Call of Duty: World at War

Quote:

---

Call of Duty: World at War announced
Posted Jun 9th 2008 9:00AM by Xav de Matos
Filed under: News

It appears that the rumors were half-true. Late Friday evening OXM UK posted the first details for the next installment of the Call of Duty franchise and new scans confirm the magazine's exclusive cover story. Call of Duty: World at War will bring the series back to World War II and include new weapons in the series' first foray into single player co-op territory; two-player split-screen and four player online is planned. In development at Treyarch (Call of Duty 3) the Call of Duty 4: Modern Warfare engine based title will focus on a Pacific campaign as US forces battle Japanese adversaries while the Soviet Army invades Germany.

Having been in development for two years--with the lead platform being the Xbox 360-- Call of Duty: World at War features enhanced environments that bend, break and burn during the historic battle (an example of the new flamethrower weapon burning flesh as well as the world was given in the 4-page story). Multiplayer fans have something to look forward to as the series makes it's return to World War II. Treyarch, having taken cues from Infinity Ward (Call of Duty 4: Modern Warfare) will include a perks accomplishment system which was made famous by the current Xbox Live leader. Strap into the De Lorean gamers, looks like we're hitting 88MpH back to World War II.

---

I loved COD2 and COD4, but I couldn't stand what Treyarch did with COD3. I suppose as long as they are sticking with the COD4 engine and pretty much leave the mp style intact, it should be fine for the most part. I dunno about the whole going back to WWII thing either. After 4, are we gonna want to go back to using the older guns? I didn't see any eta for the game, but I'm guessing we wont have too long to see how this turns out considering the way these companies roll out these sequels.

Ugh, fuck the World War. There were other wars that happened afterwards, you know? Let's make Call of Duty 5: Castro Kicks Qulo.

Treyarch. No.

Call me naive (since I haven't played 1-3), whatever, but who cares if it's WWII or WW20? While I'm sure a lot of people have played the actual game, there are many more who play a little of it and play mainly deathmatches. That being said I can't see how the time period is going to effect what you do (sure there won't be certain guns, but get over it). Those that play the actual game will get thrown back into that time period but that's where you are going to have to adapt to the weapons of that time. You'll just have to get used to it. As I said, I haven't played the first three so I had to get accustomed to the weapons on 4, so it's the same thing.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gonzo

Call me naive (since I haven't played 1-3), whatever, but who cares if it's WWII or WW20? While I'm sure a lot of people have played the actual game, there are many more who play a little of it and play mainly deathmatches. That being said I can't see how the time period is going to effect what you do (sure there won't be certain guns, but get over it). Those that play the actual game will get thrown back into that time period but that's where you are going to have to adapt to the weapons of that time. You'll just have to get used to it. As I said, I haven't played the first three so I had to get accustomed to the weapons on 4, so it's the same thing.

---

As you said, you never played 1-3. Many of us have, at least I have, and the best thing about 4 was they realized it was time to move on from WWII. You also can't compare the quality between Infinityward and Treyarch. I thought 3 was a huge step back compared to 2, which is another reason 4 was so good. 4 was even better than 2, and blew 3 away. After 4, we don't want another step back in the series. I'm guessing we would be better off if it was Infintyward releasing a minor upgraded sequel, but it's still too early to really pass judgement on this game. I enjoy the COD franchise, so I would like it if Treyarch was actually able to release a decent game in the series. I'm just not going to get my hopes up.

So basically, if the next Final Fantasy broke all the traditional jRPG stereotypes and was a resounding success, you wouldn't care if the one after that went back to the cookie cutter?

You mean like FFXII?

Game, set, match KOF

Quote:

---

In development at Treyarch

---

Fuck this game.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ElCapitan

4 was even better than 2

---

In multi-player perhaps. The single player campaign lacked the awesome moments of part 2 (save for sneaking under that convoy in Russia), and the friendly A.I. was actually worse.

It's still a great game though, and both 2 and 4 shit on part 3 from a great height.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Melf

Fuck this game.




In multi-player perhaps. The single player campaign lacked the awesome moments of part 2 (save for sneaking under that convoy in Russia), and the friendly A.I. was actually worse.

It's still a great game though, and both 2 and 4 shit on part 3 from a great height.

---

Meh, I guess I can't easily say which of 2 and 4 is better, but it seemed to me the AI team fire was better in 4, and while there were plenty of moments were enemies would just keep spawning, it didn't seem as bad as 2, but i may be mistaken. MP was far and beyond better than 2 though.