Upcoming Call of Duty 2014 Teaser Has Begun

It appears that Sledgehammer Game’s is gearing up to reveal their first ever Call of Duty title for the next gen consoles.

Read Full Story >>
The story is too old to be commented.
colonel1791693d ago

You know a franchise is milked when they use years instead of numbers to refer to the newest one.

supersonicjerry1693d ago

well i mean its a squeal and we don't know the official name for it what else would they call it?

ScamperCamper1693d ago

There is a decent amount of evidence to suggest it's future or advanced: http://www.callofdutyforeve...

Activision isn't just going to pick something at random. If it's the most innovative release to date, then it has to be something completely new. In that sense, it's not going to be known as "COD 2014" or something weak like that. They have to really build a new branch for COD and picking the right name for it is important. They screw this up, the franchise is in big trouble. I think we all agree on that.

randomass1711692d ago

The CoD franchise is somewhat archaic and its modern incarnation is barely even a decade old with a bunch of games under its belt. Activision, as you said, cannot afford to mess one of them up so they constantly play it safe.

supersonicjerry1692d ago

@ScamperCamper exactly but nobody knows officially what the next cod is going to be called all of us are making assumptions that it will be modern warfare 4 and its a big chance that it will be that but no official word until they release the trailer.

mark3214uk1692d ago (Edited 1692d ago )

we all slag them off,saying that all the games are the same ect but we still buy them :/

+ Show (1) more replyLast reply 1692d ago
ZombieKiller1692d ago (Edited 1692d ago )

Lol @ your 5 disagrees. Those are the guys that already preordered the game without letting them finish the title.

I just don't understand the logic of the series. I hear so many people say the last game was trash so I'm waiting for the next one.....uh.....what?

Screw me once shame on you, screw me twice shame on me. Screw me every year and it's time to find a new game.

@ScamperCamper "Activision isn't just going to pick something at random."

Lol so Snoop Doggs voice saying "ya dig" over the sat com isn't a perfect example of that? These games are getting more careless as the hit the shelves. Each year they get worse with more shit for the kiddies to make mommy n daddy break out the wallets. Generic shooter for 2014 confirmed. I understand it's a different studio, but it's all under the same overhead, with the same rules, and the same engine.

k3rn3ll1692d ago

See that's the thong you answered ur question in tryout statement. If you've bought 5 games outta the series and only one of em you didnt like, that's a better ratio then most series have

CarlosX3601692d ago

Yeah, but that's how YOU feel, kid. Problem with a new "sub-series" is that they have to start all over again. Look at Ghosts; use your head.

Ghosts was a failure not just because of how absurd the game's code was; it failed because there wasn't enough marketing heat to the game - it's back to square one. So, Modern Warfare 4 makes MORE sense than a new sub-series...

I don't think franchise fatigue is the factor to the decline of "Call of Duty." It's still relevant, and will be until players stop giving two crap about it.

It's going to be MW4, live with it. If they go with a new sub-series, I call stupid. Back to square one again... which they can't afford to do with Destiny around the corner.

curtis921692d ago

get off it... it's hugely successful. And, believe it or not, a lot of fun -- unless you're a close minded "everything has to be 100% new and original all the time, always" kind of person.

Sometimes if something isn't broke it doesn't need to be fixed. Take that as milking all you want, but it works. Stop being so sour.

colonel1791692d ago

It has to be a balance though, and most of the time, having a yearly game comes more as milking than "hugely successful".

I even say that for sport games, should be only updates (as DLC) and release a NEW game every 2 to 3 years. How much can you do in a year to innovate a franchise?

At least Activision announced that the cycle between development for COD is three years, the same as Ubisoft's Assassin's Creed, so even if they are yearly, they can do something much better when developing them.

Joey_Leone1692d ago

@ScamperCamper The franchise is already in trouble.

maddskull1692d ago

i dont know but i feel cod will get better now because the devs have 3 years to make the game although i dont like sledgehammer games i am waiting for treyarch they are the best devs that made cod and with the extended time i think they might innovate and add new features

+ Show (3) more repliesLast reply 1692d ago
PSFanboy0071693d ago ShowReplies(7)
crusf1693d ago

If this CoD somehow manages to surprise everyone with awesome graphics a new engine and a fantastic story. You people will still hate on it. Why? Because its popular and we humans HATE whatever is popular Amazing how a few MP deaths can lead one to regret a 60 dollar purchase and disregard all effort put on development of the game. Worth noting IW had to develop for 6 different platforms at the span of 1 year. You tell me that's not an impressive feat.

colonel1791693d ago

Not necessarily! Remember that COD became successful after the reveal of COD 4. Even after they showed Killzone 4 which was much more impressive in all fronts. However, COD 4 had a very innovative multiplayer (at the time).

If the new one manages to impress like COD 4 did, people will be excited for sure.

HacSawJimThugin1693d ago

COD needs a drastic change like a third person perspective to get me interested. I doubt that that will ever happen but they need something along those lines. TitanFall is my go to shooter for MP First person outside of Halo of course. With that being said I like them to prove me wrong and actually make something compelling to play.

BattleAxe1692d ago (Edited 1692d ago )

I don't think people actually 'hate' the CoD series, so much as they're just bored to death of it. I used to play CoD:4, CoD:WaW, and MW2 like crazy, and I loved these games.

The problem is that it's the same thing over and over again with little tweaks here and there with the newer CoD games, especially ever since Black Ops came out. Not to mention, that Call of Duty is more run and gun than it ever has been in the past. It's not really a military shooter these days, so much as it is a Quake or Unreal Tournament game with military skins.

voice_of_ reason1693d ago (Edited 1693d ago )

"Worth noting IW had to develop for 6 different platforms at the span of 1 year. You tell me that's not an impressive feat."

It's not impressive at all, actually.

And if the game is truly amazing then gamers will recognize it.

Before Modern Warfare hit the scene COD was the same ol' WWII shooter. Everyone was tired of it... no one was hating on it because it was 'popular', it was just the same thing as the years before. Then IW made an awesome graphics engine, changed the multiplayer, and changed the setting to 'modern'. Ironically they have fallen back into the same pattern as before when COD was the same ol' WWII shooter... but this time, they aren't even trying anymore. It's quite sad.

crusf1693d ago (Edited 1693d ago )

Not Impressive? Have you ever worked on a game before? You know how hard it is to make textures,code, sound design and voice over work? Some developers are allowed years to craft there finished product.Why? Because they know it's not as easy as it seems to make a game.

Master-H1693d ago

Wut ? before Modern Warfare only COD3 sucked, and it was 3arc's game, COd1 and Cod2 made by the original IW team were pure gold, especially CoD2, CoD essentially became the new Medal of Honor in terms of quality at that time. CoD really went downhill once VInce and zembella left around the time MW2 released

NarooN1692d ago


Dude, CoD3 was great. It was pretty much a better version of CoD2, which itself was underwhelming. And you somehow forgot that CoD1: United Offensive was developed by Treyarch, and was considered by many to be much superior to both the original CoD1 AND CoD2.

WaW was the last decent CoD game, it's just been pure downhill ever since MW2.

Skizelli1692d ago


I'd say Black Ops was the last good COD game (single and multi), but that's just me. My top 3 would have to be COD4 > BO > WaW. It's a shame that all of these sequels put a blemish on the perfection that was COD4. It seems most people that are still into the franchise only care about the multiplayer. That's probably because none of their campaigns have come close to COD4's. It was a great game all around.

+ Show (1) more replyLast reply 1692d ago
bondsmx1693d ago

One year isn't correct.. They were on 2 year cycles. And now, 3 year cycles with SHG making this years game.

NarooN1693d ago

You're giving them way too much credit. Ghosts was just an abysmal game all-around, there wasn't anything remotely impressive about it, besides the fish A.I.

Six different platforms, you're acting like they actually only developed the game in a year? Six different platforms isn't as crazy as you're making it out to be. Create all the game's assets once, then scale them down as necessary to fit on the target platforms, whether that's removing certain post-processing effects or lowering texture resolutions and native internal rendering resolutions, etc. The only thing that was different besides that was the native code, so that's x86 for PC, X1, and PS4, and PowerPC for 360, PS3, and Wii U.

Not incredibly difficult, especially considering the engine is the same as it's been for ages now, and they've had experience in all these different architectures for years now. Not to mention it was more than just IW -- they had help from Neversoft and Sledgehammer IIRC.

If the games were truly great, gamers would recognize them. The CoD hate isn't unwarranted or based solely in hipsterism bandwagon-jumping as so many like to claim. People are sick of the blatant laziness that goes into the games year after year, and the effect it's had on the industry as a whole (people trying and failing miserably to copy CoD's success, other devs adopting Activision's sleazy DLC methodologies, etc.) It's definitely justified.

As for the story, just lol. The vast majority of people don't give a rat's ass about CoD's campaign modes, and the statistics prove it. Only around 40% of people even start up the first level, about 10% of people finish it, and only about 1~2% of people even beat the game. Source = Activision themselves, google it. It's all about the multiplayer, and yes, that is the point where they refuse to really innovate nor fix the numerous netcode issues and gameplay balance problems that have been rampant in the series for YEARS now.

So yeah, tons of people have very good reasons to not just mindlessly accept CoD as a "good series" nowadays.

crusf1692d ago (Edited 1692d ago )

"Create all the game's assets once, then scale them down as necessary to fit on the target platforms" You realize how long it takes to make those assets? You think all IW does is click a bottom and POOF a new Call of Duty. It's much more complicated than that."considering the engine is the same as it's been for ages now" Wrong again before assuming what un educated trolls imply read this and go to the list at the bottom. You tell me the team is not significantly improving there engine and its the same every year.

NarooN1692d ago

Nice job putting words into my mouth. I never said making the assets was incredibly easy, but you yourself lied when you claimed they do the games in "a year". Not to mention it's been demonstrated by end-users over the internet how they re-use assets anyway. Stop trying to martyr these guys so hard, lol.

The engine itself is the same. Yes, it has been incrementally updated over time, but that doesn't make it an entirely new engine. They get more than enough time to make these games, there's no excuse for the subpar quality of them.

And no, they are no "significantly" improving anything in the engine. It took them 'til 2012 to have HDR in their engine, and you're sitting here trying to defend them? Half-Life 2: Lost Coast showed that off way back in 2005! Get real, you and all the fanboys who are throwing out the disagrees are blind to the truth. I bet you guys are just angry because you keep buying these shitty games, so you're trying to justify your terrible purchases by justifying the lazy development of these games.

Skizelli1692d ago


Why spend all that time making new assets when you can just regurgitate old ones?

You're giving them too much credit.

k3rn3ll1692d ago

I agree with everything you said but IW had two years same as treyarch. Now each has three

Vladplaya1692d ago

Trust me, it will not amaze anyone other than Call of Duty fans... and it doesn't take much to amaze that type of people.

+ Show (4) more repliesLast reply 1692d ago
BattleReach1693d ago (Edited 1693d ago )

What? That 'coming soon' page is already up for 3 months! No need to make an article about it.