Call of Duty: Ghosts announcement expected this week

By on April 29, 2013, 8:00 AM
black ops, activision, modern warfare, call of duty, infinity ward, ghosts, call of duty ghosts

The latest release in the Call of Duty franchise could be announced as early as this week. Promotional material for the unannounced title known as Call of Duty: Ghosts highlight a May 1 reveal although it’s unclear if Activision plans to showcase anything on that date or if it’s simply the day that promo material will hit retail stores.

If you recall, last year’s Call of Duty sequel was unveiled on the same day which lends some credit to this year’s rumor. If it’s anything like what we saw with Black Ops 2, gamers can probably expect an intro to the game’s storyline as well as a trailer. Odds are, however, that the majority of information and gameplay footage will be reserved for next month’s next generation Xbox reveal or in June during E3.

Leaked product listings have already revealed the box art and we already know a good bit about the direction the title will take the franchise. According to previous rumors, the storyline is said to branch out of the Modern Warfare series but move in a different direction.

We are told that the campaign will be set sometime in the future although with present-day weapons due to the fact that one of the major plot points in the game has to do with using weapons from the past. The game will also feature destructive environments like those found in Battlefield. It’ll be interesting to see how Infinity Ward handles destructive environments in multiplayer.




User Comments: 18

Got something to say? Post a comment
ghasmanjr ghasmanjr said:

"We are told that the campaign will be set sometime in the future although with present-day weapons due to the fact that one of the major plot points in the game has to do with using weapons from the past. The game will also feature destructive environments like those found in Battlefield. It?ll be interesting to see how Infinity Ward handles destructive environments in multiplayer."

So modern guns cannot be used and the environments are destructive. This sounds like the ID locked guns of Metal Gear Solid 4 meets Battlefield. I really do hope this CoD is an innovative success. I emphasize "innovative" because you can almost guarantee that if Infinity Ward poops in a game case, it will still sell millions. The game is going to outsell Black Ops 2 simply due to name only. Please please please please try hard with this game. I miss Call of Duty 4: Modern Warfare. It's been downhill since there...

LukeDJ LukeDJ said:

I miss Call of Duty 4: Modern Warfare. It's been downhill since there...

I see people say this all the time, but it's really silly idea that COD4 was the "best" cod.

If Modern Warfare 2, Black ops or such had been released in 2007, then everybody would still be reminiscing about how amazing a game it was. What if COD4 had been released instead in 2012? It would be a major step back compared to current titles.

I think the statement should go more like "I miss Call of Duty 4: Modern Warfare. It's been small incremental improvements since then that fail to inspire the same sense of awe that the original idea did."

And really, why should Activision push for major innovations, they sell more and more games each year, with little creative effort on their part, and rake in preposterous amounts of cash.

If you want a different gaming experience, then go play a different game. If you want a game that is the same as the last at its core, but offers a couple of tweaks and tune-ups, get the next cod.

Burty117 Burty117, TechSpot Chancellor, said:

I miss Call of Duty 4: Modern Warfare. It's been downhill since there...

I see people say this all the time, but it's really silly idea that COD4 was the "best" cod.

If Modern Warfare 2, Black ops or such had been released in 2007, then everybody would still be reminiscing about how amazing a game it was. What if COD4 had been released instead in 2012? It would be a major step back compared to current titles.

What are you saying? Modern warfare 2 couldn't exist without the first? Black ops was created by a different developer but essentially builds on the same grounds as original modern warfare, how can something old be released after its sequel?

I think the statement should go more like "I miss Call of Duty 4: Modern Warfare. It's been small incremental improvements since then that fail to inspire the same sense of awe that the original idea did."

Well no, CoD 4 was a favourite because it was a first to move away from WWII it's a favourite because you could have actual customised servers, it was the first and not much has changed, hell some things got worse like a server browser...

And really, why should Activision push for major innovations, they sell more and more games each year, with little creative effort on their part, and rake in preposterous amounts of cash.

If you want a different gaming experience, then go play a different game. If you want a game that is the same as the last at its core, but offers a couple of tweaks and tune-ups, get the next cod.

True, the public love CoD and seem willing to buy the next one at full price even though there is little change.

Battlefield (on pc anyway) feels far more "grown up" for the lack of a better word when it came to multiplayer gaming, not because of the people playing online but because destruction and the way bullet drop happens etc... Just felt like it was designed with someone intelligent in mind, don't hide behind a thin wall so you don't die, CoD is just an arcade shooter, run, aim in someone general direction and wait for the Auto-aim to reach the head, pull trigger, kill, die, repeat.

Anyway, fact of the matter is CoD 4 was the best one because it was the first and had some better features, nothing has changed at its core since, except they took away proper server support, basically they made it for consoles when CoD was born on the pc...

ghasmanjr ghasmanjr said:

I see people say this all the time, but it's really silly idea that COD4 was the "best" cod.

If Modern Warfare 2, Black ops or such had been released in 2007, then everybody would still be reminiscing about how amazing a game it was. What if COD4 had been released instead in 2012? It would be a major step back compared to current titles.

I think the statement should go more like "I miss Call of Duty 4: Modern Warfare. It's been small incremental improvements since then that fail to inspire the same sense of awe that the original idea did."

And really, why should Activision push for major innovations, they sell more and more games each year, with little creative effort on their part, and rake in preposterous amounts of cash.

If you want a different gaming experience, then go play a different game. If you want a game that is the same as the last at its core, but offers a couple of tweaks and tune-ups, get the next cod.

CoD4 was the most innovative of its time. If it were released now, it would still get fantastic reviews because the game would be innovative. The things CoD4 brought to the table were copied over and over again. Should the game not have come out, MW2, MW3, Blops and Blops 2 would not have ever been released. The game created the modern shooter. That would be like saying "Halo: Combat Evolved would be a major step back if released today". We all know what Halo did for the shooter genre. Many games would not have been created if this game had not been released and the same can be said for MW.

Please, stop the ignorance.

ghasmanjr ghasmanjr said:

I just want CoD: Ghosts to bring something fresh to the table.

j05hh j05hh said:

I gave up on the COD series after MW3, hopefully this is something new.... destructive environments is a nice change to the COD game play. Maybe they'll use the frostbite 2 engine

Skidmarksdeluxe Skidmarksdeluxe said:

I gave up on the COD franchise after MW 2. I found the campaign too short to warrant the purchase price and I'm not interested in multiplayer at all.

JC713 JC713 said:

How is using weapon from the past in any way related to the future... how is that even a plot! So far this game sounds like a failure.

I bet IW will implement destruction like they did back in BF:BC2. Without an engine change, it will be impossible to bring destruction like in BF3 or BF4.

Guest said:

COD and the iphone are the same thing, new look but same thing over and over until you the customer stops buying. Once the customers stop buying then they will need to change and try something new. In one word "Innovate", but for companies to do this the customers have to go away.

lipe123 said:

To this day I cannot play more than 30minutes of black ops 2 online without swearing loudly at the screen or almost punching my monitor because of the inconsistent lag spikes on their pathetic excuses for servers.

Mw3 was a total gongshow with hackers and once again no servers.

Bo1 wasnt too bad, I actually liked that one and still do.

Mw2 same as MW3 hackers and no servers with uge latency issues but mostly hackers.

So yea since Cod4 there really hasn't been any emphasis on a proper PC multiplayer experience, it's all 2nd rate eye candy thats just average by current standard with no support and no patches for overpowered exploitable weapons etc.

The last COD campaign I actually completed was BO1 and since then just havent cared about it, all we want is multiplayer with servers! screw the campaign and everything else.

GhostRyder GhostRyder said:

Honestly, I agree with what alot of yall are saying. Now I personally liked the treyarch division of games (IE WoW and BO1-2) because they were different and they kept the game a little more fresh at least in terms of visuals, small gameplay adjustments, and cool things like that (IE Future weapons and cool gadgets).

As for the MW series, I find it at this point uninteresting because after CoD4 I was expecting them to keep inovating the series. MW2 added some new ideas and upped the visuals a little, but was a complete lag fest, relied on explosives (Everyone used GL's and they were annoying) and was just uninteresting in general and seemed to just make camping the only viable strategy because otherwise you would explode instantly.

MW3 killed the franchise for me and im glad I did not buy it and first tried it. It was dissapointing that they re-used most of MW2 to make that game and literally reskinned more than half the levels of MW2 with almost no changes or improvements made in Black Ops 1 put into the game. It really to me felt like they didnt care enough to really break the mold and try something, they knew the game would sell for a name and they went for that.

With this one, I hope they finally break the mold and make a new game, though I will not trust them and im going to have to actually try the game first before im willing to invest in it.

Guest said:

+1 there has not been a good competitive fps since cod 4 :(

LukeDJ LukeDJ said:

@Burty117 and @ghasmanjr, you misunderstand my point. If a newer cod title, lets say MW3, had been released in 2007, and was the first of its kind (as COD4 was), it would be regarded as an iconic title that changed the industry forever.

If today (I think this is where you got confused) COD4 was released, after MW2, BO, MW3 and BO2, then it would be a major step back from those games (of course, it wouldn't be called COD4). I hope I was clearer that time.

Despite the fact that COD4 was a great game in itself (fun to play, addicting, all the good stuff), it is only so highly regarded because it was the first to do what it did.

@Burty117, I agree with everything you are saying! I just wasn't clear enough.

@ghasmanjr, the point I was trying to make to you is: Don't expect anything "fresh" form cod, no cod can ever be as "good" or "fresh" COD4 was, simply because it was the first. If you want some newer ideas, try battlefield or another shooter, because I highly doubt that Activision or Infinity Ward have any reason to change it up in any significant way.

TS-56336 TS-56336 said:

The reason they call it Call of Duty: Ghosts is because this game is the ghost of previous Call of Duty games.

Burty117 Burty117, TechSpot Chancellor, said:

@Burty117 and @ghasmanjr, you misunderstand my point. If a newer cod title, lets say MW3, had been released in 2007, and was the first of its kind (as COD4 was), it would be regarded as an iconic title that changed the industry forever.

If today (I think this is where you got confused) COD4 was released, after MW2, BO, MW3 and BO2, then it would be a major step back from those games (of course, it wouldn't be called COD4). I hope I was clearer that time.

Despite the fact that COD4 was a great game in itself (fun to play, addicting, all the good stuff), it is only so highly regarded because it was the first to do what it did.

Well I guess I can see what your saying, if MW3 came out today but no CoD since CoD2 had been released it would look new and different, but thats besides the point since you need a first game to make a sequal.

The thing is, CoD1 was awesome, CoD2 was amazing, CoD4 ushered in a new era of modern FPS shooters, but since MW2 the guys who ran infinity ward left since activision wasn't paying them correctly, since then, it's just been copy and paste with minor tweaks and much weaker pc versions.

What they need to do themselves is bring in a considerable change again to freshen things up, maybe not as big a jump as from WWII to modern day but maybe go and do a really good Vietnam war CoD? Or a story that involves overthrowing North Korea in 2030? Or maybe go way into the future and terminator style robots are attacking? Who knows...

ghasmanjr ghasmanjr said:

@ghasmanjr, the point I was trying to make to you is: Don't expect anything "fresh" form cod, no cod can ever be as "good" or "fresh" COD4 was, simply because it was the first. If you want some newer ideas, try battlefield or another shooter, because I highly doubt that Activision or Infinity Ward have any reason to change it up in any significant way.

I'm not denying that MW2 and MW3 added to the MW franchise, but the additions did not warrant a completely new game. The graphics, gameplay, and campaigns were almost all identical. The only things that MW2 brought to the table were new guns and new perks. MW3 expanded upon these guns and perks. I will admit that if MW had never been released and MW2 was the first in the series, then yes it would have been a great game. However, this is how history panned out. Ms. Pacman was almost the same thing but was released years later with a fresh coat of paint (read: bowtie/"perks and guns" , but the fact remains that Pacman came first.

ghasmanjr ghasmanjr said:

The reason they call it Call of Duty: Ghosts is because this game is the ghost of previous Call of Duty games.

Clever, but I hope it's because Ghost returns. He was my favorite character but I know he's not coming back

GhostRyder GhostRyder said:

Yea, they just really need to actually make a new game and put in some true effort to adding to the experience. They dont need to totally redo the whole gameplay of the game (I mean that part is iconic) but a new fresh campaign would be nice, some better overall balancing on weapons with guns more accurately depicting the gun in real life a bit better (IE AA12 should not empty its mag in a quarter of a second).

I mean, with the Black Ops series, I feel theres some real effort in trying to make things different and try new ideas to see how they perform. MW seemed to play so passive that even changing any parts of the game was taboo to them. Im just curious to see how this game reacts and if they implement any actual changes this go round. I already not buying it at first release, but I want to see if its different than the others before I buy.

Load all comments...

Add New Comment

TechSpot Members
Login or sign up for free,
it takes about 30 seconds.
You may also...
Get complete access to the TechSpot community. Join thousands of technology enthusiasts that contribute and share knowledge in our forum. Get a private inbox, upload your own photo gallery and more.