Call of Duty: Ghosts was released only six months ago, and already we’ve had an announcement regarding the next chapter of the franchise. Seeing as how the shelf-life of the previous game has yet to expire, do we really need another Call of Duty game right now?
Call of Duty is one of the most notorious examples of an annual release franchise. Over the past eight years, a new video game has been added into the popular military-FPS every single year. Depending on who you talk to, some individuals would say that the Call of Duty franchise is growing stale, as the frantic release schedule is running the series dry of any lingering hint of innovation. Of course, this isn’t the only video game series guilty of the annual release schedule; Assassin’s Creed is another fine example, as the series will occasionally go so far as to include multiple new games during the course of the same year.
In the case of Assassin’s Creed, that franchise has always had a primary focus on the single-player experience. Unless the game offers a large amount of “replayablility” regarding extra missions, collectibles or other hidden unlockable abilities, once the single-player mode is completed, that’s it. Well, that’s it until a DLC expansion is released. Regardless, even with an arbitrary multiplayer mode, once an Assassin’s Creed game is completed, fans are ready for the next chapter of the story. It’s an ongoing, pseudo-established canon that interconnects the current games with future ones to come. We want to know what happens next. Not only that, but with Assassin’s Creed having an emphasis on historical eras, we want to know when and where the next game will take place.
If an ongoing franchise has a concrete universe, and a fairly understandable plot that extends beyond the walls of just one game, then it’s obvious that fans are going to look forward towards future titles in the series.
World at War, set during WWII
Looking at Call of Duty, the franchise lacks a central plot, other than “rugged men shoot each other”. And yet, fans literally eat up each new release without hesitation. Taking a subjective, isolated look at the Call of Duty series, we’ve gone from the convincing immersion of real-world warfare, rooted in actual historical events, to the more ridiculous implementation of the “Rods from God“, robots and dogs. Of course, independent sagas exist within the Call of Duty universe, being the Modern Warfare and Black Ops stories. With there being a 50% or less chance of the next Call of Duty title sharing a connection with the last, how can some players care about the franchise as a whole? If I only wanted more of the Modern Warfare saga, why should I care about the release of Black Ops II?
This story-disconnect makes me wonder, do people even purchase the yearly Call of Duty titles for the single-player anymore?
When I look at reviews of the recent Call of Duty games, this is what I tend to see: “The story isn’t that great, however Call of Duty: ____ features a solid multiplayer mode. 9/10” Those whom I know that are avid fans of the series typically inform me that they could care less for the Story, and that it’s “all about the multiplayer”. So, if fans are disregarding the single-player experience for multiplayer, is it really worth it to spend the $64.94 on what seems to be viewed as a “multiplayer title with additional Story Mode”? If done correctly, the active life of a multiplayer game can easily be extended beyond just one year. Rather than release a new title, why not update the current one even more? Valve’s Team Fortress 2 is a prime example, as the online [PC] community is still going strong after seven years.
Why should there be a new Call of Duty title, if we haven’t even exhausted the current one? There are plenty of people who haven’t even “graduated” up to Ghosts from Black Ops II yet, let alone the first Black Ops. Are we really just that eager to discard the current title for the next one every single year?
I don’t think so. Or at least, I don’t think that’s the primary reason why so many fans mindlessly flock to retailers to purchase the next CoD.
When gamers purchase a new Call of Duty title, are they purchasing the game, or the brand? This flagship FPS franchise is practically synonymous with gaming as an entity. In fact, I’d go so far as to say that Call of Duty is the most popular name in the gaming industry right now. I’ve had many conversations with people who aren’t too familiar with video games; when I often explain my gaming experiences, I’m asked right away if “I play Call of Duty”. Think about that for a second. People who may have zero familiarity with video games have still heard about Call of Duty. I’m rarely asked about Pokemon, Mario, Halo, God of War, or any other “Big 3 Exclusive”- it’s mostly Call of Duty.
Unfortunately, the CoD franchise has also given the entire gaming populous a negative stigma. What’s often said is that Call of Duty fans are “the worst” when it comes to in-game multiplayer conduct. As everyone just assumes that all Call of Duty players are like this, on top of the common assumption that gamers are “only gamers if they play CoD”, the social stigma is that all gamers are whiny, racist brats with an Oedipus complex. Social viewpoints aside, whether it’s a negative or positive outlook, everyone knows about Call of Duty. It’s in the same branding echelon as Apple, Nike or Hollister. Even if you aren’t associated with whatever market the brand belongs to, but you still know exactly what it is.
Call of Duty 4, the first chapter of the Modern Warfare saga
Do I personally think we need another full-fledged Call of Duty title right now? Not necessarily. In my own theoretical world, here’s what I would like to see from the franchise:
While it would presumably be difficult to govern, as multiple developers contribute to the Call of Duty series, lengthen the release schedule and do away with annual releases- two or three years between games. This way, gamers have more time with each individual game in the series. Perhaps for the strictly-multiplayer crowd, release a stand-alone multiplayer game that draws elements from all existing worlds within the CoD universe. This particular game- I don’t know, we’ll give it the uninspired title of “Call of Duty Online” for now- would sell at a discounted list price…$24.99. A multi-platform title (for both console generations), CoD Online would obviously feature DLC, but also include free periodic content updates. These could include new weapons, maps and stages based on whatever the most recent Call of Duty game is in the “main” series. Going back to the primary series, with a stand-alone multiplayer game already on the market, developers should bring the focus back over into the single-player story; give gamers a worthwhile story-telling experience. Make them want to come back for a future title.
This would theoretically prevent any sort of franchise-over-saturation, and would hypothetically increase the life-span of each individual Call of Duty game. Also, an increased development window could add to the overall quality of the game…That’s not always the case, but a little wishful thinking goes a long way.
Regardless of this evening’s rant, Call of Duty: Advanced Warfare is coming on Nov. 4, 2014. As predicted by the stars, it will be a critically acclaimed success.