Nooooo! It's a dark day for Call of Duty fans.

[asinann]

Yay, this pile of crap is finally gonna die!

 

[mikecoulter]

Yeah, okay I suppose I can't hold this back much longer...

I completely hate C-O-D it's a sucky game with average everything.

 

[JohnSmith]

I wonder if they are going to give away a stupidly large bonus to people buying the spec edition again. So we can have people running around on the second week or sooner with whatever god weapon they have included this time.

 

[Sketchy]

Perhaps Call of Duty should die before it gets absolutely terrible. I mean, how much can they add to the game to change it? It can't actually improve from Modern Warfare, which, whilst fun, was not nearly as good as everyone gives it credit for.

Also, the fact that most of my friends only ever play Call of Duty 4 pisses me off to no end.

"Oh hey man, you feel like playing CS or L4D? No, you're playing CoD4? FUCK YOU!"

It's beyond annoying. Let the series die with some fucking dignity.

 

[acer840]

So I'll a little out of the loop. What about CoD 6 ? LOL

COD6 I believe will be Modern Warfare 2, yet to be releaed.
Perfect plan to start devalopment on number 7 when number 6 is yet to be released.

 

[phar]

Perhaps Call of Duty should die before it gets absolutely terrible. I mean, how much can they add to the game to change it? It can't actually improve from Modern Warfare, which, whilst fun, was not nearly as good as everyone gives it credit for.

They had big changed from CoD 2 to CoD 4. I dont see why they cant improve the formula again..

 

[DragunovHUN]

I really don't understand what is wrong with Treyarch, what was wrong with CoD5?

COD3:

- I don't appriciate getting stuck on a single brick on the ground when trying to find cover from a tank and half the german army.
- I don't appriciate vehicles in multiplayer, especially when you can steal the other team's tanks and render them helpless.
- I especially don't fucking appriciate having to watch the ending cutscene of the LAST mission when loading a save/checkpoint for the NEXT mission. The cutscenes are not skippable either
- I don't appriciate chaotic level design

COD5: Now, i've only played the beta of COD5 for about an hour before i felt physically sick but here are my complaints anyway:

- Chaotic multiplayer map design again
- Vehicles in multiplayer again
- Painfully slow reload animation
- Limited rate of fire on semi-automatic weapons (WTF?)
- Extremely gritty textures and something else that makes me feel dizzy.
- Ridiculously glitchy multiplayer maps. By the time they patch up a hole, the community finds 20 other ways to get under/out of the map.

Conclusion? Screw Treyarch.

 

[Dys]

The ingame bonuses are retarded, the dogs are a win button. As I said I didn't particularly like call of duty 4 (which is now the comparison as the better two games in the series did not feature perks/ingame bonuses at all) but at least they weren't necissarily game winning, even the helicopter could be easily counterd by low rank players. The dogs in WaW however, are difficult to counter even for moderate-high rank players, hardly a fun or fair advantage.

You can melee/knife dogs with relative ease. Its arguable but helicopters were a much bigger problem when CoD4 was released took the average person who plays a while to realise to shoot it down.

I had no worries taking down helicopters with assault rifles, but when 2 or more dogs attack me I tend to die, unless I have an automatic weapon, in which case I give my position away and die a little later.

I realise having re-read that that the ingame bonuses are not perks, however my point stands that they are retarded and should be removed completely, or at least heavily limited. The perks should be altered so that they offer a disadvantage as well as an advantage, so that low rank players can compete with high rank. However this was equally stupid in cod4, they really should have payed attention to what infinity ward did wrong rather than blindly emulating it.

Well theres no real good way to reward players by playing a lot. I thoguht it was quite good. Entry level weapons are good enough, yeah sure everyone would love to be rocking Brownings but to say they have no skill because they killed you with a weapon you havent unlocked is pretty sad. I hope they expand the system for MW2 and CoD7, it works really well and you can customise your loadout depending on what style you want to play.. you can not do this in CoD1/2, you only had a choice of rifle or mg basically.

It isn't the choice I disliked, more that the higher level guns were so much better. It wasn't impossible to win with the lower rank guns, but I would much rather all the guns be balanced, or at least have some semblance of balance. And you should start with at least 1 gun from every category.

If it is necissary for some guns to be shamelessly stronger, surely the 'friendlier' weapons should available early, and the ones that are seen to be harder to use later, that way you are still rewarded for playing more, but not given any real advantage. It removes the steep learning curve faced by new players who are late to the game. Also team specific guns, even if limited to specific game modes, makes the game a lot more fun.

 

[davidboring]

I really don't understand what is wrong with Treyarch, what was wrong with CoD5?

it went back to world war 2 which was a really bad idea because ww2 games are really boring and predictable now

When have they not been predictable? We won.

But at what cost?

AT WHAT COOOOOOOSTTTTTT?!?!

OT CoD4 good WaW bad, but Treyarch were still responsible for Spiderman 2, the best game ever to feature a boss with fight with three life bars that correspond exactly to one punch from you.

 

[Sketchy]

Perhaps Call of Duty should die before it gets absolutely terrible. I mean, how much can they add to the game to change it? It can't actually improve from Modern Warfare, which, whilst fun, was not nearly as good as everyone gives it credit for.

They had big changed from CoD 2 to CoD 4. I dont see why they cant improve the formula again..

Because, what would they add. It looks as though they are trying to release games as quickly as possible to make money from the people who will buy ANYTHING with the Call of Duty name on it. The way I see it, CoD 2 to CoD 4 wasn't actually that much improved. The only reason people think it was is because it went modern.

It's still the same game, just a different setting. And the multiplayer, which isn't innovative, it had been done before. Also, I don't think they can innovate, Call of Duty is just refined, and it can't get any more refined than CoD 4.

 

[davidboring]

I really don't understand what is wrong with Treyarch, what was wrong with CoD5?

it went back to world war 2 which was a really bad idea because ww2 games are really boring and predictable now

When have they not been predictable? We won.

But at what cost?

AT WHAT COOOOOOOSTTTTTT?!?!

OT CoD4 good WaW bad, but Treyarch were still responsible for Spiderman 2, the best game ever to feature a boss with fight with three life bars that correspond exactly to one punch from you.

 

[AutumnGold]

Treyarch is working on Call of Duty 7! Ohhhh nooooos!

http://ps3.ign.com/articles/982/982516p1.html

Here's the information. Not much though...

Its just activision driving another series into the ground

 

[Valiance]

To everyone that replied to me thanks for that. To be honest, I really didn't notice that much difference between CoD4 and CoD5, and as for the WWII thing, I had never actually played a WWII game before, so for me it was fine in that regard as well.

In that case, you may wish to try Battlefield 1942 (or the cheaper newer remake coming soon, BF1943).

It's more of a tactical game, you might like it - team-based, objective based...good stuff.

Anyway, hopefully they don't make the same "mistakes" that CoD:WaW had with this new one (Dogs).

 

[sadpolice]

Still waiting for CoD modern warfare 2, and now they're thinking about CoD 7 already? Wow...

 

[Vanguard_Ex]

I really don't understand what is wrong with Treyarch, what was wrong with CoD5?

I think the term is "bandwagon". Correct me if I'm wrong though, hehe...

Can't wait for Modern Warfare 2 though!

well that and the fact that the story line ran alot like cod3...or maybe that was just me...

Although tbf they are both set in the same war

EDIT: I sincerely doubt it will be set around Vietnam. I hope it isn't...that wasn't so much of a war as it was a massacre.

 

[Kiutu]

Actually, WaW was pretty good. Almost as good as 2 (the best). Cept one problem. Perks. I hate them, they suck. Why? In Call of Duty 2, there were no perks. You pick a side (Nazi or Americans/British/Russians) and pick a gun. No having to unlock anything, no unfair perks making your ability to aim moot, just gun and skill. In 2 I was a very skilled bolt rifle person. I would pick people off at most any range with an unscoped Kar98k. But I have to get to level 41 to use it in WaW!? So for that long I am already at a slight disadvantage, though I try to make due with the lesser rifles. Also my whole reason for using them, so only 1 or maybe 2 well aimed shots will get me a kill, perks will let them survive it.
It bothers me that after just 2 I grew apart from the series.

 

[Piemaster]

WaW is a bit better than 4 in my opinion. At least it wasn't nearly as laggy.

 

[Eldritch Warlord]

Also, don't forget that not everybody has a massive HDTV.

I usually play splitscreen on a 14 inch SDTV.