CoD 5 not set in WWII?

ceedubya9 - 590 days ago

A sltightly more futuristic Call of Duty with a Sci-Fi twist. That would be fantastic. Actually, now that I think about it, a Terminator game with the Call of Duty engine would be pretty hot.

Agree(0) | Disagree(0) | Report

Tarasque - 590 days ago

Just as long as they don't do what ubisoft does with clancy game's. Same game with a few new weap's rehash some old maps and add a different digit to the end of the title.

Agree(1) | Disagree(0) | Report

Skizelli - 590 days ago

Bleh, it's been done before. Did we forget about Battlefield already? Modern still works for me. There's nothing wrong with futuristic warfare, but in a series like CoD, I'd rather they maintain their use of realistic weaponry.

Agree(2) | Disagree(0) | Report

KnaveX - 589 days 22 hours ago

Its COD not battlefield guys.

Edit: looks like skizelli beat me to it.

Agree(0) | Disagree(0) | Report

Tempist - 589 days 21 hours ago

...

There are a lot of 'modern' wars that can be covered. They still have WWI and the Korean War. You know, wars that still count and have major ramifications to this day.

If all else, the Civil war could use a First Person perspective. Fight along George Washington and all that. No more future wars. Killzone has that covered and Resistance has Alternative WWII covered.

Agree(0) | Disagree(0) | Report

thisguywithhair - 590 days 1 hour ago

Or Korea? or Vietnam? So many theaters out there. Each one has such potential.

Agree(1) | Disagree(0) | Report

bumnut - 590 days ago

i thought that was confirmed a while back

Agree(1) | Disagree(0) | Report

thisguywithhair - 586 days ago

COD5 is going to be in the Pacific. Read it in an article the other day. i wish they would just put it into modern day. At least the game is going to be against someone other than the Germans though. I think they have been beaten enough.

Agree(0) | Disagree(0) | Report

dfire1212 - 584 days 21 hours ago

vietnam FTW

Agree(0) | Disagree(0) | Report

P4KY B - 590 days 2 hours ago

Same with American Civil war.

If you thought that reloading the SAW was slow. Imagine how long it would take back then.

Agree(0) | Disagree(0) | Report

Vip3r - 590 days 1 hour ago

I'd really like it to be World War 1. There's never any mention about it in either games or films. I wonder why...

Agree(0) | Disagree(0) | Report

Skizelli - 590 days ago

Because WW1 is boring. :D Well, except for the dogfighting. Epic.

Agree(0) | Disagree(1) | Report

Vip3r - 590 days ago

If you're going to be ignorant about it at least give some reasons. Just becuase WW1 didn't involve the U.S. much, or much tanks and planes how was it boring? So I guess that we shouldn't care about all the millions of men and women who lost their lives becuase of it just becuase it wasn't as exciting as WW2?

Seriously, grow up.

Agree(3) | Disagree(1) | Report

perseus - 589 days 23 hours ago

I think maybe it could be considered boring due to the utterly retarded style of warfare. I'm guessing it wasn't meant as a slag against the people who died, more against the people who were in charge.

Fighting from one trench to another could be fun for one map. But a WWI FPS would have 15 levels of trenches in the single player campaign, and 25 different trench multiplayer maps, and there would be one tank map/level where everyone dies at the end, and one flying level where 33% of planes crash due to poor flying skills, 33% die after being shot down, and the rest die from the cold at altitude.

Sorry dude. As a war? Very interesting, if only because of the idiots who ran it. As a game? Boring.

Agree(1) | Disagree(2) | Report

Vip3r - 589 days 23 hours ago

I'm not wanting a huge argument over this but WW1 wasn't just trenches. There was open field battles and having to capture towns too.

As for your "retarded style of war" comment, you have to remember that WW1 was a whole new kind of warfare when compared to previous ones. Both sides had vast numbers of men and artillary and building shelters which had to be linked up by trneches was the only feasible was of doing things then. And I know when you look back at it after 90 odd years it seems "retarted" but thats only because military tactics have changed and improved after learning mistakes and thanks to vast improvements in technology ie tanks, bombers missiles etc it has made warfare more less bloody for those will all the hardware.

I'm sure in 100 years time will be looking back at the Iraq and Afghanistan wars and thinking of them as being retarded ways of fighting.

Agree(0) | Disagree(0) | Report

perseus - 589 days 23 hours ago

Okay, we don't have to argue about it, but there is nothing fun (or revolutionary) about two armies running at each other over open ground whether it's between trenches or in a field. There were some interesting campaigns that showed how war would become more efficient (I can't use the word "better" when talking about people killing each other). But the sheer lack of imagination on the part of the leaders led to millions more dying than should have.

Nothing can be said that would convince me that WWI was anything but an enormous clusterf*ck waged by dying empires. Not a fun game.

---EDIT---

And how the f*ck did I lose a bubble for being smarter than other people? F*ck you n4g, you bunch of 12 year old social rejects.

Agree(1) | Disagree(2) | Report

Skizelli - 589 days 12 hours ago

My comment was referring to games based on WWI. They just don't work very well. Name one that has. I meant no disrespect towards the people who have died in WWI. I know you can't help yourself, but don't be ignorant and bring nationality into this. Assuming that I'm American, if you really think my opinion is based on a lack of U.S. involvement, you're the one that needs to grow up. Seriously.

Agree(0) | Disagree(1) | Report

Skizelli - 588 days 22 hours ago

And yeah, disagree. Maybe in your little world, that actually makes a difference. Meanwhile, I'm still waiting on that one good WWI-based game that remains nameless. ;)

Agree(0) | Disagree(0) | Report

BeaArthur - 590 days 1 hour ago

I guess there is nothing really special about it, they are just great games, especially CoD4.

Agree(1) | Disagree(0) | Report

Keowrath - 589 days 23 hours ago

Have you played any of them? I've only really played the first one and it was a great game. Some very cool missions but the first one is getting on now. Not being a massive FPS fan I decided to forego no.4 although from what I understand it's one if not the best FPS ever (and judging by the people on my friends list that play it EVERY night it's very good indeed)

Just curious The Closing, what is your current favourite game. You're posting on every GTA4 thread about how much it sucks, your comment here although an opinion isn't particularly positive, just wondering what games you like and play?

Agree(0) | Disagree(0) | Report

The Closing - 589 days 20 hours ago

Yes, I've had a chance to play them or I wouldn't have posted about it. GTA I feel I have a right to post about having wasted good money on, and not particularly enjoying the fact it got so much undeserving praise to the extent of people trying to claim it's the best game of all time, having sold millions upon millions more than much more deserving games, and the fact that a game that's been the same since 2001 may very well win goty.

Also no offense, but your long term memory doesn't seem to be so good. I've already had a whole conversation with you about what games I enjoy.

Agree(0) | Disagree(0) | Report

Keowrath - 589 days 18 hours ago

None taken, I speak to so many people about games and people here seem to change their avatars on a regular basis so it can be hard keeping track.

My comment wasn't meant as a dig so please don't take it the wrong way. You're fully entitled to your opinion about how you feel about GTA, I'm enjoying the game although I am disappointed in certain aspects and don't feel the game is worth a 10 I still feel it's very solid.

Back on topic, which CoD's did you play? I played through no.1 fully and loved it, played 3 I think briefly on PS3 and thought it was pretty crap but didn't play or see enough to give an honest opinion. 2 I haven't played and neither have I played 4 but no.1 was one of the best FPS's I've played..

Agree(0) | Disagree(0) | Report

The Closing - 589 days 16 hours ago

I've played some of 2, and 4. Honestly I think all of these semi realistic based war games just blend in with one another. I take my shooters with a side of fiction.

Agree(0) | Disagree(0) | Report

Mikelarry - 590 days 1 hour ago

let this be true. i cant stand the old war games. yes they were fun when they first came out. but they have played it out. its time to look to the future like IW did. COD4 was the first i played in the series i hope they dont ruin the series by going back

Agree(1) | Disagree(0) | Report

Skizelli - 590 days ago

I personally don't think there's anything wrong with a game being based on WWII. A lot of them just suck. There's been some great ones, like Company of Heroes, but as far as FPS is concerned, and Battlefield 1942 aside, I don't think we've seen the WWII shooter than will blow us away just yet, and maybe not for a while. I don't get why people gripe about WWII games. There's a lot, yes, but there are a lot of people fascinated with this era. If you're not one of them, that's fine, but nobody's forcing you to buy these games.

Agree(1) | Disagree(0) | Report

OOG - 590 days ago

yea thats it!

Agree(0) | Disagree(0) | Report

Tarasque - 590 days ago

No it isn't, that's what was going to happen. But they gave the right's to infintyward to make the next game also. So it is being changed.

Agree(0) | Disagree(1) | Report

DomUltra - 590 days ago

Your one to talk, have fun with Banjo Kazooie you barney fаggot.

Agree(4) | Disagree(0) | Report