Call of duty 5 - epic fail?

[Engima]

Hello, i was recently looking at my new game informer, and i saw a preview for call of duty 5, so I turned to the page, and looked, and i was sadly disappointed. Call of duty 4 sold so well, (in my opinion) because it moved on to a new genre, no more boring WW2 games, it moved on to the future! new stuff! new missions! that's what attracted so many FPS fans. But in the articleon COD5 it stated that it would be moving BACK to the WW2 era. Bull. I honestly don't think this will sell well at all, i might buy it, since im a long time COD fan, but i might not enjoy it. I am very much worried about this game, i think treyarch is making it (they made COD3) i may be wrong, but im too lazy to look back to see who made COD3. I dont think COD5 will be that great of a game unless they add some awesome features...im tired of WW2 games. What do you think?

 

[Ilex]

If they make it from an SS soldier's standpoint, then MAYBE. But otherwise just no.

 

[El Georgeo McFudge]

Hello, i was recently looking at my new game informer, and i saw a preview for call of duty 5, so I turned to the page, and looked, and i was sadly disappointed. Call of duty 4 sold so well, (in my opinion) because it moved on to a new genre, no more boring WW2 games, it moved on to the future! new stuff! new missions! that's what attracted so many FPS fans. But in the articleon COD5 it stated that it would be moving BACK to the WW2 era. Bull. I honestly don't think this will sell well at all, i might buy it, since im a long time COD fan, but i might not enjoy it. I am very much worried about this game, i think treyarch is making it (they made COD3) i may be wrong, but im too lazy to look back to see who made COD3. I dont think COD5 will be that great of a game unless they add some awesome features...im tired of WW2 games. What do you think?

But why, it has swiming and flamethrowers according to our good friends at Wiki.

EDIT: And split screen non-internet multiplayer for consoles!

 

[Engima]

Hello, i was recently looking at my new game informer, and i saw a preview for call of duty 5, so I turned to the page, and looked, and i was sadly disappointed. Call of duty 4 sold so well, (in my opinion) because it moved on to a new genre, no more boring WW2 games, it moved on to the future! new stuff! new missions! that's what attracted so many FPS fans. But in the articleon COD5 it stated that it would be moving BACK to the WW2 era. Bull. I honestly don't think this will sell well at all, i might buy it, since im a long time COD fan, but i might not enjoy it. I am very much worried about this game, i think treyarch is making it (they made COD3) i may be wrong, but im too lazy to look back to see who made COD3. I dont think COD5 will be that great of a game unless they add some awesome features...im tired of WW2 games. What do you think?

But why, it has swiming and flamethrowers according to our good friends at Wiki.

SWIMMING!? oh my god i cannot wait for this game.
Epic PHAILBOAT 

 

[Worbah]

I don't give a **** which era it is set in as long as it has a set amount of enemies and a better health system. Having to rush forward while stopping to hose down ****-bags who don't even notice you is just ****e. And the ****ing Wolverine-health isn't good. When you take five 7.62X54R rounds to the chest, you don't sit behind a dumpster waiting for the wounds to magically close. Better systems include the ones in Deus Ex, Dark Corners of the Earth, and Boiling Point.

 

[Engima]

I don't give a **** which era it is set in as long as it has a set amount of enemies and a better health system. Having to rush forward while stopping to hose down ****-bags who don't even notice you is just ****e. And the ****ing Wolverine-health isn't good. When you take five 7.62X54R rounds to the chest, you don't sit behind a dumpster waiting for the wounds to magically close. Better systems include the ones in Deus Ex, Dark Corners of the Earth, and Boiling Point.

The AI in COD4 wasent bad, but in 3, it was.
I agree on the HP thing though. I find your critisicm refreshingly blunt. 

 

[Gundato]

Honestly, I liked the health system in CoD4. They got the halo shield right. Nine times out of ten, if you are shot, you will die. Sure one bullet won't kill you, but the AI fires in bursts. But, on those occasions where you don't die (because you were diving for cover or just got hit while popping out of cover to take a shot), you aren't screwed for the rest of the map. To me, the CoD4 system felt like a more forgiving OFP system. Sure it wasn't the most realistic thing out there, but you have to admit, it isn't any less realistic than putting a band-aid over a headshot (or eating soy chips to heal from a grenade. And it is a lot less frustrating. One of the most annoying things in any game is to get stuck running the gauntlet with low health (especially with hitscan weapons). CoD4 managed to avoid that.

I used to complain about the system too. Then I tried it, and I love it. CoD2's was awkward and way too forgiving, but 4 got it right. If you are taking five AK rounds to the chest and living, you either are cheating or playing on the easiest difficulty setting.

And people mainly complain about Treyarch because they aren't Infinity Ward. Honestly, I loved United Offensive. And, while I never played 3, I have faith that 5 will be a fun game.

As for the WWII complaints: First off, this is set in the Pacific Theatre. That right there is rather untapped real estate. And, if you think about it, modern shooters are just as plentiful (I call forth anything that has ever had the Tom Clancy name on it, the Soldier of Fortune games, and many more).

Personally, I am going to try the CoD5 demo when it comes out. If it feels like a good game, I'll buy it. Otherwise, I won't.

 

[Ancientwanker]

If there are no large maps I won't buy.  It's a difficult sweet spot to hit but for me only the battlefied games (and United Offensive) have done it.  Crysis maps are too large for the few players it can handle and COD are usually too small for any meaningful strategy to take shape. 

If the battle space isnt strategically immersive (and still somewhat busy), I dont care how pretty it is.

 

[Engima]

Honestly, I liked the health system in CoD4. They got the halo shield right. Nine times out of ten, if you are shot, you will die. Sure one bullet won't kill you, but the AI fires in bursts. But, on those occasions where you don't die (because you were diving for cover or just got hit while popping out of cover to take a shot), you aren't screwed for the rest of the map. To me, the CoD4 system felt like a more forgiving OFP system. Sure it wasn't the most realistic thing out there, but you have to admit, it isn't any less realistic than putting a band-aid over a headshot (or eating soy chips to heal from a grenade. And it is a lot less frustrating. One of the most annoying things in any game is to get stuck running the gauntlet with low health (especially with hitscan weapons). CoD4 managed to avoid that.

I used to complain about the system too. Then I tried it, and I love it. CoD2's was awkward and way too forgiving, but 4 got it right. If you are taking five AK rounds to the chest and living, you either are cheating or playing on the easiest difficulty setting.

And people mainly complain about Treyarch because they aren't Infinity Ward. Honestly, I loved United Offensive. And, while I never played 3, I have faith that 5 will be a fun game.

As for the WWII complaints: First off, this is set in the Pacific Theatre. That right there is rather untapped real estate. And, if you think about it, modern shooters are just as plentiful (I call forth anything that has ever had the Tom Clancy name on it, the Soldier of Fortune games, and many more).

Personally, I am going to try the CoD5 demo when it comes out. If it feels like a good game, I'll buy it. Otherwise, I won't.

Well the Health system is'nt all that bad. But i've played WW2 pacific shooters too, medal of honor rising sun, et cetera.
i still dont think ill buy this game...i can probably guess the plot right now:
YOUR TRAPPZD IN A PRISONEER OF THE WAR CAMPSS AND YOU GOTZ TO ESCAPEE33!! GO OGO GO!

 

[Worbah]

If you are taking five AK rounds to the chest and living, you either are cheating or playing on the easiest difficulty setting.

AK47 uses 7.62X39mm, whereas PKM and Dragunov (The weapons for adults) use 7.62X54mm

 

[Gundato]

If you are taking five AK rounds to the chest and living, you either are cheating or playing on the easiest difficulty setting.

AK47 uses 7.62X39mm, whereas PKM and Dragunov (The weapons for adults) use 7.62X54mm

Knew I should have checked Wikipedia before having a discussion with such a knowledgeable person :p

Let me rephrase that: If you survive two shots from those weapons, you are cheating or on the easiest difficulty setting.

As for shooters: Honestly, can we think of any (non bargain bin) ones other than Medal of Honor? That is kind of my point. We have been in the Pacific a lot less often than Normandy, and that is enough.

As for the plot? How many modern shooters have plots other than "Kill the terrorists, find the WMD, kill the super-terrorist"? :p

 

[Sir Prince]

<snip>

Exactly what I was thinking too. United Offensive is still the game with the most hours on my X-Fire list. I'm looking forward to a game set in the Pacific, I just hope they don't have the god damn super fast respawn rate for enemy soldiers like in CoD4.

 

[your nightmare]

<snip>

Exactly what I was thinking too. United Offensive is still the game with the most hours on my X-Fire list. I'm looking forward to a game set in the Pacific, I just hope they don't have the god damn super fast respawn rate for enemy soldiers like in CoD4.

ah yes , has any1 of you felt the joy and pleasure equal to the one of the mp from uo ?? , i've been trying but to today i'm still playing that multiplayer from about 4 years ago ,and why is cod scared to put vehicles in their mp's , it was one of the things that made ctf so fun !!

 

[Sir Prince]

<snip>

Exactly what I was thinking too. United Offensive is still the game with the most hours on my X-Fire list. I'm looking forward to a game set in the Pacific, I just hope they don't have the god damn super fast respawn rate for enemy soldiers like in CoD4.

ah yes , has any1 of you felt the joy and pleasure equal to the one of the mp from uo ?? , i've been trying but to today i'm still playing that multiplayer from about 4 years ago ,and why is cod scared to put vehicles in their mp's , it was one of the things that made ctf so fun !!

Agreed, I love Base Assault. I really miss it in CoD4.

 

[Archonsod]

As for the WWII complaints: First off, this is set in the Pacific Theatre. That right there is rather untapped real estate. And, if you think about it, modern shooters are just as plentiful (I call forth anything that has ever had the Tom Clancy name on it, the Soldier of Fortune games, and many more).

Iwo Two Jima was set, funnily enough, on the island of the same name. In fact, when the Pearl Harbour movie was released there was a whole glut of pacific theatre games in nearly every genre. Plus unless you're some kind of weirdo who only plays FPS, WWII is used as a setting for every other RTS, 90% of combat flight sims and there's even been an RPG set in WWII.

It's still going to be a linear shooter though, I lost interest in them shortly after Half Life.

 

[Redcoat-Mic]

I don't give a **** which era it is set in as long as it has a set amount of enemies and a better health system. Having to rush forward while stopping to hose down ****-bags who don't even notice you is just ****e. And the ****ing Wolverine-health isn't good. When you take five 7.62X54R rounds to the chest, you don't sit behind a dumpster waiting for the wounds to magically close. Better systems include the ones in Deus Ex, Dark Corners of the Earth, and Boiling Point.

Man, Boiling Point, what a underrated great. Commeee onnn White Gold, don't be a buggy ****!

 

[Gundato]

As for the WWII complaints: First off, this is set in the Pacific Theatre. That right there is rather untapped real estate. And, if you think about it, modern shooters are just as plentiful (I call forth anything that has ever had the Tom Clancy name on it, the Soldier of Fortune games, and many more).

Iwo Two Jima was set, funnily enough, on the island of the same name. In fact, when the Pearl Harbour movie was released there was a whole glut of pacific theatre games in nearly every genre. Plus unless you're some kind of weirdo who only plays FPS, WWII is used as a setting for every other RTS, 90% of combat flight sims and there's even been an RPG set in WWII.

It's still going to be a linear shooter though, I lost interest in them shortly after Half Life.

Almost every RPG is set in a fantasy setting, does that mean any FPS or RTS (or even action game) set there is going to be bad? A good many FPS games are sci-fi, so should we never make another sci-fi RPG?

And I purposefully skipped bargain bin games and things that should never have left the bargain bin. People are just making too big of a deal out of the WWII setting. Pretty much every setting (other than steampunk and cyberpunk) are played out beyond belief at this point.

 

[Redcoat-Mic]

That's hardly the same is it, Fantasy and Sci Fi don't follow the same events, you make them up, so it's always going to be original in many respects.
There's only so many times you can walk up the beach of Normandy before it comes from "OH **** OH **** OH **** THIS IS WAAAAAAAAAARR *ala Medal of Honour Frontlines* to boring drivel, ala Medal of Honour 25.

 

[Archonsod]

Almost every RPG is set in a fantasy setting, does that mean any FPS or RTS (or even action game) set there is going to be bad? A good many FPS games are sci-fi, so should we never make another sci-fi RPG?

The thing is, a sci fi setting is pretty much unlimited in possibilities. When you set the game in WWII already there's a pretty strict limit on how the plot can develop (as Ilex said, why don't we ever see the war from the German viewpoint?), and particularly with an FPS it limits the mechanics. You're not going to get a Gravity Gun or the like running around the 1940's, and given the main draw of an FPS tends to be the weapon mechanics when they're the same mechanics we were using in Wolfenstein it gets a bit dull.


Like I said though, I'd consider it bad because it's a linear shooter.

 

[CrazyEyes]

The reason that the Pacific Theater is never played is because, you guessed it, the Japs have **** ground equipment - same reason the Italian part of the European Theatre is never touched on. Stripper clip machineguns? Punch-grenades? I'd pass. Who would play on the Jap side? (In multiplayer, that is)

The Germans versus the Americans has an interesting balance of weapons; the Americans have the semi-automatic M1, but the Germans have the STG44. The MP40 and the Thompson are on different ends of the spectrum of "accuracy and power". The Germans have the superior tanks, but the Allies have complete air superiority, etc. It's not so fortunate with other countries.