At least it's the Pacific theater.

So after the last game's unflinching take on modern war (we may be the good guys, but we're still a bunch of unlikeable dicks).
We're going back to World War 2, the goodies are the goodies and the baddies are the baddies, but this time we're going to make it shocking by making the baddies like, really, really bad, like, y'know, baby eating stereotypes 'n' stuff.

Wii version developed by separate team, cut down rail shooter sections anyone?

Oh for Pete's sake, again?
I was thrilled when I found out CoD4 was being set to a modern war, and now they're going back to WW2?
Now, I may be incorrect, but I do seem to remember there already being a humongous pile of perfectly fine WW2 shooters already.
The only way this can end well is if they drag the story outside that freaking box and beat it up there instead.

I agree, They should have stuck with Modern Warfare. Of course I could be wrong and this game could be as amazing as CoD4, but like Malygris I won't even consider buying this game, unless it gets amazing press from everyone, then I might rent and try it out.

wii can use the same engine as cod4? unless they modify it for it specifically
well then again, ive seen better looking games then cod4

Coop ftw!

I think they want to give one last go at WW2 before leaving it behind, basically setting up the definative WW2 experience for all other game companies to weep over.

They might have decided to go back to WW2 because with World War 2 you already have your storyline. With Modern Warfare they had to make up their own storyline. I think the guys at the top don't want to put that much time and effort into making up a new storyline. I mean Modern Warfare's storyline was awesome enough. How would you build on it? Unless you could play as Chuck Norris and roundhouse-kick people, I don't see how they could make it any better.

Well...I was disappointing with CoD4 since it was only CoD2+Sprint+Cheap Effects so it's good to see Treyarch is trying out something new.

I'm particularly interested into those scary survival horror elements because so far, every war game has a 5-10 squad of whittest soldiers ever seen with one black making up for a comic relief.They usually fight their way into Berlin by killing Germans with their dreadful one-liners and in the end,drink some beer over Hitler's dead body.

WAR IS NOT A FUCKING ADVENTURE CAMP and I'm glad somebody has finally noticed.

I'm not buying it unless you play as the Japanese in that opening cut scene, I just don't think I can stumache anymore American patriotism

Awww fuck.

Bah, why must they go back to WWII? That genre has long since been exhausted, and if they had learned anything from CoD4 (which they obviously haven't) it's that people no longer want to play WWII games because we've already played the same thing 10 times! Shinier graphics doesn't make up for boring and repetitive game play that has been used in many WWII games before.

I mean seriously WWII games have been produced for longer then WWII actually lasted, can't developers just give it a rest? And actually as above, I swear I will not buy this game unless you can play as the Japanese to, I've grown sick of the sheer amount of patriotism surrounding these games in that the opposing side is portrayed as sick, evil villains, whereas the Americans/British are made up to be heroes.

To be honest I thought COD4 was massively overrated, but it still had some awesome moments and is definitely a great game. One reason I thought it was overrated but still good was because it was the first COD game I had played because it finally had the balls to stop milking the teats off of WWII. Now I hear its going back, I can tell you that tiny modicum of respect I gained for the COD franchise has been flushed cleanly down the shit-stained toilet. WWII is so massively overused, I stopped getting feelings of respect when I see images and videos of it, and now it just instils indifference and boredom. Way to go WWII-FPS games developers, I personally hold you responsible you disrespectful, unoriginal and boring sacks of shit.

I hope they put friggen Canadian soldiers in there. We did our part too! And join before US!
[/anger and possible flaming]

"Not another WW2 FPS!"

Can ANY of you actually name a Pacific War FPS other than MoH:Pacific Assault?

Unless any of you can provide me with at least 5 titles, cut the bullshit because according to Wikipedia(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:World_War_II_first-person_shooters) the WW2(and especially Africa/Pacific) isn't used ANYWHERE near as much as Fantasy/Sci-Fi.

Will never buy it anyway if it only release in console. I can't play FPS without mouse or keyboard at all. and even it is released in pc, i will not rush to buy it unless it got good review from everywhere (may include yahtzee). CoD without infinity ward is not what i really gonna play

So...There basically taking a step backwards. It took them 3 games to realise WW2 is getting boring, and now they seem to have forgotten. Someone needs to slap some sense into infinity ward. Morons

JakubK666:
"Not another WW2 FPS!"

Can ANY of you actually name a Pacific War FPS other than MoH:Pacific Assault?

Unless any of you can provide me with at least 5 titles, cut the bullshit because according to Wikipedia(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:World_War_II_first-person_shooters) the WW2(and especially Africa/Pacific) isn't used ANYWHERE near as much as Fantasy/Sci-Fi.

Of course it's valid, what will be different? There will be the same guns, very similar landscapes (lot of beach landings in the Pacific campaign), and the same American zeal to creating a WWII game, the only difference is upgraded graphics and instead of vilifying the Germans, this time it will be the Japanese. It's the same war, a different campaign makes it no different when you're stuck with the same soldiers/weapons/areas.

Someone needs to slap some sense into infinity ward. Morons

That's TREYARCH for you sir. Infinity Ward did an excellent job with CoD4, I enjoyed both it's SP and MP element, while I do believe there are gameplay elements which need to be fixed (EG. Crosshair response when shooting someone through a wall), IW has my highest regards as developers.

I certainly wished developpers would leave the WW2-era behind and focus on fictional war in modern settings. But I guess creativity and imagination for some don't work too well, guess I will wait for Blackfoot studio (Apparently, devs from Red Storm (Rainbow Six)) have been working on a new modern-era Rainbow-six'esque shooter, so I can't wait to see what they will deliver.

eggdog14:
Awww fuck.

What he said.

If they're going to the Pacific theatre, I'll bet they miss out the entire South East Asian campaign.

History (especially american history) loves to forget the battles that ran from China all the way India, then back again as the British, Canadians, Aussies, Indians and NewZealanders fought the Japanese through the Jungle.
Easily the most Brutal front outside Russia, the British Fourteenth Army's general, William Slim, had to carry (and frequently use) his own carbine at all times. How many other generals of ww2 lived that close to the battles they comanded?

history seems to ignore the Fouteenth in favour of the US island hopping campaing, which was only ever half the pacific war.

Anywase, it would be nice to see the Fourteenth army remembered somewhere else than the History books. It would also be nice to play the Pacific theatre without the wholesome all American Marines for once...

Skrapt:

Of course it's valid, what will be different? There will be the MODERN SUCCESSORS OF THE old guns, very similar landscapes (A LOT OF FORESTS AND DESERTS), and the same American zeal to creating a WW2 game, the only difference is upgraded graphics and instead of vilifying the Germans, this time it will be the TERRORISTS AND RUSSIANS. It's the same war, a different ERA makes it no different when you're stuck with the SIMILAR FUTURE EQUIVALENT OF THE same soldiers/weapons/areas.

You could say the exact thing about CoD4.Or any game in general.

The reason WW2 is "not cool" and "overused" is because people hardly ever take it beyond Europe.WaW might be a reskin but so is CoD4.Considering that Treyarch will try to look at the survival horror genre as well as psychological side of this war(source: http://www.joystiq.com/2008/06/09/call-of-duty-world-at-war-revealed-treyarch-to-develop/) and WaW will utilize a perk system, this game has a chance to become a hit.

I don't think you can seriously suggest that moving your WW2 shooter franchise from the ETO to the PTO is somehow equivalent to the difference between Deus Ex and, say, Serious Sam.

No, because that'd be just plain stupid.However considering that reskinning CoD2 into modern era aka CoD4 sold millions of copies, PTO might be a good idea.People are always looking for a new experience.

Cheeze_Pavilion:

fix-the-spade:

history seems to ignore the Fouteenth in favour of the US island hopping campaing, which was only ever half the pacific war.

Yeah, but it was the half that won the war and all. History ignores the US defense of the Philippines as well. Nothing more to it than history focusing on the big, pivotal events at the expense of less historically important ones.

No, the Russian front won the war. If Germany hadn't commited all that manpower east the US wouldn't have been able to focus the entire Marine corps on Japan.

Plus South East Asia tied up fully half of Japan's Navy for the length of the war, including Pearl Harbour. Imagine the damage that would have been done if Japan had been able to commit 12carriers and 6 battleships instead of 2 Battleships and 6 Carriers.
It also kept 1'700'000 Japanese troops tied up. roughly 1.5 times the number of troops commited to the Pacific (imagine Gaudalcanal defended by 70'000 instead of 36'000, the Marines would have been driven into the sea, assuming the war ever even got that far).

The reason its remembered is that the Marines sent a small army of camera men and reporters in with the invading force.
Pretty much every battle was covered in glorious detail, the war was also media friendly as battles were over quickly (Tarawa was over in 3days, Iwo Jima 31). The reporters also took great pains to photo or film every flag raising.

The Burma war was largely unreported because the terrain was so difficult to travel that very few media went. It also had very few defined battles, being more a continuous slog with very few clear victories (the war also went through Vietnam, where one Ho Chi Minh led the Vietnamese resistance against the Vichy French, then later the Japanese, so it was even more important to US history than most people realise).

So it wasn't a case of winning the war, just shouting loudest about every little achievement.

Still waiting for a decent Stargate shooter as far as I'm concerned.

L.B. Jeffries:
Personally, I'm still wondering when we're going to get a video game about Vietnam or the Korean War.

Hell, why not Burma? Rambo 4 was awesome, lets go to Burma in an FPS. Or maybe Darfur.

There were tons of 'Nam games on the previous generation of consoles. Conflict: Vietnam, Shellshock: 'Nam 67, Men Of Valor, etc etc. Then that cow got milked, its udders withered away into nothingness, and developers moved onto WWII.

JakubK666:
"Not another WW2 FPS!"

Can ANY of you actually name a Pacific War FPS other than MoH:Pacific Assault?

Unless any of you can provide me with at least 5 titles, cut the bullshit because according to Wikipedia(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:World_War_II_first-person_shooters) the WW2(and especially Africa/Pacific) isn't used ANYWHERE near as much as Fantasy/Sci-Fi.

Granted, last years was a good year, there where almost no WW2 games. But, think of the year before that, and the year before that.

And you can a little bit more out Fantasy and Sci-fi than you can out of six fucking years with same bad guys, same good guys bla bla bla /end rant

Arbre:
Still waiting for a decent Stargate shooter as far as I'm concerned.

What he said.