I couldn't agree more.
-
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 is annual, rotating between 3 devs w/ 3 year dev time, Sledgehammer 2014
- Thread starter AHA-Lambda
- Start date
I couldn't agree more.
TrojanBlade
Member
Exactly...I mean its the same turd every year and now they get 3 years to do it. They sell in millions no matter what. Must be nice man.
disappeared
Banned
The only real news out of this story is that Activision is throwing even more workers at the CoD franchise. While it's great that more people are staying employed, working on the games, it still means yearly CoD. The market is already expressing gradual disinterest in each successive title, and ultimately staggered development cycles/longer development times won't mean hell if the games are selling less and less and less.
In an odd turn of events, Treyarch is currently trending despite Sledgehammer being confirmed they're making this year COD.
I don't think it's odd... everybody wants the treyarch COD
Well MW3 was my least favorite but Sledgehammer wasn't frontrunning the development for it so I can't really give them much flack for it. The way I see it this could go two ways for the next CoD, they could play it safe and copy/paste another CoD like we've seen in recent years or they could do something new and exciting (please not 3rd person, personal preference). With the additional year of dev time I'm really hoping for some better experiences coming from CoD, I have enjoyed BO2 and Ghosts but not nearly as much as MW, MW2, WaW, or BO..
computers putin'
Member
I feel the same, I like most of the CoD's but I couldn't stand Ghosts; it played like no other FPS I played over the years, and not in a good way either. But the 3 year cycle is probably a good thing for the quality of the series, even though I liked Black Ops 2 and MW3( to an extent) those games probably needed more dev time. As far as increasing sales of the series again, I don't think this will do much, and is probably a waste of money on Activision's part. These games were selling regardless of their quality, and decreasing sales can probably be attributed to "series fatigue" more than anything.
Caffeine
Member
doubt it other than some subtle technology added to the pre existing engine i think they will continue using the ghosts iteration of the quake 3 engine all through-out this gen. fish ai and dog fur everywhere!
Ninja Scooter
Member
"gradual disinterest" is still massive sales and popularity. It would be dumb of Activision financially to not keep putting games on the market when their formula is working so well. I'm of the mind that if the CoD "fad" is going to die, it's going to die whether they put out one game a year or one game every 3 years. When the next big thing comes along that draws the attention of that crowd, it's not going to matter how many games came out so might as well milk it while you can. Activision played this the same way with the whole Guitar Hero/plastic instruments fad.
If you only want COD that often, can't you just buy 1 COD game every 3 years?
maneil99
Member
http://www.vg247.com/2013/12/17/call-of-duty-ghosts-sales-down-19-on-black-ops-2-36-on-mw3-analyst/
http://www.videogamer.com/xbox360/a...r_battlefield_4_down_69_on_battlefield_3.html
Ghosts is down 19% vs BO2
BF4 is down 69% vs BF3
Oh man yes please !
Mechanized
Member
If we're getting two B studio games in a row this Sledgehammer game better shake things up. A lot.
I actually really like Ghosts, but it's too by the numbers. I need something new.
I actually really like Ghosts, but it's too by the numbers. I need something new.
I do unmentionable things to people if it is the glorious GLORIOUS WAW.
True, and that's pretty much what I do now. I just think that it would be better for the franchise as a whole if it wasn't annual, especially after the lukewarm reception Ghosts got.
Maybe the extra dev time is what the series needs, but only time will tell I guess.
akidnamededdy
Banned
So now three devs will get shut down when Activision inevitably runs the series into the dirt instead of two.
BruiserBear
Banned
Truth up in here.
disappeared
Banned
Absolutely. I did not mean to imply that the series is in its death throes; it clearly isn't. It is still selling tens of millions. But my point still stands that throwing a larger workforce behind the games isn't exactly going to suddenly reignite a fire that is slowly fading. It could take another decade, of course. When it happens it'll happen, but the signs are becoming clearer.
demosthenes
Member
Really funny reading this now.
TheSinkingKnight
Member
Treyarch were always the superior COD developers in my eyes. W@W was more fun to me than COD4.
Conversely it means that when a game comes out with a feature everyone hates the next two games in the series have already been designed with that feature. Giving them more development time will give them room to breathe internally but it makes the feedback problem even worse.
can Raven make maps for 3 different COD games every year?
Treyarch really has honed their skills though. They are by far the best COD devs now. IW has been shit since mw3 (after everyone left). After playing mw3 I thought cod just sucked. But I bought black ops 2 anyway and loved it. They really understand how to make great call of duty maps.
I guess having other people work on cod really shows just how easily the formula can get messed up and how good treyarch and the old iw (respawn) actually are.
grosvenor_92
Member
I only see this doing more harm that good especially if sales started to decline after ghosts came out
I had a similar experience to this, MW3 was so bad I thought I was done with CoD. About 2 months before Ghosts came out I nabbed a BO2 for about 10 bucks and really enjoyed it, among my favorite experiences with CoD. Now Ghosts is nowhere near perfect but I am still enjoying it more than MW3, really interested to see what Sledgehammer has in store for the series.
I totally agree. I think cod 4 is the best that IW has done.
But ive liked all of treyarchs, even cod 3 lol
Razgriz-Specter
Member
Sledgehammer?
Aren't they are mainly responsible for the single worst COD yet, MW3?
Ugh.
Aren't they are mainly responsible for the single worst COD yet, MW3?
Ugh.
nullpoynter
Member
I'm right there with ya. The Black Ops games are the best COD games to me with my favorite being BO2.
Im not looking foward to it either lol.
maneil99
Member
They were brought in to make sure they game was completed, they did not have any choice as to gameplay choices, IW was still top dog is CoD world. Now they've been making their own game for atleast 3 years
ChimpanzeeThat
Member
Not really, it was made by Infinity Ward and Raven too. Sledgehammer and Raven arrived on the scene during development to make sure it got finished after the Respawn studio gutted Infinity Ward.
Pegasus Actual
Member
I've got to laugh at all the Treyarch worship. Both IW and Treyarch have been coasting on what old IW did with MW1 and to a lesser extent MW2. If Sledgehammer got their feet wet contributing to MW3, and have 3 years, I'm going to pray that they've also been spearheading the technology side of it. But since this next release probably still needs to be cross-gen, maybe that's not the idea.
But sooner or later someone is going to have to step up and make a game that isn't just a COD4 expansion.
I don't know why Sledgehammer would be doing an MW4 though, I guess Modern Warfare is probably still a brand that can move units, but seems like the MW storyline was finished with MW3, so regardless of branding I think it will be 'all new' as far as characters and story goes.
But sooner or later someone is going to have to step up and make a game that isn't just a COD4 expansion.
I don't know why Sledgehammer would be doing an MW4 though, I guess Modern Warfare is probably still a brand that can move units, but seems like the MW storyline was finished with MW3, so regardless of branding I think it will be 'all new' as far as characters and story goes.
Citizen_Insane
Member
I guess one good outcome of this is that each game is going to get a longer dev time, but I wish they would shake things up a bit with every game. Do something like Infinity Ward handles Modern Warfare, Treyarch does Ghosts/Black Ops, and Sledgehammer can go back to World War 2 again. It's been a while and could be refreshing to revisit that.
What if they go further into the future?
funkystudent
Member
I assume they would have continued working on whatever they had planned before they had to help out the burning shell of IW on MW3?
Citizen_Insane
Member
I bet that'll be the most likely scenario, considering they would want to compete with Titanfall.
Indeed it would be interesting
Goldenmoney
Member
I have mixed feelings. I have to wait an extra year for Treyarch's next cod, but it will likely be more polished. A new head studio thrown into the mix could give the franchise a breath of fresh air, or it could kill it. MW3 does not give me confidence in Sledgehammer, but maybe they'll bring in a brand new engine.
It would be nice if instead of adding another developer, they just took an off year. Gettin' paid though.
Also, no, they're not going to cut off the 360 and PS3 anytime soon. Such a large install base, and a huge part of those COD numbers. If you still think they will:
Cheese and crackers... I don't personally know anyone who still buys new games for the PS2...
oconnomiyaki
Member
Hmmm... 2016 for Ghosts 2 is probably the amount of time I'd need in order to go into the series again. Bring Riley back (and don't fucking kill him) and we'll talk.
Otherwise, I think I'm going to give the series a break for a little bit.
Otherwise, I think I'm going to give the series a break for a little bit.
I would love a back to WW1/2 CoD, I think this is a pretty good idea maybe just as a one of or even every 3 years to go back. This modern/future warfare is getting stale fast much like WW2 shooters were, I'd like a revisit with better graphics than what we had with WaW. Or maybe even a reimagined "modern" game where previous points in history went differently?
Solid Samus
Banned
MW3?
You hit the wrong number key there pal
I'm trying to think of one shooter I've ever paid for in my entire life with worse map design, worse emergent strategies over time, worse balancing work, worse PC netcode and online functionality neutering, and a more vicious playerbase than Modern Warfare 2. Nothing comes close.
I kind of envy everyone who loves that game because my first ten hours or so with the game were bliss. It was more Modern Warfare, what could go wrong