Top
370°

CoD 5 not set in WWII?

The next Call of Duty game may not delve back into familiar WWII territory after all, as Activision CEO Mike Griffith reveals that the fifth game will take the series to a "new military theatre".

Despite rumours and strong reactions that the series would be returning to the over-used WWII era, Griffith revealed: "We'll bring the intensity of the recent Call of Duty: Modern Warfare title to a new military theatre to engage our significantly larger user base which nearly doubled last year as new users came into the franchise," according to Gamespot.

Read Full Story >>
computerandvideogames.com
The story is too old to be commented.
P4KY B3482d ago (Edited 3482d ago )

With Terminators and the ability to call in Hunter Killers.

Just imagine instead of night vision, Terminator Red Vision.
Last Stand could be replaced with The Crawling Torso.
Dogs could have a use as Terminator spotters.

Humans are weaker and get instant respawn.
Terminators are tougher but have 15 second respawn.

It would be great.

Kami3482d ago

they started with WW2 then moved to the present in COD4, now they should do like a futuristic one.

ceedubya93482d 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.

Tarasque3482d 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.

Skizelli3482d 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.

poopsack3482d ago

Its COD not battlefield guys.

Edit: looks like skizelli beat me to it.

Tempist3482d 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.

+ Show (3) more repliesLast reply 3482d ago
Jack Bauer3482d ago

by different theatre, dont they mean the pacific in ww2 i thought?

thisguywithhair3482d ago

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

bumnut3482d ago

i thought that was confirmed a while back

thisguywithhair3478d 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.

Vip3r3482d ago

It better not bet set in the future. That'll just be taking the piss.

Hellsvacancy3482d ago

i think they should do a vietnam COD

P4KY B3482d ago

Same with American Civil war.

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

Vip3r3482d 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...

Skizelli3482d ago

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

Vip3r3482d 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.

perseus3482d 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.

Vip3r3482d 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.

perseus3482d ago (Edited 3482d 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.

Skizelli3482d ago (Edited 3482d 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.

Skizelli3481d ago (Edited 3481d 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. ;)

+ Show (6) more repliesLast reply 3481d ago
Show all comments (62)
The story is too old to be commented.