Call of Duty Now Has Three in the Can?

Subject: General Tech | February 7, 2014 - 02:20 AM |
Tagged: call of duty

Call of Duty games have been developed by two main teams: Infinity Ward and Treyarch. Fans of Intel will appreciate the Tick Tock schedule where each led the development of alternating games. A third company, Sledgehammer, helped out a bit with Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 3 after Infinity Ward practically imploded.

Such things happen when executives are terminated and armed security guards occupy your office.

View Full Size

Activision's recent announcement now claims that Sledgehammer Games will create their own Call of Duty titles in an arrangement I can only describe as "Tick Tock Tuck" (my term, not theirs). My only hope is that we will see a fourth studio join this arrangement and become, according to the ordered set of vowels, "Tyck". Of course, if I learned anything from elementary school grammar, they will only sometimes release a game.

Yes, I know "w" is also sometimes a vowel.

Activision intends to keep Call of Duty titles on the same pipeline approach as always, just with a third stage. Part of this could be due to increased development costs as a larger computation budget demands extra art assets and effects. On a related note, some sites are pointing to the issues with Battlefield 4 (seriously, with all of the buggy DICE games in the last ten years, why pick on this one?) and claim that Activision could avoid those problems with a little extra polish time. On the other hand, extra time does not necessarily mean anything. Dedicating an extra team means a lot less than dedicating 50% more man-hours of development per game. Are they?

Speaking of which, how many more games does Call of Duty have left in it? With this setup, whenever sales actually begin to slump, they will have a third game in the pipe to eat development costs of. Sure, they could probably release it and have some recovery. This was the year that Call of Duty: Ghosts failed to outsell its predecessor. It does feel odd to seemingly expand, right now.

The next Call of Duty will probably be announced around E3 and released this holiday season.

Like clockwork.

Source: Joystiq

February 7, 2014 | 03:32 AM - Posted by arbiter

"Sadly" call of duty been going down hill after Modern warfare 1 was released, though MW2 was alright. After that it went off a cliff.

February 7, 2014 | 03:57 AM - Posted by Scott Michaud

Honestly, my only experience with Call of Duty was the original Modern Warfare. As you can tell from the Steam screenshot, I played the campaign once and then was done. Never went back. Never bought another.

It was alright, but not worth another visit (for me).

February 7, 2014 | 09:31 AM - Posted by razor512

For me, it went down hill after call of duty 2 from 2005, then after a while battlefield series also started to go down hill. (after BF2, things went down hill fast, it became less of a game requiring team effort and strategy, to being more of army of one with extremely fast kills, and fast respawn.

I preferred BF2 where skill determined who would will (ignoring the occasional lucky shot or grenade), compared to the mess of who ever can click and wave the mouse past the enemy first. Just not as much fun, especially with the current weapon unlock system where you end up with more experienced players with more armor and better guns, fighting players who just started off with cappy guns where you either have to get a headshot, or hope the other player is AFK in order to not end up with a kill to death ratio that sucks the fun out of the game.

There are games that take this to an extreme, for example, planetside 2, which heavily promotes the idea of unlocks where a sufficiently high level player can kill a low level player, even if they have no skill because they have the ability to simply take an entire clip and not die, but kill you with 1-2 shots. Overall, this trend has largely put me off of multiplayer, as unless you start out early on, you will end up being disappointed and stressed for a while until you gain enough points to get decent gear.

February 7, 2014 | 12:37 PM - Posted by Anonymous (not verified)

Feel bad for Call of Duty. Now this is a rightful gang bang on a once decent franchise.

February 7, 2014 | 08:03 PM - Posted by Anonymous (not verified)

A lot of people play COD on recruit level and complain about it being boring. Veteran level is totally different game and much more fun since it requires more than just running and hip firing.

March 19, 2014 | 05:53 PM - Posted by MrCOD (not verified)

In terms of shooters, COD should be strong. People bashed Ghosts pretty heavy but isn't that over doing it? At least Ghosts didn't have the BF4 beta feel to it. Comparison wise, Ghosts was just fine actually. Now the speculation begins. The next call of duty game? Who knows, perhaps this is possible:

Post new comment

The content of this field is kept private and will not be shown publicly.
  • Lines and paragraphs break automatically.
  • Allowed HTML tags: <a> <em> <strong> <cite> <code> <ul> <ol> <li> <dl> <dt> <dd> <blockquote><p><br>
  • Web page addresses and e-mail addresses turn into links automatically.

More information about formatting options

By submitting this form, you accept the Mollom privacy policy.