New Call of Duty Wars

[Assassin Xaero]

I already heard a rumor that CoD7 was going to be in Vietnam...

 

[Del-Toro]

Why are we always fighting against the Warsaw Pact or whatever, why not give the Ruskies a turn like they did in the world in Conflict expansion (which made some of the Soviets out in a positive light, as in not actually believing in invading the states but just following orders).

At any rate, why not the US civil war? Call of Juarez: Bound in Blood's first level had the right idea about it and I see no reason those mechanics wouldn't work with a full blown US Civil war video game. World War One could also work, it was a brutal and visceral conflict, and therefore would be perfect for the mechanics of Condemned, the first one, not the one with that dragon ball z crap. Think about it, it would allow for the gun fighting, but since you'd spend a good amount of time in CQC against the other side (I don't want to say Jerry because really, it's hard to name a good guy in that war so maybe you could pick your side) fighting in no man's land or raiding or defending a trench. Throw in an aerial level and you're set.

 

[pompom8volt]

CoD6: the war on drugs

 

[UtopiaV1]

Any war where you could play as one of these guys [http://www.cracked.com/article_17019_5-real-life-soldiers-who-make-rambo-look-like-pussy.html].

Interesting reading, some real badasses in there!

 

[Shoqiyqa]

World War One (I don't want to say Jerry because really, it's hard to name a good guy in that war so maybe you could pick your side) ...

I thought it was rather easy. Name any non-commissioned bod and you've likely found a good guy. Name anyone very senior and you've probably named an ____hole.

As described by Terry Pratchett and/or Neil Gaiman [http://goodomenslexicon.org/entries/aziraphale.php]:

Once they discovered that, in the process of thwarting each other and just generally getting under each other's feet, they actually have quite a lot in common, they came to a sort of Arrangement around the year 1020 (19). The terms are "very simple":

...so simple, in fact, that it didn't really deserve the capital letter, which it had got for simply being in existence for so long. It was the sort of sensible arrangement that many isolated agents, working in awkward conditions a long way from their superiors, reach with their opposite number when they realize that they have far more in common with their immediate opponents than their remote allies. It meant a tacit non-interference in certain of each other's activities. It made certain that while neither really won, also neither really lost, and both were able to demonstrate to their masters the great strides they were making against a cunning and well-informed adversary. (23)

Due to the fact that they are both "of angel stock," they even find covering for each other on occasion a reasonable thing to do (although Aziraphale occasionally feels guilty [23]).

 

[Lowbreed]

Vietnam! If the game ends up being half as awesome as BF: V it's a definite buy.

 

[KaiRai]

WW2 is boring, modern warfare is all terrorist hunts and oil chases. What war would you want to see in the next CoD? I think Korean Civil war is an interesting war to explore, and it would be something new and different in computer games in general.

Also, can Infinity Ward please give over with the named characters in firefights who are totally invincible? Bring back the nameless schmucks who charge headfirst into machinegun fire and get cut to ribbons, cos it is brilliant when one of them survives all the way though the level and you're all "Whoa, that's Pvt. Pearson, fucking hell he didn't die when he dived into that room full of Germans with submachine guns! Cool!!!" So much better than when it's fucking Gaz and Sgt. Blackguy sayin "Rock on dowg, yea!" every five seconds...

So yea, new wars to fight?

I garee, although it would be nice if they gave a LITTLE bit more in terms of names.

"Pvt. Thompson? Didn't that guy just get blown to shit?"

Although I agree, when you're like "Holy shit!? Cpl Heath!? How the fuck are you still alive!"

 

[internutt]

Why not have a WW2 game where we play as the Nazis for a change? I've probably killed more Nazis in games than any other type of character (Zombies, goombas, hopefully you get what I mean). Why can't we get a game where we kill Americans as the enemy for a change?

why would people want to play on the losing side?though I could go for some american killing,and I am part german,and french,scottish,irish,cherokee and italian.

For me, war games are about history. The Nazi's were people too, they had as much to do with the war as every other Nation. It would add a great depth to WW2 storytelling by going the losing side, show their motivations, the fact that Nazi soldiers still had families they left behind to go to war, Germans died for their country. They did have some successful campaigns after all. Like going after the Russians or invading France and repelling the first British Assault on Europe.

Labeling them as 'the enemy' isn't good enough as there are two sides to every story. Turning the Nazi's into demons all the time obscures history. They weren't zombies nor were they faceless enemy #37.

 

[Cargando]

I'd like something like with muskets and swords because I think CoD: English Civil War would be a breath of fresh air.

 

[Agent Larkin]

COD 6: Guerilla Warfare
You play as a guerilla during the following wars:
Peninsular War
The Indian Mutiny
The Irish War for Independence/Civil War
Marshall Tito's Partisan's during WW2
The Soviet Invasion of Afghanistan

 

[CptCamoPants]

I was thinking Vietnam but that may seem almost the same as CoD5 + I was reading a book about it and some of the stuff they did in the war. It would be to graphical to put in any game.

Generally you don't make games where you lose at the end.

The US won 85% of all the conflicts in Vietnam and 100% of the major battles. It was a political loss, not a military loss.


And I wouldn't mind playing a WWI game. Put in a level or two where you play as the Germans and scream 'WHAT THE FUCK IS THAT?' when the Brits start using tanks.

 

[Korey Von Doom]

I was thinking Vietnam but that may seem almost the same as CoD5 + I was reading a book about it and some of the stuff they did in the war. It would be to graphical to put in any game.

Generally you don't make games where you lose at the end.

The US won 85% of all the conflicts in Vietnam and 100% of the major battles. It was a political loss, not a military loss.


And I wouldn't mind playing a WWI game. Put in a level or two where you play as the Germans and scream 'WHAT THE FUCK IS THAT?' when the Brits start using tanks.

Yes but a loss is a loss

 

[aakibar]

i would love to see a COD game before WWII because that filed has only be explored by RTSes but that may be for a reason, fireing a weapon three times a minute could be hard but there is potential for problem solveing somehow in those games i think, but then what am i.

 

[Pandalisk]

What a strange world and age we live in that one can see the word boring and WW-anything, in the same sentance.

Gritty Vietnamn anyone?

 

[Warped Pixel]

Honestly i have an idea how about a game that doesn't make sense you go to all sorta of wars throughout time through time travel or or simulation or what not. But here is the fun part modern guns. Maybe not as a full game but a short thing. That sounds fun just for trouncing musket wielders with an ak 47 or what not.

 

[Jenkins]

Call of Duty: War of 1812!!

 

[EricKINGS]

WW1 is too much of a touchy subject I think, maybe more so in Europe than the US, pointless, at least we knew WW2 had a point, and a damn good one at that.

Maybe a kind of revolutionary one, like the Cuban revolution or Spanish civil war, proper sneaky guerilla warfare style. And whats wrong with unhappy endings, CoD 4 ending, every bugger dies, or at least 499/500 do

Actually in almost CoD game i played some guy I liked dies at the end so I dont really expect a happy ending other than winning >.>

 

[ElephantGuts]

You are aware that the Korean War is essentially the same as World War 2, right? The only difference is a few updated vehicles (which you wouldn't be using in a COD game anyway) the location and you'll be killing Koreans and Chinese instead of Nazis.

 

[headshotcatcher]

Also North Korea has 1 10th of the population of the USA.

State Total

Vietnam 9,564,000
China 7,024,000
North Korea 5,995,000
South Korea 5,191,500
India 3,862,300
Russia 3,796,100
United States 3,385,400

(source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_number_of_active_troops )

It is the total military manpower of said countries. You might notice North Korea to have almost twice as much as America.. Just saying. Ofcourse America has more weapons and technology but still...

 

[UtopiaV1]

You are aware that the Korean War is essentially the same as World War 2, right? The only difference is a few updated vehicles (which you wouldn't be using in a COD game anyway) the location and you'll be killing Koreans and Chinese instead of Nazis.

Quite aware thankyou, but it's the places and people that make a conflict, and in that regards the Korean Civil war was a far cry from WW2.