This is EASILY the worst decision that could be made! (COD related)

Treyarch is not a bad developer. It's just that IW is so much better. Treyarch is what EA needs however. I think everyone would be happier if Treyarch was bought out by EA and if they make the MOH series from now on. Since that's not going to happen Treyarch should make a new series of FPS which stay in WWII while IW keeps the COD series and keeps it in modern times.

chansaet

Brilliant idea and I agree; Treyarch should go off to the MOG franchise since that title hasn't change their setting from WW2 (yet).

Treyarch has not recieved the same acclaim of there games as Infinity Ward has, but the sales must be high enough for Activision to warrant more Treyarch-made Call of Duty titles.

Whether you like it or not, by having the two different developers,the benefits are felt by Activision and us, the gamers. Activision gets what it wants, a new Call of Duty game everyyear(which goes along with there new Guitar Hero game every year). And we the gamers benefit because Infinity Ward isgiven extra developement time.

Because Infinity Wardhas had two years to work on CoD4, now they get 2 years to work on CoD6 (if it even makes it that far) rather than Activision forcing them to make an even better game in half the time.

Why is Treyarch being bashed so much for this? What made CoD 3 so horrible?hate19

nothing at all. playing through a load of identical french village levels one after the other was brilliant fun

I'm having trouble understand how someone, like that guy you mentioned at the end of your post, could not understand how Call of Duty 3 was developed by different people. :? How did that guy not understand it?

Anyway, I think it's a little too early to speculate. We'll just have to wait and see!

But I want a side game to 3 that is about the Pacific campaign before totally abandoning the WWII scenario. We still need Guaducanal and Iwo Jima. I'm especially interested in Guaducanal since my grandpa was a Guaducanal vet...-bigger_boss-

A Burma or China front Cod would be cool too.

[QUOTE="blues3531"][QUOTE="wmc540"]

[QUOTE="hate19"]Why is Treyarch being bashed so much for this? What made CoD 3 so horrible?Sully28

The fact that it was.

it wasnt. it was the same exact as cod2 but the levels just werent quite as fun. there was nothing horrible about it and the mace was the best cod level ever and yes its on cod3. but overall cod2 and 4 blow it away

no it wasent the exact same. The weapons felt wayyyy different in cod 3 over 2, they had no kick to them and felt very toyish. The game modes in the game felt alot different compared to cod2, hell i dont even remember cod 3 having search and destory. Also its map designs were terrible compared to cod 2. Cod 2 honestly has some of the funnest maps ive ever played on games before, i dont recall their names but i can easily picture over 5 right now from cod2, i can picture 1 for cod3. Last but not least the graphics were crap compared to 2. Cod 3 looked like COD big red one with more detailed character models, depth of field, and a little more detail to maps.

Believe me i own and played every cod on PC and consoles(not handhelds), and cod 1, 2, and 4 are the only ones that can be called COD because they are each fun and awsome with very little flaws. COD 3, finest hour, and big red one were trash compared to 1 2 and 4.

Is there a link that its going bak to WW2 ?Gh0st_Of_0nyx

in a thread made weeks a go..

They should atleast make some new WWII stuff and not the typical normandy kind of used materialLord_Ahti

Good point. Through as long as it still fun it probably won't be a big deal. But it would be nice if they will set CoD5 in the Pacific Theater battles.

I hope they make it single player only just to make everyone mad. I will be happy though because Call of Duty multiplayer has always been bad. Maybe if they just tack on multiplayer (like they do with lots of games) and create a super awesome single player then that would be fine.hoola

COD MP has always been bad? Are you kidding me?