When it comes to first-person-shooters, Activision’s Call of Duty franchise has attracted a huge following. With the first release arriving in 2003, the series has continued to progress gradually, partly thanks to innovative features of which were often introduced on an annual basis. However, the approach to forwarding a futuristic era setting has come under fire from many veterans. We don’t need to look towards EA’s Battlefield 1 masterpiece to realise that a return to a previous setting would be highly welcomed. Here we delve into an article that explores why Call of Duty WW2 will be hugely appreciated and entertain mass appreciation among gamers. Let’s begin.
Firstly, it seems important to mention that Activision’s roots actually stemmed from the setting of a World War II environment. Since, the franchise has explored many avenues, yet it’s the recent continued effort to deliver a futuristic first-person-shooter experience that has become an irritation to many.
Game developers don’t always listen, but sometimes they do
A useful tip to any game developer reading this article: gamers love creators who actually listen to those who are a fan of a series or game. With that said, EA’s Battlefield franchise clearly acted first, with Battlefield 1, realising that first-person-shooter fans wanted to see a high-quality alternative to the constant futuristic themed options, thus, bringing to the table an amazing WWI FPS experience that is now an award winner.
EA and Battlefield 1
Perhaps we should salute EA for acting first, after all, they may have provided the inspiration for Activision to react – otherwise, we might be hearing about a future war taking place that has little thought, new weapons, and a few maps, with very little else. I’m sure many would agree; Call of Duty hasn’t innovated nearly enough with recent releases.
Within the world of video games, competition is great, without it, there is no rivalry, and that can only result in one scenario: trusting one firm to produce the best – yet, Activision and EA are a fine example to me for expressing the importance of competition.
What’s the obsession with a return to a WW2 setting?
Many movies have attempted to tell the story of what this very war was like, yet a video game has the ability to place you within the monstrous war that is estimated to have claimed between 50 and 80 million deaths. Of course, many of the previous video games set around this event are rather dated. Since then we’ve seen the introduction of 4K resolution and virtual reality. Thus, many gamers have had the craving for the complete opposite of a futuristic shooter and a return to a realistic event from the past. What’s more, this isn’t just for the sake of change, but rather, it is a subject we should all relate to.
Nostalgia has a value
It seems to be human instinct, we just love to go back to those times and re-visit past memories. Perhaps this is why vinyl is re-appearing in shops, even though we live in an age from where physical media is not required. As mentioned, many gamers can probably relate to the original Call of Duty title that was set in WW2, this alone warrants a re-visit nearly 15 years later. We have constant reminders today of what’s wrong with the world that we live in, but re-living a past event can certainly remind us of just how unpredictable life and history can actually be.
I’m sure that in the months to come we’ll be taking a look at the pros and cons between Call of Duty: WW2 and Battlefield 1. For those Call of Duty fans out there, I do believe we are in for something very special. Get prepared to switch from drone operations, to the classic launch of an Atomic bomb, and a swap from the NV4 to the flamethrower. As mentioned, EA’s Battlefield 1 was stunning, but this has surely motivated Activision to retaliate with a first-person-shooter that has the ability to bring deeper, and must needed innovations to fans of the series.