No Nazis or zombies for MW2

By Robert Purchese Published 24 February, 2010

Not part of Infinity Ward's DLC plan.

Infinity Ward's Robert Bowling has dashed hopes of Nazis or zombies being added to Modern Warfare 2.

"There will be no Nazis or zombies in any piece of Modern Warfare 2 downloadable content," the community boss told IGN.

Nazis and zombies - and indeed Nazi zombies - were a popular wave-based multiplayer feature of Call of Duty: World at War. That game preceded Modern Warfare 2 and was developed by Treyarch.

The same developer is rumoured to be working on a Vietnam War-inspired Call of Duty game presumably for release this autumn. The cat's not out of the bag yet, however.

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. @Clert on Twitter.

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

You may also like...

Comments (38) Latest comment 2 years ago

Comments for this article are now closed, but please feel free to continue chatting on the forum!

  • bad09 #1 2 years ago

    "There will be no Nazis or zombies in any piece of Modern Warfare 2 downloadable content,"

    How about a decent multiplayer mode?

    / runs

  • MasterNameless #2 2 years ago

    ""There will be no glitches or exploits in any piece of Modern Warfare 2 downloadable content."

    /is what they should be more concerned about

  • LHH #3 2 years ago

    Well let's hope that IW actually have a DLC plan rather than one shitty map pack and then forget about it.

  • ignatiusjreilly #4 2 years ago

    @LHH

    I wouldn't be too concerned about that, they'll release plenty of stuff for you to buy I am sure.

  • bluem4gic #5 2 years ago

    Why would IW make Zombies for Modern Warfare. Don't you guys know about the beef between Treyarch and IW.

    The only people who are requesting this feature are obviously 12 year olds

  • iHAZaCHEEZ3burger #6 2 years ago

    Please just give us some new maps atleast, there release ones are getting boring now. Don't forget some extra spec-ops aswell.

  • awb83 #7 2 years ago

    What about the DLC that is already on the disc?

  • MasterNameless #8 2 years ago

    It feels like we've been waiting for the Belgian Swimmers DLC for what seems like ages now. I hear they are having trouble with their AI and they keep drowning.

  • gjgjg #9 2 years ago

    IW doing call of duty 7? dont you mean treyarc?

    no zombies or nazis? but what else is there?
    maybe a new idea then... im going to go with bat sharks

  • CaptainQuint #10 2 years ago

    What about a proper ranking system? That would be worthwhile DLC.

  • NewbieZilla #11 2 years ago

    @gigjg " That game preceded Modern Warfare 2 and was developed by Treyarch.
    The same developer is rumoured to be working....."

    And I really dislike seeing it referred to as COD7. GTA Vice City and San Andreas were not GTA IV and GTA V.

  • Skurmedel #12 2 years ago

    Yes they were, only Rockstars marketing people think otherwise. They were game 4 and 5 in a line of games.
    Edited by Skurmedel at 24/02/10 @ 11:00

  • ignatiusjreilly #13 2 years ago

    So what was GTA: London?

    I agree that referring to CoD 7 or 8 makes no sense, and certainly doesn't make anything less confusing.

  • metalangel #14 2 years ago

    How about more spec ops maps featuring the AC130, chopper gunner and Stryker? And no more favela maps, ever.

  • NewbieZilla #15 2 years ago

    Just curious if anyone will refer to Fallout New Vegas as Fallout 4. Different developers isn't enough of a rebuttal, as Infinity Ward and Treyarch are different developers in case anyone tries that line.

  • Fab4 #16 2 years ago

    Different developers, yes., but both wholly owned by Activision. Its the reason why WaW was nerfed to fit the perk structure of MW.

  • BOBBYLUPO #17 2 years ago

    The villains in MW2 were equally brainless and one-dimensional so zombies wouldn't really be a stretch.

  • Jonny5Alive7 #18 2 years ago

    Isn't there rumours for one of the map packs to just be a load of COD4 ones? I like those maps but would begrudge having to pay what will no doubt be a lot of MS points for a load of maps I've already played.

  • crazyhorse174 #19 2 years ago

    Its about time all those nazi's and zombies got a rest - they're in everything just now!

    The government will need to put an anti-killing order out soon to ensure that theres enough left for future generations to splat!

  • TeaFiend #20 2 years ago

    You know that if they added them the people moaning about not having them would moan about having to pay. Because they are massive douches.

  • robg #21 2 years ago

    I hear that they'll be including a mode where you can play as a special forces guy, with co-op!

    Oh wait, they included that on the original game disc instead of selling it to us later on. STOP THE MOANING.

  • Metalfish #22 2 years ago

    A mode like nazi zombies would be one of the few things that could bring me back to this game.

  • BobsUncle #23 2 years ago

    I still don't get the "Multiplayer is broken" complaints, I never have any problems.

    Maybe you're just shit at it and a bad looser?

  • BigE0n #24 2 years ago

    Why dont they say there INFECTED instead of zombies (worked for other companies) ;-)

  • kangarootoo #25 2 years ago

    "Why would IW make Zombies for Modern Warfare. Don't you guys know about the beef between Treyarch and IW"

    ?

  • thedaveeyres #26 2 years ago

    The amount of moaning over the best console multiplayer game in years is astounding.

  • kangarootoo #27 2 years ago

    @BobsUncle

    "I still don't get the "Multiplayer is broken" complaints, I never have any problems.
    Maybe you're just shit at it and a bad looser?"

    So what you are saying is that if you win at multiplayer, it works fine... and if you lose, it must be broken? Interesting.

  • BobsUncle #28 2 years ago

    @Kangarootoo

    No, I wasn't saying it's broken at all, which is kind of obvious from my "I never have any problems" comment.

    What I'm saying is maybe they're complaining because they can't hit a barn door, but decide to blame lag/collision detection or whatever instead of their own lack of skill.


    Edited by BobsUncle at 24/02/10 @ 14:21

  • kangarootoo #29 2 years ago

    @BobsUncle

    I KNOW you aren't saying it is broken, hence my use of the word IF.

    I was saying that your implication was, and still appears to be, that other players think it is broken because THEY lose, and you DON'T think it is broken because you win.

  • thedaveeyres #30 2 years ago

    I think what he means to say is, "Stop fucking moaning and go play something you subjectively consider to be less 'broken' and leave the several million people currently enjoying the MP to be able to read and discuss DLC for it in fucking peace"... though I may be wrong.

    :p

  • ignatiusjreilly #31 2 years ago

    @kangarootoo

    I guess bluem4gic is referring to this. Though I don't think this sort of handbags really has any impact on what features or DLC is produced for either game.

  • BobsUncle #32 2 years ago

    I never said I always win either.

    I loose just about as much as I win, and I've still never had any problems enough to rate the multiplayer as "broken".

  • kangarootoo #33 2 years ago

    @ignatiusjreilly

    Well I understand the spat now, thanks. It seems irrelevant though, hence my ? Or is the suggestion that if company X and Y fall out, and company X likes zombies, company Y will NOT like zombies on principal? Yeah, that is how adults behave, ok.

  • kangarootoo #34 2 years ago

    @BobsUncle

    Fair enough. I shall not labour the point. Forget I said anything :)

  • Skurmedel #35 2 years ago

    ignatiusreally: I don't know, but calling it CoD 7 isn't that confusing, it has a very clear lineage.

    I agree my point about GTA was flawed, but CoD haven't had any expansions or anything. They've made one game, released it, then made another one. Much of the mechanics from the first game is still present in the games so it's not like they've revamped it or made it into a grand strategy or anything, which would warrant a more specific nickname.

    And you are free to give me -1 as you surely will, I give you that one.
    Edited by Skurmedel at 24/02/10 @ 14:49

  • Fab4 #36 2 years ago

    "I loose just about as much as I win, and I've still never had any problems enough to rate the multiplayer as "broken". "

    Arghh...I could pass one of them (looser), but it is not 'loose', it is 'lose'.

    Btw, I had a k/d of about 3.0 in MW...I still thought it was fucking broken.

  • ignatiusjreilly #37 2 years ago

    @Skurmudel

    Yeah I do see the difference, but I just think that as an author decides the name of his/her book, so a developer should be allowed to choose the name of their game. I'm not really a fan of the numbering convention anyway, and I'd never complain that the sequel to The Bourne Ultimatum is called the Bourne Supremacy.

    And no -1 for your comment. I tend to be pretty sparing with the negative ratings, and only really use them for outright falsehoods and posts that add nothing of value to the conversation, and your post doesn't fall into either category :)

  • ronuds #38 2 years ago

    So...what exactly IS planned? Anything? I've had the game for months now and I don't know how interested I'd be in DLC at this point.

    IW sucks. They get way too much credit.