Who's the dunce who set COD5 in WW2?

Like, common people, isn't it time to stop making games about WW2?

I know half of you are going to say "but its in japan this time..."

SO?! ITS STILL WW2!!

why do you think COD4 did so well?

BECAUSE IT WAS NEW!!!!

Like, common people, isn't it time to stop making games about WW2?

I know half of you are going to say "but its in japan this time..."

SO?! ITS STILL WW2!!

why do you think COD4 did so well?

BECAUSE IT WAS NEW!!!!

Ten_Out_Of_Ten

I don't think it's about the setting this time around .. the gameplay, and fun factor will suck people in ..

I'm a fan of WWII, so I'm happy for the change, especially since they are taking it to the Pacific.

To be honest, I wasn't really a fan of CoD4: Modern Warfare. I didn't like the campaign or the setting, so I'm really happy it's going to the Pacific in WWII times.

COD4 made every FPS looked gimped and unplayable until resistance and Far Cry 2 came out

They set the bar so high, that this new COD is not called 5 becasue the developer knew it was just a painted over COD4 set in ww2.

COD5 will be a different game back on track with COD4

people dont know but CoD4 was made with the engine built for WaW

World at War has been is dev. for the past 2 and half years

i thought the COD4 engine was used in Quantum of solace? and world at war is NOT been made by infinty ward (as you all know) if the world at war box does not display the "infinty ward" logo (which it wont) then im not buying.cotterell55

*sigh*

another thread on this? really? again?

I really wish people would stop this "WWII is played out" bandwagon. The number of WWII games has already gone down tremendously. Even Treyarch have said that this is the last WWII game that they'll ever make.

Honestly, at this rate, modern combat is going to become more played out than WWII.

and btw jyoung, please never again try to tell us that Army of Two was a great game. It wasn't.

*sigh*

another thread on this? really? again?

I really wish people would stop this "WWII is played out" bandwagon. The number of WWII games has already gone down tremendously. Even Treyarch have said that this is the last WWII game that they'll ever make.

Honestly, at this rate, modern combat is going to become more played out than WWII.

and btw jyoung, please never again try to tell us that Army of Two was a great game. It wasn't.

Paladin_King

I agree Paladin that WW2 games have become less common nowadays after they got played out and I definitely see modern warfare getting player out with CoD4, Socoms, and Tom Clancy games. Why can't they do something like WWI or Vietnam. Something with some gray areas to explore, but I guess it is easier when you have a clear cut villain like terrorists or nazis

[QUOTE="Paladin_King"]

*sigh*

another thread on this? really? again?

I really wish people would stop this "WWII is played out" bandwagon. The number of WWII games has already gone down tremendously. Even Treyarch have said that this is the last WWII game that they'll ever make.

Honestly, at this rate, modern combat is going to become more played out than WWII.

and btw jyoung, please never again try to tell us that Army of Two was a great game. It wasn't.

jyoung312

I agree Paladin that WW2 games have become less common nowadays after they got played out and I definitely see modern warfare getting player out with CoD4, Socoms, and Tom Clancy games. Why can't they do something like WWI or Vietnam. Something with some gray areas to explore, but I guess it is easier when you have a clear cut villain like terrorists or nazis

Well, don't get me wrong, I definitely agree with your take on EA. Good for them. Red Alert 3 and Crysis are also working out for them, and though it's not developed by them, Left 4 Dead is coming too. They're really trying, even if Facebreaker was godawful.

I've often thought about a WWI game, but I think the reason it's not really been done is that...well...it can't really be done in a way that would make for a fun game. WWI was defined by trench warfare where attrition was the deciding factor. In other words....you sit around a lot, then jump out and run into machine gun fire with no hope for survival....you die and die and die until eventually you either run out of lives or finally make it into the opposing trench. That's not a very fun game....

Vietnam on the other hand, i really agree with. Though not the best one, Battlefield Vietnam showed it was possible. I am 100% behind a Vietnam game. If there were a Vietnam CoD game, i'd be in heaven.

As far as Activision...i don't think they're as bad as you say they are, but the aftermath of their merger with Vivendi definitely supports your case. They basically dumped all their promising new IPs (Brutal Legend, Ghostbusters, WET, etc), or the most creative stuff, opting only to keep tired franchises and more WOW.

Hi! my names Activsion and im going to ditch one of the most anticipated games ever..... Ghostbusterscotterell55

If anything, it's the futuristic shooters that there are one-too-many of.

Killzone 2, Gears of War 2, Halo 3, Resistance 2 (Yeah, I know, but it has technology thats more advanced than now, so it counts.)

[QUOTE="cotterell55"]Hi! my names Activsion and im going to ditch one of the most anticipated games ever..... Ghostbustersjyoung312

Ay-men

If anything, it's the futuristic shooters that there are one-too-many of.

Killzone 2, Gears of War 2, Halo 3, Resistance 2 (Yeah, I know, but it has technology thats more advanced than now, so it counts.)

Scianix-Black

I believe you are referring to "space marine syndrome" :P

[QUOTE="jyoung312"][QUOTE="Paladin_King"]

*sigh*

another thread on this? really? again?

I really wish people would stop this "WWII is played out" bandwagon. The number of WWII games has already gone down tremendously. Even Treyarch have said that this is the last WWII game that they'll ever make.

Honestly, at this rate, modern combat is going to become more played out than WWII.

and btw jyoung, please never again try to tell us that Army of Two was a great game. It wasn't.

Paladin_King

I agree Paladin that WW2 games have become less common nowadays after they got played out and I definitely see modern warfare getting player out with CoD4, Socoms, and Tom Clancy games. Why can't they do something like WWI or Vietnam. Something with some gray areas to explore, but I guess it is easier when you have a clear cut villain like terrorists or nazis

Well, don't get me wrong, I definitely agree with your take on EA. Good for them. Red Alert 3 and Crysis are also working out for them, and though it's not developed by them, Left 4 Dead is coming too. They're really trying, even if Facebreaker was godawful.

I've often thought about a WWI game, but I think the reason it's not really been done is that...well...it can't really be done in a way that would make for a fun game. WWI was defined by trench warfare where attrition was the deciding factor. In other words....you sit around a lot, then jump out and run into machine gun fire with no hope for survival....you die and die and die until eventually you either run out of lives or finally make it into the opposing trench. That's not a very fun game....

Vietnam on the other hand, i really agree with. Though not the best one, Battlefield Vietnam showed it was possible. I am 100% behind a Vietnam game. If there were a Vietnam CoD game, i'd be in heaven.

As far as Activision...i don't think they're as bad as you say they are, but the aftermath of their merger with Vivendi definitely supports your case. They basically dumped all their promising new IPs (Brutal Legend, Ghostbusters, WET, etc), or the most creative stuff, opting only to keep tired franchises and more WOW.

I'd love for Vietnam to get a gray area treatment game that has some deeply profound stuff but Vietnam is too controversial for most developers to touch.

Activision to me seems the most money grubbing and unoriginal big publisher out there. They just rely on a couple cashcows that they really don't improve and yes the diching of the original stuff is completely disheartening.

Did anybody order me a plain cheese?cotterell55

lol, What the hell.

Did anybody order me a plain cheese?cotterell55

*yawn*

Leave your lame joke in the waste of space thread you already made.

Like, common people, isn't it time to stop making games about WW2?

I know half of you are going to say "but its in japan this time..."

SO?! ITS STILL WW2!!

why do you think COD4 did so well?

BECAUSE IT WAS NEW!!!!

Ten_Out_Of_Ten

But this is going to set in the pacific never touched by most WWII games and is looking to be gruesome and reaalistic. Plus the people look like they are not super trained soldiers like SAS and modern Marines, they are just normal people facing a enemy with battle tactics never seen by a coventional army.

Actually this game if you saw the beta is like a CoD4 except with different guns and in Japan. You get fricking dot sights on a thompson. It is to accurate for being a sub-machine gun. So who cares if it's in WWII it's another CoD4 :PZonChau

lol, No, it's not in Japan.

There are just Japanese soldiers.

It's in the Pacific Islands.

Not Japan.

I agree with you 100% I am tired of WWII !!!

CoD:MW is by far the best title in the CoD series.... WTF !

I'm not buying WaW ! I'll keep playing Modern Warfare. :D

I really don't care if the game is set in the Japan/The Pacific I am over with WWII.

I will miss the modern weapons, they should have set the game in Irak or the future !:evil: