UPDATE 2: Activision has issued the following statement regarding this:

“The game concept was proposed by a former employee while working at the studio, but was not seriously considered nor requested to move to prototype.”

UPDATE – July 7: GamesRadar has updated their story to state that, following Activision’s rejection of the pitch, members of the team that were developing it left and pitched the idea again to Ubisoft just as “Roman Wars.”

Original Story:

A new article from GamesRadar states that at one point eight years ago, a Call of Duty game set in ancient Rome was in development at one of Activision’s studios, called Call of Duty: Roman Wars.

The game featured “battle elephants trampling soldiers, a playable Julius Caesar and first-person sword combat,” and initially, Activision liked the idea of this game. Eight years ago, Call of Duty was selling incredibly well, and anything attached to that brand could do well in the market.

In 2008, Activision was pitching ideas to studios about expanding the Call of Duty universe because of the success of the franchise. This idea was called ‘Call of Duty: Roman Wars,’ a game which featured the story following Tenth Legion. GamesRadar spoke with some sources — who are being referred to as ‘Polemus’ to hide their real identity. The title was in development at Vicarious Visions, a studio that Activision has owned since 2005. That studio now is the lead on the kids game Skylanders, which is now a billion dollar franchise.

At the time, Vicarious Visions was working on Marvel: Ultimate Alliances 2, but they started prototyping a Call of Duty game set in ancient Rome.

“We were asked to do some Call of Duty prototypes, so we had a whole team working on a new prototype we called the Fireteam,” explains Polemus. “It was basically a new Call of Duty but with an overhead Marvel Ultimate Alliance 2 camera.”

“Anything that we put out that had Call of Duty [on], whatever we were sticking out, was selling really well, so [Activision] gave some studios an opportunity to test their their capabilities on the franchise, and whoever had the winning idea would get to take on the IP.”

Vicarious Visions team thought that bringing the Call of Duty engine to such a game would really improve it for the future. The game’s story followed Julius Caesar’s Tenth Legion (his special forces), and one of the levels they had prototyped was based off of the Battle of Alesia.

“I really thought an ancient warfare game would do well, re-skinned with the Call of Duty engine,” says Polemus. “Basically we were following Julius Caesar’s Tenth Legion – his special forces during those times – and we were doing a one level prototype based on the Battle of Alesia. So we built the one mission based on that. We had everything from riding horses, to riding an elephant, to working with catapults. All done in the Unreal Engine for rapid prototyping”.

Call of Duty: Roman Wars had both third-person perspectives, and first-person perspectives that players could play in. The game featured a straightforward combat system, lead by shields and swords. “The real work for the combat system went into just a shield-sword, block and parry which worked really well; it was a fun mechanic.” They also had plans for bows, spears, and even the ability to throw sand in the enemies’ face.

The demo that Vicarious Visions had to show Activision started off with horse riding section and a speech delivered by Julius Caesar. The objective of that mission was to take down the archers. In this game, the ‘tank’ was basically elephants.

“You drive it [and] if there’s any enemies it can trample them for you. Beside that you get a better perspective and you have some protection because it had its own little booth-seat that protected you and you could duck under.”

There was also parts of the demo which showed off the first-person perspective and a different setting. The team’s goal was to have the full game contain variety of characters and perspectives to show off the Roman century.

“You were going to fight against the Germans and the Germanic Tribes and really stay true to the history of Julius’ conquests during the Gallic Wars,” they explain. “You were going to jump around from officers to low grunts to Caesar and get a little variety of all of those little battles, so you’d play an archer here, you’d play a cavalry over in this phase. And it was going to stay true to the Call of Duty franchise in that jumping around, playing those different characters and getting a whole feel of the overall battle during those times”.

This prototype was sent up to Activision Blizzard CEO Bobby Kotick, and it was initially well received by the executives. There was, however, a lot of uncertainties of releasing this game with the Call of Duty branding on it.

“I at the time was being sort of… I was being stiff in that area,” they admit. “I was huge on Call of Duty myself so I was like ‘I really want to keep it on the Call of Duty level.’ And they said, ‘that’s not going to fly with Activision – they’re already looking at a different version and they don’t want to oversaturate the market.’”

Roman Wars, thus, was cancelled. If the game did come to life, as GameRadar points out, there would have been a market for it on the Xbox One too, as seen with the popular Ryse game that launched with the Xbox One console.

“It would’ve started aligning with the Xbox One depending on the roll out and how long the production would have been. And, strangely enough, a launch title for the Xbox One was Ryse – the Roman war game, which is crazy! When we saw that we were just like ‘See! We knew!’ You had Ghost Recon Advanced Warfighter, you had all the future stuff – especially with Halo and all those more futuristic-style shooters – they weren’t sure if it was going to resonate as strongly, but then a launch title actually was a freaking ancient Roman warfare game. I think if Call of Duty did that, and they did it with the mechanics we were working with and that engine? That launch title would have been a lot bigger and a lot more well received”.

The feature image shows a prototpye of the game on Xbox 360, but had this game been released, it would have also been on PS3 and PC because of Activision’s multi-platform policy, GameRadar confirmed.

There’s also a video with actual footage from the prototype from GamesRadar:

SOURCE: GamesRadar via @COD_Online

  • ghosts sucks

    Furst on the ropes with this idea

  • wtf is this comment system

  • I’m so glad this didn’t become a thing

    • BradyAlucard

      I’m not, this would be a cool Third Person Hack n Slash spin-off.

      • Yeah, I bet the community would be thrilled to have a Call of Duty take place 2000 years ago. “Let’s get back to classic COD” isn’t Swords and Shields lol. Rather have Thrusters and Grapples than Sandals and Spears haha.

        • BradyAlucard

          I’d rather have sandals and spears tbh, and I’m being serious. But they don’t have to add melee weapons. The possibilities are endless. It doesn’t even have to simulate real historic Rome events. I’d get it even if it were merely aesthetic.

          • Call of Duty without guns isn’t Call of Duty to me. At least with Advanced Movement CODs you still feel like you’re playing Call of Duty. Unless they make it like ARK where somehow you eventually get guns but that would kill the mood for me. Especially if they want to make a Roman Warfare. I say release it but not under the Call of Duty brand name. That way a normal COD can still be released. I’d definitely buy it, but I wouldn’t be pleased if we would have to play this for a whole year.

  • DeadZombieGaming 12

    While this sounds really cool and something new, it doesn’t fit Call of Duty imo… Infinite Warfare does fit CoD, but this one just completely takes away from what CoD is… No guns etc

  • Tiago Silva

    Great idea but wrong franchise…

    • iGotNothinOnBatman

      But jumping 60-100 years in the future is CoD? Okay…

      • Siftblade

        Exactly. Neither of these games should have gotten past the idea phase. But alas, here we are with COD: IW

    • jordanxbrookes

      Just like how CoD is becoming Star Wars right?

  • Yeah, this doesn’t seem like a Call of Duty game at all. Could be a fun game though, on it’s own.

  • Frank Rizzo

    Call of Duty: Sandals on the Ground

  • BradyAlucard

    Still better than Ghosts.

    • Ak74u

      Nope ghosts is better than this actually

      • BradyAlucard

        Why is it better? This would have been a much better current gen launch title. Ghosts wasn’t very good. Call of Duty doesn’t have to be exclusive to wars from this past century or two, you know. Rome is cool.

        • Ak74u

          No just no. This would of been worse than ghosts trust me. I agree why it wasn’t released it really doesn’t sound like a cod game. Horses, shields and swords in a cod? No thanks were all good this would of been horrible. Everyone here agrees too.

          • BradyAlucard

            It doesn’t sound like Call of Duty? All they have to do is redskin everything, or invent their own ideas. It’s still a military shooter, no matter the setting. Creativity is unlimited.

            You nor myself can speak for everyone. I mean… What if Rome Wars had better maps and cooler weapons? Or more content? What about the Co-Op mode? I think Ghosts is worse, and I actually have fun on that game sometimes. I’d hope so, I spent $60 for the thing.

          • Ak74u

            Reskin everything? ok yeah to you everything is a reskin no matter how different it is. and you just said cod is a military shooter which it is, that mean it involves guns. this would feel like something like dark souls not even cod. swords and shields dont belong in cod, cod isnt a medival game nor will it work with it

          • BradyAlucard

            Yes… because there really isn’t much that sequels in huge franchise do (besides CoD games since AW) other than adding new maps and cosmetics. All they’d have to do is reskin the CoD formula that we have now and have it set in Rome. World at War did it with World War II; it was a reskin of Call of Duty 4, really.

            “and you just said cod is a military shooter which it is, that mean it involves guns” Uh… Militaries aren’t a modern concept, and military shooters don’t have to have guns, but in case they do, then they can make it up technically speaking. Shooting can imply bows, [maybe] spears/throwing spears, catapults, etc. Or, they can invent their own weapons for more diverse wares. It only has to be cosmetic, really.


            “this would feel like something like dark souls not even cod” You do know that Ancient Rome was more than swords, right? “cod isnt a medival game nor will it work with it” CoD wasn’t a futuristic game, either. As I’ve stated, they could either do a spin-off, or create an alternate history and not include swords and shields often. I’ll never rule anything out fully until I see it with my own eyes, and if you ask me, this was a missed opportunity to make something better than what we got with Ghosts, and for Vicarious Visions to do something other than Skylander games and Nintendo ports of other Activision-published games.

    • GinsuVictim

      Nope, nope, nope, nope, nope, nope, nope, nope, nope, nope, nope.

      • BradyAlucard

        Yep. Yep. Yep. Yep. Yep. Yep. Yep. Yep. Yep. Yep. Yep. Yep. Yep. Yep. Yep. Yep. Yep. Yep.

        Ghosts wasn’t very good. I would have much preferred a much better CoD game to launch with the current gen consoles, and Ancient Rome is a great era.

    • RdJokr

      Gonna have to disagree here. The nature of COD is that it’s a shooter game. You can’t take that away and still call it COD.

      Plus, can you imagine what would happen with MP? Roman soldiers wielding weed camo swords and wearing tight suits? Nah, there’s a reason modern and futuristic settings work for Activision. So they can squeeze in all the weird customization stuff without anybody saying they’re tarnishing the setting.

      • BradyAlucard

        I’d rather have a Rome shooter with only a bow and catapults in a MP game than play on Ghosts’s terrible maps. Mainly Strikezone 24/7 is playable now.

        It’s not my fault that they’re ruining gaming with their micro-DLC ways. I just find Rome more interesting. The posts-apocalyptic era was good on paper until they wasted resources on huge maps instead of smaller ones. Let’s face it, Ghosts really isn’t very good.

  • Andrew

    Well its good that they actually thought of making a game set in the past than in the future like everyone else hates

  • No. How about no and let’s never bring that idea back either. Only idea that needs to be brought back is the Vietnam game SHGames was working on

    • CoDforever

      it was a third person game though

      • TheSkrillexKill

        And? Third person CoD could be a really good idea, especially if you combine that with the Vietnam setting.

        • ccrows

          We’ve already had a 3rd person playlist in MW2, and that was a dead playlist.

          The setting wouldn’t matter, an all 3rd person playlist COD would kill the game, and probably the series at the same time…

      • And? If you guys think a space setting is all “change and different” then what’s so bad about a third person CoD, huh? Aren’t you guys all for change and I N N O V A T I O N ?

        • iCrOoKZz

          yes but where is guns ??? CoD wiithout guns are u tiltin’ ?

          • Pew Pew pew

          • iGotNothinOnBatman

            You’re gonna sit there and say it wouldn’t be fuckin epic to run up behind someone and spear them through their spine and out their chest? Or just scope people with arrows? Or just fuckin sword fights? That would be a CoD I would buy in a heart beat.

          • Siftblade

            They’d probably find a way to put ancient Rome in the far future or in space

        • ccrows

          I smell the sarcasm and all, but COD would instantly die if it ever goes 3rd person…

          • Mick

            MW2 had 3rd Person Team Tactical. It was really fun. Especially rewarding if you could drop a nuke on the enemy team. A 3rd person cod game that had similarity to MW2’s 3rd person would be cool.

          • ccrows

            I already stated that in my next comment below, and Team Tactical was a dead playlist after the novelty of it wore off.

            To some people it may be fun, but the low pop was perfect market research for Activision not to keep it in the series.

            If Activision wants to make a separate game like this, then go for it, but it would kill the COD series…

          • jordanxbrookes

            I remember playing that too. Was really fun.

          • Nah

      • Ciarán Doyne

        They could just change it to a first person view. It’s not that difficult. It wouldn’t surprise me if they went back to that idea next year.

      • jordanxbrookes

        Sledgehammer were going to make a third-person game though, and it would’ve been awesome if they continued making Fog of War.

        • CoDforever

          .. Fog of war is what i was talking about ..

        • ccrows

          You want Fog of War?

          OK, I’ll bring the smoke grenades and Scavenger… 😉

    • Keshav Bhat

      It probably won’t come back as it was a third person game

      • Im more or less talking about the setting

        • The Flash

          BO1 no?

          • Andrey Martim

            BO1 was about Black Operatives, not exactly a Nam game.

          • The Flash

            well it was about the cold war with parts in vietnam, such as a fine game all around imo

          • Black Ops wasn’t a Vietnam game. It was Cold War. Only a few parts took place in Vietnam. I want a full Vietnam experience

          • BradyAlucard

            Too close to modern imo. M16’s, AUG’s, etc. I’d like an alternate history setting so that they can do their “innovative” ideas without the chain-based movement.

          • Siftblade

            I hate “innovation”. It’s the buzzword that ruined COD imo

          • BradyAlucard

            I don’t doubt that. I mean for the most part that it’d be an interesting and fresh idea without changing the character movement heavily instead of rehashing and copy and pasting assets. It doesn’t even have to be third person. I’d get it even if it were aesthetic alone. It’d be better than the SCI-FI future setting.

          • I N N O V A T I O N

            im getting tired of that word honestly

          • BradyAlucard

            I only don’t like it when it’s tossed around a futuristic setting. There’s nothing wrong with genuine innovation.

          • Only problem with it, is that I haven’t seen it in any of the CoD games that have been masked with “innovation”

          • BradyAlucard

            That’s because they’re giving you a false PR sense of the word “innovation”. Their definition of “innovation” implies a complete traditional change to core mechanics.

          • jordanxbrookes

            “Innovation” according to Activision: Add Double Jumps.

          • Commander Wolfe

            Technically speaking, They had Black Ops, Black Ops DS (and yes it counts because Alex Mason is ACTUALLY in the game’s campaign),and Declassified. In my opinion, I’m satisfied with how they covered the Vietnam War. In both BO and BODS, they were in the year 1968 during the Tet Offensive, and Declassified depicted the last days in Saigon before Vietnam completely fell to the Communists in 1975. The year that the war ended. Not to mention Frank Woods’s stories from 1972-1973.

          • Im not satisfied until I get an actual Console full Vietnam game experience. Not a DS version that i forgot even existed

          • Commander Wolfe

            Grant it, DS games aren’t the best but Aside from the Tet Offensive and the Last Days of Saigon, what else is there left to cover? Vietnam was mostly a guerrilla war.

          • What’s left to cover is an actual Vietnam game to be developed. Not a DS game. I just want a $60 PS4/Xbox One/PC Call of Duty Vietnam game. That’s what I meant.

          • Commander Wolfe

            I thought I had already mentioned that there was at least three COD games that covered Vietnam. Besides, the DS game didn’t cover only Vietnam but the Cold War from ’63-’68.

          • You’re not getting my point then. Besides Black Ops 1, there hasn’t really been a FULL VIETNAM GAME. Black Ops 1 only did a few missions and no one plays the DS games. I want a Vietnam game with a full campaign storyline about the war, multiplayer on the Vietnam war and shit, etc..how are you not getting my point

        • Keshav Bhat

          ah, gotcha. that would be cool. a first person Vietnam game. have not had that in CoD before.

      • Element115Will

        Always gotta be negative about something dont ya?

        • He tries way too hard to be correct about everything. Which is cool, I guess, but that’s not what my original comment meant.

        • Keshav Bhat

          No sir! I want a Vietnam game, and anything’s possible for next year, but I am not sure if we will get it in third person. Maybe it’s re-done in first person.

      • Thomas the Tankswag

        But the story if probably fully made along with some weapons and maps. With a bit of work it could be a good first person game.

      • Ruski Drinks Brewski

        so what babes, at least it will be a cod that’s good.

    • Commander Wolfe

      How about a Korean War game? That hasn’t been done yet. Besides, that’s how Frank Woods,Alex Mason,and Jason Hudson first met each other.

      • RdJokr

        Pretty sure Treyarch won’t be going in that territory now. Not unless they want Korea to ban their game, and end up losing a pretty sizable portion of the player base in Asia.

      • That would be cool honestly. They haven’t touched Korea yet

        • Commander Wolfe

          Have something like World at War w/ Vehicles to drive in the Multiplayer and they can have 4 MP factions (USMC, US Army, Chinese Army, and the North Korean Army or the Soviets.

  • CoconutDrunk

    You guys wanted a CoD set in the past.
    Now not anymore=

  • That Ubisoft banner tho :^)

  • Roxas3510

    I don’t see the problem with this, why should Call of Duty only be about firearms? Any military power, even ancient ones, answer the “Call of Duty” when they must. This probably wouldn’t work now, since Call of Duty has already rooted itself as an FPS franchise and anything else would cause an uproar (plus the multiplayer is the only thing that really matters anymore, and I’m not sure how sword and shield would make for great multiplayer), but back when WaW was the current CoD, this would have been a surprising addition.

    • iCrOoKZz

      did u ever see a First Person Shooter with 0 guns ? and with a third person gamelay this game can be good but not as a COD 🙂

      • Andrey Martim

        In this case the game won’t be a FPS.

        • Siftblade

          So in this case it won’t be a COD game

          • Andrey Martim

            The same discussion as “RE7 won’t be a RE game because it will be in FPV”. Gamers need to open their minds.

      • iGotNothinOnBatman

        Well technically you shoot arrows from bows. Arrows —> bullets. Bows —–> guns.
        So he’s kinda right in saying “FPS”

        • BradyAlucard

          That doesn’t make the entire game an FPS, unless they exclusively made it a game about bows, which would get boring quick. I think that it’d be good as a spin-off.

      • snake56

        A first person shooter with no guns? There’s one: Far Cry Primal.

        • BradyAlucard

          That’s not really a Shooter.

          • RdJokr

            Yet somehow it still became part of a franchise that is all about shooting… Just sayin’.

          • BradyAlucard

            Creativity is limitless. They could invent their own ideas. They don’t have to stick to history and its specifics. Or they could make it a spin-off with or without shooting.

            Futuristic eras with chain-based movement isn’t traditional CoD, either. I’d give this a chance over the settings that we have now. I’d at least watch a trailer first, but we’ll sadly never see one.

          • BradyAlucard

            Oh yeah, and to support my point, Primal is also a spin-off, and sold rather well. I personally wouldn’t rule out a Rome setting in Call of Duty until I see a demo of it or play it myself.

      • Roxas3510

        It doesn’t have to be a first person shooter, that’s my point. “Call of Duty” should be what carries the franchise, not “first person shooter”, assuming you know that “call of duty” isn’t a unique name created by Activision; it pretty much means to act when needed. It’s too late for that now though, I was just saying it would have been pretty cool to answer the “call of duty” as more than just firearm wielding soldiers.

  • Andrey Martim

    Yeah this would work. Call of Duty, above all, is a war franchise. And war is something as old as mankind. If Far Cry worked on a pre-historical setting, why CoD won’t work on ancient Rome?

    • iGotNothinOnBatman

      Yeah for real. Can you imagine if Activision listened to the whole gaming community instead of just the people that nonstop ride its dick? The world may never know…

      • djml9

        I know. Theyd he in the same position as Resident Evil. Thy changed their game to meet what the whole gaming community wanted and now they get endlessly shat on for changing the whole game.

        • Andrey Martim

          Capcom at least started to listen to it’s real fans… We saw DMC4 Remaster that is by far the best remaster (or Hack’n Slash) i’ve ever saw. RE7 got a great reception from it’s true fanbase.

    • djml9

      Explorations and base assault is easier to move over to prehistoric than making a fast paced arcade fps work in ancient rome.

    • RdJokr

      “Call of Duty, above all, is a war franchise.” This could pretty much apply to futuristic games as well.

      • Andrey Martim

        Yes it apply.

    • Kobrah

      I would say it is a First Person Shooter over a war game. Third person game set in ancient time wouldn’t really fit IMO

    • Wraith

      Because gamers like their fast-paced arcade shooters. And all fast-paced arcade shooters need:

      1. To be fast-paced.
      2. To have shooting.

  • AaronFFA

    Talk about “boots on ground” xD nah, ‘sandals’ on ground sounds better

  • Drank Bleach

    SHG must have been pissed knowing that they wanted to do a Vietnam cod and Activision told them no.

  • Gamerazor247

    Call of Caesar: War of Rome

  • At this point, I’d say to just alternate history, retro-futuristic CoDs. A Call of Duty set during an alternative Roman Empire that was technologically advanced (Atletean technology or something idk). We could see the ancient Roman setting, the culture, and style, and have ourselves some energy guns that are powered by mithril or orichalcum or something.

    • Siftblade

      This is what I wanted BO3 to be. An alternate history WW2 game that can even tie the zombies storyline into SP, since zombies has already established there are different universes.

      • That was my ideas too. Alternative WW2 game set after 1945, with element 115 powered exo suits, and wonder weapon-like guns being the norms of weapons.

        Seeing how Gorod Krovi is coming out, I was hoping the entire game would be more like it.

  • I want a viking COD, and an egyptian COD and a Greek COD.

    • Mr_ysi42t96 (Fazal’s fgt son)

      What about sex cod? Hump your target ???

  • iGotNothinOnBatman

    This would be so much better than the piece of shit we’re gonna get this year

  • se7en

    That is retarded, I would have never of bought that garbage lmao

  • jordanxbrookes

    This idea sounds cool. Although we have Ryse and soon For Honor, having a side Call of Duty like this would be a breath of fresh air.

    • Siftblade

      For Honor looks cool, but the historical inaccuracies bother me like crazy lol

  • Sentinel

    This would of been a game changer but making a decision to switch the IP comes with great amount of deal. What if the consumers turned out to dislike it like they did with Ghosts(poorly managed by Mark Rubin) and they now do with Infinite Warfare…”Ohh FTW is this!?? Swords & shields!?? This is not COD anymore. They should go back to it’s roots of modern warfare settings!” The community fails to understand that Call of Duty was never set to follow a war setting pattern. Many of you think that Activision does not listen to the community, it is true. They only listen to their real fans who suggest, bring up problems & discus in a respectful manner. They overlook all others that roam the internet who feed on the hate, blasphemy, ignorance, & bring no real feedback to the franchise. I remembered suggesting a way that would allow the players to permanently unlock a weapon to carry over after the prestige and next thing I know, they introduce this feature in MW3! I’m sure that I wasn’t the only one who suggested it. The supply drops wasn’t taken lightly by the community and I do understand why but I also believed that is always room for improvement. As a triple A studio such as Treyarch, they have worked on ways to improve the black market and give back to their community and they did so! The new features in the black market got me playing BO3 more often than I used to. Yeah, there are those despise it…it’s whatever. Another thing is the lag, “like why they do bring dedicated servers like BF does? They just fucking greedy bastard who pocket all the money from all the supply drops!” Again, maybe they have a reason too. Activision does invest from their huge amounts of profits on things like; motion capture, popular actors, acquire a studio, acquire talented developers, improvement on game software, original music content, COD Pro league, COD events, ect. All this made possible because of us. Plus they donate to charity, such as Veterans endowment. So whenever I see any person who talks craps about such things, they do not know shit about how things really work in the gaming industry. Anyways, I think Activision should let other studios take on the franchise and experiment with any possible war setting that could intrigue the fanbase. But from a business and executive perspective, making such decisions can cost them billions of dollars on the investment, specially from a stellar company such as Activision.

    • So is that Activision cock like deep in your ass or throat. Which one or are you a dirty hoe and do two at a time

      • Sentinel

        ERROR: Your comment is invalid. Please input your Playstation 4 username below v


        • Normie gifs

          • Sentinel
          • Normie gifs again. Should really step up your game Activision cock sucker

          • Sentinel

            So? It does not change the fact that you are a fucking idiot & actually, since you write with experience of such things the scenario goes like this: Activision got done deep fucking your troat. Now you are happily taking it on the back from EA ’cause you love it. Don’t waste your time replying ’cause im done with your childish self. Instead, go review how fucked up your situation and life really is.

          • I don’t take it from anyone. I’m not a blind idiotic fanboy who is willing to bounce on anyone’s dick unlike you with Activision. Me preferring BF1 this year doesn’t make me an EA fanboy consirdering I have always complained about them too like Activision

            Get a grip because you think like a fucking kid and don’t take the cock too far your throat. You might die. Just looking out for your safety, cock sucker

          • Sentinel
          • normie.jpg

  • Is it just me, or does the game kinda seem like a shittier version of Ryse: Son of Rome?

  • I’m not sure what to make of this .

  • ToonToons22

    To the people saying that the game cannot be a COD because it’s not a first-person shooter, just think about it. The name “Call of Duty” represents war in general, not specifically military FPS games.

    To the people saying that the game would not have sold very well, the idea was pitched in 2008, when COD4 and WaW were very popular. Pretty much any game with “Call of Duty” in the name would have sold well.

    That being said, I would have loved to see a COD game taking place in ancient times. The sad part is that such a game cannot be released now, because then the community will still complain even though they supposedly want a “past” game.

    • Jon

      They were smart in deciding not to move forward with this game. Would have been a complete flop.

    • Siftblade

      The name COD represents any wartime, sure. But the brand COD represents first person shooters. Also, when people say they want a past game, they don’t mean they want to immediately go to Ancient Rome or prehistoric times. They just don’t want to be jumping around with jetpacks or flying through space.

  • Diego Diniz

    “My name is Maximus Decimus Meridius, Commander of the Armies of the
    North, General of the Felix Legions, loyal servant to the true emperor,
    Marcus Aurelius. Father to a murdered son, husband to a murdered wife.
    And I will have my vengeance, in this life or the next..”

  • Did anyone see that flag with “Ubisoft” on at 3:29 on the left? That made me disbelieve all this.

  • Commander Wolfe

    I’m actually glad that this didn’t become a reality. I feel like going too far back would’ve destroyed the franchise.

    • Sandal Warfare > Advanced Warfare

      • Commander Wolfe

        I hate to say it, but I think I would’ve chose Advanced Warfare over this idea.

  • Commander Wolfe

    If they were going to go back in time, the farthest back I’d like to see them go is either the Russo-Japanese War (Since Takeo Masaki was involved in that war) or World War I (Stan Jackowicz,Jean-Guy Robiechauld,and many zombie characters were involved in WWI). That’d be it for me.

  • Cat

    Better than Ghosts.

  • Eddie Tupy

    stick to any time with guns please including the future