Neversoft - the studio behind Tony Hawk & Guitar Hero - is working on a new Call of Duty title

Quote :

Activision seems quite serious with the Call of Duty franchise, as one of its internal teams (and various partners) is currently working on a Call of Duty title. So, Treyarch is working on Black Ops 2, there have been reports for Sledgehammer working on a Call of Duty title and now Neversoft, the team behind Tony Hawk and Guitar Hero, is working on the Call of Duty franchise.

Spotted by NeoGAFer ‘Holy Wars’, Neversoft is currently recruiting for a new, FPS title. The team is currently seeking for a Lead Multiplayer Level Designer, Lead Single-Player Level Designer, Level Designer, Master Technical Animator, Senior Concept Artist, Senior Environment Artist, Single Player Design Scripter and Sr. Level Designer.

Not only that, but we can clearly notice Call of Duty’s logo at the career’s page. And as the main page reads, Neversoft is ready to push the First Person Shooter genre in support of Activision’s Call of Duty franchise.

It’s pretty obvious that Neversoft is working on a brand new Call of Duty game. Our guess is that they might be co-working with Sledgehammer on the next Call of Duty title. After all, Sledgehammer worked with Infinity Ward for Modern Warfare 3, so a new collaboration with another studio from Activision seems likely.

http://www.dsogaming.com/interstitial.php?oldurl=http://www.dsogaming.com/news/neversoft-the-studio-behind-tony-hawk-guitar-hero-is-working-on-a-new-call-of-duty-title/

neversoft has milked the GH & tony hawk games , so itll most likely be the same shit. the only good game theyve made is GUN.

It has to be only a matter of tie before people get sick of this dreadful franchise ..... One can hope, yeah?

shigdig wrote:

neversoft has milked the GH & tony hawk games , so itll most likely be the same shit. the only good game theyve made is GUN.

Firstly, COD's already been milked to the high heavens.

Secondly these guys were the masterminds behind 'GUN'. Arguably the greatest western game to date (Jack will disagree....noob that he is). And they never milked it, they only ever made one game (despite fans requests and even one little teaser in a Tony Hawk game). All they did aside from that was port the game to other systems.


I'd say have a little faith in the studio. They might move the COD series into a whole new direction.

How about no.

They didn't milk gun because it didn't became as popular as tony hawk and guitar hero.

Why take the COD franchise in a new direction when Copy & Paste = Profit?

Oh yeah. Lets make the studio, that milked Tony Hawk and Guitar Hero to high heaven, and make a new COD game. Yeah, that will end the milking issue of COD.

No. We have 2 devs working on COD. What will we have, 3 COD games every 2 years?

And GUN was mediocre at it's finest.

Lykos wrote:

shigdig wrote:

neversoft has milked the GH & tony hawk games , so itll most likely be the same shit. the only good game theyve made is GUN.

Firstly, COD's already been milked to the high heavens.

Secondly these guys were the masterminds behind 'GUN'. Arguably the greatest western game to date (Jack will disagree....noob that he is). And they never milked it, they only ever made one game (despite fans requests and even one little teaser in a Tony Hawk game). All they did aside from that was port the game to other systems.


I'd say have a little faith in the studio. They might move the COD series into a whole new direction.

firstly, yes, & who better to keep it going?

secondly, i acknowledged that, but they failed to actually make a sequel to their best game & chose to follow the money instead.

Gun was meh... Too short and small

Tony Hawk's American Wasteland was ok tho

Franko wrote:

Gun was meh... Too short and small

That's how Lykos likes it.

NoelX2 wrote:

Oh yeah. Lets make the studio, that milked Tony Hawk and Guitar Hero to high heaven, and make a new COD game. Yeah, that will end the milking issue of COD.

No. We have 2 devs working on COD. What will we have, 3 COD games every 2 years?

And GUN was mediocre at it's finest.

Actually, it's 4 developers. Infinity Ward, Treyarch, Sledgehammer and now Neversoft.

They're working on the PS Vita CoD most likely.

yonny616 wrote:

NoelX2 wrote:

Oh yeah. Lets make the studio, that milked Tony Hawk and Guitar Hero to high heaven, and make a new COD game. Yeah, that will end the milking issue of COD.

No. We have 2 devs working on COD. What will we have, 3 COD games every 2 years?

And GUN was mediocre at it's finest.

Actually, it's 4 developers. Infinity Ward, Treyarch, Sledgehammer and now Neversoft.

They're working on the PS Vita CoD most likely.

well if you want to be specific, these are all the devs associated with COD

Infinity Ward
Treyarch
Sledgehammer Games
Raven Software
Gray Matter Interactive
Pi Studios
Spark Unlimited
Amaze Entertainment
Rebellion Developments
Ideaworks Game Studio

NoelX2 wrote:

And GUN was mediocre at it's finest.

Oh really?
Despite its short length what does red dead redemption have that gun didn't have (and 5 years earlier too)?

Open world - check.
Emotional narrative and likeable characters - check.
Slow mo - check.
Horse riding - check.
Civilian killing - check.
Violence galore - check.

On top of that, GUN had a more interesting location. Sure it was smaller but it was also more distinctive and you have memorable spots. Red Dead...ehhh, aside from the cities there was nothing memorable about any of it.
GUN actually had more replayability to me because it wasn't a grind fest and actually had a decent checkpoint system. So I happily completed it a good 5 times or so as opposed to my measly single playthrough on Red Dead Redemption.
It also felt fresh and new and didn't just feel like a rehashed version of grand theft auto gameplay with a western theme.
The violence was superior too. Blowing people to bits never got old. Same with scalping your enemies.
Also you have more weapon variation on GUN.

So yeah, a game that did everything a AAA standard rockstar title does, but better, and 5 years before it is anything but mediocre. Either you've never played it or you got stuck on it and didn't get past the first mission. Diddums.

Lykos wrote:

NoelX2 wrote:

And GUN was mediocre at it's finest.

Oh really?
Despite its short length what does red dead redemption have that gun didn't have (and 5 years earlier too)?

Open world - check.
Emotional narrative and likeable characters - check.
Slow mo - check.
Horse riding - check.
Civilian killing - check.
Violence galore - check.

On top of that, GUN had a more interesting location. Sure it was smaller but it was also more distinctive and you have memorable spots. Red Dead...ehhh, aside from the cities there was nothing memorable about any of it.
GUN actually had more replayability to me because it wasn't a grind fest and actually had a decent checkpoint system. So I happily completed it a good 5 times or so as opposed to my measly single playthrough on Red Dead Redemption.
It also felt fresh and new and didn't just feel like a rehashed version of grand theft auto gameplay with a western theme.
The violence was superior too. Blowing people to bits never got old. Same with scalping your enemies.
Also you have more weapon variation on GUN.

So yeah, a game that did everything a AAA standard rockstar title does, but better, and 5 years before it is anything but mediocre. Either you've never played it or you got stuck on it and didn't get past the first mission. Diddums.

Gun was meh... I would take red dead anyday

Lykos wrote:

NoelX2 wrote:

And GUN was mediocre at it's finest.

Oh really?
Despite its short length what does red dead redemption have that gun didn't have (and 5 years earlier too)?

Open world - check.
Emotional narrative and likeable characters - check.
Slow mo - check.
Horse riding - check.
Civilian killing - check.
Violence galore - check.

On top of that, GUN had a more interesting location. Sure it was smaller but it was also more distinctive and you have memorable spots. Red Dead...ehhh, aside from the cities there was nothing memorable about any of it.
GUN actually had more replayability to me because it wasn't a grind fest and actually had a decent checkpoint system. So I happily completed it a good 5 times or so as opposed to my measly single playthrough on Red Dead Redemption.
It also felt fresh and new and didn't just feel like a rehashed version of grand theft auto gameplay with a western theme.
The violence was superior too. Blowing people to bits never got old. Same with scalping your enemies.
Also you have more weapon variation on GUN.

So yeah, a game that did everything a AAA standard rockstar title does, but better, and 5 years before it is anything but mediocre. Either you've never played it or you got stuck on it and didn't get past the first mission. Diddums.

I played it at a friend's house. It was meh. Nothing about it made me go "woah". But I thought the slow-mo sections were kind of cool.

^
Played it at a friends house
So how long for? 5 minutes? 10 minutes?
Did you even get to learn the characters name? Did you even get past the tutorial? LOL

For about an hour or less.

I forgot what the name was.

And yes I have.

Lykos, I have GUN, I loved it, but come on, RDR is sooooooooooooo much better, but then again, opinions and all that jazz.

Stoney wrote:

Lykos, I have GUN, I loved it, but come on, RDR is sooooooooooooo much better, but then again, opinions and all that jazz.

I wanted to believe RDR is better but my issues with it is

1.It had nothing more than GUN aside from a longer narrative, larger world and better graphics. So it didn't feel like anything new.
2.The world was less interesting. It was lovely to explore at first but the places were...well... realistic sure but too repetitive and not so exciting to explore.
3.You end up grinding too much, like with rounding up cattle and shit like that. Got repetitive gameplay-wise, so I had no motivation to re-complete it.
4.Felt like gta 4 with cowboys and horses.

I also preferred Colton White as a character too. He's a lot more likeable, had a great voice actor, etc.
The ending was also a lot more monumental and epic

Spoiler:

And also what I liked is you can return to your starting point in the game. You build that emotional connection to your character and you want to return and remember how it all started.... *nostalgic moment*

But yeah opinions and shizz. At least you played it and aren't just saying it's shit because you played 5 minutes at a friends house :areyoufuckingk

Red Dead's ending was one of the more emotional endings I've ever had the chance to see.

Also, Lykos, you say that Red Dead Redemption is just GUN, but Red Dead is actually a sequel to Red Dead Revolver - a game that was released BEFORE GUN.

Chobo wrote:

well if you want to be specific, these are all the devs associated with COD

Infinity Ward
Treyarch
Sledgehammer Games
Raven Software
Gray Matter Interactive
Pi Studios
Spark Unlimited
Amaze Entertainment
Rebellion Developments
Ideaworks Game Studio

Well the ones that are actively developing it.
I also find it funny that this is a CoD thread and everyone's arguing about whether or not GUN was good.

Dammit yon! I was enjoying this.

Greg Jennings wrote:

Red Dead's ending was one of the more emotional endings I've ever had the chance to see.

But that's the problem isn't it... the ending. That's it. It wasn't well done... Crisis Core had the same concept for the ending and did it MUCH better with more build up to it with a cause and effect. It wasn't just thrown in there for the sake of it.

But thats beside my point. GUN was emotional throughout the game.

Spoiler:

Greg Jennings wrote:

Also, Lykos, you say that Red Dead Redemption is just GUN, but Red Dead is actually a sequel to Red Dead Revolver - a game that was released BEFORE GUN.

Well done Greg. Would you like to look through my library?

I have played Red Dead Revolver extensively (as well as GUN and RDR) and have owned it for years. I even mentioned in another thread the ignorance of modern gamers that think Red Dead Redemption is a brand new IP.
I am comparing Redemption to GUN because Redeption is more in the same vein as GUN than Revolver. Revolver was more comical, caracature-ish and linear. Before you mention Call of Juarez I can whip out my copy of that too so be warned.

Anyway I'm comparing the best two Western games, so I chose GUN over Revolver.

I don't recall Red Dead Revolver being comical? But then again it's been years since I played it. Too bad the game is overshadowed by it's sequel.