I agree. The title is misleading. When I think of Call of Duty, I and every other CoD fan always remembers the 1940 era infantry action and game of year every year it's released. Pwnage.
Oleg said it best in one of his interviews, "No infantry, this is flight sim." But I digress.
Call of Duty makes first person simmers remember World War 2. CoD 2, same era. COD 3 was set there, but they also had a zombie patch. And for the second great war, the series was named for call of duty because every able man had to do their part. And for that era, it was applicable. Call of Duty name is epitome to World War 2.
Now it is selected for a new game.
Modern Warfare does not have a "Call of Duty." It does in a sense, that most successful standing armies are volunteer, but now it is not a call because of the whole world fighting a war or your country will fall if you don't help it scenario.
Name branding you think?
There's a difference between descriptive names and new names
Call of Duty Modern Warfare, Call of Duty Modern Warfare 2
and Modern Warfare Black Ops from the makers of Call of Duty 3, and this is optimal naming convention.
Not unlike having standard naming conventions like .com or .org or file extensions limited to 3 characters, because that is too limiting and new files and new Internets are completely changed from the original Internet and files.
(makes it seem 1990 going back to the old school because it's so cool).
Plus we are humans not robots and nobody cares about organization, and standardization, conventions, and it is always about the new and shiny, and different to stand out in the crowd, independent skate trucks. That is why jets, Italian carriers, Nazi super weapons, nukes, partly guided missiles, and rockets and pogos make the best part of 1946.
Call of Duty is an excellent series, but Modern Warfare and CoD needs to be absolutely clear it is for current, todays date, here and now, infantry actions, not World War II, new shiny best sim.
/TIC
tongue in cheek
|