• Hey Guest. Check out your NeoGAF Wrapped 2025 results here!

Call of Duty 5 coming to Six Platforms.

:lol at the Treyarch hate, they're not nearly as bad as people make them out to be. They don't usually get 2 years to make games like IW, but they have put out some decent enough games (COD: Big Red One was very good IMO for example). People here are so black/white about everything. "No IW=no sale" Ok then, come back in 2010 and stop shitting up every CoD5 thread from now till then with the same old complaints repeated ad nauseum.
 
bleh, they should just split up the series. this will NOt be a day 1 purchase for after playing CoD3
 
n1n9tean said:
:lol Yea, I intentionally ignored their first and most obvious mistake for comical effect. :D
Click to expand...
I love how they show it's 1899 by making everyone dressed like an upper-class British person on big wooden spaceships, despite the fact that they're in space shooting at a ship filled with humanoid frogs with a laser gun.

The juxtaposition is awesome.
 
LiK said:
bleh, they should just split up the series. this will NOt be a day 1 purchase for after playing CoD3
Click to expand...


Supposedly IW have fought to gain back sole rights to the series for future editions. There was a thread about it on GAF a while back.

MYy problem with this title is mostly a semantics one. It bugs me that it's called COD 5. If it was named COD: The WW2 adventure or some other moniker, that clearly distinguished it from the IW games, it wouldn't bug me so much.
 
Duck said:
Basically, Kotaku's saying that the game is set in the Pacific and is using the CoD4 engine. Kinda interesting, I guess.
Click to expand...

If this is true then it makes me curious on how Treyarch are going to handle the multiplayer. As in: vehicles and size of maps and if they've evolved the perks idea or scrapped it altogether.
 
TwIsTeD said:
another wwII shooter = no sale .... while IW made an amazing game at least make a call of duty game in Vietnam or something...... wwII shooters are just extremely played out.
Click to expand...
It's not just the fact that they're played out. It's the fact that so many of them do nothing to standout from other titles in the genre.
 
SapientWolf said:
It's not just the fact that they're played out. It's the fact that so many of them do nothing to standout from other titles in the genre.
Click to expand...

This.

World War 2 (and the surrounding years) was arguably the major focal point of human history. So much happened in such a short period of time to completely change the world and everything and everyone in it. But nooooooooo, lets just clone the Medal of Honour and/or Call of Duty template completely and utterly and crash whatever potential we had straight into the ground.

There are so many stories that could be told with World War 2 that after all this time it's still a fairly untapped resource. But developers are either lazy or afraid to use that history in a way that could be original and fresh. I'm not talking about just FPS/action games here. What about RPGs and horror games? If developers could get over the "too soon" aspects of certain elements within the conflict, then you could see some engaging and original storylines and games emerge.
 
Medal of Honor:Airborne was the only WW2 FPS recently to do something totally different. Parachuting in and choosing your starting point and then going wherever you wanted was pretty awesome, and upgrading the guns was fun. All I want in a WW2 fps is environments that can be destroyed and freedom. How about an Operation Flashpoint WW2 game where you can do the missions the way you want, and use anything you find? I'm a huge FPS fan, but even I'm getting tired of "Taylor, get over that ridge and destroy that artillery piece!" I love the WW2 setting, the guns, and the locations, but if every game is the same, why bother? If they change the format, they can make WW2 games feel fresh again.
 
Can anyone explain to me why developers are addicted to WWII FPSs? There are so many ways you can kill Nazis before you realize they are dead.
 
CoD3 was announced May 2006 and was released November 2006 - for 5 platforms.

Treyarch were essentially given 12 months to deliver a sequel to Infinity Wards CoD2 so that Activision could release a Call of Duty game every year.

CoD3 is fogivable because of the time constraints placed on the team. CoD4 had a 2 year cycle, CoD5 will have had a two year cycle and CoD6 will have a 2 year cycle. CoD3 was sacrificed to make that happen.

The 3rd game wasn't great, ...but it wasn't as good as it should have been. However, i'm not holding it against then because their previous games in the series have been great. I think it'd be best to wait and see what they offer us before writing their game off before we've seen anything of it.
 
This is kind of sad. I think the main reason COD4 struck a chord with so many people was that it was incredibly intense, and was neither Sci-fi nor WW2.

If Treyarch delivers another stinker like COD3, it will lose the series some of the fans and goodwill it gained with 4, and likely split the online community between people who moved to the nexy game, and hardcore "purists" who stick with COD4.

Short-term: Yay more money!
Long-term: dumb.
 
VultureDude said:
damnit, as long as there is a PS2 version that'll be the same version that the Wii gets :(
Click to expand...

Yup. And if they ever drop the ps2 version, you know the wii version will be dropped due to "lack of funds/personnel/etc". Even if the Wii got triple the install base of the PS360. :-/

It sucks hating gamepad FPS games. :(
 
Jeez, I hope that inexact doesn´t handle the Wii version, COD3 for Wii was a bug fest, sound hiccups, missing sounds, flickering textures, shadows on the ceiling... -___-U , I´m not sure about the other versions.
 
Cookie-cutter WWII shoters are the next (sub)genre that's going to be oversaturated and hopefully largely disappear from the gaming landscape.

But I've been saying that for years now. :/


pgtl_10 said:
Can anyone explain to me why developers are addicted to WWII FPSs?
Click to expand...
Because they sell. That's why publishers continue to fund them. The dev's own preferences rarely matter.
 
DubloSeven said:
Does Treyarch know that everybody hates them?
Click to expand...
It's just a loud minority on the net that hates them, the majority probably don't even know there are different developers making the CoD games, these games seem to sell okay no matter who makes them.
 
PBalfredo said:
Strange to see them regress back to WWII. Am I the only one who wants to see a game set in the Korean War?
Click to expand...
not that the south korean market is big or anything.. but the korean war is kind of a unsettled tragic situation..

on the other hand the iraqi war is the same and activision had no problems with COD4
 
shaft said:
Wat? COD3 i can understand but 4 was the shizznit.
Click to expand...
Emiru's a well known joke character. Simply ignore.


Fredrik said:
It's just a loud minority on the net that hates them, the majority probably don't even know there are different developers making the CoD games, these games seem to sell okay no matter who makes them.
Click to expand...
Yes. Feels good to be part of the informed minority.
 
Taking it back to WWII is a bad fucking idea.

People like the modern setting. It's part of the reason why games like Counterstrike and BF2 do so well.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Taylor Sheridan’s ‘Call of Duty’ Movie Lands 2028 Release Date
34
297
vindafarna replied
  • Poll
Will Call of Duty skip Game Pass this year?
2
73
1K
Danny22 replied
According to CharlieIntel, Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 4 releases in October
Rumor Event 
44
507
Deficit replied
Call of Duty advert banned for trivialising sexual violence
2
53
717
uncreativename replied
Rumor: Call of Duty Modern Warfare 4 reportedly being tested on PlayStation 4
2
67
100
mckmas8808 replied
Top Bottom