The gaming community at large has been complaining about the futuristic theme of Call of Duty's video games over the past several years. Meanwhile their competitors, Battlefield and Medal of Honor haven't been able to outsell them, or in MoH's case, do much of anything.

Moving on however, the to be released first person shooters of 2016 are Call of Duty:Infinite Warfare and Battlefield 1. Why is the new game numbered '1' you might ask? Because Battlefield decided to gamble on taking it's next setting to the battlefield of the Great War, a topic which has largely been ignored by video games,for a variety of reasons that I'll get into in a moment. Call of Duty's next game takes the battle and presumptive it's title, from the setting of space. Gone are the days of Call of Duty:Rising Sun and World at War, but rather it has more in common with Halo or Star Wars Battlefront. Upon release, Battlefield 1 and Infinite Warfare's trailers broke YouTube records. Battlefield One became one of the most viewed and liked trailers in YouTube history,whereas Infinite Warfare's trailer is surpassed(for now) only by Bieber as one of the most hated trailers in YouTube history.

I'll go ahead and link the trailers respectively so anyone not in the loop knows what I'm talking about.

Battlefield 1:

Infinite Warfare:

Anyways. Why is Infinite Warfare doing so badly? It seems that Call of Duty has utterly ignored fans displeasure at futuristic games and created one even further into the future. Ironically, space fighter combat is one of the first serious changes that CoD has been lacking,provided it is applied in multiplayer. But it quite simply was not the change that fans wanted. Simple servicing of the target audience. Call of Duty has failed to adapt to changes in the market. While there is almost certainly a demand for space age first person shooters, it was not what the company's fans wanted and now they pay the price. Stocks and Pre-Orders have fallen and now the company is a source of internet amusement.

This particularly humorous video sums it up pretty well:

And another of those Hitler reacts videos that just don't seem to die:

Speaking of everyone's least favorite homicidal lunatic, he would probably have some very mixed feelings about it. The trailer itself seems to show a more German side,everyone that gets brutally murdered with a melee weapon is wearing allied gear and the game ends with a man standing in front of a zeppelin bombing,which scared the daylights out of the Allies. Initially the Germans were succesful,including Mons,the first engagement of the war. I highly recommend Our World War for the Netflix users out there. He would be decidedly less pleased to be reminded of a war in which he was personally wounded and mustard gassed. It was also a war that took a devastating effect on Germany and set the stage for the Second World War.

Which brings me to my next point, regardless of the quality of the game or the wailing of SJWs, I'm glad that a major WWI set-game is coming out. It is a topic that does not get the attention it deserves. The average American knows little to nothing on the subject of the war. Video games generate public interest in a topic and historic literacy is a good thing. Particularly when you realize the behavior of the Allies during and after the war was not quite as moral as one might presume,which lead,in-part, to the events of WWII.

As far as the Battlefield/CoD feud goes, one might see the downfall of CoD as simple capitalism doing it's thing. On the plus side, Battlefield has introduced a potentially good game and topic and the loss may spur Call of Duty to produce higher quality games as a company. On the down side, Call of Duty donates a great deal of money to veterans annually through their Call of Duty Endowment program. Time will tell what these events will do to the market in the gaming industry. Perhaps it will be Battlefield with the same stale games in a few years, or perhaps it will introduce a greater variety of quality FPS games. Time will tell, but we'll all enjoy playing it.