Activision wanted more WWII games instead of Modern Warfare


Recommended Posts

modernwarfare21.jpg

Infinity Ward bossman, Vince Zampella, has told the Official Playstation Magazine that originally, Activision did not want Call of Duty 4 to be a Modern Warfare and had been holding the reins on a more ?modern? type of war experience for quite some time.

?With Call of Duty 2, we were dead set against it being World War 2,? said Zampella. ?But Activision really wanted it, the compromise sort of being that we?d get some dev kits for consoles in exchange for doing a World War 2 game. We always wanted to be on consoles and Activision saw us as more of a PC developer.

?And something I?ll add to that, Activision also did not want Modern Warfare. They thought working on a modern game was risky and [thought], ?oh my god you can?t do that, it?s crazy!? They were doing market research to show us we were wrong the whole time.?

Of course, in the end, MW1 sold 14 million copies. So, thereVG247-warfare/"]VG247[/url]

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 million copies?

No wonder they need to charge ?55 for MW2, they must be going bankrupt creating a new game on the same engine!

:pp

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ugh, this is what's wrong with gaming today. The companies don't want to take any risk, and why should they when they can just make sequels and rake in the cash? Look at the blockbuster titles coming out this winter, they're mostly sequels :(

(for the record, I'm not saying sequels are always bad... but seriously, how about some creativity?)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ugh, this is what's wrong with gaming today. The companies don't want to take any risk, and why should they when they can just make sequels and rake in the cash? Look at the blockbuster titles coming out this winter, they're mostly sequels :(

(for the record, I'm not saying sequels are always bad, but seriously, how about some creativity?)

Quite a few devs takes risks, and just because it's a sequel doesn't mean it isn't bringing anything new. However nor does a sequel need to always bring something new, look at how Uncharted 2 is scoring, it's not exactly reinventing itself, just gargling down the polish. However it has had a 2 year gap to give people a break (2007-2009), it seems 'fresher' being in the cooker as a franchise for longer, than being pump out like a sports title.

Fact is though, this is an FPS heavy generation, experimental games don't tend to sell that well, so more devs try their luck at generic FPS, than something fresh. Hopefully the recent Wolfenstein shows more devs people won't buy crappy FPS games.

But I will admit COD is being turned into a Guitar Hero, I really don't think it's necessary for a yearly iteration, they'll have 3 COD games out this year that will all still have at least some people playing. They should just cut off treyarch and let infinity ward release a title every 2 years.

Although let infinity ward try something new eventually please, they're good devs, don't pigeon hole them to MW forever, regardless of how good it is.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Although let infinity ward try something new eventually please, they're good devs, don't pigeon hole them to MW forever, regardless of how good it is.

Pleas will fall on deaf ears. As long as morons keep buying W@W and IW can knock out sequels in time for the end of Nov 2011 they'll keep coming.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Pleas will fall on deaf ears. As long as morons keep buying W@W and IW can knock out sequels in time for the end of Nov 2011 they'll keep coming.

Well hopefully the studio themselves wants to try new things, Bungie eventually cut away from MS to be independent.

Infinity Ward could do the same with Activision if there's ever an upset about management, although you can bet Activision would be flexible to keep arguably their best console devs.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is crazy. I honestly had no clue Infinity Ward didn't want Call of Duty 2 to be another WW2 game. I thought CoD2 was the best one of the series though, until Modern Warfare came out. It's still #2 though (soon to be #3 lol). Here's a good question though, who owns the rights to the Call of Duty franchise? Is it Infinity Ward or Activision? If it's Activision, does Infinity Ward at least hold the trademark or rights to the Modern Warfare franchise? If IW does, then they would probably be better off going independent, that way we won't have Treyarch screwing up anything else that IW does well.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Is it Infinity Ward or Activision? If it's Activision, does Infinity Ward at least hold the trademark or rights to the Modern Warfare franchise? If IW does, then they would probably be better off going independent, that way we won't have Treyarch screwing up anything else that IW does well.

Apparently it doesn't matter, I can't find the quote but someone pubished the results of a 'marketing research study' when they had dropped the CoD moniker. A majority didn't realize it was part of CoD franchise and was reattached shortly after.

Eidos did the same thing with Champ manager keeping the title after SI left and they still sold loads due to brand awareness. Another good example is Rock Band.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I doubt I would have ever bought a Call Of Duty game if it wasn't for Modern Warfare, it was the game that got me hooked on the series, I'm not a big fan of old war games so this was a nice breath of fresh air! Hopefully they'll keep trying new things and not have to revert back to producing the same old WWII games, there should be a limit on them :pinch:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.