Call of duty started off as a World War 2 shooter back in 2003 and quickly dominated the First Person Shooter scene. Back in its days it had a fierce competition with 2 major game franchise: Medal of Honor and Battlefield. Fast forward time a bit, every one of them moved on from World War 2 to a much more recent time frame. With Call of Duty, it was Modern Warfare, for Battlefield, it was Bad Company and for Medal of Honor, it was their take of Afghanistan’s war. After that, these developers never returned to World War 2(with the exception of Call of Duty: World at War, which was later evolved to Black Ops series.).
After Modern Warfare ended, Call of Duty developed a trend of going forward in time with each instalment. Started off as Black Ops 2 with futuristic weapons and abilities, it never returned to its simplistic roots which was frowned upon by many people around the world. Players felt lack of innovation as their yearly instalment of CoD had the same concept of futuristic weapons and exo-suits. Battlefield managed to pull off their take on World War 1 beautifully and also dominated the sales figure of its rival, Call of Duty: Infinite Warfare which brings us to an interesting moot point: Should Call of Duty return to World War 2? Would it be as successful as Battlefield 1?
Earlier this month, publisher Activision announced that this year their game “Will take Call of Duty back to its roots”. However, the game itself is yet to be announced. This statement could mean many things. It could either mean it’ll bring back traditional fighting style as seen in World at War or Modern Warfare without having a plot in WW2 era, or it could mean it’s simply going back to World War 2.
Tell us what do you think of current Call of Duty’s path. What would you like to see in the next Call of Duty game (If you like to see it at all)
Register with us for the best in gaming, and join us for video game discussions on our forums.
