Call of Duty: Do we really want to continue down this path?

But you… remember that Call of Duty? Not me. And don't tell me that Black Ops 4 is from last year, because you just have to ask two questions around and hear that any type of player is calling it for the most part "Blackout”And not with the original name: the new mode has almost completely hidden the title of the game itself, and this is why Call of Duty: Black Ops 4 is completely disconnected from the historical trend of the series. By this I am NOT saying this title is bad, worthless or anything else: the game works, it's fun and well done, but it's just not a COD original. It's like taking two Samsung products and comparing them: being the same brand doesn't matter if you're comparing an S9 to an air conditioner. Closed this little parenthesis on the last chapter, let's discuss how we WANT the next Call of Duty.

Once upon a time

As usual, we cannot talk about the future without a slight hint of its origins. The series of first person shooter most famous of the console market achieved enormous success especially with the first 6 chapters, with the following division: the first three for Sony PlayStation 2 and the following in the next generation. This division not only marks the technical sector of the machines, but also an important break in the characteristics introduced in these sections. In the first, Call of Duty establishes itself as a war game that narrates the events of world conflicts with an ad-hoc campaign, mixed with excellent narration and intriguing gameplay, which made you feel part of the action. In its second half, the team focused on online gaming and creating a system multiplayer that it could indeed be within everyone's reach, but at the same time it was necessary to make it possible - for those who wanted to do so - to specialize in the game and reach ever higher levels of skill, and therefore that the game mechanics allowed it. The perfect example of this goal is the saga of Modern Warfare, which proposed a mixed gameplay of speed but not frenzy, strategy but not immobility and ease of access but just as much difficulty in "mastering" the game.

Finally, in my opinion, there is a special case: the on-screen poem called World at war. Call of Duty reaches its peak here, with a campaign designed on huge but not at all dispersive maps, well-characterized characters, a well-kept artificial intelligence and missions that are not at all repetitive, all united by an autobiographical documentary-style narrative written with the maximum precision. And no, the game is not limited to this, because once the campaign was over, we flew to CoD multiplayer with huge maps, the possibility of using vehicles and a few weapons (5 for each type, for 5 types) of which, however, none is unbalanced compared to the others, but each had to be chosen based on its own style of play and the strategy to be adopted: the PPSH and the MP40 both fall into the category of SMGs, but while the first is more suitable for close combat with its very high rate, the second allows a more eclectic approach, while maintaining moderate precision at the expense of a lower rate. Such a balance was a more unique than rare case, since for the construction of multiple weapons it was impossible to balance all of them and each time there was a better choice than all the others.

The next page

But now let's not focus on the past, since today we want to look to the future: how a new Call of Duty to be able to satisfy both the old and the new generations of players, who are looking for something modern but that “tastes of history”? Here comes the critical point of every "new choice", abandon the old format for a new bet o to point out something already seen? Surely this is not a choice to be taken lightly, but such a brand can risk it. After all, it has a 50% chance of success and a 50% failure, but if we have forgiven abominations of the likes of Ghost, why should we forget a failed attempt by a new IP to improve itself? There have been cases - such as The Division or Rainbow Six: Siege - where the starting game was condemned a lot and judged "not up to par", but which over time managed to be reborn, thanks to the studio that has not lost its hopes by supporting the titles with continuous updates and new content.

If we had to really talk about HOW we would like to see the game, first of all we would have to find a historical-time span in which to set it, and there are many unexplored cases. The two world wars have been dealt with over and over again, so it would be better to set them aside and get closer to contemporaneity. Events such as the Zanzibar crisis or the hunt for terrorism in the Middle East are war scenarios seen very little at stake, and the temporal proximity to the present day would also give developers the freedom to select the technological equipment to be included, and maybe " put your hand to it ". Once the period has been chosen, the genre should then be found. Surely Call of Duty cannot be but one First Person Shooter, but even more must reacquire a title, the game “of War" for excellence. In addition to a well-structured single player campaign, this time it is necessary to put your hand to the multiplayer compartment. Do you know what has always been a criticism of the title? The one that in reality did not perceive the true feeling of being at war, but more that of a shooter. Now comes the time to go straight in, with factional clashes fighting an objective in a mode similar to Dominion, a team Deatmatch, or carrying a load… but in BIG.

Reading them, the modes are very similar to those already present in the Call of Duty especially the previous generation, but the point is that the game maps and mechanics seemed much more oriented to the performance of the single person, especially in very large maps with 8 players per team (which rarely were all connected); the maps should be reformed, perhaps with two or more fronts and a central area oriented to the clash between the factions. And the factions must be the focus of the game: no one would dream of playing Overwatch with a team of Attackers only; therefore, as in the latter you need Tanks, Curators and so on, the same must be true for COD, because this is how war works.

Engineers who place tools to detect the enemy and give support to comrades, Snipers who keep the "hot zone" at gunpoint, Doctors who can give support to wounded comrades, Bomb Squads, Spies and so on. There are many ideas, they are just to be implemented. This would lead to two advantages: the first is that of intensify teamwork, where each player can specialize in the role he prefers, and above all allows make changes to the development team, perhaps updating the skills of the various roles and so on. These are all ideas that if well blended could give life to a "definitive" game, one that can become a fixed point - such as Rainbow Six or Overwatch - which over the years however does not vary, but which it updates and evolves over time. Call of Duty has all the credentials to return to the top of the rankings and regain a place in the hearts of the players ... so why, with all these cards available, is it satisfied with a set of three when it could put on a royal flush?