{"id":1541367,"date":"2026-04-01T03:29:09","date_gmt":"2026-04-01T03:29:09","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/ed9SAp3KXVQX8E4ANBjKh9"},"modified":"2026-04-01T03:29:09","modified_gmt":"2026-04-01T03:29:09","slug":"the-call-of-duty-schism-why-fans-are-trapped-in-a-forever-war-with-each-other","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/arcader.org\/news\/the-call-of-duty-schism-why-fans-are-trapped-in-a-forever-war-with-each-other\/","title":{"rendered":"The Call of Duty schism: Why fans are trapped in a forever war with each other"},"content":{"rendered":"
\n
\n
MORGAN PARK, STAFF WRITER<\/div>\n
\n
\n
\n
\n

\"Morgan<\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>

(Image credit: Future)<\/span><\/figcaption><\/figure>\n

This week:<\/strong> Made progress in Warhammer 40,000: Boltgun, the best throwback FPS I’ve ever played.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n

When a casual FPS enjoyer expresses a preference for a particular feature of Call of Duty, they are unknowingly picking a side. The way soldiers run, how attachments work, the shape of the maps\u2014seemingly minor details are live ammo in a 20 year war between factions of gaming’s strangest fandom.<\/p>\n

A normal long-running game series is likely to have a singular direction\u2014a continuity or consensus that determines what present and future iterations will look like. When Assassin’s Creed shifted from stealth action games to lite RPGs in 2017, that became the direction for all of Ubisoft’s studios making Assassin’s Creed games. Not Call of Duty: it has a coalition of 11 studios working around the clock to produce a $70 videogame every 12 months, and those studios are rarely on the same page. Activision’s fiefdoms collaborate to varying degrees to get the job done, but its two lead studios have very different, often opposing ideas of how Call of Duty should look, play, and evolve. <\/p>\n

As Call of Duty attempts to rebound from its weakest year in a decade<\/a>, it’s worth examining this unusual arrangement. Activision’s stringent schedule and widening creative differences, now spanning two decades, have created a splintered series mirrored in its increasingly tribalistic players. It’s the Call of Duty schism, and it’s fascinating<\/em>.<\/p>\n

The divide<\/h2>\n

Generally speaking, there are two studios steering Call of Duty’s creative direction: Infinity Ward, the OG creators of the series and Modern Warfare, and Treyarch, the creators of Black Ops. The pair have taken turns with their takes on the bestselling military shooter since 2006, when Treyarch was tapped to make Call of Duty 3 (as well as 2005’s Big Red One) while Infinity Ward took extra time on the first Modern Warfare (2007).<\/p>\n

While it’s fair to say Treyarch was the “secondary” Call of Duty studio in those early days, Black Ops (2010) changed that. With its campy Cold War spy story, non-traditional guns, and party modes, Black Ops established Treyarch as the “fun” Call of Duty studio. Maybe it couldn’t match Infinity Ward in terms of raw craft, but the first Black Ops was an even bigger sales hit than Modern Warfare, and distinguished itself by loosening restraints and not taking these silly blockbuster shooters so seriously.<\/p>\n

\n
\n
\n

\"Call<\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>

Activision’s full Call of Duty arsenal. <\/span>(Image credit: Activision Blizzard)<\/span><\/figcaption><\/figure>\n

I didn’t know it at the time (being 14 and all), but this was the beginning of the schism. Black Ops is the first time I can remember heated arguments at school over whether this Call of Duty was better than the previous year’s Modern Warfare 2\u2014a talking point that defines Call of Duty discourse in 2026.<\/p>\n

The specific design choices that folks argue over have changed alongside the FPS genre over the years, but the core of the studio debate remains remarkably consistent. There’s nuance to these perspectives, of course, and there are some folks who don’t really care either way, but there’s a much louder contingent of fans who firmly believe one studio is killing Call of Duty and the other is its savior. Let’s talk about the two camps.<\/p>\n

\n
\n
\n

\"Call<\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>

(Image credit: Activision)<\/span><\/figcaption><\/figure>\n

The Infinity Ward argument<\/h2>\n

Fans of Modern Warfare believe Infinity Ward’s games:<\/p>\n

    \n
  • Look better<\/li>\n
  • Sound better<\/li>\n
  • Move Call of Duty forward<\/li>\n
  • Are more grounded and mature<\/li>\n
  • Produce standout campaigns<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n

    Those who prefer Infinity Ward’s take on Call of Duty are likely to cite a higher qualitative bar. The Modern Warfare series tends to be less flashy and adventurous than Treyarch’s Black Ops, but what you get in return are the best-looking and -playing versions of Call of Duty. Infinity Ward excels at the “little” things\u2014weapon sounds, reload animations, bullet feedback\u2014that make Call of Duty a fundamentally satisfying shooter. The Modern Warfare “level up” stinger is the iconic example: <\/p>\n

    \n