COD going back to WW2?
- Thread starter Steelfox1
- Start date
Recommended Videos
I love the "WE'RE SO SICK OF WW2 BCUZ YAHTZEE SAID SO" fad. Call of Duty 4's success was in the story and characters. There are plenty of modern shooters. "Same old M4A1! What the hell?!" You don't see that. If Call of Duty 5 has the same type of compelling storyline and characters that you care about (like Captain Price, Gaz, and Griggs), then I'll be a happy customer. Serving it in the Pacific Theater will be nothing like the D-Day landings that have been cliched into oblivion, if Treyach has any sense of design capabilities.
Well its not like we did'nt see this one coming, another WWII game "again." I guess americans are sooooooo proud of what we did then that game creators make a few games of it. Then they made some more, and more and more untill every time one turns around your triping over another WWII game. I know we did good in the war but for the love of god people mix it up already, COD 4 was great cuz it was in present time it need to stay that way, maybe a war game in the future next time WITHOUT aliens, just human verses human would be nice.
I think that they should have made COD 5 set in the future. Not so far in the future that they have laser rifles and they like, just snazzy new technology.
Didn't Infinity Ward hint about that being in 6?pieeater911 post=9.72408.762200 said:
Yes, there are already CoD6 rumors.
Where the hell did you get that idea from? There were people bitching about WWII being overdone before Yahtzee said anything. That is hardly anything new, and it certainly wasn't a fad Yahtzee started. I myself was starting to get sick of WWII games before I started watching Zero Punctuation.Eilanis post=9.72408.761707 said:
And I would take any rumors about Call of Duty 6 with large piles of salt. That is why they are "rumors." Infinity Ward has released absolutely no information about Call of Duty 6, so most of these rumors are people pulling stuff out of their ass and calling it facts.
Now personally, I think "Call of Duty: Future Warfare" is a stupid idea and wish people would stop mentioning it. Every time a new Call of Duty is announced the boards on Gamespot are flooded with "Dis shud be leik halo with aliens and lazers and space ships n stuf!!!"
No...just...no. Keep it based on a real war, or a fictional modern conflict. I don't want any future crap, unless it is just near-future like in GRAW.
everyone will keep falling back on WWII because it was the last great war, there won't be another change in the media until something else huge happens. Movies, books, and video games are being based of WWII and will be for a while.
Theres still plenty of ideas for a Cod game that they could base upon real wars or events. Maybe the Russia Georgia conflict for one (bit one side but meh). They could even have you play as a soldier in a middle eastern army and have you fighing a coop, with gorrila warfare tactics and AK47's.
I think WW1 warfare would suck. Theres no fun in running around trenches with your allies then running into no mans land to be blown to pieces by artillary.
I think WW1 warfare would suck. Theres no fun in running around trenches with your allies then running into no mans land to be blown to pieces by artillary.
![[zonking great]](https://eg-forums-escapist-data.nyc3.digitaloceanspaces.com/data/avatars/l/36/36225.jpg?1620302945){kind=avatar}
Sweet baby Jesus, yes! Rourke's Drift! Thousands of bawling Zulus charging at you where you have about 2 shots in your rifle, 6 in your pistol and then nothing but your fists and bayonet. Then again, it'd be all about racism again, since the Zulus happened to be black. Some stupid jackass would make a scene. Why is it that it's usually an american, though? You didn't hear the Spanish after RE4. Personally, I'd welcome the chance to shoot Zulus. I've shot so many Nazis, Russians, Koreans and Chinese soldiers that I feel that my killcount is higher than the entire killcount of the human race in any modern war.TsunamiWombat post=9.72408.760968 said:
Maybe the Boer wars after all? Would be fun playing as the Brits, when they still parade around in their red coats.
"Where the bloody 'ell are those feckers?"
*pewpewpew*
"God save the Queen. And me! *argh*"
By the way, so what if we say what Yahtzee says? I don't feel like browsing up to see who said that, but it's freaking true. We HAVE had enough games in this genre. Any random gamer will have killed more Nazis than a real veteran. There is so much potential out there, but what do they do? Go back to WW2. Again. I feel this is just a dirty trick to get an excuse to play with a flamethrower.
If oný they'd give me command over the developing team. I would crank out a game you would have to salute and voluntarily buttrape you, it would be that awesome! It would be set in either WW1, the Zulu War or the Boer wars. But if they would have me do WW2 again, I have a few balltwisting scenarios in my mind for that, too. But I guarantee you, there would be NOTHING that we haven't already seen before.
Or maybe Yahtzee said it because he had a point. [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_World_War_II_video_games]Eilanis post=9.72408.761707 said:
152 WWII Videogames, 163 with expansions. If you add up all the movies and series... I think we covered everything between every moment on the life of every soldier during D-Day to whatever type of underwear did the pacific soldiers used during the pearl harbor attack.
Before you jump on the bandwagon of hating people because they agree with someone, so you try to sound totally hip and cool by making them sound like they're just jumping on a bandwagon themselves, which, ironically, is what you're doing, think that maybe people are agreeing with someone because said person is right?
And there is a vital difference between modern day and WWII videogames: "Modern day" means "you do your own story/use whatever guns you want" (which we know always ends up having, at least, the same 3 weapons: M16/MA14, AK47 and Desert Eagle, but at least there's room for others), while "WWII" means "the same story we've all seen a billion times, the same weapons, the same scenarios".
There's not a lot of room for creativity in WWII games because it really happened... So either you stay fairly faithful to what did happen, which IMO is still the best option if you really MUST do a WWII game, or you go off the deep end and pretend the Nazis all had giant monsters or whatever, which ultimately is basically ridiculous.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_DarknessCaliostro post=9.72408.762529 said:
I think Japan beat you to it. The game has a band of your typical JRPG teenagers, who are part of the British SAS, fighting vampire Nazis, werewolf Nazis, Nazi dragons, zombie Nazis, and SS chicks with a bondage fetish. Never played the game, and have no desire to do so, because it sounds fucking retarded. Like some low-budget Sci-Fi original movie...Except it is a low-budget JRPG.
Its not like WW2 was our finest hour in human history,sure we pimped slapped a few cackeling nazis but at the loss of millions of men.
WW2 is seriously overplayed aswell, okay you bea the nazis no need to make endless games about the same beach assult etc.
WW2 is seriously overplayed aswell, okay you bea the nazis no need to make endless games about the same beach assult etc.
As the Western Front has been in at least a thousand games and all the ones about the Pacific have been crap, why can't there be more games about the Eastern Front?
The main focus for games is the U.S., Canada, and Western Europe. Not a lot of these markets wish to play WWII as a Russian for more than a few levels, a la CoD 1.Zombie Badger post=9.72408.763274 said:
I for one am psyched about a good Pacific WWII game. From past performance, the game indicates that it will be great combat, and if it sticks to actual events closely, it will do nearly as well as CoD4.