal 12 years. For the idea of how to make the games fresh, hear me out.

The Premise:

It is the year 2218. You are part of a secretive post-human special forces unit. Officially, you do not exist. But in reality, you are deployed to tackle tough situations stealthily using advanced technology, psychic powers (insert handwavium, neural-connected projectors in your helmet, whatever) and personal robots for covert operations. After a brief training excercise where you practice stealth, gunplay, telekinesis and control of your robot (basic tutorial), you are deployed on a mission to Generic Rogue State to permanently shut down a research and development operation there. But when you arrive, you find they too have psychic soldiers... Which shouldn't be possible. And they're just like yours... As the game goes on, you uncover a shadowy corporate cabal, which sold state secrets to rogue nations for profit, part of a tinfoil hat worthy worldwide conspiracy. Then, you find out your own organisation and your own superior officers are involved, and they try to have you killed. You are forced to escape and go rogue for the last act, and are labelled a terrorist by official sources during the credits. It's not a super original plot, but it's reasonably interesting, fits the tone of the series and has room for some impactful moments. (If the conspiracy's revelation isn't memorable, somebody did something wrong.)

The Features:

The principle differences that would shake up the gameplay come from the futuristic and paranormal aspects of the setting. They're incorporated in such a way that although they have a major effect on the setting and on gameplay, they are believable and the 200 year timeskip allows them to be more futuristic than magical, so returning players can suspend their disbelief. However, what these do for gameplay is not insignificant and they come in four categories: Psionics, robotics, suits and weaponry. Health would also need to either not regenerate on its own, or regenerate extremely slowly. In single-player, that may be determined by difficulty.

Psionics:

Psionics are your super-handwaved psionic powers which must absolutely NOT be magical. Maybe it could work if it's paranormal and unexplained, but I think a scientific-sounding premise would work far better on the core audience, and on sci-fi fans whose genre you are entering and who you are trying to court. I believe it's important a good handwave be implanted here, it doesn't matter much what it is as long as it fools the standard audience of Call of Duty games (which isn't very smart) well enough, and elicits a chuckle from science-fiction fans. Say you've got a neural connection in your helmet and your suit that allows you to simply think your commands, and there's force affectors in your suit. Exactly how the neural connection happens, and what these force affectors do to create the results, that doesn't matter at all. As long as you have a cohesive premise as to how it works and have put even a little thought into it so it makes sense to some super basic extent, you've already done enough to maintain your audience's suspension of disbelief. The illusions are holographic, and read your thoughts through your neural connection to produce images through projectors on your helmet. The force field uses a shield generator in the palm of your suit to create a millimetre-thin field of high-temperature magnetised plasma to reflect projectiles. The telekinesis uses zero-point energy through its nonsensium projectors to technobabble enemies away from you. Just think about the premise enough to create a basic "this does this" diagram for your descriptions with some vague notion on how it maybe might work, and you don't need to figure out the details. After all, in the lore 200 years of figuring this stuff out happened to create these technologies.

These powers take over the grenade buttons, meaning you can have two powers equipped. These share a regenerating psychic meter, and more powerful abilities have a higher cost. Remember to handwave this. If you can avoid it don't even name the meter and your players will name it for you, but if you must name it remember this power needs to not be magic and find a non-magic sounding name for this. AC, affector charge? I don't know. Activision and Treyarch can focus-test this and I can't. Even an indie studio has the time and resources to come up with a good nonsense name that says "not magic" to the fans of this series, and says "look, it's not supposed to be magic, but we're trying" to the sci-fi fans this title will catch the attention of.

These psychic powers, or suit abilities, or whatever, include extrasensory perception, illusion, telekinesis and support. ESP abilities let you see through walls, mark enemies on minimaps, highlight enemies and dangers, and see through illusions, amongst other things (the more diverse the power set, the better). Illusion abilities let you turn invisible, create visible duplicates of yourself, darken or cloud areas so they can't be seen through, blind enemies with a flash, create sounds that will distract enemies, and so forth. Telekinesis lets you force push enemies, manipulate physics objects a la gravity gun, grab items (ammunition, med kits, grenades) from a distance, and create barriers that deflect bullets at predictable angles and can even rebound them directly back at the shooter (the more direct the shot, the less damage the bullet does when it's reflected). Support, finally, allows you to provide buffs that increase your allies' speed, make them take less damage, or can even heal them.

These powers all interact directly with the gunplay, and many do so in what could be an interesting manner if well handled. For example, you can defeat a twitch shooter that surprises you around a corner by projecting a barrier when you see them and reflecting their gunfire back into their face. Or you could force push them off a roof, probably not killing them but dealing damage and ending the encounter. Or blind them with a flash and backpedal around the corner, buying you a couple seconds to figure out what step 2 of your plan is.

And don't forget, for the really active ones, draw some connection to the player using it. Create some visible effect for the nonsensium forcefield pushing enemies with force push, find out what works best. Maybe just a visual blur effect on the space affected by it. Good visual design will help reinforce the idea that this is technology, not magic, and keep the players immersed while allowing you to do what you want.

Robotics:

Robotics are also both a meaningful feature that shakes up the gameplay, and the kind of thing that made me like this franchise back in 2006: Customisation porn. The robot is small and man-portable, fitting on your character's back so you can deploy or collapse it at will, and in multiplayer you get to customize it as part of your loadout. Start simple with stationary robots, ground-based robots and flying robots, and go from there. The player decides what weapons they hav, how they're armoured, what utility systems they're given. You could make a heavy-duty turret that has a machine gun and self-repairs, or a flying sensor bot that has detects enemies and carries a laser, or perhaps a walking medical bot that both protects and heals you, all by changing its base-type and its loadout.

CoD players by and large love to customize their loadouts, and giving them yet another thing to customize helps sustain their interest. Not to mention it's genuinely useful in gameplay, and the fact that every player has a custom, portable military robot means instead of being an unfair advantage or a kill streak, it's a core part of gameplay. A good, well-customized robot that suits your playstyle can make a huge difference. A sniper will be happy to have a robot spotting for them, marking enemies on the map and warning them if somebody's sneaking up on them. A rusher, meanwhile, would probably like a flying medical bot to keep up with them and restore their health after gunfights. And at the same time, the robot is separate and vulnerable from you. If you die, your robot might avenge you. And if your robot is shot down, you're a lot less capable without it than somebody with their robot would be.

The Suit:

Suit options are pretty straight-forward. You can add armour (damage resistance, countered by penetration), shields (small layer of regenerating HP), carry more utility items or change your sidearm slot into a second primary weapon slot, or change your primary weapon slot to a special heavy weapon slot so you can have a larger, more powerful weapon than you'd normally get. In exchange, your character becomes heavier, and less mobile. It's pretty straight-forward, but if well played it can potentially be pretty deep. It's been a while, but I remember Tribes did okay back in the day. Also, making armour only resist like 5% of incoming damage would be shameful, it needs to actually do something, and pairing it with penetration is a good move as it adds a lot of depth.

As an example: You can have a base resist of 0%, 25%, 50% or 100%, but each will slow your character more than the last. Every rank of penetration reduces these by 10%. That is to say, with 0 penetration a shotgun is reduced 0%, 25%, 50% or 100%. With 1 penetration a 9mm pistol is reduced 0%, 22.5%, 45% or 90%. A 7.62 battle rifle with 5 penetration is reduced 0%, 12.5%, 25% or 50%, a .50 BMG with 10 penetration is reduced 0%, 0%, 0% or 0%. That means certain weapons are more valuable based on their efficacy against armour, even if their other characteristics are lacklustre. It also means armour becomes an active consideration in gameplay, and shapes your playstyle. A heavily armoured character probably sticks to cover and never goes out into the open, since they're a slow easy target to snipers their armour isn't great against, but the shotgun campers they're likely to encounter in cover are going to fail hard against their armour.

Weaponry:

And weaponry. The series has always had a diverse set of weapons, despite some of the fans being insufferable (part of why I left) and insisting only SMGs and assault rifles are fair play. I vote to expand that weapon set, using the sci-fi setting. Keep the ballistic firearms, all of them, largely as they are. (Maybe make the shotguns not have a range of two feet, and provide different shotgun loads, like slugs and flechettes.) Melee weapons too, quick melee button shouldn't always be a knife. A hatchet, or a sword, or a bludgeon, they could all have different effects to make them a bit different. IE: This knife is just really fast so you get the quickest quick melee, but this knife does more damage and this one instantly kills if it hits an enemy in the back. Or you can get a short sword that does more damage but is slower. Or a hatchet that does good damage and is good against armour but it's even slower. Or a club that's really only good against armour (maybe ignores it entirely). Variety is the spice of life and all. I think Black Ops III had a variety of melee weapons, but I've never played it. (I haven't played a single CoD game since Black Ops II, and haven't owned one since MW3... Which was a mistake to even get.)

But the big one, the new one, would be energy weapons. If we're 200 years in the future, you can do that. If you want more variety, make it 300 or 400 years in the future. I can see a good variety already. Pulse lasers that are perfectly accurate, hitscan explosive snipers, but have a long cooldown so you need to make a shot count. Beam lasers, which deal very rapid DOT with splash damage, but overheat quickly and create a big glowing trail (from atmospheric blooming) that leads right to you. Electrolasers, which aren't that strong and are slow semi-automatic weapons with overheat, but they're lasers (thus perfectly accurate) and they cause the heaviest flinch of any weapon type by far (making it very difficult to shoot back, since you keep being knocked way the hell of line when they hit you). Coilguns, which can be quick-shot as a very slow sniper of average power, or charged up several seconds for an incredibly powerful shot that will one-hit enemies with a shot to the chest and penetrate every wall clear to the far side of the map. Maybe even plasma weapons and ion weapons, slow and short-ranged with travel times, but plasma weapons are powerhouses and ion weapons deal okay damage and murder energy shields.

More than that, existing weapons can get new features. Okay, I have a noob tube. But does it NEED to be a frag grenade? Maybe I want a HEAT grenade that has a teeny blast radius and really good direct hit damage. Maybe I want an incendiary grenade. Or an EMP grenade. Okay, I have a scope, but maybe it can have a built-in rangefinder so I can more easily adjust for travel time (if that's even a thing in this one), or thermal vision, IFF, a directional microphone, X-ray vision, get creative.

So, why do I feel the games need more weapons? Partially it's just because while the variety in-game is actually pretty good as it is (that has NEVER been an issue), it can be improved and the game would only benefit. Additionally, a sci-fi setting doesn't just allow powers and robots, but it allows you to easily improve the weapon variety without breaking immersion and it'd actually be LESS immersive not to add some new, advanced weapons. Energy weapons in particular allows you to use very game-y mechanics for your weapons, like the travel time of a plasma weapon or the overheat on lasers. That's GOOD, it's good to find ways to expand your mechanics without challenging immersion, and I don't think a player sniping with a gauss rifle is going to think "hey, the charge up here is a really game-y mechanic, like the Sniper in TF2 and Widowmaker from Overwatch", they're going to be kept in the experience because their weapon makes sense and blowing a fist-sized hole through another player's chest across the map through body armour, a refrigerator and three walls is a satisfying culmination of their skills, their weapon and the x-ray vision power they chose. They aren't going to be thinking about the game-y ness of their robot helper either when it shows a flanker on their minimap, they'll be too busy switching to their pistol and setting up to fight them off, using that couple seconds to hope they can win the fight when the opponent likely has a superior close-ranged weapon to their simple handgun.

Conclusion:

Is this idea perfect? No, of course not. Does it fix the largest problem with the genre itself beyond how stale the two lead series are? No, the creepy level of handholding, insultingly brainless "gameplay" and crazy linear "cinematic" campaigns with no actual gameplay will take a lot more than this to fix. Is it going to get the purchases of all of Call of Duty's diehard fanbase? No, but if they're still here in 2018 they're loyal enough to at least try it. Is it going to attract back all the people who abandoned the franchise? Hell no, some people who used to love the series now hate it too much to ever be brought back. Is this the only option to save the franchise? Not even close, it's just the best idea I, personally, can come up with. Is this even the best approach? Maybe, maybe not, I can't say. But something needs to be done or this once noble and now fallen franchise will die forever, and this WILL win back far more people than it loses. I think this, or more likely something else creative just a little bit like this in the core premise ("add new features that radically shift gameplay without changing the core gunplay, and is accessible to old players"), is the best bet for the series going forward.

But then, what do I know? I'm broadcasting thoughts on how to save a dying AAA franchise I only used to like to a game development forum where it will never, EVER reach the people actually in charge of the franchise I want to see return to making games that are good, fresh and interesting. I'm even such a loser my idea is basically "You need to do something REALLY new that doesn't change it too much for your existing audience to enjoy it, here's one way.", and that's the most obvious advice in the world. Take what I say with a grain of salt.

PS: If you're thinking "Well, Activision is beyond hope, but an indie shooter using this model could do pretty well.", you have seen through my ruse. Congratulations.

There's two of us on this account. Jeremy contributes on design posts, Justin does everything else, including replying on those threads. Jeremy is not a people person, so it's Justin you'll be talking to at any given time.

Aelsif's Patreon.

Advertisement

I find "saving" to be an odd way of talking about a franchise that made over a billion dollars in sales last year.

They seem to be doing just peachy, all by their lonesome.

Tristam MacDonald. Ex-BigTech Software Engineer. Future farmer. [https://trist.am]

Just now, swiftcoder said:

I find "saving" to be an odd way of talking about a franchise that made over a billion dollars in sales last year.

They seem to be doing just peachy, all by their lonesome.

They've also completely lost the respect of the industry, the critics, the community, their fanbase, the core demographic, the casual demographic, and the entire rest of the planet. People continue to buy their games, and they have a decent number of super-devoted "whale" consumers who buy up every microtransation they throw out, and that insulates them from their ever-declining quality. It's certainly true that Activision isn't going to go bankrupt by 2020 making Call of Duty. It's also true that they're never going to regain the mainstream respect and appeal they had in 2006 if they keep making their games increasingly boring, dumbed down and unfun with each iteration. I happen to think a Call of Duty game that did something different from "generic modern/WWII shooter that outright plays itself and is 75% cutscene by length" would do better both in sales and especially in critical and public perception, and that's essential if Activision ever wants to regain the power it had at its peak.

There's two of us on this account. Jeremy contributes on design posts, Justin does everything else, including replying on those threads. Jeremy is not a people person, so it's Justin you'll be talking to at any given time.

Aelsif's Patreon.

3 minutes ago, JLW said:

would do better both in sales

Not sure how you can really improve on "best selling game of 2017", but alright.

4 minutes ago, JLW said:

especially in critical and public perception

Did you play the previous franchise entry, Infinite Warfare? It played a lot with setting and scope, and the campaign was widely regarded as a critical success.

Tristam MacDonald. Ex-BigTech Software Engineer. Future farmer. [https://trist.am]

31 minutes ago, swiftcoder said:

Not sure how you can really improve on "best selling game of 2017", but alright.

Did you play the previous franchise entry, Infinite Warfare? It played a lot with setting and scope, and the campaign was widely regarded as a critical success.

No, I did not. I entered with Call of Duty 4, and exited with Black Ops II. But I paid attention to reviews in hopes of re-enrering the franchise upon its recovery, once I got over how insufferably, intolerably, unacceptably bad MW3's campaign was. I even checked out gameplay footage of Advanced Warfare and Black Ops III, to see if the series recovered despite the critical lambasting, and it could not have been a more definitive no. (As a side note, I did try, and give up on in disgust, Black Ops III this morning. I am convinced you cannot die in the first mission. I never even fired my weapon once.)

I heard absolurely nothing positive about Infinite Warfare. At all. At any point. Even a little bit. Your own source points to why, too. The series has a huge focus on competitive multiplayer, and IW's multiplayer was garbage, so the reviewers focused on the multiplayer and the campaign never came up.

Now, I'm a single-player/co-op guy. I'm not bothered by garbage multiplayer, even though the reviewers I picked apparently were. I'll try it.

In the mean time, this basic idea expressed here still stands on how to change it up in such a way that CoD could have good single-player *and* multi-player. Or how another series could, with similar core gameplay (or at least gunplay).

There's two of us on this account. Jeremy contributes on design posts, Justin does everything else, including replying on those threads. Jeremy is not a people person, so it's Justin you'll be talking to at any given time.

Aelsif's Patreon.

49 minutes ago, JLW said:

In the mean time, this basic idea expressed here still stands on how to change it up in such a way that CoD could have good single-player *and* multi-player. Or how another series could, with similar core gameplay (or at least gunplay).

Have you played Titanfall 2? Utterly fantastic single-player campaign, interesting and varied multiplayer. Very much a shooter in the style of CoD. Makes a lot of the weapon changes you mention.

For that matter, 2 years back CoD: Advanced Warfare also made many of those same changes. Futuristic weapons, upgradeable exo-suits, etc.

Tristam MacDonald. Ex-BigTech Software Engineer. Future farmer. [https://trist.am]

5 hours ago, JLW said:

how it has completely refused to innovate

Yeah, I don't get this. I'm not a huge fan of CoD*, but I don't think you can accuse them of this. They've certainly tried lots of stuff.

My issue is more that the plot started becoming a parody of itself and the multiplayer base.... well, "toxic" is one of the nicer things I could say about it. 

* the original CoD (in particular the Russian campaign) still ranks as one of my most memorable gaming moments, and MW1 was a really great game. Got bored of the others and haven't played one since Black Ops.

Have you played Titanfall 2? Utterly fantastic single-player campaign, interesting and varied multiplayer. Very much a shooter in the style of CoD. Makes a lot of the weapon changes you mention.

1

Just want to agree with this. Titanfall 2 sp campaign was great... especially the time switching mechanic. Story was pretty forgettable, but my giant robot buddy was a great character. 

Spoiler

Here's to you, BT. You were the best walking death machine partner a guy could ask for.... *sniff*

 

if you think programming is like sex, you probably haven't done much of either.-------------- - capn_midnight

Sorry for not having a critique of your design ideas,but...

I'm an ex-fan too. Played them all from the start (when the original was considered a clone of Medal of Honour - who even cares about that franchise now!) up until MW2. For me, the campaigns got more gimmicky (they'd always been linear/gimmicky, so I'm not sure what exactly changed) but the killer for me was that MW2 began the complete disregard for balance in multi-player, rewarding grinding excessively for my taste. MW1 was masterful in how they encouraged grind but didn't upset the skill balance with it. 

However, they could have every single one of their 2000's players sign an oath swearing to never buy their games again, and they wouldn't care. They'd still be the mainstream smash hit success that they are. Saying that they lack mainstream respect is simply wrong. They've held the title of highest grossing game for something like 7 of the past 8 years. They're immensely successful and proud of their achievements. 

We're not mainstream players; We're a niche audience, and blockbuster products cant afford to address niches at the expense of the mainstream. If a game is going to target a specific, smaller audience, you can't spend a fraction of a billion dollars making it. 

At this point, a classic-COD game would have to be a different franchise by a smaller team. 

I don't like what the franchise has become, but you can't say that they're not doing a good job of it. They have a new audience now who does appreciate them. They've moved on, and are killing it. 

3 hours ago, swiftcoder said:

Have you played Titanfall 2? Utterly fantastic single-player campaign, interesting and varied multiplayer. Very much a shooter in the style of CoD. Makes a lot of the weapon changes you mention.

For that matter, 2 years back CoD: Advanced Warfare also made many of those same changes. Futuristic weapons, upgradeable exo-suits, etc.

No, the not-campaign of the first Titanfall turned me off Titanfall 2 completely. I should probably have at least given it a look, I know, but I didn't. Especially since I really enjoyed the core gameplay of Titanfall, in particular how mobile the player character is. It's a great change of pace from the literal walking speed Call of Duty and Battlefield characters have slowed down so, and a "sprint" that's about as fast as a morbidly obese man, carrying an even more obese man, after taking a bullet through each kneecap. (Who on their dev team decided "I know how to improve our games, let's keep making our main characters slower with each iteration."? Please terminate that employee.)

2 hours ago, ChaosEngine said:

Yeah, I don't get this. I'm not a huge fan of CoD*, but I don't think you can accuse them of this. They've certainly tried lots of stuff.

My issue is more that the plot started becoming a parody of itself and the multiplayer base.... well, "toxic" is one of the nicer things I could say about it. 

* the original CoD (in particular the Russian campaign) still ranks as one of my most memorable gaming moments, and MW1 was a really great game. Got bored of the others and haven't played one since Black Ops.

Just want to agree with this. Titanfall 2 sp campaign was great... especially the time switching mechanic. Story was pretty forgettable, but my giant robot buddy was a great character. 

  Reveal hidden contents

Here's to you, BT. You were the best walking death machine partner a guy could ask for.... *sniff*

 

When I say they've refused to innovate, I mean the gameplay itself has remained almost entirely the same, just with a few added gimmicks that don't really shake up the gameplay much, and new rules and options for loadouts. Now, that's coming from somebody who stopped buying the games after Modern Warfare 3 was absolutely, disgustingly horrible, only borrowed Black Ops II and just today III, and has only seen gameplay of Ghosts and Advanced Warfare. But when I picked up Black Ops III today I can honestly say from my experience so far that the gameplay has not changed that much from Call of Duty 4, despite the decade of difference.

The differences I've noted is that the auto-aim is MUCH stronger than it used to be to the point where I legitimately cannot tell what the point of even trying to aim is, the main character moves even slower than they used to (and they were already way too slow), you can now play a female character and it affects nothing at all, the game is now so easy I legitimately can't tell if it's even possible to die in the first mission, which makes sense as you don't even have control for most of it, and you get loadouts in campaign mode. I like that last one, but everything else is reducing the game to a super dumbed-down, banal slog. 

2 hours ago, Hodgman said:

Sorry for not having a critique of your design ideas,but...

I'm an ex-fan too. Played them all from the start (when the original was considered a clone of Medal of Honour - who even cares about that franchise now!) up until MW2. For me, the campaigns got more gimmicky (they'd always been linear/gimmicky, so I'm not sure what exactly changed) but the killer for me was that MW2 began the complete disregard for balance in multi-player, rewarding grinding excessively for my taste. MW1 was masterful in how they encouraged grind but didn't upset the skill balance with it. 

However, they could have every single one of their 2000's players sign an oath swearing to never buy their games again, and they wouldn't care. They'd still be the mainstream smash hit success that they are. Saying that they lack mainstream respect is simply wrong. They've held the title of highest grossing game for something like 7 of the past 8 years. They're immensely successful and proud of their achievements. 

We're not mainstream players; We're a niche audience, and blockbuster products cant afford to address niches at the expense of the mainstream. If a game is going to target a specific, smaller audience, you can't spend a fraction of a billion dollars making it. 

At this point, a classic-COD game would have to be a different franchise by a smaller team. 

I don't like what the franchise has become, but you can't say that they're not doing a good job of it. They have a new audience now who does appreciate them. They've moved on, and are killing it. 

Yeah, I know. They sell well, so they can make garbage. Same goes to the films of Michael Bay, or the books of Stephanie Meyer. Each entry can be an absolute rolling dumpster fire, but they'll still sell well and that's all their creator gives a damn about. That's why I added the real purpose of this post as the bottom of the OP. That is, giving an example of what a completely different team would want to do to make a good game in that genre. And as super specific as it is, it's just an example. I'm not actually saying "Go out and do this! Exactly this, it'll sell well. It's the only way!". (Though I mean, if you did do exactly that, it should sell well. It's just not the only way.)

I don't think anything will actually save Call of Duty from what it has become. Infinity Ward and Treyarch are lost causes at this point.

There's two of us on this account. Jeremy contributes on design posts, Justin does everything else, including replying on those threads. Jeremy is not a people person, so it's Justin you'll be talking to at any given time.

Aelsif's Patreon.

58 minutes ago, JLW said:

When I say they've refused to innovate, I mean the gameplay itself has remained almost entirely the same

It seems you haven't played any of the CoD games where they did shake things up. Advanced Warfare has a Titanfall-style jump pack, Infinite Warfare has wall running, plus zero-gravity segments in the campaign. Those change the gameplay up quite a bit.

58 minutes ago, JLW said:

That is, giving an example of what a completely different team would want to do to make a good game in that genre.

There are quite literally hundreds of shooters that are definably not call of duty™. I'm not clear why you are so focused on making call of duty into not call of duty, instead of just playing/developing other similar games?

Tristam MacDonald. Ex-BigTech Software Engineer. Future farmer. [https://trist.am]

This topic is closed to new replies.

Advertisement