As I'm sure I'm not alone on this, I would like to say I'm a bit leery about impending release of Call of Duty 5. Of the Call of Duty series, I've only played Call of Duty 1, 2, 3, and 4, but I've never played any of the side-story things that they did such as Finest Hour or Big Red One. Of the ones I have played, I can safely say that 3 was the one that perhaps didn't feel right in the canon.

The first in the series was an impressive effort for visceral cinematic gaming, and while it didn't feel like you were in war, it felt like you were in a war movie, which is probably the more preferable of either sensation. The second kicked it up a notch on next generation consoles and was still reminiscent of the excitement of the first, with fairly good multiplayer system for the Xbox 360, perhaps one of the earliest MP games relased for Live on the 360. Three I received as a gift for Christmas, presumably because I asked for it, and playing it didn't quite have that same feel as the first two. The campaign lacked that balance of drama and action that I think the first two did so well (with I suppose minimal story) and CoD3's single player had perhaps a bit too much, such as a few cutscenes that felt like they were tagged on to help flesh out the characters--something I think unnecessary for a Call of Duty game. Multiplayer, though adding drivable vehicles, the War mode, class-based abilities, and, thank Christ, online split-screen, still felt like it was missing something or maybe it simply had too much of something.

Call of Duty 4 brought on a return to form with a simpler narrative than CoD3 with a far more effective delivery (such as crawling through the wreckage from a nuke) and it was able to seamlessly integrate this drama into the game; I challenge someone to say that tension wasn't raised during the "All Ghillied Up" sequence of Call of Duty 4. Multiplayer was deep but simple, where you could select your class or create your own, assuming you had leveled up enough to create any worthy weapons classes. The setting had even changed to modern day, hence I suppose the "Modern Combat" moniker.

While I'm sure it might be easy to point out that the difference lies simply in the developer choice, I'd rather not make Treyarch look like a bad guy. They're making an effort to put out a fun, hour-consuming game that we all can enjoy but I'm thinking they might be approaching development from a wrong angle. Don't get me wrong--I'm all about innovation and I think the more innovative a game, the better, but innovation is not simply changing a game series. When a game is developed in a series, you can't change too much or it won't fit. I think Infinity Ward took a less-is-more approach with CoD1, 2, and 4, but I think Treyarch is confusing adding more bells and whistles with improvement. Four-player co-op sounds exciting for Call of Duty 5, but I've never seen the campaigns for CoD games to be necessary for a cooperative gameplay element.

Again, I don't want to completely rag on Treyarch. I'm actually pretty excited with what they've done so far for the Quantum of Solace game and I'm hopeful that it'll at least take the industry a step back to a time where decent games were produced from movie franchises.

COD4 multiplayer was garbage..... not deep, and overly simple

Jazzyluv:
COD4 multiplayer was garbage..... not deep, and overly simple

That was a redundancy, and you said the same thing twice.

But in all seriousness, that's not entirely true. It's not actually shallow, it just feels that way on the receiving end of the bullets. You can't really tell what killed you or how, only if it was an explosion or a bullet. On the shooty end, however, you can really feel the difference in guns, you can plan all kinds of crazy traps, etc.

Sure, it wasn't the deepest multiplayer experience ever, but it certainly wasn't shallow.

Given that cod 5 is being made by the same folks that made cod 3 I'm a little apprehensive. And I heard they're goin back to WW2

meatloaf231:

Jazzyluv:
COD4 multiplayer was garbage..... not deep, and overly simple

That was a redundancy, and you said the same thing twice.

But in all seriousness, that's not entirely true. It's not actually shallow, it just feels that way on the receiving end of the bullets. You can't really tell what killed you or how, only if it was an explosion or a bullet. On the shooty end, however, you can really feel the difference in guns, you can plan all kinds of crazy traps, etc.

Sure, it wasn't the deepest multiplayer experience ever, but it certainly wasn't shallow.

Eh? Either I read that wrong or you need to pay more attention to the kill cam.

I'm quite cynical about Treyarch making the sequel to the rather awesome (IMO) COD4. I don't want the franchise to go down the toilet, at least until Infinity Ward release another COD masterpiece.

Yes I am. Quite frankly, Infinity ward made the COD4 really good(neva playing halo until new maps come out, then not much). But 3 wasn't that great of a game and WW2 is just a stupid excuse for not having a story(except for COD1). Besides, where in WW2 can I spam RPD bullets with Sleight of hand and Bandolier? It just won't be as good as COD4 in terms of single player and multiplayer. Also, check the box art; basically the COD4 art but with a left handed guy with a blue color scheme.

I'm going to give Treyarch the benifit of the doubt and give them a chance to redeem themselfs. Granted, I've never played a Treyarch game before, but who knows maybe they can redeem themselfs.

Bowstring:

meatloaf231:

Jazzyluv:
COD4 multiplayer was garbage..... not deep, and overly simple

That was a redundancy, and you said the same thing twice.

But in all seriousness, that's not entirely true. It's not actually shallow, it just feels that way on the receiving end of the bullets. You can't really tell what killed you or how, only if it was an explosion or a bullet. On the shooty end, however, you can really feel the difference in guns, you can plan all kinds of crazy traps, etc.

Sure, it wasn't the deepest multiplayer experience ever, but it certainly wasn't shallow.

Eh? Either I read that wrong or you need to pay more attention to the kill cam.

I'm quite cynical about Treyarch making the sequel to the rather awesome (IMO) COD4. I don't want the franchise to go down the toilet, at least until Infinity Ward release another COD masterpiece.

Sorry, perhaps I should have been more clear.

What I mean was that it's difficult to tell what's killing you before you die. Afterwards, sure, but how often can you instantly tell what gun, perks, and attatchments the person shooting at you has?

Nah, its going to suck, Treyarch tainted the Cod series with its Cod 3. I played Cod 3 remembering the fun I had when I was playing the Cod 2 DEMO. I got 3 because I thought it was a step up from 2, not a huge leap down.

Jumplion:
I'm going to give Treyarch the benifit of the doubt and give them a chance to redeem themselfs. Granted, I've never played a Treyarch game before, but who knows maybe they can redeem themselfs.

I believe Treyarch developed Spider-Man 2, which is awesome. (Wikipedia says that Yahtzee says it's among his 5 favorite games, don't where they got that but . . .)

Sure the didn't do as well as Infinity Ward on CoD3, but it wasn't total garbage.

Still, I wouldn't trust them to make a must-have so I'm remaining neutral.

Eldritch Warlord:

Jumplion:
I'm going to give Treyarch the benifit of the doubt and give them a chance to redeem themselfs. Granted, I've never played a Treyarch game before, but who knows maybe they can redeem themselfs.

I believe Treyarch developed Spider-Man 2, which is awesome. (Wikipedia says that Yahtzee says it's among his 5 favorite games, don't where they got that but . . .)

Sure the didn't do as well as Infinity Ward on CoD3, but it wasn't total garbage.

Still, I wouldn't trust them to make a must-have so I'm remaining neutral.

And I quote: "I can't believe some of you actually took that list seriously."

Bowstring:

And I quote: "I can't believe some of you actually took that list seriously."

I didn't really, I just recognize that Yahtzee thinks it's a great game. Which is pretty high praise.

I hated COD3 so I'm very apprehensive about purchasing COD5 simply because it is by the same people. If they kept the gameplay engine and everything from COD4 it may be pretty good, but the return to WWII again is making me lose even more interest already.

I'll be waiting until the reviews are in before I even consider it.

It seems this may go either way IMHO.

On the one hand, after the sucess of implemenation from Infinity Ward, I don't understand the reasoning to go back to a previous development house.

Then the fact that we are going back to WWII yet again. Ugh....I am so tired of that setting. BUT, with that being said, I am glad they are allowing to play the Russians and even adding the Japanese theatre. Germany has been done to death already. And I look forward to flame throwers and snipers in trees (high above).

Here's hoping they steer away from spawning enemies and scripted events. That's probably the only way they can even hope of making a good WW2 game that has ANY orginality in it. Well, maybe not originality - some flair, perhaps? Love to see Crysis/Farcry style gameplay, coupled with a pinch of FEAR ai, no matter what the setting. I mean, why the hell not?

Wicky_42:
Here's hoping they steer away from spawning enemies and scripted events. That's probably the only way they can even hope of making a good WW2 game that has ANY orginality in it. Well, maybe not originality - some flair, perhaps? Love to see Crysis/Farcry style gameplay, coupled with a pinch of FEAR ai, no matter what the setting. I mean, why the hell not?

The open-endedness would certainly be a pull for me. Anymore, I think I've become a whore for sandbox gameplay and I don't think I've seen a World War II game truly do that yet.

I have to agree a WWII FPS with a bit more choice and openess would interest me far more than the entirely linear and scripted events of pretty much every WWII FPS to date. Not to mention some different and more interesting scenarios and settings. Anyway I better not get started on all the things I think would make a WWII FPS something for me to really get excited about.

I think I heard something about it being in WW ONE not TWO. I think anyway, can't be sure

No....it's in world war 2 alright there fighting thr japanese this time.

CoD3 wasn't up to par because Treyarch had what, 9 months I think it was, to get the game up and running? Thats a really impressive game for the development time put into it. I think Treyarch will do pretty well with this game due to the amount of time they've been given for it.

I might be being really ignorant here, but didn't Treyarch make Quantum of Solace, also using the CoD4 engine? I realise you can't judge based purely on a demo, but what I played was pretty bad.

The only one I played - 4 - I hated. With a passion. You just couldn't get that stupid guy to stop shouting orders. And until you did what he wanted, the enemies kept spawning, infinitely! Tiny maps didn't help either.

Therefore there is no way I am buying 5.

haruvister:
I might be being really ignorant here, but didn't Treyarch make Quantum of Solace, also using the CoD4 engine? I realise you can't judge based purely on a demo, but what I played was pretty bad.

That's disappointing to hear. I was kind of looking forward to it!

I feel that while CoD3 wasn't as good as CoD4, it certainly wasn't bad, and the 5th one, while I don't expect it to be incredible, will probably still be worth a look

I seemed to be one of the only people ever to like COD 3 lol.

I am not sure what to think, hopefully they use the over-the-top(in a good way) multilayer in COD4 with the new stuff they're planning like flamethrowers and sniping from trees, but as i said, i'm not sure

It pretty much boils down to this: If it's made by Infinity Ward, it will be the shit. If it's made by Treyarch, it will just be shit.

meatloaf231:

Jazzyluv:
COD4 multiplayer was garbage..... not deep, and overly simple

That was a redundancy, and you said the same thing twice.

If ya want to be all smarmy, you can say tautology.

I really don't understand why their going back to the WWII era, it's done. everything which happend ever in WWII has been done. at least three times in different games by your average gamer as well as a lot of things which didn't actually happen in it. it should ether of been another modern combat or sci-fi

I'm not looking forward to listening to poorly written dialog of generic charactered American troop the general sickening Yankee patriotism that ensues, and stereotypical Russians soviet types.

nor am I looking to the unskippable(out of a sign of 'respect' to the people who fought in the war) 30 minute long cut scenes that involve stock black and white footage of SS troops goose stepping, and Russian tanks parading through a city centre with their guns raised high, accompanied with some deep voiced American narrator.

I am however interested in just how racist treyarch will be towards the Japenise and other enemies portraying them as nameless monsters with no emotion other than a desire to kill.

I will buy the game...but I doubt I'll like it

Call of Duty 2 (Infinity Ward): Awesome
Call of Duty 3 (Treyarch).....: Not
Call of Duty 4 (Infinity Ward): Awesome
Call of Duty 5 (Treyarch).....: ___
Can anyone fill in the blank?
(Hint: COD 3 + 5 are both in WWII)

I dont want to say anything stupid since last time I apparantly did and got banned for a week....I think this new CoD will be good solid rental at best for me at least since the economy here is on the low low... Does any body else just get excited for Infinity Ward's more than likely sixth installment thats max 3 years from now when you hear about this CoD 5???

I thought I should make another post actually concerning the game. I think the Berlin parts look a bit strange, the German soldiers I've seen in pictures and videos aren't exactly how I'd invision the defenders of Berlin. They look a bit too stereotypical Nazi soldier from what I've seen, whereas realistically they'd be a mish-mash of SS, Volkssturm, Hitler Youth... etc. I just hope if there is the fight for the Reichstag, it's better than in CoD1.

Onto the Pacific parts I've seen, it seems overly action-packed. Of course you need action, but if you read about it or even watch films like Letters from Iwo Jima or Thin Red Line the US soldiers had to spend many hours rooting out the Japanese from where they'd dug themselves in.
In my opinion a hard fight up a hill for a position defended by fanatical Japanese soldiers would be just as intense, if not more so, than facing them head on in a Banzai charge. Hopefully the game will let us do some bunker clearing of our own (this would be where the flamethrower comes in) rather than just giving us the objective of calling for artillery to neutralise a Japanese position.

So at the moment it still doesn't appear to be anywhere in the realms of the step-forward for WWII FPS I keep hoping for. BiA:HH is about the most different looking WWII FPS this year, unless there's any gems I haven't heard about yet.

Being a competitive PC COD 4 player i think its safe to say that COD 4 multiplayer was fairly bad. It took a very long time for a decent competition mod to come out and even then it still isnt perfect. What the COD community is hoping will happen with COD 5 is that the COD 1 & 2 rifle play will be added too with updated graphics and some good multiplayer maps.

Only problem is that the PC version only runs on Direct X 10 which will mean alot of angry gamers upgrading to the dreaded Vista

shadow_pirate22:
Call of Duty 2 (Infinity Ward): Awesome
Call of Duty 3 (Treyarch).....: Not
Call of Duty 4 (Infinity Ward): Awesome
Call of Duty 5 (Treyarch).....: ___
Can anyone fill in the blank?
(Hint: COD 3 + 5 are both in WWII)

So is COD 2... and 1...

FOR THE LOVE OF GOD!!!

ITS CALL OF DUTY "WORLD AT WAR"
NOT -COD5-
man...