Call of Duty: World at War Preview

By Alec Meer Published 23 June, 2008

World War II, Part IV.

It might be because I'm paranoid, it might be because I'm a cynic, or it might be because I'm horribly myopic. I'm convinced nevertheless that every time the Treyarch team heard the name 'COD4' during their recent demonstration of the fifth Call of Duty game, their eyes narrowed a little, their lips pursed and a distinctly frosty tone crept into their voices.

Be this unhappy body language real or imagined, I could hardly blame them. Every other question from the curious throng of games journalists in attendance concerned Infinity Ward's mega-hit FPS, and the words on the lips of World at War's potential legion of players are much the same. Will it do this like COD4 did? Will it fix this thing that annoyed me about COD4? Will it have this and this and this and this? Imagine a new girlfriend constantly comparing you to her ex. Why don't you comb your hair like him? Why don't you wear the same aftershave? Oh, don't eat with your mouth open like that - it reminds me of him. That's no way to start a healthy relationship.

On the other hand, it's rather hard to look at COD:WAW without certain presumptions. Unkind presumptions, frankly. With COD4 developers Infinity Ward off either working on something else (the smart money's on another COD: Modern Warfare game) or busy swimming in money-fountains, internal Activision studio Treyarch pick up the hugely successful baton. That's the same Treyarch who made COD3 and Big Red One - stopgap, arguably mediocre sequels between IW's main events. So will WAW suffer the same cursory treatment?

'Call of Duty: World at War' Screenshot 1

It seems not. While those games were cobbled together in around eight months, Treyarch say it's been working on this one since COD3 - that's two years and counting. It immediately shows. Though the use of a modified COD4 engine makes for some immediate visual similarities, it's quite clearly its own game, and not just a bunch of new levels for an existing title. This is, Treyarch point out, the first time a period COD game has been rated Mature rather than Teen. The developers on-hand don't hesitate to demonstrate the freedom this accords them, playing a grisly in-engine cut-scene in which a Japanese commander horrifically blinds a captured US squaddie with a burning cigar, before having his own throat slit by his victim's vengeful fellows. It's not pretty, it's not noble, it's not Band of Brothers. It's not your daddy's World War II game.

Yes, we're back in World War II - a revelation that's seen some sniffing from those COD4 players who think every war's irrelevant unless it's the one on terror. Treyarch is convinced this won't suffer from Yet Another World War II Shooter ennui, mostly because much of the game is set in the Pacific theatre rather than Europe. It's been done before, most notably by EA's leaden Medal of Honor: Pacific Assault, but there's a single phrase which defines this new approach - 'survival horror.'

Your Japanese enemies are not simple reskins of COD4's insurgents - they're a different type of foe entirely, with their own devious AI, designed to evoke the fearlessness and unflinching dedication of the Imperial Japanese Army. Think the Vietcong, but in the 1940s. This indefatigable foe lies in wait, in pits and in trees, not moving a muscle until an unaware Yankee passes. If faced with insurmountable odds, rather than staying behind cover they'll suicide charge the enemy with bayonets - they might only take down one guy in the process, but that guy might well be you.

'Call of Duty: World at War' Screenshot 2

While CODs to date have favoured a bombastic shooting gallery of pop-up baddies charging in waves, the idea in WAW's Pacific levels is that every scrap of scenery is a potential trap. Paranoia will be your main driving force. Every corpse could be faking it, every tree could hide a sniper, each patch of long grass is a potential death-trap. Which is why flamethrowers are so important. Oh yes, flamethrowers. Traditionally a preposterous archetype of sillier shooters, in WAW they have an accurate and essential purpose. In an oppressive locale of dense trees and tall grass, fire is your best hope of flushing out hidden threats. Which means new hotness for the graphics engine - palm leaves wither and collapse, their burning branches igniting the grassland below when they hit the floor. Wooden barriers are vulnerable and destructible too, which should mean a canny evolution of COD4's shoot-through-the-scenery shtick.

It's not all in the Pacific - the traditional COD multiple campaigns return. The single-player game's other half puts you in the shoes of a Russian soldier towards the end of the war, joining the climactic assault on Berlin. Reinforcing WAW's fire theme, Molotov cocktails and flame tanks will play a part in this war-ending siege. While Treyarch is pretty tight-lipped on details for now, this was a time when the vengeful Russians were positively baying for German blood - couple that with WAW's mature rating and we're likely in for a dramatically more brutal take on the WW2 FPS.

Treyarch refused to share details on the plotline (beyond hinting there'll be some celebrity voices), but it seems unlikely the Russians' path of murder and rape across Germany will be entirely reflected. Similarly, the Japanese seem a bit of a faceless, inhuman enemy in what we saw, but hopefully the full campaign will add some depth. Whether WAW's able to recreate any of COD4's impressive approach to narrative remains to be seen, but there were strong hints the story wouldn't be as impersonal as previous WW2-set CODs. Indeed, one thing Treyarch emphasise over and over is that we should stow our preconceptions about World War II. Even the presentation is markedly different - there's a real sense of grime and darkness, while your NPC fellows are more like (understandably) angry, foul-mouthed thugs than the unflappable stiff-upper-lippers of yore. This is war, not tea for two.

Actually, it's tea for four. Co-op play is coming to COD at last, as either two-man split screen or four-player online. We only saw a brief flash of this in action, but it appeared to fit remarkably naturally into the COD formula, only with the invincible or disposable buddies of the past replaced with a real guy. Treyarch has two goals for the co-op play - firstly to make sure it's not too easy or just takes the lazy route of enemies with more hitpoints, but rather that it'll scale specifically to you. If you're a tight, well-armed squad, expect your enemies to be toting deadlier weaponry than the average bear.

'Call of Duty: World at War' Screenshot 3

The other purpose is as a middleground between single-player and the otherwise somewhat newbie-harrowing multiplayer. Experience points earned in co-op play carry over to multiplayer and vice-versa, which should mean there isn't quite such a gulf between multiplayer veterans and their million unlocks and someone who's aim is a little rusty. Treyarch's keeping a veil over most of the multiplayer itself for now, but do promise vehicular combat. Is COD set to go toe-to-toe with Battlefield?

There's much left to see, in fact, and you get the sense all the secrecy is at least partly because World at War is a huge deal for Treyarch. This is its chance to earn its own vaunted reputation. WAW might have 'Call of Duty' in the name, but for once it really does feel like Treyarch's making its own game, not simply carrying someone else's luggage. That the team's chuffed to bits about this was plain to see. Their eyes may have narrowed whenever COD4 was mentioned, but they went wide and excited when they talked about the Pacific theatre, the veterans they'd spoken to during their research, and about that flamethrower. The numbers are gone - this is not Call of Duty 5, and apparently there will never be one. No doubt there's some nonsense, focused-grouped marketing reason behind this, but the message it sends in this case is clear. This is no churned-out, bank-balancing filler game. This is a whole new Call of Duty.

Call of Duty: World at War is in development for PS3, Xbox 360, PC and Wii, and will be released in Q4 2008.

Picture of Alec.

About Alec Meer

A 10-year veteran of scribbling about video games, Alec primarily writes for Rock, Paper, Shotgun, but given any opportunity he will escape his keyboard and mouse ghetto to write about any and all formats.

Read more articles from Alec by visiting the Alec Meer archive page.

You may also like...

Comments (74) Latest comment 3 years ago

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

  • phoopipe #1 4 years ago

    Pooh

  • espadachin #2 4 years ago

    the co-op has elevated this to a buy for me.

  • General Coxykiller #3 4 years ago

    This is going to be totally bad ass! Trust me ;o)

  • Derblington #4 4 years ago

    While it may not be particularly fair to compare this to CoD4 already, it is to be expected. And when have Treyarch made anything other than mediocre? They seem to have decent ideas without the decent implementation.

  • Physically_Insane #5 4 years ago

    I really hope this is good but I'm 98% certain this will be a step backwards in the series.

  • bad09 #6 4 years ago

    I was disappointed at first but after hearing of the pacific setting, seeing the trailer and now this preview I'm pretty excited about world at war.

    / starts cleaning his M1 in preparation......

  • MasterNameless #7 4 years ago

    It does sound great, but it doesn't change how bored I am of the clunky old WWII guns you get... with shitty sights so you can barely see what you're aiming at. Flamethrowers should help alleviate the pain though I guess.

  • TheNinkyNonk #8 4 years ago

    Going to be better than Modern Warfare methinks.

    WW2 isn't out of date, moaning about it is.

  • Skurmedel #9 4 years ago

    I'm afraid this will be "yanks storming a heavily fortified beach" for the fourteenth time, only this time it's in pacific waters, although I want to believe it will be good. I love WW2 games.

  • Blockhead #10 4 years ago

    Co-op, at last! When I played CoD4 I thought the models looked out of place, or rather, that the environments looked so dull compared to the models running around, that it looked wierd. Like there wasn't enough environment detail compared to the objects in it. Um... Anyhooo, hope they fix that.

  • DarkColouredCoffee #11 4 years ago

    Sounds promising, and anything with co-op is +1 in my book, from seeing the trailer my hope has risen slightly.

  • Danoxth #12 4 years ago

    I imagine this will be more along the lines of "Windtalkers" than "Saving Private Ryan," well you get the idea anyway.

    Looking forward to it, especially the co op play. As always, will reserve judgement until i've played it myself :)

  • BadBoyBonner #13 4 years ago

    Wooden barriers are vulnerable and destructible too, which should mean a canny evolution of COD4's shoot-through-the-scenery shtick.

    Hit my pet peeve there with CoD 4; I can kill people with ease through concrete walls, but should they ever find a little wooden box or such like, not only will I never kill them through the box, but I also can not even damage the little wooden box as I spray red hot metal death at it! lol

    Fair enough if you want to design a level with cover in it, but make the cover something that does not tear at my faith in the game world.

  • Peew971 #14 4 years ago

    I was pessimistic about this game but to be fair, it sounds promising, especially with co-op. That being said, I'm pretty sure I will give it a miss because of the WWII setting, I just can't stand it.

  • onezeonx #15 4 years ago

    still not to sure on this!!

    ill give it a chance but hope its not a mess up like COD3!!

  • WillyWanka #16 4 years ago

    I think it sounds intersting too. I've never understood why everyone is, and has been for the last 6 monhts, jizzing thmeselves over COD4. Yeah its good, but it's not super immense...i only play the multiplayer because all my mates play it. But yeah this sounds promising, let's just hope it's nowt like the Medal of Honour one /shudders

    A controversial game basis I know, but anone else think one way of freshening up the European theatre side of WWII would be to play from a German perspective? Ofcourse the Daily Mail's readership would simultaneously die of heart attacks that now computers games: "the Devil's Seed tm" were turning our innocent children into Nazis, but if TASTEFULLY done, I think the whole fight-in-vain idea would be pretty poignant.

    Ofcourse this will probably never be done as Americans seem to only buy games starring gung-ho, yankee doodle type persons

  • mikeck #17 4 years ago

    This game sounds like it'll up the tension stakes somewhat, with hidden enemies needing flushing out, constant unseen threats, lots of scenery prohibiting a 'run and gun' approach. If this is how the game will run, then co-op could well be a tactically driven aspect. We shall see I suppose...

  • space_ace #18 4 years ago

    but can we play as the imperial army? :F

  • mcwildcard #19 4 years ago

    I'm bored of this war, can we have a new one please?
    Thanks.

  • Pedrolot #20 4 years ago

    Treyarch says,

    'No.'

  • BobsYourUncle #21 4 years ago

    I've got no problems with WWII, I still love it as a setting but they could at least try to make it look as good as COD 4.

  • bengray66 #22 4 years ago

    I'm bored of this war, can we have a new one please?
    Thanks.

    Too be fair they can't win. If they made it modern everyone would moan they are just copying COD4.... If they set it in an established era, its going over old ground....

    Think of it as, like someone has mentioned, Saving Private Ryan. A great film as im sure we all agree, but I didn't hear anyone complaining that they had seen too many WWII films? Bearing in mind the amount of WWII films before it...

    Anyone who judges a game (which they have never played, and only seen a small trailer) on the time period its set is pretty much a moron in my books...
    Edited by 1 at 23/06/08 @ 13:00

  • Darren #23 4 years ago

    I'm still not convinced that COD5 will be anything special even if Treyarch have been working on it for two years because I don't think they're as talented as Infinity Ward. That might sound a bit harsh but the COD series was IW's baby and so far the best games have come from them. I can't see that being any different now but I'm willing to be proven wrong. While COD3 wasn't awful, it was all a bit uninspired and bland, a pale imitation of COD2, plus it was more than a bit buggy.Setting the game in WWII though after the freshness of COD4's setting seems to me to be a mistake as I'm sick to death of that era so much so that the new Brothers in Arms game has been crossed off my list of wanted games too.

  • Artemis_Matsas #24 4 years ago

    Survival Horror?

    Mmmm... No thanks.

  • BobsUncle #25 4 years ago

    "every war's irrelevant unless it's the one on terror."

    Actually, every war's irrelevant unless it includes the Barrett .50 Cal.

  • Peew971 #26 4 years ago

    "Anyone who judges a game (which they have never played, and only seen a small trailer) on the time period its set is pretty much a moron in my books..."

    Why call people morons for a matter of taste? I don't like the WWII setting so I won't get the game, what's wrong with that? I'm not saying it will suck, I'm saying it's not my cup of tea. Some people don't like Fantasy games, others Sci-fi games, that doesn't mean they are morons!

  • Fab4 #27 4 years ago

    "While COD3 wasn't awful, it was all a bit uninspired and bland, a pale imitation of COD2, plus it was more than a bit buggy."

    Which part of 'having only 8 months to develop CoD3' passed you by? The fact that Treyarch even managed to get any kind of game out in that time, across multiple platforms, shows that they are more than capable. The fact that, for the most part, it was an enjoyable game (especially in MP), shows that they are more than capable of delivering a game better than CoD4, which imho was overhyped anyway.

  • bengray66 #28 4 years ago

    Why call people morons for a matter of taste? I don't like the WWII setting so I won't get the game, what's wrong with that? I'm not saying it will suck, I'm saying it's not my cup of tea. Some people don't like Fantasy games, others Sci-fi games, that doesn't mean they are morons!

    You totally misunderstood... If you don't like WWII fine, but don't then come on here saying the games going to be shit because its set in WWII (not you personally)

    /prescribes 1 x moron prescription...

  • Darren #29 4 years ago

    @Fab4 - I don't care whether Treyarch took 8 months or 8 years to develop COD3, it doesn't change my opinion of the game I played which is that it was buggy and exceptionally unexceptional as a game which I paid £40 for!!! Am I supposed to excuse that because they've now admitted they had to rush it out to a meet a tight deadline?!? Sorry but no. If it wasn't finished then it shouldn't have been released, stop trying to make excuses for the developers/publishers! :p

  • CARL05 #30 4 years ago

    I think everyone is being unnecessarily harsh on Treyarch, Everyone's reactions seem to be coming from word of mouth or just from their reactions of previously rushed games (COD3, Spider-man3). People seem to be forgetting how little time they had been given on CoD3, which I never thought was rubbish in the first place, and now with an extra year of development this could possibly be a good contender for IW, remembering that it is utilising the same engine and that the improvements made will star in IW next CoD.

    And if people have any suspicions that this game will end as badly as CoD3 - remember how the Japanese onslaught stopped - H Bomb baby!!!

  • Peew971 #31 4 years ago

    "If you don't like WWII fine, but don't then come on here saying the games going to be shit because its set in WWII"

    Alright fair enough, I realise that was aimed at someone else... Totally agree by the way.

  • Razz #32 4 years ago

    WW2! Yaay!

    :I

  • Mudo #33 4 years ago

    "The COD series with it's melee attacks, linear level design, scripted arcade gameplay and run and gun multiplayer..."
    You say them as if they were negatives!

  • Fab4 #34 4 years ago

    I dont think CoD's gameplay was ever intended to be realistic. Its the archetypal run and gun shooter...to be played for fun.

  • Miths #35 4 years ago

    Can I carry over my G36 from COD4? :p

    Granted, I haven't actually played a WWII shooter since Return to Castle Wolfenstein (only just started playing shooters again for the first time in years), but after COD4 and - later this week - Battlefield: Bad Company, I can't really say I'm too keen on going back to weaponry that old.

    Have their actually been any Vietnam War shooters? Then at least we would have the M16 (and AK47 on the other side).

    Well, I'll probably buy the game any way - and I guess there's still a good chance I could end up loving the multiplayer (not really all that interested in singleplayer campaigns in shooters - I think I got around 70-80% through COD4).

  • rexcobo #36 4 years ago

    This indefatigable foe lies in wait, in pits and in trees, not moving a muscle until an unaware Yankee passes.

    Been playing a bit too much civ rev Alec? :)

  • asphaltcowboy #37 4 years ago

    Sounds pretty cool - let's hope the extra dev time allows them to pull it off!

  • Rirekon #38 4 years ago

    Why do I have a sneaking suspicion that the Flamethrower will be one of those weapons you get given for a single specific mission and are then never allowed near for the rest of the game?

  • RazorObsession #39 4 years ago

    modern day war has been done to death, as has world war 2, albeit not from every single perspective. future wars are tricky, as you alienate your audience from the familiar, sometimes literally, with aliens and ray guns.

    how about some better vietnam games, or a great war game? hell, how about some american civil war games or brits against the zulus or something? how about a world war 2 game from the germans perspective? they can lose at the end if anyone gets offended by it.

    even if the game was shite, simply setting it in a war or from an angle that has not been covered would still generate interest and sell a few copies. at the very least, copycat games would improve the formula and get it right the next time.

    willywanka+1
    Edited by 1 at 23/06/08 @ 14:58

  • Eurolamer #40 4 years ago

    Jungle setting? Fearless, East-Asian guerrilla style adversaries? Traps? Flame throwers?

    I reckon they started work on a 'COD: Nam' game, but either got cold feet or were told by Activision to adapt it to a dubya dubya two setting, ie one where the yanks won.

    My two cents...

  • Waldo #41 4 years ago

    Have their actually been any Vietnam War shooters?

    Vietcong series and Men of Valor spring to mind.

  • BadDevotions #42 4 years ago

    Have their actually been any Vietnam War shooters?

    BF: Vietnam too

  • seasch #43 4 years ago

    "but it seems unlikely the Russians' path of murder and rape across Germany will be entirely reflected"

    You don't have to like the Russians, but it was the Germans that attacked Russia and what the Germans did to the Russians was much worse than what Russians did to Germans.

  • bdaggers #44 4 years ago

    Treyarch and WWII (AGAIN, FFS !) = no buy.

    Thank you.

    Just wait until Infinity Ward do a real follow up, cos COD 3 by Treyarch was shite and so will this be.

    ^ scientific fact.

  • Machiavel #45 4 years ago

    So the enemies hide in secret compartments, not move until activated, and will run straight at the player.

    It's Doom enemy AI in 2008!

  • DUFFKING #46 4 years ago

    Fact:

    CoD 3 being not as good as IW's efforts yet still a shit load better than most other shooters = shite

  • qoobah #47 4 years ago

    You don't have to like the Russians, but it was the Germans that attacked Russia and what the Germans did to the Russians was much worse than what Russians did to Germans.

    And Russia did horrible things to Baltic nations, Ukranians, Poles, Kazakies etc. and most prominently, their own lot. Japs did horrbile things to Americans, and Americans did horrible things to Japs with the H bomb for instance. I don't mean to start any political discussion here, but it was a World War, there is no clear "good" or "bad" when it comes to killing each other on this scale.

    Ofcourse the Daily Mail's readership would simultaneously die of heart attacks that now computers games: "the Devil's Seed tm" were turning our innocent children into Nazis, but if TASTEFULLY done, I think the whole fight-in-vain idea would be pretty poignant.

    From some perspectives, you alredy got to play as a villain - for many eastern europeans Soviets were every bit as villan-yish as Nazis. I agree that there are a lot of less known, but as interesting as D-Day for instance, places and conflicts where a WW2 game could take place to refresh the setting. Hovewer I am yet to see a videogame that tries to do justice to complexity and ambiguity of some aspects of that war. Thats why I guess I'll hold out on this one. Maybe I'll try Brothers in Arms, but then there is the "America, Fuck Yeah!" thing, and I falter. :|
    Edited by 1 at 23/06/08 @ 16:39

  • cyber_nicco #48 4 years ago

    The dropping of atomic bombs on Japan saved many, many Japanese and American lives.

    edit: Not to mention the Chinese and numerous others...
    Edited by 1 at 23/06/08 @ 17:05

  • Siberian_Khatru #49 4 years ago

    "Russians' path of murder and rape across Germany"

    ...

    knob

  • matrim83 #50 4 years ago

    I wasn't too interested in this until I heard the words Co op. Will keep an eye on it.

    Its such a fantastic game mechanism (splitscreen co op) an average game becomes good just because of this one feature.More developers should use it.
    Edited by 1 at 23/06/08 @ 17:44

  • Stiluz #51 4 years ago

    I hope we don't get a polarized conflict where the western dudes are all heroes and the Japanese are horrible evil people, when everyone was shitty against everyone in WW2. I'd rather have a game where we can play both sides.

  • Bartacus #52 4 years ago

    We have killed German & Japanese effigies already, cant we play as the Japanese & Germans killing us or the Yanks so we can see things from the other side for a change.

    I would also like to shoot some Muslim suicide bomber effigies too, Chechen scum to shoot would also be good; the ones who killed all those children in the Beslan school siege.

    Afghan Poppy farmers & Taliban scum would be good for a laugh we could defend the poppy fields against UK soldiers & do the heroin donkey run to Pakistan while being chased by an unmanned drone.

    We gamers are generally an OK lot but we enjoy playing at being aggressive bastards more than any other game type.
    I often ask myself why but I still enjoy it.
    Edited by 4 at 23/06/08 @ 21:16

  • Skurmedel #53 4 years ago

    ^ Makes me afraid.

  • ExplodingClown #54 4 years ago

    Alrighty: you want massed armies in frontal assaults plus guerilla warfare? Plenty of shooting? Bored of 'terrorists' and the inevitable 'Saving Private Ryan' cliches?

    How about... Korea?

    An unambiguously nasty enemy (no-one loves North Korea). Massed assaults by Chinese troops with desperate defences fought by the UN forces. General McArthur's long deep assault into the North that ended so badly. Classic weapons and vehicles and the start of the jet age. Napalm runs. Naval artillery barrages. Chaotic bulletfests by the light of parachute flares. A war that at least wasn't a total disaster for all concerned like Vietnam. And you've still got the Yanks in there to guarantee sales in the US.

    Where the F**K are the Korean War games? The last decent Korean War game was 'Mig Alley' by Rowan (fantasy modern-day bullshit like 'Mercenaries' doesn't count). I suspect that the main reason is that with WW2, lazy developers can just rent 'Band of Brothers' and count that as all the research they need. They'd actually have to read some books to learn about Korea.

    +1 to WillyWanka re. a game from the German perspective (watch 'Cross of Iron' and tell me it couldn't be done). After all we already have Silent Hunter III where you get to sink Allied shipping, thus murdering plenty of virtual allied sailors, so it's not like a shooter would be breaking any new moral ground - it's not like you'd be playing as the Einsatzgruppen after all....
    Edited by 1 at 23/06/08 @ 18:16

  • sneetch #55 4 years ago

    "Yes, we're back in World War II - a revelation that's seen some sniffing from those COD4 players who think every war's irrelevant unless it's the one on terror."

    Actually, it's not that they're "irrelevant" it's that a lot of us are just a little sick of WWII games. They're a dime a dozen. Nice strawman though.

    Just because this one is "mature" (i.e. featuring specific and unpleasant acts of cruelty, over and above shooting people, obviously) doesn't change that. Or are we all supposed to fall over ourselves because of that cut scene where the US guy is blinded by the cigar? OMG teh maturityness! Terrible abuse of the word mature really.

    @Stiluz
    "I hope we don't get a polarized conflict where the western dudes are all heroes and the Japanese are horrible evil people, when everyone was shitty against everyone in WW2. I'd rather have a game where we can play both sides. "

    Never happen, although they will shine less in this game no matter how far they go in showing that in war all sides do despicable things you can be sure the western allies will be redeemed somehow at the end. The russians and japanese? Probably not.

  • Transcendent #56 4 years ago

    "It's easy to forget but Cloud was an unvoiced protagonist. Throughout Final Fantasy VII his reactions and attitudes were conveyed by way of simple gestures and the reactions of others."

    Cloud speaks for fuck's sake. The to me most memorable quote is from him.

    And Cloud is nothing like Chrono, since he is a character and not a shell.

  • Laika #57 4 years ago

    Wrong thread, dude.

    Also cyber_nicco, what the hell is wrong with you?

  • mcmothercruncher #58 4 years ago

    I read the preview and just can't shake the foreboding feeling of another cut-down, half arsed, gimped, shitty PSP-like Wii version of a big name multi platform release. It'll be Alone in the Dark all over again I bet :(

  • paketep #59 4 years ago

    This is not a whole new Call of Duty.

    This is not Call of Duty at all.

    Call of Duty would be if it came from Infinity Ward.

  • RazorObsession #60 4 years ago

    @Laika - I think he means if those two nukes hadn't ended the war there and then, it could have become a long drawn out campaign involving numerous local countries to that region, that may well have resulted in more lives lost over the extended course of the war - albeit probably soldiers lives rather than women and children too.

  • Laika #61 4 years ago

    I know - he's wrong.

    Japan was on the point of surrender before Hiroshima.

  • qoobah #62 4 years ago


    In other news, I wonder why there were no serious WWI european theatre FPS games yet. Surely, trench warfare, gas attacks, charges across artillery-wasted fields against entrenched machinegun emplacements are first class material for oversimplified effigy-shootout game. I guess it's not discernable enough from the WWII setting.

  • actionfitz #63 4 years ago

    I can see they are trying hard with this, but im still unconvinced after buying CoD 3 and thinking WTF? they cashed in on my love for CoD2 and pointed and laughed - like 'Nelson' from the Simpsons :/

    If they want to be taken seriously and stand on their own two feet... then have the balls to drop the 'Call of Duty' name. Their past games have been COD in name only anyway.
    'Generic Manly Name for a War Game' 1, instead of trying to cash in on people who loved COD4.

  • Xerx3s #64 4 years ago

    "The dropping of atomic bombs on Japan saved many, many Japanese and American lives. "

    Or so people always say. Apparently history and what would have been are clear waters.

    I can think of several reasons why one would nuke a city, none of them to save lives. But hey, that's just me.

  • Cider86 #65 4 years ago

    "I can think of several reasons why one would nuke a city, none of them to save lives. But hey, that's just me."

    From what I understand (and I'm no expert on this , believe me) an amphibious invasion of Japan would have killed a million allied soldiers and ten million Japanese (many of those through starvation). Japan wasn't going to capitulate, thus dropping the bomb ended the war before an invasion was required and saved millions of lives.

  • qoobah #66 4 years ago

    Japan wasn't going to capitulate, thus dropping the bomb ended the war before an invasion was required and saved millions of lives.

    And killed 220 000 civilians the minute the bombs dropped, and thousands more through radiation poisoning, children and women among them. The number seems small if you compare it to, as you said, millions of possible casualties, but can you really tell whether deaths of those civillians were really better than deaths of soldiers, who, after all, knew what they are signing up for when they joined the army? Cause I can't. The numbers seem small anyway when you compare them to some 73 odd million of total deaths, of which only around 25 mil were military...
    Edited by 2 at 24/06/08 @ 16:57

  • hiddenranbir #67 4 years ago

    What the f... Russian soldier on final Berlin assault? We already had that in CoD...ffs.

  • Danoxth #68 4 years ago

    Can we have a Call of Duty: IRA edition, where the IRA are planting bombs and stuff around London, have gained a foothold and we're taking it back?

  • local_celebrity #69 4 years ago

    Can we have a Call of Duty: IRA edition, where the IRA are planting bombs and stuff around London, have gained a foothold and we're taking it back?

    As a fan of the Lewis Collins mastepiece Who Dares Wins, I think this is an absolutely spiffing idea.

    P.S. When will people stop riding the dicks of IW and cut Treyarch some slack? These people work all the hours to make these bloody games - often for crappy wages, in the cases of the footsoldiers - so I think they deserve their dues.

  • antonluyt #70 4 years ago

    They can shove this game. After COD3 I'm not touching another Treyarch title.

  • mikeck #71 4 years ago

    @local_celebrity

    ^That would be a no then...just as you mention it another doofus comes along to slag them off! I agree with you, give them some slack, they've had two years to produce this game, rather than eight months for CoD3 which was still a good effort for the time they were given.

  • Fab4 #72 4 years ago

    Anyone who enjoyed CoD3 should rejoice that it wont be as popular as CoD4, it will probably reduce the number of cesspool bottom-feeders that you come across...the ones that make CoD4 such a 'pleasure' to play. Thats why I'm hoping GoW2 is a gaming masterpiece, not so I can play it, so it acts as a distraction to the societal dregs.

  • Tlaloc #73 4 years ago

    "Japan wasn't going to capitulate, thus dropping the bomb ended the war before an invasion was required and saved millions of lives. "

    This is simply wrong, and a commonly propagated US idea. In 1945 Japan was one step short of simply imploding. The beaches of the country were going to be defended, in the event of an invasion in large part, by women and children, many armed with weapons like sharpened bamboo stakes. The Japanese government knew this, peace negotiations were already underway. It was only a matter of days or weeks before the war simply stopped when Japan surrendered. Then the US dropped the first bomb. Then, days later, the second. Japan surrendered. What was achieved? The difference was in the nature of the peace treaty. If Japan had managed to negotiate a settlement before the bombs were dropped, the surrender would not have been unconditional, and consequently the peace would not have been as financially advantageous to the US. So, the bombs were dropped, and the US cleaned up in the Pacific. Of course there is never any point to *any* war other than financial advantage but in this case the US protestations of morality were always weak, and are getting really threadbare.

  • Windsong #74 3 years ago

    "Japan was on the point of surrender before Hiroshima."

    Bull$hit.

    That is all.