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

[bobsickle]

.............well it cant be worse than modern warfare was for me............can it?!?!?!?!

 

[Steelfists]

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

What's wrong is they're worse than Infinity Ward. Still, I've always found Treyarch games to be playable and in most cases quite enjoyable. They fracked up CoD:WaW's splitscreen though . . .

How did they mess up the splitscreen...? I think they pulled it off better than anybody else. And the fact that they even bothered to put it in is a testament to them looking to improve on their development skills.

And God forbid they go with a formula that worked, and then even improved on that as well. CoD5:WaW is, in my opinion, the better game.

Nazi Zombies was a total win as well.

DIEDIEDIEDIEDIEDIEDIE

Thankyou. That will be all.

 

[xChevelle24]

To sum things up:

COD5 = COD4 with the same everything except terrible hit detection for the bolt actions, a new story mode, set in WWII, horrible weapon balance, Juggertanks.

If that's what makes up a good game then I'll play horrible games all my life and never be disappointed.

It's sad that the only thing they got right was the thing that was original (Nazi Zombies). God forbid they try to be COMPLETELY original and actually make a game without copying someone.

 

[UsefulPlayer 1]

Nooooo!

Why does Treyarch exist!

I don't really care about 7, but Treyarch is evil.

 

[Dudemeister]

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

I thought Treyarch did a good job on COD: WAW.
Just because it wasn't as good as CO4, doesn't mean it was terrible.

 

[Vision of Division]

jesus, it's not like you didn't see it coming. You seriously haven't found a pattern yet?

 

[Weaver]

This is what happens: Activision wants a game in each of their series every year. It takes infinity wards about 2 years to make a new CoD, so in between those years they just make Treyarch squeeze one out.

For instance, IF makes CoD4, they start work on a new engine. Treyarch uses the CoD4 engine to pop out the mediocre CoD: WaW game. IF is probably finishing up CoD: Modern Warfare 2 and have sent treyarch the engine so they can work on it so Activision will have a CoD game for 2010.

I want them to do Call of Duty: Future Combat that takes place in the future with lasers and stuff, that would be fun.

 

[PersianLlama]

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.

A) Call of Duty 2 > World at War. By far.
B) The guy who made Everyday Shooter did it in about 2 weeks, and it's miles better than WaW
C) Time constraint doesn't matter, a game that sucks, sucks.
D) None of the CoD's made a "huge revolution" in gaming. They just took something and did it right (I guess?). I lost interest after 1 and 2, didn't like 3, thought 4 was okay, and 5 was just 4 with Nazi Zombies.
E) I'll give Treyarch Nazi Zombies, even though I didn't like it too much
F) Vietnam, I doubt they'll pull it off. They haven't even done WWII right. They turn the wars into a big joke. (Infinity Ward does this too, hell every WWII game does this)

 

[Ninonybox_v1legacy]

According to one of the comments on that page, it isn't going to be WWII again. Vietnam instead.

that would make a good game....Call of Duty 7 : Vietnam

 

[Quadtrix]

God I hate Treyarch. They're always 10 steps behind Infinity Ward, it seems.

 

[Anachronism]

CoD pretty much died a long time ago, as far as I'm concerned. The only games in the series that matter are the ones Infinity Ward makes.

 

[CrafterMan]

I can't wait for Call of Duty: Modern Rock Track Pack.

Oh wait, wrong franchise.

Guffaw Guffaw
xD