Let’s get something out of the way here- I’m not a Call of Duty fan. I got part of the way through Black Ops, started MW2, halfway through Ghosts, and I’ve never played Multiplayer. That being said, I can definitely see why people like Call of Duty so much, with its numerous guns and fast-paced gameplay. It’s like Battlefield with a lot of the tedium flat-out removed. I’ve seen lots of writers, fans, and forum posters alike wondering how Call of Duty can recapture the kind of bloody, madhouse magic that the original Modern Warfare had. The patrons of the series have had their say about it, and I, as a non-fan, want to throw my bullet-proof cap into the ring. Here are 5 things that Activision could do with Call of Duty that could breathe some life into the franchise.
5. Call Of Duty Needs to Have More Focus on its Story
Call of Duty, like its primary rival Battlefield, is mainly an online experience. The story is to the product like a gift bag is to a party- really only there to show off the host’s money. Every year I see article after article, interview after interview, about how this Call of Duty is going to have the best Multiplayer yet, how the graphics will be revolutionary, and how all the problems from the previous game have been solved.
Can it.
Competitive Multiplayer stays largely the same every single year, and the MLG scene is rapidly moving away from FPS games like Call of Duty and into the realm of MOBAs and Strategy Games. Your fans are made out to be weed smoking dudebros and five year old brats. Games like Spec Ops- The Line were able to take the “brown shooter” and give it a superb story mode, and even Battlefield 4 is starting to put more resources into its single player mode. The dudebros won’t last you forever, and good multiplayer can only get you so far when you’re surrounded by bigger, badder, and newer competitive games every single year. It’s time to branch out.
4. Don’t always go straight for the Islamic/Russian Terrorist card
Be honest- when was the last time, at least within works of fiction, you took a villainous Russian mastermind or an Islamic terrorist cell seriously? For me, it was probably back when I was five, and I’m sure a lot of people have stopped being afraid of Makarov bin Dragovich as much as I have. I understand they’re go-to tropes, and that anyone who hears a burly man with a Russian accent will instantly know he’s the devil, but it’s a poor excuse for a villain all the same.
For all its faults, I will at least give Call of Duty: Ghosts credit for making Brazil the main enemies, however unrealistic the premise may be. Really, anything more than the generic post-Cold War, post-9/11 fare will be enough, I assure you. And while I’m not a social activist by any definition of the word, I feel you need to be told something a bit shocking: jacked Anglo-Saxons with guns can be just as evil as the hairy walking bed sheets that are radical Muslim Terrorists.
3. DLC with More Content
I’m not going to say the folks at Treyarch or Infinity Ward should stop making DLC, because that cancer to the consumer is too deeply rooted for anyone to get out. DLC’s here to stay, I understand that, but I have to ask; why can’t Call of Duty boast the kind of grand DLC that games like Starcraft II or The Elder Scrolls have consistently provided the player? Why does it have to be just “more maps, more guns, more Zombies”, when it could be an entirely different story, setting, or self-sustaining package like InFamous: Festival of Blood?
Just because people are buying it now doesn’t mean you can continue releasing a few maps and calling it a brand new experience. The only reason Battlefield can get away with that is because the maps are dynamic, massive, and are essentially more than just a different flat plane with sniper positions and hallways. If Call of Duty is going to hit up the consumer with DLC every few months, the least they could do is knock it out of the park.
2. Add More (Feasible) Styles of Play than Point and Shoot
Okay, Call of Duty’s a shooter, but does there really have to be so much shooting? It sounds sacrilegious and a downright terrible idea, but Call of Duty doesn’t have to be the same skirmish over and over again just with a different background.
To get what I’m talking about, look at a shooter like Natural Selection II. It’s got a lot in common with call of duty- soldiers, big guns, big explosions, and corridor gunfights. But moreover, it has the option for one person to be a commander, who can order soldiers to certain locations, build friendly structures, unlock new weapons, and serve as the direction for the player-controlled squad. If Call of Duty included just a simple addition like this, even without most of the depth of NSII, could keep the skirmish warfare that everyone loves so much while adding a huge new facet to how each fight goes down. It doesn’t even have to be the main mode, either; just an extra match option or even a DLC would be great. You’d keep the casual crowd while attracting more tactical gamers to the fray.
And hey, I’ll bet even five year-olds and dudebros would like commanding a squad of super badass special-ops soldiers and dropping bombs on those infernal campers.
1. Call of Duty’s Progression System Has Always Encouraged Bad Behavior and it Needs to be Fixed
This. This right here.
This is the reason I don’t play League of Legends, Call of Duty, Battlefield, or any other mainstream competitive game. At their core, these games encourage lone wolf, jackass behavior in team environments more than the neglectful parents who let their kids play games like Call of Duty in the first place.
Call of Duty’s multiplayer progression boils down to one simple, archaic, and faulted principle- kill more guys than anyone else, including your teammates. This leads people to find new and fantastic ways to steal kills, camp, and cheat he game to get the most XP, simultaneously robbing any new players from learning to enjoy the matches. Frequently, what should have been a fun little fight in the desert becomes an XP farm for the people who know how to cheat the system. There becomes a predictable loadout for higher-ranked players because that’s what gets the most XP with the least effort. Not what’s most fun to play with, not what’s most suited to how they personally like to play, but what helps them prestige faster than their friends. Be it the Commando Perk, the Marathon Perk, Second Chance- every installment in the Call of Duty franchise has an array- not one, not too, but MANY- perks which are abused by the players who already have them to begin with.
You don’t see cheap tactics like this on display nearly as often in games like Counter Strike or DOTA 2, because they’ve ironed these kinds of issues out over years of new installments, whereas Call of Duty has kept the same basic framework year after year that makes player who genuinely tried to get into the series like myself practically barred from entry.
And there you have it. For as inclusive and “casual” that Call of Duty is, it’s inaccessible to new players unless those players got the game at launch, looked up map guides, and spent hours upon hours getting their head blown off by hackers or veteran players before they realize they have to be just as cheap as their superiors. It’s not conducive to play and, like everything else on this list, it WILL keep Call of Duty from moving forward indefinitely as franchises like Mario and Sonic have managed to do. Adieu.
