I knew that a battle royal mode was going to feature in the new Call of Duty, I had already made peace with the idea of Activision jumping on the battle royal band wagon. I knew it had to happen as free for alls featuring dozens of players is popular right now thanks to PUBG and Fortnite, COD has always been popular for it’s online multiplayer so I guess this was the natural evolution of things, you know alongside their single player campaign that is also featured in every COD title… wait what was that I just read, Black Ops 4 to not include a single player campaign…. ARE YOU KIDDING ME! Let’s back up for a second, one of the biggest draws people have to the series is being left out?? I know people love the online play and zombies (thank god that is staying at least!) but there are people out there who actually like single play FPS games.
The thing that makes this little revelation worse is that the new battle royal online mode is actually replacing the campaign, that’s right, they are ditching the single player campaign in favour of a damn battle royal. Like I said I knew this would be included, it is even rumoured that Red Dead Redemption 2 will feature one so naturally Call of Duty would too, but at the expense of something that has featured in every major Call of Duty title since its initial release in 2003. How on earth does Activision think this is a good idea? I have long thought that Call of Duty has had its day, I thought that perhaps a break for a year or two would help, not demolishing one of the main draws the series has!
Let’s think about this logically, yes many players get these games for the online multiplayer, but it is essentially the same year on year, what is the only real difference each instalment has? Its campaign. If Activision goes ahead with making Call of Duty all multiplayer, then there is absolutely no reason for a year on year release of a title, the single player campaigns are fundamental in giving a COD game its identity, not only that but it determines the theme, the technology and the weapons that will feature. If Activision wishes to jump on the multiplayer only bandwagon then great that means there should be a COD game every 2-3 years minimum instead of every year. I would like to point out however instalments such as Infinite Warfare had mediocre multiplayer but a great campaign! Without the campaign that game could have gone down as being one of the worst COD games ever, though I am sure they are still people that would put it at the bottom of the pile.
I understand the wanting of keeping up with competition when it comes to competitive multiplayer, honestly I do. I love multiplayer as much as the next gamer, that doesn’t mean I constantly want to be competing against other players, sometimes it’s nice to just kick back and relax with some single player instead.
If the rumours are true that the time constraint has featured in the decision making process here, then I would like to point out the 2 years it took Ubisoft to release Origins was fantastic, the quality was so much better, rather than rushing out another title. Activision should do the same, the campaign could be incredible with that amount of time spent on it, the multiplayer could be second to none. Instead they have opted to quite clearly rush the game out, to hell with the campaign many players actually enjoy. They are throwing away a critical component to the Call of Duty experience, a true shame. Ghosts is widely (correctly) seen as the series low point but I’d like to argue that Activision officially don’t know what to do with this series anymore and have thrown away one of my main reasons for buying it most years.
What do you think? Are you sad to see the campaign go or have Activision made the right decision?