CGI-Quality said:
Was Call of Duty 4 a sequel to 3 though? Why do you think Activision has two teams (as of now) working on two COMPLETELY different types of Call of Duty games? The game didn't sell the way it did from the COD name, but in fact, the Modern Warfare name. If World at War was a sequel to COD4, why didn't IT sell like MW2 just did? This is why I'm telling you that Modern Warfare is it's own franchise within the Call of Duty name. What that means is, the name: MODERN WARFARE has it's own line now, even though it IS still a Call of Duty game. Hell, they nearly released the game as just Modern Warfare 2. That's the name, that's the brand, that's why it sold that way. Check on PSN or Live, when people are playing the game, it says: Modern Warfare 2. |
I don't care what it says, they still made a decision to stick "Call of Duty" on the box, and sales are a red herring argument as to whether they are part of a franchise. Just because the games are set in a different time period, doesn't mean they are a new franchise when they're still called "Call of Duty." The next Call of Duty has already been given the temporary name "Call of Duty 7." It's just like the Star Wars films, and just because they keep flipping between World War II and present day doesn't mean it's a whole new franchise. There are no "franchises within franchises."









