Treyarch generally hasn't been known for delivering revolutionary games. Can they keep up with Infinity Ward in releasing award-winning games? Or are they destined to stay in the shadows of the Call of Duty series?
They probably can because everyone has relatively low expectations.
I came to say the same thing :)
thats what i was going to write too lol... the only ppl that have huge expectations are the ones that don't know that World at War isn't made by the ppl that made COD4
I was thinking the same thing lol
were responsible for spidey 2 on ps2 / xbox one of my all time fav games :)
with Resistance 2, Fallout 3, LitlleBig, Gears 2 and Guitar Hero 4 already solidly locked into my must buy this fall, theres just no room for another CoD (plus im sick to death of hearing people to ask me play CoD online, another period of that and I'll kill myself)
Because Infinity Ward is SO much better...six hour campaigns, just so you can sell a Multiplayer game for $60.00? I'll stick with Treyarch!
But then again they offer thousands of hours of gameplay through the multiplayer and ranking system. $20 COD5's campaign isn't going to be much longer than COD4's
I think that everyone is underestimating this game because of COD3. This looks a lot better.
What was wrong with COD3? I thought it was great. Had good use of vehicles also. I was playing the 360 version. Now I thought COD2 sucked ballz
You mean you liked COD2 and disliked COD3, right?
thats what i've been trying to tell my friends finally some one agrees with me
you now, I know everyones tired of the WWII genre but this is going to be good. Their using the COD4 engine on this so it will look amazing and the Perk system will be back also. And you will have flame throwers how cool is that.
COD3 was the best all around FPS war game I ever played, both single player and multiplay. The multiplay allowed for tanks and jeeps wich really helps the stradegy. I played that game for so long. could have used a few tweeks so thats why I am excited to play this new one.
Something no one has seemed to realize is that you haven't played it. The testers have, and I've spoken to a few. A few of these guys have been playing since January, and they aren't sick of it yet. That's got to say something, especially since they are testing it, not playing it. Everyone just needs to take their ass out of Captain Price's head, and notice that this game looks f***ing solid.
I know that everyone is gonna be playing this new game despite R2 and Gears 2 coming out in the same month. I think that this game will actually be more fun to play, cause lets face it,, COD's gameplay is probably the best in the video game industry. Its fluid,, no stop and pop, you can prone, hide in grass and now trees. COD is all about the multiplayer, and I dont even see games like Gears and R2 matching it. COD now has destructible enviroments. The flamethrower in COD pwns the new one in Gears just by what you can do with it, like setting trees, houses and grass on fire. The wind in the game can spread the fire. COD has Veichles online. You can now swim in COD and when people fire at you the bullets have less effect in the water. And lets face it, realistic games are just more fun to play. Unlike games like Gears and R2 where you have to bust a whole clip in someone just to kill them. In COD you only need 1 bullet. Now if anyone wants to argue about this, bring it. I dont mind explaining to you guys how everyone in the world is over hyping Gears and R2. Not only am I looking more forward to the new call of duty, but I would rather play the new bond game than those two as well. There are alot of games I would rather play than Gears and Resistance. For I have a brain, and I can think for myself which games would logically be more entertaining then others.
lol, what expectations?
It's easy to live up to expectations when you're making ANOTHER bloody World War 2 shooter that we've all played to death already in one form or another. There needs to be a 2-5 year moratorium on WW2 FPS games.
COD 3 is a solid game with exceptional multi-player. The problem I have with this article, and the thought process in general, is the "why is it WW2 after we had Modern Warfare...it's Treyarch's fault". Treyarch has been working on this game since they finished COD 3. 2 years ago. By the time COD 4 was revealed to be modern, they already had about 9 months of development in place. Development for a WW 2 game. This cost them 9 months worth of their budget. What were they supposed to do? Start over? If anything, that would have delivered a much weaker game than the one we're going to get. Also, people forget that they had 9 months to do COD 3 and here they have 2 years. I'm not worried at all. Do I think it will be as good as 4? Not expecting it to be, but I am expecting a good game and that's good enough for me.
N4G is a community of gamers posting and discussing the latest game news. It’s part of NewsBoiler, a network of social news sites covering today’s pop culture.