Call of Duty 5

Kabob

Lifer
Sep 5, 2004
15,248
0
76
From Xbox.com:

Newsflash:
Call of Duty: World at War Revealed
Published June 17, 2008

The next Call of Duty® is being revealed! You can watch the premiere of the worldwide reveal trailer for Call of Duty: World at War only on Xbox LIVE® Marketplace June 21.

Call of Duty: World at War completely changes the rules of engagement by redefining WWII gaming and thrusting players into the final tension-filled, unforgiving battles against a new ferocious enemy in the most dangerous and suspenseful action ever seen.

Powered by Call of Duty 4: Modern Warfare? technology, Call of Duty: World at War brings an uncensored edge to combat, as soldiers face the most harrowing and climactic European and Pacific battles in which an enemy, who knows no surrender and no retreat, will fight to the last breath, unleashing an arsenal of lethal surprising tactics. Peril and danger lurk throughout the battlefield as players combat the unknown risk of the new chaos of battle.

From the remains of Russia and the ruins of Berlin, to the beach and jungles of the deadly Pacific Theater, the volatile action takes on added depth as players employ new features that previously were only available in multiplayer, including perks, rankings and online stats in up to four-player cooperative gameplay, and take advantage of the new infantry and vehicle-based weapons, like the potent flamethrower, that will set the battlefield ablaze.

Ya know, after having such huge success with Modern Warfare it's kinda sad that they're returning to a DRASTICALLY overdone WW2 game. Although hearing the title "World at War" makes me wonder if it's going to be a pseudo-massive multiplayer shooter...

Also, you'd think considering that CoD 4 came out when, October, you think they'd wait a little while before they started announcing the next game.
 

AstroManLuca

Lifer
Jun 24, 2004
15,628
5
81
Honestly, I'm more unhappy about it being by Treyarch than I am about it being set in WWII. I'm going to go out on a limb here and say we're actually in a bit of a lull WRT WWII games. I didn't like CoD 2 that much, and it certainly seems dated when compared with CoD 4. A few years ago, WWII was everywhere, but it's not so pervasive anymore.

I would, however, like to see a game based around a different war. Maybe Korea or Vietnam, or something more recent like the war in Yugoslavia or Desert Storm. Or you could go back to WWI since a lot of people seem to like using bolt action rifles.
 

Queasy

Moderator<br>Console Gaming
Aug 24, 2001
31,796
2
0
Originally posted by: AstroManLuca
I would, however, like to see a game based around a different war. Maybe Korea or Vietnam, or something more recent like the war in Yugoslavia or Desert Storm. Or you could go back to WWI since a lot of people seem to like using bolt action rifles.

I think part of the popularity of WWII is that it was a war with a lot of movement, had automatic weapons, tanks, cool planes, etc and both sides were evenly matched for the most part.

WWI was trench warfare. There was little to no movement beyond a rush to an enemy trench, getting cut down, and then whoever survived falling back. Automatic weapons were limited to big stationary gun placements.

When we move to modern warfare, the kill ratio becomes wildly unbalanced in favor of the USA. This actually favors video games though as the 'hero' inevitably is cutting down large swaths of the enemy.

The first trailer of this is supposed to show up on Gametrailers TV on Friday night and hit XBL on Saturday.
 

pennylane

Diamond Member
Apr 28, 2002
6,077
1
0
Originally posted by: Queasy
Originally posted by: AstroManLuca
I would, however, like to see a game based around a different war. Maybe Korea or Vietnam, or something more recent like the war in Yugoslavia or Desert Storm. Or you could go back to WWI since a lot of people seem to like using bolt action rifles.

I think part of the popularity of WWII is that it was a war with a lot of movement, had automatic weapons, tanks, cool planes, etc and both sides were evenly matched for the most part.

WWI was trench warfare. There was little to no movement beyond a rush to an enemy trench, getting cut down, and then whoever survived falling back. Automatic weapons were limited to big stationary gun placements.

When we move to modern warfare, the kill ratio becomes wildly unbalanced in favor of the USA. This actually favors video games though as the 'hero' inevitably is cutting down large swaths of the enemy.

The first trailer of this is supposed to show up on Gametrailers TV on Friday night and hit XBL on Saturday.

America.... FUCK YEAH!



Sorry... I'll go do work now.
 

Kabob

Lifer
Sep 5, 2004
15,248
0
76
Originally posted by: AstroManLuca
Honestly, I'm more unhappy about it being by Treyarch than I am about it being set in WWII. I'm going to go out on a limb here and say we're actually in a bit of a lull WRT WWII games. I didn't like CoD 2 that much, and it certainly seems dated when compared with CoD 4. A few years ago, WWII was everywhere, but it's not so pervasive anymore.

I would, however, like to see a game based around a different war. Maybe Korea or Vietnam, or something more recent like the war in Yugoslavia or Desert Storm. Or you could go back to WWI since a lot of people seem to like using bolt action rifles.

Is Treyarch the company who made CoD 3? You'd think Activision would notice the popularity between 3 and 4 and give Infinity Ward the rights to the franchise. I had to force myself to finish 3...it was just boring. And I played multiplayer once for a grand total of about 4 minutes before I got bored.

Queasy's right, WW1 (other than making a "Red Baron" game) was mostly trench warfare. Lots of mustard gas...

I'll say this though Queasy about CoD 4. While the US/SAS are definately the heroes/good guys, the game did a great job of not turning them into invincible juggernauts (which kept it interesting).

I'd rather see some major DLC updated to 4 than a new game honestly.
 

mugs

Lifer
Apr 29, 2003
48,920
46
91
Originally posted by: Queasy
Originally posted by: AstroManLuca
I would, however, like to see a game based around a different war. Maybe Korea or Vietnam, or something more recent like the war in Yugoslavia or Desert Storm. Or you could go back to WWI since a lot of people seem to like using bolt action rifles.

I think part of the popularity of WWII is that it was a war with a lot of movement, had automatic weapons, tanks, cool planes, etc and both sides were evenly matched for the most part.

WWI was trench warfare. There was little to no movement beyond a rush to an enemy trench, getting cut down, and then whoever survived falling back. Automatic weapons were limited to big stationary gun placements.

When we move to modern warfare, the kill ratio becomes wildly unbalanced in favor of the USA. This actually favors video games though as the 'hero' inevitably is cutting down large swaths of the enemy.

The first trailer of this is supposed to show up on Gametrailers TV on Friday night and hit XBL on Saturday.

Somebody should tell the History Channel why the US Civil War is not idea for a first person shooter game. ;) Admittedly I've never played the game. I love the Civil War and love to see a good Civil War video game, but the History Channel civil war game just got such bad reviews that I didn't bother giving it a chance. My favorite Civil War game was an old Mac game (played it on a b&w Mac SE) where you moved armies around on a map of the US, and when opposing armies occupied the same state a battle would take place on a grid battlefield that was ~4x8. I played that game so much in jr. high.
 

Queasy

Moderator<br>Console Gaming
Aug 24, 2001
31,796
2
0
Originally posted by: mugs
Somebody should tell the History Channel why the US Civil War is not idea for a first person shooter game. ;) Admittedly I've never played the game. I love the Civil War and love to see a good Civil War video game, but the History Channel civil war game just got such bad reviews that I didn't bother giving it a chance. My favorite Civil War game was an old Mac game (played it on a b&w Mac SE) where you moved armies around on a map of the US, and when opposing armies occupied the same state a battle would take place on a grid battlefield that was ~4x8. I played that game so much in jr. high.

Heh. Yeah, a FPS Civil War game just isn't going to work unless you do something crazy like Henry Turtledove's The Guns of the South.

The best Civil War games I've played have been Sid Meier's Gettysburg and Sid Meier's Antietam.

 

AstroManLuca

Lifer
Jun 24, 2004
15,628
5
81
I heard a while ago that Infinity Ward had secured exclusive developer rights to the Call Of Duty series, so that after CoD 5, all further games will be by Infinity Ward. I did a search and found a bunch of articles from late April, but there hasn't been any further news on that front. A couple of them said that Activision denied this claim, but there's been no confirmation one way or another. All we know is that IW is developing CoD 6.

It looks like they may be going back to the previous convention of numbering the IW releases and just giving subtitles to the non-IW games. I'm not so sure "Call Of Duty: World At War" will actually be called CoD 5. CoD 6 may get changed to CoD 5.

P.S. If there is a FPS set in the Civil war or the Napoleonic Era, it would have to be a Wii exclusive and feature a reloading minigame. The better you adhere to the loading guidelines, the more accurate your shot. Or skip some steps and get a better fire rate (say, 5/min instead of 3/min) at the cost of accuracy.

Problem is, to avoid false advertising accusations, it would have to be called "Civil War: Reloading A Musket Forever" and they wouldn't be allowed to market it as a shooter because shooting would be a very minor aspect of the game.

P.P.S. I was also thinking that if there was a WWI game, it would have to do something about how many people got killed in No Man's Land. During a charge, instead of restarting when you (inevitably) get killed, you'd take control of a different guy and keep playing. I can't imagine it really working any other way. Unfortunately, that means your character would be even less developed than your average FPS hero. The only other way it could work would be to either include some sort of pattern (like MOH:AA's Omaha Beach landing) or to make you a superhuman rivaling the Incredible Hulk.
 

Kabob

Lifer
Sep 5, 2004
15,248
0
76
Originally posted by: AstroManLuca
I heard a while ago that Infinity Ward had secured exclusive developer rights to the Call Of Duty series, so that after CoD 5, all further games will be by Infinity Ward. I did a search and found a bunch of articles from late April, but there hasn't been any further news on that front. A couple of them said that Activision denied this claim, but there's been no confirmation one way or another. All we know is that IW is developing CoD 6.

It looks like they may be going back to the previous convention of numbering the IW releases and just giving subtitles to the non-IW games. I'm not so sure "Call Of Duty: World At War" will actually be called CoD 5. CoD 6 may get changed to CoD 5.

Thank goodness, IMHO Infinity Ward did a much better job. After CoD 3 I was expecting CoD 4 to be crap, played the beta and said "what the hell, this can NOT have been made by the same company!!"

And I dunno if this will be CoD 5 or not, but I figured it'd get more attention as CoD 5 then "CoD: Another random game" in the title.
 

Queasy

Moderator<br>Console Gaming
Aug 24, 2001
31,796
2
0
Originally posted by: Modeps
CoD3 was trash, I don't see why this would be any better.

From what I understand, it is using the COD4 engine. Ahh, here is a decent link of info.

Confirming rumors, the game formerly known as Call of Duty 5 will indeed return to World War II, setting of all pre-Call of Duty 4 games. Developed by Treyarch--not series creator Infinity Ward--the game will portray US Marines fighting the Imperial Japanese in the Pacific. There will also be a "major chapter" in the game focusing on the invasion of Germany by the Soviet Union's Red Army.

Treyarch president Mark Lamir told the magazine, "The direction for the team was to make the best game they could, and as they were doing this they created a grittiness that quite frankly made some people very uncomfortable...This is a scarier Call of Duty than we've ever seen."

When asked about the decision to include graphic violence in the game, creative lead Rich Farrelly said, "It's not just gore and violence for its own sake, but reflects what veterans have told us and the actual history."

One of the levels described in the magazine--called "Maken Raid"--features the torture of an Allied prisoner of war, who then has his throat slit by katana. The brutal scene is watched by the player's character, who is rescued by US Marines much like the real-life Raid at Cabanatuan in 1945.

Based on the Call of Duty 4 engine, Call of Duty: World at War will include more destructible environments than prior games in the series. It will also allow players to swim underwater, as well as use Japanese machine guns and flamethrowers with "propagating fire" burning jungle scenery--and enemies--in realistic fashion.

As for multiplayer, the 360 version will sport a four-player co-op mode which can be played with four consoles over Xbox Live, or two consoles each using split-screen. The co-op campaign will be very similar to the single-player campaign, with gamers constantly accumulating points which can be used to unlock perks. Its multiplayer mode will feature vehicles and squad-based elements.

Of course, that doesn't guarantee a decent game. But, at least it is being built on a solid foundation.
 

Kabob

Lifer
Sep 5, 2004
15,248
0
76
Originally posted by: Queasy

From what I understand, it is using the COD4 engine. Ahh, here is a decent link of info.

Confirming rumors, the game formerly known as Call of Duty 5 will indeed return to World War II, setting of all pre-Call of Duty 4 games. Developed by Treyarch--not series creator Infinity Ward--the game will portray US Marines fighting the Imperial Japanese in the Pacific. There will also be a "major chapter" in the game focusing on the invasion of Germany by the Soviet Union's Red Army.

Treyarch president Mark Lamir told the magazine, "The direction for the team was to make the best game they could, and as they were doing this they created a grittiness that quite frankly made some people very uncomfortable...This is a scarier Call of Duty than we've ever seen."

When asked about the decision to include graphic violence in the game, creative lead Rich Farrelly said, "It's not just gore and violence for its own sake, but reflects what veterans have told us and the actual history."

One of the levels described in the magazine--called "Maken Raid"--features the torture of an Allied prisoner of war, who then has his throat slit by katana. The brutal scene is watched by the player's character, who is rescued by US Marines much like the real-life Raid at Cabanatuan in 1945.

Based on the Call of Duty 4 engine, Call of Duty: World at War will include more destructible environments than prior games in the series. It will also allow players to swim underwater, as well as use Japanese machine guns and flamethrowers with "propagating fire" burning jungle scenery--and enemies--in realistic fashion.

As for multiplayer, the 360 version will sport a four-player co-op mode which can be played with four consoles over Xbox Live, or two consoles each using split-screen. The co-op campaign will be very similar to the single-player campaign, with gamers constantly accumulating points which can be used to unlock perks. Its multiplayer mode will feature vehicles and squad-based elements.

Might be using the same engine but that won't make it a better game. How many flops have used the Source or Doom 3 engines?

And I REALLY don't like the idea of putting graphic violence in the game. Just having names like Call of Duty and Medal of Honor sound like they should be more story and message driven then brutality driven. I think he wants to make Saving Private Ryan the videogame or something...
 

sjwaste

Diamond Member
Aug 2, 2000
8,757
12
81
I still think COD:UO is the best WW2 game. Of any that I've played, its still the one that I play regularly. COD2 was pretty disappointing, esp multiplayer, imho.
 

Kabob

Lifer
Sep 5, 2004
15,248
0
76
Originally posted by: sjwaste
I still think COD:UO is the best WW2 game. Of any that I've played, its still the one that I play regularly. COD2 was pretty disappointing, esp multiplayer, imho.

MoH: Allied Assault beats the snot out of the CoD WW2 games.
 

sjwaste

Diamond Member
Aug 2, 2000
8,757
12
81
Originally posted by: kabob983
Originally posted by: sjwaste
I still think COD:UO is the best WW2 game. Of any that I've played, its still the one that I play regularly. COD2 was pretty disappointing, esp multiplayer, imho.

MoH: Allied Assault beats the snot out of the CoD WW2 games.

It's pretty good, but COD:UO multiplayer, specifically base assault, is awesome. I still play it fairly often, whereas I've probably even uninstalled most of the other games.
 

VIAN

Diamond Member
Aug 22, 2003
6,575
1
0
Originally posted by: sjwaste
Originally posted by: kabob983
Originally posted by: sjwaste
I still think COD:UO is the best WW2 game. Of any that I've played, its still the one that I play regularly. COD2 was pretty disappointing, esp multiplayer, imho.

MoH: Allied Assault beats the snot out of the CoD WW2 games.

It's pretty good, but COD:UO multiplayer, specifically base assault, is awesome. I still play it fairly often, whereas I've probably even uninstalled most of the other games.

Allied Assault was a bad ass single player. I must've beat that game about 3 times. It sucked for multiplayer though. In that I played the original COD because I didn't like the enhancements of United Offensive. COD2 multiplayer sucked.
 

Kabob

Lifer
Sep 5, 2004
15,248
0
76
I LOVED MOH:AA multiplayer! It was amazingly simple though. Like, run, shoot, reload, run, shoot, reload. No aiming, just keep moving and shooting and hope the other guy sucks at strafing.

I didn't really get into the multiplayer until Spearhead came out though. Omaha Beach level was fantastic (although defense had a HUGE advantage). Usually just ended up being an hour long Team FFA.