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

[AbsoluteVirtue18]

Holy shrimp-on-the-barbie Batman! I didn't even know they had a 6 yet!

 

[Vlane]

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...

Where did Call of Duty 6 go?

Where did 5 go? I don't remember that game.

 

[ffxfriek]

i need to start playing these games

on topic: is COD the new mario?

 

[Strong Intelligent]

The ONLY shooters im interested in is LOST PLANET 2 and HALO 4 thank you goodnight

Okay, dude, I'm sorry. I'm really sorry but...

Halo four will, and wont happen. Even if Bungie intend to. Why?

Because I will kill them for screwing a perfectly good game trilogy.

 

[searanox]

I really do not get the complaints. World at War is a good game and Treyarch are good developers. End of story. It doesn't do anything all that new and in many ways it's similar to Call of Duty 4 but with some new (better) graphics, but for what it does do, you really can't complain. As far as single-player is concerned, it beats the shit out of Call of Duty 2, that's for sure. The story itself more or less sucks, but frankly the story also sucked in every single game up to Modern Warfare (and even that doesn't have a great story so much as it does have a slick presentation of it).

Some people are making complaints against Call of Duty 3, and to those I simply respond with: they had eight months to make that game. I think that such an accomplishment deserves a "holy shit", even if the game is not really phenomenal.

I mean, what the hell, it's just a bunch of stupid shooter games. They've all been nearly identical since the first came out, and have received mostly minor changes and upgrades outside of the graphics. Modern Warfare 2 isn't going to be some huge revolution in gaming, but rather it will play to the strengths of the first one: glitzy, big-budget presentation, plus fast and focused gameplay.

With all that said, if they're moving to Vietnam, then I'm interested. If Treyarch can pull off a real sense of tension and atmosphere then they might be the first developer to make a game that really does justice to the war.

 

[BolognaBaloney]

The ONLY shooters im interested in is LOST PLANET 2 and HALO 4 thank you goodnight

Okay, dude, I'm sorry. I'm really sorry but...

Halo four will, and wont happen. Even if Bungie intend to. Why?

Because I will kill them for screwing a perfectly good game trilogy.

Halo is one of the biggest cash cows in the industry, so dont be surprised if your grandchildren are popping in a copy of Halo 73: Return to Halo

 

[wolfshrimp]

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

It stole everything Cod4 pioneered in the series minus the good bits. The characters lacked the depth of CoD4's and the graphics required twice the processing power for half the graphical quality. It was boring because the developers didn't seem to have added anything to the game apart from give everything from CoD4 a WWII theme.

 

[Lightningfires]

I hate to say it but I have no clue what you're talking about. They haven't even made #6 yet!
(Unless you count Modern Warfare 2)

 

[Evertw]

wait, did i miss something, when did CoD6 come along?

Treyarch, really suck in my opinion.

 

[CNKFan]

I liked WaW I thought it was fun. Maybey you guys are just Brits and are mad that there is no British campaign

 

[sonidraw]

when did CoD6 come along?

It didn't.

 

[Evertw]

Come to think of that, that does piss me off, whenever some American company releases a game based on WW II and leaves out the British effort.

WaW is understandable for leaving out the British since the game took place where the British army were not in main concentration, though think about the Dutch in the Pacific.

 

[Clashero]

I consider the numbering scheme for this games to be asinine.

 

[sonidraw]

CoD2 is the only WW2 game I've ever played, so I'll admit that from my limited experience with the genre, the British get as much representation as the Americans. To be honest, though, I thought the Russian part was the best.

 

[Crabid]

I want COD6 to be a game where Infinity Ward wages war against Treyarch and wipes them out.

I mean seriously COD5 was terrible in comparison to COD4, 5 minutes into the game I was walking into endless glitches and invisible walls, getting stuck on every single little twig or 6 inch high log is just poor efforts. Also the friendly AI was screwed, number of times one of my guys ran into the enemy group and then ran back in a wave of the enemy only for me to fail a mission for killing him... Honestly, what did you f*%king expect.

 

[WrongSprite]

What? This is great news. Modern Warfare 2 looks poor.

 

[MetallicaRulez0]

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

There's nothing necessarily wrong with World at War, it's just a pile of dog poo compared to CoD4. Same deal with CoD2 and 3. It isn't that 3 was bad, it's that 2 was better.

 

[Travdelosmuertos]

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

The game.
Really it's a massive step back from call of duty 1/2. Multiplayer weapons should be team specific, gay perks (dogs are particularly bad) and the need to have played before to be able to fight tanks make for a broken multiplayer experience. In fact, the whole whoring to get better equipment (introduced in call of duty 4) was done exceptionally badly. It was executed brilliantly in Modern warfar, anything less makes for a broken game.
And I'm not even going to bother with the single player, I was sick of it before I'd finished the first mission...

While I respect your opinion, I really have no idea what you're going on about. What multiplayer weapons were team specific in CoD4? I'm pretty sure everyone got the same guns. Gay perks...lets think about that, just about all of them are the same as CoD4, give or take some even better ones. There are probably two guns that I can't stand in CoD5 online, one being the PPsh, but its easily countered. You really have to learn to build your class to make it effective. And to the "be able to fight tanks" comment...they have a pre-loaded class already put in with rockets...so I don't even know where you're coming from on that one.

The single player, however, is left up to you to decide.

Call of duty 1 and 2 had team specific guns, thus why I brought them up, as those are the benchmark that all newer call of duty games, especially ww2 ones, are to be judged. Why in gods name can I not play as german and use a kar98k, that was their standard gun in the war, it makes sense that it be available. Why would germans be spawning with thompsons? It's stupid and makes the gunplay far less dynamic and strategic when every team has the same strengths and weaknesses due to the same available weapons.

I hope to god they have fixed the tank class since I last played, but when I played it last you had to be rank#2 to get the anti-tank class (think it was version 1.0), which meant for the first 5 maps me and my mates played, the tanks were a win button.

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.

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.

The maps, you didn't bother to counter my point about them but I'll bring them up again, they are terrible. They are built around huge player numbers which makes for a spam filled yawn fest. What happened to the small, cover heavy multiplayer maps seen in the first 2 games, why is their no carentan, railyard or toujane? Have we completely forsaken skill in favor of mindless grenade spamming? If so, why?

I agree with two major points you made:

In-game bonuses: Only in team deathmatch should bonuses be awarded for kill streaks but dogs/helicopters should not appear in deathmatch or FFA games. I find it to be completely retarded that you would reinforce a player doing well with unbalanced bonuses. Maybe the bonuses could be power-ups laying around the maps in DM/FFA games. To follow up on that, I believe that bonuses should in fact be awarded to people who complete objectives in team-based games. Cap a domination flag? Get a UAV. Do it a second time? Get an air strike. This reinforces the objective mindset, not the team deathmatch mindset. Too many times do I step into a game (in both MW and WaW) and have to play with a team who are trying to play deathmatch in a domination game (because they can only get kills by killing people who are distracted by trying to play the game right). Also, artillery in WaW is way too long.

WaW Maps: I don't think Treyarch understands the purpose of a choke point in a multi-player game. In a game like CoD, having too many alternate paths creates too much of a lone-wolf attitude with a ton of chaos. Maps with choke points and only 1-2 alternate paths force team work, at least on a basic level. I just feel Infinity Ward does a much better job at directing gameplay and forcing actual firefights to happen. Also, why in the hell is everything so muddy brown in the WaW maps?

Another point: 4's weapons are much more balanced than WaW's. I could understand imbalances if Treyarch were going for realism, but they're clearly not. Silencers in the 1940s? Aperture sights? These things didn't exist.

This doesn't mean that I don't like WaW, I play it just as much as I do 4, but I find 4 to be more balanced and overall more fun.

 

[L33tsauce_Marty]

How is that bad?

COD:MW2 and COD: Vietnam?

Two things I want to play.