8 Ways Call Of Duty Can Screw Up By Returning To Its Roots

There’s a danger here that Call of Duty will try to out-do Battlefield 1 by taking us even further back than the First World War. I mean, sure, the Hundred Years War is super-interesting and full of political intrigue, but I’m not sure I want to play a FPS there (and they didn’t have guns anyway).

It’s a balancing act between giving the players what they want – i.e. WWII – and giving players what they don’t know they want... yet.

So where do we go next? Gamers demand new experiences they’ve never had before, but going too far back risks alienating the broad COD player base.

I mean, outside of the two world wars (and your country’s particular civil war), we can’t really relate to conflicts like the Boer War (1899-1902) because it’s not part of mass pop culture; there’s no short-hand for explaining who’s good, who’s bad, who’s right and who’s wrong.

Maybe that’s a good thing, but hurtling back too far in time – fighting alongside Nelson, Napoleon, Custer – would just be Assassin’s Creed with more guns and fewer facts. Speaking of which, did you know the Duke of Wellington was a terse badass who rocked a mean Gatling gun?