It seems to be a race for the most war FPS's in the last few years. Activision, publisher of the popular Call of Duty franchise, turns to the dark US history for its next war game.
In a time when all war games seem to focus highly on World War II, finally a new look at killing. History Channel: Civil War is due out November 14th, 2006. Yes, this year.
You've not heard of it? Well, that seems to be a common issue with this title. The announcement was just made by Activision about the game. Why so hush hush? Either they didn't want to spend marketing money or that's standard practice.
You might ask yourself "Call of Duty 3 is marketed all over the place" - but, in reality, is it? It seems to me that most CoD3 information was ripped from Activision by news reporters and people trying to get information on the next big hit from the franchise. If nobody knew this new game was coming, there would be no reason to go digging. That's my theory anyway.
Here are some shots:
PlanetXbox360 is reporting that you can play both sides of the war, unlike Call of Duty. So, in theory, you have two complete single-player campaigns. You can play the side that wins or you can play the side that doesn't do so much winning.
There are few (if any) Civil War games on the console platform. The PC side of things is a slight bit different and has seen many genre's of Civil War based games. This is a little different for activision to "risk" a new type of first-person-shooter, however, if the game is fun, contains multi-player and has a great campaign system will it really matter? A quality game is never a risk in my mind.
Thanks TANK for the information
In a time when all war games seem to focus highly on World War II, finally a new look at killing. History Channel: Civil War is due out November 14th, 2006. Yes, this year.
You've not heard of it? Well, that seems to be a common issue with this title. The announcement was just made by Activision about the game. Why so hush hush? Either they didn't want to spend marketing money or that's standard practice.
You might ask yourself "Call of Duty 3 is marketed all over the place" - but, in reality, is it? It seems to me that most CoD3 information was ripped from Activision by news reporters and people trying to get information on the next big hit from the franchise. If nobody knew this new game was coming, there would be no reason to go digging. That's my theory anyway.
Here are some shots:
PlanetXbox360 is reporting that you can play both sides of the war, unlike Call of Duty. So, in theory, you have two complete single-player campaigns. You can play the side that wins or you can play the side that doesn't do so much winning.
There are few (if any) Civil War games on the console platform. The PC side of things is a slight bit different and has seen many genre's of Civil War based games. This is a little different for activision to "risk" a new type of first-person-shooter, however, if the game is fun, contains multi-player and has a great campaign system will it really matter? A quality game is never a risk in my mind.
Thanks TANK for the information
