This topic is locked from further discussion.
Because I don't want another WW2 game. COD4 with Modern Warfare was soo much better.
I like the choice of new weapons rather than being stuck with same-old same-old that come with every run of the mill WW2 shooter. Oh what a surprise its the Tommy gun and the M1 Garand - how imaginative :|
because treyarch(spell check) f'd COD3 up and why change a good thing with the modern warfare. i do like the 4 player co op ill give em props on thatMessiah_xXx
What do you mean "why change a good thing with modern warfare". Shouldn't we want something that could possibly be better? Developers shouldn't settle for COD4 standards... they should try to give us something even better. That's a challenge every developer should face and as a consumer, I want better.
COD3 was thrown together in 8 months. COD5 has been in development for over 2 years by now. COD 5 is simply bound to be better.
because treyarch(spell check) f'd COD3 up and why change a good thing with the modern warfare. i do like the 4 player co op ill give em props on thatMessiah_xXx
Treyarch had only limited time to make COD3, so I can understand why it wasn't so great. Now they've more time to polish COD 5. Also I like the more brutal and realistic aproach I have seen in videos. I'm getting tired of all this games showing that war is fun. It seems like the army is paying developers, that they'll show war as fun and pretty bussiness.
[QUOTE="Messiah_xXx"]because treyarch(spell check) f'd COD3 up and why change a good thing with the modern warfare. i do like the 4 player co op ill give em props on thatshaunchgo
What do you mean "why change a good thing with modern warfare". Shouldn't we want something that could possibly be better? Developers shouldn't settle for COD4 standards... they should try to give us something even better. That's a challenge every developer should face and as a consumer, I want better.
aloot of people dont like it because a different developer is in charge, and the last time they were in charge they screwed up the series. and wwII is getting old... and by dont change a good thing, i think he means dont go back to wwII, not necacarrily making a call of duty 4 2.0. i just hope call of duty 6 is a modern warfare, but i kind of want the armor customization of rainbow six vegas, and get rid of the cheap perks, I.E. juggernaut and martyrdom. but other than that call of duty 5 could be fun, just not the fun ive gotten used to with the more modern games. lets leave WWII to wolfenstien, i think we can only take one WWII game a year or two, not a billion(slight exaggeration):D
Okay yeah COD3 sucked hard and alot of people are tired of WWII but still it could be an awesome game. Plus it's world war 2 in Iwo Jima so it's not exactly what we've all seen before.Red_sox_fans
Possibly because Treyarch claims to reform the WWII experience by just pitting us on the other side of the world were it was the exact the same thing as in COD 1 2 3 except that the enemies now are japs with yellow skin, different language and honor codes. just meaning a few different weapons and then again the old rusty garand, carbine, thompson and B.A.R guns, which we unfortuneatly all have seen before. Of course its a nice try but new enviroments and a katana or 4 player co-op won't save that we still know the entire story of the game, despite we are in a hot jungle now, covered in sweat and weird looking plants. It certainly doesn't help with the feeling that a game company that barely have developed any good game now is sitting and trying to make money off our great grandfathers deaths in WWII for the fourth time.
Answer enough?
I concuruntil treyarch can prove that they can make a game that is worthy of the call of duty name ever installment they make will be met with skepticism.
gamegod
Please Log In to post.
Log in to comment