COD5 info

i dont mind WW2.. its just i hope it runs as great as COD4

 

Actually better up would be if they could have a very large level, almost like Medal of Honor Airborne where you can take the objectives in no particular order. But now I mean a widely open level. How come no one has done this yet instead of the corridor shooters we have now.

I had a blast with Airborne and I hope they can widen the battlefields so you can take any village you want within resonable hardware limits of course.

For instance the Pacific, you would land with the americans and then have the whole island to fight over with set objectives. This would be a real WWII fps if it could be done.

I mean if we look at Crysis those levels are quite huge and would suit a WWII game really well. If Crysis can do it I think another company can make as huge levels. I have always wanted to see a WWII game like this, either I have to make the game myself Or I will grow gray hair and die before I see such a game

 

If im not mistaken one call of duty game had this exact scenario, and it was awesome.

 

Was that COD3 then ? Since I've not played that, as it wasn't on PC....

 

what? WW2 has been killed by the amount of games done during it we need something new, not old with better graphics.

 

I think its Call of Duty 1 , I only remember it cause its one of my favourite video game levels of all time. Its definitely worth playing.

 

Maybe. Well I played it long back, so no doubt, I wouldn't remember!

 

call of duty 3, wasnt that bad i had it on 360 they could of made it better but it was still quite good, loved the vehicles though the mpas were a bit small

 

After playing in modern warfare scenario..i would find WWII environment very lame.

Seriously...if u ask retired WWII soldiers they will say the same . (if any of them is alive obviously)

 

urgh, why cant they make it in the future.

 

WWII! Yay! Hopefully being in the pacific theater there will be a lot of flight combat. It'd be great if they integrated a fun flight model, and incorporate that into multiplayer.

 

I don't think you'll get any WW2 vet saying the scenario is lame. If anything they'll say the wars fought over oil nowadays are lame.

Back to the topic... I prefer modern over historical but I'm tired of middle east settings - I can't stand the desert scenery anymore. My favorite COD4 map was the 1st one on the boat and the missions with Captain Price in eastern Europe.

I really don't think they've tapped anywhere close to WW2's potential, and it's kinda fun in multiplayer when you don't have a bunch of unfair modern weapons.

 

Maybe it won't take place during WWII.
CVG: CoD 5 not set in WWII?

 

Don`t you guys love surprises? How about waiting

 

Well brothers in arms still looks great being in WW2. Now I can only imagine the one after this summer if it did a modern theme. Alot of cool tactics would be involved.

 

What if its like this:

Call of Duty 5 : Future Warfare

I hope so!

 

Already mentioned.

 

Activision must have some sorta agreement with to keep flopping between the two.

Makes no sense, b/c IW does such a better job. And they are REALLY onto something with COD4.

Maybe COD6 will be more about the current war on terror?

 

Nahhh I don't want to fight in the desert anymore anymore, What about fighting in an urban developed city, in the us territory, I found that it's quite rare to have fighting in the us soil beside in RTS games.

 

RB6 Vegas is fighting in us territory

 

maybe try The Turning Point: Fall of Liberty? though i heard that game 's lame too

 

Yes a modern urban setting would be a nice turn for the CoD series. Or maybe take the franchise to an alternate reality storyline like in WIC or War Front. I love those alternate reality stories... What if the Nazis won WWII? What if the Soviets invaded the USA? Not because I wish that happened (thank God it didn't) but it makes for cool movies, books and games

 

maybe it will be awesome...................maybe it will be a lot of things...........i don't think many people actually know.

whats the fun in that a bit of speculating never hurt anyone

i hope not......................

it is the most linear game i hae ever played...................about to the same extent as flea circus.

 

no infinity ward= cod4 for another year for me

 

Just read this http://www.xbox360fanboy.com/2008/05/09/new-setting-for-call-of-duty-5-bond-powered-by-call-of-duty-4/
and it said CoD5 would be set in Civil War era...what sort of sick joke is that. I'm still hoping for modern era in Pacific

 

Infinity Ward does a better job, I must agree.

As to a game about the current wars going on in the world....I've a bittersweet feeling about that. On one hand COD4 did well in showing an idea of modern combat, in the presentation, the detail, and whatnot. On the other hand I've seen the desert too much. Both in terms of digitally with games and in real life.

 

lol, id love same gameplay and engine as cod 4, but WWII. i think that now after cod 4, the idea of WWII doesnt seem as boring as it might of if they hadnt released modern combat( i was getting sick of world war)

i think their next step after cod 5 will be vietnam, because i can see them making some really big breathtaking and awesome scenes for that, especially with the jungle life and napalm.

 

In fairness it got great reviews, particularly regarding multiplayer. Treyarch did a great job with COD3, in my opinion. The graphics were better then COD2, and the multi player was great. Sure they're not as good as IW, but this way, more games get made then if IW was solely trusted with them. And seeing as Treyarch do make reasonably good games, I see no harm in that. COD2 on the Xbox original was pretty good, certainly miles better then whoever developed the first COD on the consoles. I wonder why they didn't port COD and UO to consoles, they would have run great on PS2/Xbox.

Easily one of the worst games I've ever played in my entire life.

 

Thinking of it.....a World War Deuce based on the gameplay/engine of COD4 could prove interesting. Then again the idea that's coming into my mind is something a bit less linear. Say, a battle in a nice little village/town. Arty popping off as you face off against the Germans.

Or if they broke it off and actually showed some of the combat from a German perspective.

Maybe I'm just reminiscing the days of Battlefield too much,

Vietnam could prove interesting though, considering as far as I know that era has been been digitally recreated far less.

 

Yeah, and there was never any great story driven FPS set in Vietnam. Vietcong was excellent, but the graphics were mediocre even by standards at the time; Call of Duty could really perfect that. Lets face it too: BF: Vietnam was fun, but not exactly gritty or realistic.

A story driven game from the German perspective would be fantastic.

 

Nor did it really have much of a story. Then again the Battlefield series was never meant to have much of a story in the first place.

 

yeh, i think they could take advantage of vietnam, because it was an era of quite a few new weapons and war tactics, and also, its got the element of being able to use planes (like when your firing from the plane in cod 4), only with napalm and whatever the other things where called.

also we have all seen from crysis that jungle type terrain can look amazing graphically( obviously they best not make it as good as crysis), but the point still stands, that would create some breathtaking graphic scenes.

 

I was more thinking they could still pull of the hectic combat, the whole surprise factor. That they could still make use of vehicles and carry out convoy ops.

I think they could get a good feel for the Vietnam era, for the war. Different perspectives such as specops and the unofficial war, of actual troops drafted and forced to go, and other such things.

I'd add more detail but I've to hop off right now.

 

I wouldn't mind if they kept releasing more and more WW2 games. It's new characters and a new story in each game, and COD is the best singleplayer fps there is!


How can you say that WW2 is all played out? That doesn't make any sense. Were you surprised when germany lost in the first two games?

 

I think if they keep doing WWII they need to choose battles that are less familiar. I think I have fought at Normandy and Bastone at least 4 times each. LOL Maybe do some Italian campaigns and some more Russian campaigns. It would be cool to play as the Germans. Gotta love the K98...I am a bolt-action kinda guy.
Tim

 

yep definately.............plus france during 1940. or the italians in NA..........or the balkaans as i have already said.

i prefer the g43 (although it aint bolt action) best ww2 rifle ever. owned the m1 garand and anything the poms could throw at it.

 

I think it's more the fact that you can grab a handful of FPSs and a majority of them will be based on World War II. With that, be it Call Of Duty, Medal Of Honor, Battlefield, or other such games, we've seen the same general thing time and time again. We've seen the digital beaches of Normandy numerous times.

I think in that, that we've mainly seen different variants of the same general thing, World War II is played out.

 

meh there are way more modern shooters out..................which are all pretty much the same.................

 

TREYARCH =

So far, the COD series has followed the Halloween movie route.

A good first opener, followed by a just as good second. The third was farmed out, had no atmosphere, and besmirched the name, and the epic fourth got the series back on track.

Maybe COD5 will be Xbox 360 only. I'm not sure whether they did this with COD3 because they couldn't create the game successfully for the PC, or if Activision decided releasing the game to PC would result in such bad publicity that they'd rather not bother.
Reading a few articles (which I always take with a pinch of salt anyway!), the general opinion is that Activision want to release a new COD game more frequently that IW are able prepared to perfect a masterpiece. The result - farm the series out to an inferior developer. I suppose it's just a reality check and a little reminder for us all, that despite the enjoyment we get from COD4 and COD2, when it comes to Activision's priority list, money is higher up than reputation. Normally in any business, this wouldn't last for very long, but because they know the next one will be IW, their rep will be back on track. What are we all going to do, boycott COD6 because COD5 was a Treyarch'er. Don't think so ! (and well they know it !!!)

 

Sorry but that's just nonsense. Treyarch's games are good - certainly, not as good as IW releases, but equally, certainly not terrible relations either. From the way you're talking, you'd swear COD3 was a total farce - it's not, it was received very well, had good multiplayer and sold very well. Point out to me in that equation where the Treyarch = part shines through?

Infinity Ward obviously can't churn them out year after year and personally I far prefer excellent games interlaced with top quality 'gap fillers' of the same general calibre rather then none at all.

I think you need to actually give Treyarch a chance, they make good games, and if you don't think so, the vast bulk of people, including professional reviewers, do.

 

wow this thread has a lot of people who jumped on the "we hate Treyarch but give absolutely no reason why" bandwagon.

CoD3 was a great game...

 

I'm not really one who falls for figures, and reviews, as there is bias everywhere, just the same as in the car industry where nowadays, almost every new model released gets a fantastic review until a year later when the next new model arrives, and last years car of the year (that many people spent their hard earned money on, because of its' good reviews) gets laughed at by the same presenters/reviewers.

I don't think COD3 was terrible, but in comparison with the IW games, it doesn't even compare, hence the

Since you are one for figures, the maths was incorrect, here are the actual averages calculated from your quoted data:

79.3 Xbox 360
80.6 ps3
74.7 wii
81 xbox
82 PS2

Total average: 79.52.

Pretty much represents what it was - an average shooter.

 

COD4 got 89% in PC Gamer or Zone, can't remember. So by your definition 10% separates 'epic' and 'average'? I really don't think so.

By the way, even if you aren't one for facts and figures, the fact remains that COD3 got consistantly good reviews across the board on all platforms.

As for the maths? what? I just got those figures from a site - quoting a few selective review scores from the most prominent magazines, and then game ranking scores. So I don't know how the maths was wrong as I didn't do it. Nor did I provided an average, which would be unfair as it would be brought down by the generally lower scoring Wii version. Try porting COD4 to the Wii, I'm sure that would be equally mediocre. But that's hardly the point. The point is that the industry and gamer alike considered COD4 a solid shooter definitely above average and worthy of the COD name.

 

So did I !

 

No, because neither ratings were "by my definition"

Once again, I don't really care for what PC Super Gamer Xbox monthly has to say about my favourite game, nor what Jeremy Clarkson says about my car, or what Trinny & Susannah think about my clothes.

MY opinion is that COD3 was an average shooter, and is not in the same league as COD2 or 4. I have expressed my opinion constructively. Quoting percentages from comics will not force me to change my opinion.

Where are we going with this