• Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.

Call of Duty (2018) in a modern setting, developed by Treyarch?

Saw this pointed out on Reddit - a job listing within Treyarch

NvU2lIV_d.jpg

This would be Treyarch's first "modern" Call of Duty.
 
It would make sense. Maybe we'll see the three year release cycle be "old war, modern war, future war" now? So each studio has their own aesthetic and brand?
 

Nokterian

Member
I will keep playing Black Ops 3 until there game comes out, i was not like CoD WW2 the slightest since sledgehammer is pretty bad in making multiplayer.
 
It would make sense. Maybe we'll see the three year release cycle be "old war, modern war, future war" now? So each studio has their own aesthetic and brand?
Nope

In terms of business, that doesn't make sense at all. I have a strong belief that we will see Modern Warfare 4 is 2019.
 

Inuhanyou

Believes Dragon Quest is a franchise managed by Sony
Nope

In terms of business, that doesn't make sense at all. I have a strong belief that we will see Modern Warfare 4 is 2019.

garbage.

the very name is revolting.

this franchise has expended itself after its gone full circle in WW2
 
It would make sense. Maybe we'll see the three year release cycle be "old war, modern war, future war" now? So each studio has their own aesthetic and brand?
If they ever go future setting again, I'd hope they go cyberpunk. None of the future CoD's thus far have captured the aesthetic.

But no exo movement. Future =/= Soldiers with Jetpacks. They just need to be more creative with the weapons and gadgets
 
Nope

In terms of business, that doesn't make sense at all. I have a strong belief that we will see Modern Warfare 4 is 2019.

Wouldn't it make sense to make games for all potential customers though? Especially considering now games are moving more towards service models? You could serve all your audiences with a game every few years as opposed to having all the studios go all-in with similar ideas.
 
Wouldn't it make sense to make games for all potential customers though? Especially considering now games are moving more towards service models? You could serve all your audiences with a game every few years as opposed to having all the studios go all-in with similar ideas.

If they do a new modern COD it will likely be IW getting pushed by Activision back to Modern Warfare 4.

Treyarch will be allowed to do whatever they want and both their future CODs are extremely popular.
However if they are doing a modern game it wouldn't surprise me if it was set during the 90's or something.

2017 - WW2
2018 - Future
2019 - MW4

I loved Infinite's campaign but Activision will probably get them to drop it like IW already did to Ghosts.
 
A modern (2018) setting would be good. Treyarch can make amazing multiplayer for sure, so I have no doubt their next title will be great regardless. Activision should be throwing money at David Vondahar.
 
It would make sense. Maybe we'll see the three year release cycle be "old war, modern war, future war" now? So each studio has their own aesthetic and brand?

I'd love this, as each historic moment would have its good points, and the product would feel fresher on a year-to-year basis. I really enjoyed Treyarch's futurism however, I for one would be disappointed if they never could go there again. Unpopular opinion I know, but to me Black Ops 3 had an incredible campaign, fantastic ideas and some crazy plot twists. They couldn't do something like that in a modern day game.
 

Jackpot

Banned
Most of the "future" guns are reskinned modern guns.

What the ad really means is you need to know about the different types and sub-types, calibers, etc. i.e. not a vague idea that pulling the trigger makes bullets spray out one end.
 
That's how it should be. Let IW stick to the futuristic setting, Treyarch can take up modern times and Sledgehammer should handle past wars. The fact that all three actually went with futuristic made no sense.
 

13ruce

Banned
It would make sense. Maybe we'll see the three year release cycle be "old war, modern war, future war" now? So each studio has their own aesthetic and brand?

That would be awesome, i am so sick of all 3 (first 2) studios making the same damn setting wich is why i quit the franchise. Only buy some of em these days for Zombies sometimes.
 

Gaenor

Banned
So no jetpacks, good !

Treyarch is the best CoD developer and the Black Ops series is the only one I enjoy.

BLOPS games have the best gameplay and maps design imo.

Bring on BLOPS 4.
 
I want the 1980s COD sequel to Black Ops 1 that we never got.

Also please be a better story and more straight forward SP than BO3.
 
I still have hope for the CoD franchise. WW2 is the first CoD game after WaW to catch my attention and have me a bit hyped. Please be good.

"Prestige 1 or above in Black Ops 3 Multiplayer"

Say what?
 

TGO

Hype Train conductor. Works harder than it steams.
Right era, wrong developer
Damn why did it have to be them, sorry but I simply can't play Treyarch COD's, I've give them a chance twice and never touch their games after a week.
Raven should have been given it.
 
Most of the "future" guns are reskinned modern guns.

What the ad really means is you need to know about the different types and sub-types, calibers, etc. i.e. not a vague idea that pulling the trigger makes bullets spray out one end.

That's what I'm taking away from it. Knowledge of Modern Weapons in this context just means knowing about the intricacies about general military weaponry and how they work.
 
All I've wanted since the future craze started was a return to modern day spec/black ops. No robits, no WW1/2. Bonus points for urban special forces type of scenarios. Hope this is true.
 

13ruce

Banned
Hopefully they lessen the cater to streamers with Zombies this time around tho, the easter eggs got a bit too insane to do and some still require multiple players. Should all be soloable or only 2 players needed.

And ofcourse a way better story campaign BO3 was pretty darn bad while BO1 and 2 had pretty good ones actually.
 

Kinyou

Member
Don't think this necessarily means it takes place in the present. I'm sure they expect you to have knowledge of real weapons when designing a sci-fi one
 

JimiNutz

Banned
It would make sense. Maybe we'll see the three year release cycle be "old war, modern war, future war" now? So each studio has their own aesthetic and brand?

I would like this.
Means that if you only like one setting you could just buy a COD every three years and it wouldn't get as stale.
 

zsynqx

Member
Nice!

Treyarch is currently the best COD developer when it comes to MP so them going back to boots on the ground is definitely a good thing.

Let's just hope they don't fuck up the campaign this time, go back to the over the top dumbness that was Blops 1/2.
 

Zombine

Banned
The story mode for Black Ops III was so asinine and so removed from W@W-Black Ops II that I'm glad the series could potentially be going away. I enjoy Black Ops III multiplayer for what it is, but that game as a whole soured me on my favorite COD dev. Hoping they can return to this era and focus on some pseudo-WWIII scenario with North Korea & Russia.
 

Jawmuncher

Member
Hopefully they hired some better writers. Just played Blck Ops 2 and 3 and geez. They were trying way too hard on both. BO2 at least had some cool ideas (Bad guy wanting characters to suffer in unique ways). But it's surrounded by a lot of odd choices and really odd back and forth of time lines. The less said about BO3 the better
 

Laieon

Member
Slightly interested. WW2 will be the first Call of Duty I'll pick up since Modern Warfare 2, although I have 0 interest in multiplayer.
 
Wait, I thought they couldn't make any more modern age games without the consent of Vince and Jason? Or did the settlement to the lawsuit back in the day change that? Isn't that why they have been doing all future or past games since all that ugliness?
 

Duxxy3

Member
Hopefully the modern setting makes for a better campaign. Because BO3's campaign was just terrible.

Not sure what Infinity Ward is going to do after that. IW was received so poorly, and sold so poorly compared to previous games, that I would think that that sub series is dead.
 

Kinyou

Member
Not sure what Infinity Ward is going to do after that. IW was received so poorly, and sold so poorly compared to previous games, that I would think that that sub series is dead.
I hope Activision recognizes that the this was mostly because they messed up the MP and because of the whole Modern Warfare Remastered affair. Would suck if they never follow up that great SP
 

120v

Member
Infinite Warfare reception probably spooked them away from FUTURE WARZ for another decade regardless. except for Blops 4 perhaps.
 

Perineum

Member
I'd be down for this, but Treyarch to me always has the shittiest maps and weapon balance on their games.

I hope this can change my mind.
 

Zombine

Banned
Hopefully the modern setting makes for a better campaign. Because BO3's campaign was just terrible.

It was the biproduct of them buying into the idea that their campaigns were so thought provoking that they needed to up the ante again. It failed miserably.
 
Treyarch>Infinity ward>Sledgehammer imo. With that said I'm all for modern warfare reboot.

I do hope this time Trayarch does not make a campaign with most the story hidden in a text within the loading screen, that scrolls with the speed of light.
 
Top Bottom