Call of Duty 4 was the most acclaimed FPS of 2007. It won many Game of the Year awards. Infinity Ward placed their traditional World War II shooter in the modern era, revamped the multiplayer game, and created one of the most compelling experiences in gaming.

So when the time came to announce the sequel, many questions sprung to mind. Where, and in what era, will the action take place? How will they improve the multiplayer? What features will they add? Anticipation was high. How do you improve on a nearly perfect gaming experience?

Apparently, you don't even try.

Instead of moving the game to a different setting, they've moved it back to WWII. The multiplayer features announced seem to tread the same ground as COD4.

What's the point? I have friends who play nothing but COD4. Are they expected to drop their beloved game simply because another game is released with a higher number in its title?

There are too many FPSs as it is, and too many of them are set in WWII. The setting was novel 10 years ago; now it is a long dead horse whose tattered corpse is continually beaten by developers too eager to copy the idea and attempt to make a quick buck.

I don't expect Activision to pony up the dough for a radically different game possessing the Call of Duty brand. But at least give something new a try. Infinity Ward rolled the dice by moving the combat into the modern era and bolstering MP. We all know how that turned out. But instead of improving on an already excellent game, we're shoveled yet another WWII title and expected to fork over our money to support a tired genre in a tired setting.

Truth is, I'd much rather see the money and talent invested in an original title, or an under-represented genre, or just something new and different. I realize that is an unrealistic expectation. But if you're going to make a sequel, give me a reason to stop playing Game X and purchase Game X+1.

I'm still waiting.