Call of Duty 5 name and details Comments by Robert Purchese
Set in WWII, by Treyarch, has co-op.
Want to comment on this article? Log in, or register!
Poster
|
john_silence
09/06/08 @ 15:11
0
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
09/06/08 @ 15:19
0
"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
09/06/08 @ 15:21
0
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.
|
|
FlamingCarrot
09/06/08 @ 15:34
0
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?
|
|
TheBoyChris
09/06/08 @ 15:37
0
http://www.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 1 times,
most recently on 09/06/08 @ 16:38
|
|
AtomicBanana
09/06/08 @ 15:38
0
'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. |
|
0
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. |
|
0
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. |
|
0
"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. |
|
0
"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. |
|
TheNinkyNonk
09/06/08 @ 18:03
0
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. |
|
0
"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! |
|
NewbieZilla
09/06/08 @ 22:42
0
This is going to be the best CoD ever.
Well, it can't be worse than 3, anyway. |
|
clockworkzombie
10/06/08 @ 06:35
0
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. :) |
|
0
"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! |
|
YourMessageHere
10/06/08 @ 12:07
0
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 1 times,
most recently on 10/06/08 @ 13:09
|
|
Climhazzard
11/06/08 @ 17:02
0
Ha treyarch, well this will be lame, ww2 aswell? going in the wrong direction yet again, stick with infinity ward for god sake.
|
|
0
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. |
Want to comment on this article? Log in, or register!
Advertisement
