Post Script
To get COD out of this mess, Activision should listen to its own advice
Any miss as dire as Modern Warfare III, from a weapon as finely tuned as Call Of Duty, demands explanation. Just a few years ago, the series was riding a popcultural peak not seen since the noughties, following the one-two punch of Infinity Ward’s Modern Warfare reboot and Warzone. Freed from novelties and buoyed by the best-feeling movement this side of Apex, COD won over a new generation while reviving icons such as Soap and Price in convincing fashion.
This was the hard-won payoff of a plan put into motion almost a decade ago by Activision. In 2014, the publisher announced that Call Of Duty development was to run in three-year cycles, with responsibility for each year’s release rotating between Infinity Ward, Treyarch and Sledgehammer Games. The latter was a relative newcomer to the fold, but had proved itself by putting together a singleplayer campaign for Infinity Ward when many of the latter’s staff defected to Titanfall’s
Respawn. “This will give our designers more time to envision and innovate for each title,” said then-CEO Eric Hirshberg. “Finally, we’ll give our teams more time to polish, helping ensure we deliver the best possible experience to our fans – each and every time.”
It was a shrewd move, protecting COD
from the painfully incremental progress of annualised sports games, and giving developers within Activision’s studio system more room to breathe. By 2016, it was yielding results. Under the direction of Jacob Minkoff and Taylor Kurosaki, Infinity Ward rediscovered its mojo with Infinite Warfare.
Though some fans rejected the space setting, the game introduced a character-driven sensibility to the series, and leant into brave setpieces against unfamiliar backdrops.
It was followed by Call Of Duty: WWII,
Sledgehammer’s most impressive release to date, delivering both exquisite cinematography and large-scale multiplayer battles with a narrative thrust. With just a little extra incubation time, COD had recovered from a creatively barren period and planted the seeds for today’s cultural dominance.
But the plan began to fall apart. According to Kotaku, 2020’s Black Ops: Cold War began as a co-production between Sledgehammer and Raven Software, the latter studio having typically taken a support role on previous COD projects. Yet infighting led development to break down, and Treyarch was called in to take control. Despite this upheaval, Activision opted not to pump the brakes on the gravy train, and Sledgehammer produced Vanguard
just one year later. Our 6/10 review called it “a case of a studio in retreat”.
In the aftermath, it seemed as if Activision might have learned some valuable lessons. A Bloomberg report from early last year claimed some executives believed Call Of Duty needed a break, and it looked as if 2023 would be the first year without a COD since 2004. But it was not to be. In the event, Sledgehammer again became the Activision studio system on the line, tasked with cranking out a Modern Warfare III at breakneck speed. What reportedly began life as an expansion campaign set in Mexico was reimagined as a premium release, taking the player all over the world and featuring the long-teased villain, Makarov. The stretch marks are everywhere in Modern Warfare III’s campaign, and it’s hard to imagine anyone is happy with the outcome.
The modern game industry is one in which triple-A releases take half a decade to emerge, and are often rebooted during production to meet changing player expectations. Right now, though, many of the developers behind the biggest FPS in the world are afforded just a fraction of that room to experiment and polish. The hope is that new Activision owner Microsoft will be able to see past its hunger for new Game Pass tentpoles and give Call Of Duty’s teams enough space to thrive. Or, as somebody once wisely put it, more time to envision and innovate for each title.