The Next Call of Duty
- Thread starter rhyno435
- Start date
Recommended Videos
And what is wrong with 2142 (granted i know that BF2 was better, but 2142 wasn't that bad)CallMeDeadly said:
Wasn't Treyarch basing Call of duty 7 in Vietnam? I remember something like that here on the forums, in which someone said 'wait, isnt that the war which the Americans lost?'
Think of it, true guerrilla warfare. Making the US the Antagonists and not the protagonists when faced against against another culture. That would be unique and interesting.
Of course then it would be called a game that supports Flag burning and must be pulled.
Think of it, true guerrilla warfare. Making the US the Antagonists and not the protagonists when faced against against another culture. That would be unique and interesting.
Of course then it would be called a game that supports Flag burning and must be pulled.
Call of Duty: Caveman wars.
Seriously, wasn't the next call of duty going to be Modern Warfare 2?
Or is it the neeext next call of duty you're talking about?
Where you talk people into dropping their guns and running away.
Seriously, wasn't the next call of duty going to be Modern Warfare 2?
Or is it the neeext next call of duty you're talking about?
I think the next step is psychological warfare.HardRockSamurai said:
Where you talk people into dropping their guns and running away.
Since Infinity Ward didn't add Call of Duty to Modern Warfare 2 we can safely say there will be no more Call of Duty's.
Maybe they can take the command and conquer aproach and go for either a time paradox scenario (in C&C red alert, they went back in time and killed Hitler, causing Stalin to take over europe) or just go for an imaginary war all together. (like in Freedom Fighters, Russia invaded America)
Well I read they were going about licensing Vietnam War era music as well as African, Cuban and Soviet music for their next game. So maybe a CoD:Vietnam or even a CoD:Cold War is in the pipeline for Treyarch...?rhyno435 said:
http://www.computerandvideogames.com/article.php?id=214296
Oi BF2142 beats BF2 in every way possible. It's balanced, fun and doesn't have those laser weapons like Starwars have. Sure there are some laserish weapons but they actually make sense.Dantes Alaska said:
If a new COD where to be set in the future I doubt we will get laser weapons but more like in style of BF2142 weapons where the guns still use bullets.
We also just might get more toys to play around with.
If they make a new WW ish game I won't get it. Because the WW era have been milked to death and then they beat the dead horse even more. Then they decide to beat it again for a new game.
i think the way the COD series is going it should be called: "call of generic"
its becoming so generic that they are probably going to have Will Smith as a playable character fighting yet more generic bad guys
disclaimer: i have nothing against Will Smith, im actually a big fan
its becoming so generic that they are probably going to have Will Smith as a playable character fighting yet more generic bad guys
disclaimer: i have nothing against Will Smith, im actually a big fan
I want it in Vietnam and I want to have an Australian campaign. Hell it could be in any of the 20th century wars, if it has an Australian campaign I'll buy a copy and be incredibly satisfied.
At the risk of repeating myself: Red Orchestra is (ok, could be) your friend. I love how they did bolt-action rifles, machine guns work pretty much as you said, and although SMGs are still as lame as ever, there's only a limited number of 'em on the battlefield, and they suck ass at anything beyond something like twelve feet. Machine guns work pretty much like you said - until they overheat right when there's three riflemen charging you. Recoil has been done exceptionally well, with the only assault rifle - the German StG.44 - being a ***** to control in full auto, and SMGs even more so. Same with semi-automatic weapons, and even though there are semi-automatic sniper rifles, they don't remain fixed at one point the whole time (your breathing affects your aim and shooting throws the rifle off quite a bit), so you can't just pour lead downrange at the same point and expect to hit anything. The only thing lacking somewhat is team based guns, but even there you have some variety - the Soviets get semi-automatic rifles (SVT-40) right off the bat, even on the early-war maps, and although there isn't really much of a difference between the SVT and the G41 (and the G43 might as well be the SVT), it does give the Soviets something extra on some maps. Similarly, the PPSh isn't that fundamentally different from the MP40, but it has its unique features (namely its massive magazine and the ability to empty it so damn quickly). The main difference lies in the machine guns; the Soviet DP-28 has smaller mags but you can carry more, and it overheats more slowly - however, if you're using a German MG (as a German MG soldier, otherwise you're out of luck), you can change the barrel in case it overheats, instead of having to wait for it to cool down. And ofc the Germans get the endlessly awesome MG42. Tank warfare has more of these differences that aren't really fundamental but do make the sides unique - T-34s are fast and their sloped armour can even deflect Tiger shells, but their guns are weaker, while IS-2s are slower and (somehow) more vulnerable but have a much more powerful gun (that reloads much slower as well). Some common custom maps also add more unique vehicles, like the KV-2 or ISU-152, further differentiating both sides' arsenals.Dys said:
OK, I'm done soapboxing about RO for now.
Endlessly awesome.Revelo said:I think they should focus on individual people thsi time. Think about it, Call of Duty: Jack Churchill or Call of Duty: Audie Murphy would be seriously badass. Wiki them and find out why
I agree. I've always wondered why in WWII games I can play as Brits, French, Americans and Russians, but never Australians. It seemed kind of odd to me considering the Australins were important participants in both world wars.deadman91 said:
Then again I think we've all had enough of WWII games. Treyarch tried to make it fresh by adding the Pacific campaign which hadn't been done much before, but I always found that part of WaW incredibly boring, so odds are Kokoda wouldn't be all that interesting either. Egypt might be good just coz you get to fight Italians instead.
WWI might not be super fantastic either since it has the similar browns and greys that people are sick of seeing in WWII. Vietnam could be good so long as the setting isn't as boring as the Pacific setting in WaW.
Hmmm...I guess I don't know what the best setting'd be.