The new forums will be named Coin Return (based on the most recent vote)! You can check on the status and timeline of the transition to the new forums here.
The Guiding Principles and New Rules document is now in effect.
The next Call of Duty is subtitled World at War and developed by Treyarch.
It will feature co-op for the first time in the series and is heading to PC, Xbox 360, PS3 and Wii, according to the first details - spilled from the pages of GamesTM magazine and read by VG247.
The Nintendo version will be handled by a separate developer, we're told, but all will be built on the Call of Duty 4 engine.
Call of Duty: World at War is set back in World War II amid the Pacific struggle between the US and Japan.
Content is said to be as gritty and mature as any game around. Apparently the opening shows a Japanese commander stubbing a cigarette out in the eye of a prisoner before slitting his throat and turning to dish out a similar fate to you. Is that gritty and mature enough for you? Is it?
There's no word on a date just yet, but word comes off the back of Call of Duty 4 managing to sell over 10 million copies and retake the top-spot of most-played game on Xbox Live from Grand Theft Auto IV.
Look out for our thoughts on Call of Duty: World at War in the nearish future.
Pacific region? Gritty and mature?
Really?
After how good and understandably successful CoD4 was, I just can't see this being anything other than a poorly-handled cash-in. I also wonder how much it pisses off Infinity Ward to have their franchise abused like this.
I don't understand how this is abusing the franchise. Until the most recent game, it was a WWII franchise. The new game will be set in WWII. In a theater tackled only infrequently. Why is this such an awful, awful thing?
According to the article, Treyarch aims to "explore the darkest corners of WWII," giving the military shooter more of a survival horror flavor by "tackling darker themes" and pitting players against a "new, seemingly alien fighting force."
With no imagination or inventiveness. That I can remember, the only thing they've done right in recent years was the web-swinging in Spider-Man 2. That's it.
And even that was apparently dropped for Spider-Man 3.
Basically, they have a mediocre reputation, their last CoD game wasn't well-received, and when IW have changed the setting away from WW2 and made the best game in the series, it smacks of franchise rape to have the other guys go back to WW2 for their next game, in a series that is having to have annual releases.
There is nothing there that fills me with confidence or enthusiasm.
If they copy/paste multiplayer from Call of Duty 4, but obviously change the weapons and perks to something befitting WW2, make it go online and put it on the Wii, then I'll probably buy it.
Blech, Treyarch. Let's just pretend that this game doesn't exist at all, and that the next CoD game is made by Infinity Ward and comes out in two years' time. Then all will be well.
At least we all know to be wary of the next Treyarch edition. The average joe has no idea, and it will sell a bunch of copies on name alone, just like CoD3 did.
But like SilentCoconut said--if the multiplayer works like CoD4's, it might be worth a look.
Why do some people sound surprised that Treyarch is doing this? Treyarch did COD3, and I think one of the other non-numeral Call of Duty games.
Anyway, COD3 wasn't the best game ever, but it wasn't complete shit. I don't think COD5 will have much chance of ever getting close to as good as COD4, but I'm not going to outright dismiss it entirely just yet.
I'm not personally surprised that Treyarch are making it, that was announced a while back and I knew it was coming. It's more just a disappointment that IW are clearly the best team for making these games, they've done exceptional work every time and set a really high standard. The only reason Treyarch are also working on it is so Activision can have their yearly sequels, which, while not terrible, aren't up to the high standard IW have set. That's just a shame.
According to the article, Treyarch aims to "explore the darkest corners of WWII," giving the military shooter more of a survival horror flavor by "tackling darker themes" and pitting players against a "new, seemingly alien fighting force." Activision has yet to officially announce Call of Duty: World at War, though it seems clear that we'll be trading in our guided anti-tank missiles for submachine guns sooner than we'd like.
We'll have to see how it turns out. But goddamn that paragraph makes it sound like its turning into RE.
Alien fighting force? I hope they just mean 'foreign' or unfamiliar or something (Japanazis, everyone!) by that, because I'm really hoping they've not just gone George Lucas on it.
You know I didn't actually like CoD4's MP. The leveling up is great but the actual gameplay had a split personality. It felt like it was trying to be half run and gun and half RBS, it did not set well with me. I stopped playing once I ranked up high enough to play against people with the extra grenade unlock. Lord that ruined it all for me.
So I'm getting a 360 soon. Even though CoD3 is made by Treyarch, would it still be worth buying for around $10? I'm actually not too sick of WW2 yet.
It's really not a terrible game. For $10 it might be worth a look.
Just remember that you must buy CoD4 at any cost.
COD4 is great, but I already have it on the PC.
BUY IT AGAIN AND PLAY IT MORE.
GET SHOT IN THE FACE
I do occasionally contemplate getting the 360 version for the online play, but I haven't even given the PC version's online play much of a chance. I guess I don't play online like I used to.
Alien fighting force? I hope they just mean 'foreign' or unfamiliar or something (Japanazis, everyone!) by that, because I'm really hoping they've not just gone George Lucas on it.
I wonder what slight change they'll make to the D-Day level so that it's different than the other 20 times we had to play it in every other WWII game.
"Last time you were in that boat. Now you're in this boat, the one to the left. See? Brand new level!"
Speaking of CoD4, I rented it just to experience the story, which I thought was real well done. As for multiplayer... I thought it sucked to be honest. Mainly because of that whole level system they had. I, as a brand new player must play with shitty weapons, no perks, and not even a sight to help me aim. Against other players who have the most powerful weapons, more grenades, abilities that let them drop grenades when they die or even still shoot me, and have laser scopes for pinpoint accuracy.
Yeah... No.
The Wolfman on
"The sausage of Green Earth explodes with flavor like the cannon of culinary delight."
According to the article, Treyarch aims to "explore the darkest corners of WWII," giving the military shooter more of a survival horror flavor by "tackling darker themes" and pitting players against a "new, seemingly alien fighting force." Activision has yet to officially announce Call of Duty: World at War, though it seems clear that we'll be trading in our guided anti-tank missiles for submachine guns sooner than we'd like.
We'll have to see how it turns out. But goddamn that paragraph makes it sound like its turning into RE.
I wonder what slight change they'll make to the D-Day level so that it's different than the other 20 times we had to play it in every other WWII game.
The main change to the D-Day level seems to be that the game is set in the Pacific theater.
Well I remember the Pearl Harbour level from Rising Sun was a suitably impressive opener, but the very next mission descended into Blandville.
Obviously it's not the same series or developers, but if they wanted to go with a spectacular opener, then that'll probably be it.
At least we all know to be wary of the next Treyarch edition. The average joe has no idea, and it will sell a bunch of copies on name alone, just like CoD3 did.
But like SilentCoconut said--if the multiplayer works like CoD4's, it might be worth a look.
I dont know. With COD4 I think the public proved it can discern quality. Sure, COD3 sold well but that was the first 'non canon' COD as it were. People will see COD5 without hte Infinity Ward logo and I think be wary. Especially when word of mouth will spread it over Xbox Live.
This also frees up Infinity Ward to spend more time on whatever they are doing next. COD6 perhaps?
I'd love to see them just go into the near future yet and make Call of Duty 2142.
At least we all know to be wary of the next Treyarch edition. The average joe has no idea, and it will sell a bunch of copies on name alone, just like CoD3 did.
But like SilentCoconut said--if the multiplayer works like CoD4's, it might be worth a look.
I dont know. With COD4 I think the public proved it can discern quality. Sure, COD3 sold well but that was the first 'non canon' COD as it were. People will see COD5 without hte Infinity Ward logo and I think be wary. Especially when word of mouth will spread it over Xbox Live.
This also frees up Infinity Ward to spend more time on whatever they are doing next. COD6 perhaps?
I'd love to see them just go into the near future yet and make Call of Duty 2142.
Who else needs that to be created in order to feel fufilled in life now?
Really, all that Infinity Ward needs to do is pump out Call of Duty games in a variety of different settings. They could make so much money from a Warhammer or Starcraft Call of Duty game.
Posts
And this will most likely be so mediocre
Goddammit.
I mean look at the blurb: "But help arrives just in time"
NO DAMMIT.
NO HELP ARRIVING JUST IN TIME. WHY RUIN AWESOME?!
So, this one I expecting to suck, then CoD 6 will be awesome.
More brown and bloom?
They should be spending their time making a sequel to that game instead of pumping out more Call of Duty: Generic Editions.
PSN ID : Xander51 Steam ID : Xander51
With no imagination or inventiveness. That I can remember, the only thing they've done right in recent years was the web-swinging in Spider-Man 2. That's it.
And even that was apparently dropped for Spider-Man 3.
Basically, they have a mediocre reputation, their last CoD game wasn't well-received, and when IW have changed the setting away from WW2 and made the best game in the series, it smacks of franchise rape to have the other guys go back to WW2 for their next game, in a series that is having to have annual releases.
There is nothing there that fills me with confidence or enthusiasm.
edit: caveat added!
Who knows?
I don't see the appeal of any of these games.
But like SilentCoconut said--if the multiplayer works like CoD4's, it might be worth a look.
Like 7 times.
Anyway, COD3 wasn't the best game ever, but it wasn't complete shit. I don't think COD5 will have much chance of ever getting close to as good as COD4, but I'm not going to outright dismiss it entirely just yet.
Steam ID: slashx000______Twitter: @bill_at_zeboyd______ Facebook: Zeboyd Games
My Backloggery
http://www.joystiq.com/2008/06/09/call-of-duty-world-at-war-revealed-treyarch-to-develop/
It revealed a few interesting things about the game
We'll have to see how it turns out. But goddamn that paragraph makes it sound like its turning into RE.
It's really not a terrible game. For $10 it might be worth a look.
Just remember that you must buy CoD4 at any cost.
COD4 is great, but I already have it on the PC.
My Backloggery
BUY IT AGAIN AND PLAY IT MORE.
I do occasionally contemplate getting the 360 version for the online play, but I haven't even given the PC version's online play much of a chance. I guess I don't play online like I used to.
Maybe they'll go all Harry Turtledove on us.
My Backloggery
The Call Of Duty games made by Treyarch never existed.
COD 4 is actually COD 3, COD 6 will actually be COD 4.
This way the franchise will forever be thought as awesome.
And we were always fighting Eurasia.
"Last time you were in that boat. Now you're in this boat, the one to the left. See? Brand new level!"
Speaking of CoD4, I rented it just to experience the story, which I thought was real well done. As for multiplayer... I thought it sucked to be honest. Mainly because of that whole level system they had. I, as a brand new player must play with shitty weapons, no perks, and not even a sight to help me aim. Against other players who have the most powerful weapons, more grenades, abilities that let them drop grenades when they die or even still shoot me, and have laser scopes for pinpoint accuracy.
Yeah... No.
Uh oh.
Oh... well there you go. :oops:
10 bucks they still put it in somewhere.
It's a long distance D-day event that requires you to cross Asia and flank them from behind.
Well I remember the Pearl Harbour level from Rising Sun was a suitably impressive opener, but the very next mission descended into Blandville.
Obviously it's not the same series or developers, but if they wanted to go with a spectacular opener, then that'll probably be it.
I dont know. With COD4 I think the public proved it can discern quality. Sure, COD3 sold well but that was the first 'non canon' COD as it were. People will see COD5 without hte Infinity Ward logo and I think be wary. Especially when word of mouth will spread it over Xbox Live.
This also frees up Infinity Ward to spend more time on whatever they are doing next. COD6 perhaps?
I'd love to see them just go into the near future yet and make Call of Duty 2142.
It would be the best thing.
...
Who else needs that to be created in order to feel fufilled in life now?
Really, all that Infinity Ward needs to do is pump out Call of Duty games in a variety of different settings. They could make so much money from a Warhammer or Starcraft Call of Duty game.