Infinity Ward has revealed during PlayStation’s stream that the Call of Duty: Infinite Warfare campaign will not a co-op play.

The campaign mode will be single player only, unlike Call of Duty: Black Ops 3’s campaign.

SHARE
  • idoPRO

    LOL

  • Tested

    GOOD!

    • BradyAlucard[sillibk]

      Not good, actually, but at least the nonlinear segments is good news.

  • jordanxbrookes

    I’m fine with that. Black Ops 3’s Campaign imo focused too much on the co-op gameplay rather than an engaging storyline with memorable characters. Again just my opinion.

    • madshooterguy

      Exactly, they compromised the storyline just for coop. And also, IW has Naughty Dog writers working on it so campaign= awesome

      • Red.P90

        I agree, me being a Naughty Dog fanboy I can’t wait to see what the Naughty Dog Dev has to offer for cod. Also uncharted 4 comes out on the 10th. Just thought I’d remind you guys.

      • BradyAlucard[sillibk]

        At least it was still the best Campaign in recent memory.

        • Thomas the Tankswag

          No where near, no cod campaign has been bad other than bo3 campaign – fortunately it made up for that with great zombies and good multiplayer.

          • BradyAlucard[sillibk]

            It’s the best since BO1 for sure. It had actual gameplay lol.

          • Thomas the Tankswag

            No it didn’t, levels were super long and repetitive. I remember at one point thinking “This level is so boring, should be over soon.” I then set my difficulty to recruit to speed run it and took another 30min of doing the same thing over and over again.

          • BradyAlucard[sillibk]

            That’s because it was built for Co-Op. It’s the smoothest, best Campaign in recent memory. Story isn’t as important as gameplay (let’s not act like those boring story sequences don’t exist like in every CoD before it, come on, now).

          • Thomas the Tankswag

            BO3 had neither good gameplay or story.

          • BradyAlucard[sillibk]

            It had great gameplay, what are you on about? Gameplay is not a complaint. It also has the most lore in the entire franchise, which is welcome.

          • Ricardo

            Spoiler Alert: I totally agree with you, the story is flawed, I mean, Taylor is actually Dylan Stone and you go through a simulation of Taylor`s missions, so the first mission in the game is actually the last one chronologically, but in that mission in Ethiopia, Taylor told Hendricks that he broke up with Rachel Kane and that it didn`t worked out. But at that point Kane is supposed to be dead for the Nova 6 gas in the coalescence HQ in Zurich, so why Taylor wouldn`t explain that?

            The theories and chronology of the game are messed up, it would have been better to play as Taylor in the hunt for Dylan Stone than all the bullshit about the Winslow Accord Program, seriously Treyarch, get your shit together.

            P.D: Pardon my english, it`s my second language.

          • You’re always talking about “story and gameplay” and touting at as if it means something dude. Great games have both. If you just want a game focused on pure gameplay (and that much of a gameplay purist) then play Mega Man or Super Mario bros or something 😛

            BOIII’s gameplay was garbage. It was filled with bullet sponge enemies, with piss-poor level design, with waves of enemies after enemies (infinitely re-spawning in many places) and mechanics that never encouraged any player agency or versatility in its mechanics whatsoever — so much was the case, that 80% through the game, I realised that you could actually changed your cyber-core abilities, despite not needing to for all the previous missions. It felt so bloated and had so much filler and fluff,and felt so unfocused. They tried to cram so much BS into the campaign, that it actually looked like they were ticking boxes for the sake of it, without actually thinking whether it will be worthwhile. That ranged from everything to customization, to the training simulation missions, to the arbitrary statistics, and challenges you have to do to get one of the most obtuse and time consuming trophies for a FPS game. The core gameplay also just felt fundamentally not fun. Which is weird for a CoD game considering they tend to have, pound to pound, the best shooting mechanics in the industry.

            It also didn’t help the frame rate was unstable af. And there were a lot of onrails part in BOIII – do you not remember the boat escape in Singpore that ran like at 40 fps lol?

          • BradyAlucard[sillibk]

            “Pure gameplay” as in DOOM, since it doesn’t need a story, because it has lore in its pause menu? That’s how CoD Campaigns should be done; by executing its gameplay well, and having its story told through lore. I’m tired of outdated gameplay where I’m not even controlling my character. It’s not even a game, at that point. Last generation got away with it because it was just being introduced then.

            You’re telling me that you played through the entire game and didn’t know about its main mechanics, yet you’re critiquing it and calling it garbage? It still had the cutscenes that everyone likes, for some reason, but gave the game more to its gameplay. And saying that Treyarch’s level design sucks? Come on, now; surely it could have been executed better, since it always can, but that’s not its problem. They made the game more open to focus on Co-Op. The enemies are “bullet sponges” because of this, so Co-Op and nonlinearity is welcome in future CoD’s, as long as it’s executed better, in which nobody is arguing against.

            Most CoD games are linear and don’t offer all that much in mechanics, in which was accepted last generation only because they just introduced it, whereas it’s severely outdated, now. AW’s was unneededly linear without much options to a majority of its levels; aren’t all CoD enemies merely thrown-in for the sake of shooting galleries, by AW’s logic? BO3 offers freedom, which is why it’s *probably* the best Campaign since BO1. Treyarch went with the ambitious route.

            The frame rate drops to 40 are an issue – but at least PS4 is 51FPS on average. Probably just poor optimization on Treyarch’s front; the engine is from BO2’s IW 3.0, which is pretty outdated.

          • Sorry for late reply lol, but to be fair, that is my *exact* problem — the game didn’t encourage much use or versatility regarding its mechanics or abilities that you could get away using one for the whole game (I realised about half way through and it still didn’t add much). Those extra ‘mechanics’ needed depth and appropriate, intelligent encounters to facilitate them IMO rather than brainless waves of AI. In general, most of the mechanics and features were very superficial and targeted breadth rather than depth, as if they were checklist.

            I do agree with some of your other sentiments however.

          • BradyAlucard

            In short, I wish that CoD devs would keep experimenting with Co-Op, because I think that that option should stay in every CoD from now on, personally.

        • Haha, that’s pretty funny.

          • BradyAlucard[sillibk]

            Best since BO1. Problem m9?

          • IMO BO3 singleplayer was terrible, and AW and BO2 was far better.

          • BradyAlucard[sillibk]

            AW’s was the worst in the entire franchise IMO. On-rails sequences are unacceptable this generation. Not fun at all.

          • Gamerazor247

            Thatsalie. I’ve been so bored of the BOIII campaign that I’ve been playing A mission A month, it’s sad af, yet I find AWs Campaign more memorable than BO1. Nothing significantly awesome has happened yet in BO3, and i just saved some Hispanic guy going crazy or some shit. I don’t know about you, but jumping across cars, infiltrating a mansion with Grappling Hooks and climbing a entire construction building to escape Miltia seem pretty epic, compared to riding zip lines and going against waves of ridiculous armored Robots.

          • BradyAlucard[sillibk]

            Those grappling sequences didn’t always occur. That was, like, one mission. The zipline segment was actually pretty cool.

          • Sandraganderson

            “my room mate Lori Is getting paid on the internet 98$/hr”…..!cc362atwo days ago grey MacLaren P1 I bought after earning 18,512 DoIIars..it was my previous month’s payout..just a little over.17k DoIIars Last month..3-5 hours job a day…with weekly payouts..it’s realy the simplest. job I have ever Do.. I Joined This 7 months. ago. and now making over. hourly 87 DoIIars…Learn. More right Here !cc362a:➽:➽:➽➽➽➽ http://GlobalSuperJobsReportsEmploymentsGiftGetPayHourly$98…. .❖❖:❦❦:❖❖:❦❦:❖❖:❦❦:❖❖:❦❦:❖❖:❦❦:❖❖:❦❦:❖❖:❦❦:❖❖:❦❦:❖❖:❦❦:❖❖:❦❦:❖❖:❦❦::::::!cc362a….,…

        • Weed the People

          Wait, did you say bo3 is the best campaign in recent memory? Because it’s tied for the worst with aw

          • BradyAlucard[sillibk]

            It had gameplay. It’s definitely the most fun in recent memory. I’m not ruling out BO2, though.

          • Weed the People

            I respect your opinion, but (there’s always a but) it was too long, boring, and most of all confusing as hell

          • BradyAlucard[sillibk]

            Could have had better execution, but I’m not worried about the story; it had a lot of lore in the Safehouse to make up for it.

          • Picture yourself in a frozen forest bro.

          • xReb3lxRabbit

            Epic comment

      • Just to clarify, the Naughty Dog employees they hired aren’t writers — one of them is design director, the other is a narrative director. And remember man (just so you keep your expectations in check), two men won’t automatically make a game better, they can only do so much — it requires a whole team to do that, and Activision only give so much creative freedom to their studios. That’s what makes Naughty Dog special.

        Not to be a debbie downer or anything, but just trying to be realistic. I hope it’s great as well.

        • DeadZombieGaming 12

          Yeah, but they do improve it aswell

    • LovekillerX

      This year we might get important characters that are memorable because we have Naughty Dog devs aboard.

    • BradyAlucard[sillibk]

      I’m just glad that it’s more fun than every other CoD Campaign.

      • jordanxbrookes

        It’s not been one where I returned back to earn extra achievements or enjoyed it so much where I want to play it again. Heck even in AW I played the Campaign again a couple of times just to get the remaining achievements.

        • BradyAlucard[sillibk]

          Treyarch could execute it better, I’m definitely not arguing against that, but I felt that they were on the right track. They could make an engaging story without forcing you out of gameplay (yet BO3 still did that in some cases).

    • Rorke File

      Like the MW trilogy right? Just you and the team (Soap, Price, Ghost etc.)

      • jordanxbrookes

        That’s an example of an engaging storyline & memorable characters yeah.

        • BradyAlucard[sillibk]

          CoD4 and WAW’s Campaigns were genuinely fun for me. I don’t know what it was.

          • Rorke File

            A lot of effort put in them, COD4 was made different. The teams split up. One worked on the campaign and the other on the multiplayer. Both came out as great modes. The campaign was so long on veteran what I liked.

    • Thomas the Tankswag

      2 things let me down on BO3s story –

      1. They tried to create an emotional storyline where we would feel sad when characters were killed – It could have been like we were killing friends who were forced to be evil if they had used characters we already knew. This didn’t work as we hadn’t had time to grow attached (They could have gave us a few missions being on the same squad as taylor before they went rogue) and the characters were pretty unlikeable in the first place.

      2. Player Character was nameless and showed no emotion. Ik this was kind of the obvious thing to do for co op but they should have made the host a named character and the other players should have been generically named voiceless soldiers.

      • Yep.

        All the things wrong with BOIIi’s campaign:

        – WHERE DID THAT EXTRA YEAR OF DEVELOPMENT TIME GO?

        – I could eat a bowl of alphabet soup and shit out a more cohesive story than that.

        – On the whole, the campaign felt very unfocused and felt like it was made in 10 minutes.

        – Narrative was a mess, and was told in the most convoluted, incompetent and messy way possible. Pacing was down right awful.

        – Writing was cringe worthy 99% of the time, and was just unapologetic gibberish. Not to mention the characters…

        – …which were either insufferable, had 0 personality, or talked pure garbage. Not likable at all, and didn’t care when they died.

        – Level design was piss poor, catering to basically just 4 player co-op, and there was no encouragement of the use of different abilities.

        – It was a shooting gallery from start to finish. Bullet sponge enemies with a lack of variety in enemies, levels and encounters. Disappointing “set-pieces”.

        – Didn’t build upon Black Ops 3’s story at all, and it was obvious why they used the ‘Black Ops’ name. No non-linear branching storyline.

        – Underwhelming graphics, not helped with a sub-1080p image and a very unstable frame rate — disappointing coming off Advanced Warfare’s smooth 1080p 60fps. 30fps cutscenes too for ‘muh cinematic feel.’

        – Too much fluff regarding the customization classes and challenges, too much bloat, felt very unfocused.

        – A 5 hour FPS campaign shouldn’t take 80+ hours for a platinum trophy — it’s not an RPG damn it!

        – I shouldn’t have to read through a massive Reddit post or YouTube video (where something appears for a split millisecond) to understand this poorly presented “twist” which is not redeeming or explained in anyway.

        – Last but not least: fundamentally unsatisfying core gameplay. Shooting never felt rewarding. Not once.

        – Train go BOOM.

    • jrnotaloka

      I’m almost half through bo3 campaign I got no idea wats going on

    • Agreed 100%

  • BradyAlucard[sillibk]

    Well, that sucks.

  • Rorke File

    A co-op mode like MW2 would be perfect in this situation, to play some missions that look like the campaign ones. The story for me needs to be me and the important characters like it used to be in the MW trilogy.

  • Don’t care.

    Custences barley worked with CO-OP and it seems like everyone purposely stays AFK on it so you’ll never really get a good game anyways.

    • BradyAlucard[sillibk]

      Still, more openness and less linearity is more appreciated. At least BO3 felt like an actual game. It’s pretty crazy how many countless scenarios in past CoD’s took you out of the gameplay. Lazy.

      • >Still, more openness and less linearity is more appreciated. At least BO3 felt like an actual game.

        More opennes barley did anything to BO3.

        BO2 had multiple endings and choices that actually changed gameplay and the outcome of certain endings but they decided to take that that.

        Atleast in BO2 there was something new to do each mission compared to the same exact ” shoot seemingly endless groups of people and robots that act like dumber people with a bit more health ” with the occasional big robot.

        >It’s pretty crazy how many countless scenarios in past CoD’s took you out of the gameplay.

        This issue is I have already explained.

        Campaign isn’t for the constant nonstop 24/7 ” GO GO GO GO GO ” multiplayer of campaign.

        Having the occasional cutscene isnt bad, it’s petty and people who complain about not being able to play for maybe 20 seconds for cutscene shows you have a very short attention span.

        Also, these things are not lazy.

        They take countless hours of acting, mocapping, voicing and everything
        You practically have to have everything perfect, movement, line delivery and even the way to your face looks.

        • Weed the People

          You earned my thumbs up

          • BradyAlucard[sillibk]

            You earned mine too thanks for contributing to the conversation! Not.

        • BradyAlucard[sillibk]

          Maybe they took out the choices because they all led to the same climax?

          And what did Ghosts and Advanced Warfare have? Exactly. Nobody wants to play a video game to watch a movie. It worked last generation because , but not it won’t work generation. Where’s the innovation in that? Maybe Treyarch didn’t execute the SINGLEplayer of the game as much as they could? No problem, they could easily build off of it and learn from your criticisms by making it less repetitive somehow. My point was that they were on the right track with openness and lack of on-rails sequences, whilst notably Advanced Warfare had levels where you couldn’t even look behind you because you’d get hit by some guy. THAT is laziness, yes. Sledgehammer did all that mocap work for scenes that you weren’t even playing. It’s a video game, where fun is key. Just because the levels are more open and less linear, doesn’t mean that they can’t nor won’t put in an engaging story.

          • Weed the People

            Alright let me contribute. Ghost campaign > aw and bo3 campaigns combined. aw was like a Dora episode easily predictable and bo3 was like a saw movie only difference is you needed to hit up Google to understand what happened

          • BradyAlucard[sillibk]

            Ghosts was awful, and it reskinned a lot of shit.

          • Weed the People

            I actually enjoyed the campaign for ghost

          • BradyAlucard[sillibk]

            Story wasn’t all that bad, tbh.

          • Weed the People

            And that brings me back to aw and bo3 campaign lol they weren’t enjoyable

          • BradyAlucard[sillibk]

            It’s all subjective, at the end of the day. I want more openness and RPG elements in my Call of Duty/FPS games. You can keep your linearity alongside Co-Op for story purposes, in case that that’s the compromise that a Campaign would have to give, even though I’d much prefer the game to just have lore and be done with the story.

          • >Maybe they took out the choices because they all led to the same climax?

            And what did Ghosts and Advanced Warfare have? Exactly. Nobody wants to play a video game to watch a movie. It worked last generation because , but not it won’t work generation.

            They definitely certainly didn’t lead to the same ending. You must of not played the game in a long time.

            Advanced Warfare had incredible graphics and gameplay that separated itself from multiplayer with physical upgrades to your character. You had actual, free, open stealth sections and at times, you were thrown into a open area allowed to tackle a firefight in your own way.

            Remember how you could literally grapple hook into a vertibird, and have the pilots and people inside actually freak out, with you freely able to kill each and every one of them freely without it being in any cutscene?

            Ghosts…?

            There’s a reason I specifically didn’t mention that… thing…

            >No problem, they could easily build off of it and learn from your criticisms by making it less repetitive somehow. My point was that they were on the right track with openness and lack of on-rails sequences, whilst notably Advanced Warfare had levels where you couldn’t even look behind you because you’d get hit by some guy. THAT is laziness, yes. Sledgehammer did all that mocap work for scenes that you weren’t even playing. It’s a video game, where fun is key.

            The issue is that it doesn’t matter that the ” can improve apon it. ”

            BO3 itself is bad, nobody is going to be paying 60$ to playtest a game so the next one will be slightly less awful.

            There were not ” levels ” where you can’t look forward.

            You where captured by Atlas Forces in ONE mission for about maybe 30 seconds as you where dragged into a station where you were drugged. You’re severley exaggerating little issues and trying to make them as if they were the entire game, when there not.

            Once again, these sections ARE NOT THAT LONG. Complaining that you can’t 100% all the time have 100% full control is petty, and making the game look unplayable over one or two on rail sections is nonsensical, you can’t actually tell me you just stopped and turned your console off because of a short section you don’t like.

            Your whole mocap scene comment is blatantly wrong.

            I can name a multitude of situations where mocap was used ingame, for instance, when you captured that doctor while you where in detroit, the entire scene of the guy putting his rifle to his side and restraining him was full mocap and in game.

            You’re right, fun IS key.

            What you don’t understand us fun is SUBJECTIVE.

            I told you already campaign is for players with more patience, they can actually bare a 10-30 second scene of slowly walking to a place without getting severely frustrated and bored because they aren’t killing everyone and everything in sight.

            >Just because the levels are more open and less linear, doesn’t mean that they can’t nor won’t put in an engaging story.

            I never argued agaisnt this or said a anything similar to this.

            The story is awful because it was written terribly and was a complete unessacary departure from everything it’s three predecessors built up.

          • BradyAlucard[sillibk]

            The linear on-rails segments just won’t do this generation. Uncharted is stepping out of its comfort zone to at least provide open levels to make up for its linearity, whilst CoD’s segments are still outdated. I actually remember Black Ops 2’s Singleplayer, and the choices don’t do as much as you say they do. Let Harper die? Still leads to the same objective. Could they have built off of it? Sure, not arguing that, but that wouldn’t have worked in BO3. Maybe in the future. It’d be nice to see a better-executed Co-Op mode with choices. More RPG elements is welcome, too.

            Advanced Warfare was basically all graphics, with each level forcing you to play in the Exo style that it entails. You can double jump in one mission, but not in the other. In Black Ops 3, it’s more of a fuller RPG experience. Advanced Warfare was more on-rails than BO3. And that grappling segment? Yeah, that wasn’t in the entire game, nor were the vehicle sequences. That was all later-game. If that was the entire Campaign, then it would have been far better, but a decent portion of the Campaign was lazy on-rails bullshit. Black Ops 3 touts gameplay and that’s what games are about. They could still build a game with a rich narrative, and they don’t need cutscenes to do it. Advanced Warfare’s pre-mission cutscenes looked good, but the mo-cap feels wasted if you aren’t actually in that room speaking with everyone else. It kills the immersion. “BO3 itself is bad, nobody is going to be paying 60$ to playtest a game so the next one will be slightly less awful” No, Black Ops 3’s Campaign is NOT “bad”. They decided to go ambitious, and because of that, they made one of the most fun Call of Duty Campaign experiences, with minimal in-game cutscenes. Are the Warlords and Cerberuses a bitch in Singleplayer? Yeah, sure, that’s fair, but not really in Co-Op, in which the Campaign was built for. That’s my main critique about BO3; since anyone can remain idle in the game, the Co-Op experience isn’t really there, and there isn’t much of a Singleplayer to go to. One way to fix it is by playing with your friends. Those “30 seconds” of that Atlas segment were part of an entire 4-HOUR CAMPAIGN. If I’m exaggerating it, then you must be downplaying it, right? It’s called immersion, and if there are sequences that I can’t control, then there’s not much gameplay, now, is there? You must have completely missed my mo-cap point. MOST OF IT was used for the cutscenes, whilst the other sequences that require characters are definitely mo-capped. I never said that in-game sequences weren’t mo-capped. It’s funny how you say fun is subjective, when you’re saying AW has a good Campaign as if it’s fact. No one’s stating anything as fact.

            CoD is an Action game first and foremost, not a movie. No one’s saying that killing anything and everyone in sight 24/7 is fun. “Shooting galeries” (in which BO3 isn’t for the most part) is repetitive and nobody wants that, either, so let’s not put words into my mouth. And, no, the story isn’t “awful”, it actually has a better premise than Advanced Warfare IMO. Cybernetic augmentations? If the story didn’t fulfill your needs, then there’s lore for that, in which Advanced Warfare and Ghosts severely lacked. BO3 is a step in the right direction. We’re playing a game, not a movie. On-rails Campaigns aren’t fun this generation; let’s let them innovate and be more ambitious, unlike Sledgehammer, with their outdated gameplay.

          • In my opinion, the BO3 ”non-linearity” (especially in Co-Op) extended to just ”you go that way and kill 3 enemies, i’ll go through that way and kill my 3 enemies.”

          • BradyAlucard[sillibk]

            That’s how CoD has always been. Now there aren’t stupid segments you can’t control, or boring QTE segments that aren’t really gameplay. Nonlinearity = on track. Linearity to the point of on-rails is simply outdated.

      • ScOott

        Ur crazy man, no point In game play with out cut scenes, u need them to help build the characters give the whole thing purpose.. Imagine uncharted without cut scenes it would be pretty shitty lol..
        Same rules apply just because it’s an fps doesn’t mean anything

        • BradyAlucard[sillibk]

          They could easily build characters in-game, or like DOOM, have lore in the pause menu. OR they could be like FromSoft, and scatter lore pieces around the entire game. Cutscenes take away from the gameplay. I’m not a fan of Uncharted’s setpieces for the same reasons. On-rails gameplay just won’t cut it this generation, at least for me.

          • ScOott

            What do u mean? Like fallout 4? that game has no cut scenes..

          • BradyAlucard[sillibk]

            Open world games, sure, but I love Dying Light, and it had linear story elements. Did you not see that livestream of DOOM Singleplayer the other day? It’s all gameplay, no cutscene in sight I don’t think, but the pause menu has the entire lore on the game.

          • ScOott

            No I didn’t see it, but I would honestly be horrified if doom had cut scenes.. Its never been about that, that is a game I can understand not having cut scenes, and is a day one buy for me, but CoD is a completely different game, I don’t feel CoD can just change into something it’s not without it being forced, and just poorly executed..

          • BradyAlucard[sillibk]

            BO3 was poorly executed a little bit due to the push on Co-Op, which is welcome, but they made the Campaign repetitive, which bores players quickly. They could have made a better game with a story that made sense and furthered the continuity of BO2 by allowing choices and premise that actually served as a genuine sequel. In terms of gameplay, though, BO3 probably has the best Campaign since BO1. BO2 was unneededly linear. I just want more open levels and RPG elements, they can make it linear, I just don’t want it on-rails like AW’s terrible Campaign.

        • ”no point In game play with out cut scenes”

          What about the Half-Life franchise? It’s praised for being able to tell a fantastic story without the use of cutscenes.

          • ScOott

            I wasn’t much of a gamer back in the 360 ps3 days so haven’t experienced that game..

            But I was just talking about CoD, some games don’t need them,I feel like 6 hour war campagin would benefit from having cut scenes giving the characters time to develop..

  • ScOott

    I’m a split screener, but il happily sacrifice split screen campagin for better campagin than bo3

    • BradyAlucard[sillibk]

      BO3’s Campaign was poorly executed Singleplayer-wise, sure, but it’s meant for 4 players. They were on the right track, I just would have preferred less cutscenes and more backstory.

  • Bengal Tigger

    Finally, no more fucking idiots joining my lobby and doing shit all

    • BradyAlucard[sillibk]

      That’s a big issue, yeah, BO3 wasn’t perfect in the slightest. Still not as bad as AW.

  • Thomas the Tankswag

    Slightly disappointed at no co op respect paying…

  • Digital_Veil_

    Doesn’t bother me, I never had any interest in a co-op campaign at all. Leave co-op for other modes that are actually designed for it (zombies/aliens/spec ops/what have you). I prefer a game’s story mode to be solo only.

  • jrnotaloka

    Ghosts had a good campaign way better than aw

    • Thank you. People hate on Ghosts, but it’s campaign was very well done.

  • Dr. Salim

    That’s a kick in the teeth.

  • Sentinel

    Fuck yes!! I know Infinity Ward believes that campaign is wayy better for as a individual experience.

  • Perfect. In concept, BO3 had an interesting approach, but it wasn’t executed well. Matchmaking was terribly buggy too. I like a well written story with a defined protagonist.

    • shadowguy14

      BO3s campaign sucked because it was designed for co op instead of single player. To big and way to many enemies.

  • fr4gbob

    That is a shame, another I wont be playing then.

  • Michael Romo

    Good. Imagine what kind of clusterfuck that would have been

  • Aceshigh87

    Don’t really like this. I actually really enjoyed playing the BO3 campaign with 3 buddies of mine.

  • shadowguy14

    Wow these “next gen” systems really can’t handle co op can they lmao

    • DeadZombieGaming 12

      Or they are just focusing on a great singleplayer campaign? And current gen*

  • Glad it’s gone. A lot of player played the Campaign with their friends and didn’t even get to experience the story because of everyone talking over the characters.

  • forrest1985

    Am i the only one that found ghosts/AW campaign> BO3? For me BO3 was the worst campaign of any cod ever! I think i finished it twice and went back to AW! The robots and silly powers ruined it for me, plus the story was sub-par….MP was better on BO3 though….hopefully Naughty Dog will contribute to a decent campaign this year

  • Johnny Space

    Good, I’ll take a campaign with a captivating story line any day. Multiplayer games are soulless, repetitive, and boring.

  • James Reuland-Gunn

    I’m going to kind of miss the coop but I wil say that I” much more happy with this campaign than the past like 3.