Regardless of Trump/Parallel messaging, and the fact that the fish is pretty alright, there's a bit of a "movement" going on to "return to roots" within Call of Duty. Wondering what the GB community thinks. What do you recall being the strongest days of COD and why? What does COD mean to you?

I stumbled on this via Crave and thought it brought up some interesting conversation points. While I originally started a simple forum post - I found myself spiraling into nostalgia and wanting something more.

What I recall being great about Call of Duty 4 - Modern Warfare was the fact that it didn't glorify war. It was not a pseudo American military war-complex cheerleader. I thought the fact that player characters died, there was some semblance of true loss and struggle, and the historic quotes on dying that hinted at the futility of the foot soldier and war in general were great touches. Black Ops and Black Ops 2 were off base but in a decent way that told a neat story. Modern Warfare 3 is where they lost me. I don't know if it was the memories of lobbies full of friends to the point we had to move to private games in Modern Warfare 2 or the hype that led up to that release that made that game such an event. But around MW3 things started to get a bit stale - and at that time we complained of war games being too brown, gray, and dull. Even in the above picture 3/4 photos there mean nothing to me - the only one that rings a very distinct bell is the "All Ghillied Up" mission, which to this day is one of the most memorable sequences in all of gaming. Granted we've lost that. That Inifinty Ward is not the same 2016 Infinity Ward. Hell, even the guys that "made" Infinity Ward aren't that Infinity Ward(Titanfall2 hype?) That doesn't mean that we need to go all the way back to the picture in the lower left either though. To me, that doesn't inspire hype, or any feeling reminiscent of enjoyment. It looks like that gray/brown sludge that shooters became for a while.

I think there have been some interesting attempts - most notably Advanced Warfare. While not a true return to form, it was at least distinct, and the campaign explored ideas of the military-industrial complex that hadn't been touched before. I like the way AW handled quite a few things actually, and COD hasn't made all bad moves. The level of customization in AW was handled well, and offered variety, the new movement mechanics made things interesting and could result in some great traversal strings, and I had a good time.

What needs to happen? I can't say for sure, because I'm not a COD insider or game designer. What I think I'd like to see explored from a narrative standpoint is the return to "war is hell" instead of what boils down to a recruitment or a RaRa go Murica experience. I don't want the game, or any game to really make me feel awesome for killing a bunch of people, but I also don't want to feel depressed and have to think about the fact that I just killed a father/brother/son - that's not what COD is for and I honestly can't put my finger on what needs to happen. I can say that I don't envy any dev working on the series - because for each of me that wants something that isn't such a badass simulator, there's at least 10 other opinions of variation on the concept. Does Infinity Ward, Sledgehammer, Treyarch lean all the way into the eSports revolution we keep getting promised? Do they lean too far into the Gears of War bro-saw? I don't know, and no one does but those developers. It's Infinity Ward's turn to crank out something, and it can't get much worse than Ghosts.

I can't say I'm invested in COD any more. That is a major bummer. I loved some of those games, and I even have a soft spot for World at War (what up Kiefer). As a part-time critic/reviewer I also have to stay up and hold out a little hope that the games that are coming our way aren't going to submit to the pressure of making the most mass-appeal oriented title. Unfortunately that's what COD is now, it needs to be mass-appeal because it sells to the masses. Like massive masses. Here's the thing though; those masses have proven that if you identify your experience, they'll appreciate a dedication to that identity. Some might not like to draw parallels to Hollywood, but it's hard to ignore the fact that Deadpool has been a smash hit rated R comic book movie due in large part to passion, and a commitment to artistic vision on the part of the directors, writers, and even the star. On the other hand though, there's a great chance that a suit at Activision has already busted into the office saying "These kids and that damn Deadpool! They love it! Can we make a Rated R Call of Duty?! With dick jokes, and...and...and weird sex scenes...and then there's a UFC Fighter because, Gina Carano fought once right? She was in Red Alert...Make it work." Only to leave the office, rubbing their nose furiously I can only guess, and hop into their Jaguar XFR before cutting everyone off listening to Gangnam Style.

Anyway, Call of Duty right? It's not impossible for it to find center. And I think that is exactly what it needs to do - deliver an experience that's not over the top insanity, returning to the core of a wargame that tells a story (not just in campaign) of struggle and the futility of war. There are plenty of conflicts to imagine and extrapolate to the COD-sphere - but if we go back to cold-war conflicts and have Exo-suits I'm probably gone forever. This got a bit long in the tooth - and definitely comes off ranty, wavering, and a bit aimless but if you made it all the way to these words I thank you. What do you think?

Edit: Of course the Dog was making formatting a mess - trying a few things

It will always be WW2 to me. I started with the original and its expansion was the most fun I've ever had in a multiplayer game.

I enjoyed Modern Warfare and it's clear to see why it got so popular. But going back to WW2 is the only thing that would reignite my interest.

As someone who only plays single player COD, things have always been "okay" from my perspective. I always count on modern CODs to be fairly heavy-handed rah rah nonsense, and have never been all that disappointed in it because when they do delve into a bit of grounded morality or questions about things like private military companies it comes as a nice surprise amongst all the nutty stuff. I like having a game that comes out once a year that I get to enjoy as a single-sitting 6 hour long action movie.

I even like the ones (to varying degrees) that the multiplayer folks dislike. I enjoyed MW3 since I liked going through European settings that I've seen while on various vacations, and the set-piece battles were pretty huge in scale. Heck, I even thought Ghosts was pretty good on my second playthrough (however, on my first playthrough, I hated it intensely. Weird, I had a total turnaround on it when I went back to it after a year or so for a second run.). Advanced Warfare was very good and had the acting power from Spacey to back up the over-the-top evil PMC villain storyline, while shaking up the movement stuff. I have yet to play Black Ops 3 but I have been very happy with the craziness of that series (aside from those BO2 strike missions... woof).

I dunno - I know the series has made some real missteps that has angered some of the multiplayer crowd, but from my single player perspective I've been pretty happy with the series overall. I am actually really disappointed that Infinity Ward is not going to continue the storyline from Ghosts in their next installment.

@omgfather: I agree - I brought it up on these boards a while ago but thought that a return to WWII in combination with the war is hell mantra might actually do some really great things for the series. There are still tons of untouched stories from the conflict that could be great set pieces for COD. I'd even take some thorough remake/remasters of early COD titles. I'm also secretly hoping that Brothers in Arms makes a legitimate comeback - or Medal of Honor even decides to get it together and take the first bold step.

Call of Duty was greatest when its first installment blew (the already impressive) Medal of Honor out of the fucking water.

CoD 4 was bold but I stopped enjoying the gameplay as much starting with the second game. I only played the series up to and including World at War.

@joe_mccallister: I was just thinking about how awesome Brothers In Arms was. They were dramatic and told a pretty great story which is something I hadn't seen in WW2 shooters until then. Not to mention the cool tactical stuff with different unit types and cover types and sending teams around to flank and stuff felt really awesome in a WW2 setting.

Nothing compares to Brothers in Arms 1 & 2 when it comes to WW2 for me. Still strange to think about how the Borderlands people made a sincere heartfelt WW2 game.

The WW2 era was the only one that really grabbed me. But then I had more fun playing D-Day for Quake 2 and other non-COD WW2 games. I thought COD 4 was decent enought at launch, but felt incredibly aged just a couple of years later.

CoD 4 is where it peaked for me, but I'm sure there's some nostalgia involved since it was the call of duty I played with friends online. I don't think they'll be able to recapture what made that game great because it was mostly it's mechanics, feel, and (then) novel setting. If CoD 4 didn't have that snappy feel and progression mechanics, I don't think it would have been such a big deal.

You know what I want? A straight forward story. None of this conspiracy "one man controls a rogue group that is doing some bad shit, and this other secret-black-special-forces-ops have to stop this one guy" shit. It's all the same, and it's all stale and boring. It doesn't mean anything and has no impact if I don't care about anything that happens. Get me back to the straight forward stories, about soldiers in war, and what they experienced like CoD 1,2 and 4. You can even through in some commentary, but for the love of god don't throw in some shady organization straight from a conspiracy.

This video brings it up in a good way, it's pretty long though. https://youtu.be/AvN51r1o1Nc

Wasn't the complaint ten years ago, that CoD and other games were too brown and dull?

Now they have color, and maybe that suits the completion. After all now CoD must go against like Battleborn, Overwatch, Splatton, and even Destiny. Color is in fashion, and so is a bit of over-the-top action. Games are a function of their era, and the era now is bright and bold for shooters. That just what I think...I could be wrong.

CoD 2 was the only point where the series ever really grabbed me.

I'm pretty content with where Call of Duty is in terms of its single player. They tell wacky, high budget action stories that are mostly enjoyable once through. That said, exploring a setting that wasn't pseudo near-future would be welcome. Personally I don't think Call of Duty has quite managed to top the experiences I had with Modern Warfare and World at War since their release but that's likely my own nostalgic bias speaking. The biggest turn off for me that Call of Duty has embraced recently is the roulette wheel design that is the supply drops in the multiplayer. I was already getting tired of their progression bars in everything, and the supply drops present the biggest grind yet. That is, unless you want to spend hundreds of dollars to skip that grind. What's worse is that they're now putting items beyond cosmetics in these supply drops, forcing players to engage with that system if they want the fancy new weapons they create. Now I feel little desire to put any time in the multiplayer because I can't shake the feeling that I'm being nickel and dimed.

I still think COD2 has the best campaign in the series. I replay it every year or so, and it still holds up so well. Lots of great set-piece moments, but also a surprising amount of levels that are just a big open area with a certain number of objectives to complete in whatever order you want and lots of buildings to go through and maneuver around. Its a far cry from the corridor-crawl that the series is usually characterized as.

I could write an essay about this topic, between the parallels of the real world during the times of each Call of Duty release to the changing of developers and how that has affected the franchise. I could even talk about how people have complained for years and years about how the games were nothing more than shades of brown, white, and black that have moved towards more color...and people are complaining about it.

Instead, I'll just say this: if people are buying Call of Duty, then it means that they are doing something right still. Black Ops III was great, and I don't see where a lot of the hatred for the franchise is other than the fact that it dominates the market so damn hard.

Yes! That video is a comprehensive analysis of the series. Very informative.

@monkeyking1969: I don't think you're wrong at all - it's definitely cyclical. I remember bitching about brown/gray wargames back a few years myself. The worst offender and when I really noticed how sick of it I was had to be Medal of Honor: Warfighter. It was just so disappointing for a series that I had greatly fond memories of. Interesting to look at too are resurgence of things like Doom, Wolfenstein, and arena shooters in general coming somewhat back into focus. You've got different hands on the development and production sides now that came up with those games and want to preserve or bring them forward with the times too.

I think color is indeed "in" right now, but some of those screens I've seen from newer COD that just take it into these wacky places because...well I don't know why honestly. I'm all for color, and COD has always been a bit more vibrant than Battlefield for instance, but I feel like BF 3 and 4 did a better job of integrating splashes of color in a way that was consistent with the game and style - instead of bringing in something insane like a gingerbread man loadout they made new maps that had fall foliage or something that mixed it up a little. I just don't think it's impossible to strike a balance and the pendulum has swung a bit too far one way for COD right now - Spec Ops is a good example of a game that even though it took place in a desert, had splashes of color and environment that worked extremely well.

@jakob187: There's definitely a lot of hate out there for the game - and as I mentioned they've got to have mass market appeal because that's exactly what COD is. I don't think my feelings come from a place of anger or hate for the game, it's more frustration because I remember what drew me to the games in the past - the interesting stories of soldiers working together, the futility of war, and the sometimes hazy lines that are drawn in international conflict. I think there's just room for a compelling military shooter that actually tells a compelling story as well be it set in the past, present, or future. I think the other side of it is they've gone to a realm of customization that plays right into the 360noscope#420blazeitVAPENATION stereotype all too well. I mean weed is fine and all but I wouldn't slap stickers all over my gun if I were in any sort of military force. It's starting to feel like Ghosts was a misstep, then AW bounced back to center, but now Black Ops III has brought things back to the far right of crazy town. I might be in the minority but I'm feeling the need for another contender, COD to come back to center, or maybe I'm just wanting Battlefield 5 more than anything.
.

Yeah, maybe. However, if it is a pendulum it will swing back, or we can hope it does.

I think they are doing what they can to diversify that series, and going back to well tread roots isn't part of that plan. There was Modern Warfare, Modern Warfare 2 and Modern Warfare 3 - three entire games dedicated to the gritty life of war. Considering people flock to the zombies mode in droves, the wackier the better, and that Ghosts which was returning to those classic melodramatic roots was such a failure for them, I don't think you'll see the realism resurgence you want any time soon.

@monkeyking1969: good point - I guess that's the trouble with pendulums huh?

@humanity: You're probably right - and in all honestly I don't truly expect any of what I've written to come true. I think part of me wants to believe with a 3-studio rotation, that at least one of them will want to tell a Saving Private Ryan or Band of Brothers level story and match it with some solid multiplayer unlocks and customization that aren't themed around ROCKSTAR ENERGY DRINK or something. Other part of me is hoping another intrepid developer/writer/producer sees these same concerns or feels them and acts upon them before long. I'm a bit of a hypocrite I have to admit, because I also don't want a straight up depressing war game where all I get to see are friends dying and babies screaming or something. Alas, this is why I am no game designer, and just some idiot spouting opinions online :)

I watched the video linked in that article, and while I agree with some of the points he was making, I think it's crazy that he referred to himself as being part of the "casual" Call of Duty community. Dude, you're incredibly good at the game and you have over two million subscribers on your Youtube channel where you play Call of Duty - you are yourself out of touch with the casual community and you don't even see it.

I will say that I agree with the sentiment of many that Modern Warfare 2 remains the pinnacle of the franchise. It managed to strike a balance of spectacle where you feel like a bad ass along with those moments that just felt like war is hell. Those later moments are extremely difficult to do well though, and I think you can see in those moments like "Press X to Pay Respects" where the developers are struggling to find ways to place you in those somber moments.

I think it's going to be very interesting seeing if Titanfall 2's campaign recaptures any of that later era West/Zampella Infinity Ward magic that the current Call of Duty developers haven't been struggling to recreate.

The bus I was on today drove past a shop called Call of Beauty. I chuckled. Actually, if they want to somber, WW1 might be a way to go. Put the player into a failed push half-way through the game and close things out with a poppy field.

I still like COD, the series obviously started with a high then the low point was of course Ghosts, but only due to its sniper friendly map design and lack of polish, especially on the PC. Despite being liked by a lot of people i didn't like Advanced Warfare, the new movement options and map designs took away from the traditional way COD played, it was also an unbalanced nightmare on PC, BLOPS3 kept some of those movement things but reduced their potency which kept the game on the ground for the most part so i think it struck a good balance. COD is fast paced and with its roots in the Quake engine i see it as an extension of those games, so the outlandish map designs and customization to me just fit in with the over the top nature of those games.

The COD games which i enjoy most are made by Treyarch, the other studios tend to fill their games with explosions and over the top killstreaks (MW2 onward), then Treyarch dial it back a bit making a more focused game with far superior map designs, they also make better single player campaigns, COD4's story was brilliant and nothing in the series has eclipsed it, but Treyarch's attempts to confuse and bemuse always leave me smiling, to make COD great for me, reduce it down to what it does the best which is the shooting on well designed maps, the super fast multiplayer lobbies and the extensive leveling up system, if going back to WW2 is the only way to uncomplicate the series then so be it.

I remember the first Call of Duty out doing Medal of Honor when Medal of Honor was THE WWII series on the block. That's the only real relationship I have w/ the COD series. I only get into maybe 1 or 2 FPS per generation and I was already FPSed out by the time Modern Warfare came out w/ Rainbow Six Vegas. I wish I got into the series when it exploded but it was never meant to be.

How about a CoD mashup? Advanced Modern World at War anyone? Wall running in a ghillie suit with an M1 Garand.

Isn't that the gingerbread man from Timesplitters? I want a new Timesplitters.

@joe_mccallister: There is definitely room for what you want. Seeing how we had Black Ops 2 be semi futuristic, Advanced Warfare taking it further and now Black Ops 3 went all out future, maybe they've had their fill of robot arms and drone strikes and one of those three studios will try to swing things back around just to be different. Last I heard there were some leaks pertaining to the next CoD that mentioned something about outer space sooo.. maybe next year?

I'm willing to bet they want to remake Modern Warfare 1 sometime soon. Like, when the next CoD doesn't sell as many copies as the last one. Oh, that already happened!!

And they all kinda glorified war. Yes, they made you think about it every once in a while, but the games have always been kinda dull fast paced action games. Remember how you killed like a hundred German soldiers as a lone commando in the first game? Yeah, always been kinda over the top.

I like the varied color palette those newer games have because it feels right for them. The drab color palette of MW1 was just right for that game. I never got the brown shooter argument, especially since.. how do I put this... a lot of people making that argument were/are actually colorblind? Huh, I guess what I'm trying to say is: Those games were never AS drab as people made em seem like.

How do you make COD exciting again?

I don't know,

make COD open world?

3rd person?

Add vehicles like 1 had: Call of Battlefield?

Make it a squad based FPS where you command a unit?

Make it massively multiplayer A-la MAG?

Put it in a really weird setting, WWI, The Wild West, Space, Space Wild West?

It's not that they can't do crazy things to the formula, they're just scared too for fear the COD bros will flee.

Meanwhile, the guy with the Captain Price Avatar hasn't played a COD game for more than 5 hours since BLOPS.

That "Then & Now" picture speaks for itself. I'm really not into the direction they've taken the series (specifically, the multiplayer). I fully understand why they changed it up, but I sure wish they hadn't. By the time MW3 came out, they had basically re-released the same game three times, in addition to countless shooters post-CoD4 trying to emulate that same style. This led to people growing weary of the "gritty, realistic shooter" and basically demanding a change. Personally, I wasn't among this crowd, as the reason CoD4 was so successful, the reason everyone tried to copy it, and the reason that Activision was afraid to move too far away from it was because that game was fucking awesome. However, as someone who would have been perfectly fine with MW4, I was among very few, and I'm certainly in the minority now with what I'd like to see from the series being so far removed from what it presently is.

I feel like every CoD that's been released post-Titanfall has tried to be Titanfall. I really like Titanfall, and can't quite understand why it doesn't get much love outside of small circles, yet the CoDs that emulated it seem to be fairly beloved. Brand power, I guess. It's funny; the Modern Warfare games arguably took unfair criticism for other games trying to copy their style, and then, in their efforts to change it up, the recent CoDs arguably got too much credit for copying another game's style. Regardless, this isn't at all what I wanted CoD to become. The current bullet-spam-fest with everyone flying around the map like superheroes is such a different (and, IMO, worse) game. With lame-ass zombies somehow becoming a key feature of the series, weed skins, and neon bullshit that's unapologetically catered specifically to the 12-year-old boy/unemployed pothead demographic, they've lost me completely. Then again, the market has spoken, so I damn sure don't expect them to cater to the shrinking contingent of those like me who miss the good old days.

I can only hope the cycle comes back around where people get tired of the flashy "super-soldier" crap, but I'm not holding my breath. To release a FPS that's remotely realistic now is risky as hell (probably also why the Rainbow Six series doesn't really exist anymore, having been diluted into the horde mode-esque Siege and Destiny-esque The Division). Ghosts fell pretty flat (which I'd contend was related to poor map design as much as anything), but the criticisms levied towards it would probably be dumped tenfold on anything similar released these days. Given the overstimulated nonsense that the series has become, taking away all the superpowers and bright colors would certainly lead to comments about such a game being "slow", "bland", "boring", etc. However, a hypothetical MW-style game would be such a radical departure at this point that maybe it's a direction they'll consider if people burn out on the "new" CoD style. Unfortunately, that seems like a big "if".

Kind of off topic, but I've been playing through the metro games recently (they were dirt cheap on psn). I thought I was fatigued by fps games, especially single player focused ones, but I think 4a games makes a compelling case for the genre's future. Having an interesting premise does a lot to combat the staleness of the genre, and Metro's premise is so fucking cool. Sure they don't execute on it perfectly, but it does more good than bad. Makes me want to check out some other fps games I glossed over (wolfenstein: the new order being the main one)

@joe_mccallister: You are trying to mix the two things together here: story and multiplayer. The story campaigns in Call of Duty have, for the most part, been excellent (Ghosts was pretty shit and overwrought as hell, but the Black Ops series has been fantastic). With multiplayer, I don't care how many weed leafs and other shit they throw in there. If it plays well, that's all that matters.

@jakob187 I see what you're saying but I can't agree the stories have been excellent (even going back, I think Medal of Honor's and aforementioned Brothers in Arms WWII stories were just better), and I think the biggest point is the absolute divergence from the aesthetic. When a COD game releases typically you'll see standard military stuff in the customization menus, even if it's a bit ahead of itself in the example of Advanced Warfare. Then they'll start dripping out the pizza painted guns and the gingerbread shit you see in those pictures. For me part of the draw to COD and other shooters was the weapons themselves, and the customization was cool to throw on attachments and what not, or even paint them at least something realistic. To draw a parallel it'd be like The Division putting out a bunch of neon spray paint or costumes that feature real world brands or something that have nothing to do with the universe they originally tried to build. I don't want to wear, or even really see a Hello Kitty or a Pizza Hut jacket and "MESSIN WITH SQUATCH" on a kill cam. I think for me it just comes down to while they might think it's cool, some of the stuff they have piped in from a customization point even has a thick air of "dank meme" and "how do you do fellow kids" to it. COD has always been the Michael Bay style in both story and multiplayer, and it's just starting to get these drifts of Gangnam Style and "we're so wacky" that it feels gross.

That came off pretty negative, and I hope it doesn't come off as me just saying "nuh uh" to you @jakob187 because I think part of it is I want to see the brand do well, and your statements are pretty valid. Who am I kidding it'll do just fine without me crying about it. Can IW at least bring back the Spec Ops mode? Miss those and I'm over zombies in COD for the time being.

I enjoyed the post but I think it missed out one critical factor; the fact that it's annualised. Yes it's 3 studios in rotation with a 3 year lead time but as the decade has gone on since CoD4, I feel like the frequency of the releases has devalued the game somewhat since there's now a weird 8-12 month window where a particular title will be supported/played before being abandoned and moving on to the next one (CoD4 pc and blops2 being notable exceptions). I personally would like to see them go to 2-3 year release cycles per title but that feels like wishful thinking as long as there's still money to be made with the current model.

@viper said:

Hah, beat me to the punch. I agree with the the OP and with Noah: After Modern Warfare, nobody cared about making war seem anything less than fun. Modern Warfare 2 still managed to be enjoyable, but only because it was the military equivalent of Die Hard. Then MW3 took it so, so far over the edge of absurd, it became something in the Michael Bay "Transformer's" series.

I think even going back to a respectable perspective on war and a solider's place in it would be difficult, at least without rebooting it away from a modern/postmodern military purview. A hard look at the Korean or Vietnam wars would be engaging, from another studio. Although at this point, any shocking or unexpectedly serious release with "Call of Duty" in the title is a pipe dream, just from a marketing and consumer expectation perspective. Making anything more subdued would be seen by nearly everyone involved, from production to purchase, as a leap backwards.

Call of Duty was never a great series. As someone who has played all Call of Duties post CoD 4, it's always been a silly series. Now it's just less ethnically questionable now that we're shooting robots and gingerbread men rather than real people from across the globe.

lets face facts, Activisions desires to make it annual franchise is the problem. They never give it any time to breath, by the time 4 months have past gamestop is already taking preorders for the CoD game with a name and a developer announced. Then spend way too much money on these games, top tier actors like Kevin Space with new motion capture tech on next gen game consoles. Don't get me started on the audience who ignore features, I had a friend who owns the game and he didn't even know there was Zombies in Advance Warfare. And then on top of that, they are still trying to chase ESports even though right now it's Counter-Strikes: Go that's leading in that field.

I believe Acitivision has a business model with CoD just designed to burn money. Just think about this of a second, there are only 3 console Star Wars games and the rest are free to play mobile games, the business model of games development is radically different at the moment.

There aren't zombies in Advanced Warfare. They're in the DLC, but there are loads of people who never bothered with that.

@notnert427: I totally agree with you on pretty much all of these points. with Doom, Halo, Destiny, Titanfall, and apparently the next COD all being games about shiny space men shooting lasers on some other planet and/or near some alien ruins or whatever i feel like we are headed toward some sort of lame convergence in the genre. I hope it does swing back the other way.

At this point, I'm more interested in the CoD soundtracks, than I'm am in the games. I'll still buy this one, though. Probably. I'm probably more excited in Battlefield 5, though.

Like, did you know that Jack Wall did the Blops2 and 3 music, who also did some Mass Effect, Jade Empire, and the Lost Planet 3 soundtrack? The more you know. I'm have been buying game soundtracks lately, and the Ghosts one is not half-bad, actually. Hans Zimmer did Modern Warfare 2, who also did The Simpsons Movie, Kung Fu Panda and The Dark Knight. Brian Tyler did Modern Warfare 3, who did Fast 7, the newer Ninja Turtles movie, AC: Black Flag, and NFS: The Run.

If they get rid of the load outs, experience points, unlockables, weapon attachments, camo and all the other carrot on a stick gaming crap then I'm back in. Was much better when you just pick a side, a class and play. No mucking about.

Last decent COD multiplayer was COD3. Unpopular opinion I know but its the only one I ever liked.

Oh boy oh boy oh boy oh boy. I get the feeling unless you have to buy this to get MW Remastered that no-one will buy Infinite Warfare now!

If that's only the single player campaign, I figuratively am going to kill someone.

If it includes a re-balanced version of the multiplayer, I am going to kill many someones, through the magic of competitive multiplayer.

PLEASE include multiplayer!

[and don't be fake]

@bollard: If only we knew what subreddit it came from

It would be the ultimate troll. To be fair though, the end of MW1 was actually fantastic.

If something like this is photoshopped, usually the internet is pretty quick to find out. I'm betting on real. I guess we'll find out soon enough.

Seriously though, including this as a bonus seems like burying the lead. Re-balanced MW1 multiplayer with a full year of MW2 maps for DLC. Now, THAT would get me to buy a season pass.

At this point I'd almost prefer it the other way round (don't get me wrong, MW1 is my favourite multiplayer shooter of all time, but the gameplay of MW2 with all of MW1's maps added in? Now THAT sounds exciting.)

Exactly, they milked that cow way too fast (albeit it still brings in the money so it's somewhat unfortunately understandable financially).

On a side note, I'm quite digging Jeff's suggestion of making it a Q3:Arena style mashup. Though I'd rename it to CoD III: Arena and pretend CoD 3 never existed ;)

yeah, that's a fun joke... but then what about CS:GO which was handled by a smaller team then valve and now its a huge esports thing..... It's funny because Activision spends 5 different studios to port a game no on plays.