In a new interview with Polygon, Taylor Kurosaki spoke at length the goal Infinity Ward is trying to achieve with Call of Duty: Infinite Warfare. The team has been putting a focus on establishing Infinite Warfare as its own sub franchise in the Call of Duty universe, similar to Modern Warfare and Black Ops.

Infinity Ward’s last go at Call of Duty was met with bad reception from fans and press alike, some even claiming it took a step back in the franchise after Black Ops 2’s innovations from Treyarch. Call of Duty: Ghosts failed to establish itself in the Call of Duty world, and lived and died as a one off title in the universe. As of now, Infinity Ward has no plans to revisit that title, regardless of how the first ones’ campaign ended. With Ghosts, there was confusion around what Infinity Ward was trying to do: create a one-off title after working on Modern Warfare or try to establish a new brand. With Infinite Warfare, there’s no such confusion, they say.

“We want to establish our own new subfranchise. Our own new branch of the Call of Duty tree. What we are developing here could certainly support multiple games. We’re trying to develop a very rich world that we’re not even close to exhausting.”

Kurosaki said, “I can’t speak to what the intentions were when the team was working on Ghosts.” Kurosaki and Minkoff both joined Infinity Ward in 2014, transitioning from working on the award winning ‘The Last of Us’ at Naughty Dog.

We want to tell first and foremost a classic war story in the great tradition of the genre that Brian and I are both huge fans of. This is my first foray into Call of Duty and telling a war story. I’m so taken by the rich history of the genre.”

With Infinite Warfare, this is Infinity Ward’s first attempt at taking Call of Duty to the far future. Treyarch did it first with Black Ops 2 and continued that with Black Ops 3. Sledgehammer also did it with Advanced Warfare. Doing this isn’t an easy task, says Kurosaki.

“I’m sure that the Infinity Ward team felt the same kind of tremendous burden when they went from World War II to modern warfare. It’s an entire world with new weapons, vehicles, AI, under-the-hood stuff. We’re doing the exact same stuff here. This is as much of a sea change.”

Infinity Ward says that taking Call of Duty beyond Earth opened up a lot more mechanics and flexibility in bringing the story to life.

Everyone was interested in this setting,” Kurosaki said. “It afforded us a lot to do from a gameplay perspective. The setting was something we as a team were all united behind. Brian and I and Jacob Minkoff — the design director at Infinity Ward — the three of us set about looking to tell a classic story set against this more futuristic backdrop.

The setting of space puts even more pressure on our characters than even a traditional battlefield would allow for. In space, there is no gravity. In a lot of cases, most cases have no breathable atmosphere.

Take the worst of the world wars and put that in an environment where you can’t breathe, and up is a relative to where you are floating.”

Even with this being said, Infinity Ward’s Brian Bloom says that the story incorporates modern day technology and vehicles, while still bringing new things to the world. That’s what expanding the universe allows: bringing new ideas while retaining what Call of Duty is.

“We are looking at the ascendancy of those vehicles and those weapons. But it remains gritty. You should get a sense of rocket fuel, and sort of smell it and feel it. This is not that clean future that has somehow jettisoned from reality. This is gritty, grounded. Nowhere near the get-out-of-jail-free card some science fiction offers you.

We are firmly rooted in the past and present, and offering literally a vision of the future, and hoping it becomes an integral part of Call of Duty’s continuing saga.”

Infinity Ward’s overall goal, Kurosaki says, is to make Infinite Warfare worthy of being called a ‘Modern Warfare or Black Ops’ series within the Call of Duty world.

“If we were the next thing in that rich history in the Call of Duty of Modern Warfare, of Black Ops,” Kurosaki said, “if we were the next in that lineage, I’d say, ‘Mission accomplished.’”

SOURCE: Polygon



    • There were only a few things wrong with Ghosts. I’d rather see a Ghosts 2 where those issues get addressed than this pseudo-COD space warfare.

      • But where could they go with Ghosts 2? The cliffhanger clearly wanted to set up a sequel where the same old characters would reappear, the game being set shortly after the first one, so it would be the same old gameplay we’ve had since CoD4 – the biggest critique people had with Ghosts.

        • Wait, people were complaining that a Call of Duty game plays like a Call of Duty game? Who cares. Let them play Titanfall or something.

          I’m not going to Outback Steakhouse and complain when their steak tastes like steak. If you want chinese go to a chinese restaurant. If you buy COD expect to get COD. It’s a shame how easily Activision bent to the will of the complainers. Now they’re ruining my favorite FPS franchise.

          • So you’d play games that are carbon copies of each other? Might as well just play CoD 4 until the end of time instead of a new game, because those “boots-on-the-ground” games might as well have been DLC for CoD 4, that’s how similar they were. No wonder why so many gamers were fed up. CoD couldn’t even change its engine significantly, that’s the least they could have done.

          • I don’t mind improvements, or a new engine (granted it feels like the old one) but these changes are too drastic and mostly in the wrong direction.

            Jetpacks. Wall-running. Specialists. Supply Drops. Gingerbread man outfits. The dab. Ugly fake guns. The lack of an authentic war atmosphere. It’s these things I have a problem with. And leaks have confirmed that most of these things are returning, unless Infinity Ward decides to dial them back.

          • CoD games need to change in order to be considered sequels, though. Those gameplay additions are great IMO, they add to the experience without changing the fundamental mechanics drastically. It just gets old and now CoD is copy and pasting again.

            The complaints I can agree with – I see where the people who want “colorfully aesthetic” maps are coming from, but they just don’t suit a war game, there are other methods that the developers can use in order to make it look slightly more appealing (there are a few tricks). Plus, the cosmetic character gear have gotten way too ridiculous, but I do appreciate having more customization options.

      • That ship has sailed. If that game sucked, what would a potential sequel have that redeems it? Nothing. That IP is dead and it deserved it.

  1. This can either be a really good thing as they show confidence or a bad thing meaning Cod isn’t gonna go back to its roots anytime soon

      • Actually it is Valid they’re taking about a sequal to infinite warfare which would mean it has movement why would treyarch and SH be he only ones who make classic boots on the ground when IW makes future also if they wanna remaster old games they’d really only do that if it had movement is have to imagine

        • It’s quite difficult to comprehend what you wrote there, you really need to add some commas next time.

          ”why would treyarch and SH be he only ones who make classic boots on the ground when IW makes future”

          Why not? First of all, Treyarch wants to stick around with the futuristic setting, so I doubt they will release like, a World at War 2 or something, but if at least one developer makes a CoD set in the past, people would stop moaning and hating and what-not.

          • How do you know Treyarch wants to stick with the futuristic setting? I’m almost sure Black Ops 3 is the last in the Black Ops series and by now all the developers should know what the fans want. What reason would there be for Treyarch to do another future title in 2018? I honestly think they’re going back in their next game.

          • Blundell expressed interest in the future setting after BO3s release.

            That’s why Treyarch included a WW2 level in BO3, where there’s a million German soldiers swarming you and throwing grenades your way. In there, an old WW2 tank appears and you destroy it in one hit from your launcher. Right after that, the BO3 walking tank appears and you first have to shoot it’s targeting system and then take it down with a few launcher shots. They wanted to show that WW2, and the sci-fi setting opens up many possibilities for unique and fun gameplay.

            Blundell did say, though, that returning to the Black Ops universe is still possible, but they’re really gonna have to bring something new to the table, because a simple WW2 CoD game would bring you nothing more than a sense of nostalgia. Sci-Fi can make amazing and fun gameplay.

          • i never remembered him making them comments, but if he did, then that’s disappointing honestly. I’ll especially be disappointed if their next game is a future setting once again.

            Not really into Sci-Fi and I don’t Call of Duty should do it anymore especially after Infinite Warfare, or at least leave it to Infinity Ward seeing how they want some trilogy.

            It still wouldn’t make sense for two developers to do a future setting and it would still be overkill. Every developer should seriously work on a different time setting to keep each game fresh and each different. You do the same setting every year, your games start to look the same. Not matter how much PR you slap on it with words like “innovation”

            And I believe the Black Ops comment, but I don’t think there will be a Black Ops IV and there shouldn’t be. Black Ops needs to end much like the Modern Wafare series. However, I do think Treyarch could do some prequels or pre sequels. Like I think Treyarch should explore the 1980s setting they touched briefly in Black Ops 2. I like to have a full game on Alex Mason and Woods on that whole 80s thing. I think there could be more to it honestly. 1980s setting would be very interesting.

    • Even if it goes back to the past, it will get hate…
      You cannot stop the hate train.
      Once you damage a franchise, the damage is done..

          • That’s an Activision and the developers problem. Not a game setting problem. Maybe they should fix that shit after so many years, i mean that’s a mind blowing solution

        • It will get hate from me. I’m soooo tired of WWI and WWII settings. MAYBE Vietnam would be alright… but good heck, the WWI cow was already beaten to death by the early 2000’s

          • You will be a marginal spot in the community, unlike the massive dislike that is shown now towards the futuristic setting from within the community

          • You HIGHLY overestimate the vocal COD community, and highly underestimate the diversity of interest. I would bet my life on it that it would still get tons of hate if they went old school.

          • Ofcourse it would, it’s the CoD community after all. But the “hate” would be at normal proportions again, unlike the massive hate IW received and still is receiving now for its futuristic setting and movement…

          • No, the increase of verbal hate is due to the lack of common decency and common sense learned during upbringing, and the freedom to say whatever you want whenever you want without any consequence. People complain and gripe more now about EVERYTHING than we ever have in the past, and with less reason to complain about it. THAT is where this increase is from. And that surely isn’t going to change anytime soon.

          • That’s sadly true, but regardless the hate for IW is purly bassed upon the choice to develop a CoD in space. The way it’s expressed is a topic for a whole different discussion…

          • That’s what bugs me so much. This is the first space Call of Duty. No one has anything to truly compare it to. Do we all hate space so much that it is going to be the #1 deciding factor on whether a game is good or not? Didn’t we all fall in love with COD because the GAME PLAY and not the setting in which that gameplay occurred? I can understand why people might not want to play the campaign, because a story depends on it’s setting to an extent, but Multiplayer?

          • It’s more the movement then the space theme for me personally. If IW was indeed true BotG but in space I would not have a problem with the theme they chose.

          • Ah, and you see, that’s not the same complaint that I read most often. It’s always “in space? TERRIBLE! Well, there goes COD forever!”

            But if it is movement system for you, well… There’s always MWR for this year. That should be refreshing to have back! I do like the idea of all three companies doing different timelines for their games. Maybe we will all get lucky and have something like that so all the people can get *part of* their desires every 3 years.

          • That would be the ideal situation indeed. Lets hope they cook up something like that at activision HQ

          • Call of Duty has never done a World War 1 setting and I’m just talking Call of Duty. I want a return to the past because I like history and i love playing WW games and whatnot and im just tired od futuristic titles

          • COd hasn’t but plenty of other developers already have. Check the Wiki page for List of World War I video games…
            I say if they want to go to the past, do something that HASN’T really been done (a lot) before. Like Vietnam perhaps.

    • These guy are industry professionals, but that doesn’t excuse the futuristic setting for me. I wanted this to be a one-time thing, not an establishment, personally. I’m sure Infinite Warfare is going to be a solid CoD game, but I’m not a fan of laser (“energy”) weapons, zero gravity, robots, etc. spanning to an entire franchise.

          • So you attempt to excuse it by saying that they weren’t set in space? I’m talking about future eras in a general sense, so what are you talking about? No thanks, this is the only CoD space game I’d ever consider buying unless Treyarch and Sledgehammer move on from this crap and make their own games set in their own eras. And Ghosts was set in 2027 so it is definitely futuristic. If you mean aesthetically, well, futurism doesn’t require fancy-looking buildings and hover cars. Like it or not, to many people this isn’t Call of Duty, this is Battlestar Galactica with a Call of Duty logo, and they have every right to have such an opinion.

          • Ehh by that logic, you could say the Modern Warfare series is futuristic because at the time they were released, they were set 10 years into the future and they did indeed feature weapons and technology that didn’t quite exist yet back then. Ghosts really isn’t that futuristic at all. It’s as futuristic as MW was though some people still think it’s 2007 right now apparently. As for Infinite Warfare, it’s not really as futuristic as the haters try to make it out to be. It’s all technology that we’re either on the verge of right now or will be achievable within our lifetimes. The US Air Force would laugh at people who say the stuff in Infinite Warfare is no achievable in the near future. After all, the US Air Force already operates their own military spacecraft like the X-37B and they’re testing many more space warfare technologies right now. The Navy has also recently deployed laser weapons on Naval destroyers and they’re currently testing railguns. All of which are space-age weapons. So Infinite Warfare’s futuristic setting isn’t that much of a stretch and gives you good insight into real military technology being developed today.

          • The Modern Warfare series was not set 10 years into the future, more like 4-5 maximum in order to make the games unique, I’m pretty sure. CoD 4 was set in 2011, MW2 was set in this year (2016), and MW3 was a direct sequel to MW2. It was all a span of 5 years. Ghosts may not be futuristic aesthetically, but it’s a futuristic game nonetheless; it was post-apocalyptic. Infinite Warfare is definitely very futuristic (so futuristic it’s set 60 years after BO3), it’s on SCI-FI levels with laser weapons, wall-running, etc. because whether it’ll happen in the future or not, it’s still a work of fiction because they don’t know for sure how long it’ll take to actually achieve these things. Even Star Wars could be believable, but it’s still SCI-FI/space fantasy.

          • Just because they are set in the future doesnt automatically make it the same thing, thats like saying a ww2 and vietnam shooter would be the exact same just because they are set in the past?

            “Like it or not, to many people this isn’t Call of Duty”

            Pretty sure thats what a ton of people who played CODs 1-3 said about cod4 when it came out. This franchise has the beauty of being anything war-related the moment cod4 came out.

          • That’s a bad analogy and excuse. I don’t know about you, but IW to me just seems like BO3 in space with fighter jets and zero gravity, so the two games are definitely rather similar. I never even said that the themes are the exact same, but their respective eras are all something that they all have in common. Everyone who’s complaining are sick of the era in general, not how far into the eras the games are.

            No, they probably didn’t complain about CoD4’s era, because CoD 4 actually feels like CoD because it felt like the World War II games reiterated in a modern era with its own changes to set the games apart. They didn’t add silly jumping mechanics or wallrunning or anything else that completely changed its identity. You can’t compare it to jumping the franchise over 100 years into the future with such changes to the mechanics.

      • Treyarch can actually show their footage early, unlike Infinity Ward. This year’s marketing campaign has been a huge disappointment due to BO3 spoiling us.

        • Infinity Ward (and all recent CODs) ALWAYS REVEAL the multiplayer stuff during CODXP which *spoiler alert* Hasn’t happened yet. Wait until Sept 2nd. That’s when they plan to reveal it.

          “PATIENCE YOU MUST HAVE my young padawan”

          • This is only the second time CoDXP is held, so no it doesn’t always happen at CodXP. If there was a time they should’ve shown the MP early, it was this year….

          • I don’t see why it is so important that it be revealed earlier than COD XP. People will just have more time to mindlessly judge and hate the game before even trying it.
            With CODXP reveal, people will be able to have hands-on game time and give people a more constructive and accurate review of the game.

          • A beta or demo (same thing these days) would be a better option if they wanted to have us play time on their game. With CoDXP it’s just a select few who get to play the game (a handful YT’ers, pro players and the ones lucky enough to live close to the event)

            People don’t mindlessly judge the game but have genuine concerns how the MP is going to turn out with the info we have right now.

            Not showing or even saying anything about the MP doesn’t ease the minds of those concerned, quite the opposite actually…

          • How can you be concerned when there IS NO INFORMATION TO BE CONCERNED ABOUT… is my question.

            That’s like freaking out every day that you are going to die because you have no idea when you are going to die. Yeah, be cautious, that’s fine. Don’t get hyped for a MP game you don’t know anything about. But to have CONCERN?

          • IW already stated long ago that whoever played Bo3 will feel right at home with their take on the chain bassed movement system. That’s info enough to know the MP will be similar to Bo3, and for people like myself who didn’t like Bo3 it’s enough reason to be concerned this next CoD isn’t worth buying…

          • So the sole reason you hate Black Ops 3 is it’s ability to run from the ground, jump, and continue moving on walls… ? That’s the single most important thing about the game for you?
            It’s not for me. Being able to chain my movements or not doesn’t bug me at all.

          • It’s more the technical limitations CoD is showing since exo/thrust movement is added that does it for me. Shifting hitboxes as a #1 issue.

            It’s sounds as a CoD hater cliché, but if they want to keep these movements and speed in further entries, they should get with the times and build of an engine that actually can handle these fast movements mechanics…

          • I’m sorry, but I’ve never had a problem shooting someone in BO3, whether they’re wallrunning or not

          • That’s a lie or you honestly don’t noticed it. The problems with shifting hitboxes already exist since the lightweight days of Bo2, every game after has seen an increase of movement speed and on top of that fast jumping mechanics.

            It’s an engine flaw and everyone experiences it.

          • Treyarch games have all had horrible hit detection whereas IW are renowned for having great hit detection in their games so if there’s one thing I trust them to get right it’s that! Have some faith.

          • Says the person who only has whiny comments listed on their profile. LMAO
            Thanks for that laugh. I needed it.

          • Should have…almost sound like you are demanding it. & why you care? You already stated you ain’t getting this game so…yeah.

          • Should have because the hype for this years CoD is at an all time low. Never stated I’m never going to get it, I do however not buy it day 1 this year, and first want actual play time before making my decision.

            To me, for what is known now about IW MP, it’s just a Bo3 clone in a space themed jacket…

          • So they should have shown it by now because the hype for the game is low…Yeah that’s not how it works. It was planned to be reveal and playable on COD XP, even if there wasn’t a huge negative feedback by the community. Well, you did stated that you was not getting any other COD released in future… & alright, good luck catching up to other players when you finally decide to get lol (I highly doubt that you are going to wait…stop bluffing, you’re getting on day 1)

            Nah, they might share similarities but the programming process between each independent studio is different. They can only pass on whatever did well on previous tittles, in this case the boost jump codes.

          • I’m not getting it day one period, I even canceled my pre-order last week (which I opt for because I thought the MWR would be sold out fast). The game (IW) doesn’t interest me at all at this point, count in the ridiculous path activision took with the supply drops offerings and it shouldn’t be hard to imagine some (former) fans like my self are just not going to bother anymore…

            PS. Discus isn’t giving me notifications anymore, more people experiencing this ??

          • It’s alright, at least you have other shooters on the market to turn to. & Nah, I have my them disabled I can’t see what the issue is.

          • True, but still it’s a shame because at the end of the day, I always enjoyed CoD.

            I still have some hope I’m totally wrong and the MP turns out great after all, I just don’t pre-order anymore and blindly buy day one.

          • Like I’ve said, I always enjoyed it because whenever I pick up the PS4 (<-Fanboy alert!) controller and play Call of Duty, I'm always fluid with the gameplay. Not to brag (Most definitely bragging about it!) but I aim very good @ all Call of Duties haha. & I think it will, 3 year cycle and two former Naughty Dog's Devs…I think Infinity Ward went all in Infinite Warfare! There's so many people who hate Infinity Ward 'cause of Ghosts. Like dang, ya'll act like people don't make mistakes smh haha. But mark rubin ('cause small letters are for losers) was very careless about the development of Ghosts. "so we have fish move out of the way when you get close to them" – a 2013 game executive producer. IW is in good hands now and they have for scare amount of stress on development process. I think they got this year on lock.

          • Lets hope so, it’s been too long an enjoyable CoD MP has come out. Campaign I don’t worry about, they were always good, short but good. Even without the 2 Naughty dog devs.

            As far as I’m concerned IW does it right in campaign and zombies by the looks of it. But I primarily buy CoD for MP, I don’t mind the futuristic space setting in MP, but worry the exo/CB movement system screws it up just like it did in AW and Bo3…

          • Lol. There hasn’t been a CoD XP event since MW3, which was cool don’t get me wrong, I’ve just been constantly waiting PATIENTLY every year since Modern Warfare 2, and when BO3 showed Multiplayer footage in its reveal, I was finally satisfied with CoD’s marketing. Now this is just a step backward. It’s awesome that we can see an awesome event like CoD XP again, but they had to sacrifice their entire marketing Campaign for it. If it wasn’t in September and it was June instead it’d be a non-issue.

        • They just saving for the big COD XP event. Unlike BO3, it never happened last year. I think people just need to relax and be patient.

          • I’ve been patient in so many CoD cycles it’s not even funny. I was “patient” for Multiplayer in Advanced Warfare and that turned out to be a dud. Why make us wait this long? It should have been shown in May/June, and BO3 proved that it could still sell almost as well as BO2 by showing MP early or not.

          • No, it shouldn’t. If Activision wanted to save the multiplayer reveal for the COD XP, then that’s totally fine with me. All I need to know is the reveal date. Then again, BO3 was last year…why dwell on the past? & even if they show it on September, they will be two more months before release date and a lot can before then.

          • Not necessarily. The game is supposed to go gold in late September or early October. Any changes they make will be minor

          • Because BO3 is just one CoD game out of a dozen, and this approach to marketing is a step down and completely backwards.

          • Honestly, what is the big deal? It does not really affects you other than the wait…Let them deal with the marketing process let them deal with the consequence for doing things differently which I think are scare ’cause the game is looking solid so far! & the reveal is in 12 days.

          • We’ve actually had to wait 4 months just to see footage from a *main mode*. It’s definitely a big deal and it shouldn’t be ignored. I definitely understand that the event is huge, but unless the MP footage is more special than BO3, I think this is a complete step backwards, and waiting definitely affects everyone significantly. This marketing campaign has just been one big waste of time and step backward by being the typical CoD marketing scheme that’s not unique in the slightest. What a joke.

          • I still think is okey if they chose to wait on it for the COD XP event. It adds to the excitement I feel when the day of the event gets closer. I know once I get the chance to play both games at COD XP, It will be a great day!(not a waste of time) So yeah, it ain’t a big deal. People tend to think that the COD franchise needs to follow a certain pattern every year, that things should be like this or that because that how it was the last 2 or 3 past year… -.- Anyways, I have my preferences just like everyone else. You have your little conspiracies against Activision and it sucks for you that that it is a waste of time.

          • It’s not a conspiracy, how anyone like you can excuse this complete downgrade from last year is beyond me. It’s a fact that this is a big deal.

          • Lol I’m sorry but what the hell are you talking about? Because they haven’t shown a video of multiplayer we’re all affected? Get a grip of yourself man. Its a game.

          • It’s awfully kind of you to offer your worthless opinion, but this isn’t a matter of opinion. Showing Multiplayer for IW in September is a joke when we were shown Multiplayer in April for BO3, whether you mind my complaining or not, it’s still a million steps backwards.

          • It’s awfully kind of you to voice your own worthless opinion too. This is clearly a matter of opinion and people (like you) are just searching for any reason to take a swipe at this years cod. Crawl back in your hole until September when MP gets revealed and if you don’t want it? You know what to do.

          • Uh… It’s a fact that it’s a problem, it’s not my opinion, and if you paid any attention to my comments in the past 3 months, you’d understand my opinion on Infinite Warfare. I just don’t like how slow the marketing campaign is because it’s [objectively] a huge step backwards.

          • Explain to me how it is a fact?
            All I see is you speculating that this is going to hurt the game, but until the sales numbers are out how do you know? And that my friend is why it is an opinion and not fact.

          • It’s a fact not due to the SALES but how it affects CONSUMERS. It doesn’t affect Activision because people like you accepting this as if it should be ignored. At least the epicness of CoD XP is one positive thing and doesn’t make the wait seem as bad. AW’s marketing campaign’s wait was agitating and the game was awful at launch to boot.

          • If that’s how you feel then fair play but “people like me” have a life and don’t really give a shit when they reveal the mp as long as it’s some time before launch don’t blame the fact that you (and a fair few others) disliked the mp in AW just because someone like me doesn’t care what month of the year it is revealed.

            If AW mp was revealed in March would you have enjoyed it more? XD

            You sound incredibly peed off as if Activision have an agenda when you’re the one who is probably preordering the game when you could wait it out until it’s launched and get people’s impressions about what you personally look for in a cod game so you don’t feel ripped off or whatever the issue is.

          • Then you should be able to understand where I’m coming from and why it IS a big deal. I’m not saying that it’s so much of a fact that you can’t have an opinion and be okay with the decision to wait to reveal MP as well. It’s not just AW, CoD has always had the same marketing campaign, at least since MW2; reveal the game in April/May and reveal the MP in mid-August or early September in a couple of cases (MW3 and now IW); AW was just simply where it got annoying, especially in a newer generation. Black Ops 3’s marketing campaign felt like a breathe of fresh air because it was a nice change of pace. No, I probably wouldn’t have enjoyed it at launch (because CoD games are better when they’re not in their life cycles IMO, I considered MW3, Ghosts, and AW to be terrible in their life cycles but find them to be playable and even fun now), but I wouldn’t have been as agitated with how long of a wait all of the information was. They could reveal so much for the Campaign, but not the Multiplayer? BO3 proved that showing Mutliplayer early does not significantly affect sales. No one’s even saying May, Activision should at least reveal parts of the Multiplayer in June or make the marketing unique in some way instead of having their fans wait for information, because waiting 4 months every year is NOT “hype”.

            I don’t think Activision has an agenda, I have no clue where you got that from; but I definitely think that Activision could have some unique marketing for a change like they did with BO3. I don’t pre-order games, I’m actually extremely against pre-ordering as well as pre-order bonuses/exclusives. When it becomes formulaic, it becomes agitating and a problem, objectively so.

          • That’s because it hasn’t had it’s world-wide reveal… Wait until September 2nd, the day they PLAN on revealing footage, before everyone starts calling confidence or not.

          • Sorry, it’s not about you, but I’m just fed up with waiting, and have been for 6 and a half years.

  2. I think this actually shows that they have really given a sufficient reflection of their previous failure on Ghost and have attained enough confidence to make sure I-Warfare doesn’t become the next Ghost. I have faith in IW.

  3. Well Infinite Warfare has to be good if they want two different sequels to it. So i guess this wont be the last futuristic game for awhile or so. Dear god i hope SHgames or Treyarch is working on a past setting CoD pls

    • Think of it this way, this could mean that each studio can work on a different setitng. If SHG is able to get the rights to Modern Warfare, they could continue that series, Treyarch could make a WaW 2, and Infinity Ward could make IW2…as far fetched as that sounds, it would be pretty cool having something refreshing every year.

      • Why bother with Modern Warfare? I think that story arc is finished, and should be left as is. I would really like to see SHGames do a modern or otherwise non-futuristic CoD game, but have it be their own, new IP, like Advanced Warfare is.

        • Nah, I have to see what happens right after Iron’s death. He had mention that what he created is bigger than himself. As long they keep that exo bullshit out!

        • SHG should do a game that explains what happened to Ramirez and the other Rangers after Second Sun in MW2. That was the best story arc in CoD, excluding the 1980s arc in BO2. Or, they could remaster MW2 and add maps and weapons (the M40A5, a M26 MASS, a bipod and flashlight attatchment, and a Glock 17C

      • why would SHG touch or revived the Modern Warfare series? I mean unless they wanna find a prequel type game or go the Borderlands route and do a “pre sequel” game.

        I think SHG is still trying to found their ground, so either they do a WW2 or a modern setting ill be fine with. I’ll like to see their take on it. Maybe either of those settings will do them wonders

      • I’d rather SHG do Vietnam and have Treyarch do a prequel to the World at War era (pre-1945, there are 6 years to work with) but not have it be in the exact same universe per se.

      • Yes! That is exactly what I’ve been advocating, Aidan. I just wish more past-era fans returned the same courtesy to future fans (How awesome would it be to have World at War sequels or a new Vietnam series alongside Infinite Warfare!)

        IMO this years’ projects should have been a past era, given we went straight from Ghosts to Advanced Warfare and Black Ops 3. But one-sided games in the other direction isn’t any fun either…especially for those of us still reeling from the time where nearly ALL CoD’s & FPS were WW2.

        • those werent rumours back then, it was confirmed that SHG was working on 3rd person vietnam game before going to AW. Rumour is they have gone back and making a vietnam for first person

          • Good. I am not a huge 3rd person fan… And Vietnam hasn’t been done too much, so that would be a new experience.

          • It was only after AW was revealed news got out they were working on a 3rd person Vietnam shooter before asked to help out with the development of MW3.

            Before AW was revealed rumor was it was going to be Vietnam war themed CoD.

      • Ho hum. I don’t care if Sledgehammer goes back to CoDs roots or not.
        As far as I’m concerned, they are the ones that started this double boosting jetpack crap, so for ruining CoD, I’ll never buy another SGH version of CoD again. They can go f***** themselves.

  4. There was a comment on an Infinite Warfare video saying that Activision was retarded. Well they are but the idea of Infinity Ward doing future, Treyach doing past, and sledgehammer games doing present was what they were suppose to do this whole time. I don’t know what they were thinking.

      • We don’t know that. No one knows that for a fact. Still, that excuses nothing, many players are fed up with the futuristic setting, including me.

    • Did you not watch the “Black Sky” gameplay trailer? Out of the 11 minutes of actual game play, 7 of those minutes were “boots on ground”… ?

      • Ofcourse it was, deliberately done so. They were already knee deep in shit from their reveal trailer fiasco, so they decided to show off some more “classical” movement so the shit wouldn’t go up to the rafters…

        • Well then, it just proves a point. If there is boots on the ground combat, then why are we saying goodbye to boots on the ground? Doesn’t make a lick of sense.

          • There isn’t BotG. Only the illusion IW focusing on BotG, wait and see at the official reveal, it will be Bo3 all over again, just in a fancy space themed package this time…

          • Black ops 3 is boots on the ground… When do you ever leave the ‘boots on the ground’ in black ops 3?

          • So you are against double jumps and wall running. That’s not what “boots on the ground” generally means to the majority of people I have spoken with (and they were using the wrong term when using it). Their complaint was that there would be combat where you weren’t on the ground (aka the flying combat in space, of the floating in space).

            If you have a gripe with the ability to double jump/boost jump and wall run, well that’s valid enough. I am pretty sure they would have that in IW.
            I personally don’t give two sh*ts about it being in the game or not. I’m fine with either way.

          • dont think anyone has said they’re against, I dont care for it. They’re just saying Infinite Warfare is not a boots on the ground game, and judging by this article, Infinity Ward isnt going to make a boots on the ground classic CoD anytime soon

      • That was literally the first few minutes of the game. It’s already confirmed that a thrust meter and zero gravity exist.

  5. Infinite warfare doesnt look all that bad to be honest infinity ward have always been one to put alot of research into their games but on the other hand i prefer more of the traditional cods which were based on real events i.e world at war, black ops 1 and the modern warfare series, advanced warfare is in a way believable seen as all that tech is being developed now days but wont be seen for years just dont think ill ever see a gingerbread soldier in a real war, dont know what they was smoking when they made black ops 3 that game is too farfetched with all the simulations and over the top specialists even ghosts is a believeable story even zombies got a bit weird with odd bosses i.e zombified tree i would much rather a ghosts 2 its the closest thing to a real cod weve seen in years, hope people realise we are probably not going to get back the type of cods we loved before all this futuristic crap, abusing developers on twitter or disliking a trailer wont get the message across not buying the game will get the message across we are finished with the future but activision smart add a remastered cod in with it so iw will get bought regardless they will probably add a remaster every year now only way to get across now i to NOT PLAY INFINITE WARFARE

      • The multiplayer, it plays well to be an futuristic type but it does not look like a military shooter. With all them colorful maps and map locations just to entertain kids. Plus the campaign was all over the fucken place lol. I have a hunch that Infinite Warfare is going to look great when it comes to a military shooter in the future. Not some DNI or specialist fantasy BS.

        • Laser (in which they call “energy” bullets, l.o.l.) weapons and zero gravity are less “fantasy BS” than BO3 in what way, though? BO3 was genuinely interesting IMO, and IW better have just as much on-disc content as BO3 did, because that alone makes BO3 worth playing for 3 years.

          • Let’s see, guns were okey, we have augmented characters that part of their human organs are altered or switch to mechanical arms, ect. Specialist abilities that are only seemed real within BO3. & like I said, it does not looked like a military shooter with bright colors and jumping jolly ranchers around the map. Yeah, I think I will take zero G more serious that I would in BO3. Yeah BO3 plays well and I get it that you stand for what you really like but most of us know IW will be set on a nice military tone environment. Infinity Ward are the best delivering that setting to the franchise.

          • I don’t see how Infinite Warfare is any more of a “military” game than BO3 is, concerning that it looks practically the same art style-wise but in a space setting?

          • I don’t know how it looks the same to you but I’m not going to state the differences between both games…I just know that IW has a more military and patriotic approach on the story whereas BO3, you had to figured out you were dead the hole time and you was replaying the memories.

          • I just see it as BO3 being more creative. It’s still a military shooter, and IW has more in common than you think. The futuristic setting in general just doesn’t give a war element to me, though, especially fighting in space like Wing Commander.

          • I got nothing against 3arc being creative with their game. BO3 is a great core example of a arcade shooter, not a military shooter. You have your views and preferences like I do. I still think IW will have a more serious battleground and solid story mode. I don’t want to want to jump onto conclusions until I see actual multiplayer gameplay. Then I can see if both games share similarities, despite the gameplay mechanics.

        • Treyarch has always looked a little more cartoony compared to other developers, so I was expected some of it. However, the Black Market items really killed any aspect of seriousness the game had.

          • Meaning, black market has a lot more content and challenges since it was first introduced to BO3. Even if you don’t like, you will have to deal with it now and in any other upcoming CODs in the future.

          • Yeah, I guess. But I was referring to the cheesy and childish items it has, not its overall content. Especially the onslaught of melee weapons over the past months. I’m sorry but getting a baseball bat in a first person shooter doesn’t excite me.

          • Yeah, there are items that are childish but is just a reminder that the game is there to have fun overall. I just hope IW sticks to having a more serious battleground and gameplay.

        • 1.) This game wasn’t aimed towards a young audience. 3arc just likes to make their maps nice colorful so you can spot enemies quicker. It makes the gameplay more fast and fluid.

          2.) The BO3 campaign was very confusing, yes, but it really was a work of art if you were smart enough to follow what was happening. It’s more of a Pulp Fiction type story where you need to rearrange the events to get the full series of events.

          • Yeah, it is. BO3 is the first Call of Duty ever played by a young player out there so off-course they going to fall for all that colorful shit. & no, it does not make the gameplay more fast and fluid…the map layout and mechanics does.

            Smart enough to follow…what the heck is you saying. It is all about attention to detail which I wasn’t paying because it was all over the place. Either way I didn’t like the campaign.

  6. I still love how people want a MW4, but can’t understand that MW3 was the grand finale of the Modern Warfare series

    • It’d be better than what we are getting this year, or at least, I’d be a lot more excited. It’s pretty sad that Jon Snow being the baddie in this game doesn’t excite me.

      • Well, we can’t say that…
        I think i would prefer this over MW4…
        Cause i would probably know the story already, considering it would be a sequel.

  7. By the way, boost jumping and wall running is confirmed in campaign. Watch Milo’s video on Call of Duty Facebook page. Came out of the horses mouth.

  8. I think it’ll be a great game none-the-less, just think of the changes they most likely have done since the feedback from the campaign trailer.
    jks, but this game is gunna be great even if the movement system is very similar to BO3, who knows, there may be maps on Earth and out of space with boots-on-ground or whatever, idk… I just think they’ll please fans after all the constructive feedback and negative feedback from the campaign trailer.

        • Hmm. Really? Do tell, I think its mechanics worked so well to the point where it’s had my attention for so long. It’s the matchmaking that has me bored at times. SEVERELY bored, because I can’t stand the current CoD games where their idea of a “challenge” is putting sweats in one team and mediocre players on the other with one “sweat” (speaking about us). That’s where BO3’s biggest problems lie I think.

  9. Although a lot of people will give this hat it just means that everyone who enjoys Call of Duty will definitely have a brand new COD game to play for at least the next 10 years!
    I don’t care how well IW does,but if people give it a chance and the story is good I would not mind seeing multiple IW games.

    • Extinction would’ve been better suited for this game. They went to space at the end. Zombies in this game won’t be as great as the new custom maps in BO3. It feels like they just did it cause they want the sales form the Zombies community. And I LOVE Zombies.

      • They didn’t continue with Extinction because it had a bad response with the community. Once again proving that because people can’t just enjoy a fuckin game, the developers will constantly make drastic changes trying to please their fanbase but always come up short because the fanbase is impossible to please

        • I’m not complaining. Just kinda wish they would’ve continued that mode. I actually enjoyed it even though I only beat two maps. Zombies is still welcome. I’m just saying it would’ve SUITED better. The space theme and the conclusion to Extinction would’ve lined up pretty well.

        • Ikr the cod community is toxic. I mean I love the games but if people Hated all their games so much then why do they keep on buying them. Oh wait They Do still like the games. They just love bitching more.

      • <<hp.. ★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★::::::!il133r:….,……..

    • i can see sledgehammer making a world war 2 game tbh. they have pushed for innovation the first time, so im sure they’ll do it again. i dont see advanced warfare as a sub-franchise. The story was pretty meh, but left to interpretation rather than a cliffhanger. black ops 3 did the same and it seemed to be the end of the black ops franchise anyways.

  10. I honestly think the COD Franchise should drop the whole boost jump, exo suit shit, and keep things on the ground. I enjoy the future and space environments, but the jump boost just kills the whole game imo. BO2 was the perfect representation of this, a futuristic, yet calm play style. That’s the main reason people, including me, loved that game. It was simple.

    • If you took a glance at Bo2 gameplay, you would never guess it was set in the future. That’s what I liked about it. AW literally changed the CoD meta forever, and it sucks.

    • True. But I would still like one of the developers to have the boost jump in their game. I kinda like it tbh, and would hate to see it die out

  11. One idea I really wanted to see out of Infinity Ward was a sort of Modern Warfare prequel, something that happened before the events of COD4. I guess I can say goodbye to that if Infinite Warfare becomes a full-blown series.

  12. Nooooooo no more future Ima start playing that piece of shit battlefield cause these retarded ass developers keep want to evolve nigga your not a Pokemon just stop

  13. How are we gonna play Infinite Warfare 3 when Donald Trump or Hillary Clinton start WW3 and we have to hide in our basements to avoid the radiation fallout?

  14. Stop with the future I’m one of the oldest COD players and this boosting and wall running is not what we need honestly your just adding too much stuff an not fixing what needs to be fixed. COD is now just public matched base and not looked at competitively which is unfair on some people like me

  15. I honestly would be okay with a Ghosts 2 & 3 and an Advanced Warfare 2 & 3. If it means taking a break from futuristic warfare and possibly a prequel game following characters from the Black Ops Trilogy, Original series (Call of Duty 1,United Offensive,Finest Hour,2,2: Big Red One,Call of Duty 3), and the Modern Warfare Trilogy.

  16. I think it’s nice that Kurosaki is confident in Infinite Warfare. The shadow of Modern Warfare and Black Ops isn’t something easily avoidable, especially when you’re making a game that everybody just loves to shit on.

    If they could incorporate BO3’s campaign progression system (but a bit more forgiving with the actual progression, like challenges and camo unlocks) along with a ridiculous amount of universe lore, throw in a few easter eggs along the way, I think we might have a winner. That’s what COD needs to improve on: a fantastic single-player experience, something to drown out the shoehorned BS that Battlefield does just to compete with other titles.

    • CoD titles ultimate success is always judged on it’s multiplayer. A lot of people liked Ghosts campaign yet it’s regarded as the worst CoD ever!

      • LOL, nah, Ghosts campaign is one of the reasons contributing to its failure as well. And COD doesn’t rely solely on MP, and it shouldn’t. It has always boasted on having 3 games in 1, so now would be a good time to make it so that all 3 stay relevant throughout the year.

  17. I’m just hoping they keep improving the Supply Drop system. To be completely honest, I’d rather not spend $100 on crap like Snoop Dogg announcer bullshit and hundreds of add-on camos like in Ghosts. I’d like a chance to get them in-game like what Treyarch did, except if they’re gonna add weapons, they should have a way to earn them, like 90 cryptokeys for a weapon bribe or something

  18. Hey infinity ward you might wanna wait until the reviews come in before making IW 2. Remember how ghost’s ended?

  19. If thats the case I would suggest implementing a time travel aspect into the next game, e.g. going back to stop some type of massive event hopefully the events of MW3 and set it in that time period 2020 then IW3 they can go back to ww2 when they find out that for whatever reason at the end of IW2 the real threat began in 1942 with hitler boom covering all the bases you could even do it in reverse order! IW2:ww2 and IW3:2020 (prob would make more sense this way!)

  20. the only way another future game can win is if you can go back in time [in campaign, or even multiplayer] in the early vietnam war or ww2, and current time too. that would make not only an interesting plot, but it will give the players the WW2 feel along with the future and modern. it’s all combined. a multiplayer that somehow incorporated bolt action rifles against beam lasers.

  21. Well theres a lesson in talking marketing bullshit without actually saying anything !

    They wanted Ghosts to become a sub franchise in CoD but made a game that most people didnt want so it was scrapped, To even claim they dont know what “old” IW wanted is utter bollox. If Ghosts was recieved better and sold more then there wouldnt EVER have been Infinite Warfare from IW , It would of been Ghosts 2,3 etc.

    Not sure whats worse, the fact that these Devs spew so much bullshit or the community that laps it up time after time.

  22. The Last of us Multiplayer is one of THE BEST to play with friends…I like this game so much! Glad to know that…naughty dog people working on infinity ward…

  23. I sincerely hope they follow through with this. Since MW3 I’ve been waiting for another trilogy to take off (Black Ops games are good, but never truly clicked with me). Looking at the campaign gameplay so far, Infinite Warfare struck that feeling I got with MW3, plus adding a fresh new dynamic.

    Some folks prefer a past era though (understandable, given they went straight from Ghosts to Advanced Ware to BO3). So a great idea for all fans would be to have past & future era’s going at once. CoD is one of the few franchises that can, with both Infinity Ward & Treyarch…How awesome would it be to have World at War sequels alongside Infinite Warfare. It’s just a pity most IW haters won’t return that same courtesy….Apparently they’d rather have one-sided games in the other direction, and anything beyond the modern age is simply & inexplicably unacceptable. Truly a shame.

  24. This is nothing but garbage Black Ops III part 2. Same garbage jetpacks, same garbage wall running, same garbage specialist type cheesy no skill kills….same futuristic garbage.

  25. People are hating on infinite warfare but I’m willing to bet most of them just hopped on the bandwagon. I for one am excited about the game and even if multiplayer has very few people there will always be at least a few matchmaking zombies which only takes 4 players. Also, If people think that bitching about it is gonna make the next cod be in a non future setting they will be wrong as they likely already have too much into the next cod already. And its a shame how many people are only disliking it just cause its the trend cause I’m damn sure they would enjoy they game. Hell I wasn’t one for the wall running at first but It grew on me and I wouldn’t want to play cod without it. If I wanted boots on the ground sooooooooo much then I would order another game but that really isn’t that big of a deal now is it. Also when they started development everyone was into the space thing. I hope they continue infinite warfare and just do boots on the other series

    • Besides If they go back to the old way tat the original cod players want sooo much I believe the game would just become so boring and un-entertaining.