As was foretold, we've added advertisements to the forums! If you have questions, or if you encounter any bugs, please visit this thread: https://forums.penny-arcade.com/discussion/240191/forum-advertisement-faq-and-reports-thread/
Options

Call of Duty 5: Medal of Honor 5

darleysamdarleysam On my way toUKRegistered User regular
edited June 2008 in Games and Technology
http://www.eurogamer.net/article.php?article_id=148463
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.

forumsig.png
darleysam on
«13456789

Posts

  • Options
    KhavallKhavall British ColumbiaRegistered User regular
    edited June 2008
    Dammit CoD4 was so good


    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?!

    Khavall on
  • Options
    Shoegaze99Shoegaze99 Registered User regular
    edited June 2008
    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?

    Shoegaze99 on
  • Options
    AccualtAccualt Registered User regular
    edited June 2008
    Because Treyarch is such an awful, awful thing.

    Accualt on
  • Options
    DroolDrool Science! AustinRegistered User regular
    edited June 2008
    I saw this and I made a :(

    Drool on
  • Options
    CaedereCaedere S'no regrets BIRDIESRegistered User regular
    edited June 2008
    Aren't alternating Call of Duty games being handled by Treyarch (boo, crappy) and then Infinity Ward (woo, awesome)?

    So, this one I expecting to suck, then CoD 6 will be awesome.

    Caedere on
    FWnykYl.jpg
  • Options
    Mr. GMr. G Registered User regular
    edited June 2008
    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."

    More brown and bloom?

    Mr. G on
    6F32U1X.png
  • Options
    MayGodHaveMercyMayGodHaveMercy Registered User regular
    edited June 2008
    Treyarch???

    MayGodHaveMercy on
    XBL: Mercy XXVI - Steam: Mercy_XXVI - PSN: Mercy XXVI
  • Options
    brynstarbrynstar Registered User regular
    edited June 2008
    Treyarch was awesome back when they made Die by the Sword.

    They should be spending their time making a sequel to that game instead of pumping out more Call of Duty: Generic Editions.

    brynstar on
    Xbox Live: Xander51
    PSN ID : Xander51 Steam ID : Xander51
  • Options
    darleysamdarleysam On my way to UKRegistered User regular
    edited June 2008
    Accualt wrote: »
    Because Treyarch is such an awful, awful thing.

    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!

    darleysam on
    forumsig.png
  • Options
    StormwatcherStormwatcher Blegh BlughRegistered User regular
    edited June 2008
    Maybe it's gonna be good.

    Who knows?

    Stormwatcher on
    Steam: Stormwatcher | PSN: Stormwatcher33 | Switch: 5961-4777-3491
    camo_sig2.png
  • Options
    SilentCoconutSilentCoconut Registered User regular
    edited June 2008
    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.

    SilentCoconut on
  • Options
    AmbivalentAmbivalent Registered User regular
    edited June 2008
    You know, I really did enjoy the mutiplayer in COD3.

    Ambivalent on
  • Options
    DaybreakDaybreak Registered User regular
    edited June 2008
    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.

    Daybreak on
    [SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]
  • Options
    MayGodHaveMercyMayGodHaveMercy Registered User regular
    edited June 2008
    If they made the web swinging as awesome as it was in Call of Duty 3---- Wait, wait a minute...

    MayGodHaveMercy on
    XBL: Mercy XXVI - Steam: Mercy_XXVI - PSN: Mercy XXVI
  • Options
    LukinLukin Registered User regular
    edited June 2008
    War of Armies: Battle of Conflict.

    I don't see the appeal of any of these games.

    Lukin on
    cancer.jpg
  • Options
    Captain KCaptain K Registered User regular
    edited June 2008
    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.

    Captain K on
  • Options
    KhavallKhavall British ColumbiaRegistered User regular
    edited June 2008
    God I need to play CoD4s SP again.

    Like 7 times.

    Khavall on
  • Options
    slash000slash000 Registered User regular
    edited June 2008
    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.

    slash000 on
  • Options
    darleysamdarleysam On my way to UKRegistered User regular
    edited June 2008
    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.

    darleysam on
    forumsig.png
  • Options
    SteevLSteevL What can I do for you? Registered User regular
    edited June 2008
    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.

    SteevL on
  • Options
    DharmaBumDharmaBum Registered User regular
    edited June 2008
    Joystiq had an article about the game
    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
    Joystiq wrote:
    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.

    DharmaBum on
  • Options
    Captain KCaptain K Registered User regular
    edited June 2008
    SteevL wrote: »
    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.

    Captain K on
  • Options
    darleysamdarleysam On my way to UKRegistered User regular
    edited June 2008
    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.

    darleysam on
    forumsig.png
  • Options
    SteevLSteevL What can I do for you? Registered User regular
    edited June 2008
    Captain K wrote: »
    SteevL wrote: »
    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.

    SteevL on
  • Options
    KhavallKhavall British ColumbiaRegistered User regular
    edited June 2008
    SteevL wrote: »
    Captain K wrote: »
    SteevL wrote: »
    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

    Khavall on
  • Options
    AccualtAccualt Registered User regular
    edited June 2008
    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.

    Accualt on
  • Options
    SteevLSteevL What can I do for you? Registered User regular
    edited June 2008
    Khavall wrote: »
    SteevL wrote: »
    Captain K wrote: »
    SteevL wrote: »
    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.

    darleysam wrote: »
    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.

    Maybe they'll go all Harry Turtledove on us.

    In_the_balance.jpg

    SteevL on
  • Options
    JaramrJaramr Registered User regular
    edited June 2008
    Its quite simple.

    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.

    Jaramr on
    steam_sig.png
  • Options
    Shoegaze99Shoegaze99 Registered User regular
    edited June 2008
    SteevL wrote: »
    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.
    For ten bucks, you bet. It's a solid WWII shooter. Not nearly as good as CoD2, which was utterly fantastic, but still quite solid.

    Shoegaze99 on
  • Options
    The WolfmanThe Wolfman Registered User regular
    edited June 2008
    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."
  • Options
    JastJast Registered User regular
    edited June 2008
    DharmaBum wrote: »
    Joystiq had an article about the game
    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
    Joystiq wrote:
    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.

    Uh oh.

    Jast on
    Jast39.png
  • Options
    Shoegaze99Shoegaze99 Registered User regular
    edited June 2008
    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.

    Shoegaze99 on
  • Options
    The WolfmanThe Wolfman Registered User regular
    edited June 2008
    Shoegaze99 wrote: »
    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.

    Oh... well there you go. :oops:

    10 bucks they still put it in somewhere.

    The Wolfman on
    "The sausage of Green Earth explodes with flavor like the cannon of culinary delight."
  • Options
    agoajagoaj Top Tier One FearRegistered User regular
    edited June 2008
    Shoegaze99 wrote: »
    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.

    It's a long distance D-day event that requires you to cross Asia and flank them from behind.

    agoaj on
    ujav5b9gwj1s.png
  • Options
    darleysamdarleysam On my way to UKRegistered User regular
    edited June 2008
    Shoegaze99 wrote: »
    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.

    darleysam on
    forumsig.png
  • Options
    Shoegaze99Shoegaze99 Registered User regular
    edited June 2008
    10 bucks they still put it in somewhere.

    :lol:

    Shoegaze99 on
  • Options
    Shoegaze99Shoegaze99 Registered User regular
    edited June 2008
    Has there been a good WWII shooter set in the Pacific Theater? I can't recall one offhand.

    Shoegaze99 on
  • Options
    The_ScarabThe_Scarab Registered User regular
    edited June 2008
    Captain K wrote: »
    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.

    The_Scarab on
  • Options
    darleysamdarleysam On my way to UKRegistered User regular
    edited June 2008
    The_Scarab wrote: »
    Captain K wrote: »
    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.
    T2_18-inch_Neca-2.jpg

    It would be the best thing.

    darleysam on
    forumsig.png
  • Options
    JaramrJaramr Registered User regular
    edited June 2008
    Call of Duty 6: Mechs and Pulse Rifles.

    ...

    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.

    Jaramr on
    steam_sig.png
Sign In or Register to comment.