We won't know till the middle of May.So is this game modern day or not? I keep reading about wall runs and garbage.
The whole thread boils down to "we don't really know".
Reveal next month.
I see. I still have a feeling this games single player (If true) was cut relatively recently and late in development. I say this because of the snow variant of the forest map in Black Ops 3 that was added a month or so ago, which was clearly a reference to the Frozen Forest on Blops 3. It fits in line with the leaked story about changing history in someones mind. Combine that with the trailer showing old Black Ops footage and i have a feeling that (if true) this games campaign was cut pretty late and that the game wasn't built around being multiplayer only. Which i feel that there is some real potential for a multiplayer only CoD if done and scoped correctly.
Real shame considering Treyarch's past work.
May?Could be fun, though after the Infinity Warfare reveal trailer backlash, having a reveal with no campaign and exo movements may grind some gears.
Look out CoD fans everywhere, sick burn incoming
Problem with that is for advanced movement to be good the maps are designed for it, those maps would absolutely suck for boots on the ground.Honestly, I'd love some simple arcady mobility based FPS action but there should be an option to opt for simplicity with boots on the ground.
Cmon dude, really?The CoD fanbase is finally getting the trash tier game they deserved. Couldn't have happen to a shittier fanbase.
needs more mp40, famas, and an-94It's starting to sound like the MP is basically a "Greatest Hits of Treyarch" mash-up as far as gameplay goes.
So campaign was not cancelled? He said that he lied about the campaign plot and zombies but was he not lying about everything else?
Just because he admits he was fabricating some of the campain and zombies stuff doesn't mean that all of it was wrong. Until we have official word on this there's no real way of knowing 100% what is real and not, as well as how much of a bearing all of this will actually have on the finished product.
So is this some kind of meta marketing for the game about the whole "rewriting the history" the campaign of BOIIII was supposed to be about? There's leaks that say what the game is and isn't and then it turns out it's all wrong?
Just kidding... maybe. I guess the dude received some legit info (perhaps stolen from somewhere, who knows) and then embellished it with a lot of fan fiction and speculation. Considering the no campaign thing and Battle Royale were confirmed by other very reliable sources, I'm inclined to believe those were right. Though I wouldn't be shocked to learn these were, in fact, a form of controlled leaks or something: see how people would react to a no-campaign Call Of Duty and one with Battle Royale, but that doesn't mean both are happening this year.
What other "very reputable" sources confirmed the no campaign thing? And how do we know thier source wasn't this guy's information?
Didn't Kotaku and Eurogamer confirm it with their own sources? I doubt they both asked this relatively unknown and questionable dude who doesn't even work there. Again, it's entirely possible the no campaign and the Battle Royale thing are also bogus, but I'd assume Activision would come out guns blazing (no pun intended) to shoot down all nonsense rumors and reassure everyone there will be a campaign. Having the news spread for a month that the new Call Of Duty launches without a campaign is pretty bad publicity, so I'm inclined to believe that part is true. The rest about how the multiplayer and Zombies is comes from a source that just admitted fabricating information. Maybe some of it is/was accurate still, but either way we should probably just wait it out. My expectation is no campaign at this point and BR being a thing, the rest was probably largely bogus.
Did they actually report it as fact or were they just reporting on the rumor?
Kotaku cited "two sources familiar with the game", which arguably could mean anything of course, but they didn't just run a wild rumor but actually called up their sources and asked for confirmation. It's a rumor so crazy and potentially damaging that Activision only commenting "we don't comment on rumors" makes me believe they nailed it, otherwise why not flat out deny that there is no campaign when this negative news will be on everyone's mouths for weeks, potentially months if the reveal doesn't talk about the extent of the single player part?
Not only is IIII a valid alternative but in Roman times, they mostly used IIII, IV only became popular during the 13th century:
Not only is IIII a valid alternative but in Roman times, they mostly used IIII, IV only became popular during the 13th century:
https://www.eurogamer.net/articles/...m-about-the-logo-for-call-of-duty-black-ops-4
Sorry, dude, didn't realise. I just liked the Eurogamer article on the subject.The thing I love best about Era is being corrected a thousand times for the same mistake.
Sorry, dude, didn't realise. I just liked the Eurogamer article on the subject.