We brought you first details on the new Call of Duty game last week (catch up with that here). Since then there's been a lot of talk about how the game's return to WWII after Modern Warfare is a bad move. Senior producer Noah Heller says Call of Duty: World at War has to redefine the genre and be the best shooter possible or people won't trust the brand going forward.
"Modern Warfare opened the door to so many people new to Call of Duty," senior producer Noah Heller told MCV.
"The game built great fertile ground for us to start on and if we're going to say: 'Look it's Christmas, here's another Call of Duty as you loved it last year', then we need to make sure the game is high quality or people won't trust what Call of Duty is."
Heller added, "This has to be the best shooter and has to redefine the World War II genre."
So it looks like we could be in for new COD titles every year, starting this November or December (or last year counting Modern Warfare). World at War is due in time for Christmas on PS3, 360, PC and Wii, says the UK trade paper.
Vietnam wouldn't be that great, all the war was was the American army wondering through the jungle, falling into traps etc. and when they saw the Viet Cong they'd call in air suppport. There wasn't any "battles" and its for this same reason COD4 made up its own storyline.
I think they are doomed either way they go. Following up COD4 will be tough if not impossible. Using a different developer isn't going to make it any easier. If they continued the modern warfare aspect there is a huge danger of making the same mistake as R6 Vegas 2 did. People will feel like they spent $60 for an expansion pack. Going back to WWII is already backfiring on them and the game isn't even near it's release date. Tough call and my money is on them blowing it. Maybe COD Future Warfare is the answer follwed up by COD Distant Future Warefare and finish it off with COD Sci Fi Future Warfare...I'm out of ideas.
Vietnam wouldn't be that great, all the war was was the American army wondering through the jungle, falling into traps etc. and when they saw the Viet Cong they'd call in air suppport. There wasn't any "battles" and its for this same reason COD4 made up its own storyline.
ok, why not do there own story in a Vietnam setting?.. i don't know, its Friday who gives a monkey's w@nk, when can i get outta this office & get a beer down my neck! that's what i wanna know! hahah...
Vietnam wouldn't be that great, all the war was was the American army wondering through the jungle, falling into traps etc. and when they saw the Viet Cong they'd call in air suppport. There wasn't any "battles" and its for this same reason COD4 made up its own storyline.
Well there were a couple of proper battles in the Vietnam War actually, but point taken.
But you could just manufacture a more intelligent design: Taking a squad with you, you've got to hunt for a Viet Cong tunnel system. Or defend a camp from an attack. Or get shot down in your chopper and slowly make your way back to base.
Why didn't they just make up a war, I know Vietnam would have been different but how about South America or something (as long as it wasn't Venezuela).
Jungle backdrops with similar weaponry to COD4? Would be beautiful
Vietnam wouldn't be that great, all the war was was the American army wondering through the jungle, falling into traps etc. and when they saw the Viet Cong they'd call in air suppport. There wasn't any "battles" and its for this same reason COD4 made up its own storyline.
Well there were a couple of proper battles in the Vietnam War actually, but point taken.
But you could just manufacture a more intelligent design: Taking a squad with you, you've got to hunt for a Viet Cong tunnel system. Or defend a camp from an attack. Or get shot down in your chopper and slowly make your way back to base.
ooh Black Hawk Down style for the entire game! that would be brilliant, have to escape an enemy city alone
So it looks like we could be in for new COD titles every year, starting this November or December (or last year counting Modern Warfare).
Haven't we been getting that since COD2?
Call of Duty 2 - October/November 2005 Call of Duty 3 - November 2006 Call of Duty 4 - November 2007 Call of Duty 5 - November 2008?
Call of Duty came out in 2003 and there was even an expansion pack in 2004, so you could almost say it's been released every year since the start of the franchise.
Vietnam worked well (IMO) for Battlefield, although a lot of people seemed to hate it, and it had a wicked soundtrack, but I don't think it'd work as a narrative. As trgmr said, it was all too much hiding and sniping and not enough actual action.
ButI can tell you that I won't be getting CoD5 simply because WW2 doesn't interest me at all. Maybe I've just seen it too much, but it's really not that interesting.
I'd stick to the CoD4 method of fictional but based on real-life conflicts. Because there's not that many interesting modern conflicts. The Cold War had no notable battles, it was all politics.
The Korean War might work for a Vietnam-esque time period. Maybe something in Yugoslavia could work. The Falklands? Could bring back Captain Price for that
CoD built it's reputation on the backs of PC users, which were summarily dimissed and ignored after the launch of CoD2 (See CoD3 pos game...Console only, or, see CoD2 with Zero dev support). There are vastly more stories to tell of the European Theater, as well as the Pacific Theater, with regards to WW2. Easy Company and the 501st, weren't the only troops on the ground or in the skies during that timeframe.
Vietnam worked well (IMO) for Battlefield, although a lot of people seemed to hate it, and it had a wicked soundtrack, but I don't think it'd work as a narrative. As trgmr said, it was all too much hiding and sniping and not enough actual action.
I loved BF Vietnam, probably played that more than any other game online.
Why not just do one based on the Gulf war (number 2) ? Or perhaps that's still a little too raw......
I'd stick to the CoD4 method of fictional but based on real-life conflicts. Because there's not that many interesting modern conflicts. The Cold War had no notable battles, it was all politics.
The Korean War might work for a Vietnam-esque time period. Maybe something in Yugoslavia could work. The Falklands? Could bring back Captain Price for that
Depends what you classify as a Cold War battle really - cus you could say that the Vietnam War and Korean Conflict were both wars of the Cold War.
As for the Korean War, could be interesting. I'd still probably rather Vietnam though.
I hate the idea of a yearly update to the COD franchise.
The future does not sound good.
yeah its beginning to get a bit EA games on us. plus going back to WWII sound almost as bad an idea as letting treyarch make the game in the first place.
Well the good news is that IW have said this is the last one Treyarch will be making.
@gothchild True enough, there's plenty of other sort-of-related-but-only-loosely battles as well, but those are the only ones I thought would work as games. CoD6 wouldn't be so great if your only task was to stand around and make threats about nukes
And either Gulf War would work, but it'd be almost exactly the same as the Marine campaign in CoD4. I'm trying to mix it up a little. Although having "friendly" chemical weapons dropped on you would be an intersting game mechanic There's an idea - multiple characters where one ends up killing the other!
This seems like a massive step backards to me after COD4 ww2 has been done to death it's time to move forward with COD not back.Anyhow i know i won't be bothering with it.
Why set it in any one War? Why not have a story that covers several periods and theatres? You could even follow several charecters as they progress in their careers, from recruit to special forces. It just seems that they are using WW2 as a safe way to make a quick buck on the back of the success of COD4.
Playing as a US Army Special Forces team on search and destroy and counter-guerrilla missions could be interesting. They could also make the game incredibly tense.
I don't see why games have to always revolve around some nuclear and/or worldwide threat. Being sent behind enemy lines to assassinate a Vietcong or NVA general, secure a bridge, gather intel could all make a great game. As individual/unrelated missions or even big-budget games.
The Korea Conflict is too close to WWII and wouldn't offer that big of a change re weapons and tactics.
Re Call Of Duty 5: I don't see why so many people are so quick to write it off. It's not about the what the story is or the setting, it's about how well it's told.
I think some wars would work and others wouldnt, i believe vietnam could be done however it would take a highly skilled developer.
I agree that certain aspects of WW2 have been overdone specifically the US airbourne units as another poster said but i feel there is so much that hasnt been done with WW2.
I for one would rather have a WW2 game than yet another modern middle eastern conflict which id have thought has been done far more than WW2, especially in the last few years.
3 steps forward...5 steps back... why do the WW2 things again?.. why not Vietnam?, i know that war hasn't got a warm fuzzy American ending but tough!
cuse its made by americans and they dont want to look like losers in there on game but then again all the americans did get nucked in cod4 who nows maybe ull be areal platoon and ur guy gets captured by the japs and get killed thta would be a cool ending
I don't have a problem with revisiting WW2 as long as they ramp up the game to the next level. But this goes for any COD that will be produced in the future. For me, fighting battles in WW2 will take on a new meaining with fully destructible environments, that's why I'm looking forward to Battlefield: Bad Company. Short of that, it may be evolutinary, but not revolutionary.
i think they had to do something different this time round,they game will be compared to COD4 no matter what and doing it modern is suicide for them.i just dont see it being as good.by going back they already have a story and setting but its the weapons that interest me... there is so much pressure and expectation on this game that they are f**ked whatever they do unless its the best game ever made
I love WW2 FPSs. So, I'm happy CoD5 is back in this era but I doubt they'll do anything that could beat the Brothers in Arms series, the king of this genre.
There is so much of World war 2 that is left untouched. The pacific war is one of them, most games are centered round d-day and Stalingrad, when there was so much more going on. Italy hasn't been touched apart from a few levels in medal of honor airborne and the crappy medal of honor expansion pack, breakthrough. What about some early SAS desert raids on Luftwaffe airfields?
I've just read the COD 5 article in an Xbox360 mag and have to say it looks mighty fine so far. My only concern here is the first Metal of Honour game (Allied Assault) was amazing for its time. Then for the sequel they moved the game to the Pacific and that game was a great big steaming turd of rubbish. The MoH franchise has seriously struggled to make an impact since. I hope this doesn't do the same for COD.
3 steps forward...5 steps back... why do the WW2 things again?.. why not Vietnam?, i know that war hasn't got a warm fuzzy American ending but tough!
Yeah well said again, got the best set for weapons & environment, I think WWII has been overdone as a whole already, though nothing beats the spitfire for dogfights when your thinking Battlefield.
I think the real way forward is Co-Op in multi-player, done aright in TC:Advanced Warfighter 2 but I am not talking 2-4 players, why hasn't anyone done a 16-32 squad (platoon? whatever) Co-Op story line style game, that should be the next real target, sure you could enable multi-player in the same maps too!
We need invention in FPS games, I have always thought a few decent size levels made correctly could enable no end of missions and stories which could be played out in a set mode, I.E.
1x. Large City XX. Number of player models & weapons... 5-10. Missions for 1 player 5-10. Missions for 2-10 players 5-10. Missions for 11-20 players 5-10. Missions for 21-30 players
That should be plenty of content to keep many a fan happy for a long time on it own but you could easily enable Free For All or Team Deathmatch on the same city.
If there is only a few players certain areas or the city could be restricted to keep the action quality and tempo up.
Maybe someday someone will do it.
P.S. If you read this & create it I want a free copy (or a job ).
I'll be waiting for reviews on this, i don't have much hope of it being good but if it is i'll be pleasantly surprised, i want a good online WW2 shooter.
It better be good or I'll go down there with an RPG and turn them all in to special edition COD5 Human lolly pops.
No patronising dialog please No poor sound FX and graphics please No up your own bottom (GTA4)same old same old please No rehash of COD4 in WW2 please No Loud mouth Beefcakes who always carry LMG'S please No Geeky explosives experts please No characters who are un stable and keep saying things like "I cant handle this s**t man!" please No stereotypical enemys please
And if any section of the game I have to escort some dumb head through a battle field without getting them killed I will be pi$*ed.
Or a character who comes in to the story at intervals to give you stuff and then ses "I'm going this way now se you later" or something. Usally you will find thses characters cant get to you for whatever reason ("I'm stuck down a drain but will meet you up the road later" but its a cop out and patronising on every level.
Remember the more they try to ride on the back of COD4 the more likely it is to fail. They may think that by using the same engine they can sit back and not worry about details like sound and plot.
Oh God, why oh WHY do they have to go back to WW2? There must be @ least 200 WW2 games out! I agree, Vietnam is a waaaay better idea. WW2 is an over used idea for fps's.
Copyright 2006 - 2009 Future Publishing Limited, Beauford Court, 30 Monmouth Street, Bath, UK BA1 2BW England and Wales company registration number 2008885
So, I'm happy CoD5 is back in this era but I doubt they'll do anything that could beat the Brothers in Arms series, the king of this genre.
).
