Call of Duty going to a 3 year cycle?

MP40, juggernaut, tanks, and only 3 killstreaks. Lets go treyarch.

:)

 

It's Time Call of Duty Games Stopped Being Made

We are now at the 8th Call of Duty!

1. Call of Duty
2. Call of Duty 2
3. Call of Duty 3
4. Call of Duty 4:Modern Warfare
5. Call of Duty: World at War
6. Call of Duty: Modern warfare 2
7. Call of Duty: Black Ops
8. Call of Duty Moden Warfare 3

The series has gone downhill ever since the transition from Call of Duty 4 - Call of Duty: World at War, ever since then it has got worse and worse. Call of Duty is becoming boring coming out every year, maybe take at least a 4 year gap between each
developers games[Infinity Ward 2011, Treyarch 2014, and then back to Infinity Ward in 2016, its getting borning having the same game every year repacked as a 'new' title





Either bring one out every 3 years or just end it!!

 

guys need some help

see i know i have picking on call of duty but never played a call of duty game so what going to i going 3 call of duty games call of duty 4 call of duty waw call of duty classic just happen see them in online store my reason for get them is money this i
get 3 games to try

 

Removing SP might give MP more attention, but it robs those who enjoy a good 4-6 hours of story mode pertaining around the MP (Maps, weapons, killstreaks, etc).

 

I can pretty much agree with the original post and think it's a good idea.

Removing single player while it won't really bother most people, I think it should stick around.

Ideally I would like both companies to stop being money hungry and join forces to make a CoD title every two years. There's no chance in hell I know, but I can dream and fortunately dreams are free.

 

Interesting conundrum for the devs. More time to complete their games but we all know what the bottom line is. Activision still gets their game every year but IW and Treyarch are used to cashing in every other year instead of every 3 years so I'm curious
as to what their feelings are. Sledgehammer must be thrilled and assuming they do a good job, should be a Win for us gamers.

 

I really like the fact that they are extending this (well hopefully). I hope CoD doesn't wind up like the Assassins games. Making 2 of them in 1 year. That's too much.

 

I hope so personally. I don't like the way this and AC have been coming out with a game a year, it makes me not want to buy them really.

 

@ ownage: COD already comes out twice a year. The $60 disc and the $50 DLC.



@ Sabath: Maybe IW got fed up with them not creating top notch games and wanted to see more out of their dev teams...or maybe, just maybe, it was the dev teams asking for the 3 year cycle? They might be stretching themselves thin year after year, trying
to push out a whole new single player, multiplayer, co-op mode and a year of DLC.



@ Itchy fists: This year is going to be sledgehammer. I'd like to see their take on WW2.

 

I just did a little more research and came across an interesting point.....

What if treyarch needed the extra year to develop a whole new engine/game?? That next big step.

 

[quote user="CODukes4"]
I just did a little more research and came across an interesting point.....

What if treyarch needed the extra year to develop a whole new engine/game?? That next big step.

[/quote] That is an interesting point... Treyarch needing the extra time for a strictly next-Gen engine for the 2015 CoD maybe? And maybe we won't even see a CoD this year to give the devs a year off due to the next-Gen consoles? Highly unlikely I know but
it could be possible.

 

[quote user="CODukes4"]

@ ownage: COD already comes out twice a year. The $60 disc and the $50 DLC.

[/quote]Well that's DLC though, not an entirely new game like how Ubisoft is doing with AC.

 

It would certainly be a good thing to give the dev's more time to improve the game before release. we could (and should) expect better game mechanics. Less rehashed maps, better story line (yes there are still those of us that enjoy the campaigns) and fewer
glitches as they would have more time for QC.My biggest gripe over the last few years is the connection issues but I suppose that Dedi's will be rolled out more in future years (fingers crossed) so dashboarding should be resolved.

.

Didnt Sledgehammer do the MP in MW3 and IW the campaign - or was it the other way round?

.

If a new Engine is coming, lets hope that it is thought through properly and negates the issues we have experienced over the years.

Oh and just in case anyone from Treyarch is reading this.... Zombies.... more please. Dont care if you have to start a whole new story line. Dont get me wrong, Extinction is good but its not Zombies.

.

Other than COD4, Treyarch, for me, have produced the best MP games with Black Ops being my fav or the treyarch releases. So if it is them that are developing a new engine, that a real kick in the teeth for IW and is reflective of the major failings that
IW have brought into the game, lesser after release support and frankly the lack luster approach since COD4.

.

IW are not the same developer they were with COD4 and for my money, this has shone through in their more recent games. I like Ghosts but havent played it for ages, just doesnt have the longevity for me that I expected - yet I still play Black Ops1.

 

I used to enjoy CoD campaigns,Not since MW2 though.They need to step up their game.BO2 and Ghosts were awful campaign wise.

 

^^ Yeah, BO2 was not great - strangely though, MW2 and MW3 were very enjoyable. Ghosts, for the first installment of a story was a bit disappointing.... BO1, the game play was OK, story was OK, Cut were too frequent and interfered with the flow (personal
preference) .

.

Without Question - COD4 had the best campaign (with MP only pipped at the post by COD2) I have played and the most memorable level (sniper) and I wish that Activision had moved the franchise to Rebirth when they left IW.