WHEN WILL THE DEVS WAKE UP?

[OGHammertime]

I’ve been playing Call of Duty since the days of Call of Duty: Finest Hour on GameCube, and I’m writing this not just as a long-time player, but as a United States Marine Corps veteran whose life trajectory was genuinely influenced by this franchise. That is not an exaggeration. The early Call of Duty games, and especially the era around Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 2 and Call of Duty: Black Ops, helped shape how I thought about discipline, teamwork, and intensity. They created a level of immersion and respect for the battlefield that stuck with me beyond the screen. This franchise was not just entertainment for me. It was something that made an impression on how I viewed service, structure, and high-pressure environments. That is why it is frustrating to see where things are today.

Right now, it feels like Call of Duty has lost its identity. That is not coming from nostalgia alone. It is coming from someone who has experienced the franchise from its earliest console days through its peak and into its current state. There was a time when Call of Duty had a very clear identity. It was grounded, intense, immersive, and focused. It did not try to be everything to everyone. It knew exactly what it was and executed at a level that no other shooter could match.

The 2009 to 2010 era was the peak of that clarity. Modern Warfare 2 and Black Ops 1 did not just succeed because of timing. They succeeded because every part of the experience was aligned. The gameplay felt tight and responsive. The time to kill created real tension and consequence. The maps were designed with intention and flow. You could learn them, master them, and develop real strategy. The progression system rewarded commitment and skill, not randomness or distraction. The tone was consistent. It felt believable, grounded, and cohesive. When you loaded into a match, you knew exactly what kind of experience you were about to have, and it delivered every time.

That level of execution is what made the game addictive. Every kill mattered. Every decision mattered. Every match had weight to it. You were not being pulled in ten different directions by unnecessary systems or competing design philosophies. You were locked into the experience. That is what made it special, and that is what made it last.

Today, that clarity is gone. The experience feels fragmented. It feels like the game is trying to chase too many directions at once instead of committing to one strong identity. Instead of refining the core formula that made Call of Duty dominant, it feels like that formula has been layered over with features, systems, and design choices that dilute the experience rather than strengthen it. The result is something that feels less focused, less immersive, and ultimately less memorable.

This is not about resisting change. Change is necessary for any franchise to survive. But there is a difference between evolving a formula and abandoning it. The Call of Duty that built its reputation did not rely on constant reinvention. It relied on refinement. It took a strong foundation and executed it better than anyone else in the industry. That is what made it the standard.

Modern Warfare 2 and Black Ops 1 were not accidents. They were the result of discipline in design. They did not overload the player with unnecessary complexity. They did not try to appeal to every possible audience at the same time. They stayed focused on delivering a tight, immersive, and consistent experience. That focus is what made them timeless.

When you look at the current state of the franchise, it is clear that something has shifted. Players feel it. You can see it in engagement trends, in retention, and in how often people reference older titles as the benchmark. That is not just nostalgia. That is a signal that the core experience has drifted away from what made it great.

The answer is not complicated. The blueprint already exists. Go back to 2010, not by copying it directly, but by understanding the principles that made it work. Bring back grounded, immersive gameplay that feels cohesive from start to finish. Bring back map design that emphasizes flow, positioning, and strategy instead of chaos. Bring back weapon balance that rewards precision, control, and skill. Bring back progression systems that feel meaningful and worth investing time into. Most importantly, bring back a clear identity so that when players load into the game, they immediately understand what it is and what it stands for.

Right now, it feels like the franchise is unsure of itself. That uncertainty shows up in the experience, and players respond to it. You do not need to chase every trend. You do not need to overcomplicate the game. You do not need to constantly reinvent what already worked. You have already proven that you know how to build one of the best shooter experiences ever created.

The success of Modern Warfare 2 and Black Ops 1 proved that when you focus on fundamentals like tight gameplay, strong map design, and immersive atmosphere, you create something that lasts. You create something players remember. You create something players come back to. You create something that actually influences people, the way this franchise influenced me.

That is what is missing right now. There is a lack of respect for the core experience. Players do not want to feel like they are navigating systems or being pulled in multiple directions. They want to feel immersed, focused, and engaged from the moment they start a match. That is what Call of Duty used to deliver better than anyone else.

The reality is simple. The franchise has not fallen off because players changed. It has fallen off because the game changed. The demand for that classic Call of Duty experience is still there. The audience is still there. Everyone wants that back, not in the form of a remake or a temporary mode, but as a full return to form.

If the next Call of Duty, whether people are calling it Call of Duty 7 or something else, can recapture even a portion of what made that 2009 to 2010 era great, it will immediately stand out. It will bring players back. It will rebuild trust. It will reestablish the franchise as the standard for shooters.

But that only happens if there is a willingness to step back and refocus. Strip away what does not serve the core experience. Simplify where things have become overcomplicated. Double down on the fundamentals that made the game great in the first place.

Because at its core, Call of Duty was never about excess. It was about execution. And when execution was at its peak, nothing else came close. That is the standard. That is the expectation. And that is exactly where this franchise needs to go back to.

-Adam

 

[ODark30]

Thank you Adam for a very well written statement and Thank you for your service.

I lived the Call of Duty experience since day 1 of the very original game release. To be honest my best loved release was World at War. There was so much that could be done with that game from servers, mods and of course clans. My main focus was running a clan and using the mapping tools. I was approached to work at Treyarch as a level designer as well. I declined due to reasons but several of my mapping buddies ended up there.

Once they started down the road to where they are now with stupid costumes and gidget gadgets the writing was on the wall for me. Time to leave the franchise.

Surprisingly Battlefield 6 has more of a CoD feel than CoD has had for several years. I am playing it and actually enjoying it.

Right now Call of Duty is completely controlled by shareholders who do not care for anything beyond profit. Lets make the player pay for everything and the sad thing is that many of the idiot fan base are doing just that. From circus costumes, stupid weapons to hacks. The fan base/players are the ones that have destroyed the game just as much as the Devs in my opinion. Stop paying, profits drop, chaos runs rampant through the shareholders and maybe, just maybe we will see a return to a better game once again.

-Steve

 

[OGHammertime]

Thank you Adam for a very well written statement and Thank you for your service.

I lived the Call of Duty experience since day 1 of the very original game release. To be honest my best loved release was World at War. There was so much that could be done with that game from servers, mods and of course clans. My main focus was running a clan and using the mapping tools. I was approached to work at Treyarch as a level designer as well. I declined due to reasons but several of my mapping buddies ended up there.

Once they started down the road to where they are now with stupid costumes and gidget gadgets the writing was on the wall for me. Time to leave the franchise.

Surprisingly Battlefield 6 has more of a CoD feel than CoD has had for several years. I am playing it and actually enjoying it.

Right now Call of Duty is completely controlled by shareholders who do not care for anything beyond profit. Lets make the player pay for everything and the sad thing is that many of the idiot fan base are doing just that. From circus costumes, stupid weapons to hacks. The fan base/players are the ones that have destroyed the game just as much as the Devs in my opinion. Stop paying, profits drop, chaos runs rampant through the shareholders and maybe, just maybe we will see a return to a better game once again.

-Steve

Thank you Steve for that. I would go back to them and see if you can fix their stupid ideas. Jet packs? No. We want a vietnam call of duty or another world war 2. Let's make it happen. Battlefield is amazing. But clearly they incorporated DEI policies in their decisions when it comes to choosing characters... so annoying to me. Make it realistic. I'm sorry but a woman isn't going to be dragging my 6'2 240lb ass off the battlefield with 50+ pounds of gear. If some girl can do that then let's see it. But for real man. I didn't know a single girl that made it through combat training.

 

[Carlos]

I’ve been playing Call of Duty since the days of Call of Duty: Finest Hour on GameCube, and I’m writing this not just as a long-time player, but as a United States Marine Corps veteran whose life trajectory was genuinely influenced by this franchise. That is not an exaggeration. The early Call of Duty games, and especially the era around Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 2 and Call of Duty: Black Ops, helped shape how I thought about discipline, teamwork, and intensity. They created a level of immersion and respect for the battlefield that stuck with me beyond the screen. This franchise was not just entertainment for me. It was something that made an impression on how I viewed service, structure, and high-pressure environments. That is why it is frustrating to see where things are today.

Welcome to the forums, Devil Dog.

I'm not a veteran, but my story started before CoD4. But I stayed after CoD4. For me, CoD4 taught me the intricacies of real life war. My cousin was deployed to Iraq or Afghanistan (I forgot which), and I learned through CoD4, the horror of going into war. Sure, it's fun, but at the same time, war is ugly. I also learned strategy, I learned how to counter, I learned how to take risks, and whatnot. So, I agree here.

Right now, it feels like Call of Duty has lost its identity. That is not coming from nostalgia alone. It is coming from someone who has experienced the franchise from its earliest console days through its peak and into its current state. There was a time when Call of Duty had a very clear identity. It was grounded, intense, immersive, and focused. It did not try to be everything to everyone. It knew exactly what it was and executed at a level that no other shooter could match.

We've been complaining for years. Call of Duty: Modern Warfare (2019) just went for sale at $6 on steam. Exploded in popularity. All this on the backs of leaks, rumors and speculation towards "Modern Warfare 4." But we know they will fuck this up with their dumb ideology. You see, "Call of Duty: Modern Warfare II" was highly anticipated. Again, on the backs of MW2019. Everyone bought it, until we actually played it. The game was slow. Like it went backwards. Like it never learned a single thing from the MW2019 experience. They removed a lot of features in MW2019, and doubled down.

The popularity of MW2019 split the community into two camps this time. Most are saying it's trash, without understanding nuances. Yes, MW2019 had flaws, but overall? It was a good game. I have my complaints. Like the connection issues. Which we learned on the next game - Modern Warfare II, about - skill based matchmaking. They won't change SBMM, that's how stupid those Infinity Ward developers are. They are responsible for the downfall of Call of Duty. I haven't played a Call of Duty title since the new Call of Duty: Modern Warfare III - which is actually a good game. I left MWII about 6 months after. I left MWIII about 6 months after, and I never went back unless I try out the multiplayer betas of Black Ops 6, and Black Ops 7. I actually liked Black Ops 7 better than Black Ops 6. I waited about a month or two to make my decision on Black Ops 6. I didn't buy it. Same goes for Black Ops 7. Many people did the same, the fact that the games were 70 or 80 dollars at launch did not help, either.

The 2009 to 2010 era was the peak of that clarity. Modern Warfare 2 and Black Ops 1 did not just succeed because of timing. They succeeded because every part of the experience was aligned. The gameplay felt tight and responsive. The time to kill created real tension and consequence. The maps were designed with intention and flow. You could learn them, master them, and develop real strategy. The progression system rewarded commitment and skill, not randomness or distraction. The tone was consistent. It felt believable, grounded, and cohesive. When you loaded into a match, you knew exactly what kind of experience you were about to have, and it delivered every time.

Modern Warfare 2 has one of the best marketing strategies any company has ever made at that point of time. MW2 was so controversial, they got into the media. Black Ops 1 only catered to the history buffs, and rode the coattails of MW2. At this point, the series is the default first person shooter for the casuals.

That level of execution is what made the game addictive. Every kill mattered. Every decision mattered. Every match had weight to it. You were not being pulled in ten different directions by unnecessary systems or competing design philosophies. You were locked into the experience. That is what made it special, and that is what made it last.

100%

Today, that clarity is gone. The experience feels fragmented. It feels like the game is trying to chase too many directions at once instead of committing to one strong identity. Instead of refining the core formula that made Call of Duty dominant, it feels like that formula has been layered over with features, systems, and design choices that dilute the experience rather than strengthen it. The result is something that feels less focused, less immersive, and ultimately less memorable.

This is not about resisting change. Change is necessary for any franchise to survive. But there is a difference between evolving a formula and abandoning it. The Call of Duty that built its reputation did not rely on constant reinvention. It relied on refinement. It took a strong foundation and executed it better than anyone else in the industry. That is what made it the standard.

Again, 100%. Activision and whomever was in charge of these projects were looking at Fortnite, all these Battle Royales. They did it again with Extraction shooters which is how DMZ was conceived.

Modern Warfare 2 and Black Ops 1 were not accidents. They were the result of discipline in design. They did not overload the player with unnecessary complexity. They did not try to appeal to every possible audience at the same time. They stayed focused on delivering a tight, immersive, and consistent experience. That focus is what made them timeless.

I'm sorry, but I'm gonna have to a two way disagreement here. Yes, the game(s) were not accidents. It was building on the blocks that was left by CoD4, but I disagree with everything else. They were trying to capture all facets of gaming. MW2 was pure timing. Iraq/Afghanistan wars were happening at the time, so people were familiar with the theme. BO1 was targeting the history buffs, but others came into the fold, too.

When you look at the current state of the franchise, it is clear that something has shifted. Players feel it. You can see it in engagement trends, in retention, and in how often people reference older titles as the benchmark. That is not just nostalgia. That is a signal that the core experience has drifted away from what made it great.

The answer is not complicated. The blueprint already exists. Go back to 2010, not by copying it directly, but by understanding the principles that made it work. Bring back grounded, immersive gameplay that feels cohesive from start to finish. Bring back map design that emphasizes flow, positioning, and strategy instead of chaos. Bring back weapon balance that rewards precision, control, and skill. Bring back progression systems that feel meaningful and worth investing time into. Most importantly, bring back a clear identity so that when players load into the game, they immediately understand what it is and what it stands for.

Right now, it feels like the franchise is unsure of itself. That uncertainty shows up in the experience, and players respond to it. You do not need to chase every trend. You do not need to overcomplicate the game. You do not need to constantly reinvent what already worked. You have already proven that you know how to build one of the best shooter experiences ever created.

This complaint is an industry issue, more than just "trends." The way it worked in the past, is when you buy a copy of Call of Duty - that's a sale. Each Call of Duty title averages around 20 Million copies sold. The peak was with Modern Warfare (2019) at 30 Million copies, with Warzone launching at 70 Million installs. But along the way, they looked at player participation and focused there.

 

[Carlos]

The success of Modern Warfare 2 and Black Ops 1 proved that when you focus on fundamentals like tight gameplay, strong map design, and immersive atmosphere, you create something that lasts. You create something players remember. You create something players come back to. You create something that actually influences people, the way this franchise influenced me.

That is what is missing right now. There is a lack of respect for the core experience. Players do not want to feel like they are navigating systems or being pulled in multiple directions. They want to feel immersed, focused, and engaged from the moment they start a match. That is what Call of Duty used to deliver better than anyone else.

The reality is simple. The franchise has not fallen off because players changed. It has fallen off because the game changed. The demand for that classic Call of Duty experience is still there. The audience is still there. Everyone wants that back, not in the form of a remake or a temporary mode, but as a full return to form.

If the next Call of Duty, whether people are calling it Call of Duty 7 or something else, can recapture even a portion of what made that 2009 to 2010 era great, it will immediately stand out. It will bring players back. It will rebuild trust. It will reestablish the franchise as the standard for shooters.

But that only happens if there is a willingness to step back and refocus. Strip away what does not serve the core experience. Simplify where things have become overcomplicated. Double down on the fundamentals that made the game great in the first place.

Because at its core, Call of Duty was never about excess. It was about execution. And when execution was at its peak, nothing else came close. That is the standard. That is the expectation. And that is exactly where this franchise needs to go back to.

-Adam

All of this is going to go on deaf ears. We've been complaining about this for 6 years.

2018 - Call of Duty: Black Ops 4 - Sold pretty well, but participation started to dwindle around the 7 months mark. IMHO, it was stupid to keep it full multiplayer. And the spawns were trash.
2019 - Call of Duty: Modern Warfare - Succeeded, but participation started to dwindle around the 9 months mark.
2020 - Call of Duty: Black Ops Cold War - Kinda succeeded, participation dwindled in about 5 months give or take. It was fresh, but lingering bugs, and issues plagued the game.
2021 - Call of Duty: Vanguard - Bombed hard at launch. Beta was pretty good, but there are some features that closed a lot of ideas off. Like the champions mode had some cool ideas, but you only could play that for a bit. Not full multiplayer.
2022 - Call of Duty: Modern Warfare II - Kinda succeeded, participation dwindled about 4 months give or take. Right off the bat, gameplay felt WEIRD. Right off the bat, skill based matchmaking split the community into fractured camps, essentially. Infinity Ward ignored EVERY. SINGLE. FEEDBACK. Thus started the trend of downward spirals - all over again.
2023 - Call of Duty: Modern Warfare III - Kinda succeeded, participation dwindled about 3 months give or take. And this time, people left. Infinity Ward sabotaged Sledgehammer Games' incredible "support." They were listening, but every single update got reverted backwards because of Infinity Ward. There was a civil war and everyone saw it.
2024 - Call of Duty: Black Ops 6 - Kinda succeeded, and it's mostly because of it was Treyarch's turn. Sabotaged right off the rip. Same issue with Modern Warfare III. Difference is, the game went off on the deep end. Like it's not even a Black Ops title.
2025 - Call of Duty: Black Ops 7 - Same story as above, and this time - participation dwindled hard. Really hard. Lowest participation in series history. They even compared the game to World at War with regards to participation.

They did it to themselves.