(Video below)
Activision recently announced what could be described as a game changing move for the future of the Call of Duty franchise.

Call of Duty 2014, a title we still know very little about is currently in development by Sledgehammer Games, a development team who aren’t new to the series. Prior to this announcement they aided Infinity Ward during the development of Modern Warfare 3 and were also working on a Call of Duty project said to be in 3rd person.

The introduction of a further development team will grant both Treyarch and Infinity Ward an additional year to develop their next title. With next generation systems containing more powerful internals, the development of games has become a more sophisticated process than ever before. More time will allow the developers to exploit the hardware in new and better ways to ultimately deliver a better game.

Such news has lead to mixed reactions, mostly due to the fact many people associate Sledgehammer Games directly with Modern Warfare 3, a game which had a shaky reception within the Call of Duty community. Realistically speaking Sledgehammer Games merely assisted in the development due to a reduced workforce at Infinity Ward of whom many left to form Respawn – developers of Titanfall.

It would be fair to assume that Infinity Ward was leading the development of what was their vision – to create Modern Warfare 3, and therefore the overall state of the game cannot be “blamed” on the assistance they received.

With many years of experience making games, 120+ employees and involvement with such franchises as Dead Space, Sledgehammer Games are more than capable of delivering a next generation Call of Duty title.

SHARE
  • TheShadowReaper

    we just need more info on the game itself to actually say anything about SH Games. although i trust them. the Dead Space franchise is one of my favorites and its them who made it. i’m optimistic they will deliver a great experience.

    • Baldmanz_RAGE

      I agree with that. But unfortunately I don’t believe that there will be any innovation that people are going to look for in this title. There isn’t much you can add to an FPS game that hasn’t been done before. Sledgehammer could surprise everyone or they could fall on their face. We will have to wait and see. I don’t see people being too hopeful of what they are going to do. Xbox and PC people will be playing Titanfall anyway.

      • TheShadowReaper

        Titanfall? no thanks, keep that bullshit game to yourself dude. no offense. and no, PC guys are playing COD, BF and C-S.

        and about SH, we dont really need innovation, all i need it better graphics, new guns to play with, good balancing and good maps to have fun into. COD should remain COD. not like Ghosts that tried to make, i dont even know what they tried to make it be. but its not the COD i know of, so thats why all we need from SH Games is just a solid title, polished and with no bugs.

        • Josh

          So you what the same old every year? Without change the concept of the game will cease to exist and the games will become boring. CoD isn’t going to last forever, it a game and has a ‘product life cycle’ and probably only has another 10 years to go. You cannot be serious just asking for new guns, maps ect every year!

          • TheShadowReaper

            yes i’m serious. ofc every new COD game needs a new thematic, a reason for me to actually buy it, but if it isnt COD why would i bother? after all its the gameplay, unlockables and challenges that make COD what it is. so adding a new thematic, new guns, new maps and a new or updated engine is all i need and i’m good to go. its COD i wanna play, not “innovation in gaming industry” or anything like that.

          • Aldo

            I couldn’t agree more. I’m fed up seeing people crying out for ‘innovation’ every year prior to the next CoD release. How much innovation will satisfy these people? Personally, if they patched the BS out of MW2 and kept releasing dlc maps, guns, challenges etc I’d still play that game and be over the moon!

          • CGkillZ

            See I want COD online. It would be the best choice. Or have all 3 devs create a badass game that we could play for 2 or 3 years with new maps and guns coming out, but it wont happen :(.

          • CGkillZ

            Another 10 years? I call bullshit. Since MW3 the sales have went down, there will be new games that take the cod fans away. Like destiny, titanfall(For Xbox), and whatever newer shooters we get. Cod will not go well with a 3 year cycle because people will want that game in a series like a bo3. You dont wanna wait 3 years for that game. Cod has done well and may get better but im not sure with the last few games.

          • Aldo

            The CoD fanbase is already divided into IW fans and Treyarch fans with others on the fence as it were. I’d like to see the studios releasing dlc for their games beyond the 8-9 months after a games launch and closer to the release of that studios follow up (i.e. for a further 2 years after release). This would satisfy those fans loyal to a particular studio and keep them interested until the follow up in the series is due to be launched.

            I realise this would never happen though as Activision would be worried (and rightly so) that it would negatively affect the sales figures of each Call of Duty release.

      • Titanfall may be great (or may not) – but it isn’t COD. I don’t understand why so many people are acting like everyone in COD is just going to drop everything COD and go play Titanfall.

        • ben wills

          Because it looks and handles like CoD, and it made by the people who did CoD 4 and MW2. Titanfall looks to be the shakeup that CoD has needed. Similar game, but shakes it up.

          • Cod farther

            I play cod because I want fast paced gun to gun fights, witch are realistic, I don’t want flying transformers funny towards me while I’m trying to plant the bomb in SND

          • Sentrymann

            That’s all well and good, but for the record Cod gun fights are anything but realistic.

        • coilover2005

          Finally. Somebody who thought this through. COD is its own animal.. It’s pretty much become the ” STAR WARS” of the FPS world. Hopefully Titanfall WILL be good but either way I don’t think it could really be a COD killer like so many people are predicting. Die hard fans of the series will always be interested in COD,

      • 111AlaN111

        I am sure Sledgehammer will make an excellent COD. They are new, so they will try to impress us. Maybe they add a dinosaur mode

      • TiiK tAc ToE

        SH will HAVE to create a good performing game for the community or else Activision won’t go back to them to create another COD

      • jooker-jr

        Dinosaurs ????

  • HenryDF

    I’m just really disappointed in the majority of the CoD community to be honest – I fail to understand how people can already be calling this game awful, can already be calling it “the end of CoD”, and can already be saying they’re not going to play it at all.

    MW3 is generally regarded as not particularly good, but the MP was solid and fun. It might not be amazing, but it wasn’t awful; it was far better than it could have been.

    Either way, I think you’re slightly pathetic if you’re already prepared to be judging this game. If this is such shit news for you and you’re already waiting for Treyarch in 2015…just think; an extra year = bigger, better Zombies. Happy now? 😉

    • TiiK tAc ToE

      I honestly like MW3 but I agree. I don’t understand how people are “true” fans if they are just bashing thr next title when it comes out in 10 months

  • I’ll be honest in saying that I don’t know much about SHG and how much involvement they had with MW3 but I do know one thing – I didn’t like MW3 and I don’t like Ghosts.

    My concern is how many games is it going to take to get it right for SHG. I prefer Treyarch titles much more than IW now but that wasn’t exactly the case with WAW. I think Treyarch did it better with Black Ops and then really polished it with Black Ops 2. Now with three different studios I think it is just going to lead to more fragmentation with three different COD feels and three different feature sets which is just a terrible idea. It’s bad enough with the features added and removed year to year with the two different studios now and it will only get worse.

    What I would really like to see is COD shift to a 2 year development cycle and have the studios actually support their games & produce content for their games for longer than one year. This is how it used to be in the start and the player base held strong for years.

    Final note: if these studios have this much additional time to develop the games; the PC platform better dam well get ALL THE FEATURES that they NEED to make the game survive longer than a few months!

    • TheShadowReaper

      while i agree, think outside the box for one second there Dragon. if you dont like Ghosts, MW3 or whatever the SHG COD is called you have 5 other COD titles to choose from and play. there is a huge variety between them so while they are all COD games, they are unique in their own way and not just a continuation as many people claim them to be. (with the exception of MW3 and Ghosts ofc) so if you have the need to play a COD and you dont like the new one, go back and play the one that you like! there are always people playing these games. always.

      and as far as your final note goes, yes they need to get the PC features right or they’ll get a lot of complaints especially now that they have 3 years of developing in their hands.

      • I somewhat agree – but now for example; at the time I play Black Ops 2 at night I get the same handful of people on a single playlist – Nuketown Forever. Previous titles on the PC don’t stand a chance of surviving anymore with the player counts.

        • TheShadowReaper

          actually COD4 and WaW always have players playing. same as MW2 and BO. some servers are also full and you cant join too. ofc there arent so many as at the launch of the game but still, there are a lot of people playing old COD games on PC.

  • Michelangelo

    Okay now is it just me or am I freaking out when the article said that SH is working on a Cod project said to be in 3rd person! Did I misunderstand or is the game going to be set in 3rd person cause if it is i can kiss my ass goodbye to this cod

    • TheShadowReaper

      i really wish it is in 3rd person cause i dont wanna see you online on the next COD. you sound retarded.

      • Michelangelo

        Okay first of all buddy, no need for the attitude. Second, it was just a question. The article said its suppose to be in 3rd person. If that’s the case, then that just fucking stupid. Learn how to speak to people before commenting u fuck tard.

        • TheShadowReaper

          yeah, cause “if it is i can kiss my ass goodbye to this cod” was an example of an attitude, right? not knowing shit about the game yet talking smack about it. and ofc it wont be on 3rd person only but they might give us the 3rd person that we had back in MW2. your attitude is the worst. such a kid.

          • Michelangelo

            Omg ur so stupid. It’s a fucking expression dumbass. Maybe if you would hit the books every once in a while you would know. But yes, thank you for answering my question. I was just confused about that. And yes I agree with you that they should bring back third person ass well because I know many fans liked it in mw2 and it would be awesome to see a fan favorited game mode to come back

          • 115

            Clearly a kid.

          • TheShadowReaper

            yes i know that its an expression kid, it has a meaning too. and its quite vulgar. also, you dont need to read books to know expressions, they are used pretty much everywhere.

        • jordanxbrookes

          How did you ask a question without a question mark?

    • HenryDF

      “…were also working on a Call of Duty project said to be in 3rd person.”

      Not specifically this game.

      • Michelangelo

        Alright thanks for the reply

  • The Flash

    im annoyed its SH mainly because it means another year without zombies, so i will be passing this years COD

    • jordanxbrookes

      Really? Your passing this next Call of Duty because of no zombies? So in essence you only buy CoD games because of zombies? Go play DayZ or Left 4 Dead. When I buy Call of Duty, I play everything out of it; including playing the campaign on veteran difficulty like I did with the Modern Warfare series. I’m not saying go play every aspect all the time, but I hate comments that people say “Oh there’s no zombies? I’ll skip this CoD ’til the next one because Treyarch has zombies”. It just really annoys me.

      • Batman

        Zombies > any other zombie game > multiplayer

        • jordanxbrookes

          Just because your Batman doesn’t mean every agrees with you 😉

      • Hoolio

        You’re a bit thick right? You do realise there’s a huge amount of people that buy the titles exclusively for zombies right? You also realise that all games with zombies in are different right? To tell someone to play left for dead instead of cod zombies is like them telling you to play medal of honour, battlefield or arma instead of cod.

        Most zombie fans would love to buy a stand alone game, but it seems Activision prefer to have us boosting and also subsidising your precious cod. So those people you’re bashing, helped to pay for your game, you ungrateful little sh1t.

        • TiiK tAc ToE

          Zombies is just for the people who “struggle” with multiplayer

          • jordanxbrookes

            Whilst I laughed at your comment, I have to give both sides to this. Zombies is a mode that allows you to have fun with friends and to chill out for a bit.

        • jordanxbrookes

          I can assure you I am not thick, and how am I an ungrateful little sh*t? I’m not bashing on Zombies, I’m just fed up of players only buying Call of Duty just for Zombies. Fair enough if you don’t want to get your money’s worth, but calling me an ungrateful little sh*t is quite immature of you.

          • Hoolio

            Then why can’t you understand that there are many people (10%?) who buy COD only for the zombies? Of course I also have a dabble at everything, I even kinda like a little multi player in small doses – just not enough by itself to justify the purchase. where you may spend 90% of your time with the multi player and dabble with zombies, it’s completely the other way round for a lot of us, i.e, I spend 90% of my COD time playing zombies, and 10% on multi player. And like I stated, I wish I could buy a stand alone game, but until that day, I and MANY others will buy COD just for zombies, as It’s the only way to get it 🙂

            I called you ungrateful, as you don’t seem to appreciate that most of the money us guys pay for zombies, actually goes towards developing multiplayer – rather than seeing us in a negative light, enjoy the added money that we bring to the treyarch versions 🙂

          • jordanxbrookes

            I don’t see Zombie only players in a negative light, I’d just wish people like you would appreciate the game as a whole rather than just one mode. While I agree with you about the income Activision get from people who only buy the game because of Zombies, at the same time think about how many people buy Call of Duty just for the Multiplayer aspect? I’m not a MP only person, as I stated previously as I play all aspects of Call of Duty. But it’s the fact that people comment “No Zombies this year? I’ll pass until next year” that just annoys me because players don’t appreciate the game’s entirety. I’ve never said “Oh no Spec Ops this year? I’ll wait until the next year”

          • Hoolio

            I think the problem is, they’re such different experiences. You’re one of the lucky majority(?) that like both games. But they just seem such a random mix to me, it’s like pairing a driving game with a farming simulator, you may like both, or you may not.

            Anyway, hope you enjoy your cod, it’s another 18 months for us zombie slayers 🙂

      • The Flash

        well news flash, a lot of people like me buy COD only for zombies, i was never really a fan of any of the other modes besides BO1 MP, other zombie games out there are totally different and do not contain the features that i came to love in COD Zombies. A lot of the money Activision receives comes from fans who are buying COD JUST for Zombies and i hate having to pay £40 for a game which im only going to play one part of but no i still have to pay the whole thing which helps them make all the other content you like

        • jordanxbrookes

          It’s not really a news flash, and I understand what you are saying. But on the other end of the spectrum, a lot of people like me buy Call of Duty for its entirety, not just for one mode.

          • The Flash

            of course i will always try out the other modes to try and get my moneys worth but if i dont enjoy it then i dont enjoy it

    • TiiK tAc ToE

      Shouldn’t even call yourself a player or a fan of COD. I mean honestly why are you even on the site???

      • The Flash

        im a fan of zombies and a player of it, and i keep up to date with COD news in general most of the time, i have every right to be on this site as anyone else

  • jordanxbrookes

    What the CoD community fails to realise is that this is an opportunity to make bigger and better Call of Duty titles in the long run. Is having a third developer a good thing? Yes it certainly is a good thing. More time = better polished games. I’m very interested to where Sledgehammer is taking us with Call of Duty. They seemed to be very emphasized on bringing a new era with the franchise. I just hope Sledgehammer Games port the game from 8th Gen down to 7th Gen for 360 and PS3 to give us a truly next-gen experience, rather than the other way round like it was done with Ghosts.

    • ProTomahawks

      No one fails to realise this, it’s probably one of the only positives out of it, they “take one for the team”. But what you fail to realise is that this is the most crucial time for the Call of Duty franchise since it’s birth. Activision need to put out a good game this year, with the fragmentation due to next gen shift, loss in sales for Ghosts, and decreased activity for those who do have the game, introduction of potential next ‘big’ franchises like Titanfall and Destiny. Everyone is looking to next gen Treyarch with new zombies, great campaigns, good MP, and advanced competitive gameplay. And here’s SledgeHammer, be scared Activision it’s gonna be a rough year, but the next should be amazing. The question is will it be too late?

      • Jordan

        Destiny is also Activision’s game too and as stated before Titanfall will not beat COD due to it not being multi-platform. So realistically, no Activision does not need to be scared this year. 🙂

    • A big question here in relation to the more time = better polished game is exactly how long has SHG been working on this upcoming title? Has it been three years? I honestly doubt it. Now maybe for the next one in Treyarch’s hands…

  • BlueStorm017

    COD is what it is, and I think it’s receiving way too much negative hype. SHG might be the best thing that has ever happened to COD, who knows? Whether SHG puts out something amazing or just plain terrible, we are still getting the benefit of the other studios having more time to make the games. Let’s face it, it’s always been IW and 3arch and I think it’s time for something fresh.

  • LikeaSomeboday

    I don’t really want another type of Modern warfare, ghosts game, If you know what I mean, but we havn’t even seen the game so enough with the negativity.

    • TiiK tAc ToE

      Thank you! But I don’t really want a super futuristic game tho

  • Batman

    IW did cod 4 and MW2 and it was perfect.
    SH assisted IW in MW3 and it sucked.

    This is good news for call of duty because I will be able to play the best cod ever next year

    • jordanxbrookes

      Oh yeah One Man Army/Danger Close Noobtubes was most definitely perfect. Plus it was the original IW guys who made CoD 4 and MW2, whereas MW3 was done by the new IW team(who had a major shortage of staff due to the Zampella-West/Activision controversy) with Sledgehammer Games, so if your suggesting SHGames are the reason you feel MW3 was a bad game, your point is invalid.

      • diarrhea

        you know that’s just his opinion, we all have opinions on things we like and don’t like!

        • jordanxbrookes

          I wasn’t arguing his opinion I was stating a fact, If you’re gonna have an opinion at least know the full story first. Did you even read my reply?

    • TiiK tAc ToE

      SH only did the campaign in MW3 so you can’t really blame them

  • Condemnt

    Sledgehammer cant fuck up as badly as infinity ward did with ghosts. All sh has to do is create pure creative polls that allow people to input their ideas for the game. I want a community call of duty, where everyone from the community decides whats in the game. This is what call of duty has been lacking for a while. Treyarch and iw automatically assume what players want but 90% of the time they are wrong.

    • the big dirtty

      I hear ya… also I like the idea of the community poll. HOWEVER…It seems like a case of be careful what you wish for. A lot of the community is wide eyed youtube teens who can’t leave their home until they get a quad feed 360 no scope…those people should be discounted right away. And when Nuketown was put in the regular playlist in BO2, that is all that we got. Nuketown is a terrible map and I don’t want to see that coming back. we might get a lot of BS in the poll so it might be hard to regulate good ideas from the bad ones when a lot of these children we are forced to play with/against. if you can’t legally drink a beer, then you can’t officially join the COD community.

    • AcePhoenix007

      Yeah, Sledgehammer should get more social and open to the public and get OUR opinions and ideas so they KNOW what WE want.

      • Chris Mason

        Judging from past patches, I’d say they listen pretty well. However, judging from the reception, I’d also say they shouldn’t listen to us at all. Too many chiefs, not enough Indians.

    • Chris Mason

      What did IW do wrong with Ghosts? Mention anything you want, but with one caveat; don’t compare anything in Ghosts to another CoD game.

      Go!

      • ProTomahawks

        Okay for one the map sizes are awful, not only are they too big, they involve way too many layers (too much virticality), they have too many flanking routes which allows for camping and bad spawns, they have all this garbage in the way like broken concrete, wires and scrap metal (I get the post battle idea it’s just terrible to play in), very closed in and closterphobic battles, and very few nice open battle areas. For two, competative game play is terrible, not structured and boring. For three, no good game modes. For four, who’s feeaking idea was to incorporate IEDs and danger close? Both should be removed. Five, the health is too low. Six, kill streaks are no fun and terrible. Seven, C4 shouldn’t be thorable and double tap X. I’m sure there’s plenty more this is just what I thought of then.

        • Chris Mason

          1) How can you say the maps are too big then say they are closed in and claustrophobic? The maps are meant to inspire more ways to handle a battle.
          2) I don’t play competitive in any game where connection is the ultimate factor.
          3) Subjective at best. That argument has no legs under it.
          4) Infinity Ward’s.
          5) Health is 100 units.
          6) Kill streaks shouldn’t win the battle by themselves. They are rewards, not game changers.
          7) Why? It takes longer to throw a C4 and detonate it than it does a Semtex.

          Edit: Let me elaborate on #4. You cannot fault a dev for what cheap players do. IEDs certainly aren’t great, but IW didn’t intend for people to throw two down with Danger Close to hold down their corner. They are area denial devices. And if someone wants to teet that area? Boom.

          • TheShadowReaper

            dont try to defend IW. the creative route that they took with Ghosts certainly is horrible and in no way makes the game fun to play. all of the above are valid points why IW failed in Ghosts and not “The maps are meant to inspire more ways to handle a battle.” or any bullshit excuse like that. if you like Ghosts so much shove it right up your ass but be aware, everyone else is throwing it into the garbage can. and they are right to do so.

          • Ed

            i love the maps, and the game. and my opinion is way more useful to me than yours.

          • Chris Mason

            You know what? I’ll happily defend IW and SH, for that matter. I just happen to have a better experience with IW games, overall. I’ll also be the first to admit they aren’t perfect. There are far too many people out there that take joy in attacking anything that is NOT made by Treyarch, and frankly, the reasons most of these people give are weak.

          • TheShadowReaper

            and thats where you’re wrong. its not anything not made by Treyarch that iritates us, but anything made by IW. they suck donkey ass and a lot of it tbh. Treyarch games have always been on par and after MW2 are way better in terms of everything. as for SH, i say that now we have a second Treyarch to compare to IW’s weak ass games.

          • Chris Mason

            My personal experience is not something you can change. I had a good overall experience with MW3, and so far in Ghosts, I’m having a good overall experience.

            With BO1, I didn’t enjoy many of the maps, the weapons weren’t exactly memorable, and I felt like I died after running around the corner and out of sight far too often. With BO2, I felt like lag comp was just as bad, if not worse, than BO1, if I wasn’t using an SMG I wasn’t going to go positive, and quick scoping was far more abundant than in MW3.

            Those are my experiences, and how I came to the decision to not purchase Treyarch games at launch ever again. Also, I was Prestige 5 in BO1 and Prestige 7 in BO2. I put in enough time, I think, to evaluate it fairly.

          • TheShadowReaper

            complete opposite over here. my personal experience with MW3 and Ghosts is the worst it can be.

            i guess each one to his own.

          • Chris Mason

            That’s the wonderful thing that no one seems to do. We can compare our experiences. For instance, I can say this.

            I’m sorry you aren’t having a good experience with Ghosts or MW3, but overall I’ve enjoyed them. They aren’t bad games, but I respect your stance.

          • jordanxbrookes

            I’m with you. At times I really have a tough time doing well in Ghosts because of the nuisances the community do, NOT the developers. Like camping, the developers don’t cater to camping, but the community uses anything as camping tools such as I.E.D.s, which my guess was meant to be used as a way to defend flags and stop players crossing chokepoints, but the community uses these and toss them down anywhere and go sit in a corner waiting for enemies to go by so they can cheaply get a kill or two. Ghosts is overall a great game, but the community complains over issues that the community find out and use and say “Oh corner camper with I.E.D.s, IW this is your fault, your game sucks”. Hate me all you want but it’s the truth.

          • Argy

            Except that they have a VERY short fuse and they are near impossible to see since they can go on any surface, making them hard to counter without the use of perks. In previous games the similar tactic was a claymore, which went on the ground and had bright red points coming out of it (so easy to spot), or a bouncing betty, which was something you could duck under due to the timer. The IED doesn’t have that same sort of weakness and requires a perk usually to get around, which for a more observant or skilled player it shouldn’t.

          • Argy

            1. Its highly agreed that the maps aren’t very well designed. They are larger and they are cluttered. Moving about them is kind of like moving through a hoarder’s mansion, yeah the mansion is big but they put so much crap in the way that its hard to actually go anywhere. Add in a spawn system that gives literally little-to-no direction and you’ve got a catastrophically obnoxious map… IE Ghosts.
            1.1 Just wanted to add in, the verticality was actually a nice breath of fresh air compared to the Treyarch 3 lanes on a fairly flat map. I’d like to still see more open maps (of which neither company wants to make it seems), but at least this felt different.
            1.2 Yes, spawns are God awful, any game that lets you spawn in the middle of the map while surrounded by 4 enemies is gonna win that award.
            2. You can’t argue against something you don’t play. While I personally thought that BO2 had a bad competitive system, Ghosts somehow managed to set the bar lower.
            3. He’s right, that is subjective. Granted, the best new game mode came from the community telling InfinityWard to add it (Search and Rescue), but for the most part the standard modes are there. I would have liked an upgraded/better version of Hardpoint over Blitz though.
            4. The point is that the IED is a challenging thing and was WAY too strong at the start, anyone and everyone learned that one pretty quickly. Danger close was perviously a problem, so why the thought bringing it back was also a bad idea. I’m surprised nothing about the new, powerless grenades/semtex is in here. Nor the fact that Scavenger and Fully Loaded cost the same is in here when clearly one is more useful than the other in the long run. Also, yes you can blame the Dev, that’s why they do this thing called balancing.
            5. Health is 100, bullet hits vary. Treyarch actually had this right, where it wasn’t 2 to 4 bullets to kill but more like 3 to 6. Now if they could also get the pistols to not be as powerful as primaries also.
            6. Killstreaks in general just aren’t as fun in this game, especially the harder ones. Juggernauts are overall fairly boring to play as considering they are very limited in what they do and not everyone wants to play as a satellite or a helicopter. Plus it would be nice to see them put some effort into letting us separate our killstreaks from our classes so I can have say 5 weapon loadouts and 5 killstreak loadouts, that way no matter what my friends and I are playing I don’t have to keep going in and changing the killstreaks I’m using.
            7. I can’t actually argue here, but the C4 / Danger Close / Riot Shield + Motion Sensor / Fast Swap combo is quite obnoxious.

        • TiiK tAc ToE

          The maps definitely aren’t too big on ground war. The layers are so you aren’t required to use just one type of weapon. The competitive play is built through clan wars so you play a variety of game modes and can Compete against poeple of your skill level. No good game modes??? That an opinion. You don’t like IEDs??? Use SitRep. Health is 100 units still. You can do that with C4 in a few other CODs.

      • some2example2

        the lousy killstreaks. 2 juggernauts, one so useless and slow, that by the time you get to an objective on a big map, the games over.

        trinity rocket is lame. ims is recycled. the weird black thing following people around, is that actually a point streak.

        loki is about as much fun as setting way points on gtav.

        actually, it looks like they reskinned and ripped the gtav way point map and made it a killstreak.

        second, lack of factions. call of duty is a team game. and this individual costumizations and lack of factions ruined all team aspects of the game.

        videos games are supposed to be immersive, delta vs. spetnaz, rangers vs. opfor etc. is what made the game fun.

        • Chris Mason

          I’ll say the same thing I said already; kill streak rewards are not game changers. That is a relic of the past that ruined the game for many people. Those kids that refused to play the objective because they were camping (or worse, boosting) for their AC-130s, Pave Lows, Nukes, MOABs, etc. because they weren’t good enough to actually win gunfights are a detriment to the game, on your team or otherwise.

          I didn’t know the waypoint setting in GTA could cause multi-kills. Or that a game released one month later could have ripped it off on such short notice.

          And why do you need a game to give you a faction to remind you you are playing team modes? Building a custom Squad of soldiers that are your team is pretty immersive, in my opinion. I have a Mad Bomber soldier who utilizes lots of explosives and a variety of set ups across all 6 load outs.

  • Base_Ballr27

    Hope it is not 3rd person

  • Jordan

    I believe that this is not only a good thing it terms of getting better COD’s, but also a strategic business move by Activision. We all know that no matter how bad the community reception is to COD 2014, the same people that hate on it will be hyped for Treyarch’s COD 2015. Activision has now got people hyped for a COD game that is coming out in 2 years. COD will be the #1 game on the next generation for at least the first 3 years out of the gate. So tell me again…how is COD dying?

  • Celest1ne

    I think they could make a decent title. I realize they didn’t have a whole lot of say on MW3 and were basically just there to code the game. I am less interested in them than if Treyarch were making the next game but I’m not going to knock it before it even comes out.

  • Rade

    This is very good, I can only imagine the pressure IW were in when it came to releasing Ghosts

  • http://420elite.com level 26 with red 420 tags is always looking for adult members that DONT hack or cheat. we have 96 members looking for 4 more that fit in

  • Jasco

    SH also only made the campaign not the MP.

  • Lorhelm

    I think that IW and Treyarch need to team up. IW make regular multi player for casual players and they make missions like in special ops and Treyarch makes the competitive gaming and Zombies. IMO Black ops 2 had good competitive league play and a good zombies with the original 4 especially in Origins. And I like MW3 and MW2 missions and Ghosts campaign and weapons camos maps etc.

  • philip

    This may sound a little controversial but, I say have Activision appoint to SHGames a game as a test run; let’s say Activision has them do a (Here’s the controversial part) remake of sorts of Call of Duty 2, 3, or 4. With this Activision can gauge SHGames’ skills and from there, if the remake is a success, Activision gives them what title of Call of Duty to do.

    Good way think of it?

  • Truthspeaker

    MW3 sucked, but it seems good compared to the steaming pile that is AW. Heck, ghosts was gold compared to this pyrite.

    Extremely laggy menus.
    Connection over ping, so that during peak gaming hours, I’m paired with Portugal, Brazil, Chile, and I’m in Jersey in the u.s.
    Invisible barriers everywhere stop you and your bullets.
    Killfeed always shows sentry kills, even though it’s regular guns.
    No games found or trying to join game 1 of 1 (this is because i was stupid enough to buy the season pass, nobody bought it because this is one of the worst cod experiences ever).
    Multiple wallbreaches (as of April) still in the game: they fix pointless ledges that nobody cares about, yet leave ways to completely leave the maps.
    Exo movements fail constantly, going ‘clink-clink’ and they do nothing.
    Too much fail to list here.
    Presumably this will be their last cod game they eel be allowed to ruin.
    Disgusting, shameful, morally defunct action to put this out as a finished product.

    Picture BO1, but with good guns, good maps, and trash faux zombie mode. That sums up this turd.