Call of Duty 5 name and details

By Robert Purchese Published 9 June, 2008

Set in WWII, by Treyarch, has co-op.

The next Call of Duty is subtitled World at War and developed by Treyarch.

It will feature co-op for the first time in the series and is heading to PC, Xbox 360, PS3 and Wii, according to the first details - spilled from the pages of GamesTM magazine and read by VG247.

The Nintendo version will be handled by a separate developer, we're told, but all will be built on the Call of Duty 4 engine.

Call of Duty: World at War is set back in World War II amid the Pacific struggle between the US and Japan.

Content is said to be as gritty and mature as any game around. Apparently the opening shows a Japanese commander stubbing a cigarette out in the eye of a prisoner before slitting his throat and turning to dish out a similar fate to you. Is that gritty and mature enough for you? Is it?

There's no word on a date just yet, but word comes off the back of Call of Duty 4 managing to sell over 10 million copies and retake the top-spot of most-played game on Xbox Live from Grand Theft Auto IV.

Look out for our thoughts on Call of Duty: World at War in the nearish future.

Picture of Robert.

About Robert Purchese

Bertie is Eurogamer's Senior Staff Writer. When he's not hunting down news stories he's often found playing with his kids or gabbling about fantasy games and strange online worlds.

Read more articles from Robert by visiting the Robert Purchese archive page.

You may also like...

Comments (89) Latest comment 4 years ago

Comments threads automatically close after 30 days, but please feel free to continue chatting on the forum!

  • Baronen #1 4 years ago

    Fuck you, Treyarch.

  • Mr_360 #2 4 years ago

    Meh....Treyarch

  • kungphu #3 4 years ago

    expects more heat than the mgs4 review!

  • Altrezia #4 4 years ago

    Doesn't count as COD unless IW do it.

  • Dizzy #5 4 years ago

    "Apparently the opening shows a Japanese commander stubbing a cigarette out in the eye of a prisoner before slitting his throat and turning to dish out a similar fate to you"

    What a sad way to try to be "mature".

    WW2?... fuck that... unless it comes with free lifetime sushi.

  • Raised_By_Puffins #6 4 years ago

    "The next Call of Duty is subtitled World at War and developed by Treyarch."

    and narrated by Laurence Olivier?

    /coat

  • Eraysor #7 4 years ago

    This is going to suck ass.

    Roll on CoD6.

  • Steroyd #8 4 years ago

    So i shall get COD4 eventually and skip this one.

  • syphaa #9 4 years ago

    NOOOOOOO.
    WHY are they handing the reins of COD5 to Treyarch after the success of COD 4 in modern warfare...WW2...wtf?

    I will be incredibly shocked if this title lives up to COD 4.

  • zuljin #10 4 years ago

    Torn about this one. Not done by IW, but taken from the COD4 engine (although probably starting from COD4 even), so its definately a high standard starting point. Staff turnover can be high in a lot of games companies, so done by Treyarch isn't exactly off putting for me. WW2 however is, so may hold off any pre orders...

  • shikz #11 4 years ago

    it better have 2 players online via one xbox this time :) fingers crossed cos halo3 was a plus with its upto 4 peeps online via 1 xbox was awesome

  • AtomicBanana #12 4 years ago

    Treyarch = skip.

  • effinwooly #13 4 years ago

    wake me when COD6 gets here ...............COD3 was dreadful !

  • Darren #14 4 years ago

    Call of Duty 3 was OK but a step backwards from the superb Call of Duty 2 as it was too by-the-numbers not to mention too buggy. I lost count of the number of times I got stuck on the scenery in the 360 version. With Call of Duty 4 raising the bar for these kinds of games as well as introducing a more interesting setting along with new weapons, my enthusiasm for another WWII FPS has somewhat diminished. Treyarch are competent developers but they're no Infinity Ward IMO so I can't see this game surpassing last year's at all. At best I expect it'll be OK but I'm sure Activision won't be bothered because regardless of quality the game will sell millions on the strength of its name alone.

  • afghan_jones #15 4 years ago

    back to tired old WWII? Check.

    crap assumption that 'shock' = 'adult'? Check.

    Game that will undoubtedly prove somewhat mediocre? Check.

  • RedPanda #16 4 years ago

    Post deleted at 14:31:59 28-01-2012

  • Xerx3s #17 4 years ago

    "The Nintendo version will be handled by a separate developer, we're told, but all will be built on the Call of Duty 4 engine."

    Uhu. So how watered down will it be? COD4 engine is UE3. Is there any game on the wii that uses it? Iirc, epic stated that they had no interest in supporting it.

  • bioreit #18 4 years ago

    Liked CoD2: Big Red One, love WWII.

    Obviously not going to say I'll buy it based on an announcement of a few details, because let's face it - making snap judgements with only a dearth of information to go on is a wee bit Daily Mail-esque and if we go down that route, we'll be knee-deep in brown-shirts and swastikas by tea time...

    Put me down as....interested.

  • Skooch #19 4 years ago

    "Set in WWII, by Treyarch."

    WILL NOT BUY!

  • mikeck #20 4 years ago

    I believe that COD3 was literally given a very small window to create and test, like about six months or so, whereas COD5 has been in production before COD4 even came out (I read this somewhere, but cannot support this with direct sources)? Therefore I am more hopeful that this will do well, especially as now it seems to be using the same engine as COD4.

    I would rather not go into WW2 again, but it's in the pacific this time, so I'm more open to this. Co-op will also be a VERY welcome addition, so whilst I was very much leaning towards the 'couldn't care less' crowd, I'm now much more interested in this title.

    I look forward to some hands-on and preview articles in the coming months.

  • Gnort #21 4 years ago

    Thanks for letting us know, Activision, but no thanks.

  • Jimbob89 #22 4 years ago

    I'm only going to get this for co-op mode. MoH rising sun was pretty fun playing co-op with a friend. WW2 isn't THAT bad i suppose, it depends how they do it i guess.

  • GooseUK #23 4 years ago

    Wow, yeah fuck this one lets just wait for CoD6 and teach them a lesson about revisiting world war 2... again.

    Treyarch fuckin ruined CoD3, basically a bad version of CoD2 with lower resolution to boot.

  • Pedrolot #24 4 years ago

    Ill keep an open mind about this one..

  • GitSomE_UK #25 4 years ago

    It's going to be shit... Treyarch + WWII = shite

    How many people will buy this based on the COD4 experience?

    COD6 for me then with IW at the helm and hopefully set in Vietnam

    /Takes another toke on the fantasy game bong ... passes
    Edited by 1 at 09/06/08 @ 14:55

  • kcorb #26 4 years ago

    Uhu. So how watered down will it be? COD4 engine is UE3. Is there any game on the wii that uses it? Iirc, epic stated that they had no interest in supporting it.

    CoD4 doesn't use UE3.

  • dr_faulk #27 4 years ago

    Treyarch arsed up CoD3. Multiplayer was fun, but buggy as hell.

    *please* Let there be vehicles.
    Edited by 1 at 09/06/08 @ 14:57

  • GooseUK #28 4 years ago

    Yes, why does everyone seem to think CoD4 uses the UE3 engine?

  • mikew1985 #29 4 years ago

    Yes I couldn't be more jaded looking at the prospect of a sequel to a game that I loved.

    Ughh just seems like a backward leap...

  • Darren #30 4 years ago

    Exactly. Unreal Engine 3 is 720p at 30 fps with no AA whereas Call of Duty's sacrifices the resolution, just 640p with AA though, for 60 fps. IMO, the Call of Duty engine is far more impressive and runs better on consoles, i.e. no texture pop-in and no tearing either!!!

  • Saladin #31 4 years ago

    Timewarp Gaz into it and I'll buy it. Or alternatively, an AC-130 with which to bombard the hell out of things.

  • GooseUK #32 4 years ago

    If Cod4 used UE3 the frame rate would suck, there would be no AA and textures would pop in right before your face lol jk

  • MouzerMalti #33 4 years ago

    It could have been so awesome if they invested more on the SP experience of COD4.

    *weep*weep*

  • Nithron #34 4 years ago

    FFS, World War 2? Again? Why?

    Oh yeah, because it's really easy to just churn out another title without having to develop anything actually new, aint it.

  • FlamingCarrot #35 4 years ago

    COD4 was a refreshing change from the over used / flogged to death WWII scenarios. This is not a good move for the series and represents a backwards step. Hopefully Colonial Marines will be worth the wait; go Gearbox.

  • Lateralaus #36 4 years ago

    I thought we were moving on from WWII I'm fed up to fuck with it, they should atleast do another war like Vietnam or something, that would be a nice change.

  • Brianstorm #37 4 years ago

    noooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo

  • Kingofnothin #38 4 years ago

    This is going to be a big let down to all those that don't know that a different developer made it and is probably going to do more harm than good to the franchise :( If only Activision listened to IW when they tried to stop Treyarch from making this. So far they've made a couple of crap Spiderman games and 2 poor attempts at CoD games, its obvious they don't care about the CoD franchise otherwise they would leave it alone for the talented developers to make! Instead of regressing the franchise and showing complete lack of imagination ooh co-op. The single player of CoD3 was bad enough, why risk pissing 2 people off at the same time!?!

  • mikeck #39 4 years ago

    As a couple of people have already mentioned a move to the Vietnam era would be much better, just because it hasn't been inundated with a plethora of titles as the WW2 era has. Imagine the soundtrack as well...counter-culture at it's best (late 60's especially).

    Also if the series makers are so into WW2 they could technically chart the very roots of the Vietnam conflict (we're talking about the French getting invloved as early as 1945 - dig those vietnam history books out, there's some really great books charting the very, very start of the problems in the area) from the late 40's if they so wished. It's eye-opening to say the least to see how long the conflict had actually being going on (although the very worst of the fighting was from when the US got invloved of course), but that's going off the point somewhat ;)
    Edited by 1 at 09/06/08 @ 15:28

  • Rirekon #40 4 years ago

    "Doesn't count as COD unless IW do it."

    +1

    If Treyarch had taken a cue from IW and stayed away from WWII I would have been willing to give them the benefit of the doubt, oh well. COD4 will keep me happy until IW turn out their next offering.

  • FlamingCarrot #41 4 years ago

    How do you follow up one of the biggest selling games of recent times? By jumping the shark.

  • CARL05 #42 4 years ago

    I don't like the whole Pacific war thing, it was just America's excuse not to fight in Europe. They even use it as a way to say how they had it alot worse than Europe who were actually defending themselves against Nazi Germany and had been for several years!

    I don't see how they can call it "World at War" when the Japan and US war was simply that, Japan and America!
    It sounds more like Sony's world to me! :D

  • miiiguel #43 4 years ago

    I don't think that's viable to make a Vietname high-profile game as CoD series. I doubt the biggest video-game market would apreaciate it... much. It aint cool to play a war one lost (as in kicked in the arse, bad).
    Edited by 1 at 09/06/08 @ 15:38

  • Choosebary #44 4 years ago

    Wasn't it some sort of agreement that's been long standing by the publisher (IW doing a modern setting 4 and Treyarch getting to do 5).. or something? I swear I saw it in a CoD4 interview with IW.

  • t8yman #45 4 years ago

    it will be poo, dont mind wwII, but *do* mind treyarch being anywhere this.

  • Fayt #46 4 years ago

    I actually preferred COD3 over the second game. The large scale battles were even more intense and the inclusion of partial destruction in the environments played at least a small part in that. In regards to bugs, I didn't experience a single problem during my time with the game. Personally I find it to be a far better game than its prequel, but not quite as good as the wonderful COD4. So even though it may not be in the hands of Infinty Ward I'm still looking very forward to playing the fifth game.

  • Artemus #47 4 years ago

    Odd CoD = crap

    Even CoD = good

    (first game doesn't apply)

  • mikeck #48 4 years ago

    @miiguel

    That's a good point actually hadn't though of that!

  • Gl3n #49 4 years ago

    Fuck off Treyarch, you hacks.

  • bengray66 #50 4 years ago

    Didn't they develop the united offence add on to the original? I remember that being pretty good?

    Edit : never played COD3 so can't really comment on that.
    Edited by 1 at 09/06/08 @ 15:49

  • Waldo #51 4 years ago

    COD4 engine is UE3.

    No it isn't.

    Didn't they develop the united offence add on to the original?

    Yes, and it was pretty good. They also did Return to Castle Wolfenstein.
    Edited by 1 at 09/06/08 @ 15:51

  • john_silence #52 4 years ago

    Man, I feel sad for Treyarch. Just reading their name attached to Call of Duty and I could hear the rolling waves of scorn and insult.
    I remember United Offensive got high marks and was said to be a nice improvement on the original - which I found non-immersive, shallow and ugly, so I didn't keep it long enough to get the expansion pack.

    Return to Castle Wolfenstein, you say? Hmmm; that's pretty good! Relatively to the time it was produced, it was better than the first Call of Duty.
    And my favorite WWII game ever remains Pacific Assault, so I'm excited to witness a game based on the CoD4 engine and set in the Pacific Theater.

  • cyber_nicco #53 4 years ago

    "I don't like the whole Pacific war thing, it was just America's excuse not to fight in Europe. They even use it as a way to say how they had it alot worse than Europe who were actually defending themselves against Nazi Germany and had been for several years! "

    You, Carlo5, are an idiot.

  • cyber_nicco #54 4 years ago

    While COD3 was sub-par, I'm not going to write this off yet. The Pacific Theater of WWII could be the setting for an awesome game if done right. That being said, I have a definite "wait-and-see" attitude about this.

  • Fab4 #55 4 years ago

    Reading the comments here, its great to see CoD5 will have a good community, like CoD3 had, as all the plebs who made CoD4 such a shit game to play...i.e. those who dismiss a game before any real details come out, will bodyswerve it....thank fuck!!

  • FlamingCarrot #56 4 years ago

    Why not COD5: Dads Army? A riff on Turning Point but you and the plucky Home Guard defend Southend from the Hun? Use spades and old WW1 equipment to repel the Nazi (without swastikas naturally) blitzkrieg?

  • Lebowski #57 4 years ago

    Call of Duty: It Ain't Half Hot Mum.

  • FlamingCarrot #58 4 years ago

    Lovely boy

  • TheBoyChris #59 4 years ago

    http://ww w.metacritic.com/games/platform... of Duty 3
    It's not like CoD3 was bad, I don't see the problem with Treyarch doing it? Why the hate for Treyarch?

    Lighten up, Jesus.
    Edited by 1 at 09/06/08 @ 16:38

  • AtomicBanana #60 4 years ago

    'Reading the comments here, its great to see CoD5 will have a good community, like CoD3 had, as all the plebs who made CoD4 such a shit game to play...i.e. those who dismiss a game before any real details come out, will bodyswerve it....thank fuck!!'

    While I'm sure lots of tards play CoD 4, the bashing comes from the previous titles they have worked on, that's plenty of detail thanks.

  • monkie_king #61 4 years ago

    Call of Duty: Carry On up the Khyber

  • Pasco #62 4 years ago

    To the jerks saying "fuck Treyarch":
    Treyarch was allowed much less development time in the past to make Call of Duty games for more platforms. This time around they are supposed to be given two years as well which is also the reason why this is a WWII game. The decision to make it a WWII has made before CoD4 came out and became a big success. Activision feared that the modern setting would alienate gamers.

  • DUFFMAN5 #63 4 years ago

    For the love of Pete, surely this is a giant step backward.

  • XdarXideX #64 4 years ago

    Oh wow! We haven't played an FPS based around WWII yet! How exciting!

    I think I was just sick in my mouth.

  • Mr_Brown #65 4 years ago

    CoD 5 developed by anyone other than IW = I'm put off from buying it.

    CoD 5 set in WWII = I'm Definatly not buying it.

    Why the hell would they take such a step back in the series after such an amazing step forward made by Cod4 other than the new developers lack of ability in creating a FPS in a modern setting.

  • Feanor #66 4 years ago

    "Content is said to be as gritty and mature as any game around. Apparently the opening shows a Japanese commander stubbing a cigarette out in the eye of a prisoner before slitting his throat and turning to dish out a similar fate to you."

    Well it's obvious that no Japanese person worked on this game.

  • Eraysor #67 4 years ago

    "Just imagining how the COD4 engine is going to look rendering Japanese cities and country sides has me exited."

    You do realise that US footsoldiers never actually set foot on mainland Japan? All we're going to see is Pacific islands, and the sea. Unless they let you take part in a bombing run or something, but that is highly unlikely.

    At least the environments in CoD4 were varied, with the switching between deserts, countryside, and even Chernobyl.

    I have just realised a massive precedent for this game, and it is not good.


    Oh dear.

  • Mr_Brown #68 4 years ago

    Yeah because its CoD4 grittyness and mature gameplay that made it stand out. Hoping for lots of greys and browns and samey trench fighting. Obviously beginning with a promise of sunny tropical beaches for the first scene. Then its tunnels and wasteland from there. yeaahh...gritty! oohhh.

  • TheNinkyNonk #69 4 years ago

    What a bunch of hissy fitters!

    COD3 beats COD4 online hands down IMHO thanks to far superior map design and the single player wasn't wildly different to any other COD game.

    Whingers - who'll end up buying it anyway no doubt.

  • sneetch #70 4 years ago

    "Content is said to be as gritty and mature as any game around. Apparently the opening shows a Japanese commander stubbing a cigarette out in the eye of a prisoner before slitting his throat and turning to dish out a similar fate to you."

    In the opening? Well, from that I'd guess that it'll be even shorter than usual for COD. :)

    This sounds like the FPS that will finally make it in Japan!

  • Ihya #71 4 years ago

    I'm not going to answer that call.

  • teamHAM #72 4 years ago

    lol so much for "a new military theatre".

    muppets

  • Kbone28 #73 4 years ago

    Im actually glad Treyarch are going back to WWII. At least we know IR will be doing the follow on to COD4 MW.
    Im happy to wait - Maybe Treyarch will get their act together for this one? but i doubt it.

  • paketep #74 4 years ago

    More Treyarch shit then.

    If I worked at Infinity Ward, I would be real mad at Activision right now.

    And to the Treyarch apologists: if they're so good, why do they need the CoD name?. Make your own (WW2) IP!
    Edited by 1 at 09/06/08 @ 21:37

  • Sneerk #75 4 years ago

    More american patriotism? Im shocked!

    Oh and +1 to IW should do it..

  • beckyh #76 4 years ago

    Well I for one am extremely pleased with this news. Love the ww2 setting and didn't care much for the modern setting of cod4. Cannot wait for more information about this game.

  • NewbieZilla #77 4 years ago

    This is going to be the best CoD ever.
















    Well, it can't be worse than 3, anyway.

  • David_Snakes #78 4 years ago

    So it'll be shit...

  • Waldo #79 4 years ago

    And to the Treyarch apologists: if they're so good, why do they need the CoD name?. Make your own (WW2) IP!

    They're owned by Activision, so they probably have to make what the publisher tells them to make.

  • timberwolf #80 4 years ago

    how not to sell call of duty 5.

  • clockworkzombie #81 4 years ago

    I have only played 2 WWII shooters, CoD 2 & 3 and I am looking forward to another WWII game, hopefully the single player campaign will be a little longer than 4.

    I played 3 before two and loved it, having completed 2 I do think the single player was better due to the strength of the russian campaign. I would buy a stalingrad game in a heartbeat. BiA: Hells tractor factory perhaps. :)

  • Fab4 #82 4 years ago

    "And to the Treyarch apologists: if they're so good, why do they need the CoD name?. Make your own (WW2) IP!"

    You sir, are a fucking idiot...leaving aside the fact that CoD is a WW2 IP, and if anyone should have went out on their own it should have been IW, the fact is that neither IW or Treyarch own the rights to the series.

    Treyarch, in 11 months (and for multiple ports), made a MP game with more depth than CoD4 will ever have. Large, well-designed maps, 24 players, vehicles, classes (including medic and support), CTF, and WAR!


  • Pulsar_t #83 4 years ago

    Mr_Brown has the most insightful comment on this thread. Shame I can't mod him up! As for CoD itself, let's just say some people do grow up at one point and look down at this type of game.

  • Korben #84 4 years ago

    WWII, pfff not again. I will not buy it!

  • LukeFX #85 4 years ago

    So everything the learnt and improved on in COD4 is now being reversed. personally no matter how well COD5 does it will be a step in the wrong direction.

    Someone needs sacking

  • YourMessageHere #86 4 years ago

    Saying Activision was scared the modern setting would alienate gamers is pretty idiotic - obviously it put people off BF2 and CS, no-one plays those. Activision, or Treyarch, wanted to go with what they saw as an easy safe option rather than doing anything risky/interesting.

    Oh and Carlo5, get a fucking history lesson. Japan and China were fighting continuously from 1931 and Japan invaded a massive chunk of the pacific rim countries before the US got involved; this is why it's called the Asia-Pacific war.

    EDIT: If we're really lucky, some of those right wing Japanese who seem to wield a fair bit of clout nowadays might sue treyarch for depicting them in a stereotypical and one-sided way. Deservedly, IMO.
    Edited by 1 at 10/06/08 @ 13:09

  • stonedben #87 4 years ago

    DO NOT WANT!

  • Climhazzard #88 4 years ago

    Ha treyarch, well this will be lame, ww2 aswell? going in the wrong direction yet again, stick with infinity ward for god sake.

  • DFawkes #89 4 years ago

    I'm still not sure how they could go with this. I'd still prefer an IW game, as they've been my preferred ones, but Treyarch are okay.
    I can't see why Activision keep forcing WWII though. In interviews, IW devs have even said the first CoD was supposed to be modern combat but Activision asked for WWII. The major restriction there is the weapon choice.

    Ideally, I'd have liked a CoD generations, where you could follow a WWII soldiers career, then skip to his son in the 70s, then onto Generikistan, perhaps even a little into the future like Ghost Recon. That way, you'd see your weapons set evolve with the times. but that's just me, they can't make a game just for me. That'd be stupid.