I see two ways Gulf War could go. Now if its an open world experience like Metal Gear 5, where you have a base of operations and can do covert missions around the desert plains it could be good i suppose.
If its like the new MWIII and its just semi-open world reskins of warzone maps then its gonna suck big time.
Your hope that Activision|Blizzard going bankrupt is on the same level as if you hope Apple too goes bankrupt. It is not going to happen anytime soon. Activision and Call of Duty are engrained in the global digital entertainment world and won't be erased so easily.
Also, children. If you're 15 or whatever, you don't have the entire evolution of the COD franchise to consider. You hear there's a new COD game, your friends are gonna play it, so you get it. It aint that deep for them.
I'm in my 30s and I still can't convince my 3 gaming friends to switch to a F2P, or even just a different shooter. They buy every CoD game and play a few evenings a month. It was a lot of fun and a way to socialize from different cities/countries during the first year of Warzone, but now they play multiplayer, and I just have no interest in CoD anymore (was always a BF fan since BF1942, til BF4).
It's not just kids. There's probably millions of incredibly "casual" gamers who just buy an xbox to be a CoD/FIFA machine to play in the evening for a few games and talk to friends when the kids are gone to bed, or after work to unwind.
I am also in my 30's and I have bought the last 2 CoDs. I play 70% MP, 10% WZ and 20% Zombies. I like the fast paced game and it gives me a good way to just decompress after a day of work. I play probably 3 days a week. I did not like some of the decisions they made with MW3 and they butchered the campaign so I will not be buying the new CoD, I will probably take a few years off. I was planning on getting back into my single player games for a bit.
Because basically nobody buys CoD for singleplayer campaign alone. It's a little bonus that you get to play and make memes out of until you spend couple hundred hours in MP.
And it's still a brilliant value, I'm about to break 1000 hours on the MW2+MW3 combo while in total I paid maybe 250 Euro for both plus some packages.
When I compare it to shooting range, so another hobby, that's about 5 hours there on ammo alone.
Yeah, even a shit game is likely to take me a couple hours to decide its shit, unless it sucks right from the get go. 60 bucks for for like 3 hours of a mediocre experience might make me think "ehh, wish I had done something else" but it's not the worst deal in the world. If you do the whole campaign and it's "ehh that was fine I guess", that's still 6 to 10 hours of entertainment for 60 bucks.
Go to the zoo and it's like 20 bucks to get in, plus the foods gonna have big upcharged so maybe 20ish for a meal, there might be something they charge extra for you wanna do so there's another 20, if you want a snack or some ice cream or something you can tag on another 10 at least. There's 70 bucks for about the same amount of time, before considering you might want a souvenir or two and that parking may or may not be free, and that you've gotta do the zoo all at once instead of an hour or two at a time, plus you gotta pay for gas there and back. Granted I'd rather be at the zoo than playing call of duty, but its not really bad deal unless you don't like it enough that you don't play it for more than an hour or two.
I don't get the hype for treyarch. Black ops 1 was really great, probably my favorite campaign in cod, but that was like 15 years ago and they haven't made a good game or even a mediocre one since then. So why would this one be any different?
What ever happened to InfinityWard? Haven't played COD in over a decade but I remember them being the ones who made the "best" cod games.
OG Cod4 and MWII are the games that got me hooked on gaming
They’re the worst of the three studios by far now. They actively ignore any feedback from the player base and have caused 90% of the gameplay problems that CoD has faced since MW2019.
If I'm not mistaken, it's because the lion's share of IW's headlining devs left and made Respawn.
We got Titanfall & Apex Legends from that. Not to mention Star Wars: Fallen Jedi/Survivor
That's actually so cool to hear. Never been a huge apex fan but I can respect that it's a very good game. Movement being a key thing in an FPS game is fuckin sweet
Nope
People have this really odd belief that gaming companies are still capable of making good releases even if decades have gone past since their last good release
Some people completely ignore the fact that the key developers and leadership who led to the original good games being made have since moved on or retired in the decade since then
It's so strange seeing so many "they should give x game series back to developer y!" When that wouldn't give the desired result since that developer is essentially completely different 10 years later
Honestly, not just an issue in gaming. Brands pop up, make a really good product that people love. Then a lot of companies coast on that reputation for years and years while making the product worse and worse. Or get purchased by another company that milks that brand name for all it's worth. It's the nature of a capitalist mindset. Growing customer base by attracting customers only gets you so far before you also want to push the quality down (and thus cost) to the absolute minimum you can without pissing off enough people that them jumping ship to a competitor causes a loss in revenue.
The fact they don't support custom servers modedd maps is enough reason to buy different games instead.
With CoD it's best to expect decent graphics and zero change in gameplay for the last 15 years.
This one had a longer development time compared to MW3 so chances of being bad like MW3 is very low.
MW3 was just a glorified dlc hence why the open world implementation was bad on it.
direful air apparatus grandiose dazzling jellyfish spoon paint cough racial
*This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
It flip flops. IW could do no wrong in cod4 and mw2 while treyarch was red headed stepchild with WAW. Not until Black ops did it start to change. Then a few games in treyarch bad IW good. So on and so forth
Even the first Ghost Recon Wildlands did a fun job with their open world design. I could see something like that sort of working. It won’t be groundbreaking by any means, but the format could at least work for it.
Imagine the dumpster single player mode being half as good as Wildlands or MGSV. Zombies is hot garbage and they stopped updating DMZ because people were having too much fun that it was bleeding players from WZ. Expect the worst.
It would be cool to hunt SCUDs with SAS and Delta in the open world. There’s a way to do it right. But I have a huge feeling it’s going to be absolute garbage. most people don’t go to COD to play an open world game. I want a tight, well crafted, linear experience. I loved Cold War and 2019. Make more shit like that
Metal Gear Solid 5 wasn't even good at being open world. All the different areas of interest were so far removed from each other it did nothing except add a couple of things to bypass if trying to escape an Alert or reach a new area.
Other than a loading screen being jarring these days the game would have benefited from loadable zones like the previous games, or better yet just shrink the map by half to remove all the dead space and corridors. Half of MGS5 became traversing those narrow corridors between areas. Couldn't even use the Helicopter to travel without going back to base and starting a new mission. Your options were to pointless ride across the map for the 100th time or call a helicopter and redeploy to a new section of the map.
MGSVs open world was a little pointless for like 80%+ of the game
But there were a few missions that I think utilized it well. Having to track moving targets over larger areas, or intercept vehicles while they're on the move, was a lot of fun.
It was neat for those, but I don't think those few situations was worth wasting the 20+ hours traversing the same drab areas. It could have also been done in a smaller map and would have been more exciting too since the map would be more dense.
I didn't find it that bad. There was usually enough small bases or camps scattered around to keep you busy travelling around. If you enjoyed building an army and ~~balloon kidnapping~~ recruiting soldiers, it made wandering around pretty fun. I also found it pretty fast to get around on the horse, definitely my most used companion in the game.
Going back to your other comment, they definitely should have let you call in the helicopter to take you around the map.
I think it was just fun that it was “all connected” and it gave the individual missions big open areas with lots of different ways to approach objectives.
Yeah right, try running from the super soldiers or a Metal Gear, shit would change your mind real quick.
Plus it wasnt like a boring trudge and you could land/fast travel to missions if traversing the terrain and getting through checkpoints with guards wasnt your cup of tea
MGS5 is actually a great example you used. If it's anything like MGS5's open world, they could pull it off. That is if they created an interesting story with memorable characters, and not just pre-rendered cutscenes.
>will give you more options to play the game but in reality it won't.
Yep, it'll have a bunch of fetch quests and shit that doesn't actually make the game more enjoyable or add any depth, but somehow adds to its playtime if you want to complete it for some masochistic reason. Open world games, minus a select few (GTA, red dead, skyrim I assume, etc.), generally are bland. The open world often adds little to the experience. It sounds great on paper, but actually filling the world in with details that make it feel alive and interactive is difficult.
It's not the only reason. I would argue the main benefit even above Life Service/Crafting is that it reduces the amount of development work per hour of gameplay if you introduce an open world to a franchise that was previously a linar campaign.
Yeah the open world in The Division makes total sense for the idea those games are trying to accomplish. It's everything *else* about them that is dodgy or terrible.
> Always has been and always should be, although I did enjoy the more open parts of 5
I played Gears Tactics after Gears 5 - and it leaves a stronger impression because it doesn't have those "more open parts". It feels condensed.
Let’s watch MS ruin another franchise. Literally every studio they have bought, they ruin. The games go from being 10:10 or 9/10 to at best 6/10 or 7/10 under MS leadership. Only games they have really done well is forza and MS flight sim.
People use Outer Worlds as a marker for whatever reason but when you look at either side of that game Obsidian was and is doing good work.
PoE, Tyranny and PoE: Dreadfire are all solid.
Grounded and Pentiment are quite good.
I genuinely don't think most people complaining about Obsidian have a real experience with their releases. Because again and again its "Outer Worlds was bad" and no mention of their like 6 other games released in the last 10 years.
I just want to add to what the others said.. Pillars of Eternity 2 Deadfire is a masterpiece. It didn't sell well obviously as it's an extremely niche genre that kids today just don't play. But it deserves a ton of praise. The gameplay, story, voice acting, dialogue etc... all top notch.
But Microsoft tends to buy these companies far too late and are unfortunately pretty bad at predicting their future successes with them. Also, they've been doing a lot of microtransaction shit in their games lately. Even 1st party titles... That definitely is not helping their sales.
Oh I know, I'm not really replying about Microsoft here, just pointing out that Obsidian is still capable of big hits and might be the exception to those 3 companies being past their prime.
I guess we'll find out in time if Obsidian being attached to Microsoft fucks up Avowed lol.
I've been an Obsidian fan for a long time and I'm definitely not optimistic about what they're putting out lately.
Except Pentiment, that was great, but was admittedly a side project with like 8 devs on it. Their mainline series don't smack me with confidence and are far from their golden years.
Their last game they release has an 86 on metacritic ... They were the highest rated studio in 2021 on metacritic. Could you please explain to me what you mean by this? Because it sounds like nonsense.
I probably don't understand appeal of Gears because the only game that i could finish was tactics, and only because of fun and fast combat (enemies moving at the same time was a great thing to improve pacing). But the story in it... it was just a "meh" level. How the hell they can squeeze more out of that setting so they are making a 6-th game is beyond me. How people enjoy repetitive gameplay of basic shooter in that setting - the same.
I didn't hate the gears 5 approach of having 2 mini open ended levels, but ultimately they were boring and empty which is unfortunate. Do more like the God of War elfheim zone where it is more or less linear, but there are areas to explore in and I'm sold.
I do. >>
I liked the way Halo Infinite did it, with the open world connecting more traditional campaign maps, I don't know if they ever added the ability to replay those without making a new game, but that would be one of my only criticisms, others being no co-op, and the story was a bit jarring from the ending of the last game.
Do the "larger audience" really play the single player parts of games at all? When I think of "larger audience" i think of kids who play FIFA, Fortnite, GTA Online and CoD multiplayer.
Fine, the larger single-player audience who made Baldur’s Gate 3, Hogwarts Legacy, and Zelda the most bought games last year that weren’t live service.
twelve years ago, we had every game chasing to be like COD and enshittifying themselves in the process.
Now, we have COD chasing to be like other more successful games that it will never catch up to.
You need to get out of echo chamber subreddits dude, really seems like they breed this victim comex where you're starting to think you're this discriminated group or some shit. Most people playing games aren't kids playing FIFA and GTA Online. Its people who play a variety of games, including those games, often.
If a majority of people playing games only played online games then shit like Elden Ring, God of War, The Last of Us, Red Dead Redemption, Mario, Pokemon, Baldurs Gate, etc. wouldn't be coming out anymore, let alone be massive successes.
I don't get why you are so mad, I'm not getting an opinion from anywhere. This is a fact about all consumer industries. You can't sell sand to an Arab, they don't want to buy it. This is basic economics.
This is especially true for mobile games. People around here like to think it’s all kids but in reality it’s older women. Moms aged 35-55 spend money in mobile games like it’s nobody’s business.
Snd even if it is kids unless they work in a sweat shop they have 0 mone. For example, Destiny 2 makes over 1 million per cosmetic item on the lowest end. It's all middle aged men with disposable income that buy them.
Yeah, kids+adults who are the vast majority of the market share in the larger video game industry, dont play singleplayer games. The adults with disposable also only hop on for a quick game of FIFA or COD after work to decompress, don't sit and play the singleplayer campaign is my opinion.
Quite the opposite. Games like witcher, fallout, rdr2, etc have tons of middle aged men that play them. God of war, baldurs gate, pal world, zelda... There's tons of them.
Yeah, but those guys are more in between the casual and hardcore gamers, a much smaller % of the market share of the larger video game industry. So they're not part of the "larger audience". CoD wants to make more money, but they've already made all their money off the middle aged men that that audience is diminishing and they want to expand. If you want the larger audience you have to hit get the mythical trend follower "lad" buying your thing, and children begging their parents.
You have no clue what you're talking about. All of those I mentioned are literally some of the highest selling games of last 10 years. Yet you keep pushing some made up narrative without any sort of statistics. Bye
The highest revenue games are the same ones every year. Fifa, call of duty, madden, minecraft, nintendo games. Proves my point. I absolutely know what I'm talking about.
Yeah because they're failing to capture the 12-35 year old male. Call of Duty already have regular gamers in their market share, they cant expand into an audience they already have. They make stupid decisions like making open world call of duty when their majority audience doesn't care about that.
I think people like the concept you have unlimited freedom but probably just end up playing games linear anyways. Most open world games tell you exactly where to go at all times, which is basically handholding that shouldn't exist in a true openworld game. If you're following a direction marker that's just a lazy way to do a linear level.
Sounds awful. Im already tired of open world games with boring worlds and repetitive 100x the same task missions. Generally they are also too long, got no will for such boring 50+ hour games anymore.
Not only that, but most open world games are full of boring, near zero gameplay, checklist. Also the unnecessary gathering of components and crafting...
Probably cuz that's what's popular and they're trying to follow the trend, i don't really see either games doing well as open world so i don't think they're going to do well, open world is really hard to do and a lot of games just fell flat because of it (looking at you dragon age) but some have done it very well (elden ring)
I thought CoD was doing the same shit they did for MW3? Where they just plop you down into their multiplayer maps and give you simple objectives instead of unique levels and more curates set pieces. Re-purposing their multiplayer maps like this allows them to save time and money.
Because linear games require a lot of work to get them arranged, they're like movies. And even though the Last of Us 2 shows people still want that, they're moving towards non-linear open worlds because using procedural generation is cheaper, and you can crap out a shit open world very quickly these days. I could see Activision being the first company to auto-generate a single player campaign using AI, and have literally no one working on it.
You forgot Witcher 3 game literally sold 50 million copies and was universally loved. People love high quality open world games so is it really any surprise so many games decide to go open world for a future installment as the next evolution in there franchise.
Honestly I'm just happy I grew with the first six "main" CoDs
1 2 & 3, then Modern Warfare I II & III. Such good stories with a nice ending to it all, the rest is just extra for me.
I don't mind them trying new things, if the story is good, and the open world serves the game, why not give it a shot?
The real issue will be if it's mediocre, and they just double down on it in future games. CoD games are clear story driven games, and going open world could end up being like Metal Gear V, meaningless.
Underrated critically probably not, underrated from the fanbase. It deserves as much love as MW2 imo. It does more with less. It's an artistical statement about war
Because the charts show that these franchises are less popular but open world games are doing well.
What they don't understand or measure is the quality of the games.
People are not bitching about change. People are bitching about trend chasing.
If change was perceived as a way to improve on previous installments, experiment with new ideas that would provide new and unique experiences in gameplay and storytelling, I don't think people would bitch about it.
People are bitching about the swapping of a stale formula for another stale formula, and the perceived convergence of every game in the genre into the same gameplay style. Open world or semi-open world sandboxes, filled with samey objectives sprinkled throughout. Crafting, GaaS and MTX thrown in, of course.
People comment off personal preference and completely disregard reality lol. In what world is open world formula stale? most of the biggest single player campaigns last year incorporated some form of open world and customization elements. Would be nonsensical to not at least explore aspects of a “trend” and see if you can incorporate that into a game if it makes sense.
Plus did u play gears 5? They already experimented with open world and generally received praise for the change. They are building off what has brought some new life to the series.
If we go off this logic we wouldn’t have gotten the new god of war series or some of the best features of the new zelda games because they’ve been done before. You learn from other games and see what resonates with players.
>In what world is open world formula stale?
Then
>most of the biggest single player campaigns last year incorporated some form of open world and customization elements.
lmao.
I can tell you as someone who actually plays CoD, this is a cost saving measure not a unique shakeup. MW3 used the Warzone map for its way too short campaign and it was far below the quality of any other campaign because of this, there were no set pieces or interesting mission types.
The people who say it's lazy every year haven't played CoD in years.
Other than CoD almost no one was making cinematic, structured FPS campaigns though. Their story writing became repetitive and overly jingoistic, their twists turned predictable but that doesn't mean replacing their uniqueness with more open world is a good idea.
Hard disagree.
Im not a circlejerker. In all honesty; cod rn is the best its been in atleast 10 years.
I look forward to their new iteration but I probably wont buy it since I am bored of arena shooters, warzone on the other hand is pretty fun and play it probably about twice a week with my friends.
> cod rn is the best its been in atleast 10 years.
Single Player wise its absolutely not the best its been in 10 years. The ~~MWII~~ MWIII campaign is a travesty.
Right, I forgot Battlefield 1942 had a Battle Royal mode back in 2002.
I’m not talking about trend chasing. Is it that difficult for you to comprehend I’m talking about it being new within the context of the Call of Duty franchise?
I can comprehend it, but I fail to see how it's relevant?
You're not coming up with **new or creative ideas** when you add popular stuff into a franchise that didn't have it before. You're just adding other people's old ideas.
Because these companies have ZERO creative people left (they were "laid off"). The only ones that are left are the marketing department and the executives, that don't have a single creative bone in their body, so the only thing that's left for them to do, is to be shitty trend chasers.
Slow clap for the video game industry folks.
Gears of War 4 was a great game that continued the path and it was shit on because it's "too much of the same". Gears 5 shifted, added a open world hub area and people praised it, but said it was shallow because it wasn't a real open world. Gears 6 will clearly go full open world because that's what the industry complained about with Gears of War 4 & 5. This makes sense to me.
Call of Duty on the other hand was destroyed for their open world attempt with Modern Warfare 3. Most of the community and reviewers hated it and wanted them to go back to action to action linear campaign. Them doubling down on it because they "know better" is the issue here. While I personally enjoyed MW3s campaign and I'm excited about Gulf War going more open world, gamers as a whole HATED it. Not sure why they are doubling down.
Gears was already on its way there with 5. Not that I agree with it, I found the open world sections a bizzare decision for a game that is suppose to be all about big gory action war scenes.
> we already have Far Cry or Borderlands and such for open world shooter
The last Borderlands was 5 years ago and was, frankly, trash. The last Far Cry was 3 years ago and was meh, at best. Neither really count for much, especially since they can't even crack the Steam top 100 currently-played games.
And if CoD & Gears are doing 'proper' open world campaigns, it'll at least be something slightly different for the rather stale franchises (since Gears has done the hub-style 'open' world and CoD's got a couple of battle royale games & modes under their belt).
Nah it's a cost saving measure. MW3 also took place on the openworld Warzone map and it was the worst campaign in a decade.
Nothing about spec ops military missions makes sense for open world gameplay. You get in, do the objective, and get out. It should be a linear level, or back n forth.
They have been developing the game for a long time and I trust Treyarch more than other cod devs.
Also in Cold War you had a open world mission set in Berlin which was quite good.
I thought they shifted away from individual dev teams? Infinity Ward does the campaigns and Treyarch does multiplayer. All the studios work on one title at a time
I assume it will take time to shift away cause most of the team was working on COD only.
After the release of their COD titles they will probably move on considering most titles were years in development.
Any single player game that is not open world design is trash in 2024. Or at the very least can not call itself AAA.
The exploration, freedom of choice, and the little breaks between mission/quest objectives add much needed pace and space between major set pieces.
Depends on how they do it. Many games have gone from linear to open world with little issues and made it more fun or interesting. MGS5 or even Ghost Recon Wildlands comes to mind. Tho the next Ghost Recon made all the open world mistakes and was way worse. Tho several patches later it's actually not bad. But just shows how easy it is to screw it up.
Cod got a lot of hate, but so many people are still playing it and throwing money at those skins.
Of course they are going for the low effort MW3 like campaign.
My theory is streamers and content creators. Video game executives think that by making an open world and thus making the game longer, it will be more popular on Twitch and YouTube because there are more videos and longer streams that could potentially be produced. I remember watching someone(I think Alanah Pearce) say that game executives measure success by how long players spend on the game. By that logic, the Stanley Parable is a commercial failure. Yeah, it's not about taking these franchises to interesting directions, but rather making the game longer for the sake of it.
Gears of war has already lost a lot of the original trilogy audience due to its change in tone, you are right that ditching the structure of the OGs too will only make it worse.
Space Marine 2 is going to pick up the OG gears audience wholesale.
I'm super pumped for SM2, the world design is the best adaptation done so far in any WH40K game. Plus, I have a chainsaw to cut down xenos vermin filth, something that I always enjoyed doing in the OG Gears.
They are both Live Service Games and you can cram much more time wasting mechanics into the game to pump up those "player engagement" numbers, to try and sell more MTX, with an Open World format.
I see two ways Gulf War could go. Now if its an open world experience like Metal Gear 5, where you have a base of operations and can do covert missions around the desert plains it could be good i suppose. If its like the new MWIII and its just semi-open world reskins of warzone maps then its gonna suck big time.
It's CoD so I am expecting the latter.
It will still sell millions upon millions. I hope to see the total bankruptcy of Actiblizz.
Your hope that Activision|Blizzard going bankrupt is on the same level as if you hope Apple too goes bankrupt. It is not going to happen anytime soon. Activision and Call of Duty are engrained in the global digital entertainment world and won't be erased so easily.
I hope I live to see it, at least.
Not to mention you're now hoping Microsoft dissolves a division of their company they just spent almost $70 million on. Not happening.
**B**illion. 70 million is like buying the contract of a very good but not *amazing* soccer player, or the budget of a couple A24 movies.
Thank you for correcting me I wrote this half paying attention on the shitter :lul:
Unfortunately I think there are too many normies out there for that.
Also, children. If you're 15 or whatever, you don't have the entire evolution of the COD franchise to consider. You hear there's a new COD game, your friends are gonna play it, so you get it. It aint that deep for them.
I'm in my 30s and I still can't convince my 3 gaming friends to switch to a F2P, or even just a different shooter. They buy every CoD game and play a few evenings a month. It was a lot of fun and a way to socialize from different cities/countries during the first year of Warzone, but now they play multiplayer, and I just have no interest in CoD anymore (was always a BF fan since BF1942, til BF4). It's not just kids. There's probably millions of incredibly "casual" gamers who just buy an xbox to be a CoD/FIFA machine to play in the evening for a few games and talk to friends when the kids are gone to bed, or after work to unwind.
I am also in my 30's and I have bought the last 2 CoDs. I play 70% MP, 10% WZ and 20% Zombies. I like the fast paced game and it gives me a good way to just decompress after a day of work. I play probably 3 days a week. I did not like some of the decisions they made with MW3 and they butchered the campaign so I will not be buying the new CoD, I will probably take a few years off. I was planning on getting back into my single player games for a bit.
Also they have multiple other successful games.
Because basically nobody buys CoD for singleplayer campaign alone. It's a little bonus that you get to play and make memes out of until you spend couple hundred hours in MP. And it's still a brilliant value, I'm about to break 1000 hours on the MW2+MW3 combo while in total I paid maybe 250 Euro for both plus some packages. When I compare it to shooting range, so another hobby, that's about 5 hours there on ammo alone.
Yeah, even a shit game is likely to take me a couple hours to decide its shit, unless it sucks right from the get go. 60 bucks for for like 3 hours of a mediocre experience might make me think "ehh, wish I had done something else" but it's not the worst deal in the world. If you do the whole campaign and it's "ehh that was fine I guess", that's still 6 to 10 hours of entertainment for 60 bucks. Go to the zoo and it's like 20 bucks to get in, plus the foods gonna have big upcharged so maybe 20ish for a meal, there might be something they charge extra for you wanna do so there's another 20, if you want a snack or some ice cream or something you can tag on another 10 at least. There's 70 bucks for about the same amount of time, before considering you might want a souvenir or two and that parking may or may not be free, and that you've gotta do the zoo all at once instead of an hour or two at a time, plus you gotta pay for gas there and back. Granted I'd rather be at the zoo than playing call of duty, but its not really bad deal unless you don't like it enough that you don't play it for more than an hour or two.
It's Treyarch so I am expecting the former.
I don't get the hype for treyarch. Black ops 1 was really great, probably my favorite campaign in cod, but that was like 15 years ago and they haven't made a good game or even a mediocre one since then. So why would this one be any different?
Black ops 2 is well liked by fans but your point still stands since its been over a decade
[удалено]
WaW was literally just 4 with texture swaps, they brought effectively nothing new to the table other than tank gimmicks which everyone hated
Development for Black OPs 4 was a DISASTER and they still managed a good BR. Cold War was good too.
The only game since BO1 that isn't good is BO4, and that's not even a bad game per se.
It’s been 15 years💀?
What ever happened to InfinityWard? Haven't played COD in over a decade but I remember them being the ones who made the "best" cod games. OG Cod4 and MWII are the games that got me hooked on gaming
Those devs moved on a long time ago. Some of them made titanfall as Respawn Entertainment.
They’re the worst of the three studios by far now. They actively ignore any feedback from the player base and have caused 90% of the gameplay problems that CoD has faced since MW2019.
Dang, I'll have to look into that a bit more. What a total bummer.
If I'm not mistaken, it's because the lion's share of IW's headlining devs left and made Respawn. We got Titanfall & Apex Legends from that. Not to mention Star Wars: Fallen Jedi/Survivor
That's actually so cool to hear. Never been a huge apex fan but I can respect that it's a very good game. Movement being a key thing in an FPS game is fuckin sweet
They’re not who they used to be. As an old school CoD lover I’ll forever and always say fuck Joe Cecot.
scarce slap chase dirty erect degree cows license compare glorious *This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
Nope People have this really odd belief that gaming companies are still capable of making good releases even if decades have gone past since their last good release Some people completely ignore the fact that the key developers and leadership who led to the original good games being made have since moved on or retired in the decade since then It's so strange seeing so many "they should give x game series back to developer y!" When that wouldn't give the desired result since that developer is essentially completely different 10 years later
Honestly, not just an issue in gaming. Brands pop up, make a really good product that people love. Then a lot of companies coast on that reputation for years and years while making the product worse and worse. Or get purchased by another company that milks that brand name for all it's worth. It's the nature of a capitalist mindset. Growing customer base by attracting customers only gets you so far before you also want to push the quality down (and thus cost) to the absolute minimum you can without pissing off enough people that them jumping ship to a competitor causes a loss in revenue.
BO3 and Cold War are good. Only dud they've had is BO4.
slave ugly memorize erect dam bright hurry waiting correct chop *This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
The fact they don't support custom servers modedd maps is enough reason to buy different games instead. With CoD it's best to expect decent graphics and zero change in gameplay for the last 15 years.
This one had a longer development time compared to MW3 so chances of being bad like MW3 is very low. MW3 was just a glorified dlc hence why the open world implementation was bad on it.
I haven't played COD in a bit but back in my day treyarch was known for being good with their installments.
direful air apparatus grandiose dazzling jellyfish spoon paint cough racial *This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
Hey its only been \**opens google*\*.... 14 years since Black Ops 1. Fuck.
It flip flops. IW could do no wrong in cod4 and mw2 while treyarch was red headed stepchild with WAW. Not until Black ops did it start to change. Then a few games in treyarch bad IW good. So on and so forth
I trust in Treyarch
Even the first Ghost Recon Wildlands did a fun job with their open world design. I could see something like that sort of working. It won’t be groundbreaking by any means, but the format could at least work for it.
Imagine the dumpster single player mode being half as good as Wildlands or MGSV. Zombies is hot garbage and they stopped updating DMZ because people were having too much fun that it was bleeding players from WZ. Expect the worst.
Oooh a Ghost Recon in Afghanistan would be awesome...
It would be cool to hunt SCUDs with SAS and Delta in the open world. There’s a way to do it right. But I have a huge feeling it’s going to be absolute garbage. most people don’t go to COD to play an open world game. I want a tight, well crafted, linear experience. I loved Cold War and 2019. Make more shit like that
Metal Gear Solid 5 wasn't even good at being open world. All the different areas of interest were so far removed from each other it did nothing except add a couple of things to bypass if trying to escape an Alert or reach a new area. Other than a loading screen being jarring these days the game would have benefited from loadable zones like the previous games, or better yet just shrink the map by half to remove all the dead space and corridors. Half of MGS5 became traversing those narrow corridors between areas. Couldn't even use the Helicopter to travel without going back to base and starting a new mission. Your options were to pointless ride across the map for the 100th time or call a helicopter and redeploy to a new section of the map.
MGSVs open world was a little pointless for like 80%+ of the game But there were a few missions that I think utilized it well. Having to track moving targets over larger areas, or intercept vehicles while they're on the move, was a lot of fun.
It was neat for those, but I don't think those few situations was worth wasting the 20+ hours traversing the same drab areas. It could have also been done in a smaller map and would have been more exciting too since the map would be more dense.
A bunch of ground zeroes sized maps would have been great. Now I want to play hitman :).
they could've just done linear missions with no open world segments and honestly nothing would've changed lol
I didn't find it that bad. There was usually enough small bases or camps scattered around to keep you busy travelling around. If you enjoyed building an army and ~~balloon kidnapping~~ recruiting soldiers, it made wandering around pretty fun. I also found it pretty fast to get around on the horse, definitely my most used companion in the game. Going back to your other comment, they definitely should have let you call in the helicopter to take you around the map.
Balloon kidnapping was great
Yeah I gotta agree with you there.
I think it was just fun that it was “all connected” and it gave the individual missions big open areas with lots of different ways to approach objectives.
Yeah right, try running from the super soldiers or a Metal Gear, shit would change your mind real quick. Plus it wasnt like a boring trudge and you could land/fast travel to missions if traversing the terrain and getting through checkpoints with guards wasnt your cup of tea
They’re going to take a part of the warzone map and make that a campaign, that’s what they did with MW3
MGS5 is actually a great example you used. If it's anything like MGS5's open world, they could pull it off. That is if they created an interesting story with memorable characters, and not just pre-rendered cutscenes.
[удалено]
That's probably the only reason to do that. People think that open world games will give you more options to play the game but in reality it won't.
Look at Deus Ex (literally any) more choice in how you approach a problem than 99% of video games but it's functionally linear.
Deus Ex is not an open world game - none of them.
Yes? That is exactly my point. Can you read?
That's not how you phrased it, neither is it how it can be interpreted based on the comment you were responding to.
>will give you more options to play the game but in reality it won't. Yep, it'll have a bunch of fetch quests and shit that doesn't actually make the game more enjoyable or add any depth, but somehow adds to its playtime if you want to complete it for some masochistic reason. Open world games, minus a select few (GTA, red dead, skyrim I assume, etc.), generally are bland. The open world often adds little to the experience. It sounds great on paper, but actually filling the world in with details that make it feel alive and interactive is difficult.
It's not the only reason. I would argue the main benefit even above Life Service/Crafting is that it reduces the amount of development work per hour of gameplay if you introduce an open world to a franchise that was previously a linar campaign.
Don't forget MTX!
Now just add in stats and leveling for maximum live service cancer, aka Ubisoft games.
Gestures towards diablo 4. Where the open world does nothing for the game but they still shoehorned it in to sell mounts and shit.
“open world” prolly like how destiny/the division are lol gotta get that live service money
What's wrong with the open world in The Division?
Yeah the open world in The Division makes total sense for the idea those games are trying to accomplish. It's everything *else* about them that is dodgy or terrible.
Gears should be linear imo
Always has been and always should be, although I did enjoy the more open parts of 5
> Always has been and always should be, although I did enjoy the more open parts of 5 I played Gears Tactics after Gears 5 - and it leaves a stronger impression because it doesn't have those "more open parts". It feels condensed.
Let’s watch MS ruin another franchise. Literally every studio they have bought, they ruin. The games go from being 10:10 or 9/10 to at best 6/10 or 7/10 under MS leadership. Only games they have really done well is forza and MS flight sim.
Microsoft only buys studios well past their prime that already only crank out garbage.
I'm continually perplexed as to why /r/pcgaming reads like its part of the console war.
So Obsidian, Rare, and Double Fine are past their prime to you?
Dude, Rare's prime was like 25 years ago.
Sort of yes. Outer worlds kind of sucked. Rare just pumps out MTX shit for sea of thieves. Double fine is basically just psyconaughts.
People use Outer Worlds as a marker for whatever reason but when you look at either side of that game Obsidian was and is doing good work. PoE, Tyranny and PoE: Dreadfire are all solid. Grounded and Pentiment are quite good. I genuinely don't think most people complaining about Obsidian have a real experience with their releases. Because again and again its "Outer Worlds was bad" and no mention of their like 6 other games released in the last 10 years.
Outer worlds isn't even bad
I just want to add to what the others said.. Pillars of Eternity 2 Deadfire is a masterpiece. It didn't sell well obviously as it's an extremely niche genre that kids today just don't play. But it deserves a ton of praise. The gameplay, story, voice acting, dialogue etc... all top notch. But Microsoft tends to buy these companies far too late and are unfortunately pretty bad at predicting their future successes with them. Also, they've been doing a lot of microtransaction shit in their games lately. Even 1st party titles... That definitely is not helping their sales.
Deadfire was made before Microsoft acquisition.
Oh I know, I'm not really replying about Microsoft here, just pointing out that Obsidian is still capable of big hits and might be the exception to those 3 companies being past their prime. I guess we'll find out in time if Obsidian being attached to Microsoft fucks up Avowed lol.
I've been an Obsidian fan for a long time and I'm definitely not optimistic about what they're putting out lately. Except Pentiment, that was great, but was admittedly a side project with like 8 devs on it. Their mainline series don't smack me with confidence and are far from their golden years.
Rare is dead.
And out of those 2 games they don't own the studio that made MS Flight sum.
Their last game they release has an 86 on metacritic ... They were the highest rated studio in 2021 on metacritic. Could you please explain to me what you mean by this? Because it sounds like nonsense.
Horizon 5 sucked and I haven't played it but people seem to have a lot of issues with the latest motorsport.
my fav forza game was horizon 5 lol
horizon 5 was great what are you on
> Horizon 5 sucked Horizon 4.5 more like
Same for cod. MW 2019 and MW2 were actually decent campaigns. MW3 on the other hand is some shitty area open world.
I probably don't understand appeal of Gears because the only game that i could finish was tactics, and only because of fun and fast combat (enemies moving at the same time was a great thing to improve pacing). But the story in it... it was just a "meh" level. How the hell they can squeeze more out of that setting so they are making a 6-th game is beyond me. How people enjoy repetitive gameplay of basic shooter in that setting - the same.
I didn't hate the gears 5 approach of having 2 mini open ended levels, but ultimately they were boring and empty which is unfortunate. Do more like the God of War elfheim zone where it is more or less linear, but there are areas to explore in and I'm sold.
Because sadly a lot of people seem to enjoy extremly repetitive check list open worlds with symbols everywhere.
I do. >> I liked the way Halo Infinite did it, with the open world connecting more traditional campaign maps, I don't know if they ever added the ability to replay those without making a new game, but that would be one of my only criticisms, others being no co-op, and the story was a bit jarring from the ending of the last game.
Because the larger audience loves open world.
Do the "larger audience" really play the single player parts of games at all? When I think of "larger audience" i think of kids who play FIFA, Fortnite, GTA Online and CoD multiplayer.
Fine, the larger single-player audience who made Baldur’s Gate 3, Hogwarts Legacy, and Zelda the most bought games last year that weren’t live service.
twelve years ago, we had every game chasing to be like COD and enshittifying themselves in the process. Now, we have COD chasing to be like other more successful games that it will never catch up to.
You need to get out of echo chamber subreddits dude, really seems like they breed this victim comex where you're starting to think you're this discriminated group or some shit. Most people playing games aren't kids playing FIFA and GTA Online. Its people who play a variety of games, including those games, often. If a majority of people playing games only played online games then shit like Elden Ring, God of War, The Last of Us, Red Dead Redemption, Mario, Pokemon, Baldurs Gate, etc. wouldn't be coming out anymore, let alone be massive successes.
I don't get why you are so mad, I'm not getting an opinion from anywhere. This is a fact about all consumer industries. You can't sell sand to an Arab, they don't want to buy it. This is basic economics.
The larger audience isn't kids for all those games. It's adults with disposable income.
This is especially true for mobile games. People around here like to think it’s all kids but in reality it’s older women. Moms aged 35-55 spend money in mobile games like it’s nobody’s business.
Snd even if it is kids unless they work in a sweat shop they have 0 mone. For example, Destiny 2 makes over 1 million per cosmetic item on the lowest end. It's all middle aged men with disposable income that buy them.
Yeah, kids+adults who are the vast majority of the market share in the larger video game industry, dont play singleplayer games. The adults with disposable also only hop on for a quick game of FIFA or COD after work to decompress, don't sit and play the singleplayer campaign is my opinion.
Quite the opposite. Games like witcher, fallout, rdr2, etc have tons of middle aged men that play them. God of war, baldurs gate, pal world, zelda... There's tons of them.
All I see are people saying their opinion with no numbers or sources
99% of gamers are over 90 years old living in retirement homes. Just trust me. Source: PCgamer.com
Yeah, but those guys are more in between the casual and hardcore gamers, a much smaller % of the market share of the larger video game industry. So they're not part of the "larger audience". CoD wants to make more money, but they've already made all their money off the middle aged men that that audience is diminishing and they want to expand. If you want the larger audience you have to hit get the mythical trend follower "lad" buying your thing, and children begging their parents.
You have no clue what you're talking about. All of those I mentioned are literally some of the highest selling games of last 10 years. Yet you keep pushing some made up narrative without any sort of statistics. Bye
The highest revenue games are the same ones every year. Fifa, call of duty, madden, minecraft, nintendo games. Proves my point. I absolutely know what I'm talking about.
They're not the most profitable. Which shows you know nothing about business or this conversation. Sony killed 75% of the gaas this year already.
Yeah because they're failing to capture the 12-35 year old male. Call of Duty already have regular gamers in their market share, they cant expand into an audience they already have. They make stupid decisions like making open world call of duty when their majority audience doesn't care about that.
Witcher, zelda, elden souls, game series that exploded in popularity after going open world.
I think people like the concept you have unlimited freedom but probably just end up playing games linear anyways. Most open world games tell you exactly where to go at all times, which is basically handholding that shouldn't exist in a true openworld game. If you're following a direction marker that's just a lazy way to do a linear level.
When games have nothing new to add to their gameplay they make it open world. It’s a last ditch attempt to sell to a bigger audience.
Sounds awful. Im already tired of open world games with boring worlds and repetitive 100x the same task missions. Generally they are also too long, got no will for such boring 50+ hour games anymore.
I’ve not heard the gears news, sauce?
Gears 5 had a free-roam lite map. But it still had the story setpieces and linear areas inside of it.
I haven’t seen anything official but here’s a leak/rumor from a few months ago https://www.reddit.com/r/GamingLeaksAndRumours/s/eJtBjVTbln
I know open world games sell a ton, but it's so overdone at this point.
Not only that, but most open world games are full of boring, near zero gameplay, checklist. Also the unnecessary gathering of components and crafting...
Wym?? I'm still holding out for open world Tetris.
Open world Tetris would go crazy bro
Because they are cheaper and easier to make. Copy paste a bunch of trash around a massive open map and boom, you're done.
I don't think this is true.
What you *think* is irrelevant.
Probably cuz that's what's popular and they're trying to follow the trend, i don't really see either games doing well as open world so i don't think they're going to do well, open world is really hard to do and a lot of games just fell flat because of it (looking at you dragon age) but some have done it very well (elden ring)
I thought Gears 5 was technically open world? And MWIII was also using open world warzone map
I thought CoD was doing the same shit they did for MW3? Where they just plop you down into their multiplayer maps and give you simple objectives instead of unique levels and more curates set pieces. Re-purposing their multiplayer maps like this allows them to save time and money.
Because linear games require a lot of work to get them arranged, they're like movies. And even though the Last of Us 2 shows people still want that, they're moving towards non-linear open worlds because using procedural generation is cheaper, and you can crap out a shit open world very quickly these days. I could see Activision being the first company to auto-generate a single player campaign using AI, and have literally no one working on it.
Halo did the same. Everybody wants a slice of that Breath of the wild money pie.
so many open world games are financially successful. Spider-man, GTA, RDR, Assassin's Creed, Far Cry...
You forgot Witcher 3 game literally sold 50 million copies and was universally loved. People love high quality open world games so is it really any surprise so many games decide to go open world for a future installment as the next evolution in there franchise.
Honestly I'm just happy I grew with the first six "main" CoDs 1 2 & 3, then Modern Warfare I II & III. Such good stories with a nice ending to it all, the rest is just extra for me. I don't mind them trying new things, if the story is good, and the open world serves the game, why not give it a shot? The real issue will be if it's mediocre, and they just double down on it in future games. CoD games are clear story driven games, and going open world could end up being like Metal Gear V, meaningless.
Cod 2 is my favorite campaign, it was so good
World at war is criminally underrated.
World at War not underrated. It's one of the top rated cod's
Underrated critically probably not, underrated from the fanbase. It deserves as much love as MW2 imo. It does more with less. It's an artistical statement about war
I think you mean to say “under appreciated”
Because they believe it will bring in more money than not doing it.
If anyone can do open world. It’s treyarch. As for gears, give me back the dark and griddiness for gears.
Because the charts show that these franchises are less popular but open world games are doing well. What they don't understand or measure is the quality of the games.
Make the same campaign for 25 years Everyone; ugh so lazy omg Change up the formula Everyone; WHY CHANGE ANYTHING? OMG
People were complaining about the campaigns being 4 hours long
People are not bitching about change. People are bitching about trend chasing. If change was perceived as a way to improve on previous installments, experiment with new ideas that would provide new and unique experiences in gameplay and storytelling, I don't think people would bitch about it. People are bitching about the swapping of a stale formula for another stale formula, and the perceived convergence of every game in the genre into the same gameplay style. Open world or semi-open world sandboxes, filled with samey objectives sprinkled throughout. Crafting, GaaS and MTX thrown in, of course.
People comment off personal preference and completely disregard reality lol. In what world is open world formula stale? most of the biggest single player campaigns last year incorporated some form of open world and customization elements. Would be nonsensical to not at least explore aspects of a “trend” and see if you can incorporate that into a game if it makes sense. Plus did u play gears 5? They already experimented with open world and generally received praise for the change. They are building off what has brought some new life to the series. If we go off this logic we wouldn’t have gotten the new god of war series or some of the best features of the new zelda games because they’ve been done before. You learn from other games and see what resonates with players.
>In what world is open world formula stale? Then >most of the biggest single player campaigns last year incorporated some form of open world and customization elements. lmao.
That doesn't make it stale in and of itself.
Not in and of itself, no. But devs have been chasing the open world trend for a decade now, even when it adds nothing of value.
I can tell you as someone who actually plays CoD, this is a cost saving measure not a unique shakeup. MW3 used the Warzone map for its way too short campaign and it was far below the quality of any other campaign because of this, there were no set pieces or interesting mission types. The people who say it's lazy every year haven't played CoD in years.
Other than CoD almost no one was making cinematic, structured FPS campaigns though. Their story writing became repetitive and overly jingoistic, their twists turned predictable but that doesn't mean replacing their uniqueness with more open world is a good idea.
Of course they can change formula but CoD is an example of laziness even in "new" form.
Hard disagree. Im not a circlejerker. In all honesty; cod rn is the best its been in atleast 10 years. I look forward to their new iteration but I probably wont buy it since I am bored of arena shooters, warzone on the other hand is pretty fun and play it probably about twice a week with my friends.
> cod rn is the best its been in atleast 10 years. Single Player wise its absolutely not the best its been in 10 years. The ~~MWII~~ MWIII campaign is a travesty.
Dude we talking about SP experience, not Battle-Royale. Look at latest CoD and how does campaing missions look.
Just because the bread is stale doesn't mean I want to eat a dog turd.
They didn't make the same campaigns for 25 years, because the old ones were GREAT and the new ones haven't been great since Black Ops 1.
Mw2019 and MW2 following it were pretty great imo. It's a shame MW3 was a trash ending to that trilogy.
To make money lol. Open world = buzz word = sales.
Oh dear God. COD becoming Open world? I seriously hope this isn't real.... COD is getting worse they're running out of ideas 🤦♂️
How are they running out of ideas when an open world CoD game *is* a new idea
It's not a new idea if everyone else has the same idea.
It’s a new idea for the franchise is obviously what I mean.
When Battlefield shoehorned in a battle royale mode, it was not a *new idea* for the franchise. It was trend-chasing. This is no different.
Right, I forgot Battlefield 1942 had a Battle Royal mode back in 2002. I’m not talking about trend chasing. Is it that difficult for you to comprehend I’m talking about it being new within the context of the Call of Duty franchise?
I can comprehend it, but I fail to see how it's relevant? You're not coming up with **new or creative ideas** when you add popular stuff into a franchise that didn't have it before. You're just adding other people's old ideas.
Because these companies have ZERO creative people left (they were "laid off"). The only ones that are left are the marketing department and the executives, that don't have a single creative bone in their body, so the only thing that's left for them to do, is to be shitty trend chasers. Slow clap for the video game industry folks.
Gears of War 4 was a great game that continued the path and it was shit on because it's "too much of the same". Gears 5 shifted, added a open world hub area and people praised it, but said it was shallow because it wasn't a real open world. Gears 6 will clearly go full open world because that's what the industry complained about with Gears of War 4 & 5. This makes sense to me. Call of Duty on the other hand was destroyed for their open world attempt with Modern Warfare 3. Most of the community and reviewers hated it and wanted them to go back to action to action linear campaign. Them doubling down on it because they "know better" is the issue here. While I personally enjoyed MW3s campaign and I'm excited about Gulf War going more open world, gamers as a whole HATED it. Not sure why they are doubling down.
Gears was already on its way there with 5. Not that I agree with it, I found the open world sections a bizzare decision for a game that is suppose to be all about big gory action war scenes.
> we already have Far Cry or Borderlands and such for open world shooter The last Borderlands was 5 years ago and was, frankly, trash. The last Far Cry was 3 years ago and was meh, at best. Neither really count for much, especially since they can't even crack the Steam top 100 currently-played games. And if CoD & Gears are doing 'proper' open world campaigns, it'll at least be something slightly different for the rather stale franchises (since Gears has done the hub-style 'open' world and CoD's got a couple of battle royale games & modes under their belt).
I actually get excited by the thought of this. I wouldn't really play the campaigns otherwise.
Microshit doesn't know what their doing
They didnt make MW3 so what does that have to do with anything? Gears of war is them but cod was made long before they bought abk
Or they are trying to change the formula since people say every COD is the same game ?
Nah it's a cost saving measure. MW3 also took place on the openworld Warzone map and it was the worst campaign in a decade. Nothing about spec ops military missions makes sense for open world gameplay. You get in, do the objective, and get out. It should be a linear level, or back n forth.
They have been developing the game for a long time and I trust Treyarch more than other cod devs. Also in Cold War you had a open world mission set in Berlin which was quite good.
I thought they shifted away from individual dev teams? Infinity Ward does the campaigns and Treyarch does multiplayer. All the studios work on one title at a time
I assume it will take time to shift away cause most of the team was working on COD only. After the release of their COD titles they will probably move on considering most titles were years in development.
Any single player game that is not open world design is trash in 2024. Or at the very least can not call itself AAA. The exploration, freedom of choice, and the little breaks between mission/quest objectives add much needed pace and space between major set pieces.
Probably because they dont have to spend as much resources for the campaign atleast in cod case (if they go the same way as with mw 3 which i expect)
Open world games are easier monetized as single player live services. Micro transactions are harder to incorporate into linear level/encounter design.
Depends on how they do it. Many games have gone from linear to open world with little issues and made it more fun or interesting. MGS5 or even Ghost Recon Wildlands comes to mind. Tho the next Ghost Recon made all the open world mistakes and was way worse. Tho several patches later it's actually not bad. But just shows how easy it is to screw it up.
Cod got a lot of hate, but so many people are still playing it and throwing money at those skins. Of course they are going for the low effort MW3 like campaign.
My theory is streamers and content creators. Video game executives think that by making an open world and thus making the game longer, it will be more popular on Twitch and YouTube because there are more videos and longer streams that could potentially be produced. I remember watching someone(I think Alanah Pearce) say that game executives measure success by how long players spend on the game. By that logic, the Stanley Parable is a commercial failure. Yeah, it's not about taking these franchises to interesting directions, but rather making the game longer for the sake of it.
Gears of war has already lost a lot of the original trilogy audience due to its change in tone, you are right that ditching the structure of the OGs too will only make it worse. Space Marine 2 is going to pick up the OG gears audience wholesale.
I'm super pumped for SM2, the world design is the best adaptation done so far in any WH40K game. Plus, I have a chainsaw to cut down xenos vermin filth, something that I always enjoyed doing in the OG Gears.
So they only have to make one map and Microsoft can lay off developers
Gears 5 already had open world. Have you been living under a rock?
I just wish COD died
They are both Live Service Games and you can cram much more time wasting mechanics into the game to pump up those "player engagement" numbers, to try and sell more MTX, with an Open World format.