Call of Duty 5 name and details Comments by Robert Purchese

Fuck you, Treyarch.

Meh....Treyarch

expects more heat than the mgs4 review!

Doesn't count as COD unless IW do it.

"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.

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

and narrated by Laurence Olivier?

/coat

This is going to suck ass.

Roll on CoD6.

So i shall get COD4 eventually and skip this one.

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.

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...

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

Treyarch = skip.

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

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.

back to tired old WWII? Check.

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

Game that will undoubtedly prove somewhat mediocre? Check.

Hmm well at least its Pacific theatre which isn't so done to death as Europe.

Treyarch will probably cock it up though.

"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.

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.

"Set in WWII, by Treyarch."

WILL NOT BUY!

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.

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

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.

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.

Ill keep an open mind about this one..

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

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.

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

*please* Let there be vehicles.

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

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...

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!!!

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

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

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

*weep*weep*

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.

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.

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.

noooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo

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!?!

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 ;)

"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.

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

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

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).

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.

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

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.

Odd CoD = crap

Even CoD = good

(first game doesn't apply)

@miiguel

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

Fuck off Treyarch, you hacks.

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.