Rumour: Call of Duty Games Will Feature Open World Campaigns Starting This Year

Didn't people hate that?

@Voltan literally, it's baffling to see them double down and waste time on something so hated

@Voltan people did and rightfully so... This feels like the death of a franchise move. The only reason I ever bought CoD was for the super polished campaign and the well designed mp maps... Open world is the wrong direction

Strange choice after the reception of MW3...

@Mintie @Professor_Niggle Yeah. I haven't played the latest CoD but as far as I'm concerned, the series' highlights have always been the multiplayer and the campaign that felt like a super tight action movie.
This sounds like a bad idea.

Obviously this would've been in advanced stages of development before they had a chance to see people's reactions but it doesn't sound like they think it's a mistake.

@Korgon keep in mind mw3 was developed in a year using resources it had. Blogs 6 has been in development for 4 years. You can't just back track that work in 6 months after getting feedback on MW3.

@themightyant call of duty is promised to all platforms, including nintendos next generation switch for the next 10 years. Not that it matters since it looks like everything from dead box is coming to ps5.

I wouldn't be surprised if this was just a lame excuse to re-use Warzone assets and not have to create bespoke levels. They're probably thinking that people don't really care that much about the quality of the campaign anymore - and this was already very apparent in MW3.

@Mintie @voltan

The complaints were more levied at the quality of the maps, not their more open nature. MW3 wasn't really open world either, it just had open maps. Don't understand why eu publications keep failing to make this distinction. They keep this up, they'll be calling uncharted 4 open world before long.

That being said, call of duty doesn't exactly turn on a dime and blops6 has been in development much longer than mw3 was, with its single year of development. Additionally this is a blops title not a mw title. If you liked cold War, you should like what they are doing at Raven. You'll still have big set pieces, you'll see a more expanded version of maps with legitimate reason to be that size, I would not be surprised if they have stage select functionality given what we saw in cold war. After 4 years this should be a long title with a lot of polish. I wouldn't worry about it being an end to the franchise. It'll certainly give players something to talk about. Even if they hate it. Id say next years title will probably also walk the same path, but I don't think 2026 will.

I haven't played a Call of Duty game in a long time so forgive me for my ignorance here. Isn't the open world aspect of the single player game an opportunity for people who like to play the single player campaigns to not be pigeon holed into a few hours of the (from what I remember amazing story content) to something that can be enjoyed for much longer with an open world environment where content can perhaps be added? The idea of an open world environment actually is what excited me to read the article and comment.

I bet they are doing this to elongate the story time playthrough. They will be stating its the biggest game in the franchise yet at over 20hrs of single player content. However, half of those will either be fetch quests or driving back and forth between locations to complete a mission. I stopped buying battlefield when they dropped the story mode, and I would stop buying (well waiting years for a sale) of call of duty if the campaign is a bloated mess. I really enjoy the campaigns and don't do anything else with the titles

@JB_Whiting on the contrary they care about the campaign very much and they have data to back up that part of their user base does. The venn diagram for the demographic is pretty spread, leading to any part of the game being missing or of lesser quality than the rest, results in reduced profits. Vangaurd had a decent campaign with choppy mp, it got hit so hard that it's anyone's guess when sledgehammer does another cod as lead studio outside of expansion content like mw3. Conversely (and I feel bad for sledge getting hit with a double wammy) mw3 didn't do as well as the previous two entries and caught a ton of flack over its campaign, see this discussion lol.

Mw3's reuse of WZ maps has more to do with being strapped for time and bad leadership trying to make up for a series of mistakes. I would not be surprised if mw3s flip flopping between full release and dlc had a large part to do with it turning out the way it did. We will be able to contrast that difference later this year with what ever this game is even if it's blops6.

I also wouldn't back on this being called gulf War, no one at Activision is that stupid to call this game that. Especially when 80% of American's youth not being able to tell the difference between gulf and golf. That isn't even the top reason for such a lame name that even marketing won't want to touch. So there is a chance that even this information is second had and just wrong.

@NotSoCryptic
Fair point about the lack of time and resources. However, I still kind of think the linear shooting gallery style of CODs prior is just kind of the DNA of COD campaigns myself. Going open world just doesn't feel like the right choice to me anyway.

For me personally Call of Duty occupied a unique space where I could grab a game a few years after release for a tenner or whatever, and then play it for a few evenings. Enjoy it, finish campaign, and then never think about it again. The prospect of yet another game pivoting to open world bores me to no end. I like open world games but I lament the loss of straight up linear single player shooters - people like me only have so much time in the day as well.

@themightyant I am the joke :'(

Awful, truly awful decision.

Rather they just scrapped single player if this is the path they’re choosing.

I actually really enjoyed the open missions in MW 3 but I don’t play mp or war zone so I didn’t see the reused assets. I’ve played every cod campaign there’s been so I’ll be there day one for this one too especially since it’s raven making it who made one of the best fps ever with singularity.

Open world games are time consuming and most people play COD for the online which is why I prefer I smaller single player games that gets me in the flow of things. I think to make people play campaigns in games instead of just multiplayer, give us unlockables that you can only get in the single player campaign. Open world will work if it's not empty. A smaller open world with more buildings to go in instead of huge wasted open areas ( looking at you, GTAV). Hopefully it's good and they add a co-op mode.

As someone who used to love CoD, I eventually shifted to more open world FPS titles like Crysis and FarCRy because I generally like them better. My issue isn't with CoD's storyline being open. That could be great if done well (though we know how MW3 went). My issue is how gotdamm stale the rest of the package feels.

The MP is always so focused on tweaking minor ***** but then ends up feeling just as frustrating and frantic every release. It' never truly changes in a manner that makes it feel more fair nor more fun. It's been the same damn package (to the average player) for like 15 years. No, Activision, I actually DON'T want to keep paying for the same rehashed maps and assets every friggin time I buy one. It's a slap in the face.

As the rest of the industry has evolved and created all sorts of new genres and gameplay elements, CoD just sits there twiddling it's thumbs doing the same ***** year in and year out. It's exhaustingly boring. And when they DO bring something new, it's not even an original idea. It's an idea they've stolen from someone else and then somehow executed worse (see: Warzone; see also: DMZ). You'd think all the money they make could buy an original ***** idea every so often.

@Korgon blops6 aside. I agree with you. We have a ton of open space and open world titles. In a world where so many games are making that unlikely and sometimes dreadful switch. It's a breath of fresh air to have something more traditional. After uncharted 4's attempt at making that work for a couple of brief levels, I was ready to quit the franchise and never come back. Literally the most hated aspect of the game for me. People rave about mgs5, another title I felt like it was betrayed by design. Made encounters way to easy and added a lot of wasted time between me and what I wanted... the puzzle box of stealth. MGS5 was better adapted to it and I have no doubt that Kojima will fix those issues in his new espionage game, now that he's finally divorced from mgs to do something fresh.

So with cod I agree, it probably isn't what people buy the game for at the end of the day. I certainly hate wz, big fing empty map with nothing to do till someone takes you out or you wait the clock put long enough to become someone's villain, meanwhile running around looting stuff. Just isn't fun. It's not something that should be injected into campaign. Maybe on a smaller scale, but I think they should look to funneling into set pieces if they do. At the same time I'm sure the devs are sick of making the same game for each release. Probably how we ended up with zombies. I will not be surprised if they start taking on fighting games and platformers and metroidvanias to cod at this rate.

@MFTWrecks we get 3 new genres in the last 15 years and you think the whole industry is advancing forward, when they are doing the same exact thing. You're funny.

Not as half as funny as one of those genres resulting in one of the most profitable cod packages, warzone and warzone 2. I think you need to return to cod and see how it's changed.

I hated the open world missions in mw3

Noooo this sounds horrible. COD's strengths have always been in its linearity. We've seen how it looks when that's removed. I'm sure there's a chance it could work out for the best but this is a risky manoeuvre. It would involve major changes to the rest of the gameplay.

Please no. The open world missions that were in MW3 were boring. I don't think MW2 had any and even though that campaign was not great, it's still better than MW3. I miss when Call of Duty had linear missions.

This is clearly an easier option for them than creating a unique linear campaign, since they're putting so much effort and focus into creating large warzone maps, that probably leaves less resources to create the campaign so they're taking the easy route and reusing warzone assets etc. Even if they create new maps for campaign etc, that's got to be easier than creating unique meaningful linear levels

Sounds awful

Call of Duty is finally getting with the times

It worked out so well for Halo Infinite that it was only natural for COD to follow

I’ve always found CoD’s linear shooting-gallery SP campaigns boring, so personally, I’m hopeful about this new style of campaign.

Yeah, not a fan of this move. This screams "cost-cutting," to me. My assumption is the "open world" will just be whatever the current year's Warzone map is, which is super disappointing. I'll echo what many comments have said already, but I personally love the highly tailored bombast of CoD campaigns and this move will likely rob the campaigns of those spectacle moments. It remains to be seen, but I'm highly skeptical of this move.

@iplaygamesnstuff Same here. I haven't been interested in CoD since 2009, this got me slightly curious.

This seems like a bad move....

so sick of open world in games

@NotSoCryptic I pre-ordered and played MW2 (and have played the series since before Modern Warfare was even a brand). MW2 was ass. Warzone was ***** garbage. DMZ was a solid blueprint but they abandoned it without even trying to let it live up to its potential.

And yeah... 3 new innovations in the industry isn't a lot. No argument. But it's 3 more innovative play modes/trends than CoD has introduced to the industry over that time.

CoD hasn't done a damn thing that has impacted the broader industry from a design or gameplay perspective in... Years. THAT'S sad when we're talking about the biggest IP over that time. They are, and have been for coming up on 2 decades, industry leaders only in sales.

I won't apologize for wanting more from them.

Yikes, people really aren't keen on this potential move but while I can't say I've played MW3, I am hopeful this could work for several reasons. Warzone with three mates is still one of the best online experiences in my opinion - it got us through the pandemic lockdowns. If a whole campaign could utilize a large map without the Ubisoft filler then I'd be onboard. While COD campaigns always look nice, they're essentially quite basic interactive films not to mention the paltry 4-6 hour runtimes. I know most people get COD for multiplayer but I think an evolution of a military campaign in video games is long overdue and a well executed non linear experience could and should be something to look forward to. Do I have faith in these devs? Hmmm.

This is bad - very bad. Expect to see lots of recycled environments and a litany of forgettable campaign missions.

Hearing “open world campaign” in regards of CoD make it sound like it’s just going to be based in the Warzone map and all missions will now be DMZ missions with cutscenes sprinkled in

@MFTWrecks Never asked you to apologize. Just that your point of view is silly. One could argue that WZ has been pushing the bounderies on Battle Royale for a while now.

Call of Duty is defined by the cinematic experience. I could see an open world being interesting if the progression is similar to Dark Souls where everything is connected. Otherwise it’s simply an Arma clone and the last thing I want is a run simulator.

Wow, what a terrible idea. Unless they're going completely F2P lol?

Seriously? The games already cut more and more thin why 'scale' if they fill it with garbage or it's empty. Open worlds have a purpose but unless the things to 'do in them' are fun which for me most of them are not and the character movesets are boring so I am very open world or side mission picky why would I buy it.

Being cinematic is it's strength, open worlds can do that but don't work as well.

There is a reason I pick up PS3/360 shooters for their 1 key mechanic and that's it. Inversion, Fracture, Binary Domain, Spec Ops the line as examples. All fair games but cover based and some fair ideas, stories and settings about them.

Especially if many of them are cover based shooters besides your odd ones in the Crysis/Halo following of power suits like TimeShift or the arcade shooting gallery logic/modern character feel angle of The Club, the Max Payne style Wet, Stranglehold or Vanquish (mechanic not just the Strangehold/Wet approach of trying to be that type of crime thriller/noire or so story telling).

I mean there is a reason I dropped off the COD campaigns is they got worse and I also stopped caring because they didn't offer anything that exciting.

WW2 was fine setting wise (same with BF Hardline I bought it for the setting as it's 'not military', I have more fun playing BF2 Modern Combat for it's swap jump around the map feature XD mechanics matter to me, it's why Immortals of Aveum appealed to me is the magic idea and setting, it's not the best but it's something, Bright Memory Infinite the mechanics, Wanted Dead like Devils Third the sword/shooter combo approach) but the sci-fi ones I actually enjoyed the mobility aka why I like Titanfall 2 so much and it's interesting levels and mechanics.

The settings and visuals don't appeal to me. I can play the old CODs and still get fun out of them on PS2, sure oh another old period war game but the feel of the games are so different in MOH and COD of old I don't mind. They feel different to play so I don't mind and I'm curiosity how the series used to be is also the main reason.

I don't really pick up Indie/third party military shooters but there is so many and I don't see mechanics to care about just the immersion of the setting they go for. Which I have no interest in that angle of the games.

Incoming reused warzone assets and full priced $70