Call of Duty World At War - Set in a new military Theater?

L

Lethean

Regular
http://pc.ign.com/articles/880/880243p1.html

So it turns out this "new military theater" Treyarch speaks of is the Pacific. The next CoD installemend being developed by the lackluster Treyarch will take place in the Pacific fighting off the Japanese and have a little bit of gameplay in Berlin fighting off...Surprise! German soldiers.

So a return to WW2, being done by Treyarch.

I'm not expecting much out of this installment.
 
Ever notice the second World War in video games has lasted longer than the actual thing?
 
Yuck, is this the team that did CoD 3? What's the deal with that anyway, why are 2 developing teams working on the same series?
 
Krowsnose said:
Yuck, is this the team that did CoD 3? What's the deal with that anyway, why are 2 developing teams working on the same series?
Click to expand...

it gives infinity ward an extra year to develop a good COD game, and still have yearly releases
 
TheNesMan said:
Didn't they learn anything from how poor Cod3 was and how great Cod4 was?
Click to expand...
obviously not.
o, but maybe they think WWII games are still cool.
but what do you expect from fucking idiots?
 
I don't think we should write off all World War II games just because the setting has been overdone. Brothers In Arms: Hell's Highway, for instance, looks fucking rad. I, for one, am not tired of the war setting if done properly.
 
used44 said:
I don't think we should write off all World War II games just because the setting has been overdone. Brothers In Arms: Hell's Highway, for instance, looks fucking rad. I, for one, am not tired of the war setting if done properly.
Click to expand...
i''m tired of the guns, i'm tired of the ''grenades'', i'm tired of the germans getting beat in EVERY single WWII game EVER MADE.
i for one am sick of WWII games, and will be burning (or exploding) every single copy of this game i see anywhere near my friends.
 
Was COD3 really that bad? As I remember it, the game was pretty decent. It wasn't any worse than COD2, but wasn't a whole lot better. It's biggest failing was a complete lack of innovation, which is a problem that reaches a lot further than just WW2 shooters.

I've been reading waaay too much glowing speculation about any franchise that choses to march in step with COD4 and venture in to "modern warfare." We'll see how long it takes for the masses to turn on Middle Eastern modern conflicts like they have on WW2.

As long as Treyarch offers up plenty of unlockable character customization bologna and gritty war torn action, I'm sure everyone will be eating it up with both hands.
 
Tom, the problem with CoD3 for me...Well first let me say; Yes, it is as bad as I mkae it out to be. I had played it before reading any reviews for it besides GRs and I have to say...It was just...Boring. I don't know how exactly a CoD WW2 shooter was boring to me. I still love CoD 1 and 2 but for some reason 3 felt lazy and uninspired.

I've played maybe five hours of it and haven't touched it in months. I'm determined to beat it before trading it in however - The first game I'll have traded in for about two years or more. Maybe even four.
 
used44 said:
I don't think we should write off all World War II games just because the setting has been overdone. Brothers In Arms: Hell's Highway, for instance, looks fucking rad. I, for one, am not tired of the war setting if done properly.
Click to expand...

Hear hear!
 
I was just playing a few skirmishes of Brothers in Arms: Earned in Blood last night, actually. Man, as much as I love those games, I sure suck at them.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Members online

No members online now.
Total: 339 (members: 0, guests: 339)

Forum statistics

Threads
16,731
Messages
270,928
Members
97,760
Latest member
flintinsects

Share this page

Top