Call of Duty: Infinite Warfare

I will admit the idea of this Call Of Duty atleast draws my curiosity. I am wondering how they are going to go about this sci-fi installment...

edited 5th May '16 1:40:55 AM by Ecrivan

Goddamn, both this title and Battlefield 1 look so mindblowingly awesome! It's going to be so hard to pick which one to buy, since I can't afford both. XP

I've been completely turned off from the Battlefield series thanks largely to it's fanbase constantly slamming the COD series and it's players, with the developers egging them on.

Heck, every video related to BF 1 is them joyfully trash talking Infinite Warfare, and saying that Battlefield "Won" and has utterly murdered this game.

edited 7th May '16 12:52:52 AM by LDragon2

Been a COD player since 2.

I'm not giving up on this franchise no matter what people say. I might not buy every title or play every game but I love Call of Duty and it will always have a special place in my heart.

Yeah, I've always enjoyed both but Battlefield far more. Between their recent conduct and a WW 1 setting I'm really not interested in I might just ship to Call of Duty though.

I enjoy both equally but Battlefield 1 might have better multiplayer while this has better single player.

I got turned off Battlefield because 4 was a complete fuck up and Hardline wasn't much better. Two bad games in a row rehashing the same drivel.

Then again, Call of Duty had the same problem. Ghosts and AW were genuinely bad games compared to earlier COD's and while AW was better than Ghosts, it was no MW 2 or COD 4 or Black Ops 2.

Curiously the Black Ops subset has seemingly done a bell curve of quality. World At War obviously didn't have much effort done with it and Black Ops was kinda half-hearted in its gameplay design for taking away a lot of what was done right in MW 2. But Black Ops II was definitely a Surprisingly Improved Sequel. But from I understand, Black Ops 3 took a nosedive in quality relative to Black Ops II.

YMMV on BLOPS III being of lesser quality, I enjoyed it greatly and found all the changes fun. That's probably just the die-hards whining and they're utterly impossible to please unless the game mimics their sacred cow (which we more or less now know is COD 4 due to the trailer reactions).

The plot's a bit tricky to truly make sense of if you don't catch what the real plot twist is, but even at face value it's pretty OK, though nowhere near the level of storytelling BLOPS II had. Highly replayable campaign too from the looks of it, what with all the unlockable upgrades, weapons and abilities. Multiplayer was fresh, since you now had specific characters with unique traits and weaponry, the levels were open and encouraged flexible approaches to flank the enemy, and some abilities were just plain fun to use, especially the wall-running augment.

In fact, the reaction to the news that COD 4 Remastered will be stuck along with Infinite Warfare has got me thinking that Activision might want to look into making future COD titles in a manner that's endlessly expandable, and continue either until the fanbase loses interest or the tech gets outdated. So a typical F 2 P multiplayer setup, essentially, but now with a continuous stream of DLC that includes new guns, unlocks, maps, skins, etc. Because why bother making brand new settings and plotlines when it's clear that the fanbase is ultimately gonna start screaming either for a modern war or WWII setting, almost every time?

edited 7th May '16 10:09:06 AM by SgtRicko

Okay wow, the Infinite Warfare's trailer has over 730k dislikes.

I don't get the hate, honestly.

It's either people tired of Call of Duty getting more advanced, people who think that it going to space is stupid, people hating Call of Duty, or Battlefield fans.

I don't get why they don't like space. Space is cool. Call of Duty in the Universal Century sounds awesome.

I can understand how some people dislike the idea, but to that degree? It's baffling to me.

Also, it's amusing how some Battlefield fans keep saying things like "R.I.P, COD" and such.

Look, I'm not going to make any qualitative comment on the series: they have their own strengths and weaknesses. But almost no Battlefield title has ever outsold Call of Duty titles that were released in the same year.

Even what is possibly the most panned COD title, Call of Duty: Ghosts, outsold Battlefield 4 by almost 14 million copies.

The last Battlefield I enjoyed was Bad Company 2. I despised Battlefield 3 and didn't buy any games after that

I actually kind of liked Ghosts. At least we weren't fighting Russians/Nazis/Terrorists again.

I liked Extinction and the ability to play as a female character but that was about it.

Some Ghosts maps had cool gimmicks though. That pirate ship with the ghost pirates and the zombie mariachi band were pretty neat.

Black Ops 3 has to be the best COD I've ever played. The multiplayer is great fun with all different types of warriors. zombies is back, and the story mode makes me think about how technology could affect our lives if we use it too much.

And Nightmares? I love it for the most part. The only issue I have is zombies popping up behind you and mauling you to death while your partner does fuck all.

Treyarch if you ask me just got better and better as time went on with handling the games while Infinity Ward got worse and worse.

...I never quite understood Infinity Ward fanboys. Yes they made Call of Duty 4 but Co D 4 still had it's issues and don't understand why it's such a Sacred Crowd amongst the Co D crowd.

edited 8th May '16 12:27:44 AM by Ecrivan

I guess because it's the game that launched the series into the mainstream and all that.

The Modern Warfare series isn't the best either.

Even my sister, who rarely plays games, fell in love with Black Ops in five minutes of playing on Nuketown.

Nuketown had been one of if not the best COD map I've ever played on. It's small and compact and not too confusing.

It's perfect for me because I like to run and gun and not have to run around in a damn maze to find one or two people.

Nuketown is a big meatgrinder map, especially in Black Ops 3. Great for people who want literally instant action, but unless you're fighting with or against a very skilled/coordinated team, the ebb and flow of matches on that map is completely random.

I think folks dislike Infinite Warfare's trailer for a few reasons.

1. Bandwagoning.
2. InfinityWard's ever-declining reputation that, for many, they have yet to disprove.
3. The highly-desirable Modern Warfare Remastered being only available alongside the dubious Infinite Warfare.
4. It is the 4th futuristic (5th if you count Ghosts) Call of Duty game in 5 years with an aesthetic that looks like Advanced Warfare + Space. Add in other similar futuristic FPS's like Titanfall, Destiny, or even Halo, and you may see why an increasing portion of shooter fans are getting tired of the setting.
5. It's futuristic, but not futuristic enough. Some folks want Earth to look like the Jetsons, space aliens, lasers, and really out-there planets.
6. A lousy butt-rock Space Oddity cover mere months after David Bowie's death.

edited 8th May '16 2:11:52 AM by Ryuhza

I'm hoping that the game will be bold and try to take the risk of being the first AAA FPS to embrace true three-dimensional space combat from a soldier's perspective. And I'm not talking about singleplayer, I mean specifically for the multiplayer. But this reaction from the fanbase is making me think that Infinity Ward may be too afraid to try such a new concept.

When I first saw the title Battlefield 1 I was like "Hahahaha! What a fucking stupid name!". Then my friend told me it was in WWI and showed me the trailer and I was like "Holy shit this is awesome!"

Infinite Warfare looks cool too, but honestly space loses to WWI, especially for large scale warfare.

How does space lose to WW 1 when it comes to large scale warfare?

Like I know that of course CoD is little more than arena shooter at heart but come on man, it's fucking space. That alone blows WW 1 out of the water when it comes to scale.

You got a point (in fact WWI works LESS due to being historically a stagnant war), but I personally love WWI's setting. I don't know, but I've heard Battlefield is capable of doing more due to having more experience with team focused battles and if anyone can make an unworkable war work, its DICE (provided they make it better than Battlefront).

edited 11th May '16 3:49:06 PM by WC-83

It usually is. Battlefield's biggest pull has been these glorious combined arms efforts across massive maps.

Which has me worried because that'll be difficult to do in WW1s somewhat limited and stagnant conflict.

It wasn't all trenches and dysentery though but even then the limited arms and vehicles of the era are gonna work against it.

This might be one of the stupidest things I've ever heard said about Infinity Warfare.