CoD 5 coming next year! Then the year after that! And then after that! And so on...

Annual GH games? WTF, why do we have DLC then???

 

Too bad they can't balance it out and release a StarCraft game more than once a decade. And what of Diablo?

 

Hasn't Call of Duty been coming out on a yearly basis as it is? How is this news?

 

I was gonna say this is a bad idea since EA does annual sports games, and all you need for a new sports game is to spruce up the graphics and make it reflect any team/logo/uniform changes that have occurred in the intervening year. But tactical FPS'es are pretty by-the-numbers as well, given that every story in every single one of them is exactly the same: terrorists are gonna do something bad so you have to shoot people until you stop them. Bring on the annual releases.

 

Hahaha!

I am happy about the GH games though.

 

Hahaha!

I am happy about the GH games though.

 

They'll have CoD5 be developed (it's likely already in development and has been since CoD4 was shown) by the B Team, and Infinity Ward will be working on Call of Duty 6 between that time.

 

So basically they'll have ****ty games and good games on alternating years?

 

Pretty much, that's what they did with Call of Duty 2-3-4. Infinity Ward did CoD2 and then worked on CoD4 between then and now, while another team did CoD3.

Gamera, wouldn't you be more happy if they just made Guitar Hero like a platform with an Itunes like store service whereby you could purchase your own songs? instead of buying a new compilation every year?

 

That's... not exactly ideal, is it? I'd prefer to just see a new CoD game every couple of years in that case.

 

It's ideal for making an obscene amount of money. Splinter Cell does the same thing. Double Agent? B Team. Conviction? A Team.

 

Huh, didn't know that. That's kind of lame, but it's a sensible business model I guess.

 

I ****ing hate Activision, EA, etc. Annual game releases = stupid money-****ing. I seriously hope one of these companies goes bankrupt at some point in time. Worthless, all of them.

 

I don't want 5, 6, 7... CODs. I want new franchises, not the same **** rehashed over and over again. Something companies like EA and Activision don't understand. Innovation and fresh ideas > same crap over and over again. Meh. **** Activision, and **** EA too.

 

If they're going to make shooters, at least make them new and exciting. Not just sequel after sequel after sequel. FPSes used to be my favorite genre, before it came about that only about 2 out of 100 released that year were new franchises. And only one of them was actually good.

 

I'm happy about both as I love those franchises.

 

Well, prepare to love them when they become just as relevant as Madden games.

 

No Infinity Ward means no Captain Price, and sorry, but I feel Captain Price is the defacto character banner of the CoD franchise.

Even though he always... erm dies.

 

I completely agree. The homogeneity of FPSes has been bugging me for years now. Since Counter-Strike and the Tom Clancy games started coming out and selling craploads of copies, every new FPS is just another tactical warfare game with maybe one or two innovations, if even that, and most of them aren't even good innovations. Tactical warfare games are the reality TV of FPSes.

The adventure genre is in the same state, only without the franchise problem, since no one'll actually invest in adventure games anymore, meaning only a handful come out each year and only about 2 are actually worth checking out.

 

Looks like Call of Duty 5 might go back to it's WWII roots.

http://www.joystiq.com/2007/12/08/rumor-call-of-duty-5-to-be-set-during-world-war-ii/

After experiencing the modern day/futuristic setting of COD4, I never want to go back to WWII. I don't care how well made the next game is, if it's set in WWII, I'm going to lose all interest.