Dante Posted December 8, 2007 Posted December 8, 2007 Those of you who enjoyed the latest Call of Duty’s modern-day approach may be saddened to learn that Treyarch (the dev team responsible for three, and, who will quite possibly end up doing seven) is taking the series back to World War II for the fifth game in the series. Well, that’s if a job ad on the Treyarch website is anything to go by. The ad, which is for a level builder, in case you’re interested, doesn’t give away any concrete info as such, but after asking for applicants with “working experience with First-Person Shooter or Third-Person Shooter genres”, does go on to add, “if you’re a fan of World War 2 shooters, then even better!”.
Guest Stefkov Posted December 8, 2007 Posted December 8, 2007 OMG I <3 COD3. I cann't wait to get this.
gaggle64 Posted December 8, 2007 Posted December 8, 2007 WW2 games wouldn't be so bloody tiresome if they were just bloody set some where else other then bloody D-Day. When do I get to play as a Japanese private at Iwo Jima, skulking through the jungles of Burma or storming the city gates at Singapore? Bloody round eyes need a good thrashing.
Wesley Posted December 8, 2007 Posted December 8, 2007 Booooring. I was hoping the series would go in further into the future. Call of Duty 5: Future Warfare
Guest Jordan Posted December 8, 2007 Posted December 8, 2007 Why not make a game set before World War II. We've had several wars before that...
Charlie Posted December 8, 2007 Posted December 8, 2007 Why not make a game set before World War II. We've had several wars before that... Wars didn't have any tactics other than walk very slowly towards the enemy before WW2 so it would make for a rather boring and pot luck game.
Cube Posted December 8, 2007 Posted December 8, 2007 They should do it from the point of view of a German. Get a good writer and make the story show that most Germans (that you happily kill in WW2 games) weren't evil. Wars didn't have any tactics other than walk very slowly towards the enemy before WW2 so it would make for a rather boring and pot luck game. A WW1 battle would make a good bonus level.
Wesley Posted December 8, 2007 Posted December 8, 2007 Wars didn't have any tactics other than walk very slowly towards the enemy before WW2 so it would make for a rather boring and pot luck game. Kidding me right?
McMad Posted December 8, 2007 Posted December 8, 2007 What. The. Fuck? This makes no sense at all, except maybe that they won't have to pay some writers to devise a completely original storyline. Couldn't they have at least tried Vietnam?
LazyBoy Posted December 8, 2007 Posted December 8, 2007 How about Korea, that was alright. Even had an amphibious landing. You could have a bonus level where you have to peg it from the Chinese.
Solo Posted December 8, 2007 Posted December 8, 2007 Bothers in Arms Hell's Highway all the way baby. Probably the last interesting WWII shooter still to be released. In fact, when the hell is that out?
Marshmellow Posted December 8, 2007 Posted December 8, 2007 Wow just yesterday I was thinking to myself "CoD5 is going to be most likely complete shit" and if the same team that did CoD3 are doing it, then it will be shit. I hate being right...
Kurtle Squad Posted December 9, 2007 Posted December 9, 2007 Why not make a game set before World War II. We've had several wars before that... None that would make a good FPS. WW2 games wouldn't be so bloody tiresome if they were just bloody set some where else other then bloody D-Day. When do I get to play as a Japanese private at Iwo Jima, skulking through the jungles of Burma or storming the city gates at Singapore? Bloody round eyes need a good thrashing. They should do it from the point of view of a German. Get a good writer and make the story show that most Germans (that you happily kill in WW2 games) weren't evil. Exactly for both those two. Wow just yesterday I was thinking to myself "CoD5 is going to be most likely complete shit" and if the same team that did CoD3 are doing it, then it will be shit. I hate being right... COD3 is great, the single player isn't as good, but the Multiplayer's just as good (and better than the 2nd one in my opinion). And it's better having 2 games where the multiplayer's different, it means instead of a stupid update of the previous game, you've got another game to play as well as the prequel. CoD4 = Squad Battles CoD3 = Big Battles Plus, Infinity Ward Team Battles are cack.
That Guy Posted December 9, 2007 Posted December 9, 2007 As I said in the Xbox thread, it's one of the laws of gaming. Only ever buy even number CoD games. This will be average, I'll ignore it then the next one will be awesome and I'll buy it. CoD4 is one of my favourite games right now, it's so unbelievably good, so I'm looking forward to CoD6.
The fish Posted December 9, 2007 Posted December 9, 2007 It's simple, really: any Call of Duty game not made by Infinity Ward is shite. If it's made by IW, then it's awesome.
That Guy Posted December 9, 2007 Posted December 9, 2007 It's simple, really: any Call of Duty game not made by Infinity Ward is shite. If it's made by IW, then it's awesome. Exactly, It's kinda clever the way they do it. Milk a franchise by releasing one every year but giving the 'good' team' the 2 years it takes to make a truely good game.
c0Zm1c Posted December 9, 2007 Posted December 9, 2007 As I said in the Xbox thread, it's one of the laws of gaming. Only ever buy even number CoD games. The first COD game (by Infinity Ward) was great.
Bluejay Posted December 9, 2007 Posted December 9, 2007 It is still a shame that some people who bought and loved CoD4 will inevitably buy CoD5, assuming that it will be the same dev team and will be a good game. And then it won't be because Treyarch fail at life and they will cry because of their ignorance.
Recommended Posts