Call of Duty 5 - back to WW2 confirmed

at least it's a bit different than the others, in the pacific theater this time.
 
I read a month ago or so that they were doing another modern one.
 
Oh goody, another World War game. Thankfully we don't have NEAR enough of these. I know, why don't we make an MMO, too! I hear those are hard to come by.
 
20070902-Facepalm1.jpg
 
Good, cause it's not a sequel if it goes back in time.
 
I do not mind this at all, even though CoD3 sucked HARD, I really like the Pacific history in WW2, should make a great game and beats the same old European wars that all WW2 games seem to follow.
 
wait what?!?! why is that Treyarch company doing it and not Infinity? Did they buy the CoD copyright and license? im confused...

also, why would they let them do another game when they ****ed up CoD3 ??? Makes no ****ing sense because Infinity Ward had a huge success with all other CoD games, dont they deserve to make the 5th one too?
 
IW will be making COD6, so in the mean time there letting Treyarch making Cod5 to fill the gap. I'll miss this one out and what for the sixth one by IW, i'm fed up with WW2.
 
but why? I thought infinity ward OWNED the RIGHTS and LICENSE of the CoD Francise??? Wtf is this Treyarch company doing marching in on Infinity Wards games and handpicking titles to steal? wtf???
 
Stopped enjoying CoD4 when the five year olds spammed it, wasn't planning on getting CoD5.
This is just a reason to stop buying anything CoD forever.
 
You can see scans at the haus.
And the two people that post there aswell as work for IW seem to like it.
Which is significant considering not too long ago they hated treyarch.
 
Ravioli said:
but why? I thought infinity ward OWNED the RIGHTS and LICENSE of the CoD Francise??? Wtf is this Treyarch company doing marching in on Infinity Wards games and handpicking titles to steal? wtf???
Click to expand...

Blizzard-Activision owns everything. Infinity Ward is making the even-numbered CoDs while Treyarch will be making the odd-numbered CoDs.
 
Ugh. Bad news all around. Not much interest in this AT ALL. Still, I will wait and see. CoD4 left quite a mark...can they all afford to let the name get tarnished?
 
Why do IW do this, CoD 3 was shocking, I couldnt even be bothered with the MP because the SP just put me off it completely. The only logical reason I see is that IW get a share of the profits, or they just allow to make their next game look even better, because CoD 4 was lightyears ahead of CoD 3, since Im still currently playing it and loving it, and most likely will be until the next TRUE CoD predesesor comes.
 
probably activision allows this cos the 3rd still sold well and and it got good reviews from critics (I have no idea how considering it was just derivative crap) and they know this one will probably end up the same way.
 
Why allow the next game in a franchise, which has gained considerably more popularity from it's latest entry, to be made by a different developer which has made the poorest installment?
 
Samon said:
CoD4 sucked. At least, the sp.
Click to expand...

COD4's sales beg to disagree.

Anyways, about COD5. Instead of doing another WW2 game and if they are so obsessed with the WW2 theme, then why don't they do fictional modernized WW2 COD? (IW that is, not Treyarch)
 
I'm with Samon on this one.

Also I have never heard a proper explanation of why CoD3 was so bad, from movies and
reviews it looks on par with CoD 2.
 
Zero interest in this really. I mean CoD3 was tolerable online, but the singleplayer was utter cack through and through.

But I suppose they might as well try to milk the franchise dry while IW work on the real deal.
 
Bacons said:
COD4's sales beg to disagree.
Click to expand...

Those figures are meaningless when it comes to the quality of a game. Movie Tie-ins sell bucket loads but that doesn't mean they're on par with the likes of GTA4 or HL2.
 
Plus a lot of people like me bought it purely for the MP.
 
No, I was talking about sales as in gamespots sales. It's right up there in sales with Guitar Hero III, Rock Band, Halo 3 (for a while), and GTAIV.

COD4's singleplayer isn't terrible, I'd say its.. ok. It was alright. But COD4's multiplayer is absolutely awesome.
 
Gray Fox said:
I'm with Samon on this one.

Also I have never heard a proper explanation of why CoD3 was so bad, from movies and
reviews it looks on par with CoD 2.
Click to expand...
Plays like shit, feels like shit, shit shit shit shit blah blah blah blah shit shit **** this shit. It's shit.
 
it really is just another average derivative run of the mill wwii shooter with cod name slapped on it and as such completely fails in light of the others
 
Samon just hates all the cool games.

Cause... it's cool to hate the ...co... fine, nevermind.
 
MOH: PA was bad enough, the pacific battles were just guerrilla warfare, not much history in there.
 
-Psycho- said:
Why allow the next game in a franchise, which has gained considerably more popularity from it's latest entry, to be made by a different developer which has made the poorest installment?
Click to expand...

Allthough the "cool" kids despise CoD3 it was a huge economic success with about 3M copies sold (x-platform ofcourse). I'm also going to assume that the budget for Treyarch's CoD's is considerably smaller than the budget IW has to their disposal.

The point is that Infinity Ward cannot make Call of Duty games fast enough to fully tap into the potential revenue represented by this kind of game. Allthough the game Treyarch is making may be of lesser quality the revenue their games generate beats most other games.


ps. I count myself among the "cool" kids who despise Treyarch/CoD3.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

CptStern
  • Locked
CoD 5 = Call of Vietnam?
Replies
3
Views
663
Sulkdodds
Sulkdodds
MRG
Call Of Duty: Modern Warfare - PC Review
Replies
7
Views
2K
Mutley
Mutley
Back
Top