Talk:Call of Duty: Infinite Warfare

Semi-protected edit request on 9 May 2016
PLease update the page to include the fact that Activision are removing all popular comments which degrade the game in any way, absolute disgrace and the company should be shamed.

Boya0910 (talk) 19:28, 9 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. -- ferret (talk) 19:32, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

Well I have had both comments gain over 200 likes (each) on the trailer and they were removed by the channel without any reason. Also they are actually completely ignoring all of the comments and choose to block them anyways. I saw one comment which said 'I bet Darth Vader will be the final boss', very satirical and funny comment although it has been removed multiple times by the Channel for no apparent reason. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Boya0910 (talk • contribs)


 * The problem is, we need secondary coverage of the issue, not just first-hand accounts. It's been a trending topic on Facebook, so there are likely news stories out there. —C.Fred (talk) 19:42, 9 May 2016 (UTC)
 * That's great. But it's not a coverage in reliable source. Wikipedia is not the place to document that your comments were removed from a Youtube video. The article already covers how many dislikes the trailer has garnered. -- ferret (talk) 19:43, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

Well can you at least point out the fact that it has so many dislikes because of the use of space battles? Also thank you for responding :) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Boya0910 (talk • contribs)


 * According to what source are there so many dislikes for that reason? Where has it been published in the press? —C.Fred (talk) 20:01, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

http://www.techtimes.com/articles/156608/20160506/activision-responds-to-call-of-duty-infinite-warfare-backlash.htm https://apptrigger.com/2016/05/09/call-duty-infinite-warfare-negativity-defended-activision-ceo/ http://www.unilad.co.uk/gaming/activision-dont-really-care-about-infinite-warfare-backlash/

Boya0910 (talk) 20:08, 9 May 2016 (UTC)
 * The article already covers Activision's response to the number of Dislikes on the Youtube trailer, concerning it being "too futuristic". See the Reception section. -- ferret (talk) 21:09, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

Ah ok thanks then, didn't see that part of the page :P what do you guys think about the whole thing? Boya0910 (talk) 06:15, 10 May 2016 (UTC)


 * this is not a forum Jazzy Jazz Jr (talk) 04:05, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 9 May 2016
http://www.techtimes.com/articles/156608/20160506/activision-responds-to-call-of-duty-infinite-warfare-backlash.htm

Killerpt21 (talk) 20:03, 9 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Red question icon with gradient background.svg Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. The article already covers Activisions response to the number of Dislikes on the Youtube trailer. -- ferret (talk) 21:08, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 9 May 2016
..."6th most disliked video on YouTube.[27]" should be 5th most disliked video on Youtube. Side Note: This is as of 09/05/16 21:06 GMT

ItsTyrone (talk) 20:07, 9 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Pictogram voting wait.svg Already done -- ferret (talk) 21:09, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

Where does Modern Warfare Remastered belong?
I want to hold a consensus over where Modern Warfare Remastered should belong. It would make sense for it to be on the article for Call of Duty 4: Modern Warfare, since that's the game that is being remastered, but it would also make sense to keep it here due to it being released only with the Infinite Warfare special editions. I'm torn between the two, so I want to know what everyone else thinks. Aria1561 (talk) 17:36, 31 August 2016 (UTC)
 * It should be predominantly covered on Call of Duty 4: Modern Warfare, as it is a remaster of that title. Only the release information related to Infinite Warfare should be covered here. --The1337gamer (talk) 17:46, 31 August 2016 (UTC)
 * I've moved the remaster info over to the CoD 4 article. I'll leave the discussion open if anyone disagrees, although I doubt anyone will. Aria1561 (talk) 03:13, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 18 November 2016
7.53/10 Vishal krishu (talk) 19:22, 18 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. This is not a reliable reviewer for the template. -- ferret (talk) 20:47, 18 November 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 26 November 2016
This game is set in 2080 MegatronsMan1 (talk) 03:25, 26 November 2016 (UTC)

Salen Kotch is NOT a Rear Admiral
Excuse me, but Salen Kotch is not a Rear Admiral, he's an Admiral. He is referred to as Admiral Kotch (according to the subtitles) and Admiral Salen Kotch (whenever he contacts SATO forces in the Earth's orbit and Titan), but he is not referred to as Rear Admiral Kotch and Rear Admiral Salen Kotch respectively.

Scarlet Marines (talk) 15:44, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

Split screen category
Should we add: Category:Split-screen multiplayer games ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.145.35.176 (talk) 02:14, 24 September 2017‎ (UTC)
 * Well.... is it? -- ferret (talk) 02:29, 24 September 2017 (UTC)
 * We only add this category if the game has local multiplayer. I don't remember this game having it. jd22292 (Jalen D. Folf) (talk) 03:42, 24 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Yes it does. https://support.activision.com/articles/en_US/FAQ/Call-of-Duty-Infinite-Warfare-Multiplayer-FAQ/

Call of duty campaign
Is it possible to play infinite warfare campaign without dying at the end? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lukelesisko (talk • contribs) 18:02, 16 April 2018 (UTC)

Space zombies listed at Redirects for discussion
An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Space zombies. Please participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. ZXCVBNM (TALK) 18:32, 3 July 2019 (UTC)

Botting campaign?
The article stated that the dislikes the trailer for the game got was achieved through a botting campaign from both BF1 and COD fans, however the article cited as a source is just an opinion article, should we take this opinion seriously? There is no other proof on the internet that people used bots to hit the dislike button on the COD:IW trailer, at least not from a reliable source.

Won an award?
I noticed someone mentioned that the game won an award, but I haven't been able to work out which award that was. It was named as Best Shooter at E3 by Game Informer and was nominated for several awards, winning one of them.

I checked the "Accolades" table towards the bottom of the page, but did not see an award listed as having been won.

I know that it received nominations, but the closest thing I could find regarding an award was the so-called "Golden Trailer Award", which was awarded to the trailer for the game in 2017. Also, despite the fact that the reception of the initial trailer was quite poor, I think this would be an interesting (and ironic) passage to add to the Wiki article, though I am not quite sure where to put it. Suggestions? Tristanlbailey (talk) 04:31, 19 February 2022 (UTC)

Well, in the article it reads: "As of June 30, 2021, the trailer has received more than 3.95 million dislikes and is the 25th-most-disliked video on YouTube"

It could be written "As of June 30, 2021, the trailer has received more than 3.95 million dislikes and is the 25th-most-disliked video on YouTube, even though it had received so-called "Golden Trailer Award"", or "even though it received so-called "Golden Trailer Award", depending on, whether the trailer received the award before, after, or rather simultaneously with almost reaching 4 million dislikes.

Not sure about the tenses, though, we are talking in the present tense about something that happened half a year ago, then using the past perfect tense, normally used to signify that something happened even earlier. Makes sense, still, why using present tense at the beginning of the sentence. I don't know how to improve it, though, hope I gave some hint. MichalZim (talk) 08:05, 19 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Regardless of what is added, "so-called" is POV pushing and should not be included. The Award is the Award, regardless of whether we feel it had merit. Similarly, we should not be saying "even though it won" or "despite winning" as this is a WP:OR/POV spin. Just state the facts. It has x dislikes. It won y Award. -- ferret (talk) 15:15, 19 February 2022 (UTC)

Campaign reviews
I checked every site and most of them have been positive. It is impossible to say that it had recieved mixed opinions, even Polygon said that the general consensus from the reviews was that the campaign Is actually good and way better than the multiplayer. Can we please change it back? 203.219.84.206 (talk) 03:54, 19 April 2022 (UTC)


 * Just from the article:
 * EGM criticised the narrative, so it criticised campaign. IGN called the campaign "slow and plodding", Destructoid called the campaign "average".
 * So you have 2 negative opinions and 1 average opinion. MichalZim (talk) 10:09, 21 April 2022 (UTC)

Yeah but with the exception of a few online reviews its only them criticizing it, and even one of the articles in this page said it was better than ghosts. Otherwise the reviews on metacritic about the campaign have been well recieved, and Is considered to be better than black ops 3, so it's hard to believe it has mixed opinions if there are more positive reviews from critics than the negative or mixed reviews. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.219.84.206 (talk) 00:34, 22 April 2022 (UTC)


 * IGN complains that weapons are too weak during most of the campaign and writes the campaign gets better near the end. Then they write: "There just isn't five-and-a-half hours' worth of game in it. Compare it to last year's Call of Duty: Black Ops 3, or even last week's Titanfall 2, and it seems ludicrous. Both have campaigns that are longer, but neither feels like they’re dragging along."
 * They are obviously criticising the campaign. About the game being better than Ghosts they write: "Infinite Warfare's campaign shows improvement over that game, but not much." So it's not much better.
 * Also, The Guardian criticises the campaign: "The sheer number of times the game strips control away from you remains extraordinary – after a while, even the most impressive cinematic moments become a deadening intrusion. The first time you’re blasted out of an airlock it’s inarguably impressive and it even feels appropriate that you’re helpless. The second time is simply irritating."
 * Besides, really, reading metacritic's 87 playstation 4 reviews to evaluate whether they praise the campaign or not is actually original research. It does not work this way: I've read this all and I am writing what they say and you have to read it all, too, to correct me. MichalZim (talk) 01:58, 22 April 2022 (UTC)

Yeah but there's also 2 other pages not from metacritic. Techspot which is like metacritic but has a pros and cons section, and it's says that the campaign Is well written and has memorable characters. Another page, which is Miraheze, has a page about infinite warfare, though on the crappy games wiki (which is now deleted as it is no longer considered a bad game), but even with that in the redeeming qualities they admitted that the campaign was great and way better than multiplayer. Even the fans thought the campaign was good when I looked up the comments on YouTube about the campaign. I don't want to start a back and forth conversation but I just find it hard to believe that the campaign recieve mixed opinions when the majority of them liked it — Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.219.84.206 (talk) 04:46, 22 April 2022 (UTC)


 * Techspot writes that, according to reviewers, Infinite Warfare has stellar, well-written campaign. In its analysis, Techspot does not include EGM, which writes that campaign is terrible, so the analysis is not full. Also, Techspot in its analysis includes IGN, which criticices the game's campaign and writes it is only slightly better than "the series’ lowest point since The Big Red One", so they see the IGN's opinion and still claim the general opinion is that the campaign is "Stellar, well-written".
 * Sorry, I would not trust Techspot's analysis at all. MichalZim (talk) 12:53, 22 April 2022 (UTC)

Yeah but even with that's only a few of them, and the campaign is not considered a con, the rest of the reviews thought the campaign was enjoyable. I mean yes there are some flaws about it but you can say the same thing about rest of the campaigns that are in the game. Even in most of the youtube reviews they thought the campaign was the best thing about, as well as most of the critics, so really, it isn't mixed, it's rather more positive than it is as mixed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.219.84.206 (talk) 01:44, 23 April 2022 (UTC)


 * - you write "the campaign is not considered a con"
 * That the campaign was not considered a disadvantage does not mean it is an advantage.
 * - "Even in most of the youtube reviews they thought the campaign was the best thing about, as well as most of the critics, so really, it isn't mixed, it's rather more positive than it is as mixed."
 * Maybe, but:
 * - to check if you are right one must read and watch a lot of reviews. No one has this sort of time. Don't make us do it. I gave you examples of reviewers who disagree. I sacrificed my time. I enjoy it, but I won't do it much longer.
 * - writing that the evaluation of campaign is positive because you have read it in a lot of reviews is original research. This is not what we are doing on wikipedia. Original research can range from: they write water is h2o and I checked it in my basement lab and it is h2o2, to what you are doing: I've read a lot and I know, read a lot, too, to be able to correct me. No one has this sort of time. We refer and quote sources, so people can check it.
 * - General idea of writing about games on wikipedia is that we quote the big boys, either because they are the general opinion, either because they are supposed to be more truthful. This is not something I particularly like, but never mind. So when IGN, The Guardian and EGM criticised campaign, you can't write the campaign was reviewed positively, since three big boys criticised it. It even makes sense; the general opinion is what the big portals say, not lone bloggers, who may be right, but do not represent the majority of opinion. MichalZim (talk) 06:38, 23 April 2022 (UTC)

But how do you know it recieved mixed opinions, because before when it was released it said that the campaign was praised and was called a major improvement over bo3, then a couple of years later it was changed to mixed opinions. There's no proof into how it recieved mixed opinions, what was the major problem with the campaign, how many liked it and how many didn't. Even one of the sites PCgamesn said the general consensus was that the campaign was actually the strongest part of Infinite Warfare. Unfortunately I can't agree with you that the campaign recieve mixed opinions because I can clearly tell its not otherwise I wouldn't be making this talk page and I would've left it alone. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.219.84.206 (talk) 01:05, 24 April 2022 (UTC)


 * Dear 203.219.84.206,
 * You write: "There's no proof into how it recieved mixed opinions, what was the major problem with the campaign,"
 * Yes, the reviewers wrote what problems in the campaign they saw:
 * EGM wrote: "every character’s arc is rushed to an uncomfortable degree."
 * As an example they give a sergeant who hates robots, but suddenly starts to like a robot without any explanation.
 * IGN wrote the campaign is "mostly slow and plodding" and the pace picks up after two-thirds of the game.
 * The Guardian generally criticises lack of freedom:
 * - computer-controlled characters give orders and exposition, but everything is too slow, and "even the most impressive cinematic moments become a deadening intrusion".
 * - player does not have much freedom in space.
 * I hope I answered your question what was the problem with the campaign.
 * So these are negative opinions, there are also positive opinions, there is also one average opinion (Destructoid), so the opinions are mixed. MichalZim (talk) 13:14, 24 April 2022 (UTC)

Wait i know not everyone is in the same page but in the paragraph where the reviews are for the campaign it said that the story and characters were particularly praised, and before it was edited at the top part but below the image and details it also said about the player freedom or something like that which was praise, but fine for now you can keep it but in the future I will convince you that it was overall praised. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.219.84.206 (talk) 03:49, 25 April 2022 (UTC)