The Next Call of duty game title leaked Via PSN store - Call of duty: INFINITE WARFARE - Polidicks

[QUOTE=Diet Kane;50207637]At least it isn't Ghosts 2. That would've been financial suicide. I wonder why they didn't go the safe route and return to the modern warfare franchise. All the CoD kids who hate change are clamoring for it.[/QUOTE] I have to admit I wouldn't mind seeing another Modern Warfare if they did it in the same way as they did MW2. As a person who mainly plays singleplayer, MW3 at best for me was "meh". I liked the Delta Force missions a lot, but I could not have given a rat's ass about the TF141 missions.

Call of Duty: Warhammer 40K

World war 2 please.

COD is still even a thing?? Who is buying this trash

Wonder if there will be a lighthouse in this.

[QUOTE=raz r23;50208924]COD is still even a thing?? Who is buying this trash[/QUOTE] The silent majority. COD is still the best selling FPS series in spite of how much it gets trashed on internet forums. It is the Michael Bay movie of video games

[QUOTE=Retardation;50208309]I really like the yearly iteration of CoD and even back when people complained it was actively murdering video gaming just by existing I thought it was really stupid. Sometimes it's nice to enjoy a "blockbuster" video game with millions of dollars poured into it. It may be shit gameplay but it's incredibly solid and sticks to an old, but excellent formula that just works. There's too many swords and fantasy and magic and shit in video gaming anyway recently. I miss the brown cawadooty days.[/QUOTE] MW2 did start the trend of fucking over PC gamers with the ports having important shit cut out(dedicated servers). Activision isn't the evil it once was despite not changing because EA, Ubisoft, Tim Schafer, Konami, etc. managed to outdo them.

I would lose it if it was a game based around time-travel.

I was an early fan of the Call of Duty series. I really enjoyed the first few games, namely Call of Duty + United Offensive expansion, Call of Duty 2 and Call of Duty 4: World at War (couldn't play call of Duty 3 because it isn't available for PC). I didn't play any games in the series after that, because I knew that they were clearly milking the franchise with their 'copy-paste' strategy. Anyway, after a gap of several years, I picked up this year's 'Ghosts' for the PC because i wanted to give my once-beloved franchise another go. BIG mistake. The major flaw I noticed, common to both multi-player and single-player, was how 'weak' most guns sounded. I mean....even on my powerful 5.1 PC sound system, most guns 'clicked' rather than 'thudded'. With respect to the multi-player alone, I found the supposedly 'new' games modes quite disappointing. Professional reviews are going on and on about how 'innovative' the multi-player is, but all these new modes are just rehashed versions of tried-and-tested formulas. Anyway, the multi-player is pretty decent, but nothing to write home about. There are better multi-player games out there for sure. Coming to the campaign, the less said about it, the better. I really missed quick-saves, but can't really complain about that because no multi-plat game ever has a quick-save feature anymore (except action-rpg hybrids like Mass Effect, Deus ex etc.). That apart, the campaign seemed like an interactive movie rather than a game. It is so scripted, to the extent that I can't open a door or pull a lever until the game allows me to do that. There are games which create very immersive experiences in spite of being heavily scripted (like the Half-Life games), but in this game, the ridiculous amount of scripting actually ensures that there is no immersion at all. The AI of both friends are foes is mediocre at best. My team-mates seem to take a LOT of hits before dying, and they also hardly inflict any significant damage to the enemies. And the enemies are so dumb and lifeless. Then, almost every professional review says that the Ghosts campaign is 'lengthy and memorable'. Nothing could be far from the truth. There are no more than a couple of memorable stuff in the entire campaign, and a 5-6 hour campaign isn't what i would call 'lengthy'. My time to beat the game on 'normal' was 5 hours 6 minutes, which seems to be on par with the average playtime mentioned on howlongtobeat.com. Lastly, war-themed games are supposed to be as realistic as possible while the story take a back-seat. But in this game, the gameplay is anything but realistic, and even the story seems so generic. After beating Crysis 3, I thought there could be no game which was more boring than that. But COD Ghosts is slightly more boring than Crysis 3 as well. At least Crysis 3 had gorgeous visuals to compensate for 10% of the boring gameplay, but COD Ghosts's visuals are nothing extraordinary. Extremely disappointing. Also, the huge difference between average critic scores and average user scores (66/100 vs 18/100 on metacritic) does make gamers suspect that Activision actually pays critics to write favorable reviews. I just can't seem to understand how games like these manage to sell millions, or the sales figures too are fabricated just to maintain the franchise's reputation. If it does sell millions, then I suppose a good chunk of those sales are due to 12-year old kids for whom their parents buy the games. It has reached a point where, even if Activision pack frozen dog turd in a plastic bag and market it as 'Call of Duty - Riley Edition', then people would still buy millions of those. I'm disappointed about spending my hard earned money to buy this crap at full price, but I'm PETRIFIED to think about the million ways in which such games could seriously harm the gaming industry. If people keep buying millions of copies of highly watered-down games like these, then almost every developer would start making similar games.

[QUOTE=usaokay;50209361]World at War was better.[/QUOTE] Big Red One is still my favorite honestly. Was pretty cool that it had a bunch of the actors from Band of Brothers in it.

[QUOTE=Kite_shugo;50207550]hoping they don't go the Destiny/The Division route with a mixed RPG/Shooter/MMO hybrid[/QUOTE] Honestly at this point adding those elements in would be somewhat of a breath of fresh air force such a stale property. It'll probably still suck but it'd be an improvement

[t]http://i.imgur.com/ngt5Kew.jpg[/t] could be fake, but remastered cod4??

[QUOTE=BeardyDuck;50211211][t]http://i.imgur.com/ngt5Kew.jpg[/t] could be fake, but remastered cod4??[/QUOTE] [t]http://i.imgur.com/mnFOq7a.jpg[/t] Another image of the poster

I wonder if it's a re-release of all the Modern Warfares. Probably pay out the ass for it too.

What's the point of remasters? They're not that old and still run well on PC (unless it's for ps4 and xone). Pretty much shows that IW is running out of ideas and will never top cod4 and mw2.

Maybe they're releasing "Modern Warfare Remastered" as a companion game to CoD: Infinite Warfare? After all, the poster there says MWR is "a full game download", so perhaps it's a digital-only remaster they're releasing alongside the new game or before it. [editline]27th April 2016[/editline] [QUOTE=the tee;50211419]What's the point of remasters? They're not that old and still run well on PC (unless it's for ps4 and xone). Pretty much shows that IW is running out of ideas and will never top cod4 and mw2.[/QUOTE] Who knows, if they've made any significant engine progress since Ghosts, they might want to utilize that in attempting to revamp an older title.

BLOPS 3 is getting mod tools so i think i will forward my money to that

the talks of time traveling reminds me of an old FPS that's about traveling to various timelines as a solider and try to fix the history or something like that.

[QUOTE=raz r23;50208924]COD is still even a thing?? Who is buying this trash[/QUOTE] People who like the series, I guess.

Placing my bets on a Competitive focused, long run CoD game. [editline]27th April 2016[/editline] [QUOTE=GameDev;50207728]on a bsp engine? not even in activisions billion dollar dream would that be possible with their current tech[/QUOTE] Oh yeah, i forgot that if you use bsp vision culling you might as well throw the engine out of the window. The type of precomputed visiblity culling you use is really the centerpiece of any modern game engine. Sure their engine is probably not currently capable of giant maps, but that's nothing unachievable and has nothing to do with bsp.

I'm still holding out on a 6DOF FPS from an AAA company.

[IMG]https://pbs.twimg.com/media/ChC7XqhWMAAG1pX.jpg[/IMG] High res image of the preorder card Definitely a space helmet and spaceship of some kind

[QUOTE=raz r23;50208924]COD is still even a thing?? Who is buying this trash[/QUOTE] Hey! Treyarch makes really good games with the CoD Series. I'd say all black ops games are some of the best in the series.

[QUOTE=usaokay;50209361]World at War was better.[/QUOTE] I loved the MP maps. Seelow was huge and like a legitimate WW2 battlefield with all manner of sniper nests. and overpowered ass tanks

[QUOTE=IAreLegend;50213193]I loved the MP maps. Seelow was huge and like a legitimate WW2 battlefield with all manner of sniper nests. and overpowered ass tanks I only really would be interested in a World at War 2 but they'd just fuck it up with all this [B]customisation shit [/B]they added in the recent games.[/QUOTE] How is that bad?

[QUOTE=Petachepas;50209902]I was an early fan of the Call of Duty series. I really enjoyed the first few games, namely Call of Duty + United Offensive expansion, Call of Duty 2 and Call of Duty 4: World at War (couldn't play call of Duty 3 because it isn't available for PC). I didn't play any games in the series after that, because I knew that they were clearly milking the franchise with their 'copy-paste' strategy. Anyway, after a gap of several years, I picked up this year's 'Ghosts' for the PC because i wanted to give my once-beloved franchise another go. BIG mistake. The major flaw I noticed, common to both multi-player and single-player, was how 'weak' most guns sounded. I mean....even on my powerful 5.1 PC sound system, most guns 'clicked' rather than 'thudded'. With respect to the multi-player alone, I found the supposedly 'new' games modes quite disappointing. Professional reviews are going on and on about how 'innovative' the multi-player is, but all these new modes are just rehashed versions of tried-and-tested formulas. Anyway, the multi-player is pretty decent, but nothing to write home about. There are better multi-player games out there for sure. Coming to the campaign, the less said about it, the better. I really missed quick-saves, but can't really complain about that because no multi-plat game ever has a quick-save feature anymore (except action-rpg hybrids like Mass Effect, Deus ex etc.). That apart, the campaign seemed like an interactive movie rather than a game. It is so scripted, to the extent that I can't open a door or pull a lever until the game allows me to do that. There are games which create very immersive experiences in spite of being heavily scripted (like the Half-Life games), but in this game, the ridiculous amount of scripting actually ensures that there is no immersion at all. The AI of both friends are foes is mediocre at best. My team-mates seem to take a LOT of hits before dying, and they also hardly inflict any significant damage to the enemies. And the enemies are so dumb and lifeless. Then, almost every professional review says that the Ghosts campaign is 'lengthy and memorable'. Nothing could be far from the truth. There are no more than a couple of memorable stuff in the entire campaign, and a 5-6 hour campaign isn't what i would call 'lengthy'. My time to beat the game on 'normal' was 5 hours 6 minutes, which seems to be on par with the average playtime mentioned on howlongtobeat.com. Lastly, war-themed games are supposed to be as realistic as possible while the story take a back-seat. But in this game, the gameplay is anything but realistic, and even the story seems so generic. After beating Crysis 3, I thought there could be no game which was more boring than that. But COD Ghosts is slightly more boring than Crysis 3 as well. At least Crysis 3 had gorgeous visuals to compensate for 10% of the boring gameplay, but COD Ghosts's visuals are nothing extraordinary. Extremely disappointing. Also, the huge difference between average critic scores and average user scores (66/100 vs 18/100 on metacritic) does make gamers suspect that Activision actually pays critics to write favorable reviews. I just can't seem to understand how games like these manage to sell millions, or the sales figures too are fabricated just to maintain the franchise's reputation. If it does sell millions, then I suppose a good chunk of those sales are due to 12-year old kids for whom their parents buy the games. It has reached a point where, even if Activision pack frozen dog turd in a plastic bag and market it as 'Call of Duty - Riley Edition', then people would still buy millions of those. I'm disappointed about spending my hard earned money to buy this crap at full price, but I'm PETRIFIED to think about the million ways in which such games could seriously harm the gaming industry. If people keep buying millions of copies of highly watered-down games like these, then almost every developer would start making similar games.[/QUOTE] I loved the Crysis series, sure 3 wasn't as good as the other unfortunately, but it was still a good game imo.

[QUOTE=darth-veger;50214336]How is that bad?[/QUOTE] you've got a point actually, that was a bit of a get-off-my-lawn rant there. I apologise

[QUOTE=Diet Kane;50207637]At least it isn't Ghosts 2. That would've been financial suicide. I wonder why they didn't go the safe route and return to the modern warfare franchise. All the CoD kids who hate change are clamoring for it.[/QUOTE] Because MW's storyline is finished. The main bad dude died and the city's fucking destroyed, it wouldn't work without them rebooting it. Believe it or not they have some semblance of care when it comes to the story. As cliche'd and dumb as they are, they do go chronologically. [editline]27th April 2016[/editline] [QUOTE=ScriptKitt3h;50211618]Maybe they're releasing "Modern Warfare Remastered" as a companion game to CoD: Infinite Warfare? After all, the poster there says MWR is "a full game download", so perhaps it's a digital-only remaster they're releasing alongside the new game or before it.[/QUOTE] I'm not falling for that shit again. I got CoD4 with MW3 and while CoD4 was fucking awesome, MW3 was the biggest disappointment since sliced bread that had mold and shit all over it but you didn't know that when you bought it so now you've got shitty moldy sliced bread. The first CoD game I'd owned and played before that was Black Ops 1, which was incredible. Then, MW3 came out and removed all the progress Treyarch made. [editline]27th April 2016[/editline] [QUOTE=IAreLegend;50215293]you've got a point actually, that was a bit of a get-off-my-lawn rant there. I apologise[/QUOTE] To be fair they couldn't really do much in terms of customization in the WW2 era without making it an alternate reality.

[url]https://twitter.com/callofduty/status/725434514315468800[/url] regarding the mw remaster as heavily implied as you can without just saying "yeah it's happening"

[QUOTE=RikohZX;50207856]I wouldn't be surprised if the next Call of Duty jumps the shark and literally has different time periods of war all mashed into one game because Infinity Ward knows they can't do modern, WW2 or futuristic without being called out at this point.[/QUOTE] I hope they're listening. I want a Call of Duty game where you play as TIME SOLDIERS and shoot Hitler in the face with a laser gun.