COD 5 in WW2-What do you think?

t-mobile1892

I heard recently that COD 5 will be set in WW2,not in a modern setting like COD 4, what do you guys think of this?

Rb

WW2 games have been done to death but I guess we'll just have to wait and see given how good they made COD4.

Sir Digby Chicken Caesar

isn't cod5 being made by a different crowd than made 4?

Doctor DooM

Mordances with the proletariat wrote: »

isn't cod5 being made by a different crowd than made 4?

Nope, Infinity ward weren't happy with 3 so they are doing 5, and yes, it is set in WW2.

After COD4 I will wait and see, although I am a little disappointed we're going back to the most overdone storyline in gaming!

Alanstrainor

I dont know i really liked taking COD to the modern day with COD4, i do really like WW2 fps but it really has been done to death, unless they can come up with some really exciting new game play ideas i'd rrather they left it in the modern day tbh.

TelePaul

In console terms, there hasn't (IMO) been a definitive WW2 shooter on a 7th gen system. I think success will depend on the theatre of war but might seem devolved by comparison to the high-tech weapons and gadgetery in COD 4.

Doctor DooM

TelePaul wrote: »

In console terms, there hasn't (IMO) been a definitive WW2 shooter on a 7th gen system. I think success will depend on the theatre of war but might seem devolved by comparison to the high-tech weapons and gadgetery in COD 4.

The bits with the night goggles/ radiation/ nukes/ etc where the best bits in COD4... they're going to have to be extra imaginative in COD5 to top that in an already done to death genre. I hope they do though!

Creature

I thought the modern setting of COD4 was very well done so I'm surprised they're ditching it already. Can't say yet another WWII shooter fills me with much excitement, probably wont buy it.

Sod'o swords

COD5 is going to be pacific and made by the same crowd who made cod3.
So console only and pants.
Well that's what i heard.

t-mobile1892

Also when they set COD 4 in a modern setting Infinity Ward could make up their own war (ie the US Marines invading a country that is definitely NOT iraq :rolleyes:) as opposed to having some gruff american private narrate the invasion of the D-Day beaches for the millionth time...

Lukker-

CoD5 is being developed by Treyarch not Infinity Ward who made CoD4. The system is that every 2nd CoD game is made by Treyarch who usually do a **** job. Treyarch were responsible for CoD3 which was an epic fail of a game.

Dinner

Lukker- wrote: »

CoD5 is being developed by Treyarch not Infinity Ward who made CoD4. The system is that every 2nd CoD game is made by Treyarch who usually do a **** job. Treyarch were responsible for CoD3 which was an epic fail of a game.

Can't find the link at the moment but I read on CVG that Treyarch will do CoD 5(and make a sack of it) and then inifinty ward have the rights from then on. Mind you, haven't properly enjoyed a CoD game since UO. Never really found CoD4 that good outside of single player.

brennaldo

yeah i started a thread a while back on this topic and i think its a really bad idea, WW2 games had there day, the modern warfare games are much better

WetDaddy

I always thought a Vietnam war game would be interesting. Possibly a bit too controversial for some Americans, but how 'n' ever...

Sir Digby Chicken Caesar

an iraq war game would be cool, so long as the good guys were the iraqis

Shiminay

+1 to that Mord - or maybe an original "Desert Storm" game where you get to play the Kurds avoiding Sadam's gas...

A Vietnam game'd be good also - never played that Battlefield: Vietnam when it was around, any good?

Cato

Folex wrote: »

I always thought a Vietnam war game would be interesting. Possibly a bit too controversial for some Americans, but how 'n' ever...

men of valour was an excellent Vietnam game, good story and tension, shooting mechanics were a bit suspect though but you get used to them

r3nu4l

Yup, I have to say I'm disappointed with the return to WWII.

I would have preferred to see COD 5 as an update to COD4 but with newer weapons, perhaps including the Steyr AUG series as an assault rifle and different shotguns and LMG's. IT might have been nice too to see some European (or US) urban military deployment in a city, to combat terrorists as well as some hostage situations.

WWII? Again? I'll keep my fingers crossed but so far I'm not hopeful.

Cato

pacific theater was never really done properly in an fps, im looking forward to it but im a little cautious as the developer has had a poor history imo look at cod3 it was like some one cut and paste the name over a poor mans copy of cod2, if done properly however this could be epic think the Thin Red Line and the attack on that hill or japs bayonet charging you through the jungle! if there is another pearl harbour mission though i will throw up

The Queen

COD3 was not the epic fail that everyone claims it is, otherwise it wouldn't have sold bucket loads and gotten good reviews across the board on all formats. The graphics and multi-player are better then COD2 (on consoles); OK so single player had a few niggles but it was still good. A lot of it seems to be random bandwagon jumping.....COD3 was an overwhelming financial success and was well received by magazines and web site reviewers....

Also, they made the game in under a year.....so a bit rushed. COD5 has gotten twice that development time.

I say it's gonna rock. I didn't like Modern Warfare at all (I love MP but the SP is just pants in my opinion) and I can't wait for it to return to WW2 - Treyarch are using and expanding on the COD4 engine, not using their own.

Men of Valor was a bit crap, at least, it was on consoles, terrible ropey visuals and dodgy framerate. Vietcong is still king of Nam shooters!

Jack Sheehan

In case this hasn't already been posted, the first COD:World at War Teaser:
http://kotaku.com/5018540/call-of-duty-5-first-trailer

Kinetic^

Oh why did they let Treyarch get their hands on this!!!!!! :rolleyes: COD3 was terrible.

miju

is it just me or does the new COD just not seem as fluid as COD 4 ?

Jack Sheehan

Well I like to look at it this way. A lot of people say it's a major step back but it's not, its just pottering around on the same spot until Infinity Ward comes and Delivers CoD 5. Note the title, 'World at War', not '5'.

A game takes a long time to develop and this can just be a fun distraction to fill that space. Treyarch aren't the most creative of folks but they do have solid skills that will deliver a passable to above average experience. Give them a shot eh? I never like to see people bashing a game before it's even been played.

r3nu4l

Jack Sheehan wrote: »

I never like to see people bashing a game before it's even been played.

Oh I've nothing against the developers it's the timeline I don't like. I love all the gadgets and perks that are in COD4, it's the step backwards in technology I don't like.

What will we see for COD6...WWI, Crimean war? Cavalry charges? Muskets? :rolleyes:
Grrr!! :mad:


Having said all that I really hope I'm eating these words when the game does come out!
/crosses fingers.

Steffano2002

Seriously though, why the hell did Treyarch get the contract for CoD5 anyway? *Sigh*

Rb

Steffano2002 wrote: »

Seriously though, why the hell did Treyarch get the contract for CoD5 anyway? *Sigh*

I really don't understand either, after the success of COD4 you'd think they'd stick with the developers but obviously not...probably a money thing I'd imagine.

Steffano2002

I think they use Treyarch in order to keep the money coming in while they develop the "proper" Call of Duty game. It's a fantastic way of doing business!

Infinity Ward develop CoD1 & CoD2. Treyarch then comes in and develops CoD3 which enables IW to start working on CoD4 (while the money is still comming in!). Then CoD4 comes out while Treyarch are already developping CoD5. When CoD5 comes out, IW will be half way through the development of CoD6 and so on and so forth!

Brilliant business plan you have to admit!

Sod'o swords

Steffano2002 wrote: »

Seriously though, why the hell did Treyarch get the contract for CoD5 anyway? *Sigh*

Because IW couldn't develop two games at once.
They wanted to release cod5 early but couldn't work on it with making cod4 and all.

Steffano2002

Sod'o swords wrote: »

Because IW couldn't develop two games at once.
They wanted to release cod5 early but couldn't work on it with making cod4 and all.

Yeah I know it's because it makes "business sense" but I don't mind waiting 2 years before a new "proper" CoD game is realeased!

Anyway, I'm going to stop bashing Treyarch now because CoD5 might actually turn out to be a good, fun game! Best of luck to them!

Shiminay

Well, taking WW2 as our theme, don't you think there are possibilities to replicate or replace some of the gadgetry or things that COD4 made it's own?

Completely off the top of my head, you could be defending against an air raid with AA weaponry or being the bomber and having to pick out a target in a city. Could be even more fun than that level where you're shooting things to oblivion from your plane. If they made it in such a way that the success of the bombing run/defence had a big impact on the difficulty of the next level (e.g. did you bomb that tank factory? No, there's gonna be tanks coming so).

Multiplayer, the class system would work and there aren't really many of the COD4 perks that wouldn't translate. I could see Airstrikes still being a part of it, UAVs and Helicopters, obviously not.

Ultimately we'll just have to wait and see. It's interesting to see 2 developers working on the same franchise. If it's a case that Treyarch are just using the IW engine, then fair play. It cuts down development time and costs considerably.