Call of Duty introduces new developer, switches to 3-year development cycle

https://www.computerandvideogames.com/448586/call-of-duty-series-switches-to-three-year-development-cycle/

I doubt it’s going to affect anything. The games aren’t going to change because of a longer development cycle. At least I don’t see that happening.

On the other hand, there’s a completely new developer involved. No idea who they are, but they’re there.

Nah, Sledgehammer worked with IW on Modern Warfare 3. Didn’t actually PLAY MW3, but they have previous experience with the franchise.

Imho, that’s actually a bad thing. They should be trying to get some fresh eyes on the franchise if they actually want to retool the series in a beneficial manner.

They might stop reusing so many assets tho

the next call of duty should be set in prehistoric times and let you play as cavemen or predators

I gurentee it will still have a shitty campaign.

Hmm, which will be this year then? Sledgehammer or Treyarch’s game?

Hopefully it’s Sledge’s, since I’m curious to see if it will be a brand new continuity or a continuation of Modern Warfare, since IW now has the Ghosts continuity.

The article clearly states that “Sledgehammer will lead development on this year’s new Call of Duty title, expected to release in late 2014.”

I don’t think it will change much, maybe they can get some kind of engine to work that does not crap itself though.

you havent seen shit until you play bf3/bf4’s campaigns

Oh, well, I pretty much just skimmed it.

Well, cool.

Half the CoD series games’ campaigns are decent imho.
CoD1 + United Offensive = blast
CoD 2 = blast
World at War = decent
Black Ops = blast
Black Ops 2 = blast

I haven’t played BF3 or BF4 campaigns yet, are they really that bad?

Something tells me this CoD is gonna be multiplayer only. I don’t think they need so many universes.
And lol @ how they have 3 games planned in advance. Confident much.

I haven’t played much of either BF3 or BF4’s campaign, but they didn’t seem too great. The franchise clearly has it’s focus on the multiplayer component.

BF3 is just plain bad and boring. BF4’s is cute in the way it tries to be epic and serious.

Weren’t the Bad Company campaigns kinda decent, tho?

If cringe-worthy forced dialogues, little to no characterization and dragged on sections that made it seem like a stealth game seem decent to ya, then yes.

BF4’s campaign does have its moments, sadly not a lot of them. I view it as a way of preparing yourself for multiplayer, once you’ve completed it on hard, you’re ready for the MP.

All I know about BF4’s campaign is that the official description actually used the words “elite group of unlikely heroes”.

the only thing bf4’s SP prepared me for was the god awful rubberbanding and registry that is present in the MP, and SP had forced console-fov (fov was so low and unchangable)
the SP was so linear its almost an insult to the very thing bf is

when CoD isnt spending majority of their development budget marketing the MP, they’re doing it marketing the SP (most of the first trailers for a cod game is always about the campaign, including the super bowl ones)

if theres any franchise that doesnt need a SP, its bf3/bf4
DICE should’ve just continued the BC storyline with bf3/bf4, their new storyline is so half-baked as with the rest of the SP

at least CoD manages to make popcorn action-flicks out of their campaigns (alot of their campaigns since cod1 have had many movie references too)

I guess you haven’t played MP for a few months, if you haven’t noticed that the rubberbanding is gone.

Founded in 2004, Leakfree.org became one of the first online communities dedicated to Valve’s Source engine development. It is more famously known for the formation of Black Mesa: Source under the 'Leakfree Modification Team' handle in September 2004.