Sledgehammer confirmed to be making 2014 CoD!

[Stop Mocking Me0]

Hmm… If this is the case, then off-season trayarch better pay CLOSE attention to these forums, especially that new Poll thread I've recently placed up, (And I will be regulating this one! Don't worry!). 

 

It's a practical BLUEPRINT to the best zombies experience YET! And with a whole extra year, better system, and these forums, they have NO excuse to not deliver, by which I mean: Actual easter egg REWARDS, not petty "one game perma perks". They also need to totally re-design the boards, ranking system, and for the love of GOD fix the storyline!

 

Ya got no excuse this time Vonderhar! >

[Shooter]

Just let me bleed out guys, I don't wanna be revived and live in a world like this.

I had an awesome day today, but Activision just killed my vibe.

[Boom115]

I'm still a bit taken back by the entire situation. None of the other modes added can even come close to competing with Zombies and the community that surrounds it. I gave IW a shot, just because I was interested in Extinction. I can tell you that I will not make that mistake again. Seems like the franchise is on it's last leg (how many re-imagined maps do they need?) and if they push out the rumored finale of Zombs then their cash cow is over and they will lose a huge part of their community. So why not squeeze out a quick money maker that is multi gen compatible first.

 

In my personal opinion, I don't give a rat's a$$ about MP or Campaign. The generate minimal hype after the first week, and are about as interesting as watching paint dry. However, I and I'm sure the majority of you will be here waiting for the return of Treyarch and zombies. There's so much more discussion to be had! CoD Zombies is my favorite game of all time and if I have to wait than so be it.

[JACKAL64]

Wow disappointed to say the least. I don't want to wait for another year for zombies.... Damn.

[TheBSZombie]

This is good and bad for me. Bad because I would love to play some new zombies soon, but good because its my first year of college and there will be no zombies to get in the way.

[GRILL]

Just let me bleed out guys, I don't wanna be revived and live in a world like this.

I had an awesome day today, but Activision just killed my vibe.

Not on my watch! (revives Shooter) Not today!

I, at first, was very concerned for zombies when I heard this news. Is it the nail in the coffin? The answer... is no. Read this excerpt from a game informer article:

During the call, Activision listed three branches of the Call of Duty franchise: Modern Warfare, Black Ops, and Ghosts. With Black Ops at Treyarch and Ghosts at Infinity Ward, it seems logical to suspect Sledgehammer's entry will be a Modern Warfare title.

Black Ops is still a franchise, zombies is still within that franchise, everything's cool. This will give more time for 3arc to polish the maps, true a bi-yearly installment is nice, but who of you can say that you enjoyed the BO2 maps as much as the BO maps? It was clear they were rushed, and even our storyline was being rushed.

After all the controversies this year with EA games, it's clear that Activision sees the road they are on. I agree that simply adding another developer isn't the BEST answer, but it's nice to see some form of thinking other then the "work these companies until they either quit or die" mentality.

Lord knows where zombies is going next, but it certainly is going to happen. In the meantime, we have Titanfall for xbox one, The Order for PS4, Destiny for both, Watch Dogs for both. So many great games to play AND on top of this, carbon is back to promote, encourage, and develop custom maps with us.

Treyarch has been gifted the one thing most developers want, more time. Let's be happy for them.

[The Clay Bird]

Can someone please tell me why 3 different companies are needed for the same game?

 

Yep, with what i've gotten out of ghosts, i'm not bothering with cod until the next treyarch one.  Waste of my time and money

 

 

edit:  I am now far more depressed, because outside of Treyarch releasing a stand alone zombies game (which we know is not possible) I won't play any new zombies until i am over 30 years old.  That is just cripplingly depressing

 

edit 2:  If they have 2-3 years to make the next game, there'd better be more than one zombies map on disc.  like 3 at least imo

[Lenne]

I am okay with this.

Just a bit scared because the "off season" is now longer.

 

Stay strong CoDz. <3

[Chopper]

I'm somewhat blasé about the whole situation.

 

The best zombies engine was BO1.  It was more challenging than BO2, and everyone I know preferred it.

 

For my personal situation, I don't play multiplayer, I only play zombies.  The best zombie maps are Verruckt, Der Riese and Kino.  No BO2 map comes close to any of these classics.

 

None of the BO2 maps had any of the feel that these did.  Most of the big zombie youtubers prefer the older maps.

The ironic thing is that regardless, I will buy the next game and the DLCs.  If they turn out to be as bad as BO2, treyarch will still have my money.

 

I'm feeling somewhat cynical today, but I just don't believe the developers listened to this community with any of the BO2 maps.  Too many new things, too much space.  Why would they listen now, when they are fully aware that the game is going to be purchased by people regardless of what they do.  Sure, there maybe some people who don't buy it and wait, but it's a huge minority.  Treyarch get their money either way.

 

If Treyarch had listened they could have cobbled together an old feel style map as a DLC, or brought one of the classics out with new weapons on the new engine.  The way they treated the Die Rise sliquifier was atrocious.  Completely ham handed over-reaction to a mistake they brought on themselves by shoddy map design.

 

I imagine there are people here who agree with me, it's only gameplay that's relevant, there will be people who only care for the story and then there will be the majority who are buying the game for multiplayer and couldn't care less about zombies.

 

Rant or not, it's how I feel.  Treyarch fucked up with BO2, I wouldn't be surprised if they did it again with BO3.

 

I can literally imagine that their focus group consisted of people who cared not at all about the zombies mode itself.

'Yeah man, let's make it really BIG!  Big is always better!'

'Make stuff that can be built!  People always want to build things.....hundreds and hundreds of times.'

 

I had always hoped that having Carbon over there would have made a difference.  Clearly not.

[The Clay Bird]

I've actually been more impressed with the replayability of the BO2 maps, mainly because i've progressed on to playing with randoms and some of my friends who never got the DLC's finally caved and bought them because Battlefield 4 has sucked (their words i don't have it)   They are quite a bit easier, true, but i don't mind it at all.  still challenging with randoms,   So basically unless its the challenge of making extreme high rounds, i think its stood up ok. 

 

I'm confident that whenever it comes, a new zombie experience will be super fun, but i really think the 3 developer thing is a bad idea.  it puts too much space in between the zombies/extinction releases.  obviously the focus on COD will remain to be the campaign and the multiplayer, which is the majority of what draws people to cod, but there is no denying how big zombies has gotten and how popular it will remain.  But NOT if it's 3 years in between when someone who just buys the game and no dlc sees anything new. 

 

 

Maybe this is the right move long term for the COD franchise, but for zombies i think it spells curtains

[GRILL]

I think what it comes down to is that the "special" (I.e. Zombies, extinction) game mode is in higher demand. Higher demand means a bigger and better product, and a bigger and better product means more time needed.

I refuse to believe this is curtains for zombies, and will only believe it when I see Jimmy Z saying "it's over". He wouldn't work at 3arc anymore if he wasn't doing zombies. Case closed.

[DeathBringerZen]

I'm somewhat blasé about the whole situation.

 

The best zombies engine was BO1.  It was more challenging than BO2, and everyone I know preferred it.

 

For my personal situation, I don't play multiplayer, I only play zombies.  The best zombie maps are Verruckt, Der Riese and Kino.  No BO2 map comes close to any of these classics.

 

None of the BO2 maps had any of the feel that these did.  Most of the big zombie youtubers prefer the older maps.

The ironic thing is that regardless, I will buy the next game and the DLCs.  If they turn out to be as bad as BO2, treyarch will still have my money.

 

I'm feeling somewhat cynical today, but I just don't believe the developers listened to this community with any of the BO2 maps.  Too many new things, too much space.  Why would they listen now, when they are fully aware that the game is going to be purchased by people regardless of what they do.  Sure, there maybe some people who don't buy it and wait, but it's a huge minority.  Treyarch get their money either way.

 

If Treyarch had listened they could have cobbled together an old feel style map as a DLC, or brought one of the classics out with new weapons on the new engine.  The way they treated the Die Rise sliquifier was atrocious.  Completely ham handed over-reaction to a mistake they brought on themselves by shoddy map design.

 

I imagine there are people here who agree with me, it's only gameplay that's relevant, there will be people who only care for the story and then there will be the majority who are buying the game for multiplayer and couldn't care less about zombies.

 

Rant or not, it's how I feel.  Treyarch fucked up with BO2, I wouldn't be surprised if they did it again with BO3.

 

I can literally imagine that their focus group consisted of people who cared not at all about the zombies mode itself.

'Yeah man, let's make it really BIG!  Big is always better!'

'Make stuff that can be built!  People always want to build things.....hundreds and hundreds of times.'

 

I had always hoped that having Carbon over there would have made a difference.  Clearly not.

 

I feel the same way as you do mate, and pretty much agree with everything you said. BO2 left a bad taste in my mouth, and I not quite as optomistic about the future of zombies as I once was.

[GRILL]

Jeeze, you guys are so negative! lol

All jokes aside, here is some more hope for the hopeless via CharlieIntel:

The introduction of a further development team will grant both Treyarch and Infinity Ward an additional year to develop their next title. With next generation systems containing more powerful internals, the development of games has become a more sophisticated process than ever before. More time will allow the developers to exploit the hardware in new and better ways to ultimately deliver a better game.

[Lenne]

 More time will allow the developers to exploit the hardware in new and better ways to ultimately deliver a better game.

 

 

 

 

 

Super Mario 64 is a better game than most games which run on better hardware than the N64.

[Stop Mocking Me0]

Super Mario 64 is a better game than most games which run on better hardware than the N64.

The DS version remake was better though… 

[The Clay Bird]

I think what it comes down to is that the "special" (I.e. Zombies, extinction) game mode is in higher demand. Higher demand means a bigger and better product, and a bigger and better product means more time needed.

I refuse to believe this is curtains for zombies, and will only believe it when I see Jimmy Z saying "it's over". He wouldn't work at 3arc anymore if he wasn't doing zombies. Case closed.

 

By curtains for zombies, I guess I didn't really mean that we've already gotten our last zombies release, but rather it certainly is on the downward slope of it's lifespan

[Tattoo247]

This would be a great time, better than any, to release a compendium of all the unanswered questions, or have a book/comic book written up to date. Really anything that can keep the flow of zombies going.

 

BO1 still has the replay ability for me so I think I will always play that game, at least until BO3. Black Ops two however, I get so burned out on but it's strange because they do have replay ability, it's just different than BO1.

 

On black ops1, we have a lot more to choose from in terms of maps, so I can get bored of say, the map Moon, play 3-4 other maps for days or hours on end, and by the time I am bored with those maps, Moon feels fresh again, so on and so forth.

 

Black ops 2 tried to make up in modes, what it lacked in maps. I'm sorry but you can't chop up a map into three parts (Tranzit) and tell me that makes four maps, I won't even bother with an analogy. On the other hand, Black Ops 2 maps have more content that requires more searching/building as well as elaborate, two sided easter eggs that span the whole game, I enjoyed this feature the most out of anything in BO2, even if it fell short for me story wise.

 

So here we have a game that is loaded with maps from W@W and has it's own, they are played to death and little to nothing is left to discover, but they are still lots of fun and even though they aren't that old, hold a feeling of nostalgia for me. Then we have Black Ops 2, a game that requires much time to do easter eggs, there is still plenty of discoveries left, nothing special just the small things, they are still out there I'm sure.

 

 

That should make for a not so agonizing two years of waiting, as long as the forum stays up and running, we can continue to keep ideas fresh and hopefully (HOPEFULLY) help smooth out the next installment through our own ideas and theories.

 

And I personally can't wait to get my hands on the WaW mod tools for PC, I don't know how elaborate they are, but I remember making some pretty impressive stuff with the Elderscrolls 3:Morrowind map tools so I may end up diving into that hardcore rather than just playing the custom maps so much.

 

Plus we have MMX zombie story video to wait for so just try to focus on the releasing of little things to make it seem like less time, sort of like I do at work, I count every hour down like it's the last instead of counting the 9-10 hours all at once, sounds stupid but it works!

 

Edit: I just realized that in fact we just have to wait one more year, so even better, unless they are starting the cycle over (no pun intended) and Treyarch just gets to be last....IW already had their turn and now SH does their version, and this time next year we'll get some zombies info.

[Hells Warrrior]

Unfortunately, I don't expect Treyarch to be releasing any game until November 2015, a little under 2 years away. I don't expect to hear anything about the game until approximately April/May 2015.

[Tattoo247]

Yea sorry I didn't mean release, I meant the first trailer/announcement, which for me is where it begins anyway. Sometimes the anticipation and the small window of in the dark theories are the best part. Anyway just think of all the small things like I said, the wait shouldn't be so bad.

 

Not to mention the plethora of amazing titles that are coming out this year!

[Zombiefaces]

Man, tough to swallow . An extra year and this last installment was a failure in many ways. Tough year for Zombies. Imo

[Slade]

I wonder what kind of survival mode we're gonna get with Sledgehammer's game.

Aliens? Cyborgs? Both?

[lead_psychopath]

For me, I find the re-playability of Bo2 to be lower than Bo because of time. NTZ is probably my favourite map on Bo2, but its because it doesn't take me hours to get past r30.

 

I don't know how many times I've decided to spend my day off playing zombies, trying to beat my records. I get to round 25ish, go down stupidly, game over. But because I spent so much time building everything, I really lose interest. My best on Origins is 36 solo. It took like 5 hours to get that far. But I went from round 25-35 in about half an hour (maybe slightly longer, but it felt like that). Every time I go back to do it again, I'll get to round 20, have everything built, die stupidly, and give up for the day. I can jump on a game of NTZ and get to round 30 in about 1.5 hours, and I don't mind playing it over and over and over again.

 

Black Ops Zombies is straight forward, its just about survival, no building random things, just earning points as you go, killing zombies. Games still take long after r30, but I don't mind so much, because I haven't gotten bored trying to set everything up by a ridiculously early round.

 

I'm in agreement with DBZ and Chopper though, I've gotten so disappointed in the last year, I'm not really sure how Treyarch are going to redeem themselves.

 

What I really don't understand is, why was black ops zombies not rushed? They had the same amount of development time between WaW and Bo1, how can Bo2 feel so much more rushed? 

[Lenne]

I wonder what kind of survival mode we're gonna get with Sledgehammer's game.

Aliens? Cyborgs? Both?

 

Generic and boring spec ops missions? 

 

 

For me, I find the re-playability of Bo2 to be lower than Bo because of time. NTZ is probably my favourite map on Bo2, but its because it doesn't take me hours to get past r30.

 

I don't know how many times I've decided to spend my day off playing zombies, trying to beat my records. I get to round 25ish, go down stupidly, game over. But because I spent so much time building everything, I really lose interest. My best on Origins is 36 solo. It took like 5 hours to get that far. But I went from round 25-35 in about half an hour (maybe slightly longer, but it felt like that). Every time I go back to do it again, I'll get to round 20, have everything built, die stupidly, and give up for the day. I can jump on a game of NTZ and get to round 30 in about 1.5 hours, and I don't mind playing it over and over and over again.

 

Are you inside my head?

[lead_psychopath]

You know that annoying twitch you get now and again? That's me.

 

You on PS3 or XBOX?

[Stop Mocking Me0]

For me, I find the re-playability of Bo2 to be lower than Bo because of time. NTZ is probably my favourite map on Bo2, but its because it doesn't take me hours to get past r30.

 

I don't know how many times I've decided to spend my day off playing zombies, trying to beat my records. I get to round 25ish, go down stupidly, game over. But because I spent so much time building everything, I really lose interest. My best on Origins is 36 solo. It took like 5 hours to get that far. But I went from round 25-35 in about half an hour (maybe slightly longer, but it felt like that). Every time I go back to do it again, I'll get to round 20, have everything built, die stupidly, and give up for the day. I can jump on a game of NTZ and get to round 30 in about 1.5 hours, and I don't mind playing it over and over and over again.

 

Black Ops Zombies is straight forward, its just about survival, no building random things, just earning points as you go, killing zombies. Games still take long after r30, but I don't mind so much, because I haven't gotten bored trying to set everything up by a ridiculously early round.

 

I'm in agreement with DBZ and Chopper though, I've gotten so disappointed in the last year, I'm not really sure how Treyarch are going to redeem themselves.

 

What I really don't understand is, why was black ops zombies not rushed? They had the same amount of development time between WaW and Bo1, how can Bo2 feel so much more rushed? 

 

Trayarch bit off WAY more then they could chew this year… Their maps were too big to iron out all the bugs in time for DLC. The new buildables feature makes things more tedious and the game starts to rely more on that (even though it shouldn't). With trayarch this panicked about everything the storyline dropped like that "du-du-duh" which trayarch should't have dropped… 

 

Next year, by which I mean next year and a half, trayarch has no excuse to iron out these misfortunes and bring us QUALITY maps, not QUANTITY maps.