News - Activision Is Lying About Warzone 2i
I want to start this article with a disclaimer. I've been a dedicated Cod player for a decade, and all I want is for this franchise to succeed. This article is not meant as hate; it's a critique of Activision's messaging regarding Modern Warfare 3. Despite what many will try and tell you. I believe that Modern Warfare 3 is just a DLC, and that's okay, but my main issue is with Activision lying about this fact, treating us like idiots, and thinking we won't see through it.
I fully believe Activision is lying about Mod Warfare 3's development, and here's why I think: That, when Modern Warfare 2 was first being announced there was a common theme regarding the idea of a 2-year cycle this would be a first for the franchise as Call of Duty became famous or really Infamous for its yearly release schedule it's pretty much the only major IP that is in a sports game that still manages yearly releases, and as you all probably know they achiev this by having multiple Studios making games all at the same time and one of those Studios is Treyarch and based on the schedule of the games it was Treyarch's turn for a game in 2023 but for whatever reason, that game was not going to be ready in time and so Activision actually made a surprising move by letting their developers finish a game which is rare these days, and I absolutely love that decision but it did leave 2023 in a weird.
Spot, what would 2023 look like for Call of Duty? Initially, all the messaging was pointing to a 2-year cycle for Modern Warfare 2. There were tons of articles and rumors circulating about this 2-year cycle, and mentions of paid-year 2 DLC and premium expansion were floating around. It seemed as though Modern Warfare 2 would receive a significant DLC around October or November, and that would serve as the new cod for the year, but somewhere along the line, the messaging started to In February 2023, reputable games journalist Jason Shrier revealed that there would be a new Call of Duty in 2023.
This game, which would have Modern Warfare branding, was originally a premium expansion, but during development it transitioned into a full game. That's from Jason. So what caused the sudden change? My assumption would be the negative feedback to not just Modern Warfare 2, but, more importantly, the negative feedback to War Zone 2.
I think the right way, as we all knew, would kind of be a stretch. For anyone to stick with Modern Warfare 2 for two straight years, it's just not something we're used to, and the game really was not that good to begin with, and I think Activision knew this. I don't think the negative reception of Modern Warfare 2 is what changed their plan.
I think more than anything, it was the negative reception of War Zone 2. War Zone 2 flopped really hard, and they couldn't rely on it to carry the franchise for a year until Treyarch was ready, and that's when they had to begin crafting this premium expansion into a new full game. Obviously, none of this is confirmed by Activision; in fact.
On August 2nd, there was a steam announcement titled Allinone Place Call of Duty. HQ, and I could of course be completely wrong but that is the vibe that I get and I won't know my answer until 2024 when Treyarch's game comes out and we'll see if Treyarch game you know uses the Cod HQ I would be extremely surprised if it did, but if it did, then I'll admit that I was wrong on this point and I'm just overthinking it, but considering Treyarch's game will have absolutely nothing to do with Modern Warfare 2 and Modern Warfare 3 War Zone 2.
I would be extremely surprised if it actually did consider using the Call of Duty HQ, and if it doesn't keep using it. I think that would prove my point here. So far, I've kind of just been speculating. I mean, sure, it was just rumors that Modern Warfare 2 would be a two-year cycle, and I don't really have proof that the Call of Duty HQ is just a scheme to hide Modern Warfare 3's true identity, so let's talk about something more.
Concrete for the first time in Call of Duty franchise history, bundles of guns and skins from the previous game are going to carry over to the next game. And when I say that, I'm not talking about War Zone; I'm talking about just the mainline games. But even with that said, it just seems really convenient.
Right, it's pretty convenient that this game, which has already shown signs of being a DLC, is now also the first game to have a cross-over with the previous year. I mean, what are the odds of that? And let's not forget that Modern Warfare 3's campaign is also a direct sequel to Modern Warfare 2's campaign.
So in addition to the cosmetic crossover, this is also the first time in back-to-back years that a Call of Duty campaign is a direct sequel. Now this is a franchise celebrating 20 years. What are the odds that both of these major first-time things will happen in this game? I'm supposed to honestly believe that Modern Warfare 3 was always playing as a full-scale game when all of these coincidences keep adding up.
Now I have one final thing that I have just not been able to get out of my head since the day Modern Warfare 3 was announced: the game consists of 16 remastered maps from the original Modern Warfare 2. The game is titled Call of Duty. Modern Warfare 3, so let me say that again, Call of Duty. Modern Warfare 3 is a game that consists entirely of remastered maps from Modern Warfare.
Am I the only one seeing the confusion here? Wouldn't it make a hell of a lot more sense for the game that is also titled Modern Warfare 2 to be the one getting the remastered maps from the original Modern Warfare 2? I don't know; I feel like I'm starting to ramble a little bit, and I'm also getting extremely confused by the fact that we now have like five games in this franchise all named the same exact thing, but I hope maybe it's starting to come together for you.
I mean, all of this to me just screams of, like, year two content, right? It's a direct continuation of the prior year's campaign. It's 16 new maps, but they're all remakes, which makes it much more viable as a premium expansion as opposed to a real game. But I think it's clear that somewhere along the line, the decision was made to stretch this premium expansion, DLC, or whatever you want to call it.
They made the decision to stretch this to a full game, and it sounds like I'm complaining, but with all that said, I don't necessarily think this is a bad thing. I understand the business side of this; it's easier to sell a new game than an expansion to a current game, especially a current game that people don't even really like.
I mean. Blizzard and Valve just did the same thing like I mentioned with OverWatch and Counterstrike, and the failures of Modern Warfare 2 and War Zone 2 put Activision in a corner, and I don't know that Call of Duty would have been able to survive two years of just those games, so what's my issue, and what's the point of this article?
