COD 'didn't finish telling WWII story'

By Johnny Minkley Published 2 September, 2008

World At War not simply "going back".

Call of Duty military advisor Hank Keirsey has defended the series' return to its World War II roots, claiming: "we're not going back; we didn't finish telling the story".

The retired lieutenant colonel told Eurogamer TV that he and developer Treyarch had been inspired to focus on the Pacific theatre by interviews with 15 marine veterans of the conflict, which "convinced me that we need to tell the story in a game."

The bulk of the game's campaign mode focuses on the battle between the US marine corps and Japanese forces, which Keirsey described as a "different enemy: relentless, tenacious," that, as a result, changes the game experience.

"[It was a] very difficult fight, a very close fight, and a very gritty fight - Treyarch did a good job of bringing that fight out and telling the story."

With Call of Duty series creator Infinity Ward busy working on a follow up to last year's acclaimed Call of Duty 4: Modern Warfare, development duties for World At War were passed on to Treyarch, developer of Call of Duty 3.

"Treyarch put out [COD3] in eight months," said Keirsey. "And for an eight month product, they put out a hell of a game. But now they've been given a two-year development cycle, so the lads were actually able to put a lot of polish on this game.

World At War will carry an 'M' rating in the US, which has allowed Treyarch to "bring out the intensity that those marine veterans talked to us about," according to Keirsey.

"The only thing we're missing is the smell, the heat, the bodies being rotted with maggots crawling over them, and we're putting that together in an expansion pack," he quipped.

Call of Duty: World At War is out on PS3, 360, PC and Wii later this year. You can see more from our exclusive interview with Hank Keirsey over on Eurogamer TV.

Picture of Johnny.

About Johnny Minkley

Eurogamer TV's Johnny Minkley is a veteran journalist with a lifelong passion for games and the games industry. He uses Twitter more than most people use air.

Read more articles from Johnny by visiting the Johnny Minkley archive page.

You may also like...

Comments (41) Latest comment 3 years ago

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

  • patchbox360 #1 3 years ago

    definately not going forward

  • Quint2020 #2 3 years ago

    Well that's great but I'm still not buying it, I just wanted the proper sequel to COD4 to be honest.

  • dsmx #3 3 years ago

    I'm fed up with WW2, enough already let it go. COD4 was a much better game in every way to all previous COD games because they no longer had to worry about historical accuracy and could just make a fun game, going back to ww2 meansthat historical accuracy comes back and will not be as good as COD4 because reality sucks.

  • andywilkie35 #4 3 years ago

    +1 to all three of the above posts

  • Chufty #5 3 years ago

    +1 to all four of the above posts

  • DFawkes #6 3 years ago

    We get it, some mental Austrian with a crazy 'tache went mental and invade Poland and started a war so intense it requires at least one more game to put across how tragic the loss of life was.

    I do get that the habit of redoing specific bits of WWII in games form means there's plenty unexplored, but lets leave it that way. At least for this gen, you can have a crack at it again on the XBox Next, or the PS4, or the Biig. I know I won't buy CODWAW since I've avoided every other WWII shotter since I had a PS2.

  • thefilthandthefury #7 3 years ago

    -1 to those posts for me.

    I'm not saying I want more WWII action, as such, I just thought CoD 4 was the biggest let down in a long while, from my own personal point of view. Being such a fan of the series I couldn't believe where they took the fourth. I'd like to see it return to a more CoD-esque feel, in a real setting. Vietnam or something.

  • octo #8 3 years ago

    No one cares about the story. We know the story. The Allies won. The Germans were defeated. We care about whether it is fun to play, contains less scripted AI, has better graphics and plays a better game of multi-player. Hank, no one cares about the story. Now repeat that to yourself twenty five times until it actually sinks in. NO-ONE cares about the story.

  • BobsUncle #9 3 years ago

    MOH Pacific Assault 2.

  • BobsUncle #10 3 years ago

    "I'd like to see it return to a more CoD-esque feel, in a real setting. Vietnam or something."

    Last time I checked Japan was a real country too.

  • Pedrolot #11 3 years ago

    I dont care if its backwards or forwards.

    The quality of the game will sell it for me.

  • ThePissartist #12 3 years ago

    I couldn't care less about the location, the Call of Duty games were never about that for me - I'm not a historian. I play the Call of Duty games because they're the best FPS shooters around.

    I'm not interested in any of this 'plasma rifle' bollocks.

  • thefilthandthefury #13 3 years ago

    @ Bob's Uncle

    That is my point. CoD 4 was a fictional conflict, so I'm glad to see them return to something historical no matter what it is.

  • ThePissartist #14 3 years ago

    @Coin-Op

    It's nice to see that we can finish a sentence with the same amount of character.

  • Physically_Insane #15 3 years ago

    This is going to suck. Big balls.

  • Fab4 #16 3 years ago

    I see a lot of people suffer from RDS withdrawal symptoms or will miss the 'look at me with my big Barrett' (Get a fucking red Porsche and be done with it). I personally couldnt give a toss if people dont want it going back to its original timeframe...there are far too many tossers running about CoD4 as it is...it could do with thinning out.

  • kangarootoo #17 3 years ago

    @Fab4

    Somebody in CoD4 shot you with a barrett rifle didn't they.

  • Fab4 #18 3 years ago

    Yes, all the time...it still hasnt stopped me getting a K/D ratio of 1.87 and rising. I only use the scoped rifles whenever i'm out of bullets and rob a body...then again, my eyesight isnt that bad that I actually need a scope to see across the minuscule maps of CoD4.

  • aldo_14 #19 3 years ago

    No one cares about the story. We know the story. The Allies won. The Germans were defeated. We care about whether it is fun to play, contains less scripted AI, has better graphics and plays a better game of multi-player. Hank, no one cares about the story. Now repeat that to yourself twenty five times until it actually sinks in. NO-ONE cares about the story.

    If I was being snipey, I'd point out that the Axis was multiple countries and by omitting the fact that Japan are a major and almost untouched one of those for games, you were pretty much invalidating yourself.

    But I'm not being snipey, so I won't. But I do think people do still care about the story, because it provides context for what you're doing and can elevate a bog-standard game to a good one. And to be fair, when they're talking about the story here they're more referring to the setting of the game. Methinks if they do a game with both a good Japanese campaign and a reasonably truly gritty/nasty depiction of the eastern front it will stand out as more than just another WW2 game.

  • Nithron #20 3 years ago

    I've played so many goddamn World War 2 games now, when I have a chat with my granddad I end up telling him war stories.

  • Ihya #21 3 years ago

    No more WW II for me!

  • Quint2020 #22 3 years ago

    @ tfatf

    The fact that COD4 was a fictional conflict in a modern setting meant they could have free reign over the story and my god was it a good story, I know what happened in World War Two and I've used every bloody weapon possible that was used in that conflict, it's boring and most people just don't want to see it any more, me included, still different strokes and all that I guess.

  • sneetch #23 3 years ago

    They seem to be spending a lot of time justifying the decision to return to WWII (or is that just Eurogamers take on it?) I wonder if they're trying to convince us or themselves? I get the feeling that a lot of people are just not interested in this one. Oh well, time will tell if it's worth it.

    @Nithron

    LOL, awesome. I reckon I'll have some tales to tell my grandkids "I remember this one map of Okinawa when the respawn timers broke on the Japanese side so they respawned instantly. So there we were, hordes of Japanese charging at us yelling their ferocious warcry "OMG BAR NUB!" and ..."

  • SeesThroughAll #24 3 years ago

    COD 'didn't finish telling WWII story'

    Just read a History book, FFS.

    Why don't they this simple message: PEOPLE ARE FED UP OF WWII GAMES
    Edited by 1 at 02/09/08 @ 14:31

  • sargeant_samporridge #25 3 years ago

    i will hold judgement till it is out

  • Royal Fool #26 3 years ago

    I think the Nazis are just as relentless as the Japanese - after all, they both have infinitely respawning soldiers.

  • Widge #27 3 years ago

    I love the old WWII weapons. Give me a bollock old assault rifle where I can't hit anything at a distance. I love playing Day Of Defeat and I find that so much more fun than COD4. The maps are poor and the game effectively gears itself up to be a Deathmatch with a light objective on the side.

    Rented COD4 from Lovefilm and realised after a while that I was only playing to build my XP up, no time in my life for that.

  • Chufty #28 3 years ago

    Not everyone is bored of WWII, but large swathes of us are. I guess we just have to grin and bear it. It's not like we need to buy it.

  • bioreit #29 3 years ago

    @ SeesThroughAll

    I'm not fed up. I'm really looking forward to this game, especially getting to play as the Russians advancing on Berlin. Also, as has been mentioned oh-so-many times before, seeingas Treyarch always had under a year for their games (which still came out alright in my book), being given two years and the CoD4 engine to work with should make them pretty good.

    Plus CoD4 always pissed me off that there were no vehicles. Ah yes - Modern Warfare, where everyone moves on foot.... Maybe they mean "Kind of Near-Future Warfare", where the oil has run out but the potato car has yet to be invented.

  • sneetch #30 3 years ago

    @Widge
    "I love playing Day Of Defeat and I find that so much more fun than COD4. The maps are poor and the game effectively gears itself up to be a Deathmatch with a light objective on the side. "

    I agree, but despite all that DOD is still a good game. ;)

    @seamonsterneil
    "I always find it funny that people are so jaded with ww2 shooters when the modern combat side has saturated the marked to an even bigger extent."

    Really? You must have a different market to the one I know; I remember very few modern combat games and tons set either in the future or past.

  • Red-Moose #31 3 years ago

    christ I am sick of WW2. I was sick of WW2 games after medal of honour 1, and I only ever played the demo of that. I got company of heroes, played two missions and despite it being a great game engine and with seemingly great playability, the setting is just meh.

    How many times......how many TIMES

  • Gl3n #32 3 years ago

    The return to WW2 just shows up Treyarch's painfully obvious creative bankruptcy.

    WW2 only finishes when we say it does.

  • niteninja #33 3 years ago

    WW2 shooters are about as much fun as getting hit in the face.
    Done to death farcry 2 looks way better.
    Call of duty set in Vietnam thats what they should have done.
    Vietnam was the most fucked up war ever.
    Yank soldiers going insane,charlie sniper attacks.
    There have been nam games but none have captured the insanity of the war like AN and platoon did.
    Edited by 1 at 03/09/08 @ 03:11

  • Elgi #34 3 years ago

    hate the idea of WW2 anyways so..... lets see what online have to offer with those perks :D

  • bad09 #35 3 years ago

    I haven't gone to WWII since COD3 so I'm not that bothered and will still pick it up, looks good. Can't wait for COD 6 tho! Sorry Treyarch......

  • WJF #36 3 years ago

    @sneetch

    "Really? You must have a different market to the one I know; I remember very few modern combat games and tons set either in the future or past."

    You must have missed the Tom Clancy games. All 4 billion of them.

  • killogrady #37 3 years ago

    Treyarch wouldnt be able to make a cup of tea let alone a good shooting game( which is evident in call of duty 3). to me world at war is just another walk down memory lane in the yet again conjested world war 2 themed games. modern warfare is a breath of fresh air and going back that is going to be painful!! world at war is dead to me!!!!!!!
    Edited by 1 at 03/09/08 @ 23:15

  • killogrady #38 3 years ago

    oh and this is the last call of duty game Treyarch are making infinity ward are given the rights to make the rest of them fact. long live infinity ward!!!!

  • Killer_Paul #39 3 years ago

    what Killian said :)

  • kipper #40 3 years ago

    I prefer to play as the 'good guys' rather than the 'bad guys', so while I'm happy playing as an American/Allied in COD1, COD 2 and COD3 in WWII , but I wouldn't want to play COD4 Modern Warfare, as the Americans are of course widely viewed as the 'bad guys' in the current Iraqi/Arab setting. Ditto the Israelis.

  • WJF #41 3 years ago

    "Thought Tom Clancy stuff was usually set in the very near future "

    Not if you play them a few years after release!