-
Ever wanted an RSS feed of all your favorite gaming news sites? Go check out our new Gaming Headlines feed! Read more about it here.
Polygon: Black Ops IIII might not have a SP campaign [UPDATE: Rumor: Battle Royale mode by Raven]
- Thread starter KoolAid
- Start date
If, and it's a big if, this is true then it sounds like a fuck up of the highest order. Absolutely sounds like they tried to cram as much of what's hot in the industry right now into the game and forgot why people like Call of Duty. Battle Royale, no campaign, hero shooter? Again, if this is true, then I'm curious to see it even though Battlefield is where my money will be going this year (as it always is). Maybe it will pay off for them.
I've been playing the Modern Warfare remaster this week for the first time and it's refreshing how simple it is.
I've been playing the Modern Warfare remaster this week for the first time and it's refreshing how simple it is.
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.
That ice redwood map was supposedly part of a winter event for BO3 that got dropped for whatever reason
This game is on fire. Loving it, even though it is one of my only anticipated games this year.
Battle Royale better have some good skins and customization in it.
Gimme that Body Count uniform I earned
Gimme that Body Count uniform I earned
Could be fun, though after the Infinity Warfare reveal trailer backlash, having a reveal with no campaign and exo movements may grind some gears.
Awesome shit is what's going on if true. Personally I loved all the enhanced movement of AW and BLOPS3. I'm hoping the rumors are true!
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.
The more that leaks about this game the more I lose interest. I just want a MW2 remaster at this point.
I'll be buying purely out of obligation but it seems like there'll be a second year of WWII and a third of MW:R in my future. Fuck the futuristic nonsense.
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.
Reverse is also true,
Best Call of Duty maps of all time(Crash & Overgrown) would be nearly ruined with advanced movement.
I just find it really hard to believe that after going back to boots on the ground with WWII after 3 years of advanced movement they'd not only go back to advanced movement, but throw in even more bullshit as well. If these rumors are true I wonder what kinda drugs they were using when this was greenlit.
User warned: Insulting other users
The CoD fanbase is finally getting the trash tier game they deserved. Couldn't have happen to a shittier fanbase.
So campaign was not cancelled? He said that he lied about the campaign plot and zombies but was he not lying about everything else?
If they really ditch SP, they might as well just launch COD Online, as a download only game, no physical copy and then every year they can just reskin it with a different COD theme...... :(
I'm all for adding a Battle Royale mode but that is in no way a replacement for a SP Campaign. Without SP I'm no longer interested in COD.
I'm all for adding a Battle Royale mode but that is in no way a replacement for a SP Campaign. Without SP I'm no longer interested in COD.
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.
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.
He made a couple of connections between BO3 and the development of BO4 that weren't actually told to him, and from the looks of it he also piggybacked on what is has essentially been the biggest theory that the zombies community has had as to what BO4 will be about. For example, the community was suspecting that the game would launch with a Mob of The Dead remake as the Season Pass bonus map, using the Tranzit crew from BO2 as the main characters because they were last known to have been put in stasis there. In addition most people thought that the on-disc map would take place in London. His leaks pretty much went right in line with what people were suspecting was going to happen anyway, and from the looks of it he did that to make it look more legit I'm guessing? Other then that, he still claims that:
> The Black Ops 4 campaign is cancelled
> In response to them cancelling the SP component, Activision made Raven Software make a Battle Royale mode to launch with the release of BO4 so the game was less content-barren on launch
> The zombies mode's development wasn't going well. Some new features being added in as well as pressure from the lead Jason Blundell made morale low and many were considering leaving mid-development. There is also a rumor that Blundell (who has been the head of zombies for Mob of the Dead and Origins, as well as the entire of BO3) would be leaving after BO4
> ORIGINALLY the game had very Overatch-esque gameplay with perks earned through killstreaks and no regular killstreaks, however it sounds like they have sharply moved away from that direction and have since seemed to move towards a much more bog standard CoD Multiplayer but that isn't testing super well either. It sounds like it would be a "best hits" kind of style with weapons apparently from multiple eras.
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.
But he did kinda kill his own credibility with this, so it's best to assume nothing at this point. The no campaign and Battle Royale were confirmed by very reputable sources, the rest not so much, so before making assumptions about multiplayer and zombies we should probably just wait it out - the reveal isn't far away and neither is E3, we'll definitely be smarter after those. For all we know they could have reverted the campaign decision as well, who knows. And let's not forget they talked about taking the focus away from single player and canning the campaign, still heavily hinting at the fact there will be some co-op or something. Might be some co-op survival missions, Quake 3/Unreal Tournament-style bot matches with ladders, a bigger focus on Zombies... we have no idea.
But this retraction should remind us, once again, to take leaks with a grain of salt. They could be fake, outdated, misunderstood. A low level employee will not know the exact reasonings behind the cancellation of the campaign for example, he could have speculated which was then reported as fact by websites. For all we know, the reveal may actually show us a campaign after all, but maybe releasing a couple weeks/months after the initial multiplayer package. We'll see how it goes.
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?
Maybe they just think COD is immune to that since its a class of its own and Actions is generally disconnected from the fans and media. I dunno, when the main driver of the rumor basically comes out and says that he lied about a good deal of his reporting, definitely makes me doubt. We will see
Read the doc everyone, he lied about certain parts by adding in extra info but not about the campaign being cancelled but it defo adds doubt to all his claims.
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
idk about those rumors he stretched them out to fit a narrative, campaign story idea was dropped 2 years ago (time traveling in your mind kinda like source code), it doesnt neccesarly mean campaign was cut, Battle royale was gonna happen anyway due to the success of the genre, and mp test builds have many different forms especially for focus and qa testing.
forget everything that you know from matt harris because apart from strung together rumors that span years we still dont know shit till may 17th.
forget everything that you know from matt harris because apart from strung together rumors that span years we still dont know shit till may 17th.
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.
It's all good lol, I should just edit my original post :P