The Problem of Original Games, Sequels, and Franchises Part Deux

Pay close attention, you might miss it. 
In late 2009, I did a blog defending Modern Warfare 2 from naysayers and haters who cried about it pushing lots of releases into 2010. Now, Modern Warfare 3 is receiving a similar amount of hate. The problem with this amount of hate is that MW3 has not pushed any late 2011 releases into early 2012. No, the hatred (from my perspective) comes from the fact that Modern Warfare 3 exists and was not cancelled when Infinity Ward was given the shaft by Activision. I want to take this opportunity to ask why. Why can't MW3 be a good game? Why can't it still be something that drives Modern FPS games forward in an interesting way? That horde-esque mode that was talked about in the bombcast sounds really cool. No it's not a brand new mode, in CoD's past there have been horde-esque modes, but even a slight twist on an old/common mode coming from such a troubled development should be welcome. We will probably never get another jump in tech like CoD4 to MW2, and we may never get anything like the end of CoD4 again, but there's still room for this franchise to grow.
 
Maybe it shakes some of its usual gravitas and puts on a self-aware, ironic tone ala Furious 4. Maybe it strives to America's Army levels of realism. Maybe it has an RTS spin-off. There's no counting or telling the directions this franchise could and will go. Has anybody noticed that there hasn't been a downloadable title in the CoD franchise yet? I'm not saying that Activision needs to have a pre-LC sort of game just for the heck of it, I just think that there are more things they could be doing with the brand than they are doing now. Yes, Activision will continue to make CoD games similar to past ones because they sell well, but how long will it last? It can't be forever, can it? One of these days Activision's marketing division will try a stunt like EA did with Medal of Honor. Right?
 
 Quite an elephant, indeed.
Okay, I've put this off long enough, it's time to talk about the elephant in the room. Battlefield 3 is what many consider to be the savior of the modern war first person shooter. Many people ask if it will indeed unseat CoD as the current MWFPS king. I think they should be asking if they want it to be saved. Let me take you back about 4-5 years ago when the WWIIFPS market was over-saturated and people were sick and tired of them. What happened to them? Did they die off in a flash? Did they just stop being popular while some unseen majority still paid money to fight the Battle of the Bulge and D-Day over and over again? Did they peter out into nothingness? Brother's in Arms: Hell's Highway came out in September of 2008, 6 months before that Medal of Honor: Airborne came out. There are still WWII FPS games, a new World War II shooter was announced at E3. So if WWII FPS games are still around why can't MWFPS games stick around? Certainly, they're not going anywhere soon, but do we feel it's time to put the tropes and markers of MWFPS games to bed? Do we really need several different modern conflict games every year? Do we really need Call of Duty to be as large as it is at this moment? Do we really need Battlefield 3 to save us from the boogeyman that is Modern Warfare 3? Does every modern conflict FPS need to focus on multiplayer and hit markers?
 
Anyway, I hope my ramblings entertained. I doubt I was very informative, but I'll never know until I get feedback from you guys.
3 Comments
4 Comments
Posted by c0l0nelp0c0rn1
Pay close attention, you might miss it. 
In late 2009, I did a blog defending Modern Warfare 2 from naysayers and haters who cried about it pushing lots of releases into 2010. Now, Modern Warfare 3 is receiving a similar amount of hate. The problem with this amount of hate is that MW3 has not pushed any late 2011 releases into early 2012. No, the hatred (from my perspective) comes from the fact that Modern Warfare 3 exists and was not cancelled when Infinity Ward was given the shaft by Activision. I want to take this opportunity to ask why. Why can't MW3 be a good game? Why can't it still be something that drives Modern FPS games forward in an interesting way? That horde-esque mode that was talked about in the bombcast sounds really cool. No it's not a brand new mode, in CoD's past there have been horde-esque modes, but even a slight twist on an old/common mode coming from such a troubled development should be welcome. We will probably never get another jump in tech like CoD4 to MW2, and we may never get anything like the end of CoD4 again, but there's still room for this franchise to grow.
 
Maybe it shakes some of its usual gravitas and puts on a self-aware, ironic tone ala Furious 4. Maybe it strives to America's Army levels of realism. Maybe it has an RTS spin-off. There's no counting or telling the directions this franchise could and will go. Has anybody noticed that there hasn't been a downloadable title in the CoD franchise yet? I'm not saying that Activision needs to have a pre-LC sort of game just for the heck of it, I just think that there are more things they could be doing with the brand than they are doing now. Yes, Activision will continue to make CoD games similar to past ones because they sell well, but how long will it last? It can't be forever, can it? One of these days Activision's marketing division will try a stunt like EA did with Medal of Honor. Right?
 
 Quite an elephant, indeed.
Okay, I've put this off long enough, it's time to talk about the elephant in the room. Battlefield 3 is what many consider to be the savior of the modern war first person shooter. Many people ask if it will indeed unseat CoD as the current MWFPS king. I think they should be asking if they want it to be saved. Let me take you back about 4-5 years ago when the WWIIFPS market was over-saturated and people were sick and tired of them. What happened to them? Did they die off in a flash? Did they just stop being popular while some unseen majority still paid money to fight the Battle of the Bulge and D-Day over and over again? Did they peter out into nothingness? Brother's in Arms: Hell's Highway came out in September of 2008, 6 months before that Medal of Honor: Airborne came out. There are still WWII FPS games, a new World War II shooter was announced at E3. So if WWII FPS games are still around why can't MWFPS games stick around? Certainly, they're not going anywhere soon, but do we feel it's time to put the tropes and markers of MWFPS games to bed? Do we really need several different modern conflict games every year? Do we really need Call of Duty to be as large as it is at this moment? Do we really need Battlefield 3 to save us from the boogeyman that is Modern Warfare 3? Does every modern conflict FPS need to focus on multiplayer and hit markers?
 
Anyway, I hope my ramblings entertained. I doubt I was very informative, but I'll never know until I get feedback from you guys.
Posted by kingzetta

Sequels are good, I wish there were more.

Edited by c0l0nelp0c0rn1

I want more spin-offs. Imagine being a supply line driver in the Call of Duty fiction. I think that could be alright.

Posted by kingzetta
@c0l0nelp0c0rn1: Not if it's anything like smugglers run.